HYR 2.0 wrote...
Darks1d3 wrote...
I don't know, I think this analysis is also interesting (thank you MadCat for supplying this link in your sig), and the author doesn't like any of the endings.
http://social.biowar...ndex/11435886/1
That guy doesn't get the ending.
I think his criticism is based on a perfectly valid mainstream reading of the ending. No matter how much their fans might deny it, Destroy does have that traditionalist pro-organic thematic vibe, Control is indeed based on the antagonists' failed modus operandi, and Synthesis does have the anti-diversity vibe. No matter how the EC endings show us that there won't be any actual in-world adverse effects because of what is, in the end, an out-of-world aspect of the story, these thematic currents exist and influence how people perceive the endings.
Countless times I've said that all three main endings are meant to be good endings, even before the EC. I stand by that. However, they are not sufficiently *shown* to be good endings in the original version, and the thematic vibes above are so strong that some find the EC versions incongruous.
When I wrote the OP of this thread, I was fully aware of the thematic currents and of the fact that I was writing against them, fighting an uphill battle to establish a non-mainstream reading of the Synthesis based on a kind of SF-related socialization not shared by many I suspect. That this reading was difficult to establish has its reasons not in any inherent problem with the idea of Synthesis, but, even disregarding the problems with the implementation, in the way the story which came before established similar things as thoroughly undesirable. I happen to like the thematic aspect of "taking the other into yourself", but it becomes problematic in a story with imagery that did its best to establish that "other" as irredeemably evil and something that shouldn't exist. I happen to like "the strengths of both, the weaknesses of neither", but these words were used by an antagonist, and while it is an association fallacy to conclude that the idea is flawed based on that, this is, unfortunately, how such things work in a mainstream reading of the story.
This is, in the end, why I tend to say "I like the endings, it's the story that came before which is flawed", because my dislike for the rampant traditionalism (by which I mean, among other things, the abomination aesthetic, the conventional feel-good morality and the heart-over-mind vibe) of the first 95% of ME3 knows no bounds. While I like what they are meant to convey and have based my OP on a positive reading of the original Synthesis and the acknowledgement of the spirit of the EC version (discarding only the religion), the endings are like a neon-green hat worn together with a grey suit - way more interesting than many people here give them credit for, but somewhat jarring if you have been conditioned to expect a grey hat. So drayfish has a point when he says there is a thematic discontinuity.
Where I disagree with drayfish is the "moral message" sent by the endings. As much as it galls me having to agree with Javik, there is wisdom in his line "stand in the ashes of a trillion dead souls and ask the ghosts if honor matters. The silence is your answer." I think the endings require that you accept that mindset, and that alone should show you how utterly non-mainstream and against the spirit of much what came before they are created. However, I think it is a message that needs to be sent and a mindset occasionally required from anyone who would fancy themselves a leader, in fiction or not.
Guest_StreetMagic_*
Retour en haut
