A Zombie Manifesto Article Analysis

2093 Words5 Pages

In the article, “A Zombie Manifesto: The Nonhuman Condition in the Era of Advanced Capitalism” by Sarah Juliet Lauro and Karen Embry, the authors’ evaluate the idea of the zombie and its connection to capitalism and post-humanism. According to the authors, the zombie represents much more than just a fear, it represents a loss of oneself to many different things, primarily to a capitalist society. The authors have come to the conclusion that humans have a fear of what they cannot control, and that is why the zombie is so big in entertainment. We see zombies everywhere, in movies, books, tv shows, fundraisers, marathons, and so much more. They have been around for decades, but recently they have become very popular. The authors believe this is …show more content…

They use a lot of information that is overwhelming, and does not add a lot of validity to the point they were trying to make. Throughout the article, the authors take from various other zombie pieces, such as movies, books, and TV shows and use them to add to their ideas. In some cases, they also use other pieces and discredit them as a way to prove their own point. For example, they talk about the “Cyborg Manifesto” by Donna Haraway. This essay presents the idea of the cyborg, which is an organism that is part human and part machine. Throughout the essay, Haraway gives examples of where we see the cyborg throughout media, and how humans might be connected to it. The authors in “A Zombie Manifesto” stated how they were influenced to title their piece after her, but they go on throughout the essay constantly trying to prove the piece wrong. They argue that the idea Haraway is presenting is not truly what humans connect to, and the authors think their ideas are more relatable. They believe their zombie interpretation is more relatable than Haraway’s cyborg interpretation. The authors are trying to make their interpretation more valid by invalidating another interpretation. This makes the piece hard to agree with, for an interpretation is relative to each person, and tearing apart another interpretation is an unproductive way to persuade readers to agree with you and your ideas. Another reason the article is difficult to agree with, is the fact that it is very difficult to understand. With the piece being as persuasive as it is, the authors did not take the time to ensure the writing would be easy to understand for all. In reading the article, it felt as though the authors had a specific group of readers in mind and didn’t accommodate to others who might find interest in zombies. The article is written in such a way

Open Document