Clementine was 8 years old, and 9 at the end of season 1. Sometimes, people, children included, need to find out things for themselves. Plus, teaching people to hang on to hope, even though things look bleak, is a very powerful thing.
"You ain't little." -Chuck Teaching her to hang on to hope just to find out the most precious thing to her is indeed dead is far more brutal to the emotions than already knowing, or having the idea, that they were gone in the first place. It's like being told your dog is dead then going home vs coming home and finding your dog dead.
If life was not still sacred, and if old world values no longer matter, and it's all about "survival of the fittest," ...... then why did Lee look after Clementine? Why did Kenny continue to try and provide for and protect his family, instead of just running off and looking after himself? Why did Lilly try to save her dad? Why did Lilly object to taking from the station wagon, if it turned out not abandoned like it appeared to be? Why did Chuck, not only share what he had with the group, but later on save Clementine's life?
Why have they all killed? Why have the all stolen? Why have they all lied? The examples you list are kindnesses, largely dedicated to family or loved ones. The "old world values are dead" is predicated on strangers and such, not well known, long cared for interests. Not to mention genetic protection dates back far longer than any values perceived as modern values. The only example you gave that doesn't fall under this category is Chuck. And he lasted a few days tops after deciding to join and help the group.
And as far as being tough when the situation calls for it, I'll give you that. To protect yourself, and the ones you care for, you have to be. But the point is, you don't have to become animalistic to survive. As Dale, on the tv show, once so eloquently put it when speaking to Andrea, "The world we know is gone. Keeping our humanity, that's a choice."
Which of pragmatic Lee's choices would you view as particularly animalistic?
And as far as Carver's camp, they may have not viewed their actions as wrong. But the fact is they were. If their actions were good, then they wouldn't have treated the group like dangerous prisoners. Nor would they have practically enslaved them, to ensure their own survival. Carver ran nothing but a dictatorship. Bonnie was the only real decent one, of Carver's crew. And once she saw how things really were, she did the decent thing, and helped the group escape.
A simplistic view, but overall fully debatable. But this is skewing the point being made. Lee's most pragmatic decisions may have been called mean, may have even been called bad (arguably) but hardly evil.
Clementine was 8 years old, and 9 at the end of season 1.
Sometimes, people, children included, need to find out things for themselves.
Pl… moreus, teaching people to hang on to hope, even though things look bleak, is a very powerful thing.
If life was not still sacred, and if old world values no longer matter, and it's all about "survival of the fittest," ...... then why did Lee look after Clementine?
Why did Kenny continue to try and provide for and protect his family, instead of just running off and looking after himself?
Why did Lilly try to save her dad?
Why did Lilly object to taking from the station wagon, if it turned out not abandoned like it appeared to be?
Why did Chuck, not only share what he had with the group, but later on save Clementine's life?
And as far as being tough when the situation calls for it, I'll give you that.
To protect yourself, and the ones you care for, you have to be.
But the point is, you don't have t… [view original content]
Even if you play Lee as a pragmatist, he's still the saviour of Clementine.
Teaching a little girls the way of this new world may seem as cruel, but it's still better than leaving her to die, even if some super-moral people disagree.
Moreover, the Stranger was obviously a broken loser, probably even tied his zombie daughter in the room Clementine didn't want you to see. I don't really consider him a villain though, because his intentions weren't really evil, it was all caused by his own despair, which he can't control.
Even if you play Lee as a pragmatist, he's still the saviour of Clementine.
Teaching a little girls the way of this new world may seem as c… moreruel, but it's still better than leaving her to die, even if some super-moral people disagree.
Moreover, the Stranger was obviously a broken loser, probably even tied his zombie daughter in the room Clementine didn't want you to see. I don't really consider him a villain though, because his intentions weren't really evil, it was all caused by his own despair, which he can't control.
I sometimes think that Carley was the real villain. If she didn't give Clementine the batteries, that whole stranger thing wouldn't of happened. Clementine wouldn't have been kidnapped, and Lee wouldn't have got bit.
DO YOU SEE THE POWER YOU HOLD EVEN AFTER YOU DIE IN THE GODDAMN GAME?!
As someone who thinks of life as being sacred the villain for me would be the one who kills the most people, so who is that?
Lee: man sle… moreeping with his wife, andy and/or Danny (determinate) , Jolene (D), women in street (D), a bandit (D), five bandits, the stranger (D) 6-12
The stranger: his son (sort of) , lee (sort of) 0-2
Saint johns: mark, Travis, mr Parker, Jolene (D), jolene's daughter (probably), Larry (sort of) 3-6
Lilly: Carly/ Doug, bandit, possibly some more bandits. 2-5
Kenny: Larry, Shawn (sort of), 1-2
Katjaa: katjaa 1
Walkers: Shawn, Carly or Doug, the police officer, Chet (D), Travis or mr Parker, Brenda, that girl in the street (D), a bandit, duck, chuck, Brie, Ben, lee 9-12
I don't think I've missed any, but oh my god lee can determinately kill more people than the walkers are seen killing! Wow, was not expecting that...
Obviously, we have different viewpoints.
And I respect that.
To answer your question, "Which one of pragmatic Lee's choices do you view as particularly animalistic?"
Perhaps, the term animalistic, doesn't quite apply to him, if he's behaving pragmatic.
Unnecessarily brutal might be a better term to describe him.
Just to give a quick example, after Danny St John stepped in the bear trap, or whatever kind of trap it was, Lee then killing him.
If the trap was like the one Ben's teacher was caught in, it was more than likely altered so that it couldn't be released.
So really, killing Danny was unnecessary.
Not that Danny was a good man, far from it.
But the point is, once he was trapped, he could no longer pose a threat to anyone.
When I used the term animalistic, I was thinking more about the measures the St John's had allowed themselves to go to in order to survive.
That's animalistic thinking!
Not to mention depraved.
Human beings are supposed to be better than that!
Clementine was 8 years old, and 9 at the end of season 1. Sometimes, people, children included, need to find out things for themselves. Plus… more, teaching people to hang on to hope, even though things look bleak, is a very powerful thing.
"You ain't little." -Chuck Teaching her to hang on to hope just to find out the most precious thing to her is indeed dead is far more brutal to the emotions than already knowing, or having the idea, that they were gone in the first place. It's like being told your dog is dead then going home vs coming home and finding your dog dead.
If life was not still sacred, and if old world values no longer matter, and it's all about "survival of the fittest," ...... then why did Lee look after Clementine? Why did Kenny continue to try and provide for and protect his family, instead of just running off and looking after himself? Why did Lilly try to save her dad? Why did Lilly object to taking from the station… [view original content]
Obviously, we have different viewpoints. And I respect that.
To answer your question, "Which one of pragmatic Lee's choices do you view as particularly animalistic?" Perhaps, the term animalistic, doesn't quite apply to him, if he's behaving pragmatic. Unnecessarily brutal might be a better term to describe him.
Just to give a quick example, after Danny St John stepped in the bear trap, or whatever kind of trap it was, Lee then killing him. If the trap was like the one Ben's teacher was caught in, it was more than likely altered so that it couldn't be released. So really, killing Danny was unnecessary. Not that Danny was a good man, far from it. But the point is, once he was trapped, he could no longer pose a threat to anyone.
Brutal perhaps. But for one isn't killing Danny more merciful and humane than letting him get eaten alive? Plus it was in the protection of Clem. A pitchfork to the heart and lungs is a quick death. Pragmatic of Lee to end him that way, but not evil.
Obviously, we have different viewpoints.
And I respect that.
To answer your question, "Which one of pragmatic Lee's choices do you view … moreas particularly animalistic?"
Perhaps, the term animalistic, doesn't quite apply to him, if he's behaving pragmatic.
Unnecessarily brutal might be a better term to describe him.
Just to give a quick example, after Danny St John stepped in the bear trap, or whatever kind of trap it was, Lee then killing him.
If the trap was like the one Ben's teacher was caught in, it was more than likely altered so that it couldn't be released.
So really, killing Danny was unnecessary.
Not that Danny was a good man, far from it.
But the point is, once he was trapped, he could no longer pose a threat to anyone.
When I used the term animalistic, I was thinking more about the measures the St John's had allowed themselves to go to in order to survive.
That's animalistic thinking!
Not to mention depraved.
Human beings are supposed to be better than that!
Obviously, we have different viewpoints. And I respect that.
To answer your question, "Which one of pragmatic Lee's choices do you view as … moreparticularly animalistic?" Perhaps, the term animalistic, doesn't quite apply to him, if he's behaving pragmatic. Unnecessarily brutal might be a better term to describe him.
Just to give a quick example, after Danny St John stepped in the bear trap, or whatever kind of trap it was, Lee then killing him. If the trap was like the one Ben's teacher was caught in, it was more than likely altered so that it couldn't be released. So really, killing Danny was unnecessary. Not that Danny was a good man, far from it. But the point is, once he was trapped, he could no longer pose a threat to anyone.
Brutal perhaps. But for one isn't killing Danny more merciful and humane than letting him get eaten alive? Plus it was in the protection of Clem. A pitchfork to the heart and lungs is a quick death. Pragmatic of Lee to end him that way, but not evil.
True, it is a quick death.
However, to quote Christian Bale's Batman, when speaking to Liam Neeson on the runaway train, "I won't kill yo… moreu. But I don't have to save you."
The idea was, the bad guy dies, yet the character does not break his own moral code.
Comments
Clementine was 8 years old, and 9 at the end of season 1. Sometimes, people, children included, need to find out things for themselves. Plus, teaching people to hang on to hope, even though things look bleak, is a very powerful thing.
If life was not still sacred, and if old world values no longer matter, and it's all about "survival of the fittest," ...... then why did Lee look after Clementine? Why did Kenny continue to try and provide for and protect his family, instead of just running off and looking after himself? Why did Lilly try to save her dad? Why did Lilly object to taking from the station wagon, if it turned out not abandoned like it appeared to be? Why did Chuck, not only share what he had with the group, but later on save Clementine's life?
And as far as being tough when the situation calls for it, I'll give you that. To protect yourself, and the ones you care for, you have to be. But the point is, you don't have to become animalistic to survive. As Dale, on the tv show, once so eloquently put it when speaking to Andrea, "The world we know is gone. Keeping our humanity, that's a choice."
And as far as Carver's camp, they may have not viewed their actions as wrong. But the fact is they were. If their actions were good, then they wouldn't have treated the group like dangerous prisoners. Nor would they have practically enslaved them, to ensure their own survival. Carver ran nothing but a dictatorship. Bonnie was the only real decent one, of Carver's crew. And once she saw how things really were, she did the decent thing, and helped the group escape.
Even if you play Lee as a pragmatist, he's still the saviour of Clementine.
Teaching a little girls the way of this new world may seem as cruel, but it's still better than leaving her to die, even if some super-moral people disagree.
Moreover, the Stranger was obviously a broken loser, probably even tied his zombie daughter in the room Clementine didn't want you to see. I don't really consider him a villain though, because his intentions weren't really evil, it was all caused by his own despair, which he can't control.
Well said.
I sometimes think that Carley was the real villain. If she didn't give Clementine the batteries, that whole stranger thing wouldn't of happened. Clementine wouldn't have been kidnapped, and Lee wouldn't have got bit.
DO YOU SEE THE POWER YOU HOLD EVEN AFTER YOU DIE IN THE GODDAMN GAME?!
Kenny can determinately kill Ben in the 'Ben/Kenny 'death' scene'.
Obviously, we have different viewpoints.
And I respect that.
To answer your question, "Which one of pragmatic Lee's choices do you view as particularly animalistic?"
Perhaps, the term animalistic, doesn't quite apply to him, if he's behaving pragmatic.
Unnecessarily brutal might be a better term to describe him.
Just to give a quick example, after Danny St John stepped in the bear trap, or whatever kind of trap it was, Lee then killing him.
If the trap was like the one Ben's teacher was caught in, it was more than likely altered so that it couldn't be released.
So really, killing Danny was unnecessary.
Not that Danny was a good man, far from it.
But the point is, once he was trapped, he could no longer pose a threat to anyone.
When I used the term animalistic, I was thinking more about the measures the St John's had allowed themselves to go to in order to survive.
That's animalistic thinking!
Not to mention depraved.
Human beings are supposed to be better than that!
Obviously, we have different viewpoints. And I respect that.
To answer your question, "Which one of pragmatic Lee's choices do you view as particularly animalistic?" Perhaps, the term animalistic, doesn't quite apply to him, if he's behaving pragmatic. Unnecessarily brutal might be a better term to describe him.
Just to give a quick example, after Danny St John stepped in the bear trap, or whatever kind of trap it was, Lee then killing him. If the trap was like the one Ben's teacher was caught in, it was more than likely altered so that it couldn't be released. So really, killing Danny was unnecessary. Not that Danny was a good man, far from it. But the point is, once he was trapped, he could no longer pose a threat to anyone.
True, it is a quick death.
However, to quote Christian Bale's Batman, when speaking to Liam Neeson on the runaway train, "I won't kill you. But I don't have to save you."
The idea was, the bad guy dies, yet the character does not break his own moral code.
Alright. But to wrap up, pragmatic doesn't mean evil.