Breaking Bad

[Carol Newquist]

^ Noted.

Oooh....cryptic. I'm sure the NSA has noted it too. Isn't it cool to play the NSA?

smiths draws me out with personal questions, and snipers drop in with sucker punches. Fascism doesn't defeat Fascism. It just replaces it with more of the same. You want to defeat Fascism? Then don't be a Fascist or even act like one. That's rule number one in the strategy.

You could have said "welcome."

[Carol Newquist]

Project Willow, Walt was not a sociopath. He was a savant who had difficulty in relating to others in sociologically conventional ways, but that's not Sociopathy. If anything, I'd say he had a touch of Aspergers. However, that being said, it's amazing how many people will embrace a true sociopath, if it's their sociopath for their cause. I will bring this up in the Collapse Culture thread today. Sociopathy, amongst other things, is the inability to empathize with others. If someone self-described as not having the capacity to empathize, and instead learns to fake it to fit in and avoid detection, they are essentially a sociopath. That's not Walt. Or did you not see the scene where he cried when Jane died before his eyes? Or did you not see the scene where he cried, heartily weeped, when he held Jesse in his arms in the drug den comforting Jesse after rescuing him from his certain death? Or did you not see all the countless tender moments of him with his infant daughter...where he expressed true, palpable love and affection? Those are not the actions of a sociopath.

And yes, of course, when one comes front and center with a live, in the flesh, sociopath/psychopath hellbent on destroying you, I have no doubt that's all you see and all that matters at the moment, but that doesn't preclude or negate my point about us as part of the collective that's inflicting much more pain and suffering as a matter of scale and degree.

Why do I think Walt is a savant? Because they showed us early on....when Walt saw the pieces of broken plate in the trash and his mind quickly, like a computer, analyzed it and prompted him that a piece was missing. He then takes it from the trash to validate what his mind already knows, and lo and behold, there is a piece missing. Shortly thereafter, he kills for the first time, but it was a kill or be killed scenario, and for Walt, to go to jail was death. When I was watching this episode again, Rainman came to mind....it didn't the first time around. In the very next scene, Hank finds Meth hidden in Crazy 8's car where Steve Gomez couldn't find it. He then chides Gomez not to mess with the Rainman. Breaking Bad was the battle of the Rainmen, Walt and Hank, both seeking their treasure, but remember what Pete Hogwallop from O Brother, Where Art Thou said in the theater to his friends, Everett McGill and Delmar O'Donnell....he said "do not seek the treasure." Hank and Walt didn't get the message and down the rabbit hole they went never to return.

[Sounder]

Thanks Carol, your large scale perspectives are quite thought provoking.

I don’t watch TV so will never see Breaking Bad, but my daughter and son-in-law loved the show and I do respect their general outlook on things. The analysis in this thread has been great so I know all kinds of stuff about the show without even seeing it, which is weird but cool also.

To the folk taking a negative attitude toward Carol, I feel the need to observe.

If Carol is C-W then you must admit that the C-W that was here before was inhibited by others such that her voice was greatly reduced in its scope of thinking. That is if you are right.

If you are wrong then we are not being at all encouraging toward lurkers who might otherwise provide us the benefit of fresh perspectives.

Harm is a matter of scale. How much more harm could Walt have done had he been the leading scientist for Monsanto creating ever better GMO every year? Yet, to many, that's a moral act for which he is applauded and awarded, despite the fact that GMO is quite literally killing us and the planet systematically. Does Meth ruin lives? Sure, it does, and it has. But GMO makes its effects look miniscule in comparison, yet Meth is evil and pernicious.....a plague....an epidemic....and illegal. It's overuse is precisely because it, and drugs, are illegal. If there's one positive point I would have hoped people would have taken away from all this, it's that Breaking Bad isn't even an idea if not for The War on Drugs. I brought this idea up at Rolling Stone....and it got mostly thumbs down...at fucking Rolling Stone, for Christ's Sake. If that doesn't prove that Rolling Stone, like any other Progressive rag, isn't now controlled by intelligence services, then nothing will prove it. FYI, I don't read Rolling Stone. I only visited the site because of a BB review....and I found a bunch of Puritans camped out in the comment section of one of the premier 60's counter-culture publications. I thank Hugh for understanding what's at play with this bullshit. He may have gotten too deep with it on occasion, but he validated so many of my suspicions. Hugh, for me, was like a pair of reading glasses. Because of Hugh, what I witnessed at Rolling Stone makes sense.

by Carol Newquist » Tue Oct 08, 2013 7:23 am
We all take part in destroying lives every day, even our own lives. We contribute to the Cold Evil of the technological cocoon in everything we do, up to and including discussing it here and all it entails for us to be able to do that. This Cold Evil is distinct from Hot Evil where harm and trauma are inflicted in person, hand to hand, or mano y mano, in a very personal and up-close way.

Walt journeyed from the inoculated and insular Cold Evil existence where he sleepwalked through life as a long-distance killer like all the rest of us, to the tumultuous, up close and personal Hot Evil existence of adrenaline pumping, primal brutality. Each existence is immoral, but I would argue the former is vastly more dangerous, and exacts much more pain and suffering than Walt's Hot Evil existence, as dramatic and theatrical as it was.

Hot evil seems to be used as a cover and distraction from cold evil.

[Carol Newquist]

Hot evil seems to be used as a cover and distraction from cold evil.

Exactly, and thanks for the welcome and kind words.

[Project Willow]

Project Willow, Walt was not a sociopath. He was a savant who had difficulty in relating to others in sociologically conventional ways, but that's not Sociopathy. If anything, I'd say he had a touch of Aspergers. However, that being said, it's amazing how many people will embrace a true sociopath, if it's their sociopath for their cause. I will bring this up in the Collapse Culture thread today. Sociopathy, amongst other things, is the inability to empathize with others. If someone self-described as not having the capacity to empathize, and instead learns to fake it to fit in and avoid detection, they are essentially a sociopath. That's not Walt. Or did you not see the scene where he cried when Jane died before his eyes? Or did you not see the scene where he cried, heartily weeped, when he held Jesse in his arms in the drug den comforting Jesse after rescuing him from his certain death? Or did you not see all the countless tender moments of him with his infant daughter...where he expressed true, palpable love and affection? Those are not the actions of a sociopath.

Your concept of sociopathy is too narrow. It's a diminished capacity for empathy, not a lack of it. I've only met one individual who was completely incapable of feeling any empathy whatsoever. Most of the other people I've known who regularly engaged in violence and activities that directly harmed other people were also capable of feeling and showing love and care, to varying degrees of depth, towards the humans in their lives whom they valued, even their victims, outside of incidents of perpetration. Human behavior is complex, often internally incongruous, paradoxical. Although I hadn't applied the label to Walt, a fictional character, about whom I can only make limited judgements, it fits, especially the "socio" aspect. His destructive acts appear rooted in responses to societal forces. What comes to mind is the final scene when he confesses to his wife that he did it all for himself and that he enjoyed it. If wracking up a body count and destroying your family to prove your manhood doesn't reveal some level sociopathy, I'm not certain what does.

[Carol Newquist]

What comes to mind is the final scene when he confesses to his wife that he did it all for himself and that he enjoyed it.

Walt's capacity for empathy was not diminished. He entered a world of kill or be killed. The rules were different. He didn't get pleasure out of killing. His killing was always as a last result when his back was against the wall...even Gale.

The confession to his wife doesn't preclude him from also doing it for his family. The two are not mutually exclusive. He did it for his family, and he did it for himself. The liking part was related to the process and science of manufacturing the best Meth in the world. Science, and the lab, were his Precious. It's what motivated him. Perhaps you need to watch it all again with a fresh perspective. That's what I'm doing right now, and it's clear half way into Season 3 that what I've just asserted is in fact, fact. What's also clear from watching it again, is that Walt made repeated attempts to extricate himself from The Business, only to be pulled back in by various characters at various times. First, it was Jesse pulling him back in. Then it was Saul trying to pull him back in. Then it was Gus trying to pull him back in and finally succeeding. In fact, what clinched it for Gus wasn't the lure of the Lab and the Science, which very much tempted Walt. As tempting as that was, he still said no to it. Gus then tries another angle and asks Walt what motivated him to start manufacturing Meth, and Walt tells him "for my family" and there was no reason to lie at that point. Gus then uses this angle to convince Walt to start cooking again.....and it works. Walt then goes home and signs the the divorce papers and moves out.



This is a very powerful and telling scene. Gus is the devil, and Walt danced with him. Also, if you recollect, he passed out in emotional grief and anguish when Jack assassinated Hank. That was not diminished empathy. If it was all about the money, he would never have gambled it away to save Hank's life. Hank, to the very end despite his effort to destroy Walt once he found out, was family to Walt, and he would do anything, including giving all that money away, to save him. When he couldn't, he was devastated.

No, Walt is not a sociopath, even by your revised definition.

[Project Willow]

What comes to mind is the final scene when he confesses to his wife that he did it all for himself and that he enjoyed it.

Perhaps you need to watch it all again with a fresh perspective. That's what I'm doing right now, and it's clear half way into Season 3 that what I've just asserted is in fact, fact.

No, your assertion is not fact, it's an opinion based on interpretation. I have a different opinion, and I don't "need" to do anything to bring my views into alliance with yours. There is no absolute right or wrong in the interpretation of art. What disturbs me however, is your interpretation borders on rationalizing the character's behavior into something normative, acceptable. This seems directly at odds with your previous condemnations of violence and exploitative systems. Certainly rationalizing our own non-optimal behavior, and that of others, plays a major role in the evils you decry.

[Carol Newquist]

No, your assertion is not fact, it's an opinion based on interpretation.

Actually, that's a good point and something I thought about as I was typing it. I shouldn't have said fact. I will elaborate later on, but the elaboration is something I've been thinking for a while now, and it's in line with your statement about art and interpretation.

That being said, I don't want you to adopt my opinion. My opinions/interpretations of this show have changed several times now in the past two years, so even my most recent interpretation is not set in stone. It's a sign of great art that this many interpretations, and fluctuating interpretations, are evoked by this creation.

As for the last part of your response, I'm not justifying Walt's behavior, I'm characterizing it. My opinion, my interpretation, is that he is not a monster, that he is not a sociopath, that he got caught up in something that ultimately consumed him. The world is not black and white....I believe that was one of the messages of this series....hence Gray Matter. But, like I said, more later about art and interpretations.

[smiths]

Isn't it cool to play the NSA? ... smiths draws me out with personal questions, and snipers drop in with sucker punches ... don't be a Fascist or even act like one ... You could have said "welcome."

settle down there Carol,
i read the board fairly regularly, I noticed that you seemed prolific in your output and quite forceful in your projections and then noticed from your signature thingy that you had only been on the board for little over 2 weeks,
so i asked straight out if you had been a reader of RI or poster elsewhere, a fair enough question i think

when you posted your response i said "fair enough"

if i was chatting with a group of people in the 'real world' and someone joined the conversation and seemed quite knowledgeable and also dominated a conversation i would ask them who they were, where they had come from, i would try and get a sense of them

lots of people do that i think


and back to the OP, i think much of what you have said about WW is on the right track, especially the Catholic symbolism of the last episode

by the way, the other thing WW stands for is World War

[Laodicean]

We are the music makers,
And we are the dreamers of dreams,
Wandering by lone sea-breakers,
And sitting by desolate streams;—
World-losers and world-forsakers,
On whom the pale moon gleams:
Yet we are the movers and shakers
Of the world for ever, it seems.

[Carol Newquist]

settle down there Carol,

I'm settled. Have been from the start, and still am. Who or what I am is not germane to this topic, at least not directly. But, nonetheless, I answer your question, and your response is "fair enough." What am I supposed to think? Have I asked you who you are? Do I even care? No, I haven't and I don't, not because I don't care about you as a person as I would anyone else, but because it's not really about this topic, at least not directly. But please, stop with the "settle down" nonsense. The next thing you know, you'll be telling me I'm hysterical.

if i was chatting with a group of people in the 'real world' and someone joined the conversation and seemed quite knowledgeable and also dominated a conversation

But it's not the real world so your point doesn't apply. In the real world I can smell you, I can touch you, I can see you.....I can use the entirety of my senses to better comprehend you. In this world, since I can't do that, you're as fictional as Walt and the show he's starred in, Breaking Bad.

Not to mention, I haven't dominated the conversation because there was no conversation. The thread was dying and I've pulled it back from the abyss several times now. If I didn't, it would more than likely be on Page 3 or 4 and we wouldn't be having this discussion. Thankfully, because I've kept it fresh (what you call dominating the discussion), Sounder will now watch the show. And for that, I'm happy, because I think Sounder will really enjoy it. I think this show is right in Sounder's wheelhouse. He's a deep and wide thinker with a very open mind....willing to consider and explore various perspectives and he's open to changing his perspective when the current one no longer seems to fit.....something the majority of people can't, or won't, do.

And another thing, I've helped turned this thread around into something positive.....a multi-dimensional analysis of this incredible work of art. And you have the nerve to label that as dominating the conversation. In fact, you know what, smiths? It's not even a conversation. It hasn't been from the start of this thread. It's just an analysis of Breaking Bad. Take the screen names away and only the words remain. If you change your perspective and quit concentrating on the poster, and rather on the words, maybe all the bickering can subside. It's also very telling that some who have posted to this thread, at least early on, only did so to snipe at mulebone. They added nothing else to the analysis. Have I sniped at mulebone? No. Why? Because I value mulebone's words. Mulebone's social criticism helps keep me honest with, and to, myself. It's a gut check. It works. Try it sometime. Sometimes I laugh at the reaction to social critics like mulebone. If the likes of Bageant (rest in peace, Joe) were to post here anonymously, he would be derided and driven off the reservation in no time flat. It's like the Christians and their savior returning. That savior could return, and they would not only not recognize it, they'd crucify him again. Think about that before retaliating. There's no need to retaliate. I apply what I'm saying to myself, every day, day in and day out.

That's all I will say about myself in this thread. I am the equal of all of you here. If you're truly Egalitarian as many of you claim to be, then you should have no problem with me entering the conversation/analysis as an equal peer. If you have a problem with that, if you think I don't know my place, then I suggest you introspect for a while to find out what and who you really are, because "place" is authoritarian no matter how you try to rationalize it's not. My personal philosophy is that I welcome all and every opinion. I have no ranking system. I don't look at words on the screen and evaluate those words based on who said them. Once again, I'll bring up the Christians and Jesus example. I'm an Agnostic and areligious, but this example is apt. Jesus said "I am the Word." But I'll be damned if his followers couldn't and can't accept that, so they turn Jesus into a personality, and worship him as an icon, thus ignoring his admonition to perceive him as the Word, and not the Man. And what gets ignored and overlooked in that equation? That's right. The Word.

[Carol Newquist]

Here's what I promised Project Willow I would elaborate on. It echos her assertion about art and the interpretation of it. I posted this at Rolling Stone after the Ozymandias episode.

Breaking Bad is whatever we want it to be, including, but not exclusive to, what the writers wanted and intended it to be. It's a pseudo Rorschach Test if you think about it. We project upon a partially filled canvass our own personal experiences that have formed our biases and prejudices.

As for the intent of Walt's call to Skyler, obviously there isn't much room for interpretation since the writer has made it clear, if it wasn't clear enough from watching it, that it was a strategy by Walt to save Skyler from taking the fall for him. But so much more of this series is not as cut and dried as that, and is open for multiple interpretations. The writers' intent can no longer contain what's now taken on a life of its own. That's the way art goes, and any good artist knows this and accepts it.

Therefore, one of my interpretations is, this series is about good guys versus bad guys......but not just about that; it's also about the shades of gray that occupy the majority of the space between those two opposing spectrum anchors. Amongst many other things it is, it's about a man who has lived a lifetime condensed into two years versus languishing in anonymous obscurity and underachievement for another thirty five years until he passes away peacefully and obliviously in a nursing home bed coddled securely in a diaper. Cancer redeemed Walt's ambition, or kindled his latent ambition that had been left for dead.

Breaking Bad, above all, is an adventure. The writers have taken us on a ride. We were there with Walt and every other character every step of the way....some imploring Walt to cap Jessie as early as season three because Jessie was an obvious liability. Some imploring Walt to take Saul up on creating a new identity as early as season three because this THING he let out of the bottle had become greater than his own effort....it had taken on a life of its own and was going to subsume him like the cancer.

[Carol Newquist]

Gale was great. Who found themselves singing right along with him? And damn, what I wouldn't give for some of his coffee or tea. His murder was tragic and sad. Like all the rest, he flew too close to the flame. The flame gets everyone who flies too close to it. His naive Libertarianism was a liability in a non-Libertarian society. He didn't comprehend the dangers.

[Project Willow]

If you change your perspective and quit concentrating on the poster, and rather on the words, maybe all the bickering can subside. It's also very telling that some who have posted to this thread, at least early on, only did so to snipe at mulebone. They added nothing else to the analysis. Have I sniped at mulebone? No. Why? Because I value mulebone's words. Mulebone's social criticism helps keep me honest with, and to, myself. It's a gut check. It works. Try it sometime. Sometimes I laugh at the reaction to social critics like mulebone. If the likes of Bageant (rest in peace, Joe) were to post here anonymously, he would be derided and driven off the reservation in no time flat. It's like the Christians and their savior returning. That savior could return, and they would not only not recognize it, they'd crucify him again. Think about that before retaliating. There's no need to retaliate. I apply what I'm saying to myself, every day, day in and day out.

Sniped at Mulebone? Mulebone's been sniping at folks here for ages, it's his schtick, but in this thread he went beyond his usual level of insult. It's not social critique at that point, it's using a group of people as your personal rage venting outlet. It's interesting you bring up Christianity. Certainly one of the most insidious forms of the practice is the condemnation of all humans as base sinners who require redemption and saving from themselves. It's manipulative conditioning, the breaking down before the rebuilding, a tool in a system of control. I don't need any deity threatening to reign shit on me because I'm inherently bad, or an anon internet poster telling me I'm an asshole because his life sucks. Ends, means, and all of that.

We're a small group here and we've come to be familiar with each other over many years of interaction. I understand it's been a bit of a rough landing for you, and you may be reading Smiths' post through that lens, but I read it as a nice gesture to explain himself.

Hope that helps.

[Carol Newquist]

Hope that helps.

It helps. Thanks. smiths, here's my hand, take it if you wish. No harm, no foul. My words apply to me as much as anyone. Consider them, or not, I will and do.