Zombie Cliché Lookout: St. Crispin’s Day Speech
If you need to rally your people during times of hardship and despair, there’s hardly a better way of doing so than a well done St. Crispin’s Day speech. The best part is, it doesn’t even have to be St. Crispin’s Day to pull this one out.
This type of motivational speech is named from Shakespeare’s Henry V (which featured no zombies, as I recall) rallied the titular king’s soldiers to victory despire being outnumbered during the Battle of Agincourt. You don’t have to search far through war or disaster movies to find good examples of this, Braveheart probably being the best example in recent memory, although the President’s address in Independence Day is a little more fitting in this context.
About this Episode:
More speechifying inspired by Roosevelt’s address following the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.
Discussion Question: Security or Freedom
You are a survivalists and we’re prepared. You and your family are safe in a remote location but every day is a harsh struggle for food and comfort. Isolation is also starting to wear deeply on you and your family. You know you can keep surviving but life will never get easier.
This situation can be rectified if you join a community that is a few days walk away. You will still be safe as the community is protected but a stranger who passed by gave you dire warnings about this group. He mentioned a cult like community where strict laws are in place and you’re family will never be able to leave once you step foot inside. You will be putting everything in control of this group but parts of their life could be better.
What decision do you make for your family?
Wow, thats a tough discussion question, I’ll think about that but about the comic, wouldn’t the saint crispins day speach not be heard by many? People would be too busy fighting zombies to watch tv, read news, or check the internet, wouldn’t they?
It might not be heard by many, but odds are that it would be recorded and replayed so that people could hear it when they had access to a radio or something like that.
But year, I’d say the majority of folks out there would probably miss it.
I think I would actually stay away from the cult like group, and instead go looking out for a different group of survivors to join. It’s a process that could take a extremely long time to find a good group, but it’s better than beign stuck in a almost religous group. I don’t want to be some type of slave to a cult, even if it means certain survival. The quality of life is already low in a world infested with Z’s, so I don’t want to make it any lower for me and my family/ survival group.
Well said, Sir Cheese.
I agree totally with Sir Cheese freedom and security have to be the same if there not then theres no real security!
So one isn’t worth trading for the other?
Nope, not at all.
Not even inversely, say trading some security for more freedom?
I totally expect a zombie to come up behind him in the second-to-last panel of tomorrow’s comic the way this speech is going…
Last panel being a ‘Experiencing Technical Difficulties’ screen, of course.
Hah, that would be pretty awesome.
But we don’t have a comic tomorrow. Tomorrow is the Featured Zombie Creation of the Week. Comics are a Monday, Wednesday, Friday thing.
Start of the scenario has a couple typos – should it be “You are a survivalist and were prepared”? (I know my iPod messes with what I type all the time.)
Few things beat the St. Crispin’s Day speech, really. I may well have to mount Hank Five in strip if only to get to play with it. If you’ve not seen it, BotD readers, hit up Youtube for Branagh’s rendition of it.
As for the question: as vital as community may be to me, autonomy from zealotry is more important except in cases of imminent peril. I’ll keep reading Thoreau and “My Side of the Mountain” to the family to make sure that they’re in the proper frame of mind – and, if need be, reading the pertinent parts of “Lucifer’s Hammer” by Niven and Pournelle to see how zealots can ruin things post-apoc (a comet strike there instead of a zombie attack, of course, but the cannibalism makes things pretty close).
I was really hoping you’d weigh in here, Lich.
The Branaugh version was actually my first introduction to this speech, and that was in a Shakespeare class in college. I know, I know, hang my head in shame.
Hey, it was mine, too. No need to feel bad about encountering stuff first in a class; that’s how I’ve found some of my favourite works of lit. Hell, when you’re in school or college, that’s often most of the reading you do. I think I’ve only ever picked up and read “Hamlet” on my own for fun; everything else was for class (most of them) or for the one play I was in during my university years (“As You Like It,” which does have a wrestler). My new Year’s resolution to read six new Shakespeare plays has not even gotten started… and moving in just over a month will not help.
As for the in-strip speechifying, the tone and style is excellent. Well done. I recall a seminar my buddies were in saw them assigned an inaugural address to examine and discuss for its policy and rhetoric. Not quite the same traditions in Canada, though there is the Throne Speech… dull, though.
I was speaking more of encountering it first as a movie versus reading it. I’ve actually never read any of the Bard’s historical plays, barring some of Julius Caesar, which I started but never completed.
Ah. Eh, I caved and watched lots of stuff before I read it – even some things for Lit classes (“Tom Jones,” I’m looking at you). There was a good crosstalk on AVC about read or watch first a couple of weeks ago – recommended.
As for the histories… I’ve got a lot to go, but did get a few thanks to the only Shakespeare course I took, which was about the growth of the idea of the nation. Read “Richard II” for that one, and then “Henry V.” that was the course where the prof brought in the “Independence Day” clip to play and went off on action movies. Which was fine – “Godzilla” had killed most people’s assumption of quality for Emmerich – but when he took off on “Die Hard” I had to try to counter some of his points.
Geez, what else was in that course? “Cymbeline” and “The Tempest” (almost made that one interesting, but still not my fave) and “The Scottish Play”… and I’m pretty sure there was one more. Maybe “Othello?” It was thirteen years ago.
What was I saying? Oh, right… Keep the zealots out of my booze.
I still think YOLT needs to tackle The Tempest. That’s just such an out there play. Open to a lot of different styles of adaptation (e.g. Forbidden Planet).
Well, nothing much will be doing until we’re settled in properly, so mid-June at the soonest – probably July. I’ll consider “The Tempest” but I’d like to flesh out Ersatz Meadows first.
A good speech is a good thing but, as someone else pointed out, few people would hear it.
As for the discussion question, remaining away from the other group. Can survive without them and know full well how bad people can be, so best play it safe.
Yeah, I’d tend to agree. Especially with a family to look after.
That decision would be too big for one or even a handful of the group to decide alone. That would have to be decided by the entire group. It would also have to be allowed that the individuals who want to stay should be allowed to just as those who want to go should be allowed to leave. Of course, those who leave would have to be sworn to absolute secrecy about the existence of the isolationist group to avoid the cult community from coming to forcibly integrate the isolationists into their community.
My personal vote would be to stay put and avoid the other community. I’m too stubborn and independent; against the walking dead, if I’m going to fall, I want it to be on my terms and because of decisions I make, not because of some beauracratic mismanagement, if I’m going to stand, I want to know I can trust the people who have my back, and a smaller group of close friends and family is better for that than a larger group of relative strangers, especially zealots who may (and likely will) put their dogma before my survival.
The notion that the decision isn’t yours to make is an interesting conceit. I think for the purpose of this discussion we have to assume you have been appointed “leader” of the group.
good point about letting people decide for themselves but, if they are unhappy with my group, would they really lie to protect us from the zealots?
“if they are unhappy with my group, would they really lie to protect us from the zealots?”
This is a frightening question.
“Those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.”
~ Benjamin Franklin
That is all.
I love that quotation. Franklin had a knack for saying things better than damn near anyone else.
“like”
Better to die on your feet than live on your knees. I’m anti-establishment on my best day. During a zombie apocalypse I would turn downright curmudgeonly. I know that people don’t like living in a vacuum. Most crave society; and a good portion of those would live exactly as you described, and particularly if the group could secure amenities like running water and electricity. That doesn’t mean I’d sell my soul for it. If I wanted company that badly, I’d form my own group, based upon a culture of independence and living the Golden Rule. It wouldn’t get bigger than a clan or tribe, because larger than that and the rules get complicated.
And no bankers or lawyers allowed (sorry, Dave).
Not all lawyers are bad. Most of ’em, though.
I couldn’t speak to bankers. I have a feeling they’re all awful 🙂
In a society without a State, and without corporations, lawyers would have to take up farming, because there is no law to practice in an anarcho-capitalist tribe.
The wife and I have talked about that a few times. Should the world go to hell, we both have completely useless professions. Not only will no one need lawyers, but it’ll be a good long while before anyone needs any middle managers or web designers.
Farming it is, then.
To Dave:
We will need lawyers; or more specifically, a certain type of lawyers:
1. In addition to Survival Skills (day to day stuff), we will also need Thinking Skills (broad liberal arts thinkers).
2. Lawyers are taught to ingest vast quantities of information; and frequently asked to sift through that info in a speedy manner and under duress. Once our lawyer gets over the initial shock ‘n trauma, her thinking skills will come in very handy. As always, it will come down to the individual’s resiliency & adaptability skills.
3. Lawyers would come in handy as the Voice of Reason; or at least provide a meta-perspective once the group is at the, “And what do we do next?”
4. I know that many will scoff at this idea, but even in the most primitive environs we nee someone to help the group hash out the ethics of this and that behavior; even help us process the things we’ve had to do in order to get this far. It’s not that they are automatically are the group’s conscience, or the moral authority, rather, sooner of later we are going to revisit the Big Questions, and it will be useful to have someone who knows how to ask ‘n navigate through these questions. At the very least, someone to help address the Rules of Engagement.
5. Strangely, I don’t see the zee-poc being the End All disaster. I still think that there will be pockets of humanity strewn all over. Some groups will have to take the High Ground and start thinking about what a new civilization will look like. After all, for many of us the zee-poc harbors the fantasy of, “If we can can get rid of what’s wrong, and then start all over again, we (as a species) may have a future after all.” The lawyers could be the intermediates between chaos and a new civilization. At the very least, they could be the retainers of Civilization Knowledge & History.
No, I’m not idealizing lawyers and the such; however, many have all manner of skills & experiences which will be invaluable, even if at this time we’ve not had an opportunity to exercise them.
………………………………………………..
Middle Managers on the other hand, well, I encourage you to re-visit General Bethlehem in the “The Postman.”
Law one. You will obey orders without question.
Law two: Punishment shall be swift.
Law three: Mercy is for the weak.
Four: Terror will defeat reason.
Five: Your allegiance is to the clan.
Six: Justice can be dictated.
Seven: Any clansman may challenge for leadership of the clan.
Law eight: There is only one penalty. Death.
😀
Interesting read, Luis. Speaking as a low to mid-level manager, I’m screwed.
Ah, but Gen. Bethlehem is turned into a middle manager in the film, if memory serves. If you’re gearing up to fight a post “Dances With Wolves” Costner then I’m game. This early in baseball season the “Field of Dreams” Costner gets a pass.
I haven’t seen the film in ages, but I read the book fairly recently. It’s hard to believe the film bothered keeping the title of the source material.
Damn you Luis and your lists! Why don’t you just strewn all the information into a large text that is only split every once in awhile? Of course I am just being facetious.
I only feel slightly sorry for you Dave, because the internet is a vast place to where you can learn survival skills of any sort. Not only the whole zombie assortment of skills, but actually wilderness skills that work in thought and in practice. I recommend if you are going to start anywhere, take quizzes that really question what you know. I have a really good one right here:
http://www.wilderness-survival-skills.com/quiz-questions.html
Very basic and a more simple one. I know you may not have a complete need for the survival in the forest aspect of this, but over all it will help you commune with your skills.. If any.. In overall survival.
Bwa, ha, ha!! Calicade, I do love my lists, or Break Downs, as I call them. Notice that it was only one subject! I’ve yet to address the Prez’s speach or the St. Crispin’s speach. “Once more into the breach!”
😀
I did okay on the quiz:
“You are on the right track, but you need to improve your knowledge!”
Sounds about right to me; I should learn more.
This is a really great speech. Good writting Dave!
Thank you kindly!
The discussion question is easy – hell no am I joining a cult! We’ll make due for now. Perhaps taking in a survivor or 2 would help no one we couldn’t take out as needed. Gotta protect the kido.
Agreed here. Cults do scary things, especially with women and children.
I think I might join that cult. I’m not usually a ‘joiner’, however I think apocalyptic life would probably get pretty boring. With the exception of our new president’s quite inspiring speech. It might I think be fun to join the cult. With the intention of subverting from within. New hobby, and protection. Win-win.
This is a pretty cool idea. It’d make for an interesting short story too.
Pleated Jeans is hilarious. Check out this FAQ’s for new cult members:
http://pleated-jeans.com/2011/06/24/new-cult-member-faqs-for-the-timlothian-movement/#more-10097
That is all kinds of awesome. I wish it was longer.
Nah, I’d move on and find another happier group. This cult can die at the hands of a zombie horde.
That they can. What’s worse, a cult, of a cult that is also zombies?
Yeah…. Palladium’s Dead Reign covers Cultists who are into zombies.
I had to Google that one. Is this something you play, Fox?
But who is to say they would let you leave?
And could you risk blindly heading in a direction to find safer haven?
The old stranger’s probably lying. Kill him and eat him.
You need to make another Choose Your Own Adventure with options like this.
That Choose Your Own Adventure thing was fun to put together. I’ve been wanting to do another game for ages. It’s just finding the time to actually put it together.
The choose your own adventure game is what led me to find this site.
Dave does this have anything to do with your comic? http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/B004KTLA2Y/ref=redir_mdp_mobile
Nope. The name and torso design are certainly interesting, but Shannon had blond hair and was shot before reanimating.
well since this is a big decision I think It would be a good idea to do a little recon first. I wouldn’t t really on the strangers word, cause for all i know he could have been thrown out of this group because he is untrustworthy and a slieze ball. My decision would be based on what my recon reveals.
If the stranger was honest and they are a psycho cult. I would leave the area or kill them all. ( Just to make sure they didn’t try to forcibly convert anyone )
If the stranger lied and they are actually a bunch of standup people then I would join them.
If he embellished them a bit then they are okay people with a religion i don’t follow, and peaceful coexistence is possible. Then a friendship at most.
If peaceful coexistence isn’t possible…. either they leave or I do.
Good thoughts here Daniel, but let’s not talk about killing people.
Sorry. Its just that forced indoctrinating is something I can’t stand. And when I posted it, I had the story of the Croatian Ustashi on my mind. ( If you don’t know who they are then you might not understand the connection.)
I had to Google it. Horrifying.
yeah. They were horrible.
(It wouldn’t let me comment above, reffering to the 8th comment from the top) Well maybe a little less security for freedom, but you can’t give up all of one for the other. You have to have a strong security and enough freedom to enjoy yourself (so you don’t go insane).
Well said here.
p.s like the new avatar?
Very fitting.
thank ya
Regarding the discussion question, I would walk/drive away from any such camp. They’ve probably got some dissidents hiding out in there who would probably shoot their leader and install themselves which would be even worse than being with the old leader in charge. And I’d bet these dissidents wouldn’t have any qualms about shooting anyone who might get in their way.
Turnovers and regime changes could be terrifying things in a post-apocalyptic world.
If I might weigh in:
This episode seems odd to me. To whom is the new President giving this speech? Are there TV cameras? Broadcasting to the millions of people in their homes? Who even still has power? We already watched one news station lose all power, and the producer even said that all of the other stations were off-line. Is he giving the speech to a big group of people? I, personally, would love to see the camera pan out and see steps of the Lincoln Memorial covered in bodies, with only a handful of people seeing this speech. It would emphasize that the Game is Over. There is no more government. They aren’t going to come in at the last minute, like in “The Mist”. It’s more like the Fallout series, where the U.S. Government only exists in the minds of the people who claim to run it.
On the topic of Freedom vs. Security, I would go with the camp. Survival is paramount. Yes, you may enjoy your freedom, going it on your own. But, if and when you screw up and get eaten by a zombie or twelve, no one will remember that you stood by your principles. They’ll remember a guy who was offered safety for himself and his family, and turned it down. A dead guy.
Question:
I wouldn’t join any cult, no. Even without the question of sacrificing our freedom, I have serious doubts that a cult would even be any safer; cultist indoctrinations supress rational thought, and that’s our biggest advantage over the zombies.
I wouldn’t want to hole up with just my family either though, I would want to gather as many people as I could and establish a town.