Thursday, February 17, 2011

If sh*t pops off, who's the bigger threat: Zombies or Vampires?

To translate:  if the world starts going to hell in a handbasket, which form of the undead is more likely to be the culprit? 

Smokin' hot vampire Kate Beckinsale 

Some zombie guy 

I feel like the answer to this question is obvious. So does Brad. ZOMBIES. 

But, somehow, Shannon has managed to argue that werewolves are "just as likely as vampires" (and by this she means "not likely"). And while I've shot this down with a semi-logical argument (that she thinks is bunk), she has caught my attention with, "What about robots?" Her attempt to introduce aliens into the conversation, however, has been vetoed. As Butcher so eloquently put it, Aliens are a trump card. Therefore, they don't even count. More specifically, the rules for fighting aliens are simply too uncertain and preparation for an alien invasion is nearly impossible. (Though I'm open to hearing arguments on this.) 

My claim for zombies as opposed to vampires (and yes, I am actually having this conversation with people in an English department over the course of several days) goes like this. If vampires exist, they have - according to vampire lore - existed for hundreds of years. There's nothing to suggest that they would all of a sudden show an interest in taking over the world when, by my estimation, the forces/weapons/technology that are available to fight them grow daily. Basically, if they were gonna kick some hiney, I believe they'd have already done so. Probably a long time ago. 

Zombies, on the other hand, are a modern invention. They'd be coming about now and spreading like a plague now b/c they just started existing whenever things went wrong in the lab. Or whatever. (I confess I am not a zombie buff, nor am I a vampire buff. But we did watch two of the Underworld movies again the other day. That served as a nice refresher.) 

This is not a new question for me - Brad and I began discussing this during the summer when, on our walks around the neighborhood, we noticed quite a few squirrel and bird carcasses. The work of zombies? Who can say. But this is obviously a legit question (and funny as hell to argue about). And we're not the only people who are interested; there's even a book about surviving run-ins with zombies

Perhaps the best addition to this ongoing conversation was contributed by a professor in my dept. I asked her, "So, if stuff starts popping off, do you think it will be vampires or zombies?" Her response: "Well, vampires don't disintegrate. Their body parts don't really come off." No, that's not what we meant by "popping off" . . . .


  1. And it's true, I do agree that zombies are a much bigger threat. And not even citing the admittedly good argument above that if vampires did exist we would have likely already encountered everything they've got... Much more likely with them is that they're the illuminati puppetmasters of major governments: CONSPIRACY ALERT! AH!

    When/if zombies happen there are a few thing's that I'd like you to keep in mind about that occurrence that should persuade you as to why they are the biggest threat: A. They're zombies, I mean, come on. B. Every one of them = another less of us - it's really like a two zombie swing for every bite. C. They may be dumb but they don't have limitations like vampires do. D. They're zombies. Again, come on.

  2. Dear Husband,

    The ways in which I agree with you can hardly be numbered. Your invocation of conspiracy theories is particularly impressive, especially given that this zombie vs. vampires conversation originated b/t us months ago and I've heard nothing about this.

    But did you really use the word "illuminati" on my blog? I know I don't know what that word means. I mean, I have a guess, but it's probably wrong. And, like the good grad student I am, I refuse to look it up so that I can fully appreciate the meaning of your comment. Next time, dumb things down a bit.

    And you're making a lot of noise cleaning your office up there.

  3. To the esteemed married couple who were apparently brought together over their common concern over the zombie apocalypse, I just have to disagree. The most prevalent image of the zombie is not the speedy demons of I Am Legend, rather they are the lurching masses as seen in Resident Evil. If any person would have pulled their head out of their butt (I remember you said you don't swear on your blog), surely humans with fully functioning intellects, possession and control of all of their appendages and the ability to strategize beyond the point of "Need Eat Brains Now" can outsmart and conquer hordes of zombies. Also, I do not think that vampires would have revealed themselves by now. It really would not be in their best interest to let everyone know they exist when that only opens them up to what would likely be anti-vampire hate crimes and centuries of back taxes. I maintain that robots are the greatest threat primarily because the other two threats are not even real... small point, I know.

  4. Okay, wait a minute: so you're saying that robots that can take over the world of their own accord ARE real?

    And of course zombies aren't real; they haven't happened yet, duh!

  5. Our original debate (how long has this been going on?!?) was all about likelihood. Yes, world-dominating robots do not exist....yet, but there are crappy robots that can vaccuum a house and a computer that can kick Ken Jennings' butt in Jeopardy--these are precursors to a more dangerous robot problem (tongue so firmly in cheek I think I might pull a muscle). Where are the symptoms that denote the possibility of zombies? In other words, where are the baby steps leading up to a zombie apocalyse? Please don't counter this with a foreboding "there will be no warning" followed by an evil villain laugh. On a different but not unrelated topic, what's your theory for the creation of aforementioned zombies? Are you all about the killer virus?

  6. If I didn't know better, "Shay," I'd think you were prone to argumentation. And obstinate.

    And if I didn't know better - note that, before Tuesday at the Writing Center, I did not - I would think the word was spelled "obstinant." I learned the error of my ways when I questioned an undergrad who had it spelled correctly about whether he was sure he was right. Indeed, he was sure. He'd looked it up. Nonetheless, he asked me if I'd be teaching 102 next fall - I guess good spelling isn't a quality students seek in their teachers these days.

    Regardless, I have to ponder the options awhile before I commit to any specific theory of zombie creation. You haven't heard the last of me regarding zombies (as you well know, considering next Saturday's planned movie-thon).