24 January 2006

Undead or Not-Undead. That is the question.

Ken pointed out to me that Stephen King's latest, Cell, had gotten a pretty good review in the Times, and noted, with a little Luddite glee, that he would survive the premise of the novel, since he doesn't own a cell phone. He was wondering if I was a fan.

Which, actually, was something I had to think about.

In his early days, I was a slavish Stephen King fan. But, as I told Ken, Tommyknockers convinced me that he'd become a writer that no editor could tame. I hated that book so much -- found it so bloated, over-written (as if his editor had been tied, gagged, and stuck in a closet) -- that I stopped reading him.

I hear I missed some good stuff.

Maybe I should pick up the new one.

The discussion of the new book led Ken to make an observation: "I'm gratified, well sort of, to know that in this new book, I would be one of the survivors. Although in a world of flesh rending zombies, I'm not sure that such a good thing.

Would you prefer to be a flesh eating zombie or a non-undead? Discuss."

When I wrote that I thought, despite the inherent difficulties, that I'd prefer to be non-Undead, Ken wrote back with his choice:

I think there'd be a lot of pressure being a non-undead. Being Undead seems, on the surface at least, relatively simple. One's responsibilities seem to rest mainly on sleeping all day, and then shuffling about at night looking to rend, tear, and feed. Pretty basic. OK, there are the perils of roving bands of the law with their shotguns and weaponry; but one's already dead- what's a blast to the head matter, really? Whereas if one is a Non-Undead, there are just SO many things to worry about: secure housing, maintaining a good cardiovascular system in case one's mode of transportation conks out and one has to then hot foot it away from a herd of flesh eaters, not to mention the day-to-day duties attendant on avoiding contact with the aforementioned shufflers. It sounds terribly stressful.
He makes a good point.

No comments: