Friday, October 29, 2010

NEWS: Article says vampires are out, zombies are in

I found this little gem of an article just one day after posting my recent review on Carrie Ryan’s The Forest of Hands and Teeth, and I had to share.

Great little piece by Meg McConahey from the Press Democrat out of Sonoma, CA (of course the article on zombies would come out of wine country – ha!). Here’s a favorite quote:

“The vampire represents the individual at all cost,” said McFerrin, who has been into the neo-gothic since the '80s. “It's a charismatic being that lives forever and never ages and preys on the creatures around him or her. Our culture, which celebrates the individual, is very taken with them. Zombies are the opposite. They represent the masses and there's a certain comfort in a crowd and in not standing out. But there's also a danger involved that you'll lose yourself.”

Personally, I also think that zombies represent anarchy, while vampires have a certain civility about them. What are your thoughts? Vamps vs. zombies – differences, which do you like better and why?  Leave a comment or vote!


  1. Vampires forever! It seems to me it's quite limited what story lines you can create with Zombies. I also think the idea of Vampires living amongst the living is what makes them so scary and thrilling. I don't know if a Zombie could get away with that, what with the rotting flesh etc!

    I'm visiting from the hop. Love your blog!

  2. Zombies are scary but, beyond that, I don't really see the appeal. They're rotting, for goodness sake!

    But I can see how you could use zombies as metaphors, especially today when so many people seem to be on autopilot, doing brainless things.

  3. Teehee, I agree with both statements. Vampires have it beat over zombies, at least traditional ones. What if someone came out with an alternative zombie? After all, Jeaniene Frost's ghouls are a type of flesheater. Do they count as a tyoe of zombie then?