Originally Posted by TheDagQueen
Or maybe, like I said before, he just came to the conclusion.."You know most folk aren't worth the toilet paper I wipe my ass with, so I will lay waste to them and might as well enjoy myself while I do so"?
Yes
No
Originally Posted by TheDagQueen
Or maybe, like I said before, he just came to the conclusion.."You know most folk aren't worth the toilet paper I wipe my ass with, so I will lay waste to them and might as well enjoy myself while I do so"?
"It's his eyes, Roland thought. They were wide and terrible, the eyes of a dragon in human form" - Roland seeing the Crimson King for the first time.
"When the King comes and the Tower falls, sai, all such pretty things as yours will be broken. Then there will be darkness and nothing but the howl of Discordia and the cries of the can toi" - From Song of Susannah
I love the character of Walter. I love to HATE Walter. I despise him and that is why he is such a great character for me. I have no sympathy for him because he is malicious and EVIL and deserves no sympathy. That is why he is great to me. Mordred does not compare (as a character) to Walter. That said, I feel the tiniest bit of sympathy for the punk.
I voted yes. But as for whether or not I felt more sorry for Mordred - the spiderboy - or Walter - that's tough. I felt bad for both of them. Walter I think in some way was trying to help - torn between ka and anti-ka's wheels - and Mordred... well he was just a baby with bad genes...
This is my blog/page:
www.facebook.com/thespermwhaleandbowlofpetunias
This is my donation page:
https://www.razoo.com/br/causes/Maje...h-Resorption-1
"People, especially children, aren't measured by their IQ. What's important about them is whether they're good or bad, and these children are bad." ~ Alan Bernard
"You needn't die happy when your day comes, but you must die satisfied, for you have lived your life from beginning to end and ka is always served." ~ Roland Deschain
A hound will die for you, but never lie to you. And he'll look you straight in the face.
My Collection
Thank you for acknowledging that fact
I think the rape probably furthered his hatred of people, but I don't believe it was the catalyst for his sadistic personality.
Sociopaths are generally people whose parents/carers were unable to bond with them as babies and infants. They recieve no emotional or physical support and grow up to be adults who are unable to form reciprocal emotional relationships. They tend to see other people more as objects to be used/manipulated for their own purposes.
I'd say that's a much more likely circumstance for Walter's personality than the isolated incidence of his rape.
"It's his eyes, Roland thought. They were wide and terrible, the eyes of a dragon in human form" - Roland seeing the Crimson King for the first time.
"When the King comes and the Tower falls, sai, all such pretty things as yours will be broken. Then there will be darkness and nothing but the howl of Discordia and the cries of the can toi" - From Song of Susannah
A hound will die for you, but never lie to you. And he'll look you straight in the face.
My Collection
1. Yes, I read them - but to tell you the truth I don't count with the comics when I tell my opinion about something. But let me know why you think they were born evil.
2. Yeah, but I don't think things are black or white. Good or bad. He was hungry and that was the only thing he felt.
And we mustn't forget that he wasn't a human being. He was a spider, too and in the animal world many bugs and insects eat each other - even if they belong to each other because of this or that.
Roland would have understood.
Then I guess it matters if you count the comics as canon or not. I do.
The Crimson King was born of a demon and Eld in what was essentially a rape, and thus he was born to bring down the Tower. Unless you choose to ignore what the comics present, there's no other way to say the Crimson King wasn't evil.
Rhea, once again according to the comics, was born a 'bad seed'. She enjoyed committing various acts of cruelty and malice. She got worse later on but she was never 'good' to begin with.
Not a legit excuse in my mind. There's no 'moral ambiguity' in eating your mother. And if he wasn't evil, he would have shown revulsion or remorse at what he did. But he didn't. You can't go "Well...yeah, he ate his mother but its not as black and white as you may think..."
So by what standards are judging Mordred on? Are we judging him on the standards of a mindless creature, or of a sentient being with alleged thoughts and feelings? People have no problem saying "Lets feel sorry for Mordred because he cries" or whatever and now we're excusing his actions because he's part animal?
A hound will die for you, but never lie to you. And he'll look you straight in the face.
My Collection
Okay, I see your point about CK and Rhea. Of course you think they were born evil.
For me the comics are comics. They are much more like a tale but the books are absolutely real for me. To tell you the truth altought I like the comics they are very very far from me.
As you have just written I don't count the comics as canon so it's natural we will not agree about CK and Rhea.
So by what standards are judging Mordred on?
That's a very good question indeed. A hard one.
For my part I think he didn't look at Mia as his mother it was just a body he came from. We all have two parents and in his mind he had two as well. He had two fathers. Mai was noone to him... and I don't say it's natural or good but it's understandable - in a way.
And I don't say Mordred was a good guy, oh not at all but I say he wasn't born absolutely and totally evil, he wasn't just "black". He should have hated Rolad with all his cells but he still loved him - and of course hated him at the same time.
That's one of the reasons that gives me the idea that there was some good in him even if it wasn't more than a crumb.
Roland would have understood.
There was very little good in Mordred. Only one half of his parentage was evil, and if you were to count Susannah and Mia, then only 1/4th. If everyone's saying that its Walter's fault that he turned out the way he did and his choices, then why can't we say the same for Mordred? He could've fought his urges but he didn't.
Mia would have loved and cherished Mordred, and Mordred only saw her as a snack. Nothing says 'evil' like that.
A hound will die for you, but never lie to you. And he'll look you straight in the face.
My Collection
1. Oh, I say the same. At the beginning he wasn't born totally evil but loneliness and many other things made he make the decision to hate people. Any day by day or hour by hour he became more and more evil. It was his fault as well. It was his decision. He could have tried to talk to Roland (even if it was dangerous) but he decided to hide and kill.
At the end he was evil. Just like Flagg.
2. Eating Mia was instinct. Every child starts to eat (drink) when they get born and I think human babies see their mothers as snacks at the first time. - instincts - A human child needs milk - he needed flesh and blood.
But I really don't say that he wasn't evil... he was! But he wasn't evil 100% when he was born.
Of course it's just my two cents.
Roland would have understood.
I dont feel bad for him. But I do agree, just like Judas, he is what he is supposed to be.
Walter has absolutely 0 sympathy from me. As has previously been said he made his choices. I have little regard for when people use bad things in there past as an excuse. It excuses nothing. It really doesn't matter if he was raped and brutally beaten every day. It's no excuse to be a dick. I thought he was a great character in the story. That little bit of information was really unnecessary to me though. If he was a dick he was a dick simply because he was a dick. That would be my same assesment of people in real life using abuse as an excuse also. If they lack the character to rise above their life's circumstances anyway, they wouldn't have been very good people minus the abuse IMO. As for serial killers speaking of how they were abused as children the same applies and more so. Alot of these are very smart people. They know how to manipulate people's sympathies.
I never said it was an excuse, though. And I think its pretty narrow to assume that A.) These people would have been bad people even if they had good childhoods and B.) They're just playing the sympathy card. No one just says "Today I'm going to be a killer".
Not saying that its *always* the case, but it is possible for someone's psyche to become damaged after so much abuse. Its like those dogs that are constantly beaten by their owners; sooner or later they're going to snap.
A hound will die for you, but never lie to you. And he'll look you straight in the face.
My Collection
Oh, I know you never said it was an excuse at all. It just seems that way to me. Maybe I'm wrong. I however didn't quite mean that these people would have been bad if they'd had good childhoods. I'm just saying they allowed their circumstances to get the best of them. If that is because their psyche was damaged or they were just weaker emotionally...well it might sound unkind, but I don't feel that really matters. IMO everybody has the ability to rise above whatever circumstances in their life. To me, every "evil" act is a conscious choice. So while it's likely true most people like this wouldn't say
"Today I'm going to be a killer" if they do kill then IMO it amounts to the same and nobody like that is getting any sympathy from me. I do have to disagree with your analogy about the dog though the dog might simply run away....it needn't attack. It's also a different matter I think to attack the person beating you than to attack another.
My question was if you were to feel sympathy for Walter knowing his plight...not if said plight excused his actions. Its an entirely different thing.
Again, its not that simple. If someone has a strong group of support to help them thats an entirely different matter than someone who knows nothing but abuse.
Everybody has the ability, but for a lot of people its easier said than done. You can't expect someone like Aileen Wuornos to lead a normal and healthy life after what they've been through.
Not if its chained up. I'm sure I don't have to point out what Michael Vick did to those poor animals. When they tried to rescue the dogs one had become so savage that they had no alternative but to put it down.
A hound will die for you, but never lie to you. And he'll look you straight in the face.
My Collection
Yes, it certainly is. I was merely attempting to explain why I personally was not sympathetic towards him. Perhaps I did so poorly.
Still plenty of people manage without support to not lash out.
She murdered people unrelated to her abuse. She made her choices and has no sympathy from me either. Could she have led a normal life? She certainly could. She chose not to. While it's true it isn't as easy for these people to make the right choice it doesn't make making the wrong choices okay and they don't have my sympathy.
Well, while what Vick did was horrible the dog did in fact have a choice and it made it. True, it's not much of choice . a choice to attack in any conditions is still a choice.
Not all people are the same. Different people react to different situations.
We're talking about a woman with serious mental problems here whose whole life was filled various acts of abuse. Yeah, she has choices but its not as simple as you're making it out to be. People who've been put through hell aren't as likely to make rational decisions. You seem to be under the impression that these people are fully sane.
Oh, come on. A normal animal (most of them, anyway) doesn't have the same moral capabilities as a human does, let alone one that's been abused and tortured. You can't say "Well, that dog had a choice." Seriously.
A hound will die for you, but never lie to you. And he'll look you straight in the face.
My Collection
Yes, of course people are not the same and they react differently, however I maintain that while it may be harder for some than others there is always a choice in how to react.
I'm not sure I believe that a mental problem or even insanity is indicative of a moral deficiency at all. Sorry, but once again I feel that a choice is still made and whatever factors or circumstances brought about that reaction don't justify them in any way and therefore don't warrant my sympathies. In most cases I'd feel some sympathy for someone who was abused or mistreated, but once they've crossed the boundary of acting out on those who are innocent I have none whatsoever. I have no such problem with them acting out on the guilty parties however.
We really don't know what an animal's moral capabilities are do we? Surely they have some.
There's always a choice in that people aren't *forced* to act. But again...you're oversimplifying the matter.
Have you ever studied or researched the subject??
Again, I'm not talking about justifying or excusing the actions of these people. I'm just saying that in most cases these people are shaped by events that occur in their lives. I don't have sympathy for their actions now, but I have sympathy for the person they used to be.
But you're expecting them to have fully rational decisions. My cats don't act rationally when they knocked down the Christmas tree this year, and they're pampered. Why would you expect a pitbull thats been beaten and forced to fight with other dogs to act rationally when coming in contact with other people?
A hound will die for you, but never lie to you. And he'll look you straight in the face.
My Collection