Epiphany about"Zombies"...

[wax murderer]

Lately I've been noticing the surge in Zombie related films and other media and, while I really don't get the whole thing, I have realized (with a wee bit of help from Laurell Hamilton) that the hubbub isn't even properly labeled. Zombies, as defined by classic references, is "a re-animated corpse controlled by a voodoo priest or spirit". As elaborated by Ms. Hamilton, said re-animated corpse is under direct control of the animator,is vaguely sentient, and will decompose over time. The bodies original spirit is essentially trapped in the corpse until the animator chooses to release it. As such, there is no carnivorous aspect involved. How then, do we define the brain eating,shambling un-dead that have become so recently popular in the media and(regrettably) this hobby?Simple; they're not zombies at all; they're ghouls, defined as "an un-dead being that feeds on the FLESH of the living".
So there you have it. We must rise up and strike a blow for right thinking Necromancers and cease this improper usage of the term"zombie", and call those flesh eating horrors by their proper name...Fred(oops)..PS

 

[CelticPredator]

They are Zombies, and you cannot change that. So......

 

[EVILFACE]

Early on a Zombie was a reanimated dead person who was under control, voodoo mumbo jumbo.

But the original Night of the Living Dead changed them to flesh eaters. (even though Romero invisioned them as ghouls, not zombies).

 

[barryo]

zombie knowledge makes me haz a sad..........

like my dead line zombies.

 

[thenammagazine]

Lately I've been noticing the surge in Zombie related films and other media and, while I really don't get the whole thing, I have realized (with a wee bit of help from Laurell Hamilton) that the hubbub isn't even properly labeled. Zombies, as defined by classic references, is "a re-animated corpse controlled by a voodoo priest or spirit". As elaborated by Ms. Hamilton, said re-animated corpse is under direct control of the animator,is vaguely sentient, and will decompose over time. The bodies original spirit is essentially trapped in the corpse until the animator chooses to release it. As such, there is no carnivorous aspect involved. How then, do we define the brain eating,shambling un-dead that have become so recently popular in the media and(regrettably) this hobby?Simple; they're not zombies at all; they're ghouls, defined as "an un-dead being that feeds on the FLESH of the living".
So there you have it. We must rise up and strike a blow for right thinking Necromancers and cease this improper usage of the term"zombie", and call those flesh eating horrors by their proper name...Fred(oops)..PS

We know this. Even Romero copped to this in the extras on the NotLD official re-release. However, there's a lovely word, "slang," that covers that. So for all intents and purposes while calling ghouls "zombies" might not be literally right, it's the common verbiage which has been in use since 1968, and as slang, it's socially acceptable.

You guys seen the new Toyota Corolla commercial?

 

[The Mike]

So what? The definition of werewolf has been screwed up as well. A werewolf involuntarily transforms into one during a full moon, and once they do they no longer have any recollection of who they are. A being who can turn into a certain animal at will and would still fully know what they are doing and who they were is classically defined as an Animagus. Yet I guarantee you that many people couldn't tell the difference between the two. It all boils down to liking the genres and if a different interpretation of something classical means keeping the genre alive then more power to it.

Anyway its easier than getting the Twitards to understand the difference between the two.

 

[ArmoredFoe]

interesting, but I still call them how i see it and thats a zombie...the undead.

 

[Maglor]

Not this debate again!

 

[Timinator]

So long as we're bandying about proper usage of terms...

From Merriam-Webster's: Definition of GHOUL

1: a legendary evil being that robs graves and feeds on corpses.

2: one suggestive of a ghoul; especially : one who shows morbid interest in things considered shocking or repulsive
— ghoul·ish adjective
— ghoul·ish·ly adverb
— ghoul·ish·ness noun

Examples of GHOUL

In Arabic folklore, ghouls could change their shapes but had one unchanging feature: donkey's hooves for feet.
Origin of GHOUL

Arabic ghūl
First Known Use: 1786

Sorry, but the contemporary usage of 'Zombie' is fine with me.

 

[Bloodsport]

Tomorrow night there is a midnight screening of Night of the Living Dead.

 

[rushmore223]

So what? The definition of werewolf has been screwed up as well. A werewolf involuntarily transforms into one during a full moon, and once they do they no longer have any recollection of who they are. A being who can turn into a certain animal at will and would still fully know what they are doing and who they were is classically defined as an Animagus. Yet I guarantee you that many people couldn't tell the difference between the two. It all boils down to liking the genres and if a different interpretation of something classical means keeping the genre alive then more power to it.

Anyway its easier than getting the Twitards to understand the difference between the two.

Sorry The Mike, but "Animagus" is a term created by J.K. Rowling for the Potter books.

As far as Werewolf transformations being against the will of the transformee depends on what region or aspect of the folklore you choose to accept. Werewolves or Lycanthropes and lycanthropy have been attributed to everything from being bitten by another werewolf, satanic curse, donning of a wolfskin belt, the application of special salves created through witchcraft, etc... There really are a huge number of derivations and differences on the subject.

But there is no such thing as "Animagus" outside of the World of Harry Potter. No Folklore, not even a dictionary entry.

Edit ~ Obviously the Werewolf as victim, turning into a wolf due to being bitten is the most popular and accepted (today) definition, but it is by no means the only one.

 

[thenammagazine]

Sorry The Mike, but "Animagus" is a term created by J.K. Rowling for the Potter books.

As far as Werewolf transformations being against the will of the transformee depends on what region or aspect of the folklore you choose to accept. Werewolves or Lycanthropes and lycanthropy have been attributed to everything from being bitten by another werewolf, satanic curse, donning of a wolfskin belt, the application of special salves created through witchcraft, etc... There really are a huge number of derivations and differences on the subject.

But there is no such thing as "Animagus" outside of the World of Harry Potter. No Folklore, not even a dictionary entry.

Edit ~ Obviously the Werewolf as victim, turning into a wolf due to being bitten is the most popular and accepted (today) definition, but it is by no means the only one.

I'm certain he meant: lycanthrope.

-10 man points for the Potter reference.

 

[rushmore223]

I'm certain he meant: lycanthrope.

-10 man points for the Potter reference.

Maybe.

LOL, I think you lose all remaining Man points for any reference to Twilight*, and referring to any of the characters by name instantly makes you female.

*note, no points are lost when referring to point penalty.

 

[thenammagazine]

Maybe.

LOL, I think you lose all remaining Man points for any reference to Twilight*, and referring to any of the characters by name instantly makes you female.

*note, no points are lost when referring to point penalty.

Where did I refer to Twilight? That definition goes back to ancient Greek and the last memory I have of it is from Underworld. Given the star, I'd say that's hardly a loss of man points there, newb.

 

[rushmore223]

Where did I refer to Twilight? That definition goes back to ancient Greek and the last memory I have of it is from Underworld. Hardly a loss of man points there, newb.

Oh so sensitive, I wasn't referring to you, I was referring to The Mike's post. You are very quick to lash out there.

BTW, I thought you were referring to the Mike's post when mentioning Man points. Simply because I can spot an error and research it doesnt make me a Potter fan. Try Google search sometime.

EDIT ~ Keep in mind, we are on the internet discussing dolls, not exactly something you would tell a girl on a first date.

 

[thenammagazine]

Oh so sensitive, I wasn't referring to you, I was referring to The Mike's post. You are very quick to lash out there.

BTW, I thought you were referring to the Mike's post when mentioning Man points. Simply because I can spot an error and research it doesnt make me a Potter fan. Try Google search sometime.

EDIT ~ Keep in mind, we are on the internet discussing dolls, not exactly something you would tell a girl on a first date.

I have no issues telling girls I collect 12" action figures, statues, props and other toys. Most find it intriguing.

 

[rushmore223]

I have no issues telling girls I collect 12" action figures, statues, props and other toys. Most find it intriguing.

Intriguing? LOL, you must be hanging out at Comic Conventions then. Perhaps they are just relieved you aren't a serial killer. When I think of most women's reactions to this hobby, I cannot help but think of 40 year old virgin. Even though it is an unfair stereotype.

I just consider myself lucky that I have a beautiful, kind and loving wife that accepts my eccentricities, like 12" figures and Props.

She actually was quite impressed with the HT figures I have shown her.

 

[devilof76]

I'm always impressed hearing facts about things that don't exist. As if J.K.Rowling's terms and definitions are any less legitimate than anyone else's.

 

[thenammagazine]

LOL, you must be hanging out at Comic Conventions then.

I just consider myself lucky that I have a beautiful, kind and loving wife that accepts my eccentricities, like 12" figures and Props.

She actually was quite impressed with the HT figures I have shown her.

Ironically, no. Never picked up a woman there, at a con or anything like that. I think it's more to do with the fact that I know who I am and I'm not ashamed of what I collect, vs. those who're embarrassed by it and have to try to impress women or lie to them to get anywhere.

 

[rushmore223]

Ironically, no. Never picked up a woman there, at a con or anything like that. I think it's more to do with the fact that I know who I am and I'm not ashamed of what I collect, vs. those who're embarrassed by it and have to try to impress women or lie to them to get anywhere.

LOL, who said anything about lying?

I just know if I was out in the dating world, that I probably would not bring up my collecting of toys on the first date. Just because someone does not find out something about you on the first date does not mean you are hiding it. Dating is a discovery process. I would bring up what is important to me early on, and honestly, while I have interest in them, they are not that important in the grand scheme of things.

But glad it has worked out for you.