Why did Robert Kirkman refer to two The Walking Dead character names as a "goof"?
Robert Kirkman admitted in The Walking Dead Deluxe #92 that he inadvertently assigned two unconnected main characters the same surname. Paul "jesus" Monroe and Douglas Monroe, the former Alexandria community leader, are the persons in issue. Recognizing this as a "goof" on his side, Kirkman called it a "mistake" he made.
Douglas Monroe and Paul "Jesus" Monroe had what relationship?
There was no any relationship between Paul "Jesus" Monroe and Douglas Monroe. Though they were unrelated, they had the same last name. Robert Kirkman accidentally overlooked their common surname. Their relationship stemmed just from the author's "goof" assigning them the same last name.
In what way did Robert Kirkman correct the error of assigning two unconnected characters the same last name?
Robert Kirkman said he had accidentally assigned two unconnected characters the same last name, noting the "goof" in The Walking Dead Deluxe #92. To imply a possible fix for this error, he even cited the venerable comic book writer and editor Stan Lee. Still, he finally concluded that it was not a significant problem and most likely wouldn't be for readers either. At the time, he thought it was not imperative to correct the error.
Why was the surname "Monroe" significant in The Walking Dead?
In the framework of The Walking Dead, the surname "Monroe" itself has no great significance. Two unrelated people having this last name was only a matter of chance. The author's oversight is mostly responsible for the mistake; the surname has no deeper meaning or link in the plot.
Was the "goof" a planned twist meant specifically?
No, there was no purposeful plot twist in assigning two unconnected persons the same last name. Robert Kirkman made a simply inadvertent error. This supervision had no secret meaning or intent. The author said it was a "goof" and said neither he nor the readers saw it to be a major problem.
The exposed "goof" on The Walking Dead caused what reaction among viewers?
The given story makes no clear reference to the response of the fans to the exposed "goof." Nevertheless, the author's claim that it probably wouldn't be a major concern for readers suggests that the fans would not have responded strongly to the supervision. The story offers no particular specifics about the reaction of the fans.
