57020 réponses à ce sujet

[CulturalGeekGirl]

On topic Top!

I don't like hate/hate relationships in general. And it doesn't seem like the majority of writers I've stumbled upon do either (though most of the ones I've read have been recommended by the same people.)

Instead, most of the fics are about the characters in question making some tiny concession that spirals into steadily increasing understanding. Again: i understand if you don't like that kind of stuff. But for me, people who could learn valuable things from each other never actually speaking is always frustrating, so I'm willing to give them this.

Here's a related example from another fandom. Warning: Harry Potter Spoilers!
In Harry Potter, I was always frustrated that Harry never trusted Snape. Severeus was my favorite character, and the fact that they kept having all those dumb and hateful misunderstandings was annoyed me. It eventually caused me to like the books a bit less, actually. So when Harry finally did figure out what was up with Snape, I sighed with relief and faint annoyance. Took you long enough, idiot.

This is also why I hate 70% of romantic comedies. Oh! Here is the part where you're going to have a comically simple misunderstanding that is going to occupy the next hour or so, and that would be resolved instantly if you just had a legitimate conversation? Now I'm going to frown at the screen until my face aches.

Part of why I like Fenders is curiosity about how Fenris would have interacted with DA:A Justice. Would he have been like Velanna, eventually admitting that it was worth considering not hating all humans? Would he have been more like Nathaniel, asking questions about his very nature? Or would it have been like Anders, with Justice pressuring Fenris to fight slavery more actively, and Fenris rolling his eyes as the naivete involved? Or would he just assume Justice was a demon from the start? (I doubt that last one, but it's possible.) Fenris seems curious about and respectful of Flemeth, which reveals even more nuance in his opinions about mages... she's basically the magicest, but because she doesn't fit into a category he has experience with, he's willing to give her the benefit of the doubt.

If you believe it is impossible for Fenris to ever either believe that Anders has sufficient control over Justice to be trusted or come to consider Justice anything other than a demon, then I don't think you'll ever 'get' Fenders (unless you like hatefic). For me the appeal is watching the two of them grow out of misunderstandings that seem to be the result of a failure to communicate properly.

Edit: I also want to clarify that I believe there is a difference between not agreeing and not communicating. I feel like Alistair and Morrigan, Morrigan and Leiliana, Sebastian and Anders, Fenris and Merril all communicate just fine. There aren't misunderstandings there, just disagreements. I'm also OK if a central focus of a character's personality is that he is bad at communicating, and this is maintained consistently (Harry actually kind of fits this). My pet peeve is that part of a romantic comedy where they come so close to actually explaining the misunderstanding, and then stop having the conversation for no good reason.

Modifié par CulturalGeekGirl, 05 juillet 2011 - 11:42 .

[Amondra]

YamiSnuffles wrote... Trying... so hard... to stay out... of Fenders... argument! I will argue forever about it and I honestly don't care enough to devote so much time. So instead, have a cracky shipping comic before I explode: [smilie]http://fc06.deviantart.net/fs71/f/2011/186/f/8/shipping_by_yamisnuffles-d3l2p4r.jpg[/smilie]

That comic made my day:wizard:

Modifié par Amondra, 05 juillet 2011 - 11:46 .

[YamiSnuffles]

I actually quite like AU's, as long as they're well done and the characters are still in character. By in character, I mean they seem to have developed in a way that seems consistent with what is presented in canon. Take character X, add circumstance Y, and see what happens.

Without going into another wall of text, my problem still remains that I can't see Fenders working in a non-hateful way in any AU, unless the AU is drastic enough to really change who we see in DA2. Once the AU goes far enough that the characters are no longer really recognizable, it stops being enjoyable for me. But again, like I said, I'm one of those people that will never get it. Some part of the characters is being read differently by different people and there's not much to be done about it.

I don't have any desire to force them to understand each other. Some people will never see eye to eye no matter what you do.

[SurelyForth]

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

If you believe it is impossible for Fenris to ever either believe that Anders has sufficient control over Justice to be trusted or come to consider Justice anything other than a demon, then I don't think you'll ever 'get' Fenders (unless you like hatefic). For me the appeal is watching the two of them grow out of misunderstandings that seem to be the result of a failure to communicate properly.

See, I don't see where you're getting that they're failing to communicate properly, or that their more nuanced views (LOL) aren't getting across. For them to have a civil discussion with each other on Tevinter/the Circle just isn't something I can see Fenris caring to do, but he's still around when Anders is prostelyzing. Everyone else complains about how much Anders goes on about mages, it's fair to assume that Fenris has heard pretty much everything Anders has to say, either firsthand or second hand.  

You're assuming that there's a lack of understanding on both sides about where the other is coming from. I don't really get that, considering Fenris sees the Gallows firsthand/knows Hawke and Anders knows quite a bit about mages in other countries and is generally well-read. The fact that they are unwilling at the outset to care makes me think that it's not a failure to communicate as much as it's an unwillingness to want to communicate. 

And, basically, this is where Fenders as anything but utter AU fails me. I said it earlier...I think  there has to be an iota of want in order for a relationship to even start. To want to know someone better, to want to see them, to want to hear them and be heard by them. Neither of them cares to know the other beyond the sort of backhanded lines of questioning you hear in the game, neither of them want to hear what the other has to say, although they want to be heard and that's kind of the point of them. Fenris wants to rail against mages, but shrugs away most counterpoints made by Hawke and it's clear he sees Hawke as an exception. Anders wants to rail against templars and the Circle and...yeah. He doesn't want to hear the other side and it drives him crazier when he is hearing about it, on account of Justice.

I can see where it's frustrating, as they could be a resource for one another, but in my opinion it's just who they are, and not merely a plot convention meant to build tension or keep you guessing their true motives. 

[River5]

ademska wrote...

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...
See, this goes too far for me.

My argument is that their fundamental characters do not have to change, only circumstances need to change. The circumstances are not the character. Fenris and Anders never have cause to have a prolonged discussion about this. They are never put into a situation where they have to interact seriously for a decent period of time.

. . .

I'm fine if you say it never works for you. I'm fine with you saying that it always rings false when you read it. I'm fine with you saying it doesn't fit with your conception of the characters. But saying that people who write or concieve of it are probably inaccurately intepreting the characters? That goes a bit too far, and sounds a lot like you're saying that the fact that you dislike Fenders means you understand the characters better than people who do think that Fenders is understandable in some circumstances.

Bah, sorry to get weighty.

not at all weighty, it's just debate <3

don't misunderstand, @River5's argument (and i may be in error here) seemed like it was predicated on re-interpreting their canon interactions to birth a potential relationship, and the heart of the argument was that love defies logic - that we shouldn't limit ourselves to a logical discussion of why they are not compatible because a relationship could bud regardless.

i fundamentally disagree with this. in fact, i think it's outright incorrect.

there was no talk of changing of circumstance in that discussion, and my statement (which i admit was a bit blanket) does not include circumstantial changes.

...that said, i can't get behind changes in continuity either, but here we're positing personal interpretation of characters, which is a lot less touchy, not at all objective, and really what i prefer to discuss. i'm building up a big ol' post about it now, but i needed to get this out in the open first.

Actually, it was about changing circumstances!  It's all about changing circumstances!

Lol!  I feel like I am so not getting through...  Lol! Lol! Lol!

Okay, bear with me here.

If you alter events and circumstances in the game, than you can use in-game dialogues and behaviors from both Fenris and Anders and interpret them in order to suit your needs.

For example, you first decide that Hawke never even begins flirting with Anders and is a complete jerk from the get go.  He does the same with Fenris (and you also decide that rejection from Hawke doesn't turn any of them on!  Lol!).  So you remove Hawke from the equation and assume that none of the boys feel any attraction for him whatsoever.

You forget canon relationships for either Anders or Hawke completely.

Once this is done, it is possible for someone to observe Anders and Fenris' in-game interactions, and interpret those as showing some underlying rival attraction if you really want to.

Also, I consider that Anders doesn't need to change his stance regarding the cause of the mages.  First, because I think he is right.  There are no excuses for locking up, and stealing the lives of his people.  And that's completely besides the point.  Lol!

Why?  With Hawke, Anders has shown that he is able to still love and desire someone even though he wants to wring this person's neck, and he or she represents everything that he hates.

This is an integral part of Anders' personality that, if you wish, you can transfer unto Fenris because you completely disregard the canon-Hawke-attraction.

You take the way that Anders already behaves towards Hawke, something his character is already doing; and transfer it to someone else.

And, on the other side, you do the same with Fenris.

Actually, what is great is that if you play a mage, Fenris will still be willing to fall for you; and you even can bring him to eventually recognise that what the Chantry is doing to the mages (locking them in Circles, etc.) is a form of slavery.

So while there isn't much opportunity for Anders to come to Fenris' side.  Fenris does move towards Anders' side far enough to allow some semblance of truce, or collaboration.

Yes, in the canon universe, it's all because of Hawke.

Now, you remove the middle man (a.k.a. Hawke), and you make them face each other instead.

Anders behaves with Fenris as he would with a rival Hawke (want to wring his neck and hate everything he represents, yet still being attracted like crazy to him).

And Fenris behaves with Anders as he would with a rival Hawke.

From there, you build your Fenders!  Lol! Lol! Lol!

So it's not the characters themselves that you need to alter.  It's transfering Hawke's power and influence over each of the characters to the other one instead.

That's why many of the Fenders fanfictions still manage to have both Anders and Fenris remain very much in character ,despite their natural oppositions, and even use their in-game dialogues to build the Fenders romance.

[Evilnor]

YamiSnuffles wrote...

Some people will never see eye to eye no matter what you do.

I think this is the intended dynamic of Anders and Fenris right here.

Even when they agree on issues, such as slavery or blood magic, they're still too hard-headed to find common ground there.

Modifié par Evilnor, 06 juillet 2011 - 12:12 .

[beckaliz]

River5 wrote...

Lots of things...

You can remove Hawke from the equation, but consider this point. Anders has feelings of gratefulness because Hawke helped with the Karl issue and went into the Chantry with him. Fenris has feelings of gratefulness because Hawke helped with the Denarius issue and went into the mansion with him.

Those are crucial initial interactions between the two NPCs and Hawke. They set the stage before either of them gets to know Hawke and form other opinions. The canon is, Hawke needs maps, so s/he meets Anders. And Fenris is, really, extra, but if Hawke decides to keep doing work for her/his old boss to make money, s/he's going to encounter him at the very least.

You can transfer the basic dynamics of Anders' and Fenris' rivalmances with Hawke towards each other, but, that one very important thing is gone. Hawke has outside motivations initially for helping them, for being willing to help them, but they're grateful anyway. Without that gratefulness they feel towards Hawke, there just isn't the framework to even get started, for them to even consider each other more than just "I am completely opposed to this person". As evidenced by Anders' approving of Fenris being shipped off with Denarius (which it has been mentioned is rather an injustice...), and at the end, Fenris says, "Psh, he wants to die, just kill him already geeze," it can be assumed that there's nothing in the world that would make either of them feel an iota of gratitude towards the other.

There is no force that would give them the motivation to do anything that the other would be grateful for, and changing an element like that would be purely AU. And I think your point is that it's possible without being AU? Correct me if I'm wrong.

Modifié par beckaliz, 06 juillet 2011 - 12:27 .

[YamiSnuffles]

Not to mention, Fenris can't relate the same way to Anders as he would to a mage!Hawke. As I said before, Anders and mage Hawke are two different people. Fenris can grow to love and respect mage!Hawke because he can prove all of Fenris' suppositions about mages wrong. He's not an abomination. Anders is, at least in Fenris' eyes. He calls him as much.

Thus, Hawke proves Fenris wrong (mages can be good people too) whereas Anders seems to prove Fenris right (mages are dangerous, can't help but make deals with "demons," and should be locked up).

[SurelyForth]

@River05

But your assuming that they would see each other the way each sees Hawke, and I see that as highly, highly unlikely.

Why does Anders fall for Hawke? Because Hawke helps him and accepts him at some level. As s/he continues to keep Anders around, Anders falls for Hawke as long as there's enough meaningful interaction to keep him engaged.

Now...would Fenris help Anders with Karl? Probably not, unless Anders offered to hunt down Danarius which he probably would never offer. Would Fenris continue to associate with Anders after what happens to Anders at the Chantry, considering that it's the continued associating after that which makes Anders latch onto Hawke?

If you say yes, then you have taken Fenris OOC.

And Fenris isn't like Anders is in a rivalmance. Pretty much the only thing that changes about him is approach to Hawke's attempts to give him ****. And the sex scene. There is no huge divergence there. He cares for Hawke because he respects Hawke, he respects Hawke because Hawke helps him through stuff and shows some base level of acceptance for him. All of which I am hardpressed to see Anders doing without Hawke there to force him, in which case Fenris isn't going to fall for the person being forced.

Maker, I don't even know what I'm saying any more. My rebuttal is basically:

rivalry =! hate
Anders =! Rival!MageHawke
Fenris =! Rival!Hawke

Modifié par SurelyForth, 06 juillet 2011 - 12:34 .

[Ryzaki]

Fenris also stops blaming magic for his problems in the rivalrymance.

[beckaliz]

SurelyForth wrote...


Maker, I don't even know what I'm saying any more. My rebuttal is basically:

rivalry =! hate
Anders =! Rival!MageHawke
Fenris =! Rival!Hawke

Sweet Jeebus what does that mean? 

Oh wait that's javascript signs for "does not equal" isn't it.

Modifié par beckaliz, 06 juillet 2011 - 12:38 .

[River5]

beckaliz wrote...

River5 wrote...

Lots of things...

You can remove Hawke from the equation, but consider this point. Anders has feelings of gratefulness because Hawke helped with the Karl issue and went into the Chantry with him. Fenris has feelings of gratefulness because Hawke helped with the Denarius issue and went into the mansion with him.

Those are crucial initial interactions between the two NPCs and Hawke. They set the stage before either of them gets to know Hawke and form other opinions. The canon is, Hawke needs maps, so s/he meets Anders. And Fenris is, really, extra, but if Hawke decides to keep doing work for her/his old boss to make money, s/he's going to encounter him at the very least.

You can transfer the basic dynamics of Anders' and Fenris' rivalmances with Hawke towards each other, but, that one very important thing is gone. Hawke has outside motivations initially for helping them, for being willing to help them, but they're grateful anyway. Without that gratefulness they feel towards Hawke, there just isn't the framework to even get started, for them to even consider each other more than just "I am completely opposed to this person". As evidenced by Anders' approving of Fenris being shipped off with Denarius (which it has been mentioned is rather an injustice...), and at the end, Fenris says, "Psh, he wants to die, just kill him already geeze," it can be assumed that there's nothing in the world that would make either of them feel an iota of gratitude towards the other.

There is no force that would give them the motivation to do anything that the other would be grateful for, and changing an element like that would be purely AU. And I think your point is that it's possible without being AU? Correct me if I'm wrong.

No, you can be AU.  There's no problem with going AU.

Basically, I'm just trying to say that as soon as you step away from the canon events and relationships; it is possible to build a romance between Fenris and Anders while still using many in-game elements; and remaining true to the characters' overall personalities.

Unless you count "Anders' hostility towards Fenris" as a personality trait.  I see this more as a dynamic between characters than part of his personality.

Once again, what "personality" is, exactly, can be up to debate.

To me, it's a bit like the discussions that people are having saying that killing Anders for his crimes is the only option a truly moral character would make.  What seems like a moral choice for one, will be different for someone else.

That Fenders makes no sense to you (I mean "you" in general, not you specifically) is okay.  That you "don't get it" isn't even the question.

But the fact remains that, for some people, it makes a lot of sense.  They'll modify the characters' dynamic in their minds, and change a few events / circumstances in the game in order to make it fit when they are writing fanfiction, or doing fanart for example.

It's just that it kind of gets to me that people seem to be trying to prove how ilogical the whole concept of Fenders is, when it shouldn't have to be logical in the first place.

As soon as you remove yourself from canon, and take liberties with the characters, there is no longer any logic to it.

Same thing if you wanted to pair up Alistair and Zevran, for example.

Such a relationship might be easier to accept for some, but it's still completely not following any logic from the games.

David Gaider has debated so many times the fact that Alistair is absolutely not interested in men, that having him suddenly go for Zevran during any events of DAO is as unlikely as Fenris and Anders developing a relationship during DA2.

It's fandom, extrapolation, imagination!  Whatever you choose to call it.

It just seems unfair to say that one makes sense, while the other doesn't.

That one makes more sense to you than the other.  Or that you just cannot see or even begin to fathom the attraction between Fenris and Anders.  Then yes.  But Fenders fans have never been arguing that Fenders is really happening in the game.  Just that it's as valid as any other fantasy pairing you could want to create and come up with!

Modifié par River5, 06 juillet 2011 - 01:00 .

[SurelyForth]

River5 wrote...
No, you can be AU.  There's no problem with going AU.

Basically, I'm just trying to say that as soon as you step away from the canon events and relationships; it is possible to build a romance between Fenris and Anders while still using many in-game elements; and remaining true to the characters' overall personalities.

Unless you count "Anders' hostility towards Fenris" as a personality trait.  I see this more as a dynamic between characters than part of his personality.

Once again, what "personality" is, exactly, can be up to debate.

If I wanted to pick and choose, I could say whatever the heck I wanted about Anders and win every argument in this thread on the grounds of "Well...in AU this could happpen!" I was kinda thinking we were discussing Anders' actual personality, which I think DOES include hostility towards a person like Fenris, who is hateful and squanders his freedom on being hateful towards (like berelinde said) a group of individuals who would love to have as much freedom as he had when he was a slave, never mind after he'd escaped. 

[Soapbubbles]

The way I see Fenris and Anders, the two of them would never be able to set aside their hatred of each other for a sexual/romantic relationship.  I could see the two of them very grudgingly working together to get Hawke out of a problem if someone like Varric or Aveline whipped them into motion.  It reminds me of Bishop and Casavir, but not in the 'chaotic evil v. lawful good' sense.  More of the 'grey moralities and differently political views.'

I also like the hatred between Fenris and Anders (Bishop and Cassie too ).  I like the idea that the main character can't force the two to be friends, or even respect each other.  Bishop and Casavir never get along, and spend the whole game just waiting for the moment to get rid of the other.  And then there's Fenris and Anders, who hate each other for more than just 'well he looks shifty and like he may have killed some people for giggles/he's a goody goody paladin'.  Through the course of the game, the two remain opposed to one another and even if you pick sides, say Fenris, you can't just convince Anders that Circles and Templars are a great idea through the power of being Hawke, and vice versa. 

Of course, I wouldn't have been against an option where you force the two of them to sit in a room an talk it out, or even conversations that could lead to the two of them at least letting up off each other.  I could never see the two of them going out for drinks and being friends, but I could see them somewhat civilly standing in the same room together.  Maybe I'm just spoiled by games where I can get people to sit down and shut up.

I guess somewhere in that mess of a post I just wanted to say that I like that the two of them don't get along, and would rather keep it that way.  Goes with the theme of being absolutely helpless and railroaded in DA2.   And it's one of the few times where I see two handsome men at each other's throats and I don't want to see them resolve it without clothes in mud.  But that's a me thing.

[beckaliz]

Hee hee hee. Lookit what I found.


sauce on dA

[Evilnor]

Just a quick point, but I find it funny how so many people seem to be equating a romantic relationship with a sexual relationship. Romantic to me implies feelings and wooing, actively seeking out the other's company in a meaningful way to possibly preserve or enhance those feelings, but not necessarily with sex as a goal. Heck, if the feelings change after sex, it can kill the romance. In contrast, a sexual relationship doesn't necessarily need to involve real feelings at all. I know of many people (I'm not one of them) who can have sex without ascribing any great emotional attachment to the other person involved. Prostitutes come to mind, but there's plenty out there who could do so with no money involved.

Not supporting or discounting anyone's actual arguments, but I thought that'd be a semi-important thing to point out for some reason. Ignore me if you think it's semantics.

[Heidenreich]

... I managed to screw that up. 

NOW that I completely forgot what it was I was trying to write before I accidentally hit the submit key..
OH WAIT..

I dislike Fenders, I like the idea of Fenders. As in, both me (and my Hawke and Isabela and Varric) were in agreement that the two of them should just have some hot hate sex and get it over with. I know its not a realistic parring.. but man would it be hot to see..

Kinda like this...



Fenris: She's mine, back off Abomination!
Anders: You're nothing but a rabid wolf! She should be with someone who can treat her properly!

Hawke: Will you two just kiss already. YOU know it'll be hot. do it, do it, doooo it come on you know you want to

Isabela(in backround): I have 5 sov's on Anders caving first!

Modifié par Heidenreich, 06 juillet 2011 - 02:46 .

[CulturalGeekGirl]

SurelyForth wrote...

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

If you believe it is impossible for Fenris to ever either believe that Anders has sufficient control over Justice to be trusted or come to consider Justice anything other than a demon, then I don't think you'll ever 'get' Fenders (unless you like hatefic). For me the appeal is watching the two of them grow out of misunderstandings that seem to be the result of a failure to communicate properly.

See, I don't see where you're getting that they're failing to communicate properly, or that their more nuanced views (LOL) aren't getting across. For them to have a civil discussion with each other on Tevinter/the Circle just isn't something I can see Fenris caring to do, but he's still around when Anders is prostelyzing. Everyone else complains about how much Anders goes on about mages, it's fair to assume that Fenris has heard pretty much everything Anders has to say, either firsthand or second hand.  

You're assuming that there's a lack of understanding on both sides about where the other is coming from. I don't really get that, considering Fenris sees the Gallows firsthand/knows Hawke and Anders knows quite a bit about mages in other countries and is generally well-read. The fact that they are unwilling at the outset to care makes me think that it's not a failure to communicate as much as it's an unwillingness to want to communicate. 

And, basically, this is where Fenders as anything but utter AU fails me. I said it earlier...I think  there has to be an iota of want in order for a relationship to even start. To want to know someone better, to want to see them, to want to hear them and be heard by them. Neither of them cares to know the other beyond the sort of backhanded lines of questioning you hear in the game, neither of them want to hear what the other has to say, although they want to be heard and that's kind of the point of them. Fenris wants to rail against mages, but shrugs away most counterpoints made by Hawke and it's clear he sees Hawke as an exception. Anders wants to rail against templars and the Circle and...yeah. He doesn't want to hear the other side and it drives him crazier when he is hearing about it, on account of Justice.

I can see where it's frustrating, as they could be a resource for one another, but in my opinion it's just who they are, and not merely a plot convention meant to build tension or keep you guessing their true motives.

I don't think it's a plot convention meant to build tension or keep you guessing. I just think it's an idiot ball. And I don't feel like a fundamental unwillingness to talk about it for more than six sentences is an inherent part of their character.

It's really strange because many of the banters between other sets of characters in all three games actually do reach a point where I go "Ok, I'm convinced, they do not want to communicate." or "Ok, I'm convinced, they will never budge from their stances," and Fenris and Anders' don't do this for me. And I can imagine completely in-character banters that would convince me of either of those things... or both. There are three or four banters where I could change the last two lines and firmly remove the possibility of Fenders from my mind. But the ones that actually exist don't do that for me, personally.

Now, in your intepretation above, I can see why you don't consider it an idiot ball, because you assume that all the conversations where the salient points are raised and dismissed happen off camera. I assume that they don't have those conversations. I don't think either of those assumptions are more or less likely to be true, they're just our particular guesses.

The reason I brought up AUs earlier was that you said that giving them any excuse to actually have a longer conversation seemed too clearly orchestrated to bring them together, and felt false. For me, giving characters a single chance to have a longer conversation and having it change things fundamentally doesn't feel wrong, provided I have no solid evidence that they've had that particular conversation before. I brought up AUs because ademska implied that changing any canon event meant that the characters weren't the same anymore, especially if said change has implications beyond that particular moment, whereas I'm fascinated with the question of "how would the world be different if this one small event happened differently" stories, and usually consider them to be in-character. (I also don't consider them to necessarily be truly AU, but I should have defined my terms more clearly earlier if I wanted to quibble about that.) There's a difference between being AU and ooc. There's also a difference between a single point deviation from canon (fic where Hawke is secretly hooking up with Isabella or someone even before Act 2) and being a completely different universe (Anders and Fenris meet as teenagers in Tevinter.)

I also want to clear something important up: I don't think that chemistry between Anders and Fenris is something that's "always there" or "definitely there." I think it's unlikely but plausible.

If I find something unlikely but plausible, I'm willing to allow myself to be convinced.

Basically when people here say "no, they hate each other too much for that." I nod and think "sure, that also could be true. It's probably at least slightly more likely. But I don't think there's any way to tell for sure." And because I can't tell for sure, I let each individual fic try to convince me.

I can read a fic where they hate each other and absolutely can't work it out and say "yep, that sounds about right." I can also read a fic where they get a chance to talk it out and discover that they have an odd connection and think "yep, that sounds about right." 

I can also read fics that portray either situation and think "Ugh this does not work at all, next!" 

Modifié par CulturalGeekGirl, 06 juillet 2011 - 02:49 .

[River5]

SurelyForth wrote...

River5 wrote...
No, you can be AU.  There's no problem with going AU.

Basically, I'm just trying to say that as soon as you step away from the canon events and relationships; it is possible to build a romance between Fenris and Anders while still using many in-game elements; and remaining true to the characters' overall personalities.

Unless you count "Anders' hostility towards Fenris" as a personality trait.  I see this more as a dynamic between characters than part of his personality.

Once again, what "personality" is, exactly, can be up to debate.

If I wanted to pick and choose, I could say whatever the heck I wanted about Anders and win every argument in this thread on the grounds of "Well...in AU this could happpen!" I was kinda thinking we were discussing Anders' actual personality, which I think DOES include hostility towards a person like Fenris, who is hateful and squanders his freedom on being hateful towards (like berelinde said) a group of individuals who would love to have as much freedom as he had when he was a slave, never mind after he'd escaped. 

But as soon as you step out of the canon universe, you are AU.  There's absolutely no way around it.

If a romance doesn't happen in the games, in the books, or is validated as existing by the writer's team; it is AU.

And yes, if you want to keep Anders' personality intact, you have to create circumstances and events allowing for him to feel for Fenris as he would for a rival Hawke, somehow.  And vice versa.

You can play with events and motivations while allowing Anders and/or Fenris to remain "in character".

You can also create opportunities allowing them to evolve while starting at a certain point in the game.

We are talking about a fictional relationship between two characters that never were meant to develop such a relationship to begin with.

Just like Alistair and Zevran, or Wynne and Oghren, are not couples meant to be together.

But I would never tell someone who ships Wynne and Oghren "Oh!  Your coupling doesn't make sense!", or "Alistair and Zevran are much more realistic!", because it is all AU.  And thus always remains subjective and open to individual interpretations / opinions.

My reaction would be "Alriiight...  I really don't see how Wynne and Oghren could be a couple, and I can't imagine them being together...  But I guess that if I've read Fenders fanfic that makes that couple work for me, then you guys must have found some way to make it work for these two also!  Good for you!".

Also, if we were all to write an essay on Anders' personality, my feeling is that we would wind up with very different interpretations of the character.  There isn't an absolute concensus regarding what makes Anders "Anders".

For me, his hostility towards someone like Fenris isn't something that he wouldn't be able to overcome because I never saw Anders as being either single-minded, or irrational in his behavior.  The bipolar episodes, or "dissociative personality disorder" moments are but transitory.  The rest of the time, he's perfectly there, and making pretty educated and rational decisions for himself, as well as others.

The problem comes from Fenris not being receptive at all towards what Anders is trying to tell him, and antagonizing him (my own perception).  And once again, people's perceptions regarding Fenris' own motivations will vary from one person to the next.

But given the right circumstances and events, we can manage to "bypass" that, so to speak.

[CulturalGeekGirl]

Completely unrelated to Fenders (except that this was reblogged by someone I follow on my "mostly fic and art" tumblr), this historic quote which I have amusingly altered sums up why I always side with the mages at the end of the game, and have never managed to side with the Templars:

"I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the {mage's} great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the {Chantry} or the {Templar}, but the {mundane} moderate who is more devoted to ‘order’ than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says, ‘I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I can’t agree with your methods of direct action’; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man’s freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the {mage} to wait for a ‘more convenient season."

I'm going to have to put this aside for future use. A quick google will present you with attribution, the only things I changed are the things in curly brackets.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Yea, many used the same arguments when they purged the "counter-revolutionary reactionist scum" from within their ranks. Very common rhetoric that by definition suffers from over simplification, nothing more.

[River5]

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

Completely unrelated to Fenders (except that this was reblogged by someone I follow on my "mostly fic and art" tumblr), this historic quote which I have amusingly altered sums up why I always side with the mages at the end of the game, and have never managed to side with the Templars:

"I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the {mage's} great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the {Chantry} or the {Templar}, but the {mundane} moderate who is more devoted to ‘order’ than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says, ‘I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I can’t agree with your methods of direct action’; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man’s freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the {mage} to wait for a ‘more convenient season."

I'm going to have to put this aside for future use. A quick google will present you with attribution, the only things I changed are the things in curly brackets.

OMG!  Do me a HUGE favor and go post that quote on my thread here: social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/304/index/7749447/5

I will seriously love you forever for it!!!  

[CulturalGeekGirl]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Yea, many used the same arguments when they purged the "counter-revolutionary reactionist scum" from within their ranks. Very common rhetoric that by definition suffers from over simplification, nothing more.

I disagree. Not that it's common... I'm sure it's a common sentiment among all sorts of revolutions and movements, just and unjust. But I disagree that it's "nothing more." (For one, it's a dude I respect rather more than pretty much any other revolutionary.) Also, if you can find me a quote as eloquent from an unjust or untimely movement prior to this one, expressing a similar sentiment, I'd be interested to see it.

It's a reminder that pretty much every movement, timely or not, has always had people who say "Wait, it isn't time yet. To try it now is madness. Wait." You can pretty much always imagine a time when the opportunity is better.

I was reading an article today on the BBC News website: 

BBC News wrote...
Documents uncovered at the National Archives reveal that the votes-for-women movement probably became the first "terrorist" organisation subjected to secret surveillance photography in the UK, if not the world.

I've done a lot of reading about various women's suffrage movements, and they were all considered dangerously extreme at the time.

Modifié par CulturalGeekGirl, 06 juillet 2011 - 04:11 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Yea, many used the same arguments when they purged the "counter-revolutionary reactionist scum" from within their ranks. Very common rhetoric that by definition suffers from over simplification, nothing more.

I disagree. Not that it's common... I'm sure it's common among all sorts of revolutions and movements, just and unjust. But I disagree that it's "nothing more." (For one, it's a dude I respect rather more than pretty much any other revolutionary.) 

It's a reminder that pretty much every movement, timely or not, has always had people who say "Wait, it isn't time yet. To try it now is madness. Wait." You can pretty much always imagine a time when the opportunity is better.

You respecting him or not is not relevent. It's the same quote any other extremist revolutionist would have said. Rhetoriic like that is dangerous, regardless of the source. The fact that it emphasizes on "justice" makes it rhetoric in my eyes as well.

Most of the movements who ended up adopting this idea, that the "moderates" are the greatest enemy, ended up being self-destructive and idiotic.  If that's what you want mages to adopt, then I dread to think what they'd do with their revolution.

Likewise, many don't even try to work for a better time and rather lazily and impatiently, prefer to throw themselves in the wind because of some vague notions and that death is more preferrable anyways.
Waiting for a better time passively, or not waiting at all, are both immense flaws. Waiting and working to shape the times ahead to your advantage is what ought to be done. And yea, it was done before, in the Abassid Revolution. The only Revolution I actually like.  

But sadly patience is equated to inaction, or weakness, or worse, immorality (one of the best accusations one can use to murder a lot of people).

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 06 juillet 2011 - 04:14 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...
Also, if you can find me a quote as eloquent from an unjust or untimely movement prior to this one, expressing a similar sentiment, I'd be interested to see it.

What does eloquence have to do with it and who determines what is "eloquent"? You or the people they were addressing?

These are the same arguments Robespierre, Mao Zedong, Stalin, Al Qaeda when killing moderate Muslims....etc used to justify their actions.  That the moderates who are not fighting "hard enough" or "willingly submitting" or "who keep us back with their cowardice and hesitation" should be removed, one way or the other.

And who is to determine that they are "unjust" and the one who said your quote is "just"?

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 06 juillet 2011 - 04:15 .