“Fly” Discussion Questions

1) In the article we read for today, Melley claims that:

These facts offer a crucial lesson: by making diverse social and technological systems enemies of “the self,” the conspiratorial views function less as a defense of some clear political position than as a defense of individualism, abstractly conceived. It is not surprising that extremely self-defensive postures of this sort are often understood as “paranoid.” Clinically paranoid individuals, after all, frequently express a general fear and distrust of their environment.

How does this claim help us understand Walt’s actions in “Fly”? Is Walt a “paranoid” individual? Is he taking a self-defensive posture in this episode? Or is he defending a clear position? Is his concern over the contamination of the fly emanating from a clear and rational concern over the quality of his product?

2) Melley also notes that our tendency to resort to conspiracy narratives can be explained in the following way:

The recent surge in conspiracy narratives, in other words, cannot be explained as a response to some particular political issue, social organization, or historical event, such as Watergate, or the Kennedy assassination, or even the Cold War. It is better understood as a response to the sense that, to quote one cultural critic, “our specialness-our humanness- has been taking it on the chin a lot lately.”12 It stems largely from a sense of diminished human agency, a feeling that individuals cannot effect meaningful social action and, in extreme cases, may not be able to control their own behavior.

Is this an accurate description of Walt? Has his specialness been taking it on the chin a lot recently? Does he feel like he cannot affect meaningful action? Or that he can’t control his own behavior? What evidence can you point to from either “Fly” or other episodes we have watched?

3) Melley claims when an individual experiences agency panic, “the conviction that one’s actions are being controlled by someone else, that one has been “constructed” by powerful external agents” (62) that they

tend to tend to attribute to these systems the qualities of motive, agency, and individuality they suspect have been depleted from themselves or others around themselves, agency panic not only dramatizes doubt about the efficacy of individual human action; it also induces a postmodern transference in which social regulation seems to be the intentional product of a single consciousness or monolithic “will” (63).

Is Walt experiencing agency panic in “Fly”? If so, what is he transferring his fears onto? What represents this single consciousness or “will” in the episode? What other things could this also represent in Walt’s life? What other themes could it embody?

4) Melley claims that:

Here, the interpretive drive of the analyst-the desire to find some kind of “coherent system lying behind” what initially seems to be “random fancy” -is structurally analogous to the interpretive drive of the paranoiac, whose disorder is characterized by the tendency to locate coherent motives in what others believe to be “random” or “chance” events. As Sass remarks earlier in his study, “paranoid thinking can be viewed as, in some sense, an almost obvious, logical development-in a world… where all events feel interpretable, so that nothing can seem accidental and everything therefore appears to be somehow consciously intended” (69).

How does this quote relate to Walt’s speech about when he should have stopped? How also does this relate to his discussion about his meeting with Donald? Is Walt able to reconcile the randomness of the universe and accept it at the end? Is he able to escape from viewing the world in a paranoid framework? Or does he think that everything is consciously intended by the end of the episode?

Cultural/Historical Discussion Questions

1. When Jesse complains to Walt that they are getting screwed by Gus on their compensation as manufacturers, Walt replies “You’re now a millionaire. What world do you live in?” To which Jesse answers, “One where the dudes who are actually doing all the work ain’t getting fisted.” Now that Jesse and Walt are working for a larger entity than themselves, the “surplus value” of their labor–that is, the extra value they create *beyond* their own labor cost, which Gus reaps as profit. This is the way many free-market capitalist enterprises operate. Does it seem fair? Do we agree with Jesse that they should be compensated more in proportion to what Gus ultimately makes from their product, or is Gus entitled to his much larger profits since he is taking more risk/has more overheard & setup costs? Why does Walt seem satisfied with this arrangement, even though he was the one pushing Jesse to make more and more money throughout the earlier episodes? When Jesse asks, “What’s more important than money?”–would Walt seem to have an answer?

2. At Jesse’s recovery Narcotics Anonymous meeting, he describes his work with Walt in the super lab like a corporate, dead-end job with lots of red tape and meaningless rules. The group leader remarks that “it sounds kind of Kafkaesque.” This refers to the work of 19th century Austrian novelist Franz Kafka; Wikitionary defines the term as “marked by a senseless, disorienting, and often menacing complexity” and “marked by surreal distortion and often a sense of impending danger.” Does this describe their work at the lab? What have Walt and Jesse traded for more money and the (presumably) greater security of the lab? Are they now beholden to forces whose motivations they do not entirely understand? Does their situation reflect or relate to the circumstances of the average American worker?

3. When talking to Walt in the superlab, Gale claims that he is a libertarian and that consenting adults have the right to do what they want in the privacy of their own home. As I noted above, Jesse complains about the red tape and bureaucracy associated with his job. Walt is constantly blaming the government for his problems and complaining about how his liberty is being taken away. All of these characters engage in this sort of political rhetoric at one point or another. Many of their speeches either implicitly or explicitly engage in what could be called “conservative” or libertarian rhetoric. Wikipedia describes a libertarian as someone who believes in philosophies “which emphasize freedom, individual liberty, voluntary association and respect of property rights. Based on these, libertarians advocate a society with small or no government power.” Given this description, do you think that these characters subscribe to these values? Do they subscribe to “conservative” values? Or are these justifications just easy excuses for their actions? Or do you think that these philosophies are directly influencing their decisions?