After watching the 3rd Season, Walking Dead mid-season finale, as I write I pose these scenarios and questions to myself and you…
Opening of Season I: Anarchy
When Shane was a leader king, he had power simply because he was stronger than anyone else. Remember where the guy tries to dig graves and Shane beats him down, simply because the guy digging will not relent? Not taking Shane’s say so without question?
Season II: Democracy
Dale, who prior, was just a guy driving a motor home, just one member of the group. When Rick showed up, that gave him power. The power to influence the leader thru the input of the people.
Dale became the representative of the people, that brought all sides to the ruler. Helped the people understand the issues, helped the ruler understand all sides of the issues and how it affected the people (the group).
Was the Dale character of value to the group?
Season III: Ricktatorship
Once Shane was gone, and Dale too, then one man ruled, and it was good. Since at the point in time was one that required a single strong leader. Hence, a Ricktatorship rose, but not a Dictatorship.
Mid Season III: Dictatorship
The “Governor” is parodied as a Julius Caesar, that rules the people by protecting them with walls between the outside, where the lawless reign, with picnics and gladiator style entertainment.
By pacifying the masses with distraction, he is then free to rule, unchallenged. No one can challenge him, since the safety of his walls manned by his military offer something the population does not want to have to provide themselves. They are free in a way, but in fact, that freedom gives the ruler more power, to do as he wishes.
In retrospective the “Ricktatorship” has to fall however…
When things become more complex for our group, when a stable home, the prison home provides stability, with time for complex relationships to evolve between the members of the group; Now a ruling council has to rise, since one leader cannot see all, consider all. A single “my way or the highway” ruler is no longer needed.
So now we ask ourselves these questions:
Merle must either do something so good the group trusts him anew. Or, he must do something so evil that Daryll can see him for what he is. Finally, a third scenario arises, where Merle gives his life to save Daryl, or a member of the group, or the group as a whole. Thus returning Daryll to the the group, with or without Merle.
Maggie gave up the group fast, after Merle used some serious mind tricks on her. First she was broken down by hearing Glen beaten, then she threatened by mock rape, finally broken my a gun in Glen’s face? The key here is the Glen does not know this occurred. That she was in the next room hearing his beating via Merle?
Would Glen have broken had the circumstances been reversed? That is the question the must be answered for Glen to continue to be a part of the group and return to seeing his mate as one who has strength and honor. It is also a story that Daryl does not know, and will not take time to hear. So this Glen perspective is his alone.
Will these people find a way to become different and stronger? Or will their challenges be their undoing? Do we care?
We, now not as the viewer, but the reader of each character’s inside story ask our selves this: “Does this make the story better for each of us?”
Since we know all their stories, and with our own back stories and perspectives, do we see a story that is unique to each of us?
Tell me your thoughts in comments below, as I find this kind of story telling to be far more imaginable and thought provoking than a single story, told to me. I remember this kind of storytelling first known to me by David Chase in “The Sopranos“…
Instead this kind is writing and storytelling is what I hope to attain in my own writing abilities. Hence your feedback is massively valuable to me as a writer, and more insightful as us all as Walking Dead fans.
Image courtesy of “TheWalkingStalkers.com“…