Nick and Sarah Parallels: Loss of Innocence
Nick and Sarah happen to be my two favorite characters of the season so far, and as such I spend a lot of time thinking about them, and in doing so I've noticed some significant parallels between them.
Before I go into that, though, I need to explain the cycle in Nick's narrative. When we go to the river with Pete and Nick, Pete tells a story about how he took Nick hunting when he was 11 and Nick couldn't shoot the deer and almost shot Pete. In the story, Pete specifically tells us that he shot the buck in the neck. This is not only foreshadowing to Matthew, but a join representation along with Matthew of Nick's loss of innocence. Deer in media, as some of you may know, represent innocence. A deer's death is a loss of innocence. Through this story and some of Pete's other dialogue, Nick is implied to have been a sweet and gentle child, but as we can see, he grew up to be troubled and hot-headed, and it all culminates in him panicking and murdering Matthew... the same way Uncle Pete killed the buck: with a shot to the neck.
Now here's where it comes to Sarah. Sarah is a young innocent, and she's at the point Nick was during Pete's buck story. Just as Nick refused to shoot the deer, she too is baffled by the idea of wanting to harm anything for any reason. Then, at the end of episode 3, comes her loss of innocence; Carlos's death. Or, more specifically, Carlos getting shot in the neck.
I'm wondering if they'll continue these parallels and give Sarah her own "Matthew" moment.
Thoughts?
Comments
Hopefully Sarah will have one of those moments, I don't want to see her half-eaten on the side of the road
This is genius. I love your posts in general, but this one seems super legitimate.
I agree with the fact there was something important with the buck story, and I think this is it. I believe Matthew was a turning point in Nicks story. I also agree we have to see a turning point for Sarah's development.
Wow, I didn't notice that at all! Pete shot the deer in the neck, Nick shot Mathew in the neck and Carlos was shot in the neck too! That is so clever on Telltales part. And congratulation for finding that!
Well, my first thought is "damn, there's a lot of neck injury this season". Let us not forget that if Nick dies he is bitten in the neck because Walter refuses to shoot. As an English major, I should be coming up with a multitude of deep, layered meanings behind that but I'm too tired right now. Perhaps just a bit of dark irony in the fact that Walter at that point has essentially lost his kindly and gentle nature, which I wouldn't call innocence, but it's still essentially a cheery view of the world that he tries to get others to understand. So he chooses not to shoot, not because of innocence or kindliness, but because he has, in fact, lost that kindliness as a result of Nick's actions. In a way, one could say their fates are intertwined, with Nick's loss of innocence comes Walter's loss of optimism, ultimately resulting in one destroying the other. But perhaps one could even say, that they both have destroyed each other in different ways, and thus... okay, I'm done, lol. I'm just tossing stuff out there, and it's too early for this crap. :P
Other than that, this is pretty interesting. I gotta say, you've helped me to warm up to Nick. The more I read your take on him, the more I feel sorry for the guy and want him to make it okay, which is nice because I friggin' hated him in episode 2 after the Matthew incident, but I got better. :P
Another detail is that when Nick dies because you didn't say he's a good person, he's bitten in the neck. It's a full cycle.
Wouldn't it only be complete if Sarah's possible future death is from a neck wound as well?
Possibly... maybe something determinant for her as well? We'll have to see Nick's second death.
It just can't be a coincedence! This is genius.
I don't know if I would describe Sarah's loss of her Dad as her losing her innocence. She lost the entire support structure upon which she depended. That's quite a bit different than finding out that your uncle killed an innocent animal.
I agree with you that Nick's experience can be described as the loss of innocence given the symbolism of the deer and the fact that Pete summarized the lesson he wanted to communicate to Nick as "Sometimes you gotta play a role, even if the people you love hate you for it." Nick's acceptance of this notion but his failed execution of it is what leads him kill Matthew by mistake.
I don't see the parallel that can be drawn with Sarah's situation. What lesson could she have learned from losing Carlos in that way? It was a complete accident that doesn't seem to have any significance behind it. He got unlucky, was shot in the neck, yelled out, and got eaten. That's it. I can't really pull out any kind of profound lesson out of that.
Well it's not going to be the same exact situation, that would be way too obvious. Of course there are going to be differences between their situations, they're different people. But the concept is the same.
There's no real lesson, here, and that's not my point so maybe you misunderstood me. It's the fact that Sarah is very innocent and naive and she's been living in a bubble and seeing her father killed and eaten right in front of her has shattered her "rose-tinted glasses." Literally. She literally has red glasses that break, this is as hamfisted as it gets. The fact her innocence was lost by this event is practically hammered into us. And with deer being such a classic symbol of innocence as well, for a genre saavy viewer it's not too subtle, either.
The point is that they were both innocents who witnessed a traumatizing event that reflect the cruelty of human nature, all through the same method (shot to the neck), and I'm wondering if it's going to change Sarah the way it changed Nick.
Damn that is quite clever.
These guys gotcha covered.
This has given me so much to think about... God knows why, my whole life I thought bucks were turkeys...
Aside from that, great thinking. I'm glad you post your thoughts 'cause I suck with metaphors
.
Do the neck injuries themselves have any special meanings?
Well I don't think so but here we could interpret that it means 'loss of voice'. It's quite obvious if you get shot in the neck you're most likely not going to be able to speak but notice how people got shot in the neck at the times when they needed to communicate more than ever.
Matthew was shot in the neck before he could properly communicate with Nick and tell him not to shoot.
Carlos was shot in the neck before he could properly calm Sarah down in order to prevent her from panicking.
Both of these instances happened around the time Clementine either planned to or was speaking however both times she was shunned out.
See, but I don't really see how Sarah's traumatizing event reflects the cruelty of human nature. There was no rhyme or reason why Carlos had to die there. He was just in the wrong place at the wrong time.
The way I saw it, Sarah's innocence-shattering moment already came when Carver executed an innocent man and tortured her father in front of her and then again when he forced her dad to hit her and then again when he killed Reggie in front of her. After seeing those things, it's inconceivable to me that she wouldn't recognize that, yeah, the world's a pretty fucked up place.
Even back when they were out looking for Pete, Sarah seemed to have some idea of what was going on. So I don't think she's as oblivious to bad things as people think. She's just gotten used to not having to deal with it. Every time something bad happened, her dad was there to reassure her and talk her through it. She hasn't had to directly confront her troubles before. That's not innocence, that's being spoiled.
Carlos was murdered while trying to escape from Howe's an oppressive compound. It absolutely reflects the cruelty of human nature.
Sarah took a lot in episode 3, but her father dying right before her eyes was what topped it off. That's why her glasses are lost THEN. Because it's meant to signify the turning point.
Murdered? No, Carlos was winged by a bullet because he was wading through a mass of zombies that people were shooting into in order to defend themselves. No one intended to kill him. No one wanted him dead. He died because his luck ran out. And that means that Sarah's luck has run out too.
It's a turning point, absolutely. I just have a problem with describing it as a loss of innocence because of everything I just said above. To me, it was a moment similar to Omid's death for Clem. A random stroke of bad luck that caused her to lose one of her last remaining pillars of support. It was a huge turning point for her but I wouldn't describe that as her losing her innocence. Maybe I'm just splitting hairs though.
lol aahhhh shit jaja that wu tang again and again. good shit
that's whats great about it. both points are correct, so it doesn't really matter. everyone sees it different, for me what I can sayi s that both y'all points are spot on.
Always!
My argument is based a lot off of the rose-tinted glasses thing. If that wasn't a factor I'd be more willing to sway on it, but because of that detail I really feel like it's a loss of innocence.
I think Nick's situation was a much more obvious example and Sarah's is a bit more subtle.