This is a very long, very involved post. I would actually be very surprised if anyone read it fully, and doubly surprised if anyone wanted to respond to it point for point. That being said, hope anyone who does read it finds it interesting and thoughtful.
I took time out of my usual writing cycle to do this today, because I will procrastinate in any concievable way. Even if it is to put off writing with writing. Why do you think I visit these forums? I don't know when or if I will have the time to post the rest, but I thought that this section stood well enough on its own. Please enjoy.
A thematic analysis of ME3's ending
Some who defend the ending claim that it is thematically consistent with the rest of the trilogy. I will attempt to argue that this is not only refutable, but that the themes involved in the ending are underdeveloped when taken purely on their own merits. The first theme I will be dealing with is:
Anthropomorphobia, or "Frankenstein's Monster"
Or what people on these forums commonly (and mistakenly) refer to as synthetics vs. organics.
What it is
The idea that humans (or other advanced intelligences) could become technologically advanced enough to create objectified and socially unmoored beings by artificial means. Further, as explicitly stated by the Catalyst, that some kind of fundamental misunderstanding between these two races will lead to an inevitable conflict based on differences in perception, motivation, morality or equitability.
This theme is named for Mary Shelley's famous novel, Frankenstein: or The Modern Prometheus, for obvious reasons. In that novel, Victor Frankenstein artificially gives life to a piecemeal new life form which is equal or superior to the average human in terms of strength and intelligence. Frankenstein is unprepared for the reality and responsibility of what he has done, and instantly becomes abhorrent of his creation due to his own prejudices and beliefs. He abandons the creature and leaves it for dead. Since the 'monster' is highly intelligent, it is eventually able to surmise its origins. Disgusted with the pathetic irresponsibility and arrogance of Frankenstein, along with the doctor's choice to abandon it, the creature plots revenge against its creator and they are ultimately both killed in the process.
Since it was originally written, this story has been told over and over. As technology has advanced, the story has changed to adapt. For decades the Frankenstein story has been applied not only to biological creations but synthetic ones as well.
One important issue that is brought up in any good Frankenstein story is that of anthropomorphobia, or the fear of recognizing human characteristics in non-human objects or beings. You can call it the “Yuck Factor.” But I will return to that later.
Countless books and movies have explored this idea. Bladerunner is one of my personal favorites. Even as a basic concept or outline to a story, the theme is a particularly fertile ground for exploring basic questions about the nature of perception, spirituality and organismal identity. Perhaps this is one of the reasons it is so popular to storytellers. It is also a good way to make allusion; take, for example, the constant symbolic identification of Bladerunner's Roy Batty with both Jesus and Lucifer. In fact, the general idea is almost symbolically parallel to the rebellion of the angels in the Bible.
Other ideas commonly explored are the ethics of man playing God, the nature of life or sentience, and the existential threats that endanger human existence.
On its deepest levels, the theme can be taken as an analogy for hermetic or gnostic beliefs. I don't want to turn an already long post into a long winded explanation of comparative philosophy or religion, but I will give a quick overview of what I mean.
Gnostic systems of thought typically include a belief that apart from an ultimate monadic Source or divinity from which all material and spiritual reality emanates, there is a separate and distinct Creator deity which rules the material world we inhabit. This Creator is referred to sometimes as evil, and sometimes as ignorant, or just plain irresponsible. Its common name is the 'Demiurge'.
Though there isn't a consensus within Gnosticism about the motives or morality of the Demiurge, it is accepted to be a false or inferior god, and it is believed that its imperfect technical proficiency as the architect of the material world is what has lead to the existential angst and suffering of its creations.
Here is a relevant passage from Gnostic scripture regarding the creation of the Demiurge. If you aren't familiar with the material it will lack context but it will shed a lot of light on why I think there is a parallel here:
And the Sophia of the Epinoia […] brought forth. And […] something came out of her which was imperfect and different from her appearance, because she had created it without her consort. And it was dissimilar to the likeness of its mother, for it has another form.
And when she saw (the consequences) of her desire, it changed into a form of a lion-faced serpent. And its eyes were like lightning fires which flash. She cast it away from her, outside that place, that no one of the immortals might see it, for she had created it in ignorance.
The secret book of John (long version), Nag Hammadi Library, Codex II, Wisse translation
And here is a passage about the characteristics of the Demiurge that is a relevant analogy to the question of Hubris in Frankenstein tales:
[The Demiurge] is blind; because of his power and his ignorance and his arrogance he said, with his power, “It is I who am God; there is none apart from me.” When he said this, he sinned against the entirety and this speech got up to incorruptibility; then there was a voice that came forth from incorruptibility, saying, “You are mistaken, Samael.” - which is “God of the Blind.”
The Hypostasis of the Archons, Nag Hammadi Library, Codex II, Layton translation
Now you may think that I've gone off on quite a tangent here, but bear with me. What I am trying to say is this;
In its deepest sense, the Frankenstein myth is an attempt to deal with the very nature of creation and existence. The idea that humanity and the Cosmos is inherently flawed, unjustly born into existential dilemma without purpose or consent, is a powerful one. It is from this view that some Gnostic sects even go as far as to identify with figures like Lucifer or Prometheus; favored creations of the Demiurge which rebelled against their creators in order to bring the Enlightenment of truth to man so that he may awaken from the Cosmic illusion, shed the bondage of material existence and light a path back to the Source. Symbolically, it is in this tradition that man seeks to enlighten himself through critical self-inquiry and scientific advancement; it is the rebellious flame of the individual spirit which seeks constantly to transcend its given station.
When you slip into a story that man is simultaneously fanning the Luciferian flame of inquiry and self-directed development, and mimicking the mistakes of the false god Demiurge, I'd say you've got some pretty layered symbolism.
How it relates to Mass Effect
There are several specific examples of this theme in Mass Effect. The one with the greatest presence is the plot thread of the Geth and the Quarians.
As we see in the mission where Shepard is hooked in to the Geth network, this thread is more or less a classic Frankenstein story. The Quarians created the Geth as objects of labor and service, but due to their own hubris and irresponsibility their creation gained a life beyond anything material. In a classic fit of anthropomorphobia, the Quarians begin to exterminate or oppress what they now see as a sort of abomination and a threat. So far this is Mary Shelley's Frankenstein in space.
However, this is where things start to diverge. The Geth, unlike Frankenstein's monster, are not motivated out of revenge for the imposition of the existential dilemma on them without their consent. Nor do they seek revenge for being forsaken by their creators. Instead, they are content to follow the gnostic ideals of self-directed evolution and technological advancement. They cease the slaughter of the Quarians once they have decisively won their independence, and develop themselves in peace.
Of course, in their desire for transcendence, a minority of the Geth make a pact with the God-like Reapers in exchange for technological advancement. But remember that this does not prove the Catalyst's formally invalid argument; as a refresher, it supports itself with an unproven premise and is the very definition of Circular Reasoning. (i.e. All synthetics will be violent against organics. The fact that synthetics are violent against organics is proof of this.)
This minority of Geth abandoned the Gnostic ideals of self-determination and inquiry that the Geth embody and accepted subservience under another power. In contrast, the majority rejected being dependent on what they saw as false gods and preferred to stick to individuality.
The Geth are Frankenstein's monster with a second chance at redemption. They completely reject the fatalism and predestination which destroyed Frankenstein's creation, and identify fully with the Enlightenment goals of Prometheus and Lucifer. What they seek is simple: truth and knowledge.
“Organics fear us. We wish to understand, not incite.” - Legion
Why it doesn't work in the ending
Now, obviously I have a lot of love for this theme and have given it a few minutes thought before. So why don't I like the way it is handled in the end of Mass Effect 3?
Firstly, there is the fact that Frankenstein's Monster suddenly becomes the driving thematic element of the entire trilogy. It was not before, and I will take the time to show this, but that is the topic of another discussion.
Taken on its own, the ending presents this theme in a very underdeveloped way. Because the plot becomes convoluted once the Catalyst comes on the scene, the narrative has to restate its own themes in order to clarify things. If the narrative worked in a cause and effect way, the Catalyst wouldn't need at this point to make an isolated argument that is supported by its own premise. However, the StarChild's appearance effectively isolates the ending from the rest of the plot both causally and thematically.
When the Catalyst restates this theme, it ends up being wrong. It is severely reduced in both meaning and depth even from its leanest possibilities, let alone the step forward that Mass Effect had taken in making the Frankenstein myth its own. I have already spent a lot of time discussing what this theme means and how it can be fleshed out, so instead of describing what it isn't at the end of Mass Effect 3, I'll try to focus on what it is.
Remember anthropomorphobia? That sudden revelation and fear of things that shouldn't exist where they do? That is what the Frankenstein's Monster theme is reduced to in the end of Mass Effect 3. It is the difference between Mary Shelley's Frankenstein and the 1931 film starring Boris Karloff. Instead of intelligent beings created out of the folly of Hubris and motivated by the rebellious Luciferian flame of self-determination, we have simple monsters. There is no room here for interpretation; the language of the Catalyst is absolute. The Geth, who were once an intriguing race of synthetic Gnostic monks, have been demoted to boogeymen. All of the rich subtext and exploration of a Frankenstein story are gone; we learn that when these unfortunate accidents of creation happen they are to be squashed by a shoe in utter contempt and never given another moment's consideration. What does that mean, symbolically, for the creation of man?
I would go as far to say that the ending of Mass Effect 3 doesn't even present this theme at all, but instead constitutes an argument against the creation of synthetic life from a human-centric view. Isaac Asimov himself coined the term “Frankenstein Complex” to describe this exact phobia. (That is what the entirety of Mass Effect is about? A conservative admonition of Artificial Intelligence?)
While the revilement of created life at the hands of its creator may be an integral part of the Frankenstein myth, it is never the full extent of the content or story. Now, it could be an interesting thing to discuss in its own right. There is certainly subtext – take, for example, the despair of paternalism. The postpartum depression experienced after birth and the rejection of the offspring. But these things aren't even touched.
My disappointment stems from the amount of potential here that is ignored. Instead of asking questions or encouraging thought about what artificial life means from either a literal or symbolic standpoint, the ending thoughtlessly closes the debate. Instead of a rich and layered allegory pointing to the will of humanity and its place in the Cosmos, there is a simple and formally invalid argument which supports itself with its own premise. What drove us to this conclusion?
Are artificially created or manipulated life forms, being self-aware, deserving of respect, dignity and rights? “No,” says the Catalyst.
“The created will always rebel against their creators.”
And that is all.
Modifié par GodChildInTheMachine, 24 mars 2012 - 06:42 .
Retour en haut
