A review by enoerdahl
Zombie, Ohio: A Tale of the Undead by Scott Kenemore
1.0
I don't normally read zombie books. In fact, never in my entire life has it struck me to pick up a zombie book until I saw this book sitting in the public library of my small college town in Ohio. Zombie, Ohio? A book about a zombie outbreak in small town college ville Ohio? With that blurb? Puh-lease. I had to read it.
I was not expecting it to be good, but I saw some positive reviews and thought I might as well branch out, and that even if it wasn't the greatest, I might at least enjoy it.
Mistake. Big, fat, fiery mistake.
As previously mentioned, I would not call myself a zombie lit connoisseur. I have very little experience with the genre. However, I do know that most zombie media is written from the perspective of someone fighting the zombies instead of an actual zombie. While this could mean that Zombie, Ohio is a fresh take on a tired genre, I think it rather signifies that maybe there is a reason books aren't told from the perspective of zombies. They are dead and have no brains. Kenemore tried to remedy this by making the protagonist Peter somehow miraculously retain the ability of speech and moral thinking while a majority of his memories are completely gone, but it just didn't make sense. Even though he retains his morals, he still spends 1/3 of the book murdering people and eating brains because it's something he wants to do. The only thing that helps him keep his humanity is his girlfriend Vanessa, who he loses contact with for a third of the book. Even if I was someone who regularly enjoyed zombie lit, I find it very difficult to believe this would satisfy me. Most of the book is just introspection, and all of the actual drama/violence is extremely repetitive and arguably dull. He speaks (which all other zombies can't do) to make the humans question his humanity and while they are off guard and pondering, BAM! he and his squad of zombies eat their brains. But wait! If it's a child, his morality kicks in because how could Peter ever kill a child? They are innocent unlike the other people he murdered and consumed.
And when he does manage to connect with his former colleagues or his girlfriend, he just tells them he's a zombie and they are okay with it? I mean, sure I guess I understand that people who have an emotional connection to him would give him the benefit of the doubt, but he tells multiple strangers that he is "kinda a zombie" and they all react the same way (that is to say they are fine with it). In a zombie apocalypse, why are these people even waiting long enough for him to get a word out? You just saw him eat brains, kill or be killed, bucko.
Most zombie stuff also takes place in big cities, so it's nice and unique that it happens in a college town, right? At first it was cool to see it play out in the middle of nowhere and gave it a little bit of an ominous feel, but it quickly went downhill. The whole reason they generally take place in big cities (or at least start there) is because there are actually people there. Half of the book is just him putzing around Middle Of Nowhere, Ohio, looking for someone to eat. The other half is him putzing around with his girlfriend who he treats like crap that he doesn't even remember but is still in love with? Okay, sure, lovely. It was just boring. It was all introspection and morality and it wasn't done well enough to actually redeem the book. People who like zombie stuff are normally there for the gore, right? Then where was it?
Characterizations were boring. I was rooting for no one. I didn't care if everybody, human and zombie, died by the end.
Not to mention that the entire novel is basically a murder mystery, trying to figure out who cut his breaks and caused his accident. Blame falls on Sam for a majority of the time, who is apparently the token gay and in love with Peter even though he is apparently an awful human being who everyone hates (but still manages to charm people into not blowing his brains out?). I was expecting some type of plot twist, because in murder mysteries it's never who you first expect, but the twist I got was not the one I wanted, needed, or expected. Peter tried to commit suicide. Because he couldn't emotionally handle being in a relationship during the zombie apocalypse. So he killed himself with Sam's help (because for some reason Sam is willing to help kill the guy he's in love with???) and recorded a video with Sam's help (because his best friend isn't going to try to stop him from committing suicide?!?!?) talking to Vanessa about how he was sorry. And before all of this is revealed, he tells a gang leader who tried to rape his girlfriend's daughter in the first fifty pages for some unknown reason that he wants to get revenge and kill Sam for murdering him, even though he doesn't really have any concrete evidence. So, he brings him into a fighting pit and is about to fight to the death... but turn of events! He turns on the leader of the gang in the middle of the fight? And then he smothers a grenade with his zombie body and somehow manages to leave with every single rib completely intact? I mean I know I shouldn't be judging a zombie book on how realistic it is but you're joking. He lies down on top of an exploding grenade and walks away completely fine, just a little banged up? Hello?!?
I also didn't love the fact that the entire book is in this sandwich of an interview with some scientists. Maybe I missed something (highly likely with how heavily I was skimming this book) but who is studying him? Who is he talking to? Why is he telling them this whole story? Why am I left with more questions than I started with when I'm done with this book? There is no explanation for what makes him different from other zombies other than pure chance (so unsatisfying) and then suddenly he's completely separated from Vanessa and Sam talking to these investigators/scientists/whatever they are.
I don't know. For me, the humor fell flat, but if you're a middle aged man with children you will probably enjoy the jokes at the very least. I suppose it is a kind of interesting idea, but everything about it just bombed in execution.
I suppose this was more of a rant than a review, but I just really didn't love this book. None of the explanations of resolutions were satisfying and the meat of the book wasn't that engaging either. Maybe this just simply isn't the novel I should've read to be introduced to zombie literature, but I guess now I know it's not my cup of tea.
I was not expecting it to be good, but I saw some positive reviews and thought I might as well branch out, and that even if it wasn't the greatest, I might at least enjoy it.
Mistake. Big, fat, fiery mistake.
As previously mentioned, I would not call myself a zombie lit connoisseur. I have very little experience with the genre. However, I do know that most zombie media is written from the perspective of someone fighting the zombies instead of an actual zombie. While this could mean that Zombie, Ohio is a fresh take on a tired genre, I think it rather signifies that maybe there is a reason books aren't told from the perspective of zombies. They are dead and have no brains. Kenemore tried to remedy this by making the protagonist Peter somehow miraculously retain the ability of speech and moral thinking while a majority of his memories are completely gone, but it just didn't make sense. Even though he retains his morals, he still spends 1/3 of the book murdering people and eating brains because it's something he wants to do. The only thing that helps him keep his humanity is his girlfriend Vanessa, who he loses contact with for a third of the book. Even if I was someone who regularly enjoyed zombie lit, I find it very difficult to believe this would satisfy me. Most of the book is just introspection, and all of the actual drama/violence is extremely repetitive and arguably dull. He speaks (which all other zombies can't do) to make the humans question his humanity and while they are off guard and pondering, BAM! he and his squad of zombies eat their brains. But wait! If it's a child, his morality kicks in because how could Peter ever kill a child? They are innocent unlike the other people he murdered and consumed.
And when he does manage to connect with his former colleagues or his girlfriend, he just tells them he's a zombie and they are okay with it? I mean, sure I guess I understand that people who have an emotional connection to him would give him the benefit of the doubt, but he tells multiple strangers that he is "kinda a zombie" and they all react the same way (that is to say they are fine with it). In a zombie apocalypse, why are these people even waiting long enough for him to get a word out? You just saw him eat brains, kill or be killed, bucko.
Most zombie stuff also takes place in big cities, so it's nice and unique that it happens in a college town, right? At first it was cool to see it play out in the middle of nowhere and gave it a little bit of an ominous feel, but it quickly went downhill. The whole reason they generally take place in big cities (or at least start there) is because there are actually people there. Half of the book is just him putzing around Middle Of Nowhere, Ohio, looking for someone to eat. The other half is him putzing around with his girlfriend who he treats like crap that he doesn't even remember but is still in love with? Okay, sure, lovely. It was just boring. It was all introspection and morality and it wasn't done well enough to actually redeem the book. People who like zombie stuff are normally there for the gore, right? Then where was it?
Characterizations were boring. I was rooting for no one. I didn't care if everybody, human and zombie, died by the end.
Not to mention that the entire novel is basically a murder mystery, trying to figure out who cut his breaks and caused his accident. Blame falls on Sam for a majority of the time, who is apparently the token gay and in love with Peter even though he is apparently an awful human being who everyone hates (but still manages to charm people into not blowing his brains out?). I was expecting some type of plot twist, because in murder mysteries it's never who you first expect, but the twist I got was not the one I wanted, needed, or expected. Peter tried to commit suicide. Because he couldn't emotionally handle being in a relationship during the zombie apocalypse. So he killed himself with Sam's help (because for some reason Sam is willing to help kill the guy he's in love with???) and recorded a video with Sam's help (because his best friend isn't going to try to stop him from committing suicide?!?!?) talking to Vanessa about how he was sorry. And before all of this is revealed, he tells a gang leader who tried to rape his girlfriend's daughter in the first fifty pages for some unknown reason that he wants to get revenge and kill Sam for murdering him, even though he doesn't really have any concrete evidence. So, he brings him into a fighting pit and is about to fight to the death... but turn of events! He turns on the leader of the gang in the middle of the fight? And then he smothers a grenade with his zombie body and somehow manages to leave with every single rib completely intact? I mean I know I shouldn't be judging a zombie book on how realistic it is but you're joking. He lies down on top of an exploding grenade and walks away completely fine, just a little banged up? Hello?!?
I also didn't love the fact that the entire book is in this sandwich of an interview with some scientists. Maybe I missed something (highly likely with how heavily I was skimming this book) but who is studying him? Who is he talking to? Why is he telling them this whole story? Why am I left with more questions than I started with when I'm done with this book? There is no explanation for what makes him different from other zombies other than pure chance (so unsatisfying) and then suddenly he's completely separated from Vanessa and Sam talking to these investigators/scientists/whatever they are.
I don't know. For me, the humor fell flat, but if you're a middle aged man with children you will probably enjoy the jokes at the very least. I suppose it is a kind of interesting idea, but everything about it just bombed in execution.
I suppose this was more of a rant than a review, but I just really didn't love this book. None of the explanations of resolutions were satisfying and the meat of the book wasn't that engaging either. Maybe this just simply isn't the novel I should've read to be introduced to zombie literature, but I guess now I know it's not my cup of tea.