Zombies?

[Stuart1512]

Hey all, i'm starting my Zombie novel soon called The Purge, about a group of kids trapped in a school with a bunch of the living dead just outside. Basically there are two groups of teenagers, Group A who is the main characters group which the story will focus more on and Group B who is lead by another teenager who's followers see him as a Mesiah type person.
I just got one question? how do i go about introducing the zombies etc do i introduce the characters first where they were when the disease spread or hop right into the story?

[blgarver]

That's a big question.  Off the top of my head, being a "right into the story" type of fella, I'd like to see the characters first, in the situation, but not necessarily communicating what exactly is happening.  I wouldn't want to see the zombies, or even have any of the characters mention them directly, until the end of the first chapter. 

For instance, if the characters are talking about the disease or whatever, just refer to it simply as "it" or "the illness" or something vague.  If they all know what is happening, they wouldn't be regurgitating the history to each other.  And when refering to the zombies, they should just say "them."  Not even label them as "infected" or "afflicted" or anything like that.  Not right away, anyhow.

That's just my opinion, as a reader and a writer.  Hope it helps.

BLG

[the neurovore of Zur-En-Aargh]

Hey all, i'm starting my Zombie novel soon called The Purge, about a group of kids trapped in a school with a bunch of the living dead just outside. Basically there are two groups of teenagers, Group A who is the main characters group which the story will focus more on and Group B who is lead by another teenager who's followers see him as a Mesiah type person.
I just got one question? how do i go about introducing the zombies etc do i introduce the characters first where they were when the disease spread or hop right into the story?

Either could be made work; it depends on the style and focus of the story.

Whose point-of-view is it from, and how close ?  If you want to be tightly inside someone's head, introduce the zombies as that person finds out about them; if you want to do something more camera-eye then you could give that information to the reader in a different way.

My own preference would be for the tight-third, because I think it's easier to make work.

[Stuart1512]

Group A is the main focus, thanks for the help, i'll probably have the first chapter done soon. I've got so many drafts running through my head, should i start with the infection killing off people then bringing them back etc or should i start with one of the kids wondering through the corpse littered street and finding salvation at the school?

[blgarver]

I vote the corpse littered street.  You can explain what happened with the virus during the course of the story.

A rule of thumb for screenwriting that can work for novels too: Start the plot at the latest possible moment in the story. 

[Stuart1512]

thanks alot for helping me. I should have Chapter 1 done by the end of the week, now what character to focus on first.

[SunPhoenix]

I vote the corpse littered street.  You can explain what happened with the virus during the course of the story.

A rule of thumb for screenwriting that can work for novels too: Start the plot at the latest possible moment in the story. 

I like that about some stories where it doesn't have a beginning per se but sort of just drops you into the mix.

[Stuart1512]

Here's the first paragraph and who's centric it is.


John Lantham

1

Billions died within the first twenty-four hours.
John Lantham was one of the ones to survive.
The layout of the area had changed a lot since my last visit-which was about ten or twelve years ago at the least-I drove down route 19 which would lead into the village off Shirewood, the hometown were I grew up in. I was driven back into town to surprise my folks, I haven’t seen them in God knows how long and it would be good to surprise them with my latest manuscript.

[Shecky]

I like that about some stories where it doesn't have a beginning per se but sort of just drops you into the mix.

It's a classic approach called in medias res - "in the middle of the thing". This usually has the benefit of hooking the reader into the action so they'll become interested in the characters and the background, instead of giving that background first and building up to the action. The drawback to this method is the difficulty of balancing the action with a lack of information that would be necessary to understand said action; it takes a lot more planning and crafting to pull off this approach and not leave the reader lost at sea.

[RMatthewWare]

Go watch Shawn of the Dead.  It will tell you what to do right, and what is often done wrong.

And it's a dead funny movie.  Pun intended, even if it's lame.

[Ms Duck]

Just a suggestion, not a critiscism, ok?

Can we have something othe r then zombis?

As much as I love my zombi filet o fish familliar (aka fred) Even I admit they are overdone..

How about a variation on the dancing plauge that hit europe in the dark ages? Im trying to find the technichal term on wiki, but hey, im no doctor.

symptoms were brain damage, walking , and random spastic shaking. it wouldn't be hard to imagine a version that causes violent behavior or dementia.

and it thros in the whole 'it's my little sister..do I try to capture her so she can be cured' drama angle.

[fivestyle]

I think it depends on what you want the viewer to get out of the story.

You could start with introducing the characters before the zombiepocolypse and have a few days go by so the reader gets involved in the characters and then gets to see how they change mentally when the crisis hits.

or

You can go like Romero did and just say here is the main character and boom zombies are attacking. Then introduce the characters and their personality over the course of the story.


The big thing I find is that zombie stories fail when the author/director tries to explain why the zombies are there or why thier doing what they do. Zombies become the most frightning when you don't know whats going on, because you don't know how to stop them and it makes it seem like survival is bleak because there is no where you can go to get away.

So unless your going for the Stephen King where the zombies are directly related to some evil in the town or the students acts I say don't explain them at all. Just have them show up. Use Shaun of the Dead as an example. The beginig of that movie has a lot of scarry jump scenes and it's not because something scary happens, it's because you know it's a zombie movie and you keep expecting the normal cliches even when they aren't there and then when they don't present themselves you get the feeling of suspense like you don't know when it's going to happen.

[Yeratel]

Sheesh, nobody is writing anything but "George Romero zombies" anymore. It was creative when Romero did it originally, but now it's just derivative. I'm getting really bored with all the zombie armies raised by cosmic rays, or hazardous waste, or germs, and going on a rampage for brains, turning anyone they bite into another zombie.  Jim Butcher was a lot closer to the original zombie lore with the dead being raised by necromantic sorcery, and under control of the one who raised them. For a change, I'd like to see the old traditional zombies, being raised by a bokor using invocations to Damballah. They didn't eat brains, either. In fact, traditionally, if they ate meat or salt it would break the bokor's hold on them. In Haiti, where they were supposedly used as field slaves, they were alive enough to need to be fed, and given a diet of unsalted cornmeal gruel.

[The Corvidian]

Sheesh, nobody is writing anything but "George Romero zombies" anymore. It was creative when Romero did it originally, but now it's just derivative. I'm getting really bored with all the zombie armies raised by cosmic rays, or hazardous waste, or germs, and going on a rampage for brains, turning anyone they bite into another zombie.  Jim Butcher was a lot closer to the original zombie lore with the dead being raised by necromantic sorcery, and under control of the one who raised them. For a change, I'd like to see the old traditional zombies, being raised by a bokor using invocations to Damballah. They didn't eat brains, either. In fact, traditionally, if they ate meat or salt it would break the bokor's hold on them. In Haiti, where they were supposedly used as field slaves, they were alive enough to need to be fed, and given a diet of unsalted cornmeal gruel.

If you gave them salt, the spell would be broken, and they would be dead again.

[fivestyle]

Sheesh, nobody is writing anything but "George Romero zombies" anymore. It was creative when Romero did it originally, but now it's just derivative. I'm getting really bored with all the zombie armies raised by cosmic rays, or hazardous waste, or germs, and going on a rampage for brains, turning anyone they bite into another zombie.  Jim Butcher was a lot closer to the original zombie lore with the dead being raised by necromantic sorcery, and under control of the one who raised them. For a change, I'd like to see the old traditional zombies, being raised by a bokor using invocations to Damballah. They didn't eat brains, either. In fact, traditionally, if they ate meat or salt it would break the bokor's hold on them. In Haiti, where they were supposedly used as field slaves, they were alive enough to need to be fed, and given a diet of unsalted cornmeal gruel.

I totally get your sentiment and when I mentioned Romero it was ment only in reference to how the characters and zombies were introduced into the story.

I agree it would be cool to see zombies like you mention but I don't know if that could fit into the OP's storyline of kids trapped in a school surrounded by zombies, but then again I'm not sure of the direction of the story so maybe it could.