UrgentArchengel wrote...
Is it me, or do the Anti-IT posts feel like picket signs?
I can understand not caring about IT... or not being persuaded by the evidence... or being angry about the ending....
But I can't understand being so angry about the
idea of IT that you'd come in here just to mindlessly tear at it, without obviously having considered it... I don't understand that.
I had a frustrating encounter with a friend, though. He recently finished the game, was complaining about the ending (as you do), so I said... well, hell, this was on twitter, I can transcript it:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Me: "How do you feel about INDOCTRINATION THEORY?!?"
Him: "I have no idea what that is."
"There are numerous video that lay it out very comprehensively, but the definitive explanation is here:
http://masseffectind...on.blogspot.com I would maintain that no analysis of the ending which does not at least consider IT is deeply flawed."
"This is one of those 'the story you saw was not the REAL story' things, isn't it? You know I don't understand those things."
"I think this is a very interesting data point in our prev conversation* on the issue- how many clues in the text does I think this is a very interesting data point in our prev conversation on the issue- how many clues in the text does it take before you can attribute authorial intent towards a nonliteral meaning? The interesting thing about this case is that we can't know until the EC comes out- but I am placing all my bets on IT being validated come August."
"It's less about authorial intent than about assessing a story solely as a work of fiction without projecting more into it. I fully understand 'I think X would have been a better story', but can't get into 'I think this story was actually X'. Sure, if the DLC develops and reshapes the story, that's interesting - but that's modification, not interpretation. I'm not saying it's 'wrong' to look at stories this way, but it's fundamentally not something I get. But it's cool that you do."
"But that is not what IT is- it is driven entirely by in-game evidence. It maintains this was the intent of the author (Bioware). The beauty of IT is that the EC does not have to modify the ending- it can just lift the veil. Bioware have said they are not going to change the ending, and IT is entirely consistent with the existing ending."
"I tend to apply Occam's Razor. What's likelier - subtle clubs buried in the work to reward the true fans, or just bad writing?"
"In this case, the former is far more likely, especially given the preponderance of in-game evidence."
"I'm all in favour of subtle clues in stories - I'm a big fan of Gene Wolfe - but a good writer reveals the trick at the end. If there are all these IT clues, but the story never admits to them at the end, then that's just another form of bad writing."
"IT maintains that the EC will be the 'prestige', giving everyone time to experience/interpret the ending before the reveal."
"Well, we'll see. I don't really have a problem with the ending either way in terms of story, just in terms of bad storytelling."
"Yes, unfortunately we can only 'know' once the EC is revealed, but I am really enjoying not knowing- its a genuine mystery. In a wikipedia world where you can find the answers to everything, it's nice to have a genuine mystery to puzzle over."
"Hmm. Okay, I get that, but I think that mass-market narratives aren't the best place for such. Better for ARGs and the like. But yeah, okay, that's an interesting point."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
So... the frustrating this about this friend is that he is an author, he is very interested in the craft of writing... but is utterly uninterested in subtext, implication, ambiguity in narrative, metaphor as communication... it's very frustrating to me, because those are the things that interest me most in fiction. He is basically going to dismiss IT because it's not explicit... but that's the point!
*We had an argument about whether or not Irene Adler dies in the latest Sherlock Holmes movie (Game of Shadows)- I maintained that there was some onscreen evidence that she did not- he maintained that it 'didn't matter' whether she did or not, because unless it is EXPLICIT in the text, it cannot be considered.
Modifié par Destructorlio, 19 juin 2012 - 01:49 .
Ce sujet est fermé
Retour en haut
