Scratch - Can she turn chaos into redemption?

[chopper77]

When it comes to the character of 'Scratch' played by the very talented Jenna McCombie I think the creators of the series really have a chance to stand horror character sterotypes completely upside down. Her profile instantly suggests that Scratch was made into what she is however it doesn't mean its who she really is. I think the character deserves more air time as well.

[Luna Guardian]

After the last episode, I wish Scratch burns in Hell for all eternity. And also that Jenna wins all the awards possible for her portrayal of the evil psycho bitch.

Her history is tragic and with it being what it is, it's understandable why she's such a basketcase. However, one does not simply hurt my favorite character like she did and not jump to the top of my hate list. Understandable, yes. Acceptable, I WILL KILL YOU YOU EVIL BITCH!

Ahem, I mean no.

[facebook.com/alexinks]

they made scratch pitiable in one episode, then sandwiched her with a double whammy
of her doing terrible things to beloved characters, lol.

[Miss]

I think with her it isnt a question of CAN she but of her WANTING to because I get the impression that she tends to rule with her emotions, because of what has happened to her, she is an extremly angry person and allows that base emotion control her actions and has the attitude of screw them before they can screw me which prob caused her getting into trouble with the law. I think she might thrive on the chaos

[Osiris]

As I've been saying all along, she's just misunderstood. Poor Scratch. :love:

[ClearSights]

I believe she will end up being the Hero of the country. She will find a cure, kill all the zombies, and give birth to a new generation of people.

[Vlarken]

I believe she will end up being the Hero of the country. She will find a cure, kill all the zombies, and give birth to a new generation of people.

Ha... Haha.... Hahahahahaha... :meh:

[Osiris]

I believe she will end up being the Hero of the country. She will find a cure, kill all the zombies, and give birth to a new generation of people.

She already is a hero. Michael is the true bad guy.

[Travis Sutak]

being that scratch is from the prision she automatically seen as a villian which in some instants she is but but there are short moments in time during the stroy that shows she isn't a complete wackjob most of her actions from what i can tell have been driven by duri's wishes in the most recent few chapters shes been in she has been somewhat compassionate. the fact that she is letting lizzy live is one major instant of her have some human left in her

[Osiris]

being that scratch is from the prision she automatically seen as a villian which in some instants she is but but there are short moments in time during the stroy that shows she isn't a complete wackjob most of her actions from what i can tell have been driven by duri's wishes in the most recent few chapters shes been in she has been somewhat compassionate. the fact that she is letting lizzy live is one major instant of her have some human left in her

"Scratch"
"Prison"
"Villain"
"Instances"
"Story"
"Durai's"
"Lizzy"
"Instance"

/Grammar Nazi

[Travis Sutak]

"Scratch"
"Prison"
"Villain"
"Instances"
"Story"
"Durai's"
"Lizzy"
"Instance"

/Grammar Nazi

Sorry had a very long day

[Vlarken]

"Scratch"
"Prison"
"Villain"
"Instances"
"Story"
"Durai's"
"Lizzy"
"Instance"

/Grammar Nazi

Technically, spelling Nazi. But they're both great things to be.

[Osiris]

Technically, spelling Nazi. But they're both great things to be.

:hsugh: Instants vs instance is a grammar issue.

[Osiris]

Sorry had a very long day

It's ok, budrick. I was mostly being a dick. :love:

[Vlarken]

:hsugh: Instants vs instance is a grammar issue.

'For a few instants, he stood thinking about what he had done.'
'In that instance, he didn't know what he had done.'

I guess I can see how that could be a grammar issue, because they're completely different words, and cannot be used to mean the same thing. But, if the person writing had the intention of using the correct word, and just spelled it the wrong way, I think that's a spelling issue. ....I'm confusing myself. O_o

[Osiris]

'For a few instants, he stood thinking about what he had done.'
'In that instance, he didn't know what he had done.'

I guess I can see how that could be a grammar issue, because they're completely different words, and cannot be used to mean the same thing. But, if the person writing had the intention of using the correct word, and just spelled it the wrong way, I think that's a spelling issue. ....I'm confusing myself. O_o


That would have been written "For an instant he stood thinking about what he had done." Instants would be poor pluralization and shoddy word craft. In the offending post it is a matter of context. The intent is obvious, the execution is dubious.

[Vlarken]

That would have been written "For an instant he stood thinking about what he had done." Instants would be poor pluralization and shoddy word craft. In the offending post it is a matter of context. The intent is obvious, the execution is dubious.

Please explain to me poor pluralization. What you said would indicate only one instant, and I wanted to indicate more than one instant. I suppose if there truly is a poor pluralization, then I could have said 'a long instant'.

[Osiris]

Please explain to me poor pluralization. What you said would indicate only one instant, and I wanted to indicate more than one instant. I suppose if there truly is a poor pluralization, then I could have said 'a long instant'.


Instant is a measure of time.
Instance is proof or an illustration of an occurrence.

Citing Scratch's momentary lapses of "evil" would fall into the category of instance in the context of the post. In the context I cited, "For an instant he stood thinking..." conjures the image of a man standing idle, pondering an event. That instant can last as long as the reader feels it should. If the writer wanted to convey a greater passage of time there are far better word groups that are less clunky and ambiguous:

"He stood for a time, thinking about what he had done."
"For a long while, he thought on the events that lead him here."
"Too long he considered the past."
"In that instant he remembered what he had done and it weighed on him, slowing the hands of the clock on the night stand."

[TheThingThatDarknessFears]

She is unquestioningly my least favorite character, yet I have seen so many listing her as their FAVORITE character. I have to imagine something outstanding happens with her in the 3 or 4 chapters I have to listen to to be caught up with you all?

I don't know. I can't imagine retroactively forgiving her for how many times that voice screeched into my ears so hard it actually caused pain. No exaggeration there was ripping out of earbuds involved. I started getting jumpy and nervous that at any second she'd come blasting out of nowhere. LOL.

[LiamKerrington]

Hi there.

IF Scratch really is capable of doing something good, THEN redemption will be possible. I don't buy it that many or most of her deeds are basically rooted in what Durai wanted them to do. Ok, the first approaching of the Tower was part of the major plans of his.
But with the death of John/ Latch the majority of her actions against the Tower-folks was driven by her own exagerated wrath.
Many times her actions are packed with brutality, defiance of others and deceiving - just few examples: the killing of a Maller-guard after having forced him to take responsibility for the so-called "theft" of the tanker-rig, taking Hannah hostage to force Kalani into spying and lying like crazy without giving any guarantee, later the order to kill Hannah after having exploited the major blunder by Saul, killing the best doctor in The Colony etc.

There are very few moments that 'scratch' the surface of this near perfect evil mad-woman - saving Lizzy from being raped, following the call of Bricks to stop torturing Burt for now, probably her real good-will about Lizzy and the baby. And in the latter I see some potential for redemption in the way that Scratch saves Lizzy from some kind of dark fate - or, if the story spans some more months - the baby. the more I think of it, the more this would be a mad, but incredible twist in the story.

Other then that: No. No redemption possible.

One might say: She saved Angel. She did this either by the code of the Family or by hoping to find how where the Tower-folk flew to, but really not because she had her "good moment".

All the best!
Liam

[Stuv]

I think that the fact that this debate still rages is interesting. It is also testament to great writing and acting.
In a zombie free world, would we even have this discussion? In such a world an individual who had committed such heinous acts would be labeled as a sociopath and dealt with appropriately. Would the zombie apocalypse cause us to have increased tolerance for Scratch’s type of evil? What do you guys think?

[LiamKerrington]

Would the zombie apocalypse cause us to have increased tolerance for Scratch’s type of evil? What do you guys think?

Q1: Not sure, if I call it increased tolerance; maybe more kind of increased negligence - and only for as long as I would not be affected by what she does. If I were in a position to avoid or supersede her, I probably would ignore her or force her to obey; if I were inferior to her, I very likely would be as spineless as anyone else around her.
Q2: This is an interesting question. I guess the first thing that could happen is that people would start thinking about things like moral and ethics the first time in relation to their new day-to-day activities; in our real life this is not so common, unless you are part of some social-scientists' or philosphers' club ...
But very quickly most apply to the new conditions within an apocalypse. And in the face of survival and real-life Darwinism in a world in which we actually didn't ever learn to survive (not even military specialists) we would very likely reasses the value of moral and ethics and consider other things as more valuable. It is not unlikely that we would acknowledge the little role moral and ethics do actually play in our former and our new life, because none of them fills the frige, pays the bill and takes care of our children and closest friends ...

Just like within all these Zombie-Apocalypse stories in which average d-bags change into apocalypse-hardened survivalists.

Maybe our ethics and moralities would keep us some kind of very basic thinking of good and evil. But how strong would this be and for how long would this last? And would this be powerful enough to reach beyond the ones we are close with?