Zombies have become a regular fixture in popular culture, with well-known properties and behavior patterns that remain more or less constant across a wide range of cultural artifacts. How can we explain the fact that this fictional creature is so well-understood? It is possible that this basic uniformity is solely the result of dynamics within the postwar pop culture tradition, but the widespread fascination with the zombie seems to point toward deeper roots. In this dissertation, I propose to demonstrate the connections between the contemporary figure of the zombie and medieval conceptions of the leper.

Friday, April 30, 2010 at 9:52 am
Intriguing, except that zombies are fictional constructs, while lepers were actual folks, overlaid with fictional constructs. But, it’s extremely interesting. See Kim Paffenroth’s book on zombies and theology.
Friday, April 30, 2010 at 10:04 am
Wade Davis would beg to differ w/ you, Myles, about zombies being only fictional constructs. (See his work in ethnobiology and Haiti.)
Friday, April 30, 2010 at 10:06 am
Myles, given that I refer to “medieval conceptions of lepers” rather than simply “lepers,” I have arguably anticipated your objection.
Friday, April 30, 2010 at 10:09 am
In the third chapter I will discuss “zombie acceleration” in as much as the horror factor of zombie films increases in direct proportion to increases in the average velocity of a pack of zombies. I will then compare this acceleration to the average speed of a leper.
Friday, April 30, 2010 at 10:22 am
So, the historical existence of lepers is set aside? Fair enough. Then you’d have to account for the emergence of fictional lepers as out of historical existence vs. fictional zombies as out of public historical conciousness. Or something like that.
Is it too late to change my dissertation topic? I’m only three chapters in.
Friday, April 30, 2010 at 10:35 am
Or the zombie could emerge out of the ideas that were associated with lepers but then took on a life of their own — as a common-sense reading of my proposal would reveal.
I don’t want to seem overly defensive here, but your comments seem weirdly combative to me.
Friday, April 30, 2010 at 10:39 am
Not trying to be combative–I think there are some thematic connections to be sure, but I think making the case has to take account of the historicity question of actual lepers vs. the a-historical roots of zombies. That’s all I’m trying to suggest.
Friday, April 30, 2010 at 10:47 am
Real lepers give rise to a myth about lepers. The myth about lepers contributes to the myth of zombies. I still don’t understand why you’re acting like you’re bringing up a problem I hadn’t thought of.
Friday, April 30, 2010 at 11:09 am
True: real lepers lead to mythical lepers which lead to mythical zombies.
What I’m trying to say, apparently badly, is that comparatively, the myths of lepers and myths of zombies have distinct starting points such that discussing mythical lepers have different ethical considerations than that of purely fictional constructions like zombies. We can talk about zombies as pure fictional constructs of a cultural conciousness, but talking about fictional lepers involves talking about actual lepers and their marginalization, such that zombies aren’t simply modern leper discourse, but something with a different origin which has to be taken into consideration when considering comparative discourses.
How did a conversation about a non-existent dissertation get so tense?
Friday, April 30, 2010 at 11:25 am
Because it frankly annoys me when people point out the obvious.
Friday, April 30, 2010 at 11:27 am
I don’t want to seem weirdly combative, but some of this discussion is weirdly combative.
Friday, April 30, 2010 at 11:35 am
This reminds me of a kind of “comment terrorism” technique that I devised, though I never used it. If you want to drive a blogger to despair, then comment on his posts saying, “That’s all well and good, but it’s symptomatic that you don’t mention [the main point of his post].”
Friday, April 30, 2010 at 12:19 pm
Right. Will check out the book, Brad. Thanks.
Friday, April 30, 2010 at 1:04 pm
It’s not a viable dissertation topic until you’ve awkwardly used the word “other” at least three times.
Friday, April 30, 2010 at 2:51 pm
I have purged this thread. May generations never know you existed.
Friday, April 30, 2010 at 8:40 pm
It is traditional to distinguish between “the infected” (i.e., the current conception of the zombie) and the zombie proper. “Zombieism” qua virus is a relatively new development; previous pop-culture zombies were generated via disaster (e.g., Romero-zombies).
Saturday, May 1, 2010 at 7:22 am
Thanks for the purge, Anthony.
Saturday, May 1, 2010 at 11:13 am
Once, to deal with how freaky I found it, I came up with a Kierkegaardian reading of 28 Days Later. It had something to do with incommunicability of the blessedness of zombie life.
Saturday, May 1, 2010 at 5:57 pm
Sounds like a dissertation which will get a standing-room only chapter presentation at the pop culture sections at the AAR.
Monday, May 3, 2010 at 3:19 am
Thanks for that, Anthony: now I have to work through my irrational fear at 28 days again too.
Do you not reckon the golem would make an interesting comparison? Then you could draw funky triangle diagrams in the introduction that you’d have to redo every time you revise the thesis or change format or something.
Plus, lepers very soon became non-existent in the Middle ages, so their thought was soon much more effective in European history than their reality. As everyone who gave up after the first chapter of Foucault’s History of Madness will testify…
Monday, May 3, 2010 at 6:49 am
Yeah, the golem would be an interesting point of comparison, too.