Jane Mentioned a Story in No Going Back...
InGen_Nate_Kenny
Moderator
She goes something like that she was in Washington, D.C., and there was a man trapped underneath a car. Time after group members would go and try to save him but got killed in the process. They lost five people I think saving him, but the guy was bitten and didn't tell anyone, and reanimated and killed an old lady. Looking back at this, is there any mention of this in the comics? I feel TellTale would be the kind of developer to put a nod to the comics like this, and it being in Washington, D.C. instead of any other city makes me wonder about it. I haven't read the comics in a while, is there any mention of an Incidient like this or Jane?
Sign in to comment in this discussion.
Comments
No its just another story. And it was in no going back I think
Ah. I always thought it was Amid The Ruins.
The purpose of the story is that it has relevance to the group's situation.
The story is about one man being in a very dangerous and difficult-to-save position - Kenny - and it being theoretically possible to save him, but when you start giving up a lot in order to save him - allowing him to dictate solely where the group goes, determinantly killing ben, losing Mike and Bonnie, giving up time to allow for him to murder carver as violently as he wishes, taking his frequent insults, allowing him to abuse arvo - you have to start questioning whether it's worth it.
It adds quite a lot to the ending. For me it drove home my personal opinion that season 2 kenny causes a lot more sadness for others than he adds positivity in the story.
Jane tells the story to clementine as part of her showing that sometimes trying to save someone will just get more people killed, especially when it's a mental health issue which can't be - and isn't - cured by the time of the ending, and the ending itself - allowing Kenny to kill Jane - is based partly around whether you believe this notion or not.
You get to explicitly draw comparisons between Carver and Kenny, which I personally feel is valid while the narrative itself seems to reject that idea. Even if you don't defend Kenny's honor, he always sees the error of his ways or is ultimately valorized as some kind of hero. Leaves a bad taste in my mouth, but more from the writers' biases than from the story itself.
Additionally, I feel like Jane's little tale goes some way towards explaining her dismissal of Sarah.
I'm not sure the similarities between Kenny and Carver are that strong to begin with.
If anything, Jane COULD have been Carver, but instead holds onto her humanity in a way he doesn't by the ending, whereas Kenny stays exactly the same throughout.
Just makes my theory of Jane being about Clementine having a good influence on someone else and Kenny being about Clementine accepting everyone no matter their flaws stronger.
In the Jane ending Clementine improves her, in the Kenny ending she can't improve Kenny which is why he doesn't think he can look after her (quite correctly considering the evidence we have).
In the Kenny ending we accept a flawed man, in the Jane ending we have improved a flawed woman.
That's...an optimistic way to look at the endings.
I suppose. Depends on your interpretation though: I think saving someone who is flawed and can't be saved mentally over someone who can is a bit silly.
Its a reference to Clementine, she is that person hiding under the car, how many people are going to die for her, its just foreshadowing imo.
And I guess the whole notion of the man killing the old lady is Jane saying that saving Kenny successfully will result in another death?
Yep. Basically, when we do save him, he's just going to snap again and again until it ends up killing someone else. Hell, that nearly happened to clementine after Arvo shot her due to the abuse he experienced.
....really? Clementine has it together more than anyone in the season.
No, the person that is hiding under the car is Kenny. Jane was saying how people died trying to rescue him, but in the end, he wasn't worth saving. Jane is trying to tell Clem that Kenny is not worth saving and not worth people dying to try and help him.
This.
Together with this and her saying she bets he wasn't always a bad man, she's basically saying he's a lost cause.
She also makes a point to add that the man in her story was "an asshole" who liked to give people dumb nicknames.