If you get knocked down by a car, do you care what colour it is?

(17 posts)

BACK TO LAST PAGE

David Moody
Key Master

Strange title for a blog post I know, but I have a question and I’d appreciate some feedback.

My books typically deal with the end of the world in one way or another, but I’m generally more interested in how people deal with whatever’s happened to them than with the cause of ‘the event’ itself. If you were trying to survive through an apocalyptic scenario, let’s say (very topically) a pandemic, would it really make any difference to your struggle if the killer disease was man-made, a naturally occurring mutation or something of alien origin? This brief extract from AUTUMN summarises the point I’m trying to make:

‘So do you think it was a virus that did this to them?’ Carl asked. ‘Emma seems to think so. Or do you think it was…?’

‘Don’t know and I don’t care.’

‘What do you mean, you don’t care?’

‘What difference does it make? What’s happened has happened. It’s the old cliché, isn’t it? If you get knocked down by a car, does it matter what colour it is?’

‘Suppose.’

‘It doesn’t matter what caused any of this. What’s done is done and I can’t see the point in wasting time coming up with bullshit theories and explanations when none of it will make the slightest bit of difference. The only thing that any of us have any influence and control over now is what we do tomorrow.’

My question to you, however, is this: as the reader of a post-apocalyptic story, how important is it for you to know what happened? Do you need to know what caused the virus in AUTUMN? Will it spoil your enjoyment of the HATER trilogy if you don’t find out why people are suddenly turning on each other?

Any feedback / comments / thoughts from anyone would be appreciated. Please use the comments function and the related forum discussion to let me know.

Thanks in advance!

If you get knocked down by a car, do you care what colour it is?

Posted 1 year ago #
MrNoseybonk
Member

Personally, I'm all in favour of leaving things open/unexplained. Probably the best example I can think of is The Road, in which the reason behind the apocalypse is left very vague.

I thought the method used in Autumn was quite elegant. The 'explanation' is only put forward as something that one of the survivors claims to have been told by a scientist. Its a workable theory but not one that we neccesarily HAVE to accept as fact.

Posted 1 year ago #
zero52
Member

No, it’s not needed, as it wont make or break a great story. Romero has been being the dead back to life since ‘68 with no clear explanation of a cause or reason why. But on the other hand, as a reader, you’re are always thinking in the back of your mind, what the hell is causing this and can it be stopped?! So basically, you can cover this, by giving one or more possible causes to whatever event is happening at some point in the story, and let the reader decide for them selves.

Posted 1 year ago #
arayner
Member

I'm with zero52 on this one, although I did think the explanation in Autumn was mind blowing and quite original.

Posted 1 year ago #
Imcomingtogetyou...Barbra
Member

No when i read hater i never thought why is this happening, the story sucked me in and couldnt put it down.....for me i would want to know who the goodies are and who the baddies are....but i suppose with that in mind it may bring other questions to light, tough one.
in fact im going to read it again, and may get back to you on that one

Posted 1 year ago #
dawn
Member

I agree that it isn't nessacary to know the whys of what has happened. I was thinking though would 28 days later have had the same impact without the scene in the lab at the very beginning? Would Jim just waking up in the hospital been enough?? Maybe this is my one exception...

Posted 1 year ago #
arayner
Member

Good point about 28days later Dawn.
I think donnie darko would be a good example of this because I have watched it many times and I have come up with a few reasons for what it's all about. But when you listen to the commentary by Richard Kelly it's totally different to what most people thought.

Posted 1 year ago #
Lividity
Member

As an Applied Biology major with a strong background in Organic Chemistry – and being gifted with ADD and OCD – it does bother me when not even theories are given. And when theories are given, it really bothers me when it’s obvious that the author pulled some sci-fi mumbo-jumbo out of his ass without doing at least some homework. I love the zombie and apocalyptic genres and the creative “what-ifs” so I get very disappointed when I read books or see movies that seem slapped together just to make a buck.

In a real world situation, I would want to know the origins. If not for the sake of nerdy curiosity, then for possible preventative measurea. I’m a mom and a wife – gotta protect the family by any means necessary.

Posted 1 year ago #
Fennesz
Member

I ask myself this question every time i read an apocalyptic book so I'm glad you asked. I'm kind of on the fence really. When I'm reading this type of fiction, i do wonder how scenario came about. I'd rather know than not know but I'm also okay with at least a little explained.

Ironically, The Road was one of my favourite books i read last year!

Posted 1 year ago #
Puppie
Member

if i get knocked down by a car i would probably be dead and there for i wouldnt care the colour..if i was alive again i would probably be to stunned to really care that much!

sorry i might of missed the point..just a quick post on some pubs wifi..love ya all!

Posted 1 year ago #
RenegadeMotion Pictures
Member

Posted by unregistered user: RenegadeMotion Pictures
Very good example David, THE BIRDS is perfect to show how an explanation wasn't needed. I also like the allusion to an explanation, but no concrete reason for the virus, change in society, apocalypse, etc. Because really, if 99% of the population died, or 50%-70% of the population turned violent, making the present society and culture obsolete, it would be very likely that no explanation would ever be known to the survivors. They would very much have to speculate like we do with your books so far David. I think that keeps with the realism of our society. Just my two cents. Such a good question. I LOVE stuff like this. – Rachel

Posted 10 months ago #
rotaryGreg
Member

hmm. i think i prefer not to know. the mystery of what caused it isnt what i enjoyed about the autumn series or hater or any zombie movie/book for that matter. I dont dwell on the why, just as the characters that are fighitn for survival in the moment seldom do. thats what i like about it i think. the characters have what seem to be realistic reactions to the situations. the information (or lack of) presented to them is appropriate. say, if the characters of autumn went spelunking through the city in the midst of all thats going on specifically to find the cause with little to no regard for their own survival. it would feel like some resident evil (aka bio hazard) type deal and thats not a good thing. i absolutely love how you handled the "cause" in autumn Mr. Moody. whats more, im anxious beyond beleif to see what happens in dog blood however the "cause" isnt whats grabbed my attention.

Posted 8 months ago #
Christopher Mullen
Member

There are definitely some stories that feel like they work better with an explanation, but as a generalization i don't think its something which needs to be done. Hater for example was a story that was so engrossing that while a part of me was always curious as to the cause, the characters and story were so well written that it doesn't bother me at all to be left wondering. George Romero's stories are another very good example of this. As for the "28 Days Later" scenario, I don't think the movie would have worked quite as well for most people without that opening scene, but I don't think it would have been as necessary if it had been a book.

Posted 8 months ago #
AndyAfro
Member

I would like the last book to sum it up in some way or a prequel when the series is over, i like an explanation even if its just a rumour at the end of a series.

Posted 2 months ago #
ukmum
Member

I like a hint rather than a full blown explanation, for example I love Michael Crichton but a have been known to skip the full in depth blow by blow science bits!
Imagining the why's and hows is all part of the fun of a good novel.

Posted 2 months ago #
peter_bailey11
Member

re “If you get knocked down by a car, do you care what colour it is?

Short answer,? No… much longer answer: if I get knocked down, while I don’t care what color the car is.. I do very much want the event to mean something. Was the car on its way to an emergency or just a drunk driver? I want to be able to make sense of the event by knowing why it happened to me. But also I want to make a story out of it.. a story complete with a start, middle and end, in order for me to understand it.

So in terms of a EOTWE I’d want to be able to know (even in vague terms) where it started, how it started.. even if that was just “a virus” or “invasion of the pumpkin men” , while I was sheltering in the ruins of the local shopping center I’d want to know who to blame, who had taken my life from me. But as above I’d want to make a story (a narrative) out of it all.. and to do that I’d need ‘a’ cause (even if its only a suggestion)

For example I think “Autumn” starts with a description of a virus outbreak (I’ve ‘lost’ my electronic copy of this , and so not sure (anyone got a copy??)) and that’s fine, while we have no idea if the virus was a escaped recombinant DNA strand from a lab.. or a weapon. At least we have a ‘hook’ to hang the book on, we have a starting point. If the book had just opened with “lots of people died” then it would not have haunted me so much, it would have been less understandable.

In short I think people want to solve problems, they want to wrap things up with (some sort) of start, middle and end.

I know that most causes of a EOTWE are just maguffins which are there only to get things moving, but we have to believe in them. For example in “The Stand” I think the cause is only a few pages (out of several hundred) but it sets the scene for the book beautifully

Posted 2 months ago #
David Moody
Key Master

Thanks Peter, that's a really interesting perspective you've offered up.

You're right about Autumn - the first book opens with a virulent virus decimating the population, but there's little further explanation than that. There's a suggestion of a cause in book three, but nothing concrete. But you're also right in that the characters (and the reader) does have some understanding of the cause.

Hater, however, is a different kettle of fish all together.

I think one of the differences with Autumn as oppose to many other apocalyptic scenarios, is that everything changes in a frighteningly short period of time. It's almost instant. In Hater, however, 'the Change' and its repercussions a). last longer and b). are largely ignored by the characters who suddenly find themselves up to their necks in the most bloody war ever fought.

Additionally, as I mentioned to you in an email, Danny McCoyne is such an ordinary, run-of-the-mill guy, that I think it would be extremely unlikely he'd ever find himself in such a key position as to know what the cause of the Change actually was.

Thanks again for taking the time to post here. I'm still working on book three in the series, and will certainly take on board everything that's been written in this thread. After the first two books have been so well received, the last thing I want to do is disappoint with the final volume!

Posted 2 months ago #