Shepard the Leper wrote...
I'm only saying it isn't necesarry to know all the little details to enjoy a story. You can perfectly read HP 7 without knowing what happened in the first 6 books. You will have a less enjoyable experience and most characters will be nothing more than a name belonging to either side of the conflict, but you can still understand what's going on.
So how would someone, with no knowledge understand the characters, the plot, locations, the various tools and items which Rowling assumes people are familiar with? Book 7 assumes prior knowledge and affiliation with all six books. It actively relies upon major plot points in all of them. It's not even a coherent story without any of that information, which you are claiming is possible to understand. Even if I considered it the best in the series, I would not direct any reader to start there any more than I'd direct them to begin with Martin's A Storm of Swords. Context is everything in a story, which is given less when the author assumes you already know the details.
Primary point being: I think you're using the term "understand" too liberally here. Any viewer/reader is going to have a dramatically less enjoyable experience if they can't even digest the events which they are reading. And if that's the case, would you really direct that person to the final installment as the "best starting point"?
The 'logic' behind the "best starting point" is simple. Bioware considers ME3 to be the best game of the series (so far) which makes it a great entry point for newcomers.
Best game in the series is not going to be synonymous with the best starting point, assuming the best starting point is intended to allow maximum coherence and understanding of the story being told so far. I consider Star Wars: Episode VI to be the best of the original trilogy (others say Episode V), but I still would not recommend anyone to start at that point, because a substantial amount of what is good about it is entirely reliant on understanding the context of the trilogy. If ME3 is the best starting point, that is the prime indicator that ME1/ME2 are irrelevant.
Remember, the first installment in any series, whether it's a movie, game, or book, is always going to possess the greatest clarity, from a writing standpoint. It's where the author is 100% aware that the viewer has not engaged any of this material before, and so it must all be presented in a manner which feels logical and digestible. On subsequent installments, even if a writer takes the "recap" approach, it can never approach the same level of detail contained in that entire first installment; they can only hope to give a quick summary, unless (as Bioware claims) ME3 stands completely on its own.
This is also what happened to me with the HP books. I was hard to convince, but finally gave in and started in book 3 (those who convinced me believed that would be a better entry point to deal with my skepticism). I quickly fell in love with the magical world and its inhabitants, dropped book 3 to start at the beginning.
I would say your entry at the third book still wasn't as good a starting point as the first novel. The entire point of Book I is so that Rowling has a method of introducing the reader to the universe, along with the protagonist. It's the same tactic we see with Neo in the Matrix; he doesn't understand the real world any more than the audience (us) does, which is why he's a great means to explain to the reader how things work.
I would argue that you enjoyed Book 3 in spite of your late entry, rather than because of it. The inherent story may be better than that being told in Book 1, but that doesn't make the story easier to understand by starting halfway into the saga. That's the problem with the "ME3 is the best starting point". It cannot be the best without everything before it being irrelevant, because otherwise they would be telling us "play the original two, they provide context/meaning for ME3".
Modifié par Il Divo, 03 novembre 2011 - 11:27 .
Retour en haut
