Walking with the “Walking Dead”

I have just watched the first four and a half seasons of “The Walking Dead.”  I will first give my assessment of the series thus far.  Second, I will give my interpretations—where applicable.

As for my impressions of the series, I must say that it is visually the most disturbing television series I have ever seen.  It is hideously violent, and for those of you thinking of watching the series, do not do so if you are squeamish about any of the following: decaying bodies, dismemberment, cannibalism, bashed in brains, spilling intestines, horrible wounds, rape, torture, violence against children including babies, exploding people, burning people, and chopping people up with machetes.  The violence in this series is simply astonishing.  And I am still wondering whether or not it is too violent.  That may seem like a strange thing to wonder about, but I will get back to that point…

The settings are disturbing in that there is so much decay everywhere, streets populated by corpses either re-animated or rotting—or half-eaten.  Yet there is a banality about the towns.  There are homes with kitchens and dishes in the cupboards, tinned tuna and dry pasta, forks and knives in drawers.  Pictures on the walls.  Bathrooms with toilet paper, shampoo on the side of the bath tub, deodorant in the mirror cabinet.  Bedrooms with blankets, pillows, alarm clocks, televisions, clothes in the closet, clothes in the laundry hamper…. Etc, etc, etc.  The houses are the homes of the North American “every-person”.  These are the homes of Joe and Jane Smith, their 2.5 kids, and Fido their dog.  The people who owned these homes are ‘you and me.’  That the owners are jumping out of closets and basements trying to eat people is frightening, but because these people are ‘you and me’ (both as re-animated corpses and as survivors), it is truly disturbing.

The cities are still standing, but even from a distance through binoculars, one can see that they are as dead as the re-animated corpses haunting their streets.  No running water, no flush toilets, no showers, no electricity, barely a battery, no news, no operating radio stations, no television stations, no internet, no professional medical facilities, no infrastructure, no government, no phones, no law, no help.  All human survivors on the planet are left to their own devices, and this point is also terrifying.

What is the most unsettling thing about “The Walking Dead” is that the violence and the human remains normalize both in the survivalist characters in the series and in the audiences.  Also, as a viewer of the series, don’t become attached to any one character, (spoiler) as the most beloved characters seem to die off every four or five episodes with the exception of six characters:

  1. Rick Grimes: A deputy sheriff who, wounded in the line of duty, was in a coma in a hospital bed when the “Zombie” virus outbreak happened. It’s a miracle that he survived. Conflicted leader, teetering on the edge madness.
  2. Carl Grimes: Rick’s son, about 10 years old at the time of the outbreak. Is now 12, and damaged. Angry and didactic. Accomplished killer. Dangerous and self-loathing. Older than his years.
  3. Carol: Woman of about 35 years old. Was abused in her marriage, but her identity has changed. Her husband and daughter are both dead. She has gone from slave to warrior.
  4. Glenn: Young Asian guy, about 21. He’d been the pizza dude until the outbreak. He is smarter than everyone else but under-valued. Had lived by his wits until he met Rick.
  5. Daryl: Redneck drifter who lived a very hard life. Good at hunting, and the cross bow is his weapon of choice. Uneducated and not highly intelligent, but resourceful, very loyal, and hard as nails. He had Rambo’ed it in the forest eating bugs and leaves until he attached himself to Carol’s group.
  6. Morgan: Seldom seen man who first rescued Rick and brought him up to speed about what had happened in the world while Rick was in a coma. Is trailing Rick’s group of survivors, and hoping to meet up with them. Resourceful, intelligent, and ‘invisible.’

All other characters currently in the show, even if they seem like central leads, are peripheral characters—and the kill fodder for the writers.  The show is balanced in this way.  When villains die on “The Walking Dead”, a pattern has developed over 4.5 seasons that this ‘death of evil’ is answered by the death of a central character (aside from the core six—at least, thus far).  So, one of the good guys dies also.

As for my study of the series…

The series is a metaphor for those instances within and the mechanisms of modern Western culture.  Those that terrify.  The writers seem to cover everything, but there are three major questions that are explored through the story lines.  These questions are:

  1. Upon what is human civilization built?
  2. Does human morality actually exist or is it merely a philosophical rubric for the world of now?
  3. How does the individual endure the astounding depths of meaninglessness already present in this modern Western culture?

Going back to the violence of the series—violence that simply cannot be overstated… The violence happens on several levels, and these levels seem to have stabilized within the story: the violence against the ‘other’ (killing zombies), the justifiable violence (killing the enemy), the unjustifiable violence (killing each other), and the interior violence (destroying one’s own mind and soul).  The world is seen within a fishbowl, highly magnified, and where most conflicts—even within the established heroic collective—are resolved by violence in one form or another.  All violence that occurs can be rationalized.  Even the most evil ones can make amends—or seem to be offered this opportunity.

There is a price, both implicit and explicit, for anything of value that passes from person(s) to person(s).  The saying “there is no such thing as a free lunch” comes to mind.  Altruism and mercy are subject to an unsound form of utilitarianism.  Rather than Mr Spock’s famous paraphrase of Jeremy Bentham’s “the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few”, the society of “The Walking Dead” believes that “the needs of our many negate the needs of the other.” This revised take on the old apothegm is constant across all the various survivor settlements encountered in the series.

One thing I found quite fascinating about this series is that there are no “good guys.”  Even the good guys are not good guys.  The “heroes” in this series can be compared to the “man with no name” archetype of the old “spaghetti westerns” of the 60s and early 70s.  The character is amoral, on the edge, ultra-violent, with a very binary code of justice.  His fearlessness and seemingly “moral” acts are also self-serving, and the primary reason he acts in the first place.  Then he leaves without having truly revealed himself or his motivation other than his own survival.  The rest is speculation because he is necessarily an enigma.  Without that sense of mystery, the character is so two-dimensional, that it would degrade without it.  In “The Walking Dead”, a brilliant example of this archetype is the character of Daryl Dixon.  He is a simply a rephrasing of the gritty-voiced, dirt-smudged, lone-wolf anti-hero with the icy stare—the man of few words.  It is implicit that Daryl has “a code”, yet the audience struggles to define it, and after 5 seasons, well, I think I’ve made my case…  However, what I was saying about the “good guys” being not so good, and the series lacking anyone who is actually “good” is a valid point, and part of what makes the series not merely cohesive, but also makes it a study in the humanness of humans.

The good guys don’t win; they just get lucky from time to time.  The universe keeps score—one good guy death for every bad guy death.  “Only the strong survive” is the overindulged truism that is both proved and disproved repeatedly.  The series holds a reductionist viewpoint of human civilization and contends that all the ethics and principles valued at large by modern Western culture can be reduced to a cruel brand of moral relativism and anarchy.  We aren’t “human” without our civilization, that is to say, we are no longer capable of maintaining our humanity without our cellphones.

I will be discussing more about “The Walking Dead” and other “zombie” literature and films in the coming weeks.  This is my first real take on it…

I will keep you posted!


Author: Linda

I am a writer, poet, blogger, calligrapher, chef, and morning shower songstress. I am wife, best buddy, and partner in crime to Peter. Together, Peter and I are enslaved to a small yet fierce Shih Tzu Overlord.

5 thoughts on “Walking with the “Walking Dead””

  1. Gurrkh. Definitely not something I’d go near with a pole, ten-foot or otherwise. Sounds like you need a good dose of my nice, kind, gentle, happy-ending fantasy novels by way of a break! 🙂

    However, this all makes me wonder (and I know that question is already part of your investigation): why the heck is this sort of stuff popular? What is it about our society that is drawn to stories like that? What do they do for people – and more importantly, what does that say about our society/culture? Relevant musings…


    1. Wow! That was fast! You must be at your computer right now. Lol.

      First, yes!! I do so much want your new novel. Can we do as we did the last time? Is that okay?

      “The Walking Dead”…here’s the thing… Are we drawn to this stuff because it entertains? Or because it answers? To my mind, I think it might be a little of both, but more that it answers than that it entertains. How do we put our fears into words when those fears have become so esoteric that they seem to float out there somewhere in the ether, only half visible?

      I don’t think the Victorians, in their day, could have defined why they were so drawn to “Dracula” either, except that it seemed to respond to some deep, dark, and as yet unspoken “thing” that was ever-present, and weighing upon them. That we are able to look at “Dracula” and say “Ahhhh, of course” is only because we have the benefit of hindsight at an unbiased arm’s length. With this “zombie culture”, we don’t have that “knowing” yet. All we have now is the “lure”. We need the epiphany first in order to have true understanding, and that’s a few years off I think. Or not.


  2. I don’t think you give the hero enough credit. His actions have not really been to save himself and every encounter. I think he would gladly give his own life to save his group. Also he doesn’t look at his people as his group but his family. And he would die for them. His reasoning for staying alive has been for his son or wife or daughter. His family is full of capable people to raise his daughter. His wife is dead. And as you stated, his son is an accomplished killer trained by Rick and Daryl to survive, track, and live off the land. Only his size hinders him. Not every situation is luck. Although lots are. But that’s any white knuckle, edge of your seat, adrenaline show. And it’s those moments that can make you cheer or scream at the TV hoping the writer’s ears are bleeding. That said, there are moments where if it were not for the quick thinking of our not so good, good guy, the show would be over because they would all be dead. And eaten by the dead………or living. As for there being no good guys, I’m not too sure that’s completely accurate. Prince charmings? No. But you also can’t compare who they are now in the show to the world outside of the show. It’s apples and oranges. Both fruit yet completely different. In the world we live they would be thrown on death row. On the same token they wouldn’t do the things they have done if they also lived in our world. But in their world they are forced to do things to survive. If your forced to ‘kill’ dead people all day, I’m sure you will become a little desensitized in general. Also everyone who is still alive has done something, somewhere, to someone, sometime. Thus the three questions. ” how many walkers have you killed? How many people have you killed? Why? Notice he does not ask ‘if’ they have killed but instead he asks ‘how many’. Because in this new world survival requires more than just knowing what berries you can eat. But remember you can always ‘opt out’ if you find yourself unable or unwilling to meet these new requirements. Even in today society they say your survivalist bag needs certain things. Like a flashlight , matches, canned goods, water, etc, and a gun. And it’s not for the bears. Remember who the top predators are on this planet. And who create the most threat. And who are the most intelligent. It’s people. Not the wind up chattering teeth walking corpses. But the living, breathing, intelligent, predator outside wanting what you have. But other than the hero and carols age lol. I like everything you wrote. Carol is like 50 btw.


    1. So, the moral premise of “The Walking Dead” is that you must kill to prove your adaptation to the “new system”, and if you cannot “fit in” by learning the art of killing, you cannot possibly survive and must “opt out”…which is a cold-hearted way of saying “take your own life.” Wow. That is a troubling indictment of modern Western culture, don’t you think?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s