|
Post by Matthew on Feb 5, 2010 6:43:22 GMT
OK. there has been a terrible pandemic and everybody you have ever loved, known or even hated has been taken from you. You are one of the (un)lucky ones and find yourself in a world with almost its entire population wiped out. Would you be a survivor or would it all be too much ? One of the things I most liked about the extended version of Stephen Kings 'The Stand' was the part in which he writes about a number of untimely deaths that follow very quickly on from the 'death' and if memory serves me right he extrapolates that up to 30 to 40% of those natural survivors die pretty quickly anyway. And its always stuck with me if I might have been one of those. I am lost if my wife and kids are away for a weekend and how I would really cope should the worst happen, well I have my doubts. Anyways a nice cheerful thread to kick things off on here.
|
|
|
Post by edwin on Feb 5, 2010 9:33:02 GMT
The instinct to survive is very strong. Maybe the stress and any sort of survivors guilt might impede survival. While the living is easy then scoffing out of tins and wandering around unshaven and dirty might work for a bit but there is only one end to that.
In a way it is similar to the decision you have to make if one's life changes. I was redundant or "took early retirement" at 53 and made the conscious decision to get up every day at a reasonable time, not 6.30 as when I was working but something like 7, and shower and shave everyday. Still do at 63 when I have properly retired which means that the day can be properly used and enjoyed.
Even at work and now though I did have Slob days when the normal rules and work ethic did not apply. Funnily enough my work team enjoyed the "time off" but actually all the needful work did get done as well.
Stewart's Earth Abides is very insightful on the secondary deaths after the big one. Have I missed it or is there virtually nothing of this in the new Survivors series.
Would one be forever spooked at night in the empty place you were bedding down? To keep listening for shuffling footsteps might tip you over the edge which is one of the reasons that linking up with others might be a very sane thing to do. Near the beginning of day of the Triffids Wyndham touches on this along with the sense of freedom.
Perhaps another way to deal with the loneliness might be to deliberately put yourself in a situation where you would have been alone even before the disaster. Retreat to a mountain, forest or island perhaps
Edwin
|
|
|
Post by Matthew on Feb 5, 2010 10:35:11 GMT
I guess that the problem for post-apoc fiction, especially on the film and TV side of things is that its pretty difficult to portray what could only be described as a mass case of PTSD that would affect almost everybody surviving a calamity.
Personally I think I would just descend into a booze fuelled bender of which I would not be 100% sure of coming out of the other side. Although I am the worlds worst Catholic I do see suicide as wrong and would probably cling on to that as my last refuge.
|
|
fred
New Member
Posts: 13
|
Post by fred on Mar 3, 2010 0:26:09 GMT
An excellent 'mockumentary' about this very subject is called 'After Armageddon'. It follows a fictional family after a virus hits, along with current expert knowledge about 'what ifs' interspersed throughout. Excellent research and the best take on this stuff I've seen.
One reason why I read & watch so much post-apocalyptic stuff is to educate myself as to the different possibilities, from procuring water to sussing other people out. It all helps to understand what I might be up against. I think what lots of the fiction misses is it conveniently removes most of the population quickly. Imagine 60 million people still alive if the power goes! Perhaps George Romero's films are really about that particular scenario... I hope not....
|
|