Was carver wrong
I leave Carver was not wrong. Now hear me out on this he wasn't a great guy but the things he was saying made sense. I would compare him to Shane from the show. Here's my reasonings.
First : there must be one strong person in the group for the group to survive. This makes sense Carver says that there needs to be a wolf among sheep he's not really
Lying when he says this to be honest he's the wolf among the sheep.
Second: a leader must not threaten physically but mentally as well. Both episodes two and three he makes threats physically. He also plays peoples heads. When he killed Walter that was to messed with Kenny's head, but he also did this to get even because Kenny one of his men.
Third: in my play through Carver called Clementine the wolf among sheep IE the leader IE the strongest.
These are my reasons why carver wasn't exactly wrong what he said. Tell me what you think.
First : there must be one strong person in the group for the group to survive. This makes sense Carver says that there needs to be a wolf among sheep he's not really
Lying when he says this to be honest he's the wolf among the sheep.
Second: a leader must not threaten physically but mentally as well. Both episodes two and three he makes threats physically. He also plays peoples heads. When he killed Walter that was to messed with Kenny's head, but he also did this to get even because Kenny one of his men.
Third: in my play through Carver called Clementine the wolf among sheep IE the leader IE the strongest.
These are my reasons why carver wasn't exactly wrong what he said. Tell me what you think.
Sign in to comment in this discussion.
Comments
Lee and to a lesser extent Clementine embody the natural qualities required of a good leader: they're brave, able to be relied upon to make hard decisions, seek the betterment of the group and, above all else, are empathetic towards the needs of others. People gravitate towards them. Those who remained with Carver were merely scared of the alternative.
His words to Clementine are half true: she will, at some point, come at the crossroads where her humanity is compromised. Carver obviously lost his due to the psychological strain of keeping everyone alive - I think that's where he was identifying with Clementine.
The best thing she can do to prove him wrong is growing up to become a capable survivor and leader, who hasn't let go of her compassion and humanity. To prove that the ability of making tough calls and doing the things people of weaker character are unable to can be used to protect said weaker people, instead of opressing and killing them.
Clementine only loses the battle the moment she lets go of her innate kind nature.
She has to prove that no matter how much heavy shit she goes through, she can still find it in her to be good person, and care about the ones dear to her.
That's how she must prove Carver wrong. That she hasn't lost sight of what's important. That she hasn't let herself go. That she's NOT like him.
Shane was still crazy, though, but nowhere near as crazy as Carver was.
So the question you may ask is Carver a strong leader for the benefit of the community for which he leads, or is he a strong leader in order to benefit himself?
If Carver is strong to benefit the community some his decisions seem very debatable. Why spend time and resources risking members of your community to forcibly bring back people who have made it very clear they no longer want to be part of it. And if was that he wanted to recover his child then why bring back everyone forcibly?
If he wished to work for the benefit of his community then how is it "good" to forcible restrain people who are no longer members of it. Maybe you need the labour and the expertise but it seems tantamount to slavery. And you need lots of people to guard the people who don't want to be their. Is the cost really worth all the expense?
And if someone is really not cutting the mustard then is killing them really necessary? Exile would have been perfectly fine. And if you needed labour and warm bodies to build a community then why start shoving people of buildings after you risked members of your community to drag other people back? It wasn't to make an example because he made perfunctory attempts to hide it? When you punish people as an example you make it very public.
Whats the point of smashing Kennys face in if you need Kenny? Kenny may be tough and have hero points but that sort of damage has a good chance of killing most people and less an eye he is now less effective. If you want to being people into line their are far less wasteful ways of doing it.
All in all the Carver we see just doesn't seem to be making decisions for the benefit of the community he is supposed to be serving as leader. He seems to be serving his own need for power and control, and he is not doing that particularly well either since that leads to the somewhat predictable outcome of self-destruction.
You can be a strong leader, but you don't have to resort to violence.
Rick, on the tv series, is a good example of that.
By using violence and intimidation, it is basically called being a dictator.
To give a great example of a dictator, Adolf Hitler.
He ruled through violence and intimidation.
Anyone who disagreed with him, was either sent to an concentration camp, or executed.
And he became responsible for one of the greatest genocides in human history.
Violence should only be used as a last resort.
Think about how many lives would've been saved if we got rid of Ben in time. Im not saying Reggie was the same type of fuck-up but there is a point in carvers statement.
"It's better to be feared, wanna know who said that?"
"Some sad asshole." XD
Thank you guys for the discussion! Yeah and I'm going to be that guy that says I have a new discussion on the ending of episode four. So if you guys want to go over there and have another conversation going right head.
FuckCarver
It was excellent writing for the character.