In Which Guns Are Allowed

or

Further Thoughts on the Zombie Apocalypse

Thanks to +Alpha Bovine and his rabid fanity, I did get through season two of The Walking Dead.  Just in case you were wondering (unlikely), they did find the girl at long freaking last.  She was a zombie after all.  Surprise surprise.

Yes, more thoughts related to TWD. Whilst talking over the show with another rabid fan, a larger topic floated to the surface, and since it is related to current issues, I realized I should probably figure out what I thought about it.  As far as I can recall, one bit of our conversation went something like this:

Me: The "moral dilemmas" in TWD are totally fake.  There's no real tension at all.
Rabid Fan: What?  Which ones?
Me: Like when Rick is trying to decide whether to kill that kid or not. You know, kill the kid, or let the kid bring his group of thugs to the farm?
Rabid Fan: Seriously?  You mean if you were in a situation where someone was coming after your family, you wouldn't do everything you could to protect them?

After some wrangling in which I came out rather wrangled, I gave it some more thought and decided that as far as the legality/morality of self-defense (or defense of loved ones) is concerned, it boils down to a question of dilemma.  What exactly is at stake?

Him or Me

Scripture cites examples in which people lawfully killed other people in order to defend themselves or others: for instance, Moses kills an Egyptian to defend a Hebrew slave (Exodus 2:11-12), and Mordecai sends out an edict allowing the Jews to rally against the Persians to save their own and their children’s lives (Esther 8:10-12). My exegetical skillz are certainly not the best, and I'm sure there are better examples, but since neither Moses nor Mordecai was punished or reprimanded for these acts, I think the point stands. In addition, Exodus 22:2 states the issue explicitly:"If a thief is found breaking in and is struck so that he dies, there shall be no bloodguilt for him.”

For Moses, the dilemma is "Will you kill X, or let X harm/kill Y?" Similarly, for Mordecai the dilemma is "Will you allow X to kill Y, or allow Y to kill X?" What is at stake here? Not your reputation, your faith, your image (at least, not directly): your life, or the life of loved ones, or possibly your property. It is a "Him or Me" question, and the Exodus verse presents a key to the answer. When the dilemma is “This person will kill/rob/harm you/your loved ones unless you can kill him first,” killing him first is not a sin. There is no bloodguilt for straightforward self-defense, defense of others, or defense of property. It's okay for the "Him or Me," "Him or My Family," "Him or My House" choices to end badly for "Him." Hooray for the 2nd Amendment, and all that.

Christ or Me

However, there are also situations where it would appear that killing in self-defense is not okay.  For example, Stephen allows the Pharisees to stone him without lifting a finger (Acts 7:58-60). Other martyrs allowed themselves and their families to be killed in countless terrible ways; Jesus himself allowed others to torture and kill him without even getting angry.  What’s the difference between these situations and the first ones? From what I can tell, the dilemma itself has changed.
Suppose a gunman runs into a room full of people and says, “Hey you, kill the old lady or I start with the pregnant women.” What is at stake here? The dilemma is no longer "Him or me." The dilemma is now “You sin horribly, or I’ll sin horribly.” Somebody is going to sin horribly, and it shouldn’t be you. Here your faith in and obedience to Christ are at stake, and if you refuse to kill the old lady and Crazy Guy starts shooting the pregnant women, you have not sinned - he has.  That’s where Stephen and the martyrs come in; they had a choice between denying Christ and His commandments or denying themselves and their loved ones, and they chose to deny themselves. Another way to put it is in terms of obedience: they had a choice between obeying either Christ or "the gunman," and they chose to obey Christ.
This should be the outcome whether Christ himself is in question (as with Stephen), or "just" his commandments. It's easy to think that the stakes are lower if someone is not explicitly saying "Deny Christ or I kill you." What if instead they're saying, "Just make a sacrifice to Caesar. Just toss a little incense. Make a short prayer. Your children are surely worth that." The serpent didn't go up to Eve and say "Disobey God or I kill you." He said, "Just eat the fruit. God couldn't really have said that. It can't really be that big a deal." The world wants to downplay the choice, disguise the dilemma; but every choice it gives us is is some form of "Christ or Me." And when it's "Christ or me," we should be giving ourselves the short straw - not him. Obedience isn't optional. It's not that we take up our crosses and follow Christ unless some crazy gunman runs into a crowded room. We don't obey his commandments until our reputation, image, lives, loved ones are at stake. There are no provisos or exceptions. "If you love me, you will keep my commandments" (John 14:15). Period. Statement. End of sentence.

Thankfully, Jesus doesn't stop there.  He adds, "And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Helper, to be with you forever, even the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him.  You know him, for he dwells with you and will be with you" (John 14:16-17).  Suppose you have a crazy gunman situation: you aren't facing it alone.  Suppose a bunch of Nazis run into your house and order you to tell them where you're hiding the Jews: the Spirit is there.  Suppose you're told to shut up about Jesus in your professional life, or that if you refuse to work on Sundays you're lessening your chances for a good job, or that if you voice your opinions against gay marriage your political career is over: Christ has not abandoned you. "God is faithful, and he will not let you be tempted beyond your ability, but with the temptation he will also provide the way of escape, that you may be able to endure it" (I Cor 10:13).

Apply Liberally to Zombie TV

This is why the "dilemmas" in TWD are fake, much like the ones in The Hunger Games.  The story tellers do not understand the difference between "Him and me" and "Christ and me," or the fact that there is always a way of escape in temptation. (Even if they did, they would not understand choosing "Christ" and not "me.") Therefore, they have set events up so that there appears to be no difference and no escape. Though it’s not always a life-or-death decision, it often is.  Kill the little blond kid, Katniss, or he’ll kill little Rue.  Leave the stupid hick on the roof, T-Dog, or the others will leave you for the zombies.  Kill the helpless kid in cold blood, Rick, or he could tell his group where your family is. Because these choices are often mixed in with "legitimate" self-defense moments, it’s easy for a watcher to go with the flow and not realize what’s happening.  Sometimes we get a clue (like Rick’s wishy-washy “I’m going to kill him.  Wait no that’s wrong.  Wait no I have to.  Wait no I can’t.”), but it's clear that he's swinging in the wind because his moral compass is null and void.  It doesn’t point north because he doesn’t believe that north exists. If you don't believe in Christ, there is no "Christ or me" dilemma. There's just this vague notion that somehow it's not kosher, and Dale’s arguments about the group “going rotten” and “losing its humanity.” And without the possibility of "choosing" Christ, you have no basis for making a choice in any other dilemma - it just boils down to whatever you feel like doing.

To Gather Up The Crumbs...

Self-defense is great.  Owning guns is great.  I am totally okay with shooting potential robbers/rapists/murderers.  Count me in.  Two (opposable) thumbs up.  But when the dilemma changes, when someone draws a line and asks you to abandon either Christ or your family/friends/fellow men, with whom should you stick?  Applying that choice to everyday situations (not just the life-and-death ones) is the constant Christian challenge - it's where sanctification comes in, and where it's so good to remember that "Whoev

er loses his life for my sake will find it" (Matt. 16:25), and "Everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or lands, for my name's sake, will receive a hundredfold and will inherit eternal life” (Matt. 19:29).

Who else gives out promises like that?

Nobody.

Just saying.

Slathered With Good Humor and Charm

For those following the discussion of Pastors Wilson and Anyabwile regarding slavery, race, and racism (and for those, like me, who are just now catching up), I thought it might be helpful to post a list of links. Pastor Anyabwile has also compiled a "roundup" of their posts, including short sentence or paragraph-long summaries of the points made therein: that can be found below under the "A Black and Tan Roundup" link below.  My list includes a couple of posts between Wilson and Loritts that were preliminary to the discussion, as well as one or two parenthetical posts made in the thick of things which were not direct answers to points made.  I have also tossed in links to some of their related writings and other resources they cited for those interested in further reading.  (If I have missed anything, let me know!)

This is a thoughtful and charitable discussion, which is rare, and it is conducted by two intelligent and godly men, which makes it an endangered species; particularly on such a volatile issue, and particularly in the midst of the interblags.  It is educational and enjoyable for anyone thinking through these issues, and also for those who want an example of how to have "an adult discussion" on any topic.

The Discussion

March 7 - Loritts: The Other

March 8 - Wilson: With a Bit of Menthol

March 10 - Wilson: What? 2013 Already?

March 12 - Anyabwile: Why Respond Publicly to Douglas Wilson’s “Black and Tan”?

March 13 - Anyabwile: Doug Wilson’s Views on Race, Racism, Slavery, and the Bible

March 13 - Wilson: All in the Original Hebrew

March 14 - Anyabwile: Does the Driving Logic of Black and Tan Hold Up?

March 14 - Wilson: Patrick “Nostradamus” Henry

March 15 - Anyabwile: Slavery and the Bible: The Perspective of This Abolitionist

March 15 - Wilson: How Koinonia Conquers

March 15 - Wilson: Love is Never Later

March 17 - Wilson: The Designated Ambition Pole

March 18 - Anyabwile: Sometimes the Exceptions Reveal How Far We’ve Gone with the Rule

March 19 - Wilson: Adoni-Bezek’s Thumbs and Toes

March 20 - Anyabwile: The Cost of Our Chosen Entanglements

March 20 - Wilson: Water is Thicker Than Blood

March 20 - Wilson: Resisting the Slavers

March 25 - Anyabwile: The Histories of the American South: A Caution Against Hegemonies

March 25 - Wilson: With Jello In My Hair

March 26 - Anyabwile: Another point Where Wilson and I Almost Entirely Agree: On Doing History and Multiculturalism

March 26 - Wilson: A Good Luck Wave Won’t Cut It

March 27 - Anyabwile: Illustrating Racial Insensitivity in Black and Tan

March 27 - Wilson: Harder Than it Looks

March 28 - Wilson: A Theology of Apology

March 29 - Anyabwile: I Can Be Insensitive, Too

March 29 - Anyabwile: Once More Into the Breach: Pushing Toward Reconciliation

March 29 - Wilson: Trigger Alert Study Bible

March 30 - Anyabwile: Oh So Close and Yet so Far Away

March 30 - Wilson: Another Rose Hedge Awaits

April 1 - Wilson: Hecklers Gonna Heck

April 2 - Anyabwile: A “Black and Tan” Round-up

April 2 - Anyabwile: What Do the Noseguard and the Center Talk About

April 2 - Wilson: Nothing in My Experience Like It

 

Related Writings by Wilson and Anyabwile

“Black and Tan”

“Southern Slavery As it Was”

“Proclaiming a Cross-Centered Theology”

“Moving Beyond Pro-Life”

Cited Books for Further Reading

“A Response to the First Republican Senator to Support So-Called Gay Marriage”

“The Mind of the Master Class”

“The Civil War as a Theological Crisis”

“Slavery Attacked”

“Arguing About Slavery”

“The Baptism of Early Virginia”

“American Slavery As it Is”

“Bullwhip Days”

“God Struck Me Dead” 

Other Cited Resources

“The Story of Little Black Sambo”

Unpublished Poem by Jupiter Hammon

Peacemaker Ministries

Doctor Who - Part One

Doctor Who

Part One in A Review Series

This is the part where I review my favorite-ever TV show.  Just thought I'd get that out there right away - point the finger at myself and scream "YOU'RE BIASED!" before I even start.  Yes, I am.  However, despite the fact that I love this show more than a fat kid loves gummy worms or a New Mexican loves green chili or a college student loves free pizza (I'm kind of hungry right now...), I don't think it's perfect.  Like any other TV show, there are bothersome bits.  Hence, I will hereby endeavor to sit on the rabid fan in me (the one wearing Tardis converse, a bowtie, and a fez) long enough to take a stab at a rationalish overview of the series.

Preliminary note

For those who are unaware of the premise of the series, the main character is called "The Doctor," travels through time and space in his ship (the TARDIS), has adventures, fights bad guys, saves planets, etc.  He is almost always accompanied by one or more friends, to whom he enjoys showing off the universe.

Plot

Because this show has been running since the sixties and there are about 230 episodes, over 100 writers, and 11 doctors, it is hard to write a one-size-fits-all analysis for the whole shebang. However, by focusing on the "new" seasons (those that resumed in 2005), we can narrow it down to roughly 74 episodes, 20ish writers, and 3 doctors.  Of those 20ish writers, the two head writers and executive producers were Russell T. Davies (2005-2010) and Steven Moffat (2010-present).  So here is the plan for the next few posts: I'll do my best to critique Russell Davies' production, then Steven Moffat's, make a few general observations, and wrap up with the characters.  Spoilers ahead.  As they say, "Geronimo!"

Typical Davies Episode

"Tooth and Claw" (Season 2, Ep. 2)

Episode Trailer

A band of "monks" arrive at a Victorian mansion, take it over, and chain the inhabitants in the basement, accompanied by a caged Thing.  Sir Robert, the master of the house, is compelled to obey them to protect the hostages, and the monks disguise themselves as servants.

The Doctor and Rose come face to face with a convoy belonging to Queen Victoria, who is persuaded to invite them along with her, and they all stop for the night at the aforementioned mansion, Torchwood House, into which the Queen carries a secret box.  Sir Robert takes them to an observatory, where there's a mysterious contraption made by Sir Robert's father.  The Queen says that the man was a good friend of her late husband's, an astronomer and folktale expert.

The "servants" give the Queen's guards a drink which renders them unconscious, then take Rose to the basement before she can tell the Doctor, who is at dinner with the Queen and Robert.  Victoria persuades Robert to tell the story of a "local wolf."  This, with accompanying scenes in the basement, reveals that once every generation, a local boy vanishes and is taken by the wolf, which is actually an alien who wants to gain power by passing into Queen Victoria and leave history smoking in its wake.  Robert's father had spoken with it and learned its purpose, but was shut up by the "monks," who had turned from the true God to worship the wolf instead.

The caged Thing turns into a werewolf, Rose helps the hostages escape, and the Doctor realizes that the "servants" are the wolf worshipers, who sabotaged the Queen's train on purpose to bring her to Torchwood.  Mayhem ensues.  Robert, Rose, the Doctor, and the Queen lock themselves in the study, where, in a cursory examination of its contents, they discover confirmation that the wolf is an alien that fell to earth 300 years before and has survived in successive hosts since then, awaiting its chance for power.

The Queen, anxious about her secret treasure, reveals that it is the biggest and most valuable diamond in the world, which she had been taking to get re-cut as per her husband's tradition.  The Doctor realizes that A) the wolf worshipers laid a trap for the Queen in Torchwood, B) Robert's father and the Queen's husband had known they would, and had laid a trap of their own to catch the wolf, and C) the diamond is the key to spring that trap.  They run to the observatory, which Robert defends with his life; the Doctor inserts the diamond into the contraption, which reflects and intensifies the moonlight onto the wolf, dissolving its physical host.

The Queen discovers that she is bleeding, but won't allow the Doctor to examine the wound, saying she was cut in the chaos.  She knights and then banishes the Doctor and Rose, saying that they are magical, terrifying, and a threat to her world.  They leave, speculating about the historical fact that Queen Victoria had hemophilia, a disorder of the blood.  Was she actually bitten by the werewolf?  Could hemophilia be a Victorian euphemism for werewolfness?  ARE THE ROYAL FAMILY WEREWOLVES???

Thoughts

Like most of Davies' episodes, this one relies heavily on A plot development (events), without a whole lot of B plot development (emotional connection to the characters).  There are a few glimpses: Rose tells a terrified housemaid that "The Doctor can help," displaying her own unquestioning trust in him.  The Doctor, when he first sees the werewolf, pauses in flight to admire it, exclaiming, "Oh! That's beautiful."  Here, as in many episodes, his character is driven by wonder.  Wonder at the universe (and all it contains) is what makes him tick.  We are also given an emotional connection to the Queen as she reminisces about her deceased husband:

Queen V: Since my husband's death I find in myself something of a taste for supernatural fiction.
Doctor: You must miss him
Queen: Very much.  Oh, completely.  And that's the charm of a ghost story, isn't it?...hope of some contact with the great beyond.  We all want some message from that place, and it's the Creator's greatest mystery that we are allowed no such consolation.  The dead stay silent.  And we must wait.

Other than these few bits, however, the plot is mainly driven by action.  The imbalance is made slightly more noticeable by weak points in that action.  For instance, the wolf is supposed to be allergic to mistletoe, which is oiled into the study door, which is why it can't get in.  What?!  Werewolf versus...mistletoe??  What happened to silver??  Nice try, but...fail.  The special effects used for the wolf itself look like a much lamer version of the already lame Harry Potter werewolves, making it much less scary.  In fact, the only time the wolf did catch my attention as legitimately creeptastic was when Rose spoke to it in its human form in the basement, hooded and black-eyed, and it told her, "I carved out a boy's soul and sat in his heart."

Iffy as it sounds, I was actually okay with the werewolf's dissolution by moonlight - it had a legitimately ironic tang to it.  The idea that Queen Victoria was a werewolf amused me, as well.  And, although Davies was much worse than Moffat about writing season/series-long story arcs, he did pull in a few references to preceding and following episodes: the werewolf tells Rose that "There is something of the wolf about you," referring to the arc of season one; and at the end of the episode, we learn that Robert's lady sells Torchwood estate, which becomes a legacy for Torchwood Institute, an alien research facility set to become a thorn in the Doctor's side.

Conclusion

Bad stuff: Over reliance on A plot

Weak points in that plot

Cheesy effects

Good stuff: B plot that snuck in was decent

Connection to other episodes

Competent dialog

Overall, with Davies, entertainment is usually achieved, though there is almost always too much running and things exploding and rather cheeseball aliens.  Tune in next time for a comparison with the current executive producer, Steven Moffat.

The Walking Dead - Part Two

Character Development

or

Please Just Die Already

I am aware that a general rule of thumb in TV script-writing is that your characters shouldn't change/grow/develop in any significant way. You want strong characters who are all very different from each other and have competing desires and motivations to provide lots of conflict and tension that can be sustained show after show.  Regardless of the comparative value of that kind of writing, you still need at least 90% of those UNCHANGING PERSONALITIES to be sympathetic.  If your audience is stuck with people who are probably not going anywhere significant on an emotional/spiritual level for umpty-nine seasons, YOU NEED TO MAKE THEM LIKE THOSE PEOPLE.  The level they are ON NOW should be endurable at the least.

I (again in my amateur wisdom) have parceled out three basic criteria for deciding the likableness of a character:

1. What are his/her desires?

2. How does he/she strive to attain those desires?

3. How does he/she react when something roadblocks that attainment?

All three criteria are equally important.  I won't go through all of them for every character, but it could be done.

Hokay.  So. How do the characters in "The Walking Dead" measure up?

The Main Supporting Characters
(in sum)

Andrea - Feminist Ball of Sheer Annoying

Basically doesn't care about anything since her sister got eaten.  Now her main drive is to play with guns and show everyone she's just as good as the boys.  She does stupid things like shoot Daryl accidentally, eavesdrop on Shane and Lori, refuse to forgive Dale after he apologizes, and randomly hook up with Shane for no reason after they shoot up a bunch of zombies.

Daryl - Loud Redneck With a Teddy Bear Heart
Merle's younger brother, who talks loud and mean but is the only person who occasionally does anything out of kindness.  He is the only character complex enough to tempt me to like somebody on this show.  However, his character is often buried in redneck stereotypes, actiony crossbow-shooting scenes, loud arguments with all the other characters, and stupid decisions.

Maggie - Slut
"Hi Glenn.  I'm Maggie.  The world is ending and half my family are zombies, so let's have sex randomly and then I can hold it over your head and string you along for the rest of the show, simultaneously telling my father that I am twenty-two and therefore perfectly capable of making smart life decisions on my own, thankyouverymuch."

Lori - Self-Centered Idiot
There are so many reasons to hate Lori.  From the beginning, she's been considering leaving Rick, because apparently he is not fulfilling her needs; she sleeps with his partner when she thought he died because "she just wanted to feel something - anything;" when her son is at death's door she seriously doubts whether or not she even wants him to survive ("What is there for him to live for in a world like this?"); she can't decide whether she wants Shane to stay or go, so she strings him along; when she discovers she's pregnant, she takes (then throws up) abortion pills because she thinks that this baby, like Carl, has no chance in the world; and when she finally does tell Rick about her and Shane, there's no apology, just, "me and Shane" DOT DOT DOT.  She's so insanely selfish that her character is completely unbelievable.  And you want her to die.  Which I hear she does, later.  Woohoo.

Dale - Old Guy There To Give Everyone Else Sage Advice
He's taken Andrea under his wing, even though she hates him (no worries, dude, she hates everybody), and acts as lookout from the top of his RV.  That's basically all there is to say about him, except that he tells people his opinion on Important Relationship Stuff when they ask him about it.  Flat character.  Small summary.

Glenn - The Peon
He's Asian, small, and smart, so he's the guy they're always sending on errands or lowering down zombie-infested wells. He sucks at keeping secrets, but he's a Survivor At Heart.  If any of these people were left in a zomibified city alone, we're supposed to bet on Glenn to be the one to get out.  I was almost set to root for him, but then he has sex with Maggie because he thinks she's hot, realizes he's in over his head, goes to Dale for advice, and completely ignores everything he says. Also tries to pray for Carl, but implies that he doesn't really believe there's anyone listening.

There are other supporting characters, like Merle (WTR), Carol (Browbeaten Woman), Hershel (Narrow-Minded Christian), T-Dog (Random Guy), and Carl and Sophia (Kids).  However, they are either completely undeveloped or only show up a few times, so I'm not going to mess with summarizing them.

The Antagonist

Shane

1. What are his desires?
He wants Rick's life and Rick's family.  That's about it.  When pressed, he'll do something for the good of the group, but only if it doesn't compete with that desire and/or if he thinks Lori would like it.

2. How does he strive to attain his desires?
Moves in on Rick's wife and son as soon as he thinks Rick is dead, and assumes leadership of the group until Rick inconveniently resurfaces and shatters all his dreams.  Then, bitter with Rick for existing, he commences a power-struggle and keeps going after his wife (trying to get Lori to admit that she still has feelings for him) and son (trying to make Carl like him better than his father).

This is all under the guise of "I just want to take care of Lori and Carl," but his actions are selfish and self-defeating.  If he really cared about them, he would step out of the way and let them to patch up their family life - tearing them apart further only hurts Lori and Carl instead of helping them.  Also, if he really loved Lori that much, he wouldn't be fooling around with Andrea. Also, it's beyond twisted to use his "love" for Lori and Carl as justification for killing an innocent guy.  Sure, the show portrays him as all shook up about it, but not enough for him to come clean.

In sum, SHANE HATES WOMEN.  The very first time we see him, he's badmouthing a girl he dated, and implying through his Humorous Anecdote that Women Are All Blonde.  In his nostalgic moments with Rick, we learn that he made a point to sleep with as many women as possible throughout his adolescence, some of whom were married.  He has no concept of boundaries - if he sees a woman he likes, he'll go for her.  To him, women are things.

3. How does he react when something roadblocks that attainment?
He beats people up, or secretly considers killing Rick, or threatens to leave, or basically throws a loud and angry man-tantrum.

The Other Antagonist

Zombies

Totally not scary.  Which is big, because (aside from Weeping Angels) zombies are usually the only things that scare me.  Those little pixel zombies in Zelda? TERRIFYING.  Zombies in Silent Hill? Yeah, still have nightmares about those.  But these?  Seriously, the first zombie I saw made me burst out laughing, which is terrible because the first zombie you see is a little girl carrying her stuffed bunny - it's supposed to be tragic and frightening and poignant.  The zombies in "I am Legend" were way more effective (even though I know they weren't technically zombies) - they were fast, smart, coordinated, creepy.  These just lurch around spilling their guts - they can't even climb ladders.

The Protagonist

Rick

1. What are his desires? 

At first Rick's desires are pretty clear-cut: he wants to A) find his family, and B) get them to safety.  Those are what drive his "A plot;" however, even in the first episode we find that his personal struggles give him other "B plot" desires as well.  Episode 1 includes a flashback of Rick and Shane in their police car, talkin' 'bout girls.  Rick reveals that he and Lori are having difficulties with their relationship, and that he wants to make it work.  In season two, he has a teary moment on the farm's front porch, and tells Hershel (the doctor who patched up his kid) that he's afraid of failing his son.  Throw into the mix a desire to be a good leader for the group, and we have a list as follows:

To be reunited with his family

To patch things up with Lori

To take care of Lori and Carl

To be an effective leader/keep everyone safe

Not a bad list of desires, right? So far he sounds like a reasonably decent human being.

2. How does he strive to attain those desires?

Reuniting with his family is fairly straightforward - he just has to look for them until he finds them, which he does.  The rest, however, becomes bogged in a very confused morality puddle.  He wants to patch things up with Lori - but all their interactions are Fraught With Tension.

R: "I've got to go back to Atlanta." 

L: "You just got back!"

R: "These people are counting on me, woman, shuddup." 

L: "Why should we bother to keep living?"

R: "What's wrong with you, woman? Shuddup!"

R: "Carl can come with me into the woods."

L: "Are you crazy?? He'll be a Zombie Treat!"

R: "Don't you trust me, woman? Shuddup!"

R: "Carl can learn to use a gun."

L: "Are you crazy?? He's an immature infant, he'll kill himself!"

R: "Don't you trust Shane's training ability, woman? Shuddup!"

Etc. Admittedly, Lori is a far worse character than Rick, but regardless of her problems, Rick does not handle his end well. Ever. He comes to her for pats on the back, blows her off, and then is shocked when he finds out she's been keeping secrets from him.  This is discounting the screaming moral problems, like he's okay with the fact that Lori and Shane slept together, since they thought he was dead, and he would "never make Lori keep a baby she didn't want."

He wants to take care of his family - but the fact that his family is still alive is mostly accidental, and no thanks to him.  It was pure luck that a) he found them, b) they didn't get eaten alive during any of their mad escapes, c) there was a farm and a doctor nearby when Carl got shot, etc.  The only time I can remember Rick effectively accomplishing an improvement for his family was when he got everyone into the CDC (though that didn't pan out so well either).  Admittedly, this is not his fault, but he's not doing much to take care of the family *as a whole* on a spiritual/emotional level either.  His relationship with Carl may be the only one in the show that is not (yet) saturated in Emo Goo.  However, even that is not as good as it could be, since he and Lori are incapable of presenting a united parental front for Carl.

3. How does he react when something roadblocks that attainment?

This is where it all falls apart.  Obviously, things go wrong with Rick's plans all the time: he goes to Atlanta, but almost dies.  He goes to rescue Merle, but it's too late.  He gets everyone to the CDC, but it blows up.  He gets everyone on the road to Fort Bennett, but they lose a girl in the woods.  He goes to find her, but his son gets shot. Etc.  His goals to keep his family and the group safe are continually thwarted.  How does he handle that?  From what I can remember, he is either thrown into a momentary whirlpool of self-doubt and introspection, or he ignores/steamrolls all the dissenters who are doubting him themselves, telling them that "Yeah, this time it wasn't great, but we're a team and that's what matters, move out people." Or he glares frostily at Shane, or clenches his jaw at Hershel, and it's all very manly and heroic.

There is one point, right before Carl is wounded, when he goes into a church and prays for a sign.  He knows he's in trouble, and for the first time in his life, he turns to God for answers.  He goes back out into the woods, and he and Carl and Shane see a deer, which stands still as Carl approaches it, until they are nearly touching.  Rick is like "Holy cow, it's a sign!" and then Carl gets shot by a hunter aiming at the deer.

Insert classic pagan tantrum.  Narrow-eyed and self-righteous, Rick tells Hershel that he didn't get the sign he asked for, and that therefore it's best if "he and God stay out of each other's way."  Again, it's all very manly and jaw-clenchy.

The protagonist is trying to stay out of God's way, and thinks he can expect God to stay out of his.  But life doesn't work like that.  God doesn't work like that.  Trying to make a TV show that does work like that will inevitably result in a morality swamp, with no compass to guide people around the puddles.  The fact that this problem is universal in the entertainment world and can be found on some level in basically any show you watch does not make it less of a problem.  The Walking Dead just so happens to spell it out for us in great big letters; in fact, its only success is to correctly display the kind of moral confusion that follows a rejection of God.  If nothing else, The Walking Dead is consistent with its foundational premise.  Other shows are often more worth watching because they are *not* consistent with that premise - the characters often live as though there is a God and a resulting moral compass, despite the overall assumption to the contrary.


Cheers, y'all.  Next up is Doctor Who.

The Walking Dead

Disclaimer

There are Certain People (whom I love dearly) who persuaded me to watch "The Walking Dead."  The deal was that Certain People, in return, would try "Doctor Who" on for size.  I am not fond of zombie-ridden material - in fact, as far as zombies are concerned I have all the fondness of a penguin for an equatorial jungle.  (What? I've been watching David Attenborough.) However, the lure of a) pleasing Certain People, b) creating another Whovian, and c) having a new TV show to watch overcame my reluctance.  This post is the resulting justification to Certain People for being unable to lurch past episode 6 of season 2. It is not a personal attack (a.k.a. "Whoever watches this abysmal show is clearly Sir Stupid from Stupidville"), but hopefully a (semi)rational consideration of what makes this show So Freaking Horrible.

From what I have heard, TV shows generally have two elements - the A plot, which is basically composed of the events that move the story along, and the B plot, in which all the emotional baggage of the characters gets hauled out, tangled up, and poked with a stick.  As far as I can tell, these correspond roughly to plot development and character development.  Here is the problem: The Walking Dead doesn't really have either.

Plot Development

or

Where are all the Zombies, Anyway?

I made it through twelve episodes total.  In the interest of time and, well, interest, I only plan to go through the first three in any sort of detail.

Episode One

Rick Grimes, hard-working police officer, is shot by Bad Guys and winds up in the hospital.  He wakes up alone and discovers that he missed the messy beginning of the Zombie Apocalypse.  When he goes home to find his family, he instead finds a man and boy who fill him in on events.  They tell him his family probably headed for the Center for Disease Control in Atlanta, which is allegedly working on a cure.  Rick duly takes off, discovers that Atlanta is overrun with zombies (a.k.a. "Walkers"), and hides in a military tank while zombie citizens eat his horse.

Meanwhile, his wife Lori, son Carl, and partner Shane have joined a group of survivors outside the city.  Lori is sleeping with Shane. Their justification: Rick is dead and the world is ending, so what the hell?

A plot: Will Rick Survive??
B plot: Lori and Shane? What?
Will Rick find his wife and kid?
Will random man and boy be able to leave zombie-mom?

I realize that this episode is merely intended to set the stage; however, the B plot is already set to take over the A plot, and by the end of episode one the series is already establishing itself as Soap Opera With Zombies Lurching Around Potholes of Emotional Goo.

Episode Two

Rick escapes from the tank with the help of Glenn, a survivor who came to the city for supplies.  With him are Merle (White Trash Racist), Andrea (Snarky Feminist), and T-Dog (Black Guy to Provide Tension With White Trash Racist), who become trapped inside a department store while zombies pound on the doors and lick the glass.  They head for the roof, where Rick and White Trash Racist have a showdown - Rick cuffs WTR to a pipe, chops up a zombie, smears himself and Glenn with zombieguts, which camouflages them enough to get them to a nearby truck, then drives back for the others.  Except WTR.  Because T-Dog lost the key to the cuffs and in all the Wild Running From Zombies Who Burst Through At The Last Second, he got left behind.

A Plot: Will Rick escape?
Will Rick's plan work?
B Plot: Will WTR succeed in wresting power from T-Dog, the elected leader of the outing?
Will Rick win the showdown with WTR?
What will happen when WTR's brother (back at survivorcamp) finds out they left WTR behind to be eaten by zombies?

Again, more camera time is given to B plot than to A, sure fire sign of Soapiness.  According to my (admittedly limited) knowledge, the ratio of A to B should be roughly 60/40, and here it is reversed.

Episode Three

The Escapees make it back to camp, where Rick is reunited with Carl and Lori, who tells Shane that their affair is over. Shane vents his anger by beating up Ed, one of the camp members, when he hears Ed verbally abusing his wife Carol as she chats with other women washing clothes in the lake.  Daryl, brother to Merle (a.k.a. WTR), find out that Merle was abandoned and has a tantrum.  Guilty, Rick decides to take a group back to Atlanta for a rescue mission, and has a fight with Lori, who doesn't want him to go.  When the rescuers make it back to the department store roof, they see that WTR has cut off his own hand with a nearby hacksaw in order to escape; he is nowhere to be found.  Daryl throws another tantrum.

A Plot: Will Rick and the group make it back in and out of Atlanta?
Where is Merle?
B Plot: Will Shane leave Lori alone?
Does Lori really want him to go, or is she just guilty?
Will Lori tell Rick about her and Shane?
Is Ed going to take revenge on Carol later for his beating?
Is Andrea, the resident loud-mouthed feminist, right in objecting to Women Washing Clothes?
Is Daryl going to kill somebody?
Is Shane going to kill somebody?

AHHHHH!!  ATTACK OF THE B PLOT!!!  Come on, people!  Even the A plot points use recycled tension, dragging us back through the same dangers/situations as the previous episode, but with added bickering, back-biting, and snark.  All the rest is Pure Undiluted Soap Opera.

Big Brushstrokes

The rest of the episodes I watched merely digressed from there.  Basically, the A points boil down to:

Midnight Zombie Attack

Campers Flee to Center for Disease Control

Disease Control Has No Cure and Blows Up

Campers Hit the Road for Fort Bennett

Herd of Zombies Nearly Finds Them

Little Girl Gets Lost in Woods

Everyone Tries to Find Her

Carl Gets Shot and Is Healed by Country Vet Hiding Out With Family In Woods

They Still Can't Find Little Girl

B points: OVERWHELMING EMOTIONAL CRAP

In the last five or six episodes I watched (basically the first third of season two), basically Nothing Happened.  The directors have stayed with the tension of "Crap We Still Can't Find the Little Girl" as a mainstay of the plot, throwing in a hunting accident and a country farm with zombies in the barn to keep you going.

Also, for a zombie show, season two has so far showed very few lurching villains.  Aside from strays that pop up here and there to make you jump, they appear to have been raptured.  This adds to my argument that THIS IS NOT REALLY A ZOMBIE SHOW.  THIS IS A SOAP OPERA WITH ZOMBIES IN IT SOMETIMES.

I am often okay with crappy plot development.  I know it's harder to do in a show than in a movie or a book. I have made it through shows like Pushing Daisies, which have equally little or less plot development, with few mental scars to speak of.  But here's why it doesn't work for The Walking Dead: I simply don't like any of the characters.  Any of them. At all. Not even a little.  I don't necessarily have anything against flawed protagonists, but for me to care whether they turn into Zombie Treats, they have to give me something worthwhile to root for. These people are universally scummy, and I honestly wish they had all died off several episodes ago.

Tune in next time for Character Development, or lack thereof.