Ninja vs Zombies - Or is it? From the Art Studio.

2»

Comments

  • Tramp GraphicsTramp Graphics Posts: 2,144
    edited December 1969

    And "popular culture" is WRONG!!!! By definition, these creatures are ghouls. They act like ghouls, they look like ghouls. They meet all of the defining characteristics of ghouls. The use of the word Zombie for these creatures is a grievous error which should never have gotten started, and needs to be stamped out. Just because a lot of people do it, does not make it right. People call these things "Zombies" because they don't know any better. If they did, most likely, they'd stop using the wrong term. If a person does know better and continue to perpetuate it, that's willful ignorance of the worst kind because it is deliberately misleading. I will not perpetuate that kind of error. So, if a person doesn't know what you're talking about, correct them. These creatures are not Zombies. Thery are Ghouls, and need to be referred to as such. Period.

    Be that as it may you won't change popular opinion, it's too much like trying to hold back the tide with a sandcastle. Therefore until some crazy leap in human thinking occurs, a zombie will always be known as a flesh-eating plague-bringer.

    Besides, the word 'Ghoul' just doesn't sound as fun as 'Zombie'...Here's the problem with that thinking. "opinions" can't be right or wrong. Facts can. Whether or not these creatures are "Zombies" or "ghouls" is a matter of fact, not opinion. The fact is that these creatures are Ghouls, not Zombies. Whether one word "sounds better" than another is a matter of opinion. And in all honesty, "ghoul" sounds much creepier, and far more macabre.

  • agent unawaresagent unawares Posts: 3,513
    edited December 1969

    Here's the problem with that thinking. "opinions" can't be right or wrong. Facts can. Whether or not these creatures are "Zombies" or "ghouls" is a matter of fact, not opinion. The fact is that these creatures are Ghouls, not Zombies. Whether one word "sounds better" than another is a matter of opinion. And in all honesty, "ghoul" sounds much creepier, and far more macabre.

    I'm on my lunch break so have no time for an in-depth reply now, but here's the problem with applying "this is a matter of fact" to mythological creatures...

    They don't actually exist.

    Question: Are the "realistic" voodoo zombies [humans drugged into a mindless state and set to work] zombies? Or are they only zombies if they follow the original mythological context, in which a spirit/force has entered into a dead body and possessed it? If non-supernatural voodoo zombies qualify, surely a necromancer's zombies count, they've been resurrected supernaturally, are under control, and are incapable of conscious thought, they're just a heck of a lot more effective.

    And let's look at this a little more abstractly for a moment, since we seem to be stuck on defining what a voodoo zombie is repetitively [when it's absolutely irrelevant to whether definitions can or should or do change. We all already know what it is, and what it applies to, the question is whether it can have a secondary definition]: Are words which [sound identical / are spelled identical, pick your poison] to English ones, used in other languages, all incorrect if they don't have the definition of the English one? Beecause that is precisely the crux of the matter here, whether a collection of sounds and of letters can have multiple definitions without some implying the others are wrong.

    I reiterate, the original definition is not changing. The word "zombie" is still perfectly legitimate when applied to voodoo slaves whether or not it applies to other things. We don't need to know what it means, what we need to know is why should it not also mean something else [especially when it does].

    And if it shouldn't, why would you ever apply the word ghoul to a horror zombie? That's not even close to the Islamic folklore. I'll accept it because I accept that language changes. Why do you accept it? A good percentage of horror zombies have no supernatural element to them at all, they're far more removed from ghouls than from voodoo zombies.

    "These creatures already have a name" isn't a legitimate argument. Most real creatures have far more than one term which applies to them, let alone mythological ones.

    Insistence that the defining characteristic of a horror zombie is hunger for human flesh confuses me. With limited exception, generally comedic, it is and always has been mindlessness.

  • SockrateaseSockratease Posts: 813
    edited July 2013

    What if a classic VoodyDoody guy orders his traditional mindless Zombie slaves to "Go Forth and EAT BRAINS!! Flesh too."

    Then zombies would be brain eating flesh eaters, right?

    There are a few problems with that scenario. First, it's too vague a command. A Zombie wouldn't know what to do to accomplish that. To attack and kill does require some "creative problem solving", something zombies lack. They would need specific instruction on who to attack, and what to do. Secondly, Zombies ate docile by nature. Unless given a task to accomplish, they just stand there oblivious to their surroundings. That's also why they don't make good guards. Third, they certainly wouldn't be able to "turn" their victims into one of them. Simply put, it's beyond their capabilities.

    You underestimate VoodyDoody Guys!

    Giving such instructions is no more complicated than any other set of instructions.

    Just go kill and eat any humans they encounter - besides Chief VoodyDoody Guys! (Lower Level VoodyDoody Guys are on their own)

    It's quite simple, actually.

    You just like Zombies too much to envision them in this role - but it's possible.

    I think I'll go give mine those very instructions tonight. Watch the news tomorrow to see if it works! If there's no story, it means the zombies got all the reporters and the experiment will be deemed a success!!

    Post edited by Sockratease on
  • Herald of FireHerald of Fire Posts: 3,489
    edited December 1969

    Here's the problem with that thinking. "opinions" can't be right or wrong. Facts can. Whether or not these creatures are "Zombies" or "ghouls" is a matter of fact, not opinion. The fact is that these creatures are Ghouls, not Zombies. Whether one word "sounds better" than another is a matter of opinion. And in all honesty, "ghoul" sounds much creepier, and far more macabre.

    And the 'fact' is that most people refer to the walking dead as a zombie. It's the same as the popular phrase 'do a barrel roll' even though what the Arwings actually perform is known as an aileron roll. Tell someone to do the latter and unless they're a pilot they'll probably just stare at you in a puzzled way.

    Changes in language shouldn't be stifled, they should be embraced. After all, if we didn't have fun with words we'd still be talking olde English and writing our 'The' words with a Y.

  • EwokzombieEwokzombie Posts: 0
    edited December 1969

    “If you have a gun, shoot 'em in the head. That's a sure way to kill 'em. If you don't, get yourself a club or a torch. Beat 'em or burn 'em. They go up pretty easy.”

    This thread is way too serious on what defines a ghoul over a zombie or a zombie over a ghoul. It’s a pointless argument like how to pronounce neanderthal.

    From what I’ve read, a ghoul is more of a demonic and intelligent creature and a zombie typically refers to the living dead that has limited to no intelligence. Comparing that to what you see in the movies and make your own decision.

    As for artwork like the one the original post linked to, who the hell cares what the artist calls them. It’s the artists creative rights to call them whatever they want.

  • Tramp GraphicsTramp Graphics Posts: 2,144
    edited December 1969

    Here's the problem with that thinking. "opinions" can't be right or wrong. Facts can. Whether or not these creatures are "Zombies" or "ghouls" is a matter of fact, not opinion. The fact is that these creatures are Ghouls, not Zombies. Whether one word "sounds better" than another is a matter of opinion. And in all honesty, "ghoul" sounds much creepier, and far more macabre.
    I'm on my lunch break so have no time for an in-depth reply now, but here's the problem with applying "this is a matter of fact" to mythological creatures...

    They don't actually exist.

    Question: Are the "realistic" voodoo zombies [humans drugged into a mindless state and set to work] zombies? Or are they only zombies if they follow the original mythological context, in which a spirit/force has entered into a dead body and possessed it? If non-supernatural voodoo zombies qualify, surely a necromancer's zombies count, they've been resurrected supernaturally, are under control, and are incapable of conscious thought, they're just a heck of a lot more effective.

    And let's look at this a little more abstractly for a moment, since we seem to be stuck on defining what a voodoo zombie is repetitively [when it's absolutely irrelevant to whether definitions can or should or do change. We all already know what it is, and what it applies to, the question is whether it can have a secondary definition]: Are words which [sound identical / are spelled identical, pick your poison] to English ones, used in other languages, all incorrect if they don't have the definition of the English one? Because that is precisely the crux of the matter here, whether a collection of sounds and of letters can have multiple definitions without some implying the others are wrong.

    I reiterate, the original definition is not changing. The word "zombie" is still perfectly legitimate when applied to voodoo slaves whether or not it applies to other things. We don't need to know what it means, what we need to know is why should it not also mean something else [especially when it does].

    And if it shouldn't, why would you ever apply the word ghoul to a horror zombie? That's not even close to the Islamic folklore. I'll accept it because I accept that language changes. Why do you accept it? A good percentage of horror zombies have no supernatural element to them at all, they're far more removed from ghouls than from voodoo zombies.

    "These creatures already have a name" isn't a legitimate argument. Most real creatures have far more than one term which applies to them, let alone mythological ones.

    Insistence that the defining characteristic of a horror zombie is hunger for human flesh confuses me. With limited exception, generally comedic, it is and always has been mindlessness.First off, the creatures having a proper name already is very relevant. The reason why "Zombie" should not mean "something else", is because that "something else" is another named creature. And, contrary to what you may think, most "mythological" creatures typically only have one name, with few exceptions. Like I said, it's like calling a horse a cat.

    The thing about Voodoo Zombies (the real Zombie), is that the Haitian people believe that the person has actually died and been brought back as a soul-less Zombie. As in the case of Clairvius Narcisse, even the doctors who initially examined him thought he was indeed dead. That is part of the "magic" involved. The person is seemingly slain, and then brought back as a Zombie. This follows with the "necromancer" too. The thing about raising a person as a zombie is that their souls are not returned to their bodies. They seemingly reanimated without souls, and thus, without consciousness, or wills of their own. They are, essentially, puppets. Their souls are believed to have been stolen from them. The Haitian people believe that a Zombie can regain his soul, and thus return to life, though that individual still bears the stigma of having been a Zombie.

    As for the ghouls of horror movies, which people have been erroneously calling "zombies", yes, it does fit with the original meaning of the term "ghoul". Whether they're truly "supernatural" or not is irrelevant, because what ancient people may have considered "supernatural", isn't necessarily so in actuality. The ancients didn't understand the concept of viruses nor bacteria. They believed all plagues and diseases were caused by supernatural forces. And, something as monsterous as a retched, "diseased" ghoul hungering for human flesh, and turning other into them would certainly be considered demonic and supernatural to them. Like the late, great Isaac Asimov once said, "any sufficiently advanced technology" (or, in this case, scientific understanding), "is indistinguishable from magic to a less advanced culture." Thus, for the sake of argument, if an ancient Arab were to see such a creature digging up graves and eating corpses, killing and devouring people, and infecting others causing them to turn into one of their kind, they would certainly consider these things to be "evil spirits" or "demons" which crave human flesh. They would know them as ghouls.

    So, yes, these creatures do meet the fundamental criteria of ghouls, not zombies. Thus, Ghoul is a much more accurate term (even if not 100%) to refer to them as, not Zombie.

    Also, the crux of the matter here is not whether a word which means one thing in one language can mean something else in another; particularly in this case because the word in question was specifically taken from that other language and misapplied. Both "zombie" and "ghoul" originate from different languages, but their meanings transferred to English unchanged. Both words have been part of the English language in their true original meanings, for a very long time.

    Simply put, "Zombie" and "Ghoul" are not synonymous with each other. They are completely different "monsters", with very different defining characteristics. The Hollywood "zombie" exhibits the defining characteristics of a ghoul, not a zombie. Ergo, it is not a zombie, it is a ghoul and should be referred to as such.

    And the ‘fact’ is that most people refer to the walking dead as a zombie. It’s the same as the popular phrase ‘do a barrel roll’ even though what the Arwings actually perform is known as an aileron roll. Tell someone to do the latter and unless they’re a pilot they’ll probably just stare at you in a puzzled way.

    Changes in language shouldn’t be stifled, they should be embraced. After all, if we didn’t have fun with words we’d still be talking olde English and writing our ‘The’ words with a Y.

    Some "Walking dead" are indeed zombies; specifically those raised to be slaves of the Bokor (or necromancer) who raised them. The flesh-eaters, however, are not zombies. They're ghouls. If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, acts like a duck, quacks like a duck, looks like a duck, sounds like a duck, guess what; its a duck. The same with these ghouls people erroneously call "zombies". If it looks like a ghoul, walks like a ghoul, behaves like a ghoul, attacks people and devours their flesh like a ghoul, guess what. It's a ghoul.

    “If you have a gun, shoot ‘em in the head. That’s a sure way to kill ‘em. If you don’t, get yourself a club or a torch. Beat ‘em or burn ‘em. They go up pretty easy.”

    This thread is way too serious on what defines a ghoul over a zombie or a zombie over a ghoul. It’s a pointless argument like how to pronounce neanderthal.

    From what I’ve read, a ghoul is more of a demonic and intelligent creature and a zombie typically refers to the living dead that has limited to no intelligence. Comparing that to what you see in the movies and make your own decision.

    As for artwork like the one the original post linked to, who the hell cares what the artist calls them. It’s the artists creative rights to call them whatever they want. The legends and folklore don't really say much about the intelligence of ghouls, and what little is mentioned does vary from story to story. And, if you think about it, a creature like this who relentlessly attacks people and devours their flesh, infects others turning them into one of their kind, can certainly be considered "demonic", regardless of whether they're "supernatural" or not.

  • ColemanRughColemanRugh Posts: 437
    edited December 1969

    Fans of Rob Zombie are called Ghouls... I think .

    Hey! Who threw that rotten tomato?!

  • Tramp GraphicsTramp Graphics Posts: 2,144
    edited December 1969

    j87brown said:
    j87brown said:
    I've noticed something that mr (or mrs) Tramp has failed to note. In Night of the Living Dead, and it's sequels, the Zombies (yes I said it, and yes it was to tick you off) are called ghouls, those things, creatures, ZOMBIES (land of the Dead: Kaufman comments "Zombies, man, They creep me out"), as well as various other terms. So you can't just go and say they're ghouls either. If you really want to be all anal retentive about terms and definitions, just do what most everyone else does: call them undead. Truthfully, it's way more precise and accurate than ghoul and it will shorten this thread war by hundreds of pages while saving any semblances of friendshipshared by all involved.
    Nope, I did not fail to note that. I mentioned that a looong time ago. You'd best go back and re-read my posts. One of the specific things I mentioned is that George Romero (the guy who made Night of the Living Dead) originally called these creatures Ghouls in his movie. IT was his fans which first called them "Zombies". And, yes, I can say that they're Ghouls because they do meet the defining characteristics of ghouls, namely, a corporeal "undead", "evil spirit", or "demon" with the insatiable hunger for human flesh, and which is capable of turning a human into one of their kind. "Undead" is a much more generalized term which can be applied to a myriad number of beings, ranging from zombies, skeletons, and ghouls, to vampires, mummies, liches, spectres, wraiths, and ghosts.

    After rereading your posts, I've also noticed that you like to argue a lot. And are very unreasonable, and don't like to be wrong, much less challenged. Like when anyone else has a valid opinion you automatically don't like it, and since it's not the same as you believe, there's no way in heaven, hell, or earth that it could be feasible. No one else on earth could be right because their points don't match yours.Well excuse me for wanting people to use the proper terminology for something. It really isn't all that unreasonable. And yes, whether a creature is more accurately called by one name vs another, based upon their defining characteristics, is a matter of facts, and not opinion. It's either right or wrong. And to say that these creatures a re zombies, is, by the very definition of the word "zombie" wrong. The defining characteristics of these "creatures" is that of Ghouls. Thus, the term "ghoul" is more accurate to describe these things. "Zombie" and "Ghoul:" are not synonymous. They are completely different forms of undead. And the creatures we see in these movies most closely resembles Ghouls in their defining characteristics. Ergo, they are ghouls, not zombies.
  • Richard HaseltineRichard Haseltine Posts: 46,199
    edited December 1969

    Time to drop the argument over the correct name for a sub-class of undead creatures.

  • Dr StupidDr Stupid Posts: 313
    edited December 1969

    Time to drop the argument over the correct name for a sub-class of undead creatures.

    Shame! This his been my favourite thread for days! As a seasoned word fascist myself I favour ditching language completely and reverting to grunting and pointing. Much easier.

    Ug!

  • Richard HaseltineRichard Haseltine Posts: 46,199
    edited December 1969

    Uh-uh.

  • SimonJMSimonJM Posts: 4,911
    edited December 1969

    Time to drop the argument over the correct name for a sub-class of undead creatures.

    I feel a bit ghoulish picking over this zombiefied thread .... ;)

  • SockrateaseSockratease Posts: 813
    edited December 1969

    Time to drop the argument over the correct name for a sub-class of undead creatures.

    Well, that means it's time for the Kitty Pictures then, right?

    h1F78F700.jpg
    472 x 700 - 62K
  • agent unawaresagent unawares Posts: 3,513
    edited December 1969

    We were working at cross-purposes anyway. There's little point in debate when one side's dissecting language and the other just wants to make the definition of a single word really clear.

    As long as this is going to pictures:

    funny-humor-tripping-warning-zombie-Favim.com-138491_.jpg
    550 x 400 - 59K
  • FixmypcmikeFixmypcmike Posts: 17,301
    edited December 1969

    After all, if we didn't have fun with words we'd still be talking olde English and writing our 'The' words with a Y.

    As long as we're being pedantic:
    It's not Y, it's Thorn http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorn_(letter)
    The word "the" is Middle English, not Old English
    No one speaks olde English, as there is no such language

  • agent unawaresagent unawares Posts: 3,513
    edited July 2013

    After all, if we didn't have fun with words we'd still be talking olde English and writing our 'The' words with a Y.

    As long as we're being pedantic:
    It's not Y, it's Thorn http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorn_(letter)
    The word "the" is Middle English, not Old English
    No one speaks olde English, as there is no such language
    More pedantry for the amusement of the populace:
    The later form of thorn is essentially a "Y" in the current English alphabet, not because of the name but because of the shape, just like two sticks crossed make an "X" whether they were intended to be a letter or not. A little down the Wikipedia entry it even notes this, and the way it essentially became indistinguishable from the letter "Y" when used in in abbreviations later.
    "Olde" is just a variant way to spell old, intended to lend quaintness, not a time frame nor a specific type of English.

    Post edited by agent unawares on
  • ChoholeChohole Posts: 28,684
    edited December 1969

    After all, if we didn't have fun with words we'd still be talking olde English and writing our 'The' words with a Y.

    As long as we're being pedantic:
    It's not Y, it's Thorn http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorn_(letter)
    The word "the" is Middle English, not Old English
    No one speaks olde English, as there is no such language

    The oldest British languages still spoken are Welsh / Cornish, and Scots / Irish / Manx gaelic and even they have changed over the years from the older, truer form

    Y is a word in Welsh....it means the.

    English is a mongrel language, a mixture of languages brought here by the various invading groups, so has Latin, German, French and even Viking influencing the dictionary and structure of the original language.

  • SimonJMSimonJM Posts: 4,911
    edited December 1969

    chohole said:

    The oldest British languages still spoken are Welsh .....

    That's only because some of the original sentences are STILL waiting to be finished ... ;)
  • ChoholeChohole Posts: 28,684
    edited December 1969

    y ddraig goch a ddyry cychwyn

  • Dr StupidDr Stupid Posts: 313
    edited December 1969

    Actually Olde English was a specific language, spoken in Days of Olde. Much like the oft overlooked Yore English.

    And the Red Dragon does indeed lead the way. But that's largely because Saint George went and slew ours. Idiot.

  • ChoholeChohole Posts: 28,684
    edited December 1969

    Dr Stupid said:
    Actually Olde English was a specific language, spoken in Days of Olde. Much like the oft overlooked Yore English.

    And the Red Dragon does indeed lead the way. But that's largely because Saint George went and slew ours. Idiot.

    ROFL

  • Richard HaseltineRichard Haseltine Posts: 46,199
    edited December 1969

    Dr Stupid said:
    Actually Olde English was a specific language, spoken in Days of Olde. Much like the oft overlooked Yore English.

    And the Red Dragon does indeed lead the way. But that's largely because Saint George went and slew ours. Idiot.

    The Dragon George slew was in Georgia, I thought (thus proving it was the British, not Columbus or the Vikings, who were the first Europeans in the Americas).

  • SimonJMSimonJM Posts: 4,911
    edited December 1969

    chohole said:
    y ddraig goch a ddyry cychwyn

    LOL, dare I say ... QED? :)

    I thought St George was most likely to be of Turkish (or at least Levantine) origin. Probably just as well, as he might have gone for the red dragon ;)

  • Jay_NOLAJay_NOLA Posts: 1,145
    edited July 2013

    Wanted to quickly mention that we have a creature called a preta in Sandscript that becomes the egui (I think the spelling may be different depending on how you translate it as I've seen it spelled egui and e gui.) in Chinese and the gaki in Japanese which are undead spirits that are hungry. Often it gets translated s hungry ghost into English.

    Most are harmless, but some do feed on flesh and blood, but hunger for other things Exact appearances vary. What they hunger for also varies greatly.

    One text I have give the translation of gaki as being hungry ghoul. (One of the authors of that book was an individual I used to chat with online years ago and is considered an expert in Japanese language & history who has authored several books on Japanese history.)

    Gaki is a word that now can mean a small child, the person who is "it" in a game of tag, a punk, or an immature person too in Japanese. (This meaning didn't start showing up as much a it does now I've noticed till recently.)

    While doing some quick research online into this many sites don't even mention the hungry ghost definition when you look up the word gaki and only mention the small child meaning. Most of the few that do give the hungry ghost definition tend to be RPG ones that most likely have errors in the description of them. Thankfully I've got a pretty decent library on folklore and mythological creatures along with numerous academic papers on them.

    A few texts call gaki a type of oni (Japanese Demons or Ogres), but this is highly debatable as exactly what an oni is that has changed over the years. (One academic papers I've got goes into extensive detail on how oni have changed and how they are becoming very different from what they are in folklore and historical tales is a result of modern depictions of them. )

    Anyway we have Claudio Argento to blame for the whole ghoul & zombie mess as was pointed out by others.

    Post edited by Jay_NOLA on
  • SimonJMSimonJM Posts: 4,911
    edited December 1969

    Jay_NOLA said:
    Wanted to quickly mention that we have a creature called a preta in Sandscript that becomes the egui (I think the spelling may be different depending on how you translate it as I've seen it spelled egui and e gui.) in Chinese and the gaki in Japanese which are undead spirits that are hungry. Often it gets translated s hungry ghost into English.

    Most are harmless, but some do feed on flesh and blood, but hunger for other things Exact appearances vary. What they hunger for also varies greatly.

    One text I have give the translation of gaki as being hungry ghoul. (One of the authors of that book was an individual I used to chat with online years ago and is considered an expert in Japanese language & history who has authored several books on Japanese history.)

    Gaki is a word that now can mean a small child, the person who is "it" in a game of tag, a punk, or an immature person too in Japanese. (This meaning didn't start showing up as much a it does now I've noticed till recently.)

    While doing some quick research online into this many sites don't even mention the hungry ghost definition when you look up the word gaki and only mention the small child meaning. Most of the few that do give the hungry ghost definition tend to be RPG ones that most likely have errors in the description of them. Thankfully I've got a pretty decent library on folklore and mythological creatures along with numerous academic papers on them.

    A few texts call gaki a type of oni (Japanese Demons or Ogres), but this is highly debatable as exactly what an oni is that has changed over the years. (One academic papers I've got goes into extensive detail on how oni have changed and how they are becoming very different from what they are in folklore and historical tales is a result of modern depictions of them. )

    Anyway we have Claudio Argento to blame for the whole ghoul & zombie mess as was pointed out by others.


    The RPG "Bushido" certainly has (from memory) the Gaki as 'hungry ghost' :)
  • Jay_NOLAJay_NOLA Posts: 1,145
    edited December 1969

    Bushido one of the best RPG ever made and FGU still sells it too. You are dead on the money Bushido calls gaki hungry ghosts in it. :)

    Interestingly Aftermath! a sister game that uses many of the same mechanics gives these definitions for ghoul & zombie in it and the various expansions. Figure I'd dig that game out after Bushido got mentioned.

    Book 3 of the Core rules defines a ghoul as a cannibalistic human. I've seen the term used in Aftermath! to be one that lots dead corpses too in a few places in the various books.

    Aftermath! Scenario Pack: Into The Ruins has zomboes that are like the traditional zombie created by a bokor. In this case they wee created via a biological agent and can be controlled. We also have cannibalistic humans called ghouls like in the core rules in it.

    Aftermath! Magic defines a zombie as an magically animated human corpse.

    Aftermath! Survival Guide has section on Zombie campaigns and uses the modern ghoul like definition of them. It also has details on how an outbreak would look like if it was caused by a virus that could be transmitted via bite.

    And the other sister game to Bushido Daredevils has a zombie int he the one adventure in Daredevils Adventures 3: Supernatural Thrillers. In the adventure the zombie is a cursed walking dead individual who is intelligent and is forced to wander the earth till an object is returned to its rightful owner.

    Also, if any one is interested a detailed model of how an outbreak of would look like if one were working that it was a virus and were going by the modern pop culture definition of a zombie has been done and published. (Yes, grant money at a university was spent to do this. Also, the out beak formulas are very different from what David S. hammer gave in the Aftermath! Survival Guide.)

    http://mysite.science.uottawa.ca/rsmith43/Zombies.pdf


    SimonJM said:
    Jay_NOLA said:
    Wanted to quickly mention that we have a creature called a preta in Sandscript that becomes the egui (I think the spelling may be different depending on how you translate it as I've seen it spelled egui and e gui.) in Chinese and the gaki in Japanese which are undead spirits that are hungry. Often it gets translated s hungry ghost into English.

    Most are harmless, but some do feed on flesh and blood, but hunger for other things Exact appearances vary. What they hunger for also varies greatly.

    One text I have give the translation of gaki as being hungry ghoul. (One of the authors of that book was an individual I used to chat with online years ago and is considered an expert in Japanese language & history who has authored several books on Japanese history.)

    Gaki is a word that now can mean a small child, the person who is "it" in a game of tag, a punk, or an immature person too in Japanese. (This meaning didn't start showing up as much a it does now I've noticed till recently.)

    While doing some quick research online into this many sites don't even mention the hungry ghost definition when you look up the word gaki and only mention the small child meaning. Most of the few that do give the hungry ghost definition tend to be RPG ones that most likely have errors in the description of them. Thankfully I've got a pretty decent library on folklore and mythological creatures along with numerous academic papers on them.

    A few texts call gaki a type of oni (Japanese Demons or Ogres), but this is highly debatable as exactly what an oni is that has changed over the years. (One academic papers I've got goes into extensive detail on how oni have changed and how they are becoming very different from what they are in folklore and historical tales is a result of modern depictions of them. )

    Anyway we have Claudio Argento to blame for the whole ghoul & zombie mess as was pointed out by others.


    The RPG "Bushido" certainly has (from memory) the Gaki as 'hungry ghost' :)
Sign In or Register to comment.