88 réponses à ce sujet

[Divulse456]

SDW wrote...

It's not only my definition. And on a sidenote: Saying I use my own definitions, inferring I didn't check before I posted, sounds quite condescending. As have others of your statements before. I discuss with you based on arguments and would appreciate it if you did the same.

You said you "disagreed" with the definition, not that you would rather substitute an alternative for it.

Assuming you won't accept definitions from websites about novel-writing, I looked online for actual published books.
These dictionaries also say that themes are ideas in a literary work:
http://books.google....e theme&f=false
http://books.google....e theme&f=false
http://books.google....epage&q&f=false

I didn't find quite as much on "conflict" online. At least this one says it's the things that oppose each other in the plot:
http://books.google....epage&q&f=false

And not a direct definition, but this one talks about that it's conflicts that are resolved:
http://books.google....epage&q&f=false

The first link doesn't point to an article for me for some reason, maybe something on my end.  The others are good though.

1.) The Quinn Dictionary of Literary and Thematic Terms p.418 "... in contemporary literature... PLOT and CHARACTER are often obscure, while THEME offers a consistent thread through which the reader can unify the narrative."  Sounds like the statements I've made about synthetic vs. organic conflict.

2.)Cambridge Academic Content Dictionary p. 990 "Theme is also the main idea of a work of literature or art."
I'm not sure how that contradicts what I've said.  The main idea explored in the ME trilogy is synthetic vs. organic conflict.  As I said in my original post "This does not rule out other themes.  Indeed, ancient epics all have side-stories and minor themes, both filling up episodes and prevailing throughout.  ME is similar; however, the main theme is the one first introduced, and it is done according to the epic formula."

Also, don't use an academic content dictionary to argue a point of literary theory, since it won't give you much to work on.  Quinn's is the much more appropriate reference here.

On a purely linguistic standpoint as well: How can one "resolve" a theme?

If the theme is something that can be resolved, such as a conflict, "resolve" is the appropriate word to use.  The main theme of the Aeneid, expressed in the first word of the entire epic, is conflict. (arma virumque cano) This theme is resolved with the death of Turnus in the last lines of the epic.  

Modifié par Divulse456, 22 avril 2012 - 10:10 .

[Divulse456]

Chashan wrote...

Heh, I thought of pointing to exactly these, since I recently read through Bar-Kochva's Seleucid Army for a presentation and paper for university.

I had dinner with him once when he came to the US to give a lecture in a seminar I was taking.  A fascinating man.  Superb scholar.  Judas Maccabaeus is his magnum opus, IMHO.

That there isn't any true example in ancient epics which ME3 could follow for its conclusion does kind of show the problem of assigning it a structure based on those very epics. Not including exposition of the divinity's interest in the proceedings at hand well before the finale to me seems to be the wrong place to depart from the structure established by the epics, since it is very much crucial to it.

You may have misconstrued my original claim, or I may have been unclear (this is more likely).  To be an epic, a work does not have to possess all 9 characteristics outlined in a clear and unambiguous way.  Indeed, many ancient epics did not.  There is, of necessity, an arbitrary line that needs to be drawn.  How many of those characteristics does a work need to qualify? 7?  8?  I believe that ME contains enough.  In fact, I think it contains more than Ovid's Metamorphoses.

Modifié par Divulse456, 22 avril 2012 - 09:59 .

[AlanC9]

Divulse456 wrote...
You may have misconstrued my original claim, or I may have been unclear (this is more likely).  To be an epic, a work does not have to possess all 9 characteristics outlined in a clear and unambiguous way.  Indeed, many ancient epics did not.  There is, of necessity, an arbitrary line that needs to be drawn.  How many of those characteristics does a work need to qualify? 7?  8?  I believe that ME contains enough.  In fact, I think it contains more than Ovid's Metamorphoses.

But what I take away from this is that the whole effort to classify stories in this fashion is completely worthless. Knowing whether or not ME fits into the box marked "Epic" tells us .......what?

[Divulse456]

Things are defined by the categories into which they fit. If we ignore the categories, we can't talk or communicate meaningfully. But then, who would want to actually SAY anything anyways?

[SDW]

You said you "disagreed" with the definition, not that you would rather substitute an alternative for it. 

I do disagree with that definition because to my knowledge, it is incorrect. Of course I could also have said "That is wrong.". But that's being rather blunt.
And I did follow that statement by giving those definitions of "theme" and "conflict" that are, according to my knowledge of literature, correct.

One last time back on track and then I really need to go to bed. What made me reply in the first place was that you said the theme at the beginning of the story is the same as at the ending.
I'll be nitpicky. The very beginning is about Shepard. We eavesdrop on three characters talking about him and that it takes people like him to protect the universe. Going by that, the theme would have to be heroism or protecting the world.
And in the introduction to the first battle, even before we get to see the Geth, there is a shot of the Sovereign. The video displayed is stopped at that position and our attention drawn to it.  So the Reapers are introduced even before the Geth. 
And rightfully so. After all, the core conflict is with the Reapers, the central antagonist. 
Their actions drive the plot: In the aftermath of the Geth attack (masterminded by the Reapers) the hero gets his vision from the beacon, something that sets him apart from the other characters. Following in the tracks of their puppet Saren, Shepard discovers that the Reapers exist, that they must be stopped and that there is the "Conduit" which he tries to find to foil the Reapers' plans etc.
I'm saying that to illustrate that the Reapers take center stage. Other antagonists are either related to them (Saren) or not as big as them (Illusive Man ... who first fights them, then wants to submit them, so his efforts are also related to them in some way). Therefore, whatever the main theme is, it must be somehow related to them or their actions.

Having said that, I correct my statement saying the theme or conflict is indeed "synthetics against organics" in some way. As RyuujinZERO said, the Reapers are not entirely synthetic and not entirely organic, rather are a mixture of both.
The same applies to their helpers: Either synthetic (the heretics), organic (Saren, indoctrinated humans/aliens) or organic/synthetic (husks, banshees, brutes ...).
Again the words plot and theme: The plot is the means by which the theme is conveyed. The goal of our actions during the plot is to stop the Reapers. With them being something not fitting in just one of both categories, the main theme cannot be "organics against synthetics".

And lastly, if someone said that all this is true, but that the main conflict is not against them because the Catalyst says so ... then where was the proof for that over the course of all the rest of the story? You can certainly tell a story with the theme "Inevitability of organic extinction by synthetic lifeforms". Only then the author has to prove his point within the plot. Otherwise, it's not surprising when people complain that the ending goes against what came before.

Modifié par SDW, 23 avril 2012 - 01:04 .

[Divulse456]

I'll be nitpicky. The very beginning is about Shepard.

Which I said.  From the OP:"Shepard is introduced first, like Odysseus and Aeneas.  The theme is introduced immediately after, much like nostos (homecoming) in the Odyssey, and piety in the Aeneid."

We eavesdrop on three characters talking about him and that it takes people like him to protect the universe. Going by that, the theme would have to be heroism or protecting the world.

It would not "have to be", but it could possibly be.  The fact that the climax at the end of the trilogy has to do with organic vs synthetic conflict suggests that this is not the case.  At best, these can be smaller, less important themes than the main one.  Like "kleos" in the Iliad.

After all, the core conflict is with the Reapers, the central antagonist.

The identity of the antagonist has no effect on the theme itself, only on how the theme is explored.

I'm saying that to illustrate that the Reapers take center stage. Other antagonists are either related to them (Saren) or not as big as them (Illusive Man ... who first fights them, then wants to submit them, so his efforts are also related to them in some way). Therefore, whatever the main theme is, it must be somehow related to them or their actions.

Having said that, I correct my statement saying the theme or conflict is indeed "synthetics against organics" in some way. As RyuujinZERO said, the Reapers are not entirely synthetic and not entirely organic, rather are a mixture of both.

Therefore acting as characters that act as a physical manifestation of the main theme; synthetic vs. organic.

Again the words plot and theme: The plot is the means by which the theme is conveyed. The goal of our actions during the plot is to stop the Reapers. With them being something not fitting in just one of both categories, the main theme cannot be "organics against synthetics".

Of course it can. At the end of the story, when the reaper attack is ended, there is no more conflict between synthetic and organic life.  The conflict introduced at the beginning is resolved at the end. 

And lastly, if someone said that all this is true, but that the main conflict is not against them because the Catalyst says so ... then where was the proof for that over the course of all the rest of the story? You can certainly tell a story with the theme "Inevitability of organic extinction by synthetic lifeforms". Only then the author has to prove his point within the plot. Otherwise, it's not surprising when people complain that the ending goes against what came before.

Again, plot vs. theme.  It makes no difference if, in the end, it turns out the reapers are just tools and not the main antagonist.  the identity of the antagonist has no bearing on the nature of the theme.  If you don't like how the plot turns out, fantstic.  It is a non-issue for my enjoyment, and it is a non-issue for categorizing the ME story as an epic.  The theme should not ever be confused with the author's qualitative judgements of the themes nature, value, or significance.

Modifié par Divulse456, 23 avril 2012 - 01:34 .

[Divulse456]

oops  double post.

Modifié par Divulse456, 23 avril 2012 - 01:36 .

[Divulse456]

yikes, triple post.  sorry

Modifié par Divulse456, 23 avril 2012 - 01:36 .

[InvincibleHero]

RyuujinZERO wrote...

I would like to call into question #4.

The "synthetics Vs organics" thing is quickly dispelled in ME1 as being little more than a cover story to hide the real antagonists (Cyborgs) behind. I'm not much a classical reader, but it's not uncommon in storytelling to place one "foe" at the forefront, only to later reveal that another greater foe is puppeting them, often the original foe even becomes an ally - as the Geth do.

ME2 does not even touch upon Synthetics Vs organics; ME2 is all about the very organic collectors, harvesting organics in order to create cyborg monstrosities - and let's be clear here. Cyborg != Synthetic; cyborgs are the natural evolution of the concept of "humanity". (Humanity is defined by it's ability to use tools to further it's goals. The natural extrapolation of this is where man and his tools become indistinguishable from one and the other, where the man ends and the tool begins is gone)... I imagine this is what the writers were trying to get at in the synthesis ending but they just plain screwed it up.

Anyway the point holds that "synthetic Vs organic" never plays more than a sideshow part of the grand story arc; the Geth attacks in ME1, and the geth Vs Quarian side story in all 3 games, but the geth and the Quarians are not the defining story of ME, they are a sideshow to the galactic war which is harder to pin down thematiclly. (transhumanism?)

Moridin says little of prothean remains and almost everything replaced by tech. The collectors are more sythetic than organic. They seem more like the reapers turned inside out. They have an organic shell over their mechanical innards.

[MrAtomica]

This post is chock full of spoilers. I regret that this must be the case, but they are important to the argument that I try and make. If you don't want to see them, skip my post.































*SPOILERS*

It should be noted that the "synthetics" that constitute the Catalyst and its minions (the Heretics, the Collectors, the Reapers) are not of the same sort as the "synthetics" that comprise the "normal" Geth and EDI.

The former are essentially pawns of the Catalyst. The Heretics exhibit some modicum of freedom, but they are ultimately hostile only because of the presence of the Reapers. Without said leadership, it isn't necessarily farfetched to assume they would still be a part of the Geth Collective.

As such, the theme of Organics vs. Synthetics is deceptively named. Taken at face value, it paints all synthetic life with one brushstroke, and consequently fails to distinguish the fact that the Catalyst and his minions are the only sufficiently large example of the supposedly inevitable conflict he makes reference to.

I cannot accept the premise that an Organic-Synthetic Conflict is the overarching theme of this trilogy. It might have been, if the Reapers and the Catalyst had not been revealed, but they more or less removed any other concern with their arrival. Rather than this, I would posit that the theme is simply "Defeat the Reapers (Defeat the Catalyst, more appropriately)". It sounds decidedly less grandiose and philosophical than the idea of some fundamental divide between two disparate forms of life, but it fits in better with the overall aim of the games.

To tie this back into my first point, the "synthetics" that the Catalyst points to are ALL synthetics, whereas those that we actually fight in the course of the trilogy are almost entirely synthetics of the Catalyst's creation (or under his control). In that sense, I suppose it's still feasible to say that the theme is Organics vs. Synthetics, just not in the sense that I think you meant it.

That is where my problems with the ending stem from; by suddenly switching from "Defeat the Reapers (malevolent synthetics)" to "Organics vs. Synthetics (as a whole)", the whole narrative feels contorted. I am not inclined to believe that ALL synthetics, gaining sentience, are predisposed to the annihilation of organic life. That can be argued, but the theme doesn't mesh well with the rest of the story.

If the whole purpose of this series was to convey an underlying hostility between organics and synthetics, why bother with the Reapers at all? For that matter, why conceal the ostensible theme behind sympathetic synthetic characters? There seemed to be a clear distinction between the Reapers (evil) and other synthetic life (EDI/"normal" Geth - a range, from friendly to disinterested). The fact that this conflict was brought to the foreground at the very last moment is perplexing.

For argument's sake: I suspect that you will bring up Javik's talk of the Metacon War as evidence of synthetic aggression. I do recall that you have also mentioned the small side missions in both ME1 and ME2 regarding Rogue AIs. These do indeed lend some credence to the Catalyst's claim. They are not, however, a part of the main storyline. In order to hear of them, you must actively wander off the beaten path for a time, so to speak. As such, I do not believe that they are sufficient proof that the theme is in keeping with the Catalyst's assertions.

Furthermore, these situations were all resolved. Shepard quite easily deactivates the few rogue synthetics he encounters, and Javik mentions that his people were beginning to win the war before the arrival of the Reapers. The Catalyst implies that synthetics are not only solely interested in killing off their creators, but are also destined to succeed. In the context of the examples that we find within the games, this simply isn't proven. I also find it particularly interesting that the Reapers seem to arrive after hostilities between organics and synthetics have already begun, but that is an entirely separate topic.

*END SPOILERS*

Modifié par MrAtomica, 23 avril 2012 - 03:33 .

[SDW]

Divulse456 wrote...

We eavesdrop on three characters talking about him and that it takes people like him to protect the universe. Going by that, the theme would have to be heroism or protecting the world.

It would not "have to be", but it could possibly be.  The fact that the climax at the end of the trilogy has to do with organic vs synthetic conflict suggests that this is not the case.  At best, these can be smaller, less important themes than the main one.  Like "kleos" in the Iliad.
 

 

At that point, I didn't say it is the theme, just going by what is first presented.
Though when I think about it, yes, protecting the world is the ultimate goal in all games. The Reapers enter the equation shortly after as what the world has to be protected from.

After all, the core conflict is with the Reapers, the central antagonist.

The identity of the antagonist has no effect on the theme itself, only on how the theme is explored.

Well, you do say shortly after:

Therefore acting as characters that act as a physical manifestation of the main theme; synthetic vs. organic.

It can't be both ways. Do the antagonists in this particular story represent part of the theme or not.

But going by that last statement: If that's the theme and it is represented by the Reapers, how come they can embody synthetic/organic in one body? If the theme is that these two cannot be reconciled, it wouldn't be possible. They'd have to be against themselves.

 
Again, plot vs. theme.  It makes no difference if, in the end, it turns out the reapers are just tools and not the main antagonist.  the identity of the antagonist has no bearing on the nature of the theme.  If you don't like how the plot turns out, fantstic.  It is a non-issue for my enjoyment, and it is a non-issue for categorizing the ME story as an epic.  The theme should not ever be confused with the author's qualitative judgements of the themes nature, value, or significance.

Why do you say "plot vs. theme"? That sounds as if they are opposites. They are not; one depends of the other. The plot is the physical manifestation of the theme. Thus, the theme cannot be something that is not featured prominently in the plot.

What if during the whole Iliad, Achilles' wrath was either never mentioned or only twice in passing, and then at the end, there was the statement that now, finally, Achilles puts to rest the great wrath that had always been an integral part of his character? It would be confusing.
And that's just what I said about the ending: Not "I dislike it" (I do, but where did I write that?), but "It goes against the theme".

I see that the main point where we disagree is what synthetics are. You put Reapers and  what I had called "organic-created synthetics" in one category.
That simply cannot be correct, for the specific distinction made between them within the plot, summarized by MrAtomica and again below:

As said, the Reapers are both organic and synthetic. That should be sufficient already.
And once again, if we rather assume that by being both, they are living representations of the conflict, then why do they function perfectly and are not in conflict with themselves?
In character, they are also vastly different from organic-created synthetics. While the Reapers are merciless in their harvest and cannot be bargained with, the organic-created synthetics want pretty much the same as organics: The right to live. They are peaceful when given that right.*
And in the end fight, the organic-created synthetics fight on one side with the organics, against the Reapers. If Reapers, AIs and Geth all represent the same concept, shouldn't they be on the same side? At the very least, it would blur the theme.

MrAtomica has a point when he says it's specifically the Reapers that everything goes against.

* Note and last words: And that's why the theme of the ending cannot rightfully be deduced from the plot. It's disproven elsewhere, plain and simple.

Modifié par SDW, 23 avril 2012 - 06:49 .

[dubdevo]

I did not like the ending, BUT the game is great. I read 2 of the novels, and all the comics....way more than just fan service. The ending of 3 is the only thing that leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Thats just my take. Its epic to me. I don't think a movie will ever entertain me as much ME 1, 2, and 3 did. (aside from the crap ending) But its all my perspective.

[Zakatak757]

As far as sci-fi goes, I wouldn't call it an "epic". Nothing about it is really original. It obviously borrows alot from HG Wells and JMS and Roddenberry. Reapers are clearly Cthulu, the Citadel is clearly Babylon 5. Biotics has been done practically everywhere. "Mass Effect" is a technology that has existed in plenty of other sci-fi's, mainly Star Trek and Andromeda. The main story isn't really cohesive with the extended universe, and there isn't much in the way of creativity. The "message/theme" of the story is related to synthetics, which doesn't really have any appeal or meaning in this day and age.

It is an excellent game series, no doubt, but as a sci-fi, it is pretty average at best.

Modifié par Zakatak757, 24 avril 2012 - 01:43 .

[Chashan]

Divulse456 wrote...

Chashan wrote...

Heh, I thought of pointing to exactly these, since I recently read through Bar-Kochva's Seleucid Army for a presentation and paper for university.

I had dinner with him once when he came to the US to give a lecture in a seminar I was taking.  A fascinating man.  Superb scholar.  Judas Maccabaeus is his magnum opus, IMHO.

You certainly get around, alright. I hope to one day see the man in person myself. Failing that, I guess I'll be on the lookout for other work of his to peruse should I touch upon a subject he might have dealt with.

You may have misconstrued my original claim, or I may have been unclear (this is more likely).  To be an epic, a work does not have to possess all 9 characteristics outlined in a clear and unambiguous way.  Indeed, many ancient epics did not.  There is, of necessity, an arbitrary line that needs to be drawn.  How many of those characteristics does a work need to qualify? 7?  8?  I believe that ME contains enough.  In fact, I think it contains more than Ovid's Metamorphoses.

To further elaborate what I meant: Imagine Goethe's Faust minus the prologue in heaven, which can be seen as a more or less direct copy of the Job prologue, thematically speaking. To be sure, Goethe "merely" took a rather well-known renaissance story of an alchemist and put his own spin to it, and I admittedly do not know if that original story followed Job's tale in the Old Testament suit already in framing its narrative in a similar way or whether Goethe inserted it. In any case, without that exposition Goethe's life-long work would lose much of its impact in my view. 
Granted, I do abhor the way he wraps up the story, since I think that a "happy ending" for Doctor Faust is simply out of the question (hence why I skip the last handful of pages): he enters his pact with Mephistopheles knowing fully well of the consequences and actively takes part in his exploits, and God essentially breaches that contract for Faust in the space of the very last pages - this "cheating" on Mephistopheles ironically puts the latter in the morally right as I like to think, but I digress.



I did not mean to misconstrue your point or dismiss it as outright invalid, in fact I did find your take on comparing Mass Effect's overall narrative to the tales of ancient Greece interesting.
It's just that if Bioware were to come out and say that they wished to emulate the Illiad's and/or Odyssey's narrative architecture for how Mass Effect played out, then one has got to wonder just why they did not embed a more elaborate exposition for the divine/diabolic entity's vested interest in the proceedings of their trilogy's final tale. I think we can agree that the Illiad, without properly intertwining the infighting in the pantheon over the conflict among the mortals, and the Odyssey, without the establishment of Poseidon's intention to impede Odysseus's homecoming at every turn possible, would not be as meaningful as they are if they did something similar to what we see in Mass Effect 3.

It is also not like Bioware have not done it before, namely in Mass Effect 2 where we are treated to listening in on the one force that manages to resurrect Shepard from the dead in the prologue, and who has a profound interest in that instalment's proceeding narrative. I am not saying that TIM is a "god-like force" here, and indeed "dei ex machinae" do not need to be divine to be classified as such.

You also mentioned your interest in the tale of Gilgamesh*, an interest that I do share at that. That epic has a markedly different outcome to the tragic heroes' deaths we find in Greek tales such as the Illiad, namely that Gilgamesh lives to reign over the city of Ur up until his death after he is done with adventuring, and to mourn the death of his comrade Enkidu. With what we are left with as of now, I think Bioware could even implement an outcome similar to this in their director's/"Extended" cut given the "bonus" we are able to get for the destroy-ending. I just hope that the as of now more obvious, but hopefully not final role of deceased to be mourned there will at least get some proper farewell before their eulogy if they do pull through with that. 



*PS: That tale, and the implications of the influence it likely had on later cultures is the key reason I would just love to delve deeper into the history of the region between Euphrat and Tigris prior to the hellenistic incursion. To be had, I would not be surprised if that tale was not so much told as sung, given its form. Here's hoping that someone will unearth a comprehensive songbook of it at some point...

Modifié par Chashan, 24 avril 2012 - 10:18 .