Digital Art Zone

 
   
1 of 4
1
Ninja vs Zombies - Or is it? From the Art Studio.
Posted: 30 June 2013 11:32 AM   [ Ignore ]
Power Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  1397
Joined  2011-11-16

Nice ghouls (they’re not zombies; Zombies are slaves created through Voodoo, and don’t eat people).

SEE this Thread for HOW it all started. http://www.daz3d.com/forums/viewthread/24857/ Edited by a Mod

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 July 2013 11:08 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1 ]
Active Member
Avatar
RankRank
Total Posts:  665
Joined  2006-11-10
Tramp Graphics - 30 June 2013 11:32 AM

Nice ghouls (they’re not zombies; Zombies are slaves created through Voodoo, and don’t eat people).

Hmm, ghouls are evil spirits or demons that rob graves to feed on the dead, methinks that may fit even less. wink

 Signature 

Old post count: 3,394,206

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 July 2013 12:26 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 2 ]
Power Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  1397
Joined  2011-11-16
Agent_Unawares - 01 July 2013 11:08 PM
Tramp Graphics - 30 June 2013 11:32 AM

Nice ghouls (they’re not zombies; Zombies are slaves created through Voodoo, and don’t eat people).

Hmm, ghouls are evil spirits or demons that rob graves to feed on the dead, methinks that may fit even less. wink

Yep. They’re also defined as undead who attack people and feed on flesh, it varies from culture to culture. Ghouls have been decribed veriously as demons, spirits, undead, or simply monsters, and, typically, having once been human, and they have viracious apetites for human flesh, living or dea.

Zombies, however, are specifically slaves created through Voodoo magic. There have even been real life case studies. One in particular study, That of Clairvius Narcisse, was made into a book (and subsequent movie) titled The Serpent and the Rainbow. In the simplest terms, a Zombie is created when a person is poisoned by the witch-doctor using tetrodotoxin (found in Puffer Fish venom and Cane Toad venom). The actual amount doesn’t actually kill the victim, but, rather, puts him into a “death-like” coma, slowing the metabolism, and organ functions to imperceptible levels, and would appear dead to everyone, even potentially a medical expert (as happened with Narcisse). After the victim has been buried, the witch-docter would come by later that night and exhume his victim, who, by this time, would be awakening, but still very disoriented, and would then keep his new Zombie, in a stupefied and highly suggestible state through another drug known as “Zombie Cucumber”. This substance can also cause memory loss. The Zombie is then put to work in the sugar cane fields as a slave.

The “flesh-eating undead” which people commonly refer to “zombies” are nothing of the sort. The only thing that they have in common with zombies is being “reanimated dead”. Even the movie that started the whole “Zombie” craze, uses the term Ghouls to describe them, not “Zombie”.  Another term for these terrifying undead is Revenant, though Revenants are usually described as vengeful undead. Thus, “Ghoul” is the most accurate term to describe these flesh-eating undead monsters, not Zombie. Zombies don’t attack people, and don’t eat human flesh. Ghouls do.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 July 2013 12:38 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 3 ]
Active Member
Avatar
RankRank
Total Posts:  665
Joined  2006-11-10
Tramp Graphics - 02 July 2013 12:26 AM
Agent_Unawares - 01 July 2013 11:08 PM
Tramp Graphics - 30 June 2013 11:32 AM

Nice ghouls (they’re not zombies; Zombies are slaves created through Voodoo, and don’t eat people).

Hmm, ghouls are evil spirits or demons that rob graves to feed on the dead, methinks that may fit even less. wink

Yep. They’re also defined as undead who attack people and feed on flesh, it varies from culture to culture.

Just like zombies!

Tramp Graphics - 02 July 2013 12:26 AM

Zombies, however, are specifically slaves created through Voodoo magic.

Except where it varies from culture to culture. wink

Unicorns were pretty definitely based on rhinoceros sightings and possibly narwhal horns; that doesn’t mean that a stag-like creature with a lion’s tail and one horn isn’t a unicorn, or further down the line, that a horse with one long horn isn’t a unicorn. Sure, zombies are voodoo slaves [and probably everyone interested in the genre knows it], but the term is also used to refer to ravenous undead, and is equally accurate there.

Gohrbandt, that lighting is looking very impressive.

EDIT: You need to turn on shadows.

 Signature 

Old post count: 3,394,206

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 July 2013 06:49 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 4 ]
Power Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  1397
Joined  2011-11-16
Agent_Unawares - 05 July 2013 12:38 PM
Tramp Graphics - 02 July 2013 12:26 AM
Agent_Unawares - 01 July 2013 11:08 PM
Tramp Graphics - 30 June 2013 11:32 AM

Nice ghouls (they’re not zombies; Zombies are slaves created through Voodoo, and don’t eat people).

Hmm, ghouls are evil spirits or demons that rob graves to feed on the dead, methinks that may fit even less. wink

Yep. They’re also defined as undead who attack people and feed on flesh, it varies from culture to culture.

Just like zombies!

Tramp Graphics - 02 July 2013 12:26 AM

Zombies, however, are specifically slaves created through Voodoo magic.

Except where it varies from culture to culture. wink

Unicorns were pretty definitely based on rhinoceros sightings and possibly narwhal horns; that doesn’t mean that a stag-like creature with a lion’s tail and one horn isn’t a unicorn, or further down the line, that a horse with one long horn isn’t a unicorn. Sure, zombies are voodoo slaves [and probably everyone interested in the genre knows it], but the term is also used to refer to ravenous undead, and is equally accurate there.

Gohrbandt, that lighting is looking very impressive.

EDIT: You need to turn on shadows.

The very term “Zombie” and it’s meaning come from Hatian Voodoo culture. The whole concept and belief in them originates with that culture.  The so-called “zombies” we see in the movies are actually ghouls. Even the guy who started the whole “zombie movie” craze called them gholus in Night of the Living Dead, the movie that started it all. So, no, it is not “equally accurate” to call the “ravenous undead” “Zombies”, because that’s not what they are.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 July 2013 07:55 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 5 ]
Active Member
Avatar
RankRank
Total Posts:  665
Joined  2006-11-10
Tramp Graphics - 05 July 2013 06:49 PM
Agent_Unawares - 05 July 2013 12:38 PM
Tramp Graphics - 02 July 2013 12:26 AM
Agent_Unawares - 01 July 2013 11:08 PM
Tramp Graphics - 30 June 2013 11:32 AM

Nice ghouls (they’re not zombies; Zombies are slaves created through Voodoo, and don’t eat people).

Hmm, ghouls are evil spirits or demons that rob graves to feed on the dead, methinks that may fit even less. wink

Yep. They’re also defined as undead who attack people and feed on flesh, it varies from culture to culture.

Just like zombies!

Tramp Graphics - 02 July 2013 12:26 AM

Zombies, however, are specifically slaves created through Voodoo magic.

Except where it varies from culture to culture. wink

Unicorns were pretty definitely based on rhinoceros sightings and possibly narwhal horns; that doesn’t mean that a stag-like creature with a lion’s tail and one horn isn’t a unicorn, or further down the line, that a horse with one long horn isn’t a unicorn. Sure, zombies are voodoo slaves [and probably everyone interested in the genre knows it], but the term is also used to refer to ravenous undead, and is equally accurate there.

Gohrbandt, that lighting is looking very impressive.

EDIT: You need to turn on shadows.

The very term “Zombie” and it’s meaning come from Hatian Voodoo culture. The whole concept and belief in them originates with that culture.  The so-called “zombies” we see in the movies are actually ghouls. Even the guy who started the whole “zombie movie” craze called them gholus in Night of the Living Dead, the movie that started it all. So, no, it is not “equally accurate” to call the “ravenous undead” “Zombies”, because that’s not what they are.

Yes, they are. Terms gain and change definitions. A horse with a horn on its head is still a unicorn even if it’s not a stag-like creature with a lion’s tail drawn to virgins. A gaunt immortal with fangs which preys upon young women to drink blood from their necks is still a vampire even if it’s not bloated and wrapped in grave linen. A ravenous undead creature is still a ghoul even if it’s not a demon from Muslim folklore.

And an animated corpse is still a zombie, even if the method used to create it was not voodoo.

You’ll be interested to know that “zombie” was originally used to refer to a snake deity [probably derived from an earlier god with a similar name]. So if we just jump back far enough, it’s not the correct term for voodoo slaves.

EDIT: Forum’s still breaking Wikipedia links. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zombi_(African_deity)
http://www.answers.com/topic/nzambi

 Signature 

Old post count: 3,394,206

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 July 2013 09:00 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 6 ]
Power Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  1397
Joined  2011-11-16
Agent_Unawares - 05 July 2013 07:55 PM
Tramp Graphics - 05 July 2013 06:49 PM
Agent_Unawares - 05 July 2013 12:38 PM
Tramp Graphics - 02 July 2013 12:26 AM
Agent_Unawares - 01 July 2013 11:08 PM
Tramp Graphics - 30 June 2013 11:32 AM

Nice ghouls (they’re not zombies; Zombies are slaves created through Voodoo, and don’t eat people).

Hmm, ghouls are evil spirits or demons that rob graves to feed on the dead, methinks that may fit even less. wink

Yep. They’re also defined as undead who attack people and feed on flesh, it varies from culture to culture.

Just like zombies!

Tramp Graphics - 02 July 2013 12:26 AM

Zombies, however, are specifically slaves created through Voodoo magic.

Except where it varies from culture to culture. wink

Unicorns were pretty definitely based on rhinoceros sightings and possibly narwhal horns; that doesn’t mean that a stag-like creature with a lion’s tail and one horn isn’t a unicorn, or further down the line, that a horse with one long horn isn’t a unicorn. Sure, zombies are voodoo slaves [and probably everyone interested in the genre knows it], but the term is also used to refer to ravenous undead, and is equally accurate there.

Gohrbandt, that lighting is looking very impressive.

EDIT: You need to turn on shadows.

The very term “Zombie” and it’s meaning come from Hatian Voodoo culture. The whole concept and belief in them originates with that culture.  The so-called “zombies” we see in the movies are actually ghouls. Even the guy who started the whole “zombie movie” craze called them gholus in Night of the Living Dead, the movie that started it all. So, no, it is not “equally accurate” to call the “ravenous undead” “Zombies”, because that’s not what they are.

Yes, they are. Terms gain and change definitions. A horse with a horn on its head is still a unicorn even if it’s not a stag-like creature with a lion’s tail drawn to virgins. A gaunt immortal with fangs which preys upon young women to drink blood from their necks is still a vampire even if it’s not bloated and wrapped in grave linen. A ravenous undead creature is still a ghoul even if it’s not a demon from Muslim folklore.

And an animated corpse is still a zombie, even if the method used to create it was not voodoo.

You’ll be interested to know that “zombie” was originally used to refer to a snake deity [probably derived from an earlier god with a similar name]. So if we just jump back far enough, it’s not the correct term for voodoo slaves.

EDIT: Forum’s still breaking Wikipedia links. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zombi_(African_deity)
http://www.answers.com/topic/nzambi

An “animated corps” is a Zombie if, and only if, it is one animated via “magic”, and controlled by another individual, not as a ravenous flesh-eater. That is the key difference between Zombies and Ghouls. One is a slave, the other is a predator, hungry for human flesh. Zombies have no will of their own, and cannot act on their own; nor can they transform others into zombies. Ghouls can act on their own, and do so. They’re predators and scavengers, and their bite can transform their victim into one of them. They may still be “mindless”, but they do have a “will”, a will to feed, an insatiable hunger for human flesh, living or dead, something Zombies lack. That is the difference, and it is a key distinction.

Therefore, calling the flesh-eating undead “zombies” is a misnomer. They’re not zombies, they’re ghouls. And, to see this misidentification of these creatures perpetuated, irks me to no end. It’s like confusing pixies and fairies—while similar in some respects, they’re not the same thing, and thus, the terms are not interchangeable. The same with ghouls and zombies. They’re two different things which share some superficial similarities. 

For the record, Haitian Voodoo also has its origins in Africa. Not only that, but, according to that linked article, the goddess “Zombi” is worshiped by believers of the Voodoo religion. Therefore, it is certainly not a coincidence that the Zombie slave of Voodoo derives its name from this goddess.

Also, all corporeal undead are “animated corpses”—Vampires, ghouls, zombies, Liches, etc.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 July 2013 10:01 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 7 ]
Active Member
Avatar
RankRank
Total Posts:  665
Joined  2006-11-10
Tramp Graphics - 05 July 2013 09:00 PM

An “animated corps” is a Zombie if, and only if, it is one animated via “magic”, and controlled by another individual, not as a ravenous flesh-eater. That is the key difference between Zombies and Ghouls

In the particular culture you choose to draw your definition from. The word is not rendered invalid for “horror movie zombies” simply because you prefer one definition over the other.

Tramp Graphics - 05 July 2013 09:00 PM

One is a slave, the other is a predator, hungry for human flesh. Zombies have no will of their own, and cannot act on their own; nor can they transform others into zombies. Ghouls can act on their own, and do so. They’re predators and scavengers, and their bite can transform their victim into one of them. They may still be “mindless”, but they do have a “will”, a will to feed, an insatiable hunger for human flesh, living or dead, something Zombies lack. That is the difference, and it is a key distinction.

Hmm? I thought zombie slaves had a will to work on sugar plantations or somesuch, whatever they were told to do. Much like rotting flesh zombies resurrected by a necromancer have the will to guard temples and lairs.

Tramp Graphics - 05 July 2013 09:00 PM

Therefore, calling the flesh-eating undead “zombies” is a misnomer. They’re not zombies, they’re ghouls. And, to see this misidentification of these creatures perpetuated, irks me to no end. It’s like confusing pixies and fairies—while similar in some respects, they’re not the same thing, and thus, the terms are not interchangeable. The same with ghouls and zombies. They’re two different things which share some superficial similarities.

The difference being “pixie” is not a word with any cultural definition meaning “fairy,” and “fairy” is not a word with any cultural definition meaning “pixie.” “Zombie,” however, has more than one definition, especially in current lore, and while one of them describes voodoo slaves, the other describes reanimated corpses which often hunger for human brains.

Tramp Graphics - 05 July 2013 09:00 PM

For the record, Haitian Voodoo also has its origins in Africa. Not only that, but, according to that linked article, the goddess “Zombi” is worshiped by believers of the Voodoo religion. Therefore, it is certainly not a coincidence that the Zombie slave of Voodoo derives its name from this goddess.

Of course not. My point is that was the initial meaning of the word, so I can argue with just as much validity as you are now that “Zombies aren’t voodoo slaves, Zombi is a deity who assuredly wouldn’t be captured and put to work on a plantation.” Terms change and gather meanings. Just because one is newer does not make it somehow “wrong.” Both coexist and should be understood in context.

Tramp Graphics - 05 July 2013 09:00 PM

Also, all corporeal undead are “animated corpses”—Vampires, ghouls, zombies, Liches, etc.

Granted. I should have chosen my words more carefully. Perhaps “some animated corpses are still zombies…”

On that note, I’m going to ask a mod to split out our posts into a different thread - I find this discussion interesting but I’m afraid it’s not terribly nice to Tobias.

 Signature 

Old post count: 3,394,206

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 July 2013 12:06 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 8 ]
Power Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  1397
Joined  2011-11-16
Agent_Unawares - 05 July 2013 10:01 PM
Tramp Graphics - 05 July 2013 09:00 PM

An “animated corps” is a Zombie if, and only if, it is one animated via “magic”, and controlled by another individual, not as a ravenous flesh-eater. That is the key difference between Zombies and Ghouls

In the particular culture you choose to draw your definition from. The word is not rendered invalid for “horror movie zombies” simply because you prefer one definition over the other.

As I said before, the guy who came up with the “horror movie ‘zombies’” specifically referred to them as ghouls in his movie.

Tramp Graphics - 05 July 2013 09:00 PM

One is a slave, the other is a predator, hungry for human flesh. Zombies have no will of their own, and cannot act on their own; nor can they transform others into zombies. Ghouls can act on their own, and do so. They’re predators and scavengers, and their bite can transform their victim into one of them. They may still be “mindless”, but they do have a “will”, a will to feed, an insatiable hunger for human flesh, living or dead, something Zombies lack. That is the difference, and it is a key distinction.

Hmm? I thought zombie slaves had a will to work on sugar plantations or somesuch, whatever they were told to do. Much like rotting flesh zombies resurrected by a necromancer have the will to guard temples and lairs.

The sugar cane fields are certainly where they were typically employed, in Haiti, that much is certain, but, no, they did not have wills of their own. As mentioned in the case of Clairvius Narcisse, The drugs, and potions used in “real life zombies”, strips them of their wills, placing them in a highly suggestible stupor. And even in fantasy stories, Necromancers didn’t tend to use Zombies for guard duty. They’re not suited for it because they’re incapable of making decisions for themselves as a result of the “spells” which made them zombies. They have no wills, and no consciousness. They are completely under the control of the bocor who cast the spell on them. http://www.dhushara.com/book/med/zombie.htm

Tramp Graphics - 05 July 2013 09:00 PM

Therefore, calling the flesh-eating undead “zombies” is a misnomer. They’re not zombies, they’re ghouls. And, to see this misidentification of these creatures perpetuated, irks me to no end. It’s like confusing pixies and fairies—while similar in some respects, they’re not the same thing, and thus, the terms are not interchangeable. The same with ghouls and zombies. They’re two different things which share some superficial similarities.

The difference being “pixie” is not a word with any cultural definition meaning “fairy,” and “fairy” is not a word with any cultural definition meaning “pixie.” “Zombie,” however, has more than one definition, especially in current lore, and while one of them describes voodoo slaves, the other describes reanimated corpses which often hunger for human brains.

Actually, people do confuse the two. A good example is Tinkerbell from Perter Pan. The original book and play by J. M. Barry, refers to her, and describes her as a fairy, and the dust she uses to make the children fly, as fairy dust. Disney refers to her as a Pixie, and her dust as Pixie dust. according to this article, the terms are sometimes used interchangeably in modern usage; however, in folklore, they’re definitely distinct races, often traditionally described as having an enmity between them. A big difference between Fairies and Pixies, is Fairies have wings, Pixies do not. Ergo, your above statement is in error. Both are cases where people using the wrong term for a “creature” of folklore has pervaded popular media.

Tramp Graphics - 05 July 2013 09:00 PM

For the record, Haitian Voodoo also has its origins in Africa. Not only that, but, according to that linked article, the goddess “Zombi” is worshiped by believers of the Voodoo religion. Therefore, it is certainly not a coincidence that the Zombie slave of Voodoo derives its name from this goddess.

Of course not. My point is that was the initial meaning of the word, so I can argue with just as much validity as you are now that “Zombies aren’t voodoo slaves, Zombi is a deity who assuredly wouldn’t be captured and put to work on a plantation.” Terms change and gather meanings. Just because one is newer does not make it somehow “wrong.” Both coexist and should be understood in context.

Yes, it does, particularly, when it is describing a completely different creature. And also, for the record, while the name of the goddess in question, and the term used for the “undead” slave of Voodoo practice, might be similar and share the same pronunciation, you’ll notice that they are spelled differently. The goddess’ name is spelled Z-O-M-B-I. The slave is spelled Z-O-M-B-I-E. The words are homonyms, that happen to originate from the same culture. The same sound, but different spellings and meanings. While the difference in spelling is a minor one (only a single letter), it completely changes the meaning of the word.

Tramp Graphics - 05 July 2013 09:00 PM

Also, all corporeal undead are “animated corpses”—Vampires, ghouls, zombies, Liches, etc.

Granted. I should have chosen my words more carefully. Perhaps “some animated corpses are still zombies…”

On that note, I’m going to ask a mod to split out our posts into a different thread - I find this discussion interesting but I’m afraid it’s not terribly nice to Tobias.

Exactly. Some “animated corpses” are Zombies. Those who were brought back through “magic” to serve as mindless slaves with no wills of their own. By contrast, ghouls feed on the flesh of humans, both the living and the dead, and, while still “mindless, do have a rudimentary and malicious “will”— a will to feed.  It is that innate malice and insatiable hunger for human flesh which characterizes the Ghoul and sets it apart from a Zombie.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 July 2013 12:28 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 9 ]
Active Member
Avatar
RankRank
Total Posts:  665
Joined  2006-11-10

RE: Tinkerbell, that’s just common language usage and people confusing the two. It’s not decades of historical precedence for using the word “zombie” to refer to a flesh-eating reanimated corpse. And if the terms become synonymous in a certain context, then they’re synonymous in that context. Language changes.

Plenty of fairies in folklore didn’t have wings, so I don’t know where that distinction came in.

Tramp Graphics - 06 July 2013 12:06 AM

Exactly. Some “animated corpses” are Zombies. Those who were brought back through “magic” to serve as mindless slaves with no wills of their own. By contrast, ghouls feed on the flesh of humans, both the living and the dead, and, while still “mindless, do have a rudimentary and malicious “will”— a will to feed.  It is that innate malice and insatiable hunger for human flesh which characterizes the Ghoul and sets it apart from a Zombie.

Using your preferred definition above other valid ones.

Tramp Graphics - 06 July 2013 12:06 AM
Agent_Unawares - 05 July 2013 10:01 PM

Terms change and gather meanings. Just because one is newer does not make it somehow “wrong.” Both coexist and should be understood in context.

Yes, it does, particularly, when it is describing a completely different creature.

Fair enough. Which definition of “snipe” is correct? They refer to completely different creatures, so one must be wrong.

 Signature 

Old post count: 3,394,206

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 July 2013 01:47 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 10 ]
Addict
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2885
Joined  2009-02-24

A zombie is a zombie is a zombie. What you choose to call it and what the historical context of it is are completely irrelevant if everyone knows precisely what you’re talking about when you say the word ‘zombie’.

Language progresses, words change their meanings. In popular culture, a zombie is still an undead brain-munching machine. Take any zombie movie or video game and you can bet your last dollar they won’t use the word ‘ghoul’ except as a synonym for zombies.

 Signature 

Find me on DeviantArt
Download my free IBL presets for Luxus
Re-upload of Cresent’s awesome pwToon shaders
Create your own Smart Content

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 July 2013 02:13 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 11 ]
Power Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  1772
Joined  2012-02-07

Greetings,

‘The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’
‘The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master — that’s all.’

I come down on the side that believes language is fluid, alive, and evolving.  Zombie, like xerox and queer, has a meaning dictated by the times in which we live, and the words we speak and hear spoken.  Just as one would not ‘alphabet your papers’ any longer, zombies need not be restricted to haitian majic.

I am an oral relativist. ;)

— Morgan

 

 Signature 

Want wishlist discount notifications, better wishlist sorting, or to see ALL current discounts? http://3dwishlist.com/demo

Look at my deviantArt Gallery, give me feedback and feel free to follow!

This Firefox GreaseMonkey/Chrome Extension tweaks the wishlist and the product pages, adding cool new features to both and cleaning up small UI issues.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 July 2013 02:22 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 12 ]
Power Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  1397
Joined  2011-11-16
Agent_Unawares - 06 July 2013 12:28 AM

RE: Tinkerbell, that’s just common language usage and people confusing the two. It’s not decades of historical precedence for using the word “zombie” to refer to a flesh-eating reanimated corpse. And if the terms become synonymous in a certain context, then they’re synonymous in that context. Language changes.

Plenty of fairies in folklore didn’t have wings, so I don’t know where that distinction came in.

. Tinkerbell being referred to as a “Pixie” dates back to the release of the Disney movie in 1953. The movie Night of the Living Dead (the movie which started the whole “Zombie Apocalypse” sub-genre) came out in 1968, more than a decade and a half later, and, as I said, used the term Ghouls to refer to these creatures. Ergo, the use of “Pixie” to refer to Fairies, is actually an older misnomer with more “historical precedence”. It doesn’t make it any less wrong. The inappropriate use of the term “Zombie” to describe ghouls didn’t come about until much later.

Tramp Graphics - 06 July 2013 12:06 AM

Exactly. Some “animated corpses” are Zombies. Those who were brought back through “magic” to serve as mindless slaves with no wills of their own. By contrast, ghouls feed on the flesh of humans, both the living and the dead, and, while still “mindless, do have a rudimentary and malicious “will”— a will to feed.  It is that innate malice and insatiable hunger for human flesh which characterizes the Ghoul and sets it apart from a Zombie.

Using your preferred definition above other valid ones.

The “other” definition isn’t valid because it describes a completely difference creature already named.

Tramp Graphics - 06 July 2013 12:06 AM
Agent_Unawares - 05 July 2013 10:01 PM

Terms change and gather meanings. Just because one is newer does not make it somehow “wrong.” Both coexist and should be understood in context.

Yes, it does, particularly, when it is describing a completely different creature.

Fair enough. Which definition of “snipe” is correct? They refer to completely different creatures, so one must be wrong.

Neither. Your analogy here is misplaced. This isn’t a case where a word is incorrectly used to describe a superficially similar creature already known by another, proper, name, where the name for one was confused with that of another. Rather, one refers to a species of bird, the other is drawn from the actions of the individual in question. A person referred to as a “snipe” is called such because he or she is verbally “sniping” (taking shots) at another.  It is derived from sniper, an individual who shoots at exposed targets usually from a concealed position. Thus, a “Snipe” is verbally sniping his or her “victim” with targeted contemptible verbal attacks.

Here’s a rather interesting article on the subject of the “Walking Dead”, and the inappropriate use of the word “Zombie” to describe them. To quote:

]“One of the more Genre Savvy reasons is that the walking dead technically aren’t zombies. The proper “zombie” is a person whose higher thought processes have been removed, leaving them under the sway of a master. This original zombie is usually the result of occult vodou magic. Some books, such as The Serpent and the Rainbow, argue that vodou practitioners can create zombies through a combination of drugs and cultural beliefs. “P-zombies”, or “philosophical zombies”, which are even more convoluted — persons who don’t have any subjective “experience”.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 July 2013 07:04 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 13 ]
Active Member
Avatar
RankRank
Total Posts:  658
Joined  2006-09-30

I thought a Zombie was an unusually loyal reader of Marvel Comics.

They even coined the term Marvel Zombie to describe themselves.

This is the earliest definition of Zombie I ever heard, so in my chronology (external and historical timelines don’t count!) - it’s the Original use of the term and will always be what I associate with it before any of your crazy death related definitions.

Everything is subjective…

 Signature 

MOO!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 July 2013 02:30 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 14 ]
Active Member
Avatar
RankRank
Total Posts:  665
Joined  2006-11-10
HeraldOfFire - 06 July 2013 01:47 AM

A zombie is a zombie is a zombie. What you choose to call it and what the historical context of it is are completely irrelevant if everyone knows precisely what you’re talking about when you say the word ‘zombie’.

Precisely.

Tramp Graphics - 06 July 2013 02:22 AM
Agent_Unawares - 06 July 2013 12:28 AM

RE: Tinkerbell, that’s just common language usage and people confusing the two. It’s not decades of historical precedence for using the word “zombie” to refer to a flesh-eating reanimated corpse. And if the terms become synonymous in a certain context, then they’re synonymous in that context. Language changes.

Plenty of fairies in folklore didn’t have wings, so I don’t know where that distinction came in.

. Tinkerbell being referred to as a “Pixie” dates back to the release of the Disney movie in 1953. The movie Night of the Living Dead (the movie which started the whole “Zombie Apocalypse” sub-genre) came out in 1968, more than a decade and a half later, and, as I said, used the term Ghouls to refer to these creatures. Ergo, the use of “Pixie” to refer to Fairies, is actually an older misnomer with more “historical precedence”. It doesn’t make it any less wrong. The inappropriate use of the term “Zombie” to describe ghouls didn’t come about until much later.

Since my point was that Disney using the term was an instance of accidental conflation, when it happened is of no relevance. Disney’s Tinkerbell is one character in one universe, over those many decades. No precedent for anything but Disney being cute. They define their own mythology, after all, and always have, and it’s the right of any artist.

“Zombie,” on the other hand, has been used consistently to refer to flesh-eating undead in hundreds upon hundreds, likely thousands, of stories in only those 45 years. That is precedent.

Tramp Graphics - 06 July 2013 02:22 AM
Tramp Graphics - 06 July 2013 12:06 AM

Exactly. Some “animated corpses” are Zombies. Those who were brought back through “magic” to serve as mindless slaves with no wills of their own. By contrast, ghouls feed on the flesh of humans, both the living and the dead, and, while still “mindless, do have a rudimentary and malicious “will”— a will to feed.  It is that innate malice and insatiable hunger for human flesh which characterizes the Ghoul and sets it apart from a Zombie.

Using your preferred definition above other valid ones.

The “other” definition isn’t valid because it describes a completely difference creature already named.

Which brings us back to “snipe” again, doesn’t it?

Tramp Graphics - 06 July 2013 02:22 AM
Tramp Graphics - 06 July 2013 12:06 AM
Agent_Unawares - 05 July 2013 10:01 PM

Terms change and gather meanings. Just because one is newer does not make it somehow “wrong.” Both coexist and should be understood in context.

Yes, it does, particularly, when it is describing a completely different creature.

Fair enough. Which definition of “snipe” is correct? They refer to completely different creatures, so one must be wrong.

Neither. Your analogy here is misplaced. This isn’t a case where a word is incorrectly used to describe a superficially similar creature already known by another, proper, name, where the name for one was confused with that of another. Rather, one refers to a species of bird, the other is drawn from the actions of the individual in question. A person referred to as a “snipe” is called such because he or she is verbally “sniping” (taking shots) at another.  It is derived from sniper, an individual who shoots at exposed targets usually from a concealed position. Thus, a “Snipe” is verbally sniping his or her “victim” with targeted contemptible verbal attacks.

I haven’t bothered to look up the etymology, so I’ll take your word for it,but my point still stands. They’re completely different creatures, therefore one definition must be wrong according to your earlier statement. In fact, they’re whole a heck of a lot more different from each other than voodoo reanimated corpses and their hungrier cousins. “Snipe” had a very particular definition referring to a shorebird long before the secondary definition came into play. By your logic, the latter must be wrong, then. A snappish person isn’t related to one of those birds.

Tramp Graphics - 06 July 2013 02:22 AM

Here’s a rather interesting article on the subject of the “Walking Dead”, and the inappropriate use of the word “Zombie” to describe them. To quote:

]“One of the more Genre Savvy reasons is that the walking dead technically aren’t zombies. The proper “zombie” is a person whose higher thought processes have been removed, leaving them under the sway of a master. This original zombie is usually the result of occult vodou magic. Some books, such as The Serpent and the Rainbow, argue that vodou practitioners can create zombies through a combination of drugs and cultural beliefs. “P-zombies”, or “philosophical zombies”, which are even more convoluted — persons who don’t have any subjective “experience”.

Says someone on TVTropes. Good for them. I can edit it to reflect current culture, if you desire? This is going to be a contentious subject precisely because people cling to using specific definitions, not realizing that it’s context which ultimately defines a word, and they can very well have alternative interpretations without sullying the purity of the original one.

Like so:

I almost caught the snipe with my bare hands, but it flew away just as I touched its feathers.
I tried to avoid my critical coworker, but the snipe just wouldn’t leave me in peace.

No confusion there.

The zombies shuffled through the street, groaning loudly as they attempted to encircle their prey.
The voodoo priest preferred to choose low-profile targets for his zombies, the sort of people one wouldn’t miss or recognize afterwards.

No confusion there, either. And in context of a story, there will be even less. It’s blatantly obvious whether someone’s referring to a voodoo slave, a necromancer’s undead hordes, or more modern examples which may not even be dead, but share enough characteristics they’re referred to by the same name. Using “zombie” to refer to a voodoo slave is perfectly accurate. It is, however, just as accurate to use the term to refer to shuffling hordes of hungry rotting corpses. One definition does not detract in any way from the other unless one is documenting actual voodoo practices, in which case the other definition should at least be touched on for thoroughness’ sake.

Much like vampires; there are many shades of definition which touch on similar creatures.The most common and basic split is between energy/life force vampires and the blood drinkers. The Harry Dresden universe manages to include three wholly different types of vampire, they are all referred to as “vampires,” and there is never any confusion between them. Nobody’s saying that horror film zombies are the same thing as voodoo zombies, just that the word “zombie” can be used to refer to both. Given artists create their own universes, it’s actually rather insulting to them to insist on referring to their creatures as ghouls when they named them otherwise. Certainly, to say “the zombies in this work fall under the ghoul archetype” is fine, but insisting they’re using the wrong word is not. It’s not as though they’re writing a story which represents voodoo completely wrong, in which case correction would be in order, they’re writing an unrelated story with creatures that are somewhat similar to others, and deciding that the term “zombie” would serve as a fitting description for theirs, which makes perfect sense, more so now as it has become part of the definition.

If I create a sci-fi creature with a single horn and refer to it as unicorn because of such, is it wrong because it’s not a rhinoceros or the aforementioned stag-like creature, or a horned horse? When aliens or phenomena are referred to as “angels,” is this wrong because they’re not actually mythological Hebrew beings? If I decide to name a creature zibbadeen, am I somehow even more wrong, because “that word doesn’t mean anything at all”? Language develops this way, using already existing terms for similar or reminiscent things so they bring connotations and impact along with them. As long as it’s thoroughly clear what the creatures are, there shouldn’t be a problem. Nobody’s attempting to trick others into thinking their horror zombies are voodoo zombies.

Philosophical zombies aren’t voodoo zombies; I’m surprised you pasted that bit. Do they count, or is that an incorrect term as well?

 Signature 

Old post count: 3,394,206

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 July 2013 02:32 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 15 ]
Active Member
Avatar
RankRank
Total Posts:  665
Joined  2006-11-10
Sockratease - 06 July 2013 07:04 AM

I thought a Zombie was an unusually loyal reader of Marvel Comics.

They even coined the term Marvel Zombie to describe themselves.

This is the earliest definition of Zombie I ever heard, so in my chronology (external and historical timelines don’t count!) - it’s the Original use of the term and will always be what I associate with it before any of your crazy death related definitions.

Everything is subjective…

Shhhhhh, you’re not supposed to give that away.

 Signature 

Old post count: 3,394,206

Profile
 
 
   
1 of 4
1