Well, not really. Since society has fallen and money has no value, the men aren't "spendthrifts." As for the "cult of the gun," it's what protects them from zombies and the biker gang (who might have raped Fran but for the guns). But more tellingly, in good PC Orwellian fashion, Paffenroth reverses himself a couple of paragraphs later: "[A]fter Fran has thoroughly berated [the men] for their callous treatment of her, Peter readily agrees with her that henceforth she is to have a say in their plans, and is always to carry a gun from now on." Paffenroth then approvingly cites R. Wood in a footnote: "[Fran] progressively assumes a genuine autonomy, asserting herself against the men, insisting on possession of a gun, demanding to learn to pilot a machine."

Through his "analysis," Paffenroth mocks men for worshiping a "cult of the gun," but celebrates gun-totting women. And when he earlier berates Americans for embracing a "misguided kind of individualism" and "myth of the lone wolf," I presume he means men, because apparently women are not misguided in asserting "genuine autonomy."

Occasionally, Paffenroth does discuss zombies absent politics. And gets it wrong. He writes: "Part of the appeal of zombie movies also lies in their undeniable humor... no good zombie movie takes itself, or us, too seriously. A pretentious zombie movie is an oxymoron."

Excuse me, but has Paffenroth ever heard of Lucio Fulci? Fulci's seminal Zombie (aka Zombie 2), with its legendary eye-gouging scene, is unrelentingly grim and nihilistic, from its ponderous music, to its brutal imagery, to its despairing ending. Zombie packs a raw, visceral punch without a trace of humor. Both Dawn of the Dead and Zombie blew me away when I was a teenager. But when I saw Dawn of the Dead again some twenty years later, I found it tepid and dull. By contrast, I've remained ever-impressed with Zombie. Zombie may have been inspired by Dawn of the Dead (but perhaps not, according to its DVD's Special Features interviews), but in any event, Zombie is by far the better film.

Paffenroth concludes his book by writing "[Z]ombie movies have kept their edge and relevance for nearly forty years, outliving the Cold War, Soviet communism, 'free love,' the reactionary regimes of Reagan and Thatcher..." That's the second university press horror film book I've read this year that pointlessly refers to the "reactionary" Reagan and Thatcher administrations. Has this become obligatory now? Academia's answer to Hitchcock's film cameos? Such statements illustrate the hermetically sealed bubble that is academia. Paffenroth calls Reagan and Thatcher "reactionary" casually, as though it's a given. As something that "everyone knows" to be true. And I suppose in the Ivory Tower, it is.

The Ivory Tower's isolation is further illustrated in the fallout to my earlier, somewhat similar review on Amazon.com. Paffenroth's book was released this September. I posted its first Amazon review last Thursday night. Friday morning I received a cordial email from Paffenroth saying he'd found my review interesting. By Friday evening there were two new 5-star reviews (from people who'd never reviewed on Amazon before). The 5-star reviews had 6 and 7 "helpful" votes. My review had 18 "unhelpful" votes. (Those votes have since increased.) Quite a sudden flurry of activity, considering the book's Amazon page had been barren for nearly the whole month the book was out. Seems I'd struck a nerve and the author enlisted friends, family, and colleagues in a campaign.