I vote on Governor

Posted on November 15, 2012 by Karen K. Kremes

Finally one of the most anticipated phases – if not the most anticipated – for fans of the The Walking Dead comic came to the TV series: the emergence of the Governor.

I have read, received and interacted with all repercussions generated by the villain of the comics that came to life in the interpretation of British actor David Morrissey on TV, some positive, some negative. But most negative… As a big fan of the character, I could not fail to explain the reasons that make me “vote” by the Governor in the series.

First, I’m no manic psychopath who admires all the carnage done in comics (and at some point in the series…) and sick games of the villain, because I came to like the Governor after reading the book The Walking Dead: Rise of The Governor, which provides us with a look quite different from the comics and explores the past feelings of the character. As a bonus, a Hollywood star playing him on the series!

I understand the fans who wanted an introduction cruelest of the Governor, than he arrive putting everyone to run and pass leaving corpses on the floor. In fact, his introduction in the comics is shocking. However, we must remember that the series has its own life; it needs to work with a public that does not know the comics and therefore has a different view of events.

For a television version it makes much more sense that the Governor arrives in peace, as a good man and selfless able to help others in the midst of a zombie apocalypse, instead of make a dramatic entrance shooting and torturing everyone and everything ahead. The comic is very different from what we see in the series. Obviously, the characters (not all), events, ideas and attitudes comes from comic, but fans who read the comics and watch the series know that there is a huge difference between them. The series has a history and comics has another.

Some also complain that the entry of the Governor in the series was very dim and the character was underrated, but I say otherwise. The series raised the Governor to a new level by showing him as a strategist villain who works in psychological ways with people.

As a subtle introduction, it was brilliant. There was no need for all that noise and fireworks announcing his arrival to the series. He was presented as a simple leader/survivor who seeks the good of the people, when in fact – still in the same episode – we know his true face…

I believe that a two faces Governor sounds better than a sucker psychopath that thinks he is the best just for having weapons and a base well-orchestrated. Let’s think: posing of good guy, gentle and polite, the Governor may discover secrets of Andrea, Michonne, and eventually Rick‘s group, even be able to play them against each other and weaken their psychological structures. While a Governor nominated by himself a killer, hardly anyone would believe or would stay of his side. It’s a brilliant series approach in exploring this power and dominion he exercised on people through his speech savior in Woodbury.

The dialogue between the Governor and Andrea about “never say never” made me get up from the chair and applaud. Here we see the dark and somber personality of the Governor at the same time that you think “he’s The Man”. Also interesting is this climate of romance between him and Andrea, I believe that this relationship will be further explored in the series. Something that never appeared in comics, where the Governor shows no loving feeling for any woman.

Another factor is that we do not know the direction the TV series will take for Governor‘s story: comics, the novel or make your own way? For those who read The Walking Dead: Rise of The Governor, know that the book completely changes his story in the comic, however, is the question: which arch literary series The Walking Dead will take to show the story of the Governor?

For now, to paraphrase the title of the introductory episode of villain in the series, we will walk with the Governor.

Season Three: The Long View

Posted on October 14, 2012 by joshuaguess

As we eagerly wait out the hours left until the premiere of season three of The Walking Dead, I’m sure many of us are watching the season two marathon and wondering what we would do if confronted with the perils and heart-wrenching choices Rick and his crew have to deal with.

It’s a natural reaction to fiction, that immediate critique of every move the characters make. It’s also a sign of good writing and an engaging story, because it shows how involved we become. The aspect of The Walking Dead I became interested in the most (back in the day when the comic was less than two years old) was the long-term survival options.

The concept was so fascinating to me that I started writing a fictional blog, Living With the Dead, set in the zombie apocalypse. The main difference in tone between my work and TWD was that I wanted to look at how everyday life would change for survivors. That’s why I took the idea of a serialized zombie story, inspired by Robert Kirkman’s original and brilliant idea, and broke it down even further. TWD is a monthly title, and mine is told in real time.

What really amazes me about the show is how the cast manages to convey a sense of time passing. The little touches are many and light, from showing people hand-washing clothes to surveying the wreckage of the second most likely place to be pillaged, a pharmacy, the first of course being a grocery store.

I’m constantly impressed by those small details. The show manages to tell two stories nested inside each other, superimposing the personal dramas of the cast over the larger background of the zombie apocalypse. It would be simple to focus on one or the other, but where TWD shines is using both story elements to drive and affect each other. It would also be easy to forgo many of those tiny details that give the show intense realism. But by addressing things like birth control, the lack of medical care, the scarcity of fuel and ammunition, and a hundred other miniscule pieces of set dressing that give the story depth, the showrunners create a believable narrative that remains enthralling despite a few flaws.

More than a few of us groaned our way through season two. Oh, I watched every episode with the dedicated fervor of a man deeply in the grip of a heroin addiction, don’t get me wrong. But most of us face-palmed over Carl not staying in the damn house, or Lori oscillating between conflicting opinions while being annoying enough to make our eyes twitch.

That’s okay, though. Season two had a few warts as any sophomore effort will, but overall it was great entertainment. More, it was a huge setup for what’s to come. By showcasing so many instances of supply shortages and the general lack of modern conveniences, the writers and producers created an expectation (mostly subconscious, I think, but then I write my blog most days and think about this kind of stuff more than is strictly healthy) that season three would be brutal and harsh in ways the previous seasons can’t even approach.

Look at the promotional material if you doubt me. Everyone looks rougher, the colors are muted. The world appears coated in a layer of grime and dust. Even the clothing of the cast has undergone some serious wear-and-tear. The images of Rick are the most stark and startling: gone is the determined but somehow optimistic man who acts as a reluctant leader. In his place stands a rugged survivor who has killed when the situation called for it, refuses to step aside or take orders, and will do anything—anything—to protect his loved ones and his group.

The key thing I’m taking away here is that the show won’t solely focus on any one aspect of survival. I think it’s safe to say that they will continue to use the apocalypse to explore what the disintegration of society does to people and groups, how the lack of modern life affects priorities and decisions, and how people dealing with all that treat each other. I’ve never been so excited to see a show premiere, and that’s because there are so many questions about how Rick, Daryl, Lori and the rest will manage to keep alive in the face of so much deprivation and danger that I just can’t look away. I don’t just want to know how it works out, I need to know.

I’ve loved watching these characters grow every time the world knocks them to the dirt. Given what we’ve seen about season three so far, it looks like they’ll be growing or dying pretty quick. Does it make us bad people to so eagerly await bad things happening to characters we love? Maybe. But that’s a risk I’ll take.

A Discussion of Morality

Posted on April 20, 2012 by Amy Gugerty

Jessie:
Imagine the world that comes after the apocalypse ends. Few really consider what this would be like, especially when dealing with zombies. Amy and I pose the question, thanks to a commenter from the article The Cure is Worse than the Disease quoted below: What would a community look like? And what would be the structure of it’s morality and ethics, considering the violent and traumatic kind of life lived while zombies walked?

Amy:
There would still be a lot of thorny moral and legal issues if the world managed to rebuild after zombies. Would people be prosecuted for crimes committed during the apocalypse or not? At what point does a crime become so heinous that it cannot be ignored or does the fact that laws were irrelevant mean crimes didn’t even exist and thus cannot be punished?

Northsongs:
Great analysis. And I am really interested in the question you pose about people being prosecuted for things they’ve done during the apocalypse. For example, Randall’s situation. If he was executed by the group, would (and should) that come back to haunt them post-recovery of civilization. He actually hasn’t been convicted of a crime (although we suspect he was firing at Rick and Glenn outside the bar in town.) interesting idea, Amy. After the breakdown of civilization, do the laws existing prior still have relevance after/during?

Jessie:
That’s a great question. But first I think we have to determine whether the same system of ethics and morality apply before we can decide if the laws and/or system of judgment do. The laws are based on our ethics as a group, and it’s plain to see that these ethics have been degrading with each episode — thus Dale’s frustration at the treatment of Randall. Personally, I think that our ethics and laws are worth upholding, though it would be necessary to change the specifics of the laws somewhat because of the circumstances. This also brings up the question of how to handle the different dynamics/decisions made between groups of survivors. One group may decide to act in a way that is civil according to our current standards, but another chooses to act in a completely immoral (according to our laws) manner. How does the “ethical” group defend itself? So many questions to keep asking from that point on!

Amy:
I don’t consider law to be predicated on morality, so in my mind, they are two separate issues. For instance, some people consider abortion immoral, but it is legal. Conversely, some people consider assisted suicide moral, but it is illegal. Morality has no true right or wrong because it is different culture to culture and person to person. Law, in theory, is concrete, though there are obviously innumerable ways of interpreting it. Of course, the way I am thinking of morality is how it is perceived in popular culture, that is, what people think is “good” and what they think is “bad”.

That said, in an environment such as a zombie apocalypse, it does not seem possible to subscribe to the laws of old. The three branches that deal with creating, executing, and enforcing them no longer exist. If we accept that premise, then the two options are to create a new government or use a moral code to instruct behavior. If the latter is chosen it creates a situation where every group of survivors would have a different way of tackling issues of morality.

Jessie:
You make a good point about the difference of laws and morality…I was trying to say more that our idea of ethics, the philosophical and hypothetical situations where we pose what would be the “lesser of two evils” kind of thought process seem to be what initially directed lawmaking. You and I have discussed the example where a person is standing at a lever that controls a train’s direction. If left to go one way, it will hit your best friend stuck on the tracks. If left to go another, five strangers will die when the train crashes due to broken tracks. Which is the “right”, or better, choice?

With that in mind, I wonder if that kind of reasoning is still applicable in a survival-mode kind of life. Is it possible for people to continue making decisions with that ethical structure when their most basic needs are at risk constantly?

Amy:
I suppose it depends on which choice in the train example you would consider to be the “correct” one. If you subscribe to the idea that providing the greatest happiness to the greatest number of people is the moral standard, than you would have to save the five strangers. However, we did see in the show how Shane most certainly did not fall into that way of thinking, as his actions were always based on saving himself, Lori, Carl, and later the baby. On the other hand, we see Rick for the most part attempt to do what is best for the group at large. Can we say whether one way is more correct than the other? When it comes down to it, people want to survive and it is difficult to begrudge someone for doing what they can in such an outlandish situation as a zombie apocalypse. We cannot help but judge their actions based on our own moral views from our world, but does that adequately translate to their reality?

Jessie:
Such a difficult question. Especially when you take into account the levels of trauma sustained by seeing most of your loved ones die violently and then return from the dead with a mindless desire to violently kill and consume you. We can’t possibly imagine the full ramifications that situation would have on an individual’s psyche, let alone how that would affect their moral decisions, especially as the situation changes. Unethical situations, like when Shane shot Otis to save himself as the more likely candidate to get back to the farm, as well as to save his own life, are typically rationalized. Put another way, people look for ways to defend themselves socially, so they find “reasons” for why they make the decisions they make. Rarely are these reasons based in true logic or ethical questioning. They are usually based on how they best serve the purpose of saving face with the group.

Shane told the others that Otis handed him the bag and offered to cover his retreat, effectually sacrificing himself. When confronted on that blatant lie, he rationalized that he had indeed left Otis behind as a sacrifice, but it was for Carl’s sake. This is the lie he tells himself to get through the guilt of causing a decent person’s brutal death. Hershel rationalizes keeping Walkers in the barn as the “right” thing to do because it’s humane. He tells himself these people are sick, not walking corpses, because that’s what it takes for him to deal with the grief of losing his family. There are many more examples of this throughout the show, but the main point is that human nature instinctively causes us to create a reason that suits our desires or needs, especially under duress. I think, because of this tendency, we would see and have seen a gradual decline in the nature of lawfulness. But would that continue into the post-apocalypse community? I can’t see how it wouldn’t, at least to some degree. The human psyche is an amazing thing, but with the kind of emotional scars this world would deal, the ethical structure must inevitably be damaged. Perhaps better to say changed, because in a few generations there wouldn’t be any concept of what had been considered lawfulness.

I wouldn’t be surprised to see regression in the laws of the land. Capitol punishment would likely have a huge resurgence, because it would be the easiest way to keep order. Pair that with corporal punishment as a deterrent for theft, disloyalty or other offenses, and you’d have a strong motivation to keep from breaking laws. I would imagine that someone who has been through so much death and terror would be numb to the idea of killing for the sake of safety. But, I would say this situation could only arise if most higher concepts such as hope, beauty, and faith in humanity had been corrupted or lost completely.

Amy:
If I can back up a little, I like the point you bring up on social dynamics. In a lot of ways the importance of other peoples’ opinions drops down to zero in the zombie apocalypse, as the more pressing concern of mere survival take precedence. Things that we look down upon, such as poor hygiene and invading personal space, would no longer be reasons for scorn. People would have no time to keep up all the little social niceties that used to be expected of them. Conversely, in this new world being in the good graces of other people can mean the difference between life and death. Had Shane admitted openly that he murdered Otis to survive there is a possibility that he could have ended up in the same sort of situation that Randall did. Of course, his relationship with Rick would have almost certainly protected him from the death penalty, but that just illuminates what a difference positive relationships make in that world. Many members of the group were willing to kill Randall merely because he was not one of them.

On that note, I have to disagree with you on what it would take for people to accept capitol and corporal punishment as the norm. We see from Randall’s case how easily they slipped into that mode of thinking and it is not difficult to understand why. It is the sort of group-think that allowed Hitler to gain so much power. As long as the individual is promised protection, the base necessities to survive, and not tasked with doing the dirty work of actually maiming or murdering someone, they will be willing to close their eyes to a lot of things, and even justify brutalities they see firsthand. Once someone has experienced the horror of the dead rising, managed to survive, and then somehow made it into a place with a semblance of normality, they will hold onto that slice of life with a death grip.

Jessie:
That’s a really interesting point, about the social dynamics. Do you think those norms would be completely changed in this new world order? I could see people going back to bathing more, since we know as much as we do about how disease spreads. I would imagine you’re right, there’d be a more hierarchical system where if you’re in good with the leader types, you’re more likely to stay alive. And with someone like Rick, as long as you’re straight with him about things that happen, there’s a level of leniency because of his former training as a law enforcement officer, and after the scare with Dale and wanting to prove that their group isn’t broken. It would certainly be interesting to see!

As for the Hitler’s Germany comparison, I can definitely see that. But do you think that’s still likely after what happened in Randall’s case? After Dale died like that? I suppose if there’s enough time between this one event and reconstruction it’s quite likely. People quickly forget lessons learned, even when attached to such intense situations.

Amy:
The answers to both of your questions depend on how long the world went on with zombies in it before reconstruction happened. If enough time passed where everyone alive grew up only knowing a world where the dead walked, I would posit that social norms and expectations would be massively different. I liken it to the current generation that does not know a world without instant access to the Internet anywhere, let alone a world without the Internet at all. Language, social interactions and social mores are so different from even just twenty years ago. Even if the time passed was less significant, I still think that whatever society emerged as a result would be forever based on the knowledge that a true horror like the walking dead was possible. Things like regular bathing would go back to normal I’m sure, but others, such as the heightened need for security, would be ingrained so deeply as to be impossible to shake.

As for the issue of Dale’s death stopping the group from using capitol and corporal punishment, that may very well be the case, but only until the next crisis. People tend to have knee-jerk reactions to a shocking event, whether for the better or the worse. After September 11th, Americans pulled together in a way that I had never seen before, putting aside petty issues and differences. It was truly awe-inspiring and comforting in such a trying time. However, as I am sure you remember, it did not take long to return to the old ways of disparaging each other for one reason or another. As humans we cannot seem to help turning things into “us versus them” and that is only compounded when every moment is fraught with danger.

My question to you is what kind of effect will Shane’s death have on Rick’s style of leadership? The manner in which Rick killed Shane was hardly straightforward self-defense and in the season finale he even admits to Lori that he wanted Shane dead at that point. He also openly states that members of the group are free to leave, but if they stay it is no longer going to be a democracy. Do you consider Rick’s actions to be ethical in these cases? Will this take the group in a new darker direction?

The Better Angels of our Nature

Posted on March 16, 2012 by Amy Gugerty

“We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained it must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battlefield and patriot grave to every living heart and hearthstone all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature.”

Those are the closing words of Abraham Lincoln’s first inaugural address referenced by the episode title “Better Angels”. Rick gives his own speech imploring the importance of togetherness as an eulogy for Dale’s funeral, urging the group to prove Dale wrong, prove that they are not broken. Everyone seems to pull together, at least in that moment, as they stand together over the grave of the last man who unshakably held on to the old way of morality. We see Shane, Andrea, T-Dog, and Daryl work together to secure the fences and eliminate Walkers that had wandered onto the property. Hershel finally allows the group to move into the house. Everyone bands together to prepare for the worst. However, even in that scene of unity the cracks begin to show. Shane still firmly believes that letting Randall go is the wrong move, his anger over Rick’s decision topped by a helping of jealousy from Rick choosing Daryl to be his wingman on the expedition.

At the same time, Daryl has moved completely into the role of Rick’s second, showing a whole new level of comfort and confidence in interactions with him. When Rick is outlining the plan to deal with Randall, the events of the previous night come up and for once Rick is at a loss for words. With an aplomb that never would have been seen in season one, Daryl accepts the unspoken thank you and quietly asserts Rick does not need to shoulder all of the responsibility for the group. The mere fact that Daryl sits next to Rick, rather than the constant movement that is customary, shows how these two are starting towards the relationship that Shane and Rick used to have. When Shane arrives on the scene the air is immediately different, full of tension and unspoken anger. In my mind, this is second of two key moments that pushed Shane to his decision to try and murder Rick.

The first is, of course, Lori’s botched attempt to thank Shane for protecting her and Carl in the first days of the apocalypse. What seems to be a genuine attempt to calm the waters and bring Shane back into the fold turns into a tearful apology for how she handled things between them. In the process, Lori manages to bring up all the feelings that Shane has towards her and Carl, and make matters worse by admitting that she felt something for him as well. To Shane this just brings to the forefront everything he has been thinking: Lori, Carl and the baby are his and Rick is incapable of protecting them. So later when Rick would rather deal with Randall than Carl, what needs to be done is cemented in Shane’s mind. As much as his mind is cracking, Shane truly believes that the best course of action is to kill Rick. His passion finally broke the bonds of affection, as it were.

We do not see the better angels of Rick and Shane’s nature here. Despite Rick’s earlier words, they have irrevocably pulled apart, culminating in two former best friends set out to murder each other, one succeeding. Even at the end, though, it still seems that Rick and Shane remained more friends than enemies. Shane’s hesitation to shoot was blamed on an unwillingness to kill an unarmed man, but it really stemmed from the memory of how they used to be. Looking at Shane’s face, you have to wonder if there was a part of him that was hoping to be the one dead, if only to put an end to an unlivable situation. And though Rick stabbed Shane in the heart, he was in visible and vocal agony. The lengths that Rick has now had to go to for the better of the group will no doubt change him and they way he leads.

None of this does bodes well for the future of the group, especially when a herd is literally on the horizon. Once the others find out what Rick has done, whether they will manage to stick together is very much in doubt.

Angel and Devil

Posted on March 13, 2012 by Lori

As the countdown to the Season Two Finale begins, fans of The Walking Dead wonder which cast members will fail to survive and fight on in Season Three. For the first time since the group left the CDC in Atlanta, I find myself hoping Andrea is not part of the upcoming body count.

Oh, I still don’t like her much. I also don’t like Lori, to the point I almost cringe typing my own name. The argument the two women had in the kitchen of the farmhouse a few episodes ago drove me crazy, because I agreed with every single rotten thing they said about each other. I sort of hoped a walker would lurch out of the pantry and have a bitch buffet.

But now I feel as if Andrea is on the cusp of something, and it could be very interesting. She’s made a lot of transitions in the first two seasons, perhaps more than any other character. She started out trying to be tough, going into town on missions. Still, despite being a civil rights attorney with – presumably – a life of her own, she in many ways remained the daughter who fished with her father and wanted to make up for ignoring her younger sister.

When Amy was attacked and awoke as a walker, Andrea dug deep, searching for the inner strength to do what had to be done to prevent her baby sister from continuing in that dark existence. It was undoubtedly the most difficult thing she’d ever had to do, but that decision came from love, not calculated, strategic violence. The act changed her profoundly, making her doubt her will to live in this new reality.

Dale wouldn’t let her “opt out.” Seeing him as her surrogate father, Andrea saved herself to save him, and eventually regained her will to go on. But in order to protect herself from further emotional and psychological damage, she started pushing Dale away and stomped all her emotional sensitivity down, adopting a stoic, practical persona. And who guided her and nurtured this mercenary attitude? Shane. He taught her to shoot, and he encouraged her to tap into her repressed rage to find the cold, dead attitude he believed she needed to survive.

As the debate raged about deciding Randall’s fate, Dale reminded her of her former role as a civil rights attorney. She cared about fighting for people who couldn’t fight for themselves. By the time a decision was reached, she was wavering, asking if they could find another way to eliminate the threat the boy posed, short of killing him.

Dale was the angel on one shoulder, whispering in her ear about humanity, fighting for what’s right, and not letting the daily horrors change who she is on a fundamental level. Meanwhile, Shane was the devil on the other shoulder, urging her to shed her emotions in favor of a hard, calculating, merciless approach, focused on nothing but survival.

Now, in the space of about twenty-four hours, Andrea has lost her two primary influences. Her angel died, his integrity intact, even if his innards were not. Her devil also died, victim of his own murderous plot and the error of underestimating exactly how far Rick would go to protect his family.

Andrea has alienated herself from much of the group. The remaining men don’t really see her as the warrior she tried to become, and the women see her as a slacker or a cold, distant, delusional guardian wanna-be. Who will become her new stabilizing or destabilizing influence, if anyone? Will she become even more isolated and bitter in the absence of Dale? Will she become more ruthless, stepping up to fill the void left by Shane? Or will she remember her connection to Dale and recover her emotional balance, perhaps even developing into a unifying force in this traumatized, fractured group?

If she isn’t among the dead (or un-dead) at the end of the Season Two Finale, she will be a fascinating character to watch in Season Three.

Walk on By

Posted on March 12, 2012 by Dave Sunhammer

** SPOILER Disclaimer – In my articles I talk openly about things that happen in older issues of the comic series, The Walking Dead. I think for the most part this is extremely fair as the series began in 2003 so it’s unreasonable to gag events from 5 to 8 years old. Know that I will tend to be closed mouthed about specifics for up to 20 issues back from current (meaning #94 is current so I’ll try hard not to spoil anything after issue #74). If I feel I have to I will put a Spoiler warning in the article. Everything else is fair game. All images property of their copyright owners.**

I was so excited to see this lone “walker” shambling through a field tall with grass. The evening sun casting long shadows. It was a very tranquil moment, almost a spoof of some National Geographic documentary. I’m referring to a scene from the Walking Dead TV episode, “18 Miles Out” of course. I was so excited, but even more for the “non-reaction” of our two survivors, Rick and Shane.

It is unclear whether Rick ever saw the zombie, but I like to believe he did. I took driver’s ed classes so I was trained to constantly scan everything. That on top of my post-traumatic stress and I just couldn’t miss a large detail like that. But, maybe Rick is one of those “focused” drivers, or his head was full of Lori, Shane, and poopy diapers. Shane saw it all though, and it is his total, unflinching silence that I love. He doesn’t instinctively reach for a gun, or hit Ricks shoulder for attention. He just watches this zombie, like a viewer watching a lion walking across the Serengeti in a lazy rest from stalking antelope, in contemplative silence. And if ever a silence spoke volumes it was this silence. And because of this, in my mind Rick saw it and had that same non-reaction.

You see, this type of scene has now happened many times in the graphic novel, or comic, or whatever term you prefer. I don’t think ‘nonchalant’ is the correct word, but in some ways it is… The lone roamer, or even a couple lurkers thrown in, 40 or 50 feet away doing whatever zombies do in their down-time has become this secondary issue for survivors. As long as a lone zombie is not at this very moment attacking, and she is “over there”, then we can get on about our business as long as we keep an eye on him. And so, I’ve been waiting patiently to see how this might come to pass in the tv show.

A little terminology lesson for those who are just discovering the whole TWD thing. In the graphic novel (comics – also referred to as GN) the word “zombie” appears very early on. It isn’t used often but it exists. There are two types of zombies: zombies who are constantly in motion are called “roamers” and zombies who find some place to sit or lay are known as “lurkers”. The word “Walkers” does not exist in the GN. Lurkers seem to have found undeath just too tiring. You have to at least get within a couple of feet before they will even acknowledge your existence. Some you have to actually kick, and then they might find the energy to try and eat you. The two TV walkers I can point to as lurkers would be the woman in the car that Glenn wakes up (played by a really nice lady, Sonya Thompson – who has a Facebook page btw) and the lurker in the tank with Rick. These two kind of show the range for lurkers. Roamers have a bit of a range also, but it never reaches the physical and mental range of the walkers on the show.

As kind of a critique of the show, I have seen TWD zombies use rocks to smash windows which is a bit more tool usage than I prefer. In the show I have seen them reach speeds equal to a run. No, they did not have that classic form, and no you cannot say they were running. But you go back and watch those roamers keep up with Shane and Otis, who were running. As far as I’m concerned, even if you are jerking and shambling, if you are keeping up with someone running then you are pretty much running too. My point is this though, you are not going to get outrun by a walker in the GN. The zombies here are very much like those in George A. Romero’s ground shattering “Night of the Living Dead” and this is the way I prefer my zombies, thank you.

Robert Kirkman, creator of The Walking Dead, has stated in interviews and letters that the zombies are very secondary. This becomes so apparent in the graphic novels as the characters have longer interaction with them. Scenes of the lone walker in the grassy field are common. We can debate the effect of this, whether it is bad or good for a long time. And it comes down to two basic camps: Terror lovers –v- Creepy Eerie lovers.

I for one prefer the eeriness, the surreal-ness, of the living moving through an undead world in an uneasy truce. “Man” always adapts… we do this with deadly spiders, and lions, and snakes around the world. Recall the extreme story of Timothy Treadwell, environmentalist/film maker, who lived with bears for 13 summers until he and his girlfriend were finally eaten. Why should the walking dead be any different? I was heartened to here Glenn saying how he had forgotten how dangerous they were, that it’s all become another round of Portal. With that “comfort” comes new dangers to the survivors as Kirkman examines how we humans just cannot help ourselves. We HAVE to find some comfort level, some radical acceptance, of the world around us or we go mad. Hence, my personal preference for the creepy-surreal over the constant horror/terror.

I think, in closing, that there is a hidden seed of hope (or the need for that seed of hope) in Kirkman’s vision. He wants us to see the zombies as merely the earthquake, tsunami, or sinking ship. But these are all events with which we must merely endure, find a way to survive. There is no cutting the head off an earthquake, no sticking a screwdriver in the eye of a hurricane; we can only seek shelter. Intentionally or unintentionally, The Walking Dead exposes that need for the human to fight back. With knives and guns we fought to keep bears and lions from eating us. With tools and shelters we fight the weather from freezing us or cooking us. With all of our arts and sciences we fight an uncaring universe for our right to breath. And through the lens of a silly little comic and tv show I can see that “we” would only find a zombie apocalypse a speed bump and nothing more. We would eventually watch a roamer stumble through the sunlit field with as much excitement as we watch cows chew their cud. In this we are not the Walking Dead.

When One Door Opens, Another Closes

Posted on March 9, 2012 by Jessie

This is a twist on the old adage meant to give hope and inspiration to people whose lives have taken a turn for the worse; to give the illusion that opportunity is always just around a corner. In The Walking Dead however, it seems that every time a new face turns up, one of the core group is irrevocably lost.

Before I explain the examples of this thought, let me first clarify my restrictions for choosing them. I do not include the Morales family because to our knowledge they have not been killed, but rather chose to leave the group and head out on their own. Those I do include are people who have become a part of the group, with the exception of Otis, who would have been a part of the group (as a member of Hershel’s group he would have merged with the original Atlanta group) had he lived.

The first example of this idea comes when Rick meets up with the survivors in Atlanta. Unfortunately, he is the new face in this instance. With his arrival, we see a horde of zombies attack the camp the survivors had staked out, which causes the deaths of Amy, Ed and ultimately Jim. Next we have Jacqui’s death. This occurs after being allowed into the CDC and discovering that a cure has not and likely will not be discovered within the United States. She chooses to stay in the building when it explodes as part of the emergency safety measures. When the group moves to Hershel’s farm after Carl is shot, we have Otis killed by Shane. In this instance, I’d say he was both the new face and the death that followed, which is an unusual circumstance in the pattern. After meeting and getting to know Hershel’s household, we discover that Sophia is indeed dead, and was one of the Walkers kept in their barn. Finally, Randall is brought to the farm in an effort to save him, Rick decides to let him live, and then Dale is killed by a Walker.

After seeing this pattern, I couldn’t help but wonder why it happens that way? I brought up this topic with fellow writer Amy Gugerty and she pointed out that there is a logistical reason for this: too many characters to follow means not enough attention devoted to them. People don’t remember who they are or what they’ve done. I am guilty of this myself. I had forgotten who the Morales family was, who Jacqui was, and that Jim was a part of the show. This makes sense, but I think there’s more to it than just logistics.

I think that the line of who has died mirrors not only the deteriorating humanity of the group (Thanks Amy for that bit), but also their deteriorating hopes and morale. With each death, something vital is sucked away from the company. Obviously a life is gone, but each death indicates a loss of chance, of future opportunities that would have existed had that person survived. With Amy, it was a chance of familial bond for Andrea, which at the time she felt was the only reason she had to keep going forward. It’s difficult to see this kind of opportunity present with Ed and Jim, as their ties were tenuous to the group. Jacqui’s death corresponds with the death of the hope for a cure, and has members of the group wondering if suicide is the better option than survival. When Otis is killed, we see the death of decency in Shane – he has become a creature that will do whatever it takes for its own survival. Sophia’s death indicates the end of childhood; not even children are sacred or safe in a world where the dead rise again. And finally, Dale’s death expresses the finality of the group’s concern for safety superceding the untried killing of an individual. His is a symbol for the death of justice as we’ve known it, and the death of civilization and the qualities of goodness that make people greater than the sum of their individuality. Even with Rick’s turnaround, the fact that Dale is killed gives a sense of too little, too late, and there’s no going back now. An irrevocable act, a door closed.