Much like Michael Corleone, Walt does what he must in order to survive and protect his family.
To those who condemn Walt and Michael, what would you have done in exactly the same circumstances?
Gotten a job with his uni friend.
shareDo you consider him a villain for not getting a job with his uni friend?
shareNo. I consider him a villain for what he did instead.
shareWhat would you have done instead?
shareGotten a job with his uni friend.
shareDoes his failure to do that make him a villain, in your eyes?
shareNo. I consider him a villain for what he did instead.
shareSPOILERS BELOW
For me, at some point, Walt crosses a line. At first, what he's doing seems to be justifiable as an aggregate of his terminal diagnosis, his desire to care for his family, and his need to take control of his life (which he was basically sleepwalking through in the pilot). He needs to learn to be assertive again, he needs to care for his family, and he needs this done *fast* so he can cheat death, even if only a little.
But then he crosses a line. For me, that line is Jane. He takes somebody who he personally doesn't like but who means something to his friend/ surrogate son Jesse, and he lets that person die because it's convenient for him. His actions become increasingly devastating, unjustifiable, and monstrous. More and more he acts out of selfishness or greed than any originally-perceived altruistic or family-oriented actions.
The real kicker, though, is when he finally confesses to Skyler that he did it all for himself. We see that Walt wasn't really in this for others, it was for himself. He rejected help from Hank and Marie, and Gretchen and Elliot. Why? Ego. (There's a LOT going on with Gretchen, Elliot, Walt, and Gray Matter, too...) He doesn't stop at his initial 747,000. Why? Greed. He doesn't sell out? Why? Both: "I'm in the Empire Business."
If evil is largely motivated by pride and selfishness and good is motivated by a desire to help others and put others' needs first, Walt starts out motivated by ego and allows that to dominate his world.
Also, his actions just get worse and worse. He starts off killing in self-defense or for protection, but it's not long before his killing for convenience, or because he has decided it's justice, or because he's hateful and spiteful. He acts carelessly towards others and gets them killed.
He's a great, complex character, and I don't think of him as pure evil or just a villain; and he has a great arc. But he is, or at some point becomes, a villain.
PS
Michael Corleone turned evil/villainous, too - in my opinion, anyway.
I appreciate the thoughtful response but I need more specifics of actions that Walt took that you would not have taken in the same situation.
You mentioned Jane, but what would you have done? If she didn’t die she would have sent you to prison. Would you have woken up that skank in order to spend the rest of your life incarcerated?
If evil is largely motivated by pride and selfishness and good is motivated by a desire to help others and put others' needs first, Walt starts out motivated by ego and allows that to dominate his world.
I would have pulled her upright, tilted her forward, and tried to get her to throw up instead of choke on vomit. I would have not committed murder-by-default. I'm not sure why you think he'd have gone to jail if she lived...? Walt's beef with Jane was that she was demanding Walt hand over Jesse's half of the money. Now, I think some of his anger was because he didn't want Jesse dead at the end of a syringe, but from the rest of the show, I think it's safe to say that a large part of Walt's motivation for hating on Jane and letting her die was that he didn't like that she pushed back against him. Walt hated not being the big man.
Now, after keeping Jane alive, I would have tried to have an intervention of sorts with Jane and Jesse and gotten them into rehab if it was within my power to do so, keep them both off the heroin. Oh, and I would have given Jesse his cut.
That's already after Walt's well down the rabbit hole. I would have taken the job at Gray Matter, quite frankly. I would have supplied for my family's needs and prepared for my demise by doing some of my best, most creative work in a lab to leave a legacy in chemistry that would have lasted beyond my early departure while setting up the fam with beaucoup bucks. That option was on the table, but Walt was too proud to take the gig. So Elliot and Gretchen are condescending? So what? You get everything you want. Ignore them. If you need the ego boost, get a press agent to make sure all of your successes aren't just attributed to Elliot and Gretchen. Spin it so the team is back together and you were the missing part.
I also would have gotten out multiple times when Walt didn't. Sell out and take your cut. Quit being an "empire builder" to serve your ego.
I don't think you need to hurt yourself or martyr yourself, but I think most or all evil in the world comes from selfishness and people putting their needs above the needs of others.
Michael's trickier because his family roots cause a lot of his problems.
A lot of Michael's villainy, for me, is in what he does to Kay and his actual family.
It would have been harder for Michael to stay out of it because walking away would have likely resulted in his brothers dying. Well...dying sooner.
It's easier with Walt because he's the one who decides to cook meth (which, I wouldn't have done that either), whereas Michael is part of a crime family who gets attacked. Michael doing the hit in the restaurant was probably necessary to some extent. Nevertheless, he should have recognized that he was getting caught in the spiral and tried to disentangle his family and himself from that world. He might have had to walk away, but he should not have gotten involved.
Then there's his freezing Kay out. He's supposed to care about family, but he's cutting his children off from their mother? Fuggetaboutit.
You're in my opinion a great writer. But I don't think you were right regarding Walt. He felt screwed by the world. Sodomites lower than him have taken more power, and he was going to die of a horrible illness above it. It's understandable that he would be angry. Who wouldn't be? Only those without pride. I felt sorry for him. He led
the cause of a man. A tired suffering man the world was unfair toward.
Thank you for the compliment, I appreciate it.
I think Walt was dumped on quite a bit, but I do guess that he brought a lot of it on himself, or at least atrophied after Gray Matter. The events around his one-time company clearly changed the trajectory of his life. When we meet him in the pilot, sure, he's put upon.
I also don't want to give the impression I don't feel sorry for Walt or sympathize with him - I do that, too - but I also condemn his descent into evil and how he deals with the situation. The best course of action would have been to swallow his pride long enough to work for Gretchen and Elliot, collect the overstuffed paycheques they'd have no doubt used to assuage their consciences and help Walt's family. Then, if he's still sore about it all, use their labs to invent brilliant things, get a press agent, and leak it around that Walter White is - and always was - the real grey matter at Gray Matter. Make them Edison, make yourself Tesla.
The world was unfair to him, but he was also bitter (in my estimation), and regardless of how things shook down, it doesn't give him licence to ruin lives. His actions left chaos and horror in their wake. I can't condone or agree with pride and anger as justification for that. That's just selfish.
I get where you're coming from, though, and I understand why Walt is sympathetic. Vince Gilligan did a great job pushing Walt over the edge and making us root for him in that pilot episode alone. That bought a lot of goodwill, watching him take it from Skyler and Bogdan and then get emasculated by his brother-in-law. But then he's poisoning children and letting people choke to death, and I think Gilligan also did a great job sliding him over the scales into reprehensible territory.
Another great post of yours, but let us just agree to disagree about Walt.
shareBy the end of the show, do you think he's changed for the better or worse? I'm curious if you think he starts good, goes evil (Breaks Bad) or is he is mostly just put-upon and is basically a struggling family man who is re-writing his moral compass and waking up, in a sense, to a world where he isn't subjected to the standard strictures of morality and legality?
I'm curious because I think he starts off mostly good, put-upon, but having bottled up a lot of pride and resentment. He's self-flagellating to some degree. Then, as he pursues his goals, he unleashes that id - or whatever you want to call it - and slips into evil, villainous places. Ultimately, I actually think Walt's changed for the better, but only right towards the very end as he starts to account for the wrong he has done to others, particularly his family, but also Jesse. He rights his wrongs as he is able, and he was on an upwards-trajectory, having begun to reconcile his own inner flaws.
But I'm interested in your take on it and how you see Walt's arc.
I wouldn't agree that Walt became more evil, just disagreeable. More and more the actions of Walter went toward a more dangerous direction. In the end Walter realized his capacity for violence needed to change, and he was probably right. Gunning down a Nazi is fun, but not everyone should be treated that way. This was how Walter was, a man of civility.
shareI have never seen the show, but isn't he a drug dealer?
He sells poison to people. Illegal drugs rip apart communities and families, they cause chaos because people on drugs can't usually work and need to steal and rob to pay for them.
He starts out making drugs to pay for his cancer treatment. Would you do the same or allow yourself to die?
shareI wouldn't ruin other people's lives to save my own. Period.
Drugs ruin lives.
So you would voluntarily not get cancer treatment, die and leave your family broke, rather than make a quick fortune on making some drugs?
shareI would have had a good life insurance policy like any reasonable family man. If he is the breadwinner, he should have thought of this.
OK but he hadn’t, so you need to put yourself in his shoes. What would you have done in his circumstances.
shareI wouldn't BE in his shoes. If you are a adult, you need to take personal responsibility.
Adults are the commander of their ship, they should have contingency plans if something goes bad.
The breaking bad lead didn't do this, he didn't think to purchase a life insurance policy, which anyone of normal intelligence would do.
The writers were obviously aware that the main character is essentially a drug dealer, they tried to write his circumstances to be a little more sympathetic to the audience.
But to me, the guy is just a drug dealer, he puts poison into communities,which is why I never watched the show.
First, I generally agree with your principles of responsibility, and I agree that Walt was in command of his own actions and had plenty of other options, both prior to and subsequent to his diagnosis. Within the show, he's given "outs", which he turns down for character reasons - they are simple (ego) and complex (why he's driven the way he is), but I won't get into all that.
However, you don't really have a good, solid foundation to build on if you haven't seen the show. You seem to be familiar enough with the premise and aspects of the scenario, but without having watched it, how can you say the main character did or didn't adequately do anything? The sympathetic nature of the character, for instance, is completely apparent in the pilot episode, and throughout (much of) the rest of the show, as well.
It might not be your cup of tea, but shows with main characters who are imperfect or downright foul can still be edifying experiences, as well as highly artistic and entertaining. Mad Men, for instance, has a rather scummy lead, but the show always felt, to me, anyway, like it was criticising and warning against the shallow pursuits Don Draper got up to, and I was always rooting for Don (sympathetic, though he could be brutish) to learn to be better and get out of those circumstances.
Anyway, if you don't want to watch, don't watch; that's fine. But you seem so sure of your judgements against Walt without having even seen the show?
I have seen what drugs can do to people.
I have had loved ones killed and witnessed good people's lives diverted forever by using illegal drugs.
Drug dealers have a special place in hell in my book.
Walt is a drug dealer, no getting around that fact no matter how you twist the circumstances.
Allow myself to die....why is my life more important than the lives of the victims to the drugs I was going to cook?
shareSo would you voluntarily not get cancer treatment, die and leave your family broke, rather than make a quick fortune on making some drugs?
shareYes
shareHow did the "quick fortune" turn out for Walt.... The idea of a quick fortune is almost never practical....
In the show, the idea of a quick fortune is not on the table.
Would you be ok making drugs that will kill people just so you can live?
shareIt would depend entirely on what was at stake.
shareIf you had watched the show then you would know what's at stake.
shareI have seen it of course. What, specifically, is at stake?
shareHad you watched the show as you claim, you wouldn't be asking this.
shareBe clear about what’s at stake in your hypothetical situation and then I can answer.
Now, you dodged my question earlier. Here it is again:
Would you voluntarily not get cancer treatment, die and leave your family broke, rather than make a quick fortune on making some drugs?
Walt's children's future is at stake and it's not hypothetical at all in the series.
I've already answered your other question as to what I would do instead. And since you have yet to offer alternative yourself an I to conclude that making illegal drugs be the only solution?
We’ll get to your question once you’ve answered mine. Here it is again:
Would you voluntarily not get cancer treatment, die and leave your family broke, rather than make a quick fortune on making some drugs?
I would have gotten a job with his uni friend.
shareThat’s not an option in this hypothetical. Here it is again, select one of these two options:
Would you voluntarily not get cancer treatment, die and leave your family broke, rather than make a quick fortune on making some drugs?
How are those the only two options? The show itself presents more options and in real life there would be tonnes of other options than immediately go into meth.
You're restricting the choices beyond what the show presents.
Once you’ve answered this hypothetical, you can make a case for supposed ‘other options’ that Walt had. Here it is again:
Would you voluntarily not get cancer treatment, die and leave your family broke, rather than make a quick fortune on making some drugs?
I just don't see how those are the only options. You have either (a) you leave your family in abject poverty and (b) you become a criminal. But there is no scenario I can think of where those are the only two options, within the show or outside of it. Walt had other options.
shareOnce you’ve answered this hypothetical, you can make a case for supposed ‘other options’ that Walt had. Here it is again:
Would you voluntarily not get cancer treatment, die and leave your family broke, rather than make a quick fortune on making some drugs?
Have you ever heard the one where the young philosophy student comes to study Talmud with a distinguished Rabbi?
shareYou’re dodging again. Here it is again:
Would you voluntarily not get cancer treatment, die and leave your family broke, rather than make a quick fortune on making some drugs?
No, I'm not.
There's a joke where a young man asks a Rabbi to study Talmud, boasting that he has already mastered Plato and Locke and so he's ready for this. The Rabbi tests him by asking, "Two men come down a chimney, one with a clean face, one with a dirty face: which one washes his face?"
The young man says the dirty face washes, but the Rabbi says he wouldn't because he sees his companion has a clean face and he assumes his face is clean, whereas the opposite is true for clean face, who would, therefore, wash.
The young man asks for another test and the Rabbi repeats his question. "Dirty face," says the young man, but this time the Rabbi says both would wash. If clean face is washing, dirty face would, too, right?
Again, the young man asks for one more chance, the Rabbi asks the same question, and the young man says "Both", but he's wrong again. "Neither would wash," says the Rabbi, "because clean face wouldn't wash if dirty face wasn't going to."
Again: he asks for a test and groans when he gets he same question. He says, "Neither," but the Rabbi says, "You're still wrong and you've missed the point: how could two men come down the same chimney and only one has a dirty face? Your logic fails because if you have a foolish question, all your answers will be foolish, too."
Sometimes, the question is just narishkeit.
Very telling that you keep dodging the question.
shareWhat does it tell you?
shareThat you’re afraid to answer it.
shareI'm not. Why would I be?
shareMost likely because it would reveal you to be a hypocrite.
shareI don't believe myself to be a hypocrite, and I don't think your question would reveal any such thing.
shareOf course you don’t - you’re wrong.
shareHeaven's sakes, wrong about what?
shareThe notion that you’re not a hypocrite is wrong.
shareIt's not.
Look, we're doing a lot of pussyfooting here, so let me cut through some of this circling.
The initial post was to people who think Walt was bad, and a challenge: what would you do differently? I think Walt turned to the dark side, so this applies to me.
In our conversation elsewhere, I indicated that I would have taken the Gray Matter job.
Your hypothetical is designed as a trap for Walt critics because if we say (a) we're awful for leaving our families to starve, but (b) means we wouldn't pick differently than Walt, so we have no right to criticize, yes?
Assuming my reading of the question is correct, it doesn't apply to me at all because I didn't criticize Walt for those options. My criticism of Walt is for the selfish, evil, violent, and nasty behaviour he gets up to, not just for the initial choice.
The question is also flawed as it applies to Breaking Bad because it doesn't present the options Walt had.
If I answer (a) or (b), it might make me a better or worse person, but it cannot be applied to my stance on Breaking Bad one way or the other because your hypothetical doesn't address what my arguments are.
Once you’ve answered this hypothetical, you can make a case for supposed ‘other options’ that Walt had. Here it is again:
Would you voluntarily not get cancer treatment, die and leave your family broke, rather than make a quick fortune on making some drugs?
This is like trying to converse with a pit-bull. I'm very frustrated by this conversation.
shareVery telling that you keep dodging the question.
shareI'll be around if you want to have a conversation. If you just want to run that groove on loop, I've got a broken record I can throw on the turntable. Peace.
shareHere's your question:
>To those who condemn Walt and Michael, what would you have done in exactly the same circumstances?
And here's my answer:
I would have gotten a job with his uni friend.
When was that made available to him and how would it have helped?
share>When was that made available to him
Ever since Grey Matter was founded.
>how would it have helped?
More money. Useful for things like, paying for his kid's education.
You have to put yourself in Walt’s shoes at the beginning of the show. How do you even know that he would have gotten a job at Grey Matter, and how do you know he would make enough money from it for his treatment and family?
share>You have to put yourself in Walt’s shoes at the beginning of the show. How do you even know that he would have gotten a job at Grey Matter
If there was a reason for Grey to turn down his best friend who's dying from cancer a chance to be a proper father and a role-model for his children then feel free to give it yourself.
>how do you know he would make enough money from it for his treatment and family?
No-more of an unknown than Walt living long enough to make money any other way.
Especially given the high-risk, no-guarantees world of drug-pushing.
shareWalk couldn't get through the first season without having to kill someone. Also random kid in the desert gets shot, beloved family member killed, just collateral damage.
shareWalt set out to leave his family with peace and security, and he annihilated both while deep-sixing his relationships with them entirely. Whatever his intentions, motivations, moral value, this much is true: Walt failed those he loved the most. Although, I would argue that, at the last, he put aside his ego and his goals of empire and conquest, and he finally did make a few good things come about.
shareThe drug-making was a way to make a quick fortune, and time was of the essence.
What makes you think that he would be given a job at Grey Matter that would guarantee him a quick fortune?
From the episode "Grey Matter" in which Elliot Grey, his uni-friend, offers him a job despite knowing Walter has terminal cancer.
shareIn fact, it's *because* he knows about Walt's diagnosis. Ironically, Elliot is trying to slip Walt the perfect solution without bruising his ego.
shareMaybe that was the turning point for Walt, determined to go down the drugs oath path instead of swallowing his pride and get a safe, honest job.
shareThat's a big harbinger of doom, for sure. It certainly indicates Walt isn't just sacrificing his happiness for his family's. If he was, he'd suck it up and work for Gray Matter, which would neatly circumnavigate all of his problems of distribution, danger, etc. He'd be working in optimum conditions, he'd be working on things he loved, and the salary and benefits would be deliberately calibrated by Gretchen and Elliot to get him through his cancer treatment and take care of his family. It solves every problem, so why not take it? Ego. Pure selfishness.
shareI always felt this was the best option. It would have provided 100% of the money, plus given Walt fulfillment and used his talents to their limit. It also would have required the biggest ego-hit and, therefore, was completely anathema to Walt. That's good writing. Bad choices, but good writing.
shareAbsolutely. He could have used his chemistry skills to research life-saving drugs and be an inspiration to his children. Instead he get's Frank killed, his kids hate him for it and ends up forcing his (once) best friend to pay for their education instead with his money.
shareThe problem with your hypothetical is that it's a bullshit question. You're offering him two choices, the answer to both of which is no, and pretending those are the only options. Here try this hypothetical:
You need $10,000 in 1 month or else your son will be killed. Do you:
A. Murder a friend who you know has $10,000 in his backpack and take his money
B. Let your son die
Which do you do? And don't say "C. *anything else*" because those are your only options.
Obviously, I hope, you do neither A nor B, and you do in fact do some other C option.
Your hypothetical suffers from the same logical flaw as does mine above.
You have to choose one in this hypothetical question:
Would you voluntarily not get cancer treatment, die and leave your family broke, OR make a quick fortune on making some drugs?
As soon as you choose in the hypothetical I offered you, I will choose in yours. :)
shareNo, you’ve waded into my thread, you answer my hypothetical and then we can get to yours.
You’ll notice that so far everyone has tried to dodge it, see if you can be the first to engage with it.
No one is dodging it. The questions itself is bullshit. The answer is neither.
shareYou get 100% on the quiz, as far as I'm concerned.
shareAnother dodge.
shareYou have to either fuck a baby in the ass or murder 100 innocent babies. Quick, don't dodge the question-- which one are you going to do???
shareAnother dodge.
Once you’ve addressed the original question we can address your baby-fucking fantasies.
Suck a dick. I'll post in "your thread" if I damn well please, asswipe.
shareKeep your homoerotic fantasies and stupid fucking opinions out of my thread.
shareDo yourself a favor, loser. You already embarrassed yourself enough here. You should get out of 'your thread'. Idiot.
shareCool story, now keep your homoerotic fantasies and stupid fucking opinions out of my thread.
shareIf you haven't seen it why are you here?
shareThe problem is in your black and white thinking, that there's only heroes and villains. Walt turns into an a-hole in the process during the show.
shareIt’s not my thinking, it’s the thinking of those who characterise Walt as a villain. I’m interested to hear what they would do differently in his predicament.
shareTHEY ARE IDIOTS.🤔
shareSome people just refuse to take responsibility for their own actions so they blame others and people like Walt are easy scapegoats.
shareIn the end Walt was a loser and losers by definition are villains.
losers by definition are villains.
?
Seconded. That makes no sense.
Is it a "truth is written by the victors" thing?
The inverse might be more true: "villains are, by definition, losers". I could see that making sense if your scale for "loser" was built on something more enlightened than wealth or power.