To re-contemporize our look at Walter through a Heisenbergian lens, we can once again visit Turkle (2011), who notes “When identity is multiple in this way, people feel ‘whole’ not because they are one but because the relationship among aspects of self are fluid and undefensive. We feel ‘ourselves’ if we can move easily among our many aspects of self” (194). Even though she is still referring to a virtual environment, Walt’s comfort in the emergence of Heisenberg and the ease with which he fluctuates can be seen in Turkle’s assessment of fluidity and the aspects of self.
Walt’s transition to Heisenberg allows him to create simultaneous living presents. As Deleuze (1994) asserts, a single living present includes “both the past and the future: the past in so far as the preceding instants are retained in the contraction; the future because its expectation is anticipated in the same contraction” (71). For Walt, the man dying of cancer, his path from chemist to chemistry teacher and through his diagnosis initially impels him to manufacture crystal meth to generate enough capital to leave a legacy to his family. At the same time, the creation of Heisenberg produces a second living present in which Walt-as-Heisenberg is allowed to erase his decision to leave behind his role as chemistry genius—and the correlated financial gain. The generation of a second present can be seen in Delueze’s (1994) claim that “Two successive presents may be contemporaneous with a third present, more extended by virtue of the number of instants it contracts. The duration of an organism’s present, or of its various presents, will vary according to the natural contractile range of its contemplative souls” (77). Deleuze refers to the emergence of multiple memories during any living present, but in the case of Walt, his memories—in the form of flashbacks—further drive him to intensify his relationship and actions to his second identity, which further connects to Deleuze’s idea that “a phenomenon such as need can be understood in terms of ‘lack,’ from the point of view of action and the active syntheses which it determines” (77). Simply put, Heisenberg’s arrival signifies that which Walt is deprived of: capital, power, and success. This leads us to a metempsychosis within the narrative, wherein “each is a passing present, one life may replay another at a different level, as if the philosopher and the pig, the criminal and the saint, played out the same past at different levels of a gigantic cone” (Deleuze 1994, 83). For Walt, a similar past exists for both himself and his Heisenberg, and it is this similar past that compels each to act and become one interloping and converging character.
This common past occupies a moment in time of what could have been (Heisenberg) and what is (Walt). Time signifies a fracture in the “I” that bifurcates pre-diagnosis Walt into post-diagnosis Walt and Heisenberg, something that allows Walt to atone for his formerly callow and pusillanimous demeanor, which is alluded to most notably in the conflict between Walt, Elliot, and Gretchen. The confidence that Walt exudes with Gretchen while talking about the elemental composition of the human body is palpable as is his passion when he leans in for a kiss prior to the end of the flashback.[9] However, Skyler and Walt’s presence at Elliot’s birthday party reeks of discomfort and anxiety, much like the way that Walter perfunctorily responds to Gretchen’s claim about his half of the money. For a better look at pre-diagnosis Walter, we can build from David Hume’s (2000) notion that personal identity is a fiction, with “nothing really belonging to these different perceptions, and uniting them together; but is merely a quality, which we attribute to them” (loc. 3825). If this is the case, then Walt’s identity as “Walter” is merely a pervasive construction of the perceptions that surround him, placing his self in what George Mead referred to as the “attitude of the other” (Gallagher 1998, 50). This attitude of the other is even present within the series’ title. The present continuous “breaking” suggests a process, one that is ongoing and—depending on how season five ends—infinite. Critical to the discussion of attitude is the adjective “bad.” The notation of bad both establishes a stereotype for the business Walt is entering and the stigma that surrounds Walt—‘good.’ I have no objection to Walt being largely seen as a ‘good’ father, ‘good’ husband, or all around ‘good’ guy, pre-diagnosis. As the series progresses, however, this label becomes wonky and misleading, suggesting that the façade that Walt wears is once again linked to social expectations, or the attitude of others. Regarding this attitude, we can turn again to Mead who further believes “since we are already a product of other relations, our own experience of time is already conditioned by others” (Gallagher 1998, 113). If this is the case, then we can also interpret Walt’s Heisenberg as a means to recoup his time spent as a social construction of those around him.
Ironically enough, Walt’s alter ego fashions a scenario similar to his previous existence: the violent, powerful, narcissistic Heisenberg is a product of the attitude of others. In “Negro y Azul” (4/19/09) a narcocorrido[10] illustrates the constructed attitude of others toward “Heisenberg’s fame,” as the “gringo boss,” with the blue stuff that “no one could stop it if they wanted to.” This ballad seems to set Walt on the path that culminates in a confrontation with Skyler in “Cornered” (8/21/12) in which she asserts that he is not a criminal, but rather a man caught in an untenable position. Aghast and growling, Walt retorts, telling her that he is not the one in danger, rather he has become the danger. While this scene showcases Cranston and Gunn’s acting abilities, it also serves to illustrate Walt as an egotist. But, his ego is a product of those around who exhibit fear at the name of Heisenberg.
In the end, the emergence of Heisenberg allows Walt to start over by creating a simultaneous second present, providing him with money he missed, power he gave up, and the credit that had been taken away from him. It also provides us with a glimpse into Walt’s true character that had been buried by various social constructs and external attitudes. All of this culminates into a hero cum villain that Nietzsche (1974) warns us about when he posits “Whoever is dissatisfied with himself is continually ready for revenge, and we other will be his victims” (290). Looking at Walt through a combination of Meadean, Deleuzian, and Nietzschean lenses might help us better understand how Walt transitions into a ruthless villain bent on obtaining control by deceiving Skyler, manipulating Jesse, watching Jane die, poisoning Brock, and murdering Gus and Mike. And, perhaps Skyler asking Walt “Is that you?” should be seen as much less about a man who faces his own mortality and more about a man attempting to recreate himself in the time he has left.
10
A narcocorrido is a Mexican ballad centered on the exploits of drug traffickers in Mexico.