There is lots of interesting comments on here since my last response.

Bingley-you mentioned when Daryl hallucinated his brother after falling. The actor who plays the brother (Michael Rooker) was a guest on the post show and talked about why/how all that was taking place in Daryls mind and his morph from redneck to hero.

Dagny, there is a great zombie 2 book series called Day By Day Armageddon by J.L. Bourne. Its considered the best series of the genre. The protagonist is a Naval officer (flight) and the book is written like a diary. The author has him on a boat or dock more than once and gives a convincing reason why its not always the best course of action.

Not to give much away, as the tv show is not the same as the comic, but many of you have mentioned the Mad Max on the run mentality verse the defensible position. In the comics, they come across a couple communities like Hershel's farm, that make a large scale defensible position and use it for a time. To keep the story moving the place is usually run by a despot or insane person. I think right now, they are actually at a small town that is cordoned off, like at the end of Will Smiths I am Legend.

I agree with this, but think that there is more to it than that.

It's not just that Shane is holding to a different set of moral standards than Rick, its like he has a completely different agenda as well.

Shane's insistence on killing the zombies in the barn really made no sense and served no purpose other than to drive a wedge between Hershel's clan & the group. Earlier Daryl recognized there was no point killing an immobilized zombie, that it was a waste of resources and effort and frankly I agree with that assessment.

It's like Shane has it set in his head that they should be out on the road, fighting for survival and that path will somehow lead to the ideal ending that he's envisioned (no Rick maybe?). He's willing to risk the group's safety to satisfy his vision of the future.

It can't just be that he wants to get to the Army base; I can't for the life of me believe that he thinks a government run refugee centre (which in all likelihood doesn't even exist) would some how be better than where they are now.

It seems to me that the safety & security of the farm is blocking him from his desires, whatever they may be.

Rick was in a hospital in a coma when the zombie virus emerged and largely played out, it seems, and is just regaining consciousness when the series begins.

In season 1 and season 2, Shayne's far more experienced with surviving in the zombie world. We'll see where Rick's morals are after he has comparable experience with surviving in the post-apocalypse.

Shayne's head-shearing moment of truth/despair:

But for Shayne (and Doctor Hershel, of course), Carl probably would not have survived the gunshot surgery. In the episode where Shayne and Otis (the hunter who accidentally shot Carl) go to the zombie-infested facility to get medical supplies for Carl's surgery, Shayne was certainly being self-interested in disabling Otis to occupy the pursuing zombies. But if I were Rick, Shayne's the one I'd have entrusted to get the supplies back in time for the surgery, too.

Truth be told, given a choice between being the evening hors d'oeuvres for a pack of famished zombies, or making some stranger (who'd just shot my godson) the meal.... well, my altruism would be sorely tested.

I think Shayne's being too hard on himself for the decision he made to sacrifice Otis (the guy who, after all, shot little Carl).

All in all, if I were trying to survive their zombie-infested world, I'd be delighted to join a group that had Shayne, Rick and Daryl in it. And Andrea, too, now that she's a sharpshooter.

The Barn Zombie Slaughter:

Hershel's outrage aside, there were two good reasons to shoot the zombies: 1) put them out of their misery (are zombies miserable?), and; 2) that rickety old barn was not secure like Fort Knox or even Mayberry's jail cells.

Hershel was oddly passive during the shooting. Going to be interesting to see what he does in the next episode on February 12.

I certainly wouldn't want to be on Shayne's team of survivors. He might get you through the initial attacks slightly better than Rick, but long term? I can't think of a worse personality for a group leader. It would be hell with him as leader. Put me down on Rick's team - short term and long term. Integrity means something, even once the zombies have overrun us.

Maybe this is key. He wants to be Rick, and while Rich was in the coma, he was Rick. Now Shane is discovering that he is just a pale imitation. Staying at the farm is what Rick wants, and this sort of stability is no good for Shane because he won't have a shot at getting Lori back. So there is a personal dimension in addition to the differences in, shall we say, survival strategies.



I dunno. Otis has turned out to be a noble character. Sure, he shot Carl by accident -- and the episode makes it clear -- but he risked his life to make good. He wasn't in good shape so he couldn't run (a factor that surfaced twice). When he and Shane were trapped on top of the bleachers, he basically sacrificed himself: he jumped off and ran in one direction so Shane would have a chance at getting out in the other. He hurt his leg because he was so big. He miraculously survived, and met up with Shane (also injured) outside in this mad dash to life. Shane shot him. At this point I couldn't help but think that there was just more for the zombies to eat. Then after Shane made it back, all bloodied, he was given Otis' clothes, with the admonition that it wouldn't fit him. So it seems to me the show is defining Otis almost by his weight: he has noble instincts, but he is dragged down by his size.

Like Dagny, most viewers probably assume that Carl is somehow more important than Otis. Sure, Carl is Rick's son, and we are to sympathize with Rick and thus with his family. But, really, his main achievement thus far is getting shot. In a real survival situation, is it better to lose a responsible adult male who has a good record of hunting, or is it better to risk losing a child and the tons of medication that you might use in trying to save him?

As for the barn, no, it doesn't make practical sense to keep a whole bunch of zombies there and to feed them. But this is the show's way of dramatizing the connection of non-zombie humans to zombies. Are they things or are they people? It's very hard to lock up or kill people if you think of them as people. So it was easy for the group to shoot Hershel's zombies, but not so easy to shoot Sophia.

I can sympathize with Hershel's decision to lock up the zombies, especially his family. During an initial outbreak I think I'd be more likely to lock up a loved one who was acting that way than I would be to bash their skull in if I had the option. Then, once that's done it might be easier emotionally to simply let them be than to go in and finish them off.

That said, that's not really the reason I said that I didn't think Shane's decision to clean out the barn made sense.

First, it went against the landowner's explicit desires; it simply wasn't Shane's decision to make. If you don't agree with your host and can't come to amicable terms, you leave. Shane, on the other hand, proved to Hershel that the group wasn't trustworthy which will likely result in their being forced to leave anyway.

Second, there was no immediate threat. If the zombies had broke out themselves, I'd likely have a different opinion, but the trapped zombies were pretty much just standing around and there was no evidence that the barn wasn't secure enough to hold them. Again, if you did think the risk was too high the appropriate response would be to discuss the issue with the landowner (like Rick did) and, if unsatisfied, either leave or post your own lookout to ensure your group is safe.

Basically, I can't see any potential upside to the "plan" to clean out the barn - it does nothing but damage the relationship between the host & guests.

The only way I can see it not being a completely horrible idea is if the ultimate plan is to simply take over the farm by force.

Indeed, slaughtering someone else's zombies without permission is a bit rude.

Etiquette was probably one of the early casualties of the zombie apocalypse.

While it may be considered a simple breach of etiquette, maintaining and forging relationships is a survival skill that is very much needed in the group's current situation. However, what they did has the very real potential of driving a permanent wedge between Hershel's clan and their group (this is something I have a feeling Shane understands).

This means the group now faces the very real likelihood of having to head back out on the road. In other words, people will likely die as a direct result of Shane's decision. This makes the decision to clear out the barn a poor survival decision in my books.

Of course, from a story perspective, this is good because people were getting bored of the farm. We don't want the group to be safe, we want action and drama. But from a survival perspective boring is okay.

Dagny and Denis are discussing this matter within the show. But I wonder whether this whole stay on the farm reflects the ideas about property rights in today's society. Should the law give the owner a lot of leeway in setting the rules on his property? In the show, Rick makes it clear that he will try to obey Hershel's rules, but Shane and Daryl don't want to do that. Shane wants to do what he thinks is best for his survival chances, and Daryl is just going to do whatever he wants (he takes a horse, against Hershel's wishes, to look for Sophia).

Addendum: This is one aspect of the sort of thing I'm talking about:



Above quote from Oklahoma mom kills home invader: Why the law was on her side.

Secondly, we are also reminded of the conflict about carrying firearms vs. not carrying firearms in public buildings or when visiting private businesses, etc. I don't think there is much to be said here in the context of the show, since everything seems to be reduced to survival.