In Your Language

Monday, March 31, 2014

Are you Walking Dead?

 
 Photo Credit: DeviantArt.net

Who is more dead, the characters who are zombies or 

the ones who let people die?

[One thing that stood out to me as I have watched this TV series is that the two doctors (albeit one was a veterinarian) both had faith in science and value of life. Despite the fact that they were two very valuable people amongst the many, they were willing to put their lives on the line to spare the condition of their souls.

Hershel risked his life over and over again in the prison episodes especially with the people who were closest to death and closest to turning. Dr. Porter was willing to put the Washington D.C. mission on the back-burner because he couldn't live with himself after "saving the world" if he let Glenn and Tara die in the tunnel (Season 4, Episode 15).  

That change in agenda made me feel relieved that there was still humanity in the  survivors; that life wasn't merely about staying alive and doing whatever necessary to survive. It showed that there was still a vestige of conscience in that God forsaken wreckage.]

The show really made me consider what it means to be human and how we decide which deadly behavior is more abhorrent: the zombies insatiable hunger for flesh or the survivors that would kill to survive. Is survival really enough reason to become so primal and lose touch with social propriety?

It also surprised me that Daryl, the former deep-woods hard-knocks type of person with the messed up family life, could find it hard to adjust to moving around with the bandits that remind me of his brother (Merle). It bothered Daryl, the societal outcast before the zombie fiasco, that people could "claim" things so preposterous as something he tracked and killed by his own wits. Now that is saying something, in my humble opinion.

As the show goes on there seems to be little difference between the people who are walking dead with healthy flesh and the ones who are festering in a reanimated existence.  But is this so far from the reality of the world we're living in? In many places in the world, people have  sanctions to be that ruthless. Similarly, people who look unassuming and innocent can be just as vicious as the rough and tumble drug lords.

It's easy to claim our foothold on humanity when our lives are so sheltered. But, if our ethics were challenged often and in extreme ways- would we really say we are spotless? I know this series is meant to be gruesome but I'd like to see more redeeming qualities weaved into the plot-line. I think the only good death is when we choose what we're dying for. A good death puts us on the redeemed path for eternity, like that of Hershel's.

Even if the last character standing killed the other humans, they would be loved by the Lord Almighty. They would be one prayer, one decision away from redeeming their soul. Perhaps that is the point: when all else is gone- we still have God. If God were cast in the series finale, he would throw himself (faultless, with no blood on his hands) at the zombies to save the remaining people. That is His gift to us. Hallelujah.


 


Here I am Again

Mouse Clicks