Jane dies after he breaks in to get the meth to sell to Gus. He comes back to try to patch things up with Jesse, only to find them both high.
But I feel like you’re missing the point if you think Walt killed Jane (accidentally, but she was sleeping safely on her side before he starts trying to wake up Jesse) out of concern for Jesse. Everything Walt does is actually motivated by his drive to be respected, but he casts around for rationalizations to make his terrible actions seem reasonable. The bottom line is that Jane was a threat to his drug business, so he let her die. Jesse is how he explains that decision to himself.
You rang? ‘Inaction’ is a fiction and most of the big ethical distinctions between it and ‘action’ are humbug. He chose not to save her, which, the narrative at least wants us to believe, he easily could have done. The fact that he didn’t set out to create the material cause of her death is only relevant to how worried we are about him suffocating more junkies; he’s probably not going to do that, sure. But it makes no sense to say he killed her accidentally, he very much did it on purpose.
I think it’s an important distinction. Even if you think it’s hogwash philosophically, it matters to Walt (and to the viewer) that he got Jane dead without intentionally murdering her. A big theme of the show is how that kind of self-deception gives you moral license to do ever more horrible stuff without ever deciding to become “the bad guy.”
I think the “accidentally” refers to the fact that when he’s trying to wake up Jesse, she gets rolled from on to her side to on to her back. That was unintentional.
I don’t really know how to take that. I mean, I’ll grant the distinction is important to a lot of viewers, I just think they’re mistaken to attach import to it. And then you describe it as self-deception, revealed as such by later events in the show. I feel like that’s what I’m saying, though.
Exactly, he didn’t enter the room thinking “I’m going to murder Jane”. He still, when the opportunity presented itself, took the action he knew would lead to her death.
Yeah, I think we’re (including bobman) all in agreement on what parts of that encounter were accidental and what parts were intentional.
And I agree with you that intentional is more important than active/passive (especially in this case). Letting her die and killing her are morally equivalent in this situation. I certainly have encountered people who really feel like there is a difference. Such people are generally more stupid than immoral (i.e., it’s not self-delusion, they really think there is a difference).
Not scrolling back to read any of this but the fact that it’s 2021 and we are still having this conversation is a massive indictment of the human race.
Any rational person would assume that a drug addict who has blackmail that could send you to jail and ruin your life is an on going threat.
He didn’t let her die because of Jesse, he let her die because he knew if she lives she would be an on going threat to his freedom.
It was either let her die or hope she gets clean with Jesse and never tries to blackmail you again. A coupled hundred k is only going to last you so long.
Having grown up around addicts my whole life, the vast majority only get clean after hitting rock bottom. Way more likely they blow the money on drugs and come back to walt for more.
If she was serious about getting clean she wouldn’t have gotten high again that night
Walt seen her for what she was, out of her depth and capable of talking to anyone including another crew who would have ruined Walt and Jesse after they found out where she got that cash, he had no choice if he wanted to keep going.
Them the rules, that’s the game and she didn’t know time was already ticking.
Ok Oxford comma and grammar nazi’s - is the world ready for a new punctuation that I already used in this sentence? IE - the single-dash?
I used these dashes all the time on forums without thinking about it. Basically when I want to indicate some kind of “it follows” relationship, but a comma doesn’t feel right and a colon or an em-dash feels too heavy. Also I generally only tend to use em-dashes in pairs.
This paragraph is an example of both single-dashes and em-dashes:
After Copán, Tommi, Steph and I headed over to nearby Macaw Mountain - a sanctuary for scarlet macaws and other abandoned pet birds. Scarlet Macaws, known to local residents by their traditional name guacamaya, were prized by ancient indigenous groups all over Central America—especially the Maya of Copán—going back to the dynasty’s first king, our old buddy Yax K’uk Mo’, aka Resplendent Quetzal Macaw. But by the end of the 20th century the majestic national bird of Honduras had disappeared from much of its traditional home range, as poachers plucked chicks and eggs out of the nest at an unsustainable level.
Thoughts about the single-dash vs. comma, em-dash or colon?
I’m not even sure this is a good example of an em-dash anymore, as I’m still constantly tweaking the wording on this paragraph.
there is a very well-established set of conventions and rules around em dashes vs en dashes. the fact that there are names for them kinda indicates that they’re … not new
Anyway what they’re calling en-dashes here, I just call hyphens:
I still don’t see any examples of it used in a sentence between words like I always do. IE - “Ok Oxford comma and grammar nazi’s - is the world ready for a new punctuation that I already used in this sentence?”
‘Inaction’ is a fiction and most of the big ethical distinctions between it and ‘action’ are humbug. He chose not to save her, which, the narrative at least wants us to believe, he easily could have done. The fact that he didn’t set out to create the material cause of her death is only relevant to how worried we are about him suffocating more junkies; he’s probably not going to do that, sure. But it makes no sense to say he killed her accidentally, he very much did it on purpose.