right?

---

Garlic, crosses, silver, stakes through the heart, all that vampire lore is somehow dealt with in each new media representation of vampires.

I don't think that's the same thing. With mummies & vampires & werewolves & ghosts, you can refer to (and cherry-pick from) centuries of actual folklore. You can bring in archeologists and gypsies and priests and doctors to offer exposition and quote obscure legends. Most of those stories are about the ancient versus the modern at some level, so referring to the history enhances that: "This happened because you scoffed at the old ways, but here is how you can lift the curse."

The (non-vodoun) zombie is about modern terrors. Part of the essence is that it's unprecedented; it's abrupt and societal and existential, and anything that allows your characters to be the least bit prepared lessens the horror. I'm sure it can be done, but referring to other zombie stories within your own is going to add another layer between the audience and the characters. And it raises a lot of "If they've seen zombie movies why are they even bothering to try that?" questions.

If your characters need to consult an expert, they're running to... a film geek? I guess you can treat your audience to a long debate about whether they're fast zombies or slow zombies or hopping zombies, and are they kind you can kill with a baseball bat or do you have to dismember the corpse, and so on. That's what I meant about the story becoming metafiction about what stories your fictional characters are familiar with. And as a viewer, that's when I'd put a gun in my own mouth.

I assume that in Cloverfield the characters don't pause to say, "Hey, this is kinda like a Godzilla movie." Because where does that take you? Someone replies, "Yup, it is. [wink] Well, let's resume fleeing in terror." When you play those games there's a good chance that all you accomplish is reminding the audience that they could be reading/watching a better version of the story you're telling. (As with that Dracula sequel last year, where every attempt to 'subvert' Stoker's novel just reminds you how stupid the book you're currently reading is.)

---

I'm sure it can be done, but referring to other zombie stories within your own is going to add another layer between the audience and the characters. And it raises a lot of "If they've seen zombie movies why are they even bothering to try that?" questions.

In Feed, humanity is able to survive the zombie apocalypse precisely because decades of Romero movies had prepared them. That's just a small part of the worldbuilding, though, and it's not brought up every five pages as if the movies are some sort of reference material.

I can't remember whether Zombieland referenced zombie movies or not, what with all its survival rules.

---

I'm not sure what a non-voudoun zombie is, in comparison with, say, one of the sciencey vamps they still call vampires. They're willing to stretch one mythology very far (and toss out what they don't like--boy do I hate those speeches--I like Joss for running with most of the popular stuff) and zombies get boxed in so tight?

---

I'm not following -- they who?

All I mean by non-vodoun is the Romero concept -- ravening hordes of dead people are trying to eat you, rather than "someone stole his soul and now he's a mindless automaton." I Walked With a Zombie made good use of the lore, but I wouldn't call it a zombie movie because that means something different to us now.

---

They==them, you know, everyone that writes the stories.

I just think it's weird that vampires can wander so far from whatever lore, but *inside* stories zombies don't while outside stories we call everything with a mindless shamble a zombie.

---

I dunno, there's quite a lot of variation in the zo-media; as with the conversation upthread, it's more often the audience who's saying "oh, that isn't actually a zombie."

Maybe... you are they!

But that's another reason to avoid the word. If saying "zombie" is going to cause half the audience to sigh, "Nooo, zombies are like this," there's no benefit in it.

---

But the level saying 28 Days Later isn't actually a zombie movie is reacting to the initial overwhelming assumption that it was a zombie story. I think it's a minority that get all hard core.

But if it were mentioned in story, you'd know what to take their heads off withm, like you know how to battle a vamp. Or you could point out what's not actually a zombie and move on.

---

From the title, I'd assumed it was a werewolf story.

---

Should I find myself the protagonist of a horror story in progress, my policy is going to be that decapitation is a good idea no matter what sort of monster it actually turns out to be. Vampires, zombies, werewolves, Alan Arkin... if lopping the head off isn't fatal, it's at least going to make the antagonist a lot easier to get away from.

---