@flemm: I’ll drop it here, but it’s funny that you argue against something being simplistic, since I’m specifically trying to argue against a
simplistic view of Cerberus as a ‘gray’ organization. Yes, simplistic. Just because it’s ‘gray’ doesn’t make it complex, it just removes the need to reconcile the various aspects. Just say ‘gray’ and all is well. It’s ‘gray’ and therefore one thing can be one way while another is the complete opposite. That’s simplification, not complexity. It’s label that
avoids actually thinking about the complexity.
The view that Miranda’s
somehow involved in this organization—but not really, just the nice parts, and she doesn’t really even know about anything else—and that it has no bearing on her character…
that is simplistic.
And, flemm, since you offer few specifics, this may or may not apply to you. These are general statements that
may or may not apply to your particular headcanon.
flemm wrote...
lillitheris wrote...
I disagree that it doesn’t exist—but either way, the end-result is the same. In order for you to work with just the ME2 Cerberus, you must ignore the ME one, since you’re not willing to reconcile the two.
That isn't true. It isn't necessary to ignore it, anymore than Miranda ignores it within the context of the game. It's just necessary to accept that what we know about Cerberus based on ME1 isn't the whole story.
And we *know* that it isn't the whole story, since what we find out about Cerberus in 2 (and also 3) doesn't fit the ME1 profile.
It does. If it doesn’t fit how you
want to see ME2 Cerberus, you may need to ignore significant parts of ME(1) lore, rather than fully reconcile the two.
And that’s perfectly fine, as long as you don’t pretend it to be anything else.
You just have to let go of a certain type of simplistic thinking that wants to see only two possibilities everywhere. "Ignore" and "reconcile" aren't the only two options. One can just recognize that the portrayal of the organisation evolved over time, more than once.
If you combine those evolutions into a working whole, it’s called
reconciliation.
If you ignore parts…then you’re ignoring parts. So, yes, in this case those two are the only options, with variations within.
You can simply say that, from meta perspective, they are written differently and therefore separated, and that’s fine, too. But that
still means you are ignoring parts—just your reason for doing so changes.
This is also in relation to specific statements. Several people claim that the ME3 Cerberus is somehow unprecedented. Several people seem to claim that it’s possible that parts of Cerberus are do-gooders and only parts aren’t (without explaining how this can be).
You are claiming that the ME2 Cerberus and the ME one are incompatible.
All those things can be true—
if you ignore parts of the lore. Which is fine, but is exactly that.
Modifié par lillitheris, 20 septembre 2012 - 05:55 .