[ZombieKckr]

Is Frankenstein the first zombie in literature? He was dead, and was brought back to life.

[Cadaver]

I'm not sure if Frankenstein's Monster would technically be a Zombie or not. I mean, I'd more readily call him a Golem (A constructed body infused with a soul or consciousness by a willful act of creation). The monster also displays humanity and conscience where a classic zombie wouldn't. In fact, the monster isn't really the monster of the story, and I think that was one of Shelley's points.

I guess I'd say he's a kind of zombie, but not really the first of what we think of today as a zombie. He sort of retroactively applies in some ways.

-C

[zombiephile]

Nice analysis, Cadaver - I've gotta agree with you on that one. Frankenstein's monster definitely seems more like a Golem, an inanimate creature reanimated, specifically given a spirit - that's what zombies don't have.

Yeah, the whole point of Frankenstein was that the monster was society - when that book was written, society was just starting to grapple with issues like evolution, the idea that humanity might be nothing more than a collection of cooperating particles, everything was tits-up in the literary world, and Mary Shelley wanted to capture some of that fear and give it a voice and a face - that was Frankenstein's monster.

But like most things we fear, Frankenstein's monster turned out to be completely different than what people imagined him to be - and, ironically, remains misunderstood as a character to this day...

Or maybe the monster was Dr. Frankenstein, for creating something and then rejecting it? Sounds like another big guy I know...

[ZombieKckr]

zombies not having/having souls has never come up, we assume that they have no souls, because they're already dead. What if the dead walk the earth because hell is full, and there are no place for them to go.

[Cadaver]

Even so Kckr, I think the real issue is how to classify Frankenstein's monster. We have no real evidence that zombies retain the soul or much more than a basic need to eat. (Mr. Romero's latest film excepted, and that I think many people consider a little out of character for his work) At any rate, Frankenstein's monster displays a great deal more humanity, conscience and memory than any zombie we've encountered. Now there is an old zombie film which I think was called "The Last Man on Earth" starring Vincent Price. The "zombies" in that film could talk and even remembered the names of those they knew in life and pursued them specifically, but if we take what many consider to be the defining classic zombie, as per Night of The Living Dead, then we see them as nearly mindless in their behaviour and nothing like Frankenstein's Monster. Even those in "Last Man" were not as human as Shelley's Monster.

-C

[zombiephile]

I totally agree with the statement that Land of the Dead was out of character for Romero...he pretty much sides openly with the zombies, which is pretty unusual for him, especially considering his use of zombies as social criticism in his earlier work.

I don't know, I think that Land of the Dead was pretty much the point where Romero was fed up with American culture and politics and decided to flip things around somewhat and take the perspective of the zombies...

But anyway, on Frankenstein: the zombie soul question is a good one, but with Frankenstein I think we're definitely looking at a different sort of character - there aren't really many characters quite like him. Still fascinating in 2007...

[Dr. Pus]

Hmmmmm, first zombie in film. I'm a kinda leaning towards "The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari". Not a gut muncher but ole that ole somnambulist sure did shuffle about like a zombie. Looked like one too. I hope all of you good Zombiephilians have seen this silent classic. If not, get a copy TODAY!!