Luke patronizing Nick
Why does Luke continue to patronize Nick like when theyre in the walker herd? Nick was worried and Luke just says if Clementine can handle it than you can. What a bad friend.
Sign in to comment in this discussion.
Comments
Luke just has to understand that Nick can't be as carefree as him, be it because of depression or just a matter of personality (I personally think it's a mix of both), and that it's perfectly valid to be scared when faced with a bajillion zombies at once. He could've said something like "it's going to be alright, we can do this" or another encouraging statement - there was no need to be harsh.
So he calls a 20+ guy a kid in front of an 11-year-old, and then asks HER to take care of him. This says a lot about his character to me: I think he does genuinely care about Nick, but loses patience when Nick has trouble dealing with "issues" and doesn't know how to help him deal with it, so he's passing him off to Clem. As Nick said, it's easy for Luke to move on and just keep going, so he doesn't seem to understand why Nick can't do the same.
(This isn't my completely my own idea, someone else from the forums maybe made a comment on Luke's attitude about Nick in ep2. Not sure. But it really makes sense to me. I've had people like this in my own life- they have good intentions at heart but at the same time carry this toxic idea that people with depression, low self-esteem, or other issues can just "snap out of it", and then become frustrated when they don't.)
Aw, poor Nick.
I get the feeling everything is going to come crashing down on him soon, though. I hope we see Luke really break down at some point in the next two episodes because it's pretty clear that it's been a long time coming. Nobody can go on like that for that long.
I think, as with everything he does, Luke MEANS well but he doesn't understand and he's relying too heavily on what works for himself, and pushing that on to Nick is just toxic. Like you said, those of us with depression and low self-esteem know that all too well that not all of us can just "keep on moving." Like Nick, we're just not built like that.
Let's think back to the bridge. Luke makes Clementine go on the bridge with him and when Nick tries to come along, he refuses and argues with him and says, "I don't trust him to tie his own shoes." Five days before that, after Pete's death, Luke says to Clementine, "I'm worried about that kid. Keep on eye on him, will you?" (idk if that's the exact line, I'm paraphrasing). Luke puts more trust and more value in the capability of an 11-year-old girl than he does his best friend of twenty years, and he will infantalize him by calling him a "kid" to her. Interpreting this as patronizing is consistent in his behavior.
But I don't think Luke actually realizes his toxic his words are. I think he genuinely thinks he's being encouraging, or he's protecting Nick, but it's really not working. I think him trying to "protect" Nick on the bridge was disastrous in a way we're all aware of, but I'll explain why telling him "If Clem can do it you can" is problematic.
Nick has been presented to us already as immensely self-conscious. When he catches up to Uncle Pete and Clementine at the end of episode 1 and hears Pete telling the buck story, he freaks out. We all view it as very endearing but he's clearly embarrassed by it, and he's so self-conscious that the idea of a story like that being told to a little kid bothers him. So regardless of Luke's intent, I think it's safe to say that being compared to Clementine, or being treated like he's less capable than Clementine, probably hurts him a lot. Even if Luke doesn't MEAN to be patronizing, it's still very likely that's how Nick took it.
What Luke did was the OPPOSITE of patronizing. He was telling Nick to buck up because he thinks that Nick *should* be able to handle something that *even* Clem can handle. The implication here isn't that Nick needs to be coddled. It's that Nick *shouldn't* need to be coddled. It's saying "Well even this person who shouldn't be able to do this difficult thing is doing it, therefore you should certainly be able to do it."
I would describe what Luke did as more of a tough-love approach. Something that I can imagine coming out of Pete's mouth. It conveys a sense of confidence in the other person's potential, but also a criticism that the other person isn't fully embracing that potential. It's just like saying "Oh come on, Nick, you can do better than that!"
I think it's a great way Telltale have written him. As the episodes go on, we can really start to see his dismisive attitude and the way he wants to "always keep moving on". There have been hints scattered through the season. In the way he talks to Nick, in the way he suggests the group move from the cabin. It might even connect in with him not mentioning Bonnie, he moved on and forget the people he left behind.
And then of course, after all, it was his idea to leave Carver's group. The group rallied around Luke because of his passion and drive to "move on" and leave the group behind them, like everything else Luke does.
Telltale have written Luke's attitude as both a blessing AND a curse. It's a useful trait to have in post-apocalyptic world, but at the same time it can be destructive, both to himself and others.
So many people saying Luke was just a boring pretty boy (which I also thought he was at first), but he's quite the complex character with some serious flaws.
Like... there's a part in episode 3 where you have the option to agree with Luke's plan and say, "Everyone's sick, we need to stay the night and wait." And Nick says, "Terrible." But when Luke says, "It's not terrible, but it could be better," he just looks down and says, "Exactly." Like it bothers me that he can't even form his own opinions without feeling like he has to take them back if Luke doesn't approve 100%. He barely ever shares his opinions at all.
Sorry, getting emotional over a fictional character over here.
In this situation I feel like whether or not it's patronizing depends on how it made Nick feel, because he's the one who's on the receiving end of the comment and regardless of Luke's intent it's his feeling on it that holds the most bearing. However, Nick is a fictional character and unfortunately we cannot ask him whether or not he found it patronizing, so we just have to assume based of previous dialogue and behaviors. Personally, I think it's safe to say that he probably felt put down by it.
.......nope, sorry, it still doesn't make sense to me. Even after the idea is brought up and thinking about it. I still can't see how it can be taken in such as harsh or anything resembling.
I didn't find Luke's comment to Nick to be a put-down at all. In fact, it seemed to be more reinforcing than anything else. That was not the time to be freaking out and having second thoughts, because all it does is make what they're about to do that much harder. What would you have wanted Luke to say? "You're right, Nick. We *are* never going to make it out of this. Now let's all crawl in the corner and die."
> What would you have wanted Luke to say?
How about, "It's okay, man, You got this." Just like you said above. He's not being short or impatient with him and he's not comparing him to a child, unlike the original quote. Compare Luke's quote to how Carlos says to Sarah (I'm paraphrasing idr the exact quote) "Everything will be okay, just stay by me." Carlos coddled Sarah a lot so I'm not saying for Luke to exactly replicate his behavior, but saying something along the lines of that would have probably been far more reassuring and far less hurtful.
What makes you say that? He's been defensive about being patronized before.
Luke wasn't just comparing Nick to a child. He was comparing Nick to Clem, someone who they now know has already walked through a hoard of zombies by herself while covered in guts. Furthermore, he's implicitly saying that Nick is more capable of handling this than Clem is. The statement "If X can do it, Y can do it" only applies if Y is thought to be better than X at doing whatever it is that needs to be done. So I just don't see how it's at all insulting. I *could* see how it might be seen as a bit pushy, but in my opinion, that was a situation that warranted pushing.
Clementine has, on numerous occasions proven her ability and strength to Luke. Notice how after telling her Lee story to Luke he never calls her young or just a kid. She's level headed, and 'keeps going' all the time. Just like Luke. They think things out, and work around problems. Nick's not like that. There's threads about him and depression, and that's what I think.
Luke feels the need to protect him and guide him, and he doesn't feel the need with Clementine, because she gets him. The fact that Clementine is here makes it seem patronizing, because she's so young. He will always try to help Nick and do things for him, but he will never put himself at his level, because he doesn't approach life like he does.
I hope that makes sense, it makes sense in my head :P
It's an interesting interpretation of Luke's character and makes alot of sense to me.
I KNOW what you're saying and I've said this so many times already: I am AWARE that Luke thought he meant well, I am AWARE it wasn't meant to be malicious. But my point is that judging by his personality and how he's reacted to things before, Nick most likely WOULD find it patronizing and his friend of twenty years should be aware of that by now.
And I'm not going to stop pointing out that Luke snapped out him and said, "Are you kidding me?" because that's kind of important--he was being impatient and frustrated with Nick here. He wasn't exactly holding his hand saying, "Listen bud Clem's done this." He said it in a really rude manner.
In my (and other ppl's) interpretation, to Nick it's not really a matter of "that was mean, boo hoo, my feelings are hurt". It's just one more example of Luke not being patient with Nick's issues. Luke is again putting higher value on the abilities of Clem, a little kid he just met, than Nick who has known him his whole life. To someone who already has self-esteem issues, Luke's comment would be taken harshly, whether Luke meant it like that or not.
But that IS the problem right there. Lots of people have this attitude but that doesn't help the person they want to change. Regardless of his good intentions, Luke's attitude to Nick isn't going to help him get over his problems, it is just going to make them worse. Luke refuses to let Nick come with them onto the bridge in concern for Nick's safety, but then it only makes Nick feel that he has to try even harder to prove himself, and the rest is history. From my own experience, a person like Nick will keep screwing up as long as everyone else treats him as if he will. He needs to deal with his issues on his own terms, in his own way.
Luke may have good intentions and he may be trying to help Nick but he won't, until he understands that they ARE different and Nick will never be able to as you say, "approach life like he does."
Specifically, when Luke says "Look, I know Pete was important to you but..." Which could be construed as patronizing.
If a friend of mine takes offense to an innocuous thing that I said, that's an issue with them, not me. That's my point. Although I didn't see why you think Nick would take offense to what Luke said, I can accept that as a possibility. What I don't accept is the notion of blaming Luke for Nick taking offense at something that he *shouldn't* have taken offense to.
They're friends. Friends don't mince words with each other. Especially not close male friends. If you thought Luke was being rude to Nick, I can't imagine what you think of the interactions I have with my friends.