Or maybe he just thinks the mountains are freaking pretty. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar dude.
1 Like
Uh, that’s my point. Why does he think the mountains are pretty? That’s because he unconsciously has an inclination toward them. It could be nostalgia. It could be him being jaded over city life. It could be anything.
That’s the whole point of literature. Do you need to know why the artist drew the mountains? No. But that’s not the point. Point is, everything can be interpreted as political. Whether or not you care about whatever political message is there is up to you. Besides, you were the one who asked.
Then what is the reason?
1 Like
Breaking of hierarchies, traditions (Khala) and all the BS of inclusiveness. All this is ideologically driven narrative.
Interpreted sure, but if youre interpreting a simple artistic gesture for the sake of beauty as political, that says a lot more about you than it does about the art.
1 Like
Yea, it was Joseph Fouché that once said: “Bring me the writing of the most honest citizen of France and i will charge him with treason!”
Beauty itself can be politically driven. The fact that people decide what is beautiful and what isn’t is already itself politcal. E.g. nature is beautiful. That already implies a pro-nature ideology (we must protect nature). It’s not blatantly political, it’s something more subconscious, a concept we take for granted.
And again, as I said, whether you care about the political message or not is completely up to you. You can just disregard or ignore it, it doesn’t matter. That’s not important. The important thing is that you claim that art is not political, and I’m saying it is. Just because you choose to ignore the politics doesn’t make them lose their political meaning/agenda/whatever. Like OldWhoGotBan said, if you choose not to care about the politics of art, that stance is itself already political.
But I’m digressing, and this really isn’t important.
As I said, the problem wasn’t “inclusiveness” or woke or whatever. It was the execution, the lack of stakes and proper motivation. If the Purifiers or whoever actually had a valid reason to challenge the hierarchy (you know, because they were being oppressed or whatever), you probably wouldn’t care about the so-called inclusiveness or “woke” to begin with. You only feel that way because of the awful execution and lack of stakes, and not because of the political correctness or the concept of “inclusivity” itself.
Let’s put it this way, Wings of Liberty and even Brood War are ideologically driven narratives, but you aren’t complaining about them. Why? Because they were executed a lot better than the last two expansions. They had stakes and clear motivations. Wings of Liberty was literally about fighting against tyranny for freedom. Nothing wrong with it, even though it clearly promotes inclusivity and challenging authority or the breaking of hierarchies. Simply because if Raynor didn’t, he and his raiders would be screwed.
1 Like
You say this without context. If you watched how the world was going in that year, it become pretty obvious it was an attempt to normalize Woke on the gaming population.
But like anything the Left does, it is so hamfisted and low energy, that it just comes across as preachy and childish.
Wokeness just does not work, neither in fiction, or the real world.
It is just the current flavour of puritanism, and it ages just as rotten.
2 Likes
Let me get this straight. So Amanda Ripley being the protagonist of Alien: Isolation is an attempt to normalize woke on the gaming population? Did you have a problem with Nova being the playable character in Starcraft: Ghost (though it got cancelled), what with her psi-index of 10 and her being a powerful psyker?
It’s not the “woke” that you seem to be bothered about, it’s the way it was executed. As you pointed out, it was hamfisted and low energy. But having a strong female protagonist isn’t a problem, nor is it woke. It’s how they turned her into a Mary Sue and awful writing that’s the problem, not some imaginary agenda to “normalize woke” as you put it.
That’s a strawman. No one is arguing that wokeness is having strong female characters. For God’s Sake Vorazun is the daughter of Raszagal the MATRIARCH of the Dark Templar.
Much bigger problems are with credibility (in the SC2 frame of reference) of what’s happened.
Amon was Xel’Naga and by himself is capable to obliterate Protoss and Zerg combined (as creatures created by Xel’Naga themselves, and i don’t even count humans that are nothing in front of the power of Protoss/Zerg).
They tried to regain the credibility by transferring Xel’Naga powers to Kerrigan in order to kill Amon.
But all that happened before that moment is foolish considering the disproportionality of powers.
That is an Ultralisk sized hole in the credibility of the plot.
2 Likes
Exactly. You named all the problems with the story without having to resort to “it’s bad because it’s Woke.” So…yeah. The plot holes are massive. There is no credibility. It’s inconsistent. The characters were badly written. They broke the laws that were already established in their universe. You had strong female characters anyway, which didn’t make the plot bad. It turned bad because they decided to turn Kerrigan into a god mode Mary Sue.
Her gender doesn’t matter. If they turned Reynor or Artanis into a Xel-naga god, the plot would still have been awful.
2 Likes
Admech you’re debating altright trolls, just give up dude.
1 Like
Amanda Ripley did not become an angel of light to defeat Space Satan, and she died to stop the Alien.
Amanda Ripley has a believable storyline, Kerrigan went from being a pawn of Mengsk, to a pawn of the Overmind, to the “Queen B-itch of the Universe”, to having her revenge, and lastly becoming God.
One of these things is not like the other, one of these things is not written well and is just politicized garbo.
1 Like
Disagree, Kerrigan should have just died as the brutal villain she was, they ruined her in the ending of WoL, and the soap opera that was HoTS.
1 Like
Clearly the problem isn’t “politicized garbo” but simply because it was badly written BS that turned the protagonist into a bloody god mode Mary Sue. It has nothing to do with her gender.
Again, what does any of this have to do with “woke” or “feminist” BS? It would have still been awful if you swapped her gender.
Imagine if it was Raynor who went from being a pawn of Mengsk, to a pawn of Kerrigan, to becoming the Hero of the Terran Dominion, to having his revenge on Mengsk, and then turning into God. It would still have been just as awful. And you would never have associated it with your political rubbish, despite it also being s*y writing.
1 Like
I think I might be one of the only people who likes the SC2 story. I really liked the purifier program side-story in regards to if a robot is self aware and is sentient, is it deserving of respect and rights like anyone else? It reminds me of the Omnics from Overwatch. I played through the SC1 campaign and it all felt pretty average. At least its better than the storylines for red alert.
I gess, it’s BOTH, that’s why i tend to agree with both of your positions. It’s ridiculous that after 3000 Years (aproximate time when Iliad was created by Homer) people have difficulties writing plots with no gigantic holes in it.
In order to make the history of Troy credible (while including Gods in the affairs of men), Homer did two things.
- Removed Zeus (he being the only God that was able to overrule the lesser Gods) by making him neutral.
- Split the other Gods nearly equally in their support for Greeks and Trojans.
We have one of the most ancient and perfect human creation in the field of literature still read and thought upon after 3000 Years.
Some PC (politically correct in the BS du-jour) ignoramuses, in their infinite arrogance thought to “improve” Homer!
1 Like
All politicized garbo is badly written. Politics taints whatever it touches completely and thoroughly.
It started as a good and normal story of revenge and accepting darkness as a consequence of it, and then turned into woke garbo.
You cannot have vengeance, and remain a good character. Vengeance comes with a price, and Kerrigan did not pay that price.
The very concept of redeeming Kerrigan, in WoL, was already bad. As soon as she was free from the Overmind, she already had self-autonomy, and made her own choices.
Then they pulled up the “secretly controlled by Space Satan the whole time!” card, and it made her whole Brood war arch nonsensical.
They clearly wanted to make a heroine out of a good villain, because she is female, and nothing else.
It comes with “women can do no wrong” and “it is all the Patriarchy’s fault” excuses, right down to the point. It is a Feminist perspective on women, not a good or realistic one.
Kerrigan CHOSE to be a villain, when she was free from the Overmind. They should have stuck with that.
I would rather have the “Queen B-itch of the Universe”, then this neo-modernist, ill conceived fantasy morality, that completely disregards both the previous lore scenario, and the ability of women to choose wrong.
1 Like
If you make a hero out of a good villain, even if he is male, it would still have been awful writing. And I don’t know how you could even get
just from Starcraft 2’s storyline. That obviously wasn’t what happened. The reason why they turned her into a Mary Sue goddess was simply because they got too attached to her and couldn’t bear to kill her off. As you said,
That is simply the problem. Not because she is female or the woke BS you are claiming.
No, they did it to her because Kerrigan is female, no other reason.
They did not try to redeem Mengsk, for example, because Kerrigan vs Mengsk is their allegory for Feminism vs the Patriarchy.
That is why the storyline sucks, it became a modern political fantasy, rather than it’s own story, like Brood War was.
This is why people are comparing Sylvanas to Kerrigan, because they know Blizz will pull some BS excuse for “Sylvie was just misunderstood and manipulated by a patriarch (Arthas) all along”, and reshape a genocidal mass murderer into a heroine, just because it is a woman.
It is exactly the “women can do no wrong” Feminist doctrine.