57020 réponses à ce sujet

[kromify]

ademska wrote...

now that's a bit silly. the game isn't postmodern about it at all, it's just subtle. people of the dumber or perhaps just less analytically-inclined persuasion may take the romance path or his character in general at face value, but that applies to anything and everything ever.

why is a straightforward (and thus clunky) interpretation of the narrative more appealing to you?

i am less analytically inclined when it comes to games. there is a point where there can be too much sneakiness and subtlety when i really want to get into escapism... not a confusing alternate reality (bad analogy please don't pick up on this)

Modifié par kromify, 11 juin 2011 - 10:20 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...
"How can you love someone whose heart is already devoted to a cause, and can never belong entirely to you?"

I think there is a huge difference between say loving a leader who is devoted to a cause and has a lot of reponsabilities that he puts above you. And loving a mentally unstable person with an equally unstable spirit inside him (whether demon, spirit, neutral is irrelevent, it's clearly unstable), who is obsessed and blinded by hatred.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 11 juin 2011 - 10:21 .

[SurelyForth]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

ipgd wrote...

SurelyForth wrote...

Also, and this is so very petty, but how is what Anders does to Hawke in Act 3 that much different from what Morrigan does to the Warden? She uses his/her kindness to kill Flemeth/get her Grimoire and then manipulates and/or emotionally blackmails him/her to do something that has the potential to be pretty ****ing terrible for  the world in the long run. And, if the Warden says no, she bails at the most crucial point of the whole campaign.

It's not. Really, Morrigan's romance can easily be interpreted as her purposefully manipulating the Warden into having a romantic relationship with her in order to ensure he'll go through with the Dark Ritual (and it backfiring when she develops actual feelings later, yada yada).

Which is also why I like Morrigan's romance.

This is not accurate. She doesn't really try to have a romantic relationship with the Warden (just a sexual one at first), she kept warning him against it. Furthermore, if the Warden is a female, then common sense would dictate that Morrigan had to manipulate Alisair for that. She does the exact opposite.

Really, if Morrigan is supposed to be manipulative, then she's really really bad at it.

Except she and the Warden, even if female, can be extremely close to one another. She's still basically telling someone she's admitted she admires and who has risked their lives to protect her (via killing Flemeth) that if she does't convince her comrade/boyfriend to sleep with her and impregnate her with an OGB, she'll bail and the Warden will watch her comrade/boyfriend die (or die herself, thus meaning that Zevran/Leliana/Alistair will be without the woman they love). While she can't change the circumstances surrounding the Archdemon, she goes out of her way to push those buttons just like Anders pushes Hawke's buttons if Hawke asks for an explanation.

And I like Morrigan, and her romance. A lot. I just wanted to point out that Anders hardly has the market on coercing their friends/lovers (and Anders also pushes Hawke away...and fights his feelings for three years v. a year or so that Morrigan lasts) into participating in morally suspect activities. 

[ipgd]

Sarielle wrote...

Well if anyone has links handy to the old convo I'd be interested to see them. Understandably (I hope), I'm not slumming through the entire thread looking for it, lol.

EDIT: Nor am I expecting anyone else to, of course. It just looks like some of you guys bookmark certain stuff, is all.

I don't have any on hand. They weren't particularly riveting discussions, what with the "idk, lol" and all.

Modifié par ipgd, 11 juin 2011 - 10:23 .

[Addai]

ipgd wrote...

Addai67 wrote...

I know this is your view, but others seem to read it more straightforwardly, and I would prefer to understand it as straightforward, too.  The alternative is too postmodern.  If that's what is really going on, then I just have to hate it (the story, that is, and not just Anders' but the game story).  I pretty much do hate it, but out of nostalgia for the game world keep wondering if I'm missing something that would make me like it.  Or at least dislike it less.

If you want to hate it there's nothing I could say to you that would make any difference.

I don't- I want to like it, hence why I'm asking for opinions to see if I can interpret it differently.  I have- or had- a lot of respect for the game writers so I'd like to see if I'm just not getting it or if they just made a story that's not for me.  I find it hard to believe that I could have liked their previous work so much and the development of it so little.

[Sarielle]

ademska wrote...

Sarielle wrote...

Awww, so nobody's biting on the Anders-in-the-Fade question? Boo. I was genuinely curious, not trying to change the subject.

Would Anders be a tranquil if Justice were somehow separated (I don't think that's actually possible, and really that's what I think the fact that Justice, not Anders, follows us into the Fade indicates beyond a shadow of a doubt -- they'll never be able to separate)? Does this mean Anders doesn't dream, only the Justice part of him can?

a resounding "idk, lol" except for the bit about the dreams. he's a warden, so he's got them.

Hmm, good point. Well, my question wasn't a total waste, then. Learned/realized something new.

EDIT: And no prob ipgd . If that's really all there was to it, oh well.

Modifié par Sarielle, 11 juin 2011 - 10:24 .

[Addai]

BlueMew wrote...

Addai67 wrote...

ipgd wrote...

Addai67 wrote...

Okay, I can accept that.  That sort of over-the-top melodrama doesn't do it for me, that's all.

The melodrama is sort of purposefully ironic. The entire thing is basically a takedown of romance novel character tropes.

I know this is your view, but others seem to read it more straightforwardly, and I would prefer to understand it as straightforward, too.  The alternative is too postmodern.  If that's what is really going on, then I just have to hate it (the story, that is, and not just Anders' but the game story).  I pretty much do hate it, but out of nostalgia for the game world keep wondering if I'm missing something that would make me like it.  Or at least dislike it less.

And you're free to do so, of course. But calling everyone without the same mentality immature just doesn't sit well with me.

I didn't.  I said the line of thinking that "but I love him (so it's ok if he's unstable/ threatens me etc.)" is the way teenagers think, or people who themselves are unhealthy.  So please don't put words in my mouth.

[ademska]

kromify wrote...

ademska wrote...

now that's a bit silly. the game isn't postmodern about it at all, it's just subtle. people of the dumber or perhaps just less analytically-inclined persuasion may take the romance path or his character in general at face value, but that applies to anything and everything ever.

why is a straightforward (and thus clunky) interpretation of the narrative more appealing to you?

i am less analytically inclined when it comes to games. there is a point where there can be too much sneakiness and subtlety when i really want to get into escapism... not a confusing alternate reality (bad analogy please don't pick up on this)

no no no but the fact that you're in here at all means you're not part of the youtube bawww anders is a terrorist he blew up my church (or, alternatively, anders has/adopts a bouncing baby boy and a white picket fence) face-value brigade i'm referring to.  don't get me wrong on this. i write fic because i am both a sad person and a fan of escapism, so ain't knockin'

the point is, you put thought into this **** and that is better than... just so much of this terrible fandom

eta: lol i guess for me it's like, when i play the game

on one hand i'm like, wow what a subtle narrative with so many cool deconstructive aspects

and on the other i'm like OOOOH EEEEEEE IT'S KISSIES SCENE TIME YAAAAY /chinhands hearteyes

Modifié par ademska, 11 juin 2011 - 10:28 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

SurelyForth wrote...
Except she and the Warden, even if female, can be extremely close to one another.

Key word. *can*. And she's not the one to actively try.

She's still basically telling someone she's admitted she admires and who has risked their lives to protect her (via killing Flemeth) that if she does't convince her comrade/boyfriend to sleep with her and impregnate her with an OGB, she'll bail and the Warden will watch her comrade/boyfriend die (or die herself, thus meaning that Zevran/Leliana/Alistair will be without the woman they love).

Yes, because she has no reason to stay otherwise. Her being absolutely frank about it is not blackmail. She wants you to know exactly what she is offering you, and she tells you what she wants in return.

If she really wanted to manipulate you, she would have put the DR in much more delightful terms. Like "I wana cure myself!" a la Anders. She would have lied about her intentions. She doesn't.

And I like Morrigan, and her romance. A lot. I just wanted to point out that Anders hardly has the market on coercing their friends/lovers (and Anders also pushes Hawke away...and fights his feelings for three years v. a year or so that Morrigan lasts) into participating in morally suspect activities.

Morrigan doesn't coerce at all. Don't forget, we stand to gain from the DR, it's not like we just give Morrigan what she wants and we get nothing. We get an increased chance to survive. Her blunt potrayal of the situation is not coercion. It's just that, being blunt. She doesn't threaten the Warden at all.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 11 juin 2011 - 10:29 .

[CulturalGeekGirl]

Sarielle wrote...

Awww, so nobody's biting on the Anders-in-the-Fade question? Boo. I was genuinely curious, not trying to change the subject.

Would Anders be a tranquil if Justice were somehow separated (I don't think that's actually possible, and really that's what I think the fact that Justice, not Anders, follows us into the Fade indicates beyond a shadow of a doubt -- they'll never be able to separate)? Does this mean Anders doesn't dream, only the Justice part of him can?

I believe Anders says later that, when he was in the fade, he feels himself caged behind Justice's eyes, a passenger in his own body. That's why he doesn't go there anymore... he doesn't like that. It's similar to how he describes being an Abomination to Merril... screaming, trapped, trying to move your own body, but you can't.

What he's too dumb (or hurt, or trapped, or tormented) to realize is that, when he's trying to "keep control," he's putting Justice through exactly that torment.

Which leaves me screaming "let him out more often then, you jackhole! He's dying in there. At least with a corpse he could do things, now he's trapped and the only way he can do things is to talk you into doing them! Argh!" 

I don't know if I believe they could be separated. I'd say "probably not, but if I was given a good explanation and Anders was really messed up for a long time after the separation, I'd be fine with it." Mostly I think that the whole "passenger in your own body" thing shows that he's not as "one" as he thinks he is sometimes. If he were, they'd be equal in both the fade and the waking world. They need to become more one, to prevent either of them from feeling trapped. But this is beyond the scope of the game, I think. Even on the friendmance path, he is still just Anders driven by Justice. We never get Justice being Justice, and that's sad.

Modifié par CulturalGeekGirl, 11 juin 2011 - 10:28 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

Queen-Of-Stuff wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...


I know. So fixated on loyalty and conversation in lieu of bed activity. We're hopeless.

I know. You don't know how to appreciate the finer things in life. I had to go an entire playthrough as a dude just so I could get a piece of Morrigan's heterosexual-only swamp-wading-action and then get hitched with the heterosexual-only Anora. It was so tiresome. And you. You get all that for free and only give proper attention to the witch. Bah, I say.

Well I do give attention to Anora.

I just fear retribution, 'tis all.

[kromify]

Addai67 wrote...

I don't- I want to like it, hence why I'm asking for opinions to see if I can interpret it differently.  I have- or had- a lot of respect for the game writers so I'd like to see if I'm just not getting it or if they just made a story that's not for me.  I find it hard to believe that I could have liked their previous work so much and the development of it so little.

it's nice that you're trying - most people just start with the hating if they feel that way. too bad there are a million different interpretations, but none are likely to change your initial assessment. maybe just accept that there are some ways of making a game which you don't enjoy, even if it's a good game. style and taste  

[Addai]

ademska wrote...

Addai67 wrote...

I know this is your view, but others seem to read it more straightforwardly, and I would prefer to understand it as straightforward, too.  The alternative is too postmodern.  If that's what is really going on, then I just have to hate it (the story, that is, and not just Anders' but the game story).  I pretty much do hate it, but out of nostalgia for the game world keep wondering if I'm missing something that would make me like it.  Or at least dislike it less.

now that's a bit silly. the game isn't postmodern about it at all, it's just subtle. people of the dumber or perhaps just less analytically-inclined persuasion may take the romance path or his character in general at face value, but that applies to anything and everything ever.

why is a straightforward (and thus clunky) interpretation of the narrative more appealing to you?

ipgd's thesis is, if I've understood it correctly, that the game romances and specifically Anders' romance is a purposefully ironic deconstruction of romantic tropes.

I don't like that kind of tomfoolery.  I like a good story that's just a good story, not primarily an analogy of something else, or deconstruction, or whatever.

And I'm not sure I see anything subtle at all about the game story or the romances- rather, quite the opposite.

[ipgd]

Addai67 wrote...

I don't- I want to like it, hence why I'm asking for opinions to see if I can interpret it differently.  I have- or had- a lot of respect for the game writers so I'd like to see if I'm just not getting it or if they just made a story that's not for me.  I find it hard to believe that I could have liked their previous work so much and the development of it so little.

Well, I've explained what I think about it, which you have rejected, so!

If you insist on taking his romance at complete face value and ignore the possibility that the unpacking and subsequent examination of pretty much every romance character trope ever is intentional, I'd certainly hope you wouldn't like it.

[kromify]

ademska wrote...

kromify wrote...

ademska wrote...

now that's a bit silly. the game isn't postmodern about it at all, it's just subtle. people of the dumber or perhaps just less analytically-inclined persuasion may take the romance path or his character in general at face value, but that applies to anything and everything ever.

why is a straightforward (and thus clunky) interpretation of the narrative more appealing to you?

i am less analytically inclined when it comes to games. there is a point where there can be too much sneakiness and subtlety when i really want to get into escapism... not a confusing alternate reality (bad analogy please don't pick up on this)

no no no but the fact that you're in here at all means you're not part of the youtube bawww anders is a terrorist he blew up my church (or, alternatively, anders has/adopts a bouncing baby boy and a white picket fence) face-value brigade i'm referring to.  don't get me wrong on this. i write fic because i am both a sad person and a fan of escapism, so ain't knockin'

the point is, you put thought into this **** and that is better than... just so much of this terrible fandom

eta: lol i guess for me it's like, when i play the game

on one hand i'm like, wow what a subtle narrative with so many cool deconstructive aspects

and on the other i'm like OOOOH EEEEEEE IT'S KISSIES SCENE TIME YAAAAY /chinhands hearteyes

dawwww... i need a blush smiley. 



well i guess i'm done with my analysing. now i just tell anderstians about it

[kromify]

sigh.

i've been trying to get to bed for the last hour. i'll never manage it if people keep having interesting convos...  -_-

Modifié par kromify, 11 juin 2011 - 10:36 .

[Addai]

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

One thing I feel probably colors your interpretation is this: you seem to view Vengeance as entirely, simply, and purely a demon, at least by the end of Act 3. And I believe that this view is far too simplistic. If you think of Anders as simply a man with a demon inside him, it's nigh impossible to understand what it is about him that makes the lady cats scream, as Nanny Ogg would say.

Yes, that's what I was thinking when SurelyForth was explaining the sympathy towards Anders' decision to merge with Justice.  It's not only that I would consider Justice a demon or close enough to it not to matter- Anders bascially says this.  "He is no longer my friend, he is vengeance."  That, taken together with the constant warnings Anders gives Hawke that he could lose control and hurt her (physically, not just emotionally) pretty much seals the deal.  This is in act 1, not even in later acts where you see that he wasn't kidding.

Whether the cause is good or bad, whether his methods are wise or not doesn't matter. That isn't the point. The thing that consumes him could be good, or bad, or neutral. The question is this: does your ego allow you to connect with someone who won't always put you first, or can you only exist in a relationship where the sole light of the other person's devotion is upon you?

If you're looking for the sincere question behind the deconstruction, there it is.

Er, weren't others saying earlier that Hawke does basically become Anders' whole world, to the point that his view of the world entirely hinges upon Hawke?

Modifié par Addai67, 11 juin 2011 - 10:37 .

[ademska]

Addai67 wrote...

ademska wrote...

Addai67 wrote...

I know this is your view, but others seem to read it more straightforwardly, and I would prefer to understand it as straightforward, too.  The alternative is too postmodern.  If that's what is really going on, then I just have to hate it (the story, that is, and not just Anders' but the game story).  I pretty much do hate it, but out of nostalgia for the game world keep wondering if I'm missing something that would make me like it.  Or at least dislike it less.

now that's a bit silly. the game isn't postmodern about it at all, it's just subtle. people of the dumber or perhaps just less analytically-inclined persuasion may take the romance path or his character in general at face value, but that applies to anything and everything ever.

why is a straightforward (and thus clunky) interpretation of the narrative more appealing to you?

ipgd's thesis is, if I've understood it correctly, that the game romances and specifically Anders' romance is a purposefully ironic deconstruction of romantic tropes.

I don't like that kind of tomfoolery.  I like a good story that's just a good story, not primarily an analogy of something else, or deconstruction, or whatever.

And I'm not sure I see anything subtle at all about the game story or the romances- rather, quite the opposite.

why don't you elaborate, precisely, what you don't like about the relationship as it's presented in the game? recognizing the romance as a deconstruction doesn't happen only through hours of pondering, it happens when you notice the happy sappy romance of act 2 is in serious decline three years later.

[ipgd]

Addai67 wrote...

ipgd's thesis is, if I've understood it correctly, that the game romances and specifically Anders' romance is a purposefully ironic deconstruction of romantic tropes.

I don't like that kind of tomfoolery.  I like a good story that's just a good story, not primarily an analogy of something else, or deconstruction, or whatever.

And I'm not sure I see anything subtle at all about the game story or the romances- rather, quite the opposite.

I'm not really sure how I could see it any other way. It starts so true to romance tropes and then completely drives off a cliff. You have opportunities to criticize him for the things he does in a way that makes it impossible for me to think it's not intentional unless Hepler stepped away from her computer for a minute and an intern came in and inserted little sniping dialogue options without her noticing. The game knows he's crazy.

The reasons why he takes a turn for the worse are all the same romance tropes that are presented straight at the very start of the romance. It's practically a textbook deconstruction in any way I look at it.

Modifié par ipgd, 11 juin 2011 - 10:40 .

[Addai]

ipgd wrote...

Addai67 wrote...

I don't- I want to like it, hence why I'm asking for opinions to see if I can interpret it differently.  I have- or had- a lot of respect for the game writers so I'd like to see if I'm just not getting it or if they just made a story that's not for me.  I find it hard to believe that I could have liked their previous work so much and the development of it so little.

Well, I've explained what I think about it, which you have rejected, so!

If you insist on taking his romance at complete face value and ignore the possibility that the unpacking and subsequent examination of pretty much every romance character trope ever is intentional, I'd certainly hope you wouldn't like it.

Ok, I'm not trying to torment you. lol  I'm at least willing to consider the possibility that it was all meant ironically.  Sort of an anti-Twilight, I guess.  Just not convinced the writer meant it that way.

[ademska]

Addai67 wrote...

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

Whether the cause is good or bad, whether his methods are wise or not doesn't matter. That isn't the point. The thing that consumes him could be good, or bad, or neutral. The question is this: does your ego allow you to connect with someone who won't always put you first, or can you only exist in a relationship where the sole light of the other person's devotion is upon you?

If you're looking for the sincere question behind the deconstruction, there it is.

Er, weren't others saying earlier that Hawke does basically become Anders' whole world, to the point that his view of the world entirely hinges upon Hawke?

the game is not a linear narrative, at least as far as character relations are concerned.  like, the plot actions are the same, as is the point of the game, but friendship vs rivarly leads to very diverging interpretations of hawke's relationship with everyone and everyone else's relationship with everything.

this is obvious just in the party's ability to side one way or another in the endgame

Modifié par ademska, 11 juin 2011 - 10:45 .

[BlueMew]

Addai67 wrote...
I didn't.  I said the line of thinking that "but I love him (so it's ok if he's unstable/ threatens me etc.)" is the way teenagers think, or people who themselves are unhealthy.  So please don't put words in my mouth.

Fair enough. But summarizing the views of those who would in fact love an unstable person by "but I love him (edit: or her?) (so it's ok if he's unstable/ threatens me etc.)" is the way teenagers think, or people who themselves are unhealthy" is quite the generalization. Just saying. If my parents thought like that I wouldn't be here today, and I'm sure they'd be delighted to be called unhealthy or kids.

Calling something 'ineffective', 'inefficient' or somesuch is way different than saying something is immature and teenage. If you do that, you dismiss your potential sparring partner by saying s/he is retarded / not fully grown so you don't have to take them seriously.