Last week, I briefly drew a comparison between “Breaking Bad’s” Walter White and “Homeland’s” Nicholas Brody. This week I would like to further this discussion.

First, some background. “Homeland” is a Showtime series, which in its own words, “is an edge-of-your-seat sensation. Marine Sergeant Nicholas Brody is both a decorated hero and a serious threat. CIA officer Carrie Mathison is tops in her field despite being bipolar. The delicate dance these two complex characters perform, built on lies, suspicion, and desire, is at the heart of this gripping, emotional thriller in which nothing short of the fate of our nation is at stake.”

More than any other shared action, both White and Brody go to great lengths to deceive their respective families. Both perceived family men, their actions suggest anything but. White hides his drug monopoly from his caring others, while Brody never hints at his radical Islamist tendencies to his wife or children.

However, while White is a hero – or antihero – Brody is always the enemy. In White’s case, his ends often justify the means. As long as he has a steady stream of income, he can fund his cancer treatment, support his family, and at least temporarily placate his doubters. Brody’s lies, on the other hand, are to cover up the fact that he is a domestic terrorist, and thus his lies are not truly acceptable in an American household.

Both characters lie. So why, as a collective viewing public, do we cheer on White until his death but scorn Brody when he escapes his pursuers? I think that we appreciate the hardworking, rags to riches story that Walter White personifies. Sure, his trade is very much illegal. However, his desire to feed his family, help his community, and fight is cancer is entirely commendable. Brody, on the other hand, is simply evil, and in many ways not as developed of a character. We really didn’t know him before he was “turned” into a bad guy, and thus haven’t witnessed his entire character arc. For those reasons, I find that he is much harder to sympathize with.

From the exterior, Walter White and Nicholas Brody seem like two very similar lying losers. However, with two distinct motives, they are anything but. While Brody lies to lie, White lies to survive. As a result, we empathize with White while he suffers, and we share in his glory when he succeeds. With the much more stiffer, less-developed Brody, he does not share his sentiments with us.

“Breaking Bad” concluded exactly twenty-four days ago. I still miss the show, Walt is still dead, Obama is still president. The world has moved on. As such, I feel that my opportunities as a “’Breaking Bad’ blogger” are rapidly diminishing, and with that my ideas about what to write are too.

So how have I possibly survived the past three weeks? How have I been able to occupy the two hours a day I used to dedicate to “BB” watching?

Well, aside from the drastically increased homework and studying that naturally comes as the semester progresses, I’ve found some new methods to occupy my time. With that, I’ll devote this week’s blog to “things you can do in a post-“Breaking Bad” society”.

1. Watch other TV shows: I’ve begun watching the third season of “Homeland”. “Homeland”, for the past two years, has been my favorite fall series. It follows CIA agent Carrie Mathison’s attempts to track down threats to national security, both across the globe and within her organization. Like “Breaking Bad”, it stars a father that hides a massive secret from his family. In this case, Nicholas Brody, formerly a marine, is suspected to be a domestic terrorist. Across the board, I see many similarities between the two shows.

2. Do a puzzle: This undeniably seems lame, but some of my floor mates purchased a 1,000-piece puzzle last week, and we have been more or less addicted to it since. We’ve come back from our respective weekend nights out at three in the morning and have found ourselves working on it until the sun was peaking through our windows. As such, it has become a part of our collective lives, like a small piece of a soul we all share. Each successful piece we place further secures this bond. Yes, we hold our puzzle in such a high regard.

3. Study: While I have always expertly managed my time to allow for “leisure time”, I have found myself devoting more hours to my studies. This still remains a last ditch effort: only if the door where the sacred puzzle is held is locked, and I’ve exhausted my television watching desires for the time being.

There you have it. In this post-“Breaking Bad” apocalypse you really only have three options to pass your time with: watch another show, do a puzzle, and if all else fails, study.

I hope all will find this to be a fruitful guide.

There have been many bad ideas throughout history. New York’s Mayor Bloomberg has been trying to ban large sodas for the better part of a year, the Detroit Pistons selection of Darko Milicic as the number two pick in the 2003 NBA draft in front of Carmelo Anthony and Lebron James, and this.

However, a new contender is threatening the zenith of poor choices: Vince Giligan’s – Breaking Bad’s creator – decision to create a spinoff show featuring Walter White’s lawyer Saul Goodman as its main character.

To me, this seems like a bad idea for a few reasons. First and foremost, there comes a point when enough is enough. Just as “Fast and Furious” movies passed its prime after the seemingly twentieth installment, “Breaking Bad” is over, and it shouldn’t come back. After the emotional rollercoaster that the final season took its viewers on, attempting to bring back the characters in a new series, but in the same location, would spoil the bittersweet taste the finale left in our collective mouths.

Secondly, Saul Goodman is a super annoying character. There’s a reason that he was never the prime person on “Breaking Bad”: his role was to provide comic relief after dramatic standoffs between Walt and Jesse. He plays the same role that the Clown assumes in Shakespeare’s Othello – he’s essentially a fool, thrown in to break the tension. While it’s certainly fair to say Saul plays a more integral role in the plot, I believe his primary function in the six seasons of “Breaking Bad” was for a touch of comedy.

Finally, I can’t possibly imagine how this series, aptly named “Better Call Saul”, would sustain itself. Gilligan said White and Jesse Pinkman would ideally make cameos, but beyond that there seems to be little follow up of the strong seasons of “Breaking Bad.” This, however, may be the silver lining. I believe if this show is to succeed, it will have to separate itself from its predecessor, taking Saul to new characters with different stories.

Gilligan has overcome hurdles in the past: from little funding to plot issues. If he has proven one thing, it’s that he can turn a shortcoming into an advantage. With skepticism, I look forward to seeing what he’ll do with Saul.

In recent posts, I’ve compared Walter White – the high school chemistry teacher turned drug dealer turned drug lord turned murderer – to Meursault from Albert Camus’ The Stranger, to Raskolnikov from Theodor Dostoevsky’s Crime and Punishment and even to Gordon Gekko from the film “Wall Street”. In each of these comparisons, White has shared a similar philosophical theme with the antagonist, or protagonist, in the respective novels and film. In this post, I want to discuss another theme, and relate that to yet another literary character.

In my humble opinion, Walter White reminds me very much of the monster in Frankenstein, from Mary Shelley’s historic self-titled novel. While White may be slightly more handsome than the monster from Frankenstein, the two share many emotional and habitual similarities.

First, both Walter White and Frankenstein are creations, or alter egos of someone else. White cooks under the pseudonym Heisenberg. While assuming this role, he ruthlessly kills, steals, and lies to his family. White and Heisenberg, though technically still the same person, act like two complete opposites. Similarly, the monster in Frankenstein is formed from the science and determination of his creator, Victor. Like Heisenberg, he was never intended to become a horrible monster or killer, it simply happened.

I believe it simply happened because both feel alienated with their surroundings. For Frankenstein, this is easily observed: he doesn’t speak the language of his peers, he has grotesque physical attributes, and he cannot find his place in the world. For White, this sentiment is slightly more hidden. However, we can tell he’s unsatisfied with the monotony of working an under-paying job for which he’s over-qualified through his drive for excitement, money, and power that the drug game provides.

And, as a result of this alienation or lack of satisfaction with their respective surroundings, both ultimately remove themselves from their worlds. Frankenstein disappears from Victor in the vast ice fields of the Artic, while White flees to an equally frigid New Hampshire to also hide from his pursuers – the police.

If I’ve noticed one thing from these quick analyses/comparisons over the past few weeks, it’s that Walter White is a tremendously layered, developed, and complex character. He embodies the philosophical themes of many great literary characters and can be examined through multiple lenses. In fact, in many ways, he demonstrates traits from every book I read in twelfth grade English.

There’s been a lot of talk about the “Breaking Bad” series finale, “Felina”. The build up was unlike that of any T.V. event I’d ever witnessed, and once the show concluded, thousands of reviews hit the Internet in a matter of minutes. For the most part, this concluding episode, along with the series as a whole, was deemed “ideal” (Hank Steuver, Washington Post) and “perfect” (Brian Merchant, Vice).

I, however, disagree.

First, let me preface with the fact that this was the first “Breaking Bad” episode I was able to watch live. In its own right, this is an accomplishment. I achieved the goal that this blog initially was meant to document: my attempt to catch up before the finale. I spent long, hard hours in front of my computer streaming on Netflix the first 61 episodes. Finally, with mere hours to spare before the finale, I completed the penultimate episode “Granite State.” Invigorated yet physically and emotionally fatigued from this sixty-day marathon to catch up, I took a nap, and then settled into the Simmons T.V. lounge for the finale.

Thus, I was sick of “Breaking Bad” before the final episode even started. I had come to see individual episodes solely as blocks of time with high opportunity costs that should have been spent doing something more productive. Watching the show is fun, but it’s a lot more stressful when you feel that you need to watch before time runs out. So, as I readied myself for “Felina”, I was already eager for it to end.

There’s been a multitude of reviews from those infinitely more qualified than me explaining why the finale was a perfect ending to a perfect show, or why Walt’s exit and death further demonstrated how much smarter he is than everyone in Albuquerque. I’m not here to agree or disagree. To me, the finale consisted of a rushed and defeated Walt partially finishing his unfinished business: he threatened some people, killed some more, and poisoned one other; the end.

By the final scene, Walt lay motionless in a meth lab. My peers around me shuttered in awe of the cinematography, some shed tears, while others mourned the death of a beloved character and T.V. show. Unmoved, I felt like an outsider.

I took a very different approach than most while watching “Breaking Bad”. I watched in hurried and distracted increments. I was never as invested as those who had been with the show for years. Therefore, I think this demonstrates an interesting commentary about our modern society: we get really, really invested in cultural phenomena that don’t matter at all.