That would be a semi-viable excuse if Brooks didn't keep trying to portray it as "real" methods for "real"(read: he made them up) zombies
I'd also add the fact that full plate armor, while noisy, was anything but cumbersome.
The ZSDW (Zombie Survival and Defense Wiki) is not the wiki for Max Brook's The Zombie Survival Guide. I was a member and major contributor on that site a few years back (I am now no longer, though, although poking in on their IRC channel can be fun). It would be more accurate to say that the book is an influence on the site's users and is given more of a comedic interpretation by most of the folk on that site (anyone who stays at ZSDW for longer than a month or so is either a fan of zombie fiction or a serious survivalist who uses the fictional backdrop of a zombie outbreak to add a new perspective to their preparations).
Either way, I believe it'd be best to remove the statement "The book has a wiki, which can be found here at http://www.zombiesurvivalwiki.com/?t=anon
" from the page, as it is indeed false.
Should the Headscratcher page be deleated so?
I mean, it is a discussion and many of the points are fair and actually answer several doubts. yes, some of them are pure bashing, but the way it was deleated it was left only as gushing for the book.
I entered the forum and there where only two tropers who decided this. It's this how it works? Go to forum and if another person agree with you, go ahead and do it?
Hide / Show Replies
The chunks were deleted because many of the "questions" were mainly excuses to bash the author, and blatantly so. One troper in particular seemed physically incapable of adding something along the lines of "because Max Brooks is stupid/evil/stupidly evil" in every one of his posts. The deletion was made on the orders of an admin, not just "only two tropers."
And no, what's on there isn't just gushing.
Maybe not, but it pretty much is "abridged question, line break, bullshit fanboy answer"
so, how is this book accepted as a reliable source? besides the questionable logic in choosing to write a guide about impossible (slow/undead) zombies in a time when possible zombies (Technically Living Zombies) were popular, it's filled to the brim with Did Not Do The Research and Dan Browned,as well as a seeming hatred of caucasians (especially Americans, who he describes as "cattle") his "recorded incidents" section is filled with bias toward the "simpler" societies he promotes in the book, and his section about weapons is filled with research apperently obtained from movies (Short-Range Shotgun, all assault rifles are full auto, Hollywood Silencer, etc.)
Hide / Show Replies