sppn.info Laws Breaking Bad All Bad Things Pdf


Friday, September 20, 2019

Check out Breaking Bad: All Bad Things — the comic book recap for the show's first 4 1/2 seasons. Don't miss the final episodes, starting Sun, Aug 11 at 9/8c on. Breaking Bad - All Bad Things FREE Comics Download on CBR CBZ Format. Download FREE DC, Marvel, Image, Dark Horse, Dynamite, IDW. "Continueds" at the page breaks on scenes that go from one page to another. . it's garish as hell. BREAKING BAD # "No Mas" WHITE 8/3/09 2. . Furthermore, any new aftermath stuff we do shoot should not be shot in.

Breaking Bad All Bad Things Pdf

Language:English, Spanish, French
Genre:Academic & Education
Published (Last):
ePub File Size: MB
PDF File Size: MB
Distribution:Free* [*Regsitration Required]
Uploaded by: MARLYS

BREAKING BAD .. She pulls out a couple of items -- not what she wants -- then . Bad idea. Hank climbs onto the top of the RV and pauses. So far, so good. Read Breaking Bad: All Bad Things comic online free and high quality. Fast loading speed, unique reading type: All pages - just need to scroll to read next page. Digital comic published by AMC.

The first 33 minutes of the podcast include Gilligan's revelations about the alternate endings that he and his writers considered for Walter White and why they wouldn't have worked.

Jesse dies. Walter tortures Jesse's killer. This isn't technically an alternate ending, but more of an alternate version of the entire series. Before they even shot season 1, but after Gilligan had written the pilot, he pitched a gruesome scenario to AMC and Sony television executives. In this alternate version of Breaking Bad, Jesse would get killed in season 1 or 2, and Gilligan explains, "Walt is so filled with rage at the drug kingpin that kills Jesse, that he's out for revenge.

Walt somehow captures this guy and shackles him in a basement. Walt then sets up a shotgun across the basement pointed at this kingpin with a trip wire. Ultimately, Walt wants this guy to kill himself.

Then Walt starts "lopping off bits of this guy" very precisely, starting with the toes and working his way up, "cauterizing with a blow torch. The guy is such a badass that he won't trip the wire, and the torture continues for weeks. Walter Jr.

Somehow, the kingpin realizes this is Walter's son, and only then does he pull the trip wire to kill both Junior and himself. Gilligan pitched this idea in person to AMC and Sony executives. Skyler kills herself. Gilligan explains that he was "leaning toward" Skyler committing suicide, but the other writers said it was "a bridge too far. Here's how Gilligan pitched the idea: Desperate, Walt and Skyler would be on the run, holed up in a Motel 6.

Walt would come up with a plan, and try to talk to Skyler about it through the closed bathroom door. When Skyler won't answer, Walt would open the door and find Skyler in a bloody tub. Skyler leaves with Walt and the Disappearer. Gilligan described another scenario where Skyler leaves with Walt and the Disappearer, but he and the writers could never figure out how to get Junior to come along.

The whole writing staff, Gilligan included, believed if Junior didn't want to go with the Disappearer, there was no way to force him to go. Walter goes out Rambo-style and takes out a bunch of police. When they introduced the M60 machine gun at the beginning of season 5, Gilligan admits they didn't know how Walt would use it. They were "planting the flag" with Rambo's machine gun, and they knew "something cool [had] to happen with that.

Ultimately, the M60 helped them come up with the gang of creepy Aryans. But before they came up with the Aryan gang, they batted around a few other ideas on how Walter could use the M His crimes at this stage are significantly more minimal than the murder of Krazy Killing Emilio would have likely been seen as justified or excusable legally. By choosing to kill an imprisoned and immobilized victim, Walt has taken on an extra degree of moral guilt.

He had less morally problematic alternatives available and chose to not pursue them. He took the path less taken, and descended further into the depths of his ultimate moral degradation, starkly illustrated in the deeply troubling circumstances surrounding the death of Jane in Season Two.

Unfortunately, she met Jesse, an active drug dealer and addict.

The net result is predictable, as she slips back into drug addiction and introduces Jesse to heroin. Addicted to heroin and in love with Jesse, Jane convinces him to turn against his partner and blackmail Walt to give Jesse his share of their drug profits. Walt knows full well that Jane and Jesse will inject the money straight into their veins, likely dying of overdoses, but at least wasting their lives. She died, technically, due to her own choice to use heroin and the deadly consequences that come with its use.

She knew full well that, when under the influence, a user can vomit, choke, and die. This is why she warns Jesse to lie on his side, and she does so herself. She had reduced the risks, but not eliminated them, as users can change position once under. Walt was in a position to save her life, but consciously chose not to.

His guilt over that choice and its result was obvious. He cries at her death. But is he morally responsible, and to what degree? Part of this judgment hinges upon the distinction between active and passive responsibility. His physical attempts to wake Jesse have the unintended side-effect of jostling Jane who flops onto her back, prone, and vulnerable to choking in case she vomits.

Walt has therefore contributed to the danger that Jane is in, and then consciously withholds his ability to save her. His reasons are clear: The next two deaths are less complicated, both factually and morally. A dose of ricin as small as a few grains of salt can kill someone. Jesse was. The question is: The duty to save might arise in the case of some sort of special relationship. As a guide, teacher, sometime friend, and partner to Jesse, Walt gives him direction, confidence, and skills he never would have acquired otherwise.

While Jesse is certainly not an innocent, he was more so than was Gus or his hired henchmen bent on killing Jesse. Is his killing of two non- innocents to prevent the death of another non-innocent justifiable?

In a utilitarian calculus, if the total happiness is increased so that it outweighs the total amount of unhappiness from an action, the happiest result must be preferred, ethically speaking. Gale is nearly innocent in the scheme of all of the characters in Breaking Bad.

He has a pure and simple love for chemistry, appears not to be driven by greed or pride, and has genuine reverence and affection for Walt.

He seems driven to do his job merely for the creativity it allows, his love of chemistry, and his need for a job. He also respects Walt and strives for his approval. Instead, he sends Jesse to do so, although Walt himself has prevented Jesse from killing Gus, which would have also presumably, had Jesse had even a chance of success prevented the necessity to kill.

Is Jesse a murderer? Jesse is now guilty of murder, both morally and legally. He pulled the trigger that killed Gale, and moreover, he had a choice. Killing Mike would have been more justifiable, certainly. Killing Gus—absolutely.

Gus, Tyrus, and Hector Salamanca Walt saves the best for last.


Well, last of Season Four, anyway. The trifecta of deaths at the end of the Season Four seems to accomplish a number of things: But in Hector Salamanca, Walt sees his salvation.

Salamanca and Gus have a history of hatred. Walt is certainly responsible for supplying Tio with the means to kill himself, Gus, and Tyrus. None of the dead were innocent. Salamanca, Gus, and Tyrus are all killers, wrapped up in the drug trade. But then so is Walt. Walt has used Tio as the instrument for ridding himself of Gus.

Browse more videos

Tio had the ultimate choice, however, and was the immediate cause of the deaths of Gus and Tyrus. He bears the brunt of both moral and legal responsibility, and Walt shares it. Legally, he was involved in a conspiracy, and is complicit in a murder. Morally, he acted with alternatives, not under duress, and with the intent to take lives. Unlike Jesse, who had not yet murdered when Walt ordered him to shoot, Tio was a practiced killer, with a grudge to settle. Tio had his own set of reasons to off Gus.

Walt was, arguably, doing Tio a favor by giving him an honorable way to cash out and to settle his score. But there are others who die, arguably because of Walter White, though less directly.

His daughter was Jane, and as we saw, Walter is morally guilty in part for her death. His actions and decisions created their possibility, but did not make them inevitable. Rather, Donald Margolis held the capacity to avoid both the crash of Wayfarer perhaps reduced a bit due to his emotional state, but it was his choice to return to work and his own death.

Donald is wrestling with recovery from his addiction as well. Walt actively intervenes to save Jesse, after all. Donald trusts his daughter too much, and fails to intervene when he could have to save her life. Donald also had the final responsibility to not return to his job, directing air traffic one of the most stressful jobs on the planet , and taking the lives of thousands of people every day into his hands while still mourning the loss of his daughter.

Ultimately, however, we should hold Walt accountable for a lot of harm. His excuse is flimsy: By the end of Season Four, he has broken evil, just as evil as Gus—though apparently bent on becoming just as successful in his new life of crime.

He has taken his wife down this path too, corrupting her, involving her in a conspiracy, and endangering his family and friends. This is what murder tastes like. As he shovels another scoop of Emilio slurry into a bucket, Walt remembers a moment poetically relevant to his present.

In his memory, Walt and Gretchen a former girlfriend are studying the chemical composition of the human body: What about the rest? Gretchen has a suggestion: But for Walt, a man of science, the soul is something completely foreign to his way of thinking. In the pilot episode, he expresses materialism quite clearly in his classroom: Strict materialists believe that no one chooses to break bad.

Rather, a series of chemical reactions in your body combined with chemical interactions between the body and the environment dictate your actions. These same chemical interactions trigger the feeling you might have that you chose to break bad. This might be the sort of perspective you would want to have if you were ever shoveling the soupy mess of your murder victim into a toilet. This point of view allows you to believe that you do not choose to break bad; rather, bad and evil just happen.

If, however, chemistry is only able to account for In a word: One of the classic philosophical discussions of redemption can be found in St. This was punishable by death in most creative ways. Before he earned the name, Saint Augustine, Aurelius Augustinus was a confessed adulterer had a rep for hooking up with the MILFs of Carthage and fornicator had mad relations with the females.

Aurelius too was a man of science; he was deeply committed to the mother of all sciences—namely, philosophy. Like Walt, Aurelius made his living as a teacher before becoming a priest ; he taught rhetoric and argumentation in Rome. Like Walt, Aurelius expressed a nagging concern for redemption. As he explains in Book Seven of the Confessions, if God is all the things that the Judeo-Christian traditions says that God is—namely, all knowing, all powerful, and all good—then God must have knowledge of evil and possess the power to prevent it.

If this is so, then one must conclude that God himself is in some way corrupt; that evil is part of, or mixed with, God. This is inconsistent with the notion that God is all-good.

Throughout the history of philosophy, this set of problems has been collectively referred to as the problem of evil. Evil, fear, guilt, and the like are no more than chemically induced feelings that serve the human organism in its drive towards self-preservation.

Evil is only problematic from this perspective if there is some part of the human organism that functions independently from the laws of chemistry and, being free from those laws, can genuinely choose evil actions over good ones. In fact, evil occurs in destruction—that is, in the undoing of creation. And so, Augustine is able to say without contradiction or heresy that God is present in all of existence because evil exists only where existence is falling apart.

What causes this to happen? Corruption of the will.

In other words, evil occurs when one chooses or takes actions that lead him away from God, away from goodness, that is, towards destruction. Both identify goodness with continued existence and self-preservation. Both identify evil, in one way or another, with self- destruction. And so it would seem that with or without God in the picture, breaking bad involves some action leading towards self-destruction.

This thought troubles Walt as he considers what to do about Krazy Requiem for Krazy-8 His heart was racing. The situation was all the more troubling when the boy coughed. From time to time, Krazy-8 would let out a wheezing cough.

Sympathy is a bitch! Walt knew that sympathy could only make this already complicated situation all the more complicated. In this little sanctuary, with this little bit of peace, Walt decides to approach the problem rationally: Quite the contrary, according to his own confession, Augustine desired from an early age to be a moral person, to understand the origins of evil while, at the same time, indulging in excess. Augustine expresses with frank honesty the pleasure he took in the fulfillment of his carnal desires.

In all this Augustine is saying the same thing: All the while, and despite his great indulgences, Augustine asked God for redemption, but what he wanted was redemption of a particular kind: He wanted redemption, but not yet. This is precisely what Walt wants: Walt too wants redemption, but not yet. Before this plan is played-out, however, Walt will kill Krazy-8, blow-up a car, blow-up a building, and adopt the name, Heisenberg.

La Vita Heisenberg Werner Heisenberg — , German physicist and mathematician, revolutionized science by devising what is commonly referred to as the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.

The principle operates at the sub-atomic level of the universe and governs the behavior of chemical molecules. This uncertainty may be slight scientifically speaking, but its philosophical import is immense! This is the case because the principle requires that we soften the claims arrived at by means of science in recognition of the inherent uncertainty in the recording and prediction of sub-atomic behavior.

Laws, in the scientific sense, are meant to be iron clad, and if thing which go against the law do happen, then the law must be either modified or abandoned. Tendencies are flexible and can be deviated from without necessarily changing the anticipated outcome of a similar future event. Heisenberg allows Walt to believe that he chose to break bad and that he can choose to be good again. What that redemption will look like is another question. The call drew his thoughts back to the grey office and the moment he heard the news they had all gathered to celebrate.

According to Dr. Delcavoli, remission usually refers to shrinkage of a malignant tumor; but he cautions, one is also technically in remission when the tumor simply stops growing. In a metaphorical sense, remission saves the body from evil—namely, the evil that threatens the survival of the living organism.

If remission is, as Dr. Delcavoli says, the cessation of tumor growth or shrinkage of the tumor, then remission is tantamount to being saved from evil of the cancerous sort. Now, however, standing in front of the friends from whom he has sought desperately to keep his life as Heisenberg a secret, his words repeated the very first thought that greeted it. Its behavior is no longer threatening its own physical survival, at least, not to such an extreme degree twenty percent of the tumor remains.

These tendencies, however, belong to the Walt vows to leave the meth business presumably for good , and in this decision Walt hopes to achieve his redemption. Walter Jr. As Walt irradiates the cancer causing rot to his physical self, another part of him is engaging in behavior resulting in rot of a different sort. Are they choices Walt is predetermined to make?

The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle suggests that these questions may be fundamentally unanswerable. Yet the tendencies and choices to which these questions refer remain morally relevant.

They are morally relevant precisely because the answers to these questions are fundamentally uncertain. Redemption for Walt as well as for those that share his materialist paradigm can be achieved when their choices rather then their chemistry consistently tend towards the preservation and longevity of their organism.

Despite its somewhat outrageous premise like Walt could bag the Skyler level of hotness; right? But why? What makes it so wrong? In effect, Walt is coerced into aggressive treatment. Family Meeting. The person may be some kind of addict or somehow socially maladapted, and the event is used to urge that person to make positive changes. Bioethics is a branch of ethics itself a branch of Western philosophy where philosophical positions are actually put into practice when making decisions concerning matters like physician-assisted suicide, abortion, contraception, use of animals for research, and other issues in the realms of biology, medicine, and clinical practice.

I routinely sit in on family meetings where the risks and benefits of life-sustaining treatment are discussed. I also like to write about the things I do and get my writings published.

To limit the already dangerously high risk of sounding dickish for this discussion of Walt and Skyler, I did some research to make sure the issues I saw at the family meeting were also issues to other people and that I was addressing them appropriately. Research Methods A scientist at heart, I began gathering data by carrying a portable DVD player around with me and showing the intervention scene to as many people as I could. I also did this so that I could include a bunch of research-y sounding terms in this chapter.

Most of the people I showed it to are aware of what I do for a living, and I worried that this would cause a thing called expectation bias. In other words, I worried that they might give me answers they thought I would want to hear, not their honest opinion.

My inclusion criterion for this study was as follows: He questions his diagnosis and prognosis in the same way any of us would. One question that he asks himself, however, is fundamental: We actually know a fair amount about the type of lung cancer Walt has. By giving him one to two years to live, the writers put him just about in the middle of the expected prognosis for this type of cancer. In fact, depending on factors like the size and location of the tumor, his chance of still being alive five years after diagnosis ranges as low as ten percent.

These fall-back treatments would only function to do the one thing Walt wants to avoid, medicalize his final months. What he would get in trade for all of this treatment is the possibility of time; maybe a year or two, maybe none at all, no guarantees. The chance that the treatment will shorten the amount of time he has is actually greater than the chance it will help him be alive five years after his initial diagnosis.

Kant felt we have the ability to choose the rules we live by freely and autonomously, provided we do it independent of emotion and circumstance which act as coercive elements. John Stuart Mill — also discussed autonomy and coercion. Coercion Due to Chickenshit The struggles of the non-medically trained layperson to come to grips with this understanding of autonomy are not helped by us medically trained laypeople. You see, the people offering the treatment have their own agendas and ways of coercing decisions.

If we imagine the conversation between Dr. Del Cavoli and Walt which would have taken place if the nausea and weakness of his treatment had gotten worse, we would most likely have heard Del offering second or third line chemotherapy agents as a substitute.

When I say we, by the way, unfortunately I do mean we. I did so for almost all the reasons stated above except the one where I get lots of money, that one still evades me. We try and coerce you into accepting this treatment by how we present it. Unfortunately the result of that coercion is that what little time we gain with all those intrusive things comes at a cost. Sometimes the only thing that technology downloads us is very little time, measured in hours or even minutes.

Because of this, the idea of autonomy is now applied in far more subtle and personal ways than ever before. As the idea of autonomy has become more important, the understanding of coercion has changed, which brings us back to Walt and Skyler.

In an unfortunate, even ironic, twist, as the stress of decision-making increases along with the stakes, many of us may become less able to courageously and independently assert our autonomy.

In some situations, the people we need most can be the people upon whom we can least depend. Skyler leads off armed with the sacred talking pillow, announcing her intention with a candor that, as a witness to many such meetings, I was ready to dismiss as floridly untruthful.

Being the lazy consumer of television I am though, I continued to watch and, as the dialog played out, was thrilled with just how well the truth of such meetings was captured. Issues that would have taken hours to unmask even with the help of the most skilled counselor which, for the record, I am not were laid bare in moments with the artistic medium of drama.

Skyler speaks first, but we already know this is a meeting in name only; her intent is to make Walt act in the way she wants, to embrace the idea of treatment, to fight the good fight, to embrace the illusion that a cure is possible and paying with the ugly reality of aggressive treatment is not too much.

She hands off to Hank who, having received his assignment, tries to coach Walt through this test of manhood in the way Skyler intended. Uncomfortable with the subject matter, speaking in a way everyone senses as ineffective, after a few sports metaphors obscured by the pre-cut domestic cheddar in his mouth, he hands off to the first completely honest voice so far, Walt Jr.

Skyler points him at Walt like a gun, not once but twice, in order to maximize the effect of his raw expression of emotion, and her manipulation works. Having listened, precisely what people ought to do in meetings, she speaks her feelings honestly. Slightly overwrought, a bit lame, but her sincerity strikes a chord with Hank.

Hank Hank was used by Skyler, he was manipulated into providing exactly what he was programmed from birth to provide, manly manliness; she simply misjudged her tool. Walt Jr. These important details make Walt Jr. Walt would, and most likely already has, given over control of his life for his namesake. But Why Walt—Why? Convinced of the utility of accepting this sham of treatment and its consequences, he puts on his bravest face and takes his medicine, but why does he?

Not just handing out twenty-dollar bills in the same way my grandfather did, but sacrificing time and money, that I may not have to spare, in assisting with the care of my family.

In the same way we see casual beneficence from the people around us, we also see them take actions which may not be in their best interest, but benefits their loved ones. In my lifetime I have watched my parents put themselves financially in a deep hole to support their children, particularly the one writing this chapter.

I call this behavior autonomous beneficence and have come to anticipate a certain level of this in the decision making of my patients. An individual on a ventilator may prefer death over continuing to be shackled to medical devices, but will delay a planned withdrawal of treatment in order to get past a birthday, a graduation, or other seemingly insignificant family events.

For someone trapped in a hospital bed who has lost control of every aspect of their lives including taking in nutrition and eliminating waste, it may be the only way they have to help out; I consider it a positive quality and seek to support it when able.

An example can be found in a family meeting I made up. His response, very consistent with the response I would expect even from an actual person, was to postpone his surgery.

When she found out she said: On a day-to-day basis this degree of coercion is virtually impossible to identify, and even if you could it would be impossible to call shenanigans on. Accepting Autonomy the real world of medicine, we have to deal with the specific details of each situation. We hope that we can guide each person, whether patient or family, to some level of understanding and acceptance. We hope that decisions made by the patient will be made with the complete self interest that each of us deserves to be given at the end of life.

We hope that patients withholding treatment will have the full loving support of their family and friends and that it will allow them to be comfortable. Comfortable, not as a euphemism for assisted suicide, but in the same way we mean when we invite a guest into our home; to be free from onerous discomfort. We work hard to make sure that decisions are not coerced, but in the end we must accept the decision a patient makes and hope that we can give treatment in as humane a way as possible.

Now, Wait Just a Damn Minute. Any thief worth his salt can bust into a house faster than the time it took to write this sentence which, for the record, took the better part of twenty minutes. We still have to have autonomy in decisions with regard to our own lives and most particularly with regard to our own bodies. A Kantian might argue that Walt had made his decision to withhold treatment exactly the way Kant would want, free from emotion.

A Millian might suggest that Skyler butt the hell out because Walt gets to make this decision for himself. The bottom line is that whether at the end of life or in the middle, we should have the freedom to make the same dumbassed decisions we make for the same indecipherable reasons we always make them.

Our job—and I do mean all of us—is to help our loved ones make sound decisions and to give them the freedom to make those decisions and support them, whether we like the decision or not. Alfred Prufrock. Prufrock is filled with regret about his life because he has been indecisive, inarticulate, anxious, and overly concerned about how his actions will be judged by others to the point of being almost paralyzed.

Walt too has a lot of regrets about his life, and appears to be a victim of circumstance: Walt fails to see the absurdity of it all, that the universe is silent, purposeless, and ultimately meaningless. He fails to take hold of his freedom and responsibility because he sees himself as defined completely by others. Alfred Prufrock: Believe it or not, when Walt becomes Heisenberg, the meth cooker and dealer, he becomes an authentic individual—the ideal person Camus and Sartre speak of—finding the balance between defining himself and the role others play in shaping him.

He acknowledges the absurdity of the universe and his inevitable death, and he takes hold of his freedom and responsibility for his choices.

Walt as Heisenberg is like the mythical character, Sisyphus, endlessly pushing his rock up the mountain, filled with rebellion and a silent joy, since his fate and his essence belong to him and no one else. Born without a God Existentialism is a philosophy of the ground rather than the sky—a philosophy of the streets of man, born without a god, without the necessity of an objective truth, and without an overriding moral code.

It can best be described as a twentieth-century philosophy that focuses on existence and how people find themselves existing in the world.

Not an easy task at all, since decisions often come with consequences and stress, and people are entirely responsible for their actions. This is precisely why anguish is another key concept existentialists speak of: I feel anguish because nothing other than my free will makes me choose how to act, I am ultimately responsible for myself, and these free actions have consequences for myself and the others around me.

Famously though, it was part of a political movement. Existentialism offered people a defense of individual freedom during the time of, and later the recovery from, Nazism and Fascism. It also heavily criticized authoritarian dictated social norms and religion, and was a voice for men and women alike.

Existentialists believed that when an individual, or a society, or a religion, imposed its arbitrary beliefs, values or rules onto others, to be followed obediently and blindly, it was the end of the individual: Heisenberg as we know him is born. We see Walt standing up to his wife and being more sexually aggressive with her, we see him communicating more directly with his family and friends about his wants and feelings, he confronts students and strangers who try to disregard him, and he even occasionally wears the black hat at home.

King Sisyphus In Greek mythology, Sisyphus was a king who was punished by the gods for trickery and hubris; he thought he was smarter than Zeus. His punishment was to roll a large boulder up a steep hill for eternity: This task was meant to be an eternity of frustration for Sisyphus, a punishment of hopeless, meaningless, futile labor. Camus, however, sees Sisyphus as an absurd hero and not a defeated man.

Sisyphus was rebellious during his life; he scorned the gods and defied their will. He had a passion and love for life, and he hated death. Sisyphus knows at every moment rolling the giant boulder that this fate was his own doing since he knew when he defied the gods he would be punished, and so he owns his punishment.

Camus imagines Sisyphus happy, smiling as he rolls the boulder uphill over and over, further scorning the gods who sought to make him obedient.

When Walt becomes Heisenberg, he also becomes like Sisyphus. Walt has a silent joy in his rebellion: Walt, like Sisyphus, is an absurd hero. For an existentialist like Camus—who made the above claim—it makes perfect sense. Absurdity lies in the chaos and irrationality of the universe, a universe that is not oriented toward our concerns but is rather indifferent to our aspirations and endeavors.

Twists of fate, strange patterns of behavior, and unpredictable events are all glimpses of the absurd. These also serve as evidence that there is no God or higher destiny present in the universe.

For Sartre, too, the absurd lies in the fact that there is no divine design or ultimate purpose in the universe that dictates how humans ought to exist: The biggest source of absurdity for Camus is death since it negates any aspirations and achievements. It destroys any meaning we have created and any importance we give to things, and this means that all human desires, goals, and achievements are irrational.

Every single person on this earth knows that they will die at some point, and in the face of this fact they continue to spend every day creating meaning, aspiring, and desiring, and for Camus that is absurdity in its clearest form.

Death is the great equalizer; everyone from Charles Manson, to the Pope, to Bono, to Walter White will come to the same end—nothingness. Living each day to the fullest and creating meaning for yourself is a revolt against death and the extinction it brings. For Camus, once you acknowledge the absurdity of the universe you must also accept that your fate is your own matter to handle and belongs solely to you.

Having no master in the universe means you are master of yourself. The person who acknowledges and accepts the absurdity of the universe becomes like Sisyphus, a happy rebel with his own rock, owning his fate. A Happy Upward Battle When Walt becomes Heisenberg, he accepts all the absurdity in and around his life, the biggest of which is his impending death: This is both absurd and unsettling since it flies in the face of our understanding causality and seems to render any future scientific investigation pointless.

Walt originally became a meth cooker to be able to leave his family money to survive after his death, but it quickly became much more than that. Walt found great strength, pride, and satisfaction in cooking meth: Being Heisenberg became less about making money and more about feeling an ownership over his shortening life, a sense of control over what he does and what direction the end of his life will take.

Before his cancer diagnosis, Walt was a guy who followed the rules and did everything he was supposed to, and yet he ended up broke, unhappy, bored, and stepped on by others. Heisenberg is the complete opposite of the old Walt in every way: But with every obstacle and setback that has occurred, Walt has learned, adapted, and fought on.

About Authenticity In addition to creating more meaning in the end of his life than he did during the first part, Walt is being authentic. Authenticity is being true to your self as a free individual. For Camus and Sartre, to be authentic involves acknowledging and exercising the freedom you have to direct your own life through choices. When you resolve to be what you freely choose to be, you are being authentic.

Yes, Existentialism sounds very much like Spider-Man here: Being free entails that no other person or thing determined your choice or action. Responsibility is about owning your actions and your character since both are part of creating your own essence.

Walt also asks Hank for his opinion about where someone like Tuco comes from. Walt is asking these questions to find out what makes a successful drug dealer, since he and Jesse are trying to survive and be successful meth dealers. Hank has met many drug dealers like Tuco, and this experience is valuable.

Download Breaking Bad: The Official Book PDF Free

But Walt also seems to be asking because he envies Tuco in some way, that sense of power he radiates, the fear he creates. Walt as Heisenberg seeks to embody certain characteristics he sees in guys like Tuco, so he can have more effective control over his meth operations and personal life in order to be authentic in the sense Camus and Sartre talk about. Gustavo Fring, the meth distributor Walt comes to work for after Tuco, is also another great authentic character, and a man Walt has a great amount of respect for.

Gus is the polar opposite of Tuco: Bad Faith Being authentic is no easy task, and as Sartre points out we are often living in something he calls bad faith. Bad faith is a form of self-deception, and Sartre uses this concept to characterize those who are unwilling to acknowledge the freedom they possess or those who fail to be responsible for their actions.

There are two forms of bad faith that come about in our relationships with other people: To escape bad faith is to walk the tiniest of tightropes, and in stilettos, too! Walt comes across as trapped, doomed to keep living the same unsatisfying life, and so death seems to him his only way out. Authenticity Again Once he becomes Heisenberg, all this changes.

When he later talked to Gus, he accepted responsibility for killing the two men and attempted to negotiate a future course of action that would benefit everyone. In being authentic, Walt is also attempting to escape from his bad faith. Before becoming Heisenberg, Walt let other people define him and along with not acting freely he also failed to take any responsibility for his life. Occasionally with Jesse, Walt has pushed him into things against his will, such as taking care of the meth theft from Skinny Pete, or taking care of Gale.

But overall, Walt has made an immense transformation in becoming Heisenberg, and those changes are seen in every facet of his life. Walt owns his rock, climbs onward, and defines his life.

Walt starts to live his own life, create his own essence, and become an authentic person.

He becomes an absurd hero when he starts cooking meth and takes on the name Heisenberg: Just like Sisyphus and his rock, Walt has a silent joy because within his revolt he owns his fate and he owns his essence.

And just like Sisyphus, we must imagine Walt happy. A narrative plot is no less a conspiracy of armed men. The tighter the plot of the story, the more likely it will come to death. These reactions can be chemical, as when pseudoephedrine is mixed with iodine crystals and red phosphorus, which then react to make crystalline methamphetamine. They can be physical, as when cells in human bodies grow uncontrollably and metastasize into malignant cancers due to reactions with toxins in the environment or our DNA.

After the initial shock of this news, he formulates a plan of action that will safeguard the financial security of his pregnant wife, Skyler, and their cerebral palsy-stricken son, Walt Jr. Walt is from the very get-go propelled towards death.

Heidegger thinks that being towards death can define authentic human existence and provide us with the grounds to question the very meaning of our existence.

When one realizes and accepts this reality of life towards death, then one is living an authentic existence. Heidegger attempts to find the healthiest relationship human beings could have with their own mortality—the best way that a human being could live a life in the face of an unstoppable, certain death.

Heidegger believes that we human beings have chosen profoundly inauthentic ways of living our lives in the face of this threat of unavoidable mortality. In fact, he accuses traditional Western philosophy of being guilty of a dereliction of duty when dealing with the question of death.

Philosophy has been more concerned with death-less truths than with the truth of death. For example, the notion of the immortal mind or soul has been privileged over the decaying, finite matter of the body.

Being is what happens in between. We always find ourselves already at a certain point in time and have no control over when we enter into its stream.

Our existence on Earth is thus heavily influenced by time. The rest of the episode is then told in flashbacks as we come to learn how Walt came to be in this odd situation. Heidegger believes that being emerges from a unity of past, present, and future, with our actions in the past setting out a number of possible futures for us. When viewed in this light, the flashbacks become more than just a means of telling the story. Heidegger believes that what has already happened in the past is then at the same time already inscribed into our present and our future.

Towards Our Own Annihilation Everything that Walt was before he learned of his impending death, his former life, with its hopes and aspirations of not just a happy family life but also his desire for upward mobility which is intimately tied up with this notion of the American Dream is an element of the unified whole rather than a segment of what has passed.

For Heidegger, it is through this unified whole that temporality reveals itself as past-actualizing-future.

Yet in our everyday plan-making Heidegger feels that we ignore the possibility of death and live our lives as if all the goals we make will be reached without its possible intrusion. If he were alive today he would no doubt balk at our attitudes towards our own mortality.

We live in a culture of widespread death anxiety, where we try to fend off the aging process with cosmetic surgery and even dream of being able to download our conscious minds into sophisticated computer hard drives.

For Heidegger, calculative thinking was a way of viewing the world that, in a strange way, took flight from thinking itself.

We can view it then as a form of thinking about the world that leads to thoughtlessness. Heidegger believes that it is the sciences of the modern technological age that have used this kind of thinking most because it serves specific purposes. While he sees it as beneficial to human needs in the technological world, he laments the fact it is narrow and limited when it comes to thinking and being in the world.

Remember that Walt is a scientist at heart. Calculative thinkers are only able to take into account the present circumstances, from which they then plan and set out to achieve goals in the future.

Rather than mock this kind of thinking for its lack of practicality and usefulness, Heidegger actively encouraged it because it can allow us to focus on the here and now. Walt the Meditator? Having learned of his cancer and his own impending death, Walt actually becomes more meditative in his own thinking by dwelling on what is closest and of most concern to him.

Walt quickly becomes obsessed, resulting in a number of humorous, slapstick situations between Walt and Jesse as well as drug-induced revelations by Walt about his life, and perhaps most intriguingly of all, his death.

In a poignant monologue, Walt outlines the seeming lack of control that he has over his life killing the fly would perhaps have been a minor symbolic victory for him, yet even this alludes him. What we can read into this is that Walt has realized that his calculative thinking has failed him. Behaving like the rational scientific man that he is, he always believed that the best result was to make enough money for his family and then to die without revealing to them the man he had to become in order to this.

But now this is all tainted, particularly with Skyler, who learns in Season Three of his deception. This admittedly drug-induced! It helps us to think outside the box of modern, rational, calculated thinking and look beyond that which we would see as being merely useful to us.

Calculative thinking reinforces an inauthentic being- towards-death because we ignore the possibility of death when we make plans and set goals for ourselves.

It pushes the everyday aside and humans become, as Heidegger says, uprooted from reality, and ultimately, from themselves. My heart now beats for two. Macbeth, Act 3, Scene 2 Shakespeare made a career out of breaking bad tales. In Othello, a hopelessly romantic husband murders his innocent wife. Falstaff declares that his accomplice has corrupted him, but his accomplice is Harry, the Prince of Wales.

Aristotle argues that tragedy describes poetic universals rather than historic particulars: We believe in characters when they behave as we expect them to behave or want them to behave ; we doubt them when they behave otherwise. On stage, teachers should be selfless; drug dealers should be selfish. More subtly, the idea of a teacher should always inspire self-sacrifice; the idea of a drug dealer should evoke exploitation.

This creates a problem for any author writing about historical figures like Macbeth or a character who defies stereotypes like Walter White. If a playwright wants to describe a particular but an audience wants to see a universal, is there a way to do both? Can you make a particular seem like a universal?

Do we believe that a high school chemistry teacher can turn into an underworld drug supplier? Aristotle hates stories that end with deus ex machina—random, supernatural, or completely unforeseeable events that change the plot. Outside of a Michael Bay movie, logic must prevail or the audience feels as though it has wasted its time.

The battle looks grim for Scottish King, Duncan, until Macbeth, along with his friend Banquo, valiantly overthrows the rebel forces, defending the king and restoring peace. Macbeth FTW! When Macbeth later informs his wife about the prophecy, she convinces him to kill Duncan at the next opportunity and seize the throne for himself. Plagued with guilt, troubled with paranoia, Macbeth quickly descends into madness, which—in a king— translates into tyranny. Macbeth goes on to annoy the heck out of his people, and the people revolt against the new king.

Lady Macbeth, in the meantime, falls into dementia, compulsively trying to wash away bloodstains no one else can see. Although Macbeth put down the revolt against his predecessor, he dies in battle at the hands of the rebel lord, Macduff.

So much for the plot, which Shakespeare mostly borrows from British chronicles. Drama simulates life and its actions, but with Shakespeare, it also simulates psychology and thought. When King Duncan promotes him, the honor and recognition of loyalty pleases Macbeth. Later, Lady Macbeth speaks in sexualized language to turn Macbeth against the king. He assassinates the king to prove his masculinity to himself. His sense of honor stabs him in his heart.

Despite the fact that almost everyone suspects what Macbeth has done, his own inability to confess his crimes means that his turmoil is completely interiorized; but this kind of interiority makes him feel fearful and cowardly. The act which was supposed to prove his manliness turns him into a wimp, compelling him to behave even more viciously to his people in order to reassert his power over them. Aristotle links reversals with the concept of hamartia, the tragic flaw.

Tragic heroes need to do something wrong, make some mistake, to justify their tragic end. We need to feel pity for them, but we should not feel they are complete victims. The most commonly observed hamartia is hubris, or excessive pride. Both men initially seek traditional male roles as self-sacrificing providers and protectors for their families. Walt verbally claims that he cooks crystal meth in order to spare his family from the expenses of his cancer treatments and to keep them financed after his seemingly inevitable death.

Although this is a plausible enough excuse, the script hints that other thoughts might motivate Walter. In our first encounter with him, a pantless Walter White leaves a potential suicide note on a camcorder.

Do we believe him? Is his family the only thing in his heart? How can we know? It forces us to conjecture the secrets that move characters and to suspect them when they tell us their motivations.

When the chemistry teacher recounts the story of how he courted his wife, his brother-in-law Hank tells Walter, Jr. On the one hand, Krazy-8 means to say that Walt does not possess evil, badness, or cruelty in his soul. On the other hand, it might also suggest that he lacks courage. When the formula appears incomplete, Gretchen conjectures the missing percentage might be the soul—an expression of an interior life.

This is a Macbethian man who has been buried within Walter White, impossible to perceive except in his own internal memory. The entire first episode runs Walt through a gauntlet of effeminizing experiences. He is forced to wash the luxury sports car of the student who disrespects him in class.

After the party, he experiences a bout of erectile dysfunction when his wife, Skyler, lamely offers him manual pleasure while she simultaneously checks site on a laptop. But Walt refuses the assistance. Likewise, Walt rejects a suggestion to ask his mother for financial help.

But if saving face and dignity motivate Walter White, then the putrid, vile, blood-dripping world he chooses to slink off to seems self-defeating.

Is exploiting addicts who are slowly poisoning themselves with meth really that much more noble than taking charity from friends? Besides, as Gretchen points out, Walt tells his family that he is taking the charity. His actions contradict his stated motives. His shame, however, feeds his insecurity, thus leading him to repeat the cycle of crime. His choices more often than not prove counter-productive: After witnessing the kingpin Tuco murder a gang member, Walt suspects that Tuco will come for his own family.

Walt, at this point, is more the victim of a bloodthirsty tyrant than the tyrant himself. Knowing that the king has been killing lords left and right, Macduff abandons home to seek other potential rebels. They react similarly to the frustrated Skyler and Walter, Jr. Does Macduff set his family up to die? Might he sacrifice them for political capital, to make him look more victimized and appear the better leader? Might he masochistically want to suffer their loss so that he can fight with greater ferocity and abandon?

Does he really think he can save his family with a kitchen knife? In the fourth season, Skyler and Pinkman plea with Walt to turn himself in and join a witness protection program.

He refuses. This would let him keep up appearances of the self-sacrificing teacher and father. Or does such a self-sacrifice actually become a form of spiting those for whom he sacrifices? Either way, the henchmen might have killed everyone at home. Here, he engages in a double bluff with the psychiatrist. Walt confesses that he staged his madness, but lies about the cause. His lie is that he ran away from his family out of resentment towards them.

Walt suppresses the part of himself that disdains his loved ones. He sacrifices for his family to prove to himself that he loves them, but his sacrifices also harm his family, satiating a subconscious resentment towards them because they limit him. Lady Macbeth in Breaking Bad Although Macbeth and Macduff are mortal enemies, their most tragic and perhaps relatable moments overlap when each learns that his wife has died.

She enables him to define himself in patriarchal roles—as husband, lover, and chivalric warrior. Thus, he justifies much of his action as done for her sake. At her death, Macbeth launches into a speech of existential crisis.

Walt, who similarly justifies his actions as being for the sake of his wife and household, finds that his actions have driven them apart. This tragic reversal manifests in Season Three, when his wife separates from him. Without his family, Walt loses his most sympathetic motivation for breaking bad.

Breaking Bad – All Bad Things

Skyler functions as a humanizing agent for Walt, and she even briefly tries to become his accomplice after she offers to launder money for him. Still, she hardly fulfills the more complex functions of Lady Macbeth.

When Tuco severely beats Pinkman, Walt forces Tuco to pay restitution. When Walt adopts the Heisenberg persona, he becomes a tough, confident, aggressive male. Walt drives Pinkman into going deeper into the underworld, challenging his masculinity like Lady Macbeth.

Even the freedom that Walter envies in Pinkman resonates with Lady Macbeth, who fantasizes about being a man. Although Skyler intends to give Walter a taste of his own medicine, he instead feels the effeminized victim again. Walt had seemed to break bad to become more of a man, but then accepts a submissive role in both of his worlds. Mike gives Walt a black eye instead. The hitman has, apparently, seen Macbeth. For a while, Walter has been almost every character in Macbeth, even a bearded witch stirring exotic ingredients in a cauldron.

Macbeth could submit, perhaps even redeem himself a bit. He could apologize for the horrors he has done and acknowledge his shame, but, instead, he decides to die fighting. And what does Macbeth fight for in the end? His kingdom lost, his wife dead, and his reputation ruined—Macbeth has nothing. Macduff will carry his decapitated head around a stage. Not much dignity there.

Macbeth becomes so accustomed to evil that it is a natural default. He no longer seeks excuses or cost-benefit analysis. He no longer even derives pleasure from evil.

Macbeth chooses evil for the sake of evil. We accept this at the end because Shakespeare gave us a series of believable psychological conflicts and then stripped them away. Perhaps Walter White will acknowledge what else is in him. Perhaps he will realize that what he thought was there is gone or was never was there at all. But as Walt loses each of his external connections, his motives seem weaker and weaker. Like Macbeth, he stops taking pleasure from the forbidden fruit.

Motivations slip away. What moves Walt tantalizes us as it becomes more depraved and less comprehensible. Watching Macbeth and Walter White do as they please, part of us wants what they have inside them and part of us fears we already do. Walter White does have something evil inside of him: Cancer is both plot device and metaphor.

About this book

It nudges him towards a life of crime, to seize his fate and remaining days, but it also signifies the corruption of his soul. Lung cancer resides in the interior: But Walt embraces cancer rather than rejecting it; self-sacrifice blurs with self-destruction.

That mask becomes almost literal in the black-hat-wearing Heisenberg. When Walter White adopts his pseudonym, we no longer see him as just a teacher who turns criminal. We see him as competing identities within one mind, as Macbeth and Lady Macbeth and Macduff and Duncan and Banquo and witch.

I think what I liked about it was that this guy, Walter White, was prepared to have a showdown with the police in his underwear. That takes some kind of courage, or stupidity.

But then the scene cuts to three weeks earlier and this same man is nothing like the man who is so confident and prepared to die at the beginning of the episode. Why did Walt change?

In the scene of the pilot episode where Walt is lecturing on science and how exciting it is, one of his students Chad is disrupting class by flirting with a beautiful young woman in the back of the classroom. When their talking becomes so loud that everyone in the class turns to look at them Walt finally says something. Once Chad is back to his regular assigned seat, he sits down and looks smugly at Walt. This seems to be reinforced by Chad nodding at Walt like the student is the teacher giving permission to continue with his lecture.

Because of this, it appears to all of the students in the classroom and to everyone watching the show at home that Walt has allowed Chad to dominate him, or out will him, as Nietzsche might have said. Even before we see him at work, we hear Walt and his wife, Skyler, discussing his job. You get paid till five. You work till five. No later. Later, when we see Walt at his second job, we get to see how his boss, Bogdan, manipulates Walt.

Later in the show, when we see Walt at his second job, Bogdan is in the background talking on the phone. Eventually he ends the call, comes to the register, and approaches Walt. We talked about this. What am I to do? We first see this towards the beginning of the pilot episode when the White family is sitting at the breakfast table. Skyler brings him a plate of scrambled eggs and strange-looking bacon. Believe it or not.

Zero cholesterol. When Walt Jr. I guess. This smells like Band-Aids.What makes it so wrong? Jesse rationalizes the loss and Walt points out that his rationale is irrational: So neither of our lead characters are Last Men, but how far are they true creators, real Nietzschean Overmen? Hank enjoys his cigars as much as his drug busts; the little rewards, the big moments of excitement, these are what make life living for Hank.

Salamanca and Gus have a history of hatred. I am unable to retrieve this thread from the wiki; it will not come up on a search. Walt originally became a meth cooker to be able to leave his family money to survive after his death, but it quickly became much more than that. Walt too has a lot of regrets about his life, and appears to be a victim of circumstance: Walt is certainly responsible for supplying Tio with the means to kill himself, Gus, and Tyrus.

Instead, they mined their own history by looking at moments from earlier seasons to see if they could use them in later episodes.