Originally Posted By: Denis
While Shane would likely come out on top if it was just him & Rick up against a group of zombies (Otis redux), I'm not convinced he can make the decisions needed for long-term survival in that world.

Certainly the show is making it look that way. Another point of significant difference: while Shane instigated killing all the zombies trapped in the barn, violating their host's personal feelings and request, when it turned out one of their own, Sophia, was amongst the zombies, Rick was the one who manned up to put her out of her misery. Just a moment ago Rick was obeying the host's request to attempt to capture and imprison the zombie neighbors, in case one day a cure is found.

I think the difference here is moral courage. Shane has the courage to survive, sure, and the willingness to do whatever it takes. But Rick has the will to survive with moral courage. The show seems to suggest you have to have some of that to be a good leader for a group of people. Shane and Rick are very much alike, and they even share a family in a way (would be interesting to see what happens with Lori's baby). But Shane always seems to be in Rick's shadow, partly because he lacks the personal qualities to lead.

Perhaps this goes back to something I've harped on in this forum: community in the time of disaster. It's probably easier to survive with people than by yourself. If you want to be a part of a community, you can't be shooting your partner so the zombies will feast on him while you can make your get away. Group ethics has an importance. (I admit on this forum I see a lot less of this "me and my 9 against the world" mentality, but on some other forums, man, is it Mad Max over there.)

By the way, re: Sophia in the barn: I totally didn't see it coming. I liked that moment of drama, which totally flipped the switch on the executioners.