Lord of the Rings TV Series Purchased by Amazon

[Fabinas]

Walter White didn't delay in killing Jane. He just thought out the decision, and then decided to let her die. He wasn't hesitating because of empathy - if he had any empathy, he would have helped her. But because she was a hindrance to his emotional manipulation of Jesse, he consciously made the decision to let her OD. Every relationship is about serving his own image. Vince Gilligan had to go out of his way in the last season to practically have Bryan Cranston look into the camera and say "I did this for myself, not for my family."

Not only the video proved you wrong (on both your claims about WW and your aversion of re-experiencing media), you go ahead and point to a WW on his "final form" as an argument to prove something on 2nd season, where humanity and empathy still existed in his character.

Bleh, you probably have me blocked, but who cares? People will read and judge for themselves about WW, anyway.

[eschatological]

Looking into this more deeply online, it looks like people attribute WW as being a narcissist, which can often be confused with sociopathy. Both have shaky moral codes, both are willing to do manipulate people for self interests (Narcissist to feed their egos, Sociopaths for the pleasure of it). But the differences become clearer if we recognize that a Narcissist also tries and maintains a good public image and is concerned about what other people think of them, while a sociopath generally does not care about those things at all.

Hmm, a malignant narcissist probably does fit better than sociopath. I dislike the label narcissist though, purely because people think it's "less bad" when they can probably be just as destructive as sociopaths.

Bleh, you probably have me blocked, but who cares? People will read and judge for themselves about WW, anyway.

I'm a moderator, I don't have anyone on my block list.

[Koriani]

Sociopaths lack empathy, they don't lack "morality." They make up their own morality to justify their behavior.

To be diagnosed with Antisocial Personality Disorder, you need only 3 of the following 7 criteria (Bold is my emphasis):

1. Failure to conform to social norms concerning lawful behaviors, as indicated by repeatedly performing acts that are grounds for arrest
2. Deceitfulness, as indicated by repeated lying, use of aliases, or conning others for personal profit or pleasure
3. Impulsivity or failure to plan
4. Irritability and aggressiveness, as indicated by repeated physical fights or assaults
5. Having no regard for the safety of self or others
6. Consistent irresponsibility, as indicated by repeated failure to sustain consistent work behavior or honor financial obligations
7. Lack of remorse, or inability to feel guilt, as indicated by being indifferent to or rationalizing having hurt, mistreated, or stolen from another

Other symptoms someone with antisocial personality disorder may exhibit are:

Acting charming, kind, or lying to resolve personal goals or means
Exuding a sense of superiority or arrogance
Partaking in impulsivity and being prone to taking risks or engaging in dangerous behavior with little regard for how it may affect others
A lack of empathy or compassionate feelings towards others or a situation
Hostile, aggressive behavior, or violence
Being dishonest or lying to people
A shaky moral code or difficulty following societal norms
Being irresponsible
An inability to maintain healthy relationships
A lack of regard for rules
A potential history of criminal behavior

I'm only saying this because its my profession -

Antisocial Personality Disorder is NOT all equivalent to Psychopath or Sociopath. Neither is Narcissism. Or any single disorder - equivalent to the term Psychopath and Sociopath and how they are 'used' in today's parlance.

The issue we have (in the general field) is that Psychopath and Sociopath actually aren't defined as diagnoseable disorders. Hell, there's still arguments between professionals in the field all over about how we ARE defining those terms and what 'exactly' is Sociopath vs. Psychopath. And while AntisocialPD IS (obviously) a specifically defined Disorder (like NarcissisticPD), NONE of these terms are interchangeable or equivalent. They DO have "Symptoms" in common (all of the above have a lack of empathy for example), obviously, but they are not equal or 'the same' in other ways.

You can have sociopaths who are not Antisocial (but they probably would all qualify for Narcissistic Personality Disorder). These are your 'functioning' sociopaths, who can be very successful.
You can have Antisocial PD and they are NOT psychopaths or sociopaths. Just idiot criminals in prison, violating the rights of, and blaming, others.
You can have NarcissisticPD and NOT be a sociopath or psychopath.

As someone with a professional mastery of Psychology and an amateur study interest in Serial Killers/Psychopaths - this is more the way I conceptualize this:

Psychopath (or Sociopath - again these terms are so muddied even as they aren't meant to be interchangeable - there IS a difference) you're basically seeing MULTIPLE personality disorders present. Any one of the *single* personality disorders does /not/ make a psychopath.

A Psychopath - well that's Narcissism, Borderline (or Histrionic, depending), AND Antisocial PD - all in one. These people are so beyond "normal" dysfunctional, they aren't qualifying for just one personality disorder. But checking the criteria boxes of 3. The Unholy Trifecta - if you will. =D

But you can't "diagnose" Psychopathy or Sociopathy (at least not yet). They aren't terms used *that way* in the actual professional field. They're still more vague, or more 'overarching concepts' the field is still working on nailing down. Just like "insanity" is a legal term, not a psychological one, and not used so much in the psych-professional field. We absolutely "Determine mental competency", but that more also revolves and concerns itself with the "Why" - whether that's someone with a psychosis, or a brief dissociative episode, or low IQ, or developmental delay, or intoxicated, etc. "Insanity" doesn't come into it and isn't a term that applies, psychologically speaking.

And if you want more details or explanations on this I'm happy to dive into it - I just didn't want to go into a differential diagnosis lecture in the LOTR thread =D. But the academic in me couldn't just let this sit there without clarification and explanation.

Thank you for coming to my TED Talk.

- - - Updated - - -

Hmm, a malignant narcissist probably does fit better than sociopath. I dislike the label narcissist though, purely because people think it's "less bad" when they can probably be just as destructive as sociopaths.

I will agree with you there. People really underestimate the destructive toxic power of a Narcissist.
But Narcissist is not an interchangeable term with Sociopath.

But people, in general, don't really understand "get" how a Personality Disorder is (literally) a whole other level of mental health disorder than every other disorder that isn't a Personality Disorder. (As there are only 9 PDs and over 100 other disorders). We're talking about the skewing and dysfunction of someone's /entire/ personality, how they see /all of reality/, their entire world view. And how they believe everyone else sees it, too.

And I'd also like to clarify - Narcissists do NOT CARE WHAT PEOPLE THINK in a way that means they change their behavior. "They care what people think" only in that they want some sort of "public face" that tricks people into doing what they want and serving their ego. The moment the narcissist knows they can't pull off that 'public face' to someone doesn't mean they change their behavior, they just villianize/trash that individual in whatever way they desire, and move on always secure in their own superiority. I've seen many people misunderstand the 'care what people think' part of this and think that means the Disordered person curbs their behavior, and that is NOT in any way, correct. (true personality disordered) Narcissists do /not/ change - it violates their entire reality. There's no reason to change when everyone else is just wrong.

[Zenfoldor]

I did finally finish the show, and it wasn't actually THAT bad, it wasn't great, but it made decent filler between top end shows. I like the actress who played Galadriel. The writing was pretty bad. Oddly, some people didn't like the the hobbit like creatures, but I thought they were some of the best parts of the series. This isn't a show that I would get really into the lore about or anything, and that is unfortunate considering the IP. It isn't too much worse than The Witcher on Netflix(don't get me wrong Cavill is awesome, but without him that show isn't special) and very watchable. I'd give it maybe a 7/10 going by imdb scale, maybe a 6.9, assuming the recently released The Sandman or Peripheral being about an 8/10 in my book. Breaking Bad would be a 9/10, and I'd only rank a few other series higher, The Sopranos, The Wire, Deadwood, Star Trek TNG, ect.

This is slightly off topic, but honestly, with several pages of discussion on Walter White, I don't feel I'm stepping too far out of bounds here.

If you like Walter White as a character and morally questionable anti-hero or even just like Breaking Bad, I would highly recommend watching Mr. Inbetween.

[NineSpine]

This is the correct take.

The first murder could be considered self-defense, the guy tries to kill him at the RV in the desert, and then even when he survives Walter's chemical attack, Walter is considering letting him go until the guy takes a shard of plate and tries to kill him again.

I suppose you could argue anyone who decides to treat medical debt with large-scale meth production is morally bad from the get, but I don't consider drug dealing as morally bankrupt as what Walter White becomes. The show is called "Breaking Bad," not "Broke Bad."

FWIW, though, way too many viewers consider WW an antihero or even a hero, well after this (I believe it's third, not fifth) episode where he turns down the job offer. Some believe it even to the end of the show, which is ludicrous. He's a sociopath, and not morally grey at all, by the latest at the end of season 1.

I think you are giving him way too much credit for kidnapping a guy and killing him, when he could have called the police at any point in that process.

- - - Updated - - -

I'll give you credit for the blatant gaslighting. Nice try.

What is this? Madlibs? It isn't "gaslighting" to point that that Walter White is a cold blooded murderer from day one. It's just a fact.

- - - Updated - - -

Then don't. We wouldn't have anything to discuss, anyway.

There certainly cannot be any discussion with anyone as unnecessarily difficult and weirdly defensive as you are being.

Walter White is a straight up murderer from day one. It's a fucking fact.

[Triceron]

What is this? Madlibs? It isn't "gaslighting" to point that that Walter White is a cold blooded murderer from day one. It's just a fact.

It's exactly that, lol. It's a twisting of facts that you're trying to convince everyone of being true.

Is he a murderer? Yes he is. Is he cold blooded? Sure, I'll even give you that. Is he that from day one? Not in the fucking slightest.


Follow the last page or so of conversation. You call him a sociopath. I disagree, I don't think he's a sociopath at all. I would lean more towards him being a Narcissist. And I think Koriani does a pretty good job explaining the certain nuances and differences between the two. Walter White is a complex character. He isn't simply a cold-hearted murderer from the start. That would be more appropriate description for characters like Dexter. And I don't think a character like Dexter is comparable to someone like Walter White.

I'd say even Gus is more indicative of someone who may be sociopathic (perhaps even psychopathic), and in retrospect, I think the show even does well to contrast the differences between these characters. Both Gus and Walter are cold blooded killers, and both hold up squeaky clean public images. Their reasons for doing so are completely different though, and it carries through how they act and manipulate the people around them.

[rhorle]

Walter White is a straight up murderer from day one. It's a fucking fact.

I'm not sure how anyone is arguing against the first episode showing him to murder someone. I bet they are taking your day one literally since the first episode takes place over three weeks.

[NineSpine]

It's exactly that, lol. It's a twisting of facts that you're trying to convince everyone of being true.

Is he a murderer? Yes he is. Is he cold blooded? Sure, I'll even give you that. Is he that from day one? Not in the fucking slightest.


Follow the last page or so of conversation. You call him a sociopath. I disagree, I don't think he's a sociopath at all. I would lean more towards him being a Narcissist. And I think Koriani does a pretty good job explaining the certain nuances and differences between the two. Walter White is a complex character. He isn't simply a cold-hearted murderer from the start. That would be more appropriate description for characters like Dexter. And I don't think a character like Dexter is comparable to someone like Walter White.

I'd say even Gus is more indicative of someone who may be sociopathic (perhaps even psychopathic), and in retrospect, I think the show even does well to contrast the differences between these characters. Both Gus and Walter are cold blooded killers, and both hold up squeaky clean public images. Their reasons for doing so are completely different though, and it carries through how they act and manipulate the people around them.

Whether he is a narcissist or a sociopath, he is not morally grey, and that was the point I was responding to.

[Triceron]

Whether he is a narcissist or a sociopath, he is not morally grey, and that was the point I was responding to.

Yet you did call him a sociopath, very specifically. That was the point I was responding to.

[NineSpine]

Yet you did call him a sociopath, very specifically. That was the point I was responding to.

And I would still argue that he is a sociopath from the beginning and you are confusing a sociopath and a psychopath. Gus is a psychopath.

The point is that it is neither here nor there.

[Koriani]

Unfortunately while I watched "Better Call Saul" I never watched Breaking Bad - so I can't comment on the diagnosis part. Or the Sociopath vs. Psychopath thing as it pertains to Walter White. =D

(And dont' start on the YOU NEED TO WATCH... My husband has been drumming it for years and I refuse to go back and watch BB. =D)

[Fabinas]

Unfortunately while I watched "Better Call Saul" I never watched Breaking Bad - so I can't comment on the diagnosis part. Or the Sociopath vs. Psychopath thing as it pertains to Walter White. =D

(And dont' start on the YOU NEED TO WATCH... My husband has been drumming it for years and I refuse to go back and watch BB. =D)

Sorry. YOU DO NEED to watch it. Your husband is right and this ain't mansplaining. BB is the perfect anti-hero journey to villainy.

[Tentim]

One of my earliest comments in this thread is about how people who don’t know the canon will think it’s fine - no argument here.

The issue is, if you do know the canon, it’s a disaster.

I really wish they would let shows and movies stand on their own merits then piggy back off of ips.

It would solve a lot of issues with media atm.

[craigw]

i just re-watched the hobbit trilogy. just fantastic. ill go out and say and i know opinions vary but the lord of the rings double trilogy is better than the first two star wars trilogies.

[Triceron]

I really wish they would let shows and movies stand on their own merits then piggy back off of ips.

It would solve a lot of issues with media atm.

The problem is the show itself doesn't really stand very well on its own.

It's built on the expectation you've watched the PJ movies.

[Dhrizzle]

One of my earliest comments in this thread is about how people who don’t know the canon will think it’s fine - no argument here.

The issue is, if you do know the canon, it’s a disaster.

Out of interest what do you consider "canon" in Tolkien's work?

[Dhrizzle]

Silmarillion.

So a book Tolkienn never considered ready for publishing, that his son wasn't entirely satisfied with due to the editorial choices he had to make and which, even if it was completed to the author's satisfaction, doesn't give an accurate account of the history of Arda?

[Ivanstone]

Unfortunately while I watched "Better Call Saul" I never watched Breaking Bad - so I can't comment on the diagnosis part. Or the Sociopath vs. Psychopath thing as it pertains to Walter White. =D

(And dont' start on the YOU NEED TO WATCH... My husband has been drumming it for years and I refuse to go back and watch BB. =D)

You should just watch BB because it’s very good. The whole sociopathblahblahblah thing is not really relevant.

My friends were on me for years to watch the show. So I watched it in complete secrecy while they berated me. After I caught up I started trolling them on plot points that they would bring up in conversation with each other.

[Triceron]

I find most people's notion of LotR canon to be odd, personally. He was constantly revising the lore, even on the precipice of changing some fairly large things about the published works. Wouldn't his most recent notes, and whatever he was changing, trump anything before it (the stuff people typically use as "canon")be the most updated canon? Though, I suppose people generally just go based on what was officially published while he was alive, rather than posthumous notes. Which is still odd to me, but I get it.

To be fair, I think this can be said about most fiction that has continued for over decades. Star Wars, Marvel, Harry Potter, even Lovecraft all has shaky canon that keeps changing over the years. We practically have to treat every individual project like a multiverse.

[Dhrizzle]

I find most people's notion of LotR canon to be odd, personally. He was constantly revising the lore, even on the precipice of changing some fairly large things about the published works. Wouldn't his most recent notes, and whatever he was changing, trump anything before it (the stuff people typically use as "canon")be the most updated canon? Though, I suppose people generally just go based on what was officially published while he was alive, rather than posthumous notes. Which is still odd to me, but I get it.

To be fair, I think this can be said about most fiction that has continued for over decades. Star Wars, Marvel, Harry Potter, even Lovecraft all has shaky canon that keeps changing over the years. We practically have to treat every individual project like a multiverse.

It goes a little further with Tolkien. His works weren't just stories, they were the stories, myths and legends of fictional peoples and he allowed for misinformation and unreliable narrators. A reason for the lighter tone of the Hobbit compared to LotR is the fact it was Bilbo's story he used to tell to the young Hobbits so the more brutal parts would be toned down. Also in LotR you may remember talk of Bilbo initially lying about how he got the Ring and Gandalf having to bully the truth out of him. This is a reference to early editions of the Hobbit which had a very different encounter between Bilbo and Gollum when the Ring was just a ring. This was retconned in later publications after Tolkien made it part of his grander and more serious Legendarium.

The Silmarillion is the bundle of translated papers Bilbo gives to Frodo along with the Red Book. When Tolkien decided he preferred the idea of a round-world cosmology and orcs being created from Men rather than Elves he made it so the original texts were Sylvan and Mannish legends written by people who didn't know the actual truth.

There's also a late version of Galadriel's story in which she meets Celeborn (then called Teleporno) in Aman and they sail to Middle-earth together in the wake of the Noldor rebellion. Despite it being written quite late it's hard to consider it "canon" as Tolkien said it was written for "philosophical rather than historical reasons."