I still think they could have made more of the post-Iraq situation. Of course, trying to put 5 episodes into one (thank you strike) is never going to be satisfactory, but at least they have tried to address it in the lateral thinking logic a non-lateral thinking logical person might accept as Zackthink. (oo I invented a word)
And they can try to expand I suppose, but I can't see them welcoming Zack back into the fold, especially as it will probably seem logical to him to kill Sweets. If I tell you I'll have to kill you. + Zack believes he is guilty.
I still think they could have made more of the post-Iraq situation.
i doubt anyone here will disagree with you about that.
I can't see them welcoming Zack back into the fold,
of course they would. they love him, which is why they all go to visit him. not only that, but they know that he feels remorse and realizes that what he did was not the correct course of action. it makes perfect sense to me that they'd want to 'welcome him back to the fold.'
especially as it will probably seem logical to him to kill Sweets. If I tell you I'll have to kill you. + Zack believes he is guilty.
okay, that makes no sense, not even zack sense. he believes that he is partly responsible for the lobbyist's death, he doesn't believe that he actually committed the murder himself. and, as sweets says, he might not have done it if he were there. he believes he's guilty of being an accomplice, not of being an actual murderer.
besides, zack is counting on doctor-patient confidentiality. sweets can't tell.
and come on, when he was an accomplice he thought he was helping the human race. killing sweets to protect himself would be a selfish act, and he's demonstrated that he's a willing sacrifice. he doesn't value his life highly enough to consider a human life an appropriate price for evading prison.
I think we are meant to believe that Zack does believe he is guilty by association. He would have killed the lobbyist for the greater good but the other apprentice got that job. If you accept, and that's a big 'if', that Zack somehow knew the lobbyist's whereabouts and was already involved with Gormogon so told him where to look, he might therefore see himself as responsible for the lobbyist's death even if he didn't stab him. To him, that's as bad as wielding the knife himself. Why he thinks that would prove him to be sane and therefore prison fodder I don't know.
As for not accepting him back, as much as they love him, they think he is a murderer. So why doesn't he tell Hodgins the truth? (Wait, I've thought about that more - see below) Or to turn it around: why don't his friends or more likely his family, go all out to prove his innocence, because really it is illogical to believe Zack is a murderer? Are they so obsessed with his logic, they deny him capability of any human emotion? Brennan acted with her heart for her father when she believed he was a murderer; why not for Zack? Zack isn't the only one who can save him(self). They visit but don't question, just accept? Why don't they want to prove his innocence?
Also, I see your point about Sweets being the only one he could tell if his plan to pay for his 'crime' is to work.
Sorry to witter on, but the more you poke at it, the bigger the holes that appear.
To put in my two cents on the matter of ZackThink (TM) (thank you mistletoe): I think that Zack believes that his actions were a 'condition sine qua non' (the condition without which it could not have happened) for the murder and therefore he killed him, whether it was with his own hands or not. In the context of the rest of that conversation with Sweets, he seems to be saying that it's his way of accepting responsibility for the actions that led directly to the victim's death.
Oh hi! Thanks for that two cents. I think that is an excellent interpretation of what is going on in Zack's head and I totally concur with your view. Thanks for clarifying my thinking. ;)
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2008-09-25 11:16 pm (UTC)And they can try to expand I suppose, but I can't see them welcoming Zack back into the fold, especially as it will probably seem logical to him to kill Sweets. If I tell you I'll have to kill you. + Zack believes he is guilty.
no subject
Date: 2008-09-25 11:46 pm (UTC)i doubt anyone here will disagree with you about that.
of course they would. they love him, which is why they all go to visit him. not only that, but they know that he feels remorse and realizes that what he did was not the correct course of action. it makes perfect sense to me that they'd want to 'welcome him back to the fold.'
okay, that makes no sense, not even zack sense. he believes that he is partly responsible for the lobbyist's death, he doesn't believe that he actually committed the murder himself. and, as sweets says, he might not have done it if he were there. he believes he's guilty of being an accomplice, not of being an actual murderer.
besides, zack is counting on doctor-patient confidentiality. sweets can't tell.
and come on, when he was an accomplice he thought he was helping the human race. killing sweets to protect himself would be a selfish act, and he's demonstrated that he's a willing sacrifice. he doesn't value his life highly enough to consider a human life an appropriate price for evading prison.
no subject
Date: 2008-09-26 08:31 pm (UTC)As for not accepting him back, as much as they love him, they think he is a murderer. So
why doesn't he tell Hodgins the truth?(Wait, I've thought about that more - see below) Or to turn it around: why don't his friends or more likely his family, go all out to prove his innocence, because really it is illogical to believe Zack is a murderer? Are they so obsessed with his logic, they deny him capability of any human emotion? Brennan acted with her heart for her father when she believed he was a murderer; why not for Zack? Zack isn't the only one who can save him(self). They visit but don't question, just accept? Why don't they want to prove his innocence?Also, I see your point about Sweets being the only one he could tell if his plan to pay for his 'crime' is to work.
Sorry to witter on, but the more you poke at it, the bigger the holes that appear.
no subject
Date: 2008-10-14 03:27 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-10-14 06:11 pm (UTC)