“The correction pen in hand”? What does that have to do with anything I said?
What on earth are you talking about? You’re making less sense than a typical episode of a bad TV show!
-Tom
I’ll certainly grant that he’s better than most of the people on the show. I really like him.
-Tom
CSL
3363
What on earth are you talking about?
This is the same town depicted in the first episode. Morgan is still there. His son has died and he had a drawn map which shows Rick’s burnt out house. The map points it out. They went to the exact same armory which we saw in the first episode. This is the most consistent episode we’ve seen in two years and also the best.
I get the feeling you and that Hex fellow are confusing me with someone who cares where Rick’s house is. But you make a compelling argument for something that I couldn’t care less about. Well done?
-Tom
I appreciate Rick’s situation, but there were any number of options Rick could have followed rather than ‘leave him to die and then take his stuff after’. Sure you don’t put a hitchhiker in the car with you, especially when your son is in the car, but they could have bound and blindfolded him and took him, even if not to the prison, then at least somewhere that isn’t in the middle of nowhere. At worst case, you try to save his life, keeping your humanity intact, at best case, you have an able body willing to help defend the prison.
Too many people have died already, to condemn another to death without giving him a chance does not make you any better than the walkers themselves.
jason
3366
Rick/hiker is not comparable to Daryl/family. The family was being actively attacked. He helped them. If it hadn’t been for his brother… well, it probably would have ended the same way, with Daryl and Merle going their way and sending the family along theirs. The hiker was not being attacked. He was walking. Could he have used a lift? Sure. Did he NEED one? No. Even when Rick drove away from the wreck, the hiker was not in any known immediate danger. Rick and company had killed all the zombies at the wreck. If the hiker hadn’t been yelling, he probably would have been okay.
HEX716
3367
If you didn’t care why did you bother mentioning it? We were just pointing out it wasn’t some random place thats all, some of us enjoy the details I guess. Re-read what you wrote I think you forgot already? By correction pen in hand I was just saying that it seems you are going into each episode looking for things wrong instead of just enjoying them from your comments on the last few. I’ll leave your comments alone from now on…sorry.
Exactly what a pedant would say!
At any rate, I didn’t mention Rick’s house. You did. I have no idea why you think I care where Rick lived and I have no idea why you think I’m using a “correction pen” when I go into every episode. But I get the sense that you’re terribly butt-hurt that someone didn’t like your show. Lighten up, Francis, because the internet is full of people who might not like something you liked.
-Tom
MikeJ
3369
As other’s have mentioned, what’s contrived about running into Morgan the last place you saw him? Assuming the town isn’t too far away, Rick has a good reason to go there. Morgan has a good reason to stay (his ‘clearing’ penance). It’s not like they just happened to bump into each other on a different continent.
Of course they were comparable. Did the hiker need a lift? Well, clearly he thought he did - not “can I get a ride?” but “I’m begging you!” as desperately as he could. And what were the results of him getting ignored twice (in a clear non-ambush situation for the fans of that excuse)? Death. Sounds like need to me.
Exactly - the thing is to not care about the comments of people who don’t care simply because they are willfully ignorant. Their opinions hold little value.
;-)
That’s a fair question. And I know that the show’s producers and writers have said that these ARE elements that they deliberately trying to show. Looking at my last comments I can see how I’m giving the impression that I think these aren’t good guys.
I do think they are ‘good’ guys though(Rick and Daryl). For instance, Daryl with or without Merle, has shown he could get along fine without anyone’s help. Yet he stays with the group, even facing possible death. Rick has made many decisions as leader where he tries to take everyone’s interests into consideration, even when it means risking all he has(as with the prisoners).
The problem is that being a good guy doesn’t mean you always have to do the good thing. That hitchhiker is a prime example. Whether you’re a good guy, or bad guy, the smart thing to do is not stop for that guy. You are risking too much by stopping and best case scenario that one guy can’t offer you any benefit to justify that risk.
In Daryl’s situation, he was wandering around not doing much of anything except being annoyed by his brother. Daryl has become used to kicking ass, and here was a chance for him to kick some ass. Merle’s reluctance to take part only served to motivate Daryl more, couldn’t you see that? I believe Merle’s attempt to rob these people is where the ‘good’ Daryl appeared, not in Daryl’s decision to fight alongside these people. Daryl could see that if it was him and his brother wandering the countryside, it was going to be as highway robbers. I think that is what caused Daryl want to rejoin the group.
I’m not saying you think they aren’t good guys. Rather, I’m saying you’re rationalizing everything to the point where you feel there good guys only when it’s rational to act in a good way. Moreover, you’re doubling down by implying that Daryl wouldn’t have helped them if Merl wasn’t there to goad him into it, thereby making it rational: i.e., that Daryl’s actions are a reaction to circumstances rather than a manifestation of his morality, despite the circumstances.
Let me simplify: Daryl helped them because it was the right thing to do, with no expectation of gain and in spite of risk to himself. Daryl would have done it even if Merl wasn’t there. He’s a good guy. Being with the group has given him the ability to do that, even when it goes against his brother.
Over-rationalizing (including saying he does it for fun) cheapens him being a good guy. We had the same discussion when the Sofia barn scene came up. I think you take the view that everyone in the show (and in life?) acts only after completing a pure, rational analysis including a full cost/benefit workup. As I mentioned before, altruism can result in taking actions that aren’t rational. In fact, you can’t spot altruism except in circumstances when someone clearly acts against their own self-interest for the benefit of others: altruism is identified by decisions that run contrary to rationalism.
You said it better than I could, Steps.
I will add that however Rick may be failing his hero test, he has simply gone through the wringer of late, and the cruel choices that the ZA forces on the characters is still enjoyable from a watchers viewpoint (even if in an uncomfortable way).
I like the Rick “falling” storyline and I’m looking forward to whether he finds his way back to old Rick or not. The ZA is very biblical and Rick is Job. It’s easy (or at least easier) to be a “good” man in our comfortable world. Maintaining morality and selflessness in adversity is the true test: in other words, failing to do what is rationally the stupid thing is the tragedy. Of course, doing the right thing could send you to your grave (a bit of Malcolm’s point).
MikeJ
3376
Or send your son to his grave. The calculus of “hero == selfless risks to help others” becomes more complicated when the selfless actions are also endangering the people who depend on you. Rick’s son and daughter no longer have a mother because he was a good guy and gave the prisoners the benefit of the doubt.
Absolutely. No one said being Job is easy. It certainly ain’t always rational. That’s why it’s drama!
Rick risked his family when he went after Merl and when he saved the guy who attacked them. Lori even reminded him of that both times, IIRC. Again, a key aspect of Walking Dead is facing the fact that morality is a lot easier in a safe world, just as it was easy for Job to be faithful when times were good. Shane, for example, was probably viewed as a “good” guy in the normal world. Post-ZA, he became rational and ruthless, though not necessarily a “bad” guy. The true test of morality is when you do have to sacrifice to be moral. This season, Rick has been truly seeing the cost of altruism and he’s buckling. There’s no right answer on whether old Rick or new Rick is better.
This is why I tend to see it so differently than a lot of people I guess, I don’t think morality is easier in a safe world, I think the only time it’s possible to even be a priority is in a safe world.
You can’t be a lawful good character when there is no law. It’s the difference between being immoral and amoral. They are living in an amoral world. Once the moral structure is gone then everyone is operating on the same primal level “what keeps me and mine alive?”. When Rick spared the prisoners, he could feel good about doing ‘the right thing’ I suppose, except the standards of what makes it the right thing were long since destroyed. So really he’s only fooling himself, even Lori told him he was free to decide death and not be a lesser man for it.
While D&D alignments are a terrible starting point for a discussion on morality, I think you’re off even in your own example. “Lawful” and “good” are two separate attributes even in that system. Hence, chaotic good. You can’t be “lawful good” when there’s no law just because of the “lawful” bit, not the “good” bit.
At the risk of oversimplifying, I’d say morality are internal strictures while laws are external strictures. Both can influence the actions of an individual, but they’re not the same. One could argue that law should ideally mirror morality, but it certaintly doesn’t need to. The absence of one doesn’t wipe away the other. A psychopath can be law-abiding (e.g., out of a recognition and fear of consequences) and a saint can be virtuous in the wilderness.
Thus, a change in circumstances can instantly change law, as law exists as external strictures. So a change in circumstances, such as a ZA, would disrupt law. Morality, if it was ever truly morality that moved an individual (e.g., excluding the law-abiding psychopath) does not disappear with a change in circumstances. Or, at least, it does not change without a fundamental change in the individual from which the internal strictures arise. Again, I refer to Job: Job’s test was whether abrupt changes in the external could move the internal. It was a test of whether Job’s faith was the internal reflecting outwards or the other way around.
Oh, absolutely. I don’t care about that. But last I checked, contrivance isn’t strictly a facet of geography. :)
It’s contrived that Rick is going to run into a character who went missing in the first season. I actually thought it was a pretty cool touch to present an apocalypse as something where you lose track of people and don’t know what became of them (consider Amy Ryan as Tom Cruise’s neighbor and also later the mother at the ferry landing in War of the Worlds). But this being TV – a soap opera basically – no one who’s gone is gone. Lori, for instance. Merle. I guess we’ll never see Dale or T-Dog or Laurie Holden’s sister again, because they’re not audience favorites. You know what would earn my undying admiration in Walking Dead and never happen? If Daryl died. And didn’t reappear as a ghost.
The Morgan appearance is also contrived for the convenient tie-in to Rick’s madness and family issues. This being a soap opera, though, I don’t know what I expected. Maybe less awful dialogue for Morgan’s madness scene? Maybe not having to rely on a dopey brief bout of amnesia? This idea that Rick has to drive for umpteen miles to find guns so he can fight teh evil governor? Hey, look, I made a reference to geography after all!
So, yeah, contrived. I couldn’t care less where Rick’s house is. You guys are so hung up on minutiae that you can’t understand someone might have a problem with the bigger picture. I guess some people enjoy forests by standing in front of a tree and gazing at the bark.
-Tom
