The longer I listen to Britt insisting that Burt is going to die next, the more this thought has formed into a niggling in regards to my Romeo and Juliet theory.
I think it's hard to deny how similar Saul and Lizzy act like R+J. They are in severe puppy love/lust and make rash decisions (ie. Sitting with a wounded lover while the floor you're on is aflame, or speeding off into a large city without knowing where you really should go first...while trailing an IV behind you just to name a couple). So here's one really good justifiable reason Saul (at least) and Lizzy needs to die.
Lets say you eliminate Burt. You now lose a sharpshooter (who's hands are going already and also his confidence is shot). What thought remains? Warm memories of a kindly old man, and a pair of young lovers who are forever grateful for the sacrifice. But what else comes of his death? What story line gets pushed forward if he dies? Not to mention, if he dies....you lose an increasingly worthless old man. He's not entirely worthless, but if he can't shoot anymore.....Hate to say it, but I'm just sayin'.
Now lets say you eliminate Saul, or Lizzy or both? Now you are left with a lot more. You're left with a man who has to deal with the guilt of what he did to cause this. You are left with Burt in conflict with Tanya for the death of her son. You're left with a depressed gunslinger who can't even perform his one useful task: gunslinging. We have a replacement to Saul's medical knowledge, and Lizzy's doctorate/experimental nature in Tanya....if Lizzy and Saul die their roles are fulfilled in some manner, but you suddenly lose something very important: Saul's mountaineer training.
If you're talking about this situation strictly from the impact to the story perspective, Saul/Lizzy/Both dying and leaving Burt to try to pick up the shambled pieces to me is the more interesting story to tell.
How about you? If you had your druthers which of these character(s) do you kill off and why?
Bookmarks