82204 réponses à ce sujet

[Taboo]

There is no ambition is evil subtext. You're playing a game with liberal writers. You were never going to get an Ayn Rand inspired Miranda Lawson.

That's what frustrates you and it's quite apparent.

She's a human being now not some parody from a neo-conservative pamphlet.

The issue isn't Miranda, it's you.

Modifié par Taboo-XX, 03 octobre 2012 - 10:21 .

[jtav]

fiendishchicken wrote...

jtav wrote...

I don't consider myself a Mirimancer.

Then why are you here?

Because I like Miranda a great deal. but I'm not really a Shepard/Miranda person. I'm more a Thane person for romance (and Garrus and Kaidan as of ME3). Miranda's my fantasy escapist character. Not that interested in romance.

[Taboo]

jtav wrote...


Because I like Miranda a great deal. but I'm not really a Shepard/Miranda person. I'm more a Thane person for romance (and Garrus and Kaidan as of ME3). Miranda's my fantasy escapist character. Not that interested in romance.

I'll repeat what chicken asked.

WHY are you here? This is not escapist territory. This is reality time.

Don't impart yourself onto the character. THIS is why you're upset.

[fiendishchicken]

Taboo-XX wrote...

You were never going to get an Ayn Rand inspired Miranda Lawson.

Ayn Rand was full of it. 

Her views were contradictory and reactionary against everything. 

Anyone judging by these books would have to say that Rand was narcissistic in the extreme. She lacked empathy. She could be intensely charming (charm and charisma are common features of sociopathy) but was also prone to outbursts of rage and frustration.

She exploited young, emotionally vulnerable people and frequently sabotaged their self-image with her vindictive cruelty. She claimed to love her husband but carried on an affair with a younger man right in front of him, a situation that drove her husband to alcoholism.

She was a hypochondriac. She showed signs of paranoia. She had an addictive personality, smoked two packs of cigarettes daily, and gobbled handfuls of diet pills (amphetamines).

She despised "average" people, whom she regarded as ugly and stupid and irrational, while viewing herself in exalted terms as the greatest writer in history and the greatest philosopher since Aristotle.

She was concerned with no one's needs or wants or suffering except her own. She was able to claim in print that no one had ever helped her, when in fact she had benefited for years from the charity and goodwill of relatives and business associates and friends. She alienated nearly all her friends and allies by the end of her life, and died nearly alone.

[Taboo]

lol Ayn Rand.

This is the future ladies and gentlemen. I present to you Miranda Lawson, human being.

[krukow]

fiendishchicken wrote...

Ayn Rand was full of it. 

Her views were contradictory and reactionary against everything. 

Anyone judging by these books would have to say that Rand was narcissistic in the extreme. She lacked empathy. She could be intensely charming (charm and charisma are common features of sociopathy) but was also prone to outbursts of rage and frustration.

She exploited young, emotionally vulnerable people and frequently sabotaged their self-image with her vindictive cruelty. She claimed to love her husband but carried on an affair with a younger man right in front of him, a situation that drove her husband to alcoholism.

She was a hypochondriac. She showed signs of paranoia. She had an addictive personality, smoked two packs of cigarettes daily, and gobbled handfuls of diet pills (amphetamines).

She despised "average" people, whom she regarded as ugly and stupid and irrational, while viewing herself in exalted terms as the greatest writer in history and the greatest philosopher since Aristotle.

She was concerned with no one's needs or wants or suffering except her own. She was able to claim in print that no one had ever helped her, when in fact she had benefited for years from the charity and goodwill of relatives and business associates and friends. She alienated nearly all her friends and allies by the end of her life, and died nearly alone.

I misread the first part and thought you were talking about Miranda.  I thought you were trying to out-dark Taboo's headcanon.

Then I saw who you were talking about.  Poop

[jtav]

I would highly suggest you not presume to know a thing about my politics or ethics because I assure you that you don't. And if you think the only or primary reason someone might like a character is romance then your imagination is sorely limited.

[wright1978]

jtav wrote...

I would highly suggest you not presume to know a thing about my politics or ethics because I assure you that you don't. And if you think the only or primary reason someone might like a character is romance then your imagination is sorely limited.

Very true. I do romance Miranda but liking a character doesn't have to equate to romance.

[fiendishchicken]

jtav wrote...

I would highly suggest you not presume to know a thing about my politics or ethics because I assure you that you don't. And if you think the only or primary reason someone might like a character is romance then your imagination is sorely limited.

I didn't say a thing about you dear. I just criticized ayn rand. No need to get so hostile about it.

And you do dismiss a lot of the more altruistic and human tendencies to Miranda. Romance aside of course, I like Miranda because she is a strong competent woman who has connection issues with people, and of course with a real positive influence finds her humanity.

Modifié par fiendishchicken, 03 octobre 2012 - 10:36 .

[krukow]

wright1978 wrote...

jtav wrote...

I would highly suggest you not presume to know a thing about my politics or ethics because I assure you that you don't. And if you think the only or primary reason someone might like a character is romance then your imagination is sorely limited.

Very true. I do romance Miranda but liking a character doesn't have to equate to romance.

Agreed.

[Taboo]

jtav wrote...

I would highly suggest you not presume to know a thing about my politics or ethics because I assure you that you don't. And if you think the only or primary reason someone might like a character is romance then your imagination is sorely limited.

You've told everyone in this thread numerous times about both. We're all well aware of it.

You made a point of aestheticizing the wrong parts of the character and now it's come back to bite you in the bum. That's all I'm saying.

I would suggesting moving on because this IS the character. Some of us saw this coming for a long time. We're simply more vocal now.

[Ieldra]

Taboo-XX wrote...
There is no ambition is evil subtext. You're playing a game with liberal writers. You were never going to get an Ayn Rand inspired Miranda Lawson.

Sometimes the lack of a balanced take on things here scares me.

Say that you like Miranda to be more pragmatic, and people accuse you of wanting her to be a sociopath. Say you don't like the "ambition is evil" trope, and you're accused of wanting her to be "Ayn Rand inspired". Say you don't like the excessive focus on Oriana, and you're accused of wanting her to be inhuman.

And btw, just because you write more posts in here than everyone else combined doesn't make you right. You interpretation of things is just different, and telling other people to get out - well, you may achieve your objective by sheer verbosity, but then there'll be nothing left here but endless gushing. Not a place I'd want to come back to.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 03 octobre 2012 - 10:53 .

[fiendishchicken]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...
There is no ambition is evil subtext. You're playing a game with liberal writers. You were never going to get an Ayn Rand inspired Miranda Lawson.

Sometimes the lack of a balanced take on things here scares me.

Say that you like Miranda to be more pragmatic, and people accuse you of wanting her to be a sociopath. Say you don't like the "ambition is evil" trope, and you're accused of wanting her to be "Ayn Rand inspired". Say you don't like the excessive focus on Oriana, and you're accused of wanting her to be inhuman.

And btw, just because you write more posts in here than everyone else combined doesn't make you right.

Same as how if she doesn't show her professional side, it doesn't exist?

[Ieldra]

No, not at all the same, fiendishchicken. Taboo keeps reminding me that what we see it what there is. And her professional side is what we don't see. You can't have it both ways. Either Miranda is open to interpretation, then people have no point in telling me to GTFO with my interpretation, or she's not, and then people have no point in telling me to stop complaining about the impostor we've been getting.

[krukow]

Ieldra2 wrote...

No, not at all the same, fiendishchicken. Taboo keeps reminding me that what we see it what there is. And her professional side is what we don't see. You can't have it both ways. Either Miranda is open to interpretation, then people have no point in telling me to GTFO with my interpretation, or she's not, and then people have no point in telling me to stop complaining about the impostor we've been getting.

Slightly different.  Taboo's interpretation includes head canoning things that aren't shown (but are implied via end slides and iphone emails(Sigh)).

You're interpretation involves ignoring stuff Miranda actually does on screen.

You're taking away from the canon character, Taboo's adding on.  It's a difference.

Modifié par krukow, 03 octobre 2012 - 11:02 .

[hot_heart]

I'm not sure calling the character an imposter is a balanced take either.

Though, I do find the extreme characterisation from both 'sides' a little bothersome.

[jtav]

@Taboo

If you knew the slightest thing about my worldview, you would not have called me a Randian. I hold Objectivism is an evil philosophy. And I will not leave because intellectual bullies like you who try to stifle debate by being needlessly verbose, filling this thread with spam, and acting as if you are the grand arbiter of Miranda's character. I want BW to know how bad, even offensive, her character arc was in ME3 so that future games will be better.

[Ieldra]

hot_heart wrote...
I'm not sure calling the character an imposter is a balanced take either.

If Miranda was not open to interpretation, then I would maintain her ME3 incarnation is an impostor. But I've never held that position, I'm using it here to illustrate where things could be going.

@jtav:
Subscribed and emphasized.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 03 octobre 2012 - 11:06 .

[CrutchCricket]

jtav wrote...

@Taboo

If you knew the slightest thing about my worldview, you would not have called me a Randian. I hold Objectivism is an evil philosophy. And I will not leave because intellectual bullies like you who try to stifle debate by being needlessly verbose, filling this thread with spam, and acting as if you are the grand arbiter of Miranda's character. I want BW to know how bad, even offensive, her character arc was in ME3 so that future games will be better.

Opinion supression!

It's apparently what's always happened in this thread.

If it was supression before, what is now?

A regime change?

[fiendishchicken]

jtav wrote...

@Taboo

If you knew the slightest thing about my worldview, you would not have called me a Randian. I hold Objectivism is an evil philosophy. And I will not leave because intellectual bullies like you who try to stifle debate by being needlessly verbose, filling this thread with spam, and acting as if you are the grand arbiter of Miranda's character. I want BW to know how bad, even offensive, her character arc was in ME3 so that future games will be better.

Query: Why is Miranda offensive to you in Mass Effect 3?

[hot_heart]

Ieldra2 wrote...
I've never held that position, I'm using it here to illustrate where things could be going.

OK, fair enough.

Just ignore Taboo then.

[Ghost]

Taboo-XX wrote...

jtav wrote...


Because I like Miranda a great deal. but I'm not really a Shepard/Miranda person. I'm more a Thane person for romance (and Garrus and Kaidan as of ME3). Miranda's my fantasy escapist character. Not that interested in romance.

I'll repeat what chicken asked.

WHY are you here? This is not escapist territory. This is reality time.

Don't impart yourself onto the character. THIS is why you're upset.

Don't be upset we got lemon-gel.

[Ieldra]

@krukow:
The only thing I'm ignoring is Miranda's line at the CB. See Xilizhra's new thread as for why. If even Shepard can be out of character in the ME games (how many people ignore "the fight's here"?), I don't see any reason not to claim the same thing about an NPC where it's appropriate. In fact, I'd say the same about Liara's transformation between ME1 and ME2 (and I'm saying that as someone who likes the new Liara much better).

Bad writing can do such things to characters, independently from what you like. I happen to like the new Liara, but it's still inconsistent with the old one to a degree I feel unable to reconciliate. It's the same with Miranda, only here I dislike her moment of insanity.

[wright1978]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...
There is no ambition is evil subtext. You're playing a game with liberal writers. You were never going to get an Ayn Rand inspired Miranda Lawson.

Sometimes the lack of a balanced take on things here scares me.

Say that you like Miranda to be more pragmatic, and people accuse you of wanting her to be a sociopath. Say you don't like the "ambition is evil" trope, and you're accused of wanting her to be "Ayn Rand inspired". Say you don't like the excessive focus on Oriana, and you're accused of wanting her to be inhuman.

And btw, just because you write more posts in here than everyone else combined doesn't make you right. You interpretation of things is just different, and telling other people to get out - well, you may achieve your objective by sheer verbosity, but then there'll be nothing left here but endless gushing. Not a place I'd want to come back to.

QFT

[krukow]

Ieldra2 wrote...

@krukow:
The only thing I'm ignoring is Miranda's line at the CB. See Xilizhra's new thread as for why. If even Shepard can be out of character in the ME games (how many people ignore "the fight's here"?), I don't see any reason not to claim the same thing about an NPC where it's appropriate. In fact, I'd say the same about Liara's transformation between ME1 and ME2 (and I'm saying that as someone who likes the new Liara much better).

Bad writing can do such things to characters, independently from what you like. I happen to like the new Liara, but it's still inconsistent with the old one to a degree I feel unable to reconciliate. It's the same with Miranda, only here I dislike her moment of insanity.

Honestly, you're ignoring a lot more than that line, IMO.

And "the fight's here" is a different animal.  The CB line is in the first game, it's part of her still being established character.  Shep's been around for two games, his character is established.  That line's just... 

It ranks right up there with people who headcanon shep being ressurected in synthesis