Review: The good guys are the bad guys and the bad guys are even worse.
Rating: 3 out of 5
Date: 04 19, 2014
I recently read a review that another reader wrote on the first book in the Zombie Armageddon series. I found the review to be rather abrasive and worded in such a way that it was borderline abusive toward the author. I do not review that way, and find it to be yucky practice. After all, we're reviewing a book, not the person that wrote it, and in our self-appointed position as a critic we should use our platform to inform reader while providing an unbiased opinion of a book.That being said, if I get down to the bones of the other review, and take only the message, I could relate to some of their critique. There are some definite highs and lows in Zombie Armageddon, but I truly believe they boil down to not only personal preference, but regional culture. The books aren't written for an American audience and if you have issue with vulgarity, this may not be a good fit for you. I am not easily offended by language or reprehensible acts but was a little taken back myself from the first chapter. I think I counted the 'C' word 11 times in the first few minutes. Once I got past the language, I was able to enjoy the way the outbreak was told. And truth be told, the 'C' word is only in the beginning.I'll start with what I enjoyed about Zombie Armageddon. Ian Woodhead gives readers a conspiratorial zombie story with multiple subplots. His characters are are unique in the sense that among the group, there are very few 'good' people. The good guys are the bad guys and the bad guys are even worse. The author dug deep to provide some really creative deaths, and I enjoy that. I read a lot, and I mean a lot of death scenes. So kudos to Ian for giving me some that I haven't seen in previous books. He even throws readers a doozy in the first chapter that most think about, but don't have the balls to write. (There's a pun there...if you've read it, you'll get it)Where things didn't connect with me was the linear development in adult characterization. There was little progression in characters, and by that I mean they started out a bad egg, and ended as a bad egg. All the adults have the same traits; drunks and deadbeats. Now, this may be intentional due to the setting of the story taking place in a seedy area, but I would have like to see the diamond in the rough, some standout protagonist that didn't belong and brought some positive energy to the book. By chapter six, I was still unsure of who the main protagonist was, and given the changing POV's and use of an all new cast in book 2, I still don't have a clear picture.Where I believe the writing style from across the pond differs in in wording and sentence structure. The author humanizes objects and it was a bit confusing. "The bastard door", "...his bastard neck", "I spent a bastard fortune". I counted, bastard was used 94 times, and it was dwarfed by the f word...which was used 313 times. To me, cursing is usually an indicator of some heighten emotion; fear, angry, excitement, etc... So to use it so frequently, and in normal conversation, lessens the impact of when it's absolutely needed to make a point.The editing in book 1 far bettered that of book 2. I didn't have anything really jump out at me until The Unwashed Dead. I think the book could benefit from another set of eyes going over the text.