yeah but immediately after doesn’t she say that they mean nothing to her?
Yes. But that’s sorta the point.
That entire scenario was Sylvanas trying to convince herself that she had no reason to live.
Her immediate reaction to seeing the Forsaken’s destruction betrays her true feelings.
Feelings that she then buries cause she wants to die.
So she proclaims she feels nothing for them and proceeds to die.
Pretty sad, really.
Side note: I’m curious what Edge of Night would look like with the retroactive Shadowlands changes.
Like, the Valkyr wouldn’t even bother showing her these visions. They’d just take her straight to Zoovy since that was their job. Straight to Zoovy then to the Lava Eels.
6 Likes
Then whence she convinces herself that she has a reason to live, she states that none may make the Forsaken die for them but her, because they are her shield.
She is not in the corner of the Forsaken.
She has never been in their corner.
Right.
Reducing people to tools is how Sylvanas justifies her connections to people.
She could no longer use the Forsaken as arrows against Arthas, so to stay with them would mean she cares for them.
And Sylvanas can’t accept that she cares for anyone.
Her relationship with Nathanos as portrayed in Dark Mirror is similar to her relationship with the Forsaken and gives the clearest look at the dynamic.
2 Likes
My friend.
My compadre.
I like you. I think you’re insightful and funny.
You’re stretching.
She has never loved or needed the Forsaken as anything other than tools. She does not have an emotional attachment to them anymore than she had the Horde. As the Forsaken used the Horde, so too did Sylvanas use the Forsaken.
My quote above in post #1622 applies here.
Sylvanas’s emotions have been effed up by undeath (and, in the retconned lore, by the soul split). She’s not currently capable of being a loving, caring being with emotional attachments. The fact that even in that state, she has these weird twinges of something resembling that sort of feeling is the interesting part.
5 Likes
And this has only resulted in people burying Sylvanas under so much benefit of the doubt its staggering. Not helped by the fact that Blizz almost always frames her as the victim; but rarely focuses on her victims directly. The Forsaken are arguably some of her greatest victims in this setting. But, Blizz never focused on them, or the suffering she inflicted on them, so they don’t “really” matter. They’re just accessories to Angsty Abuse Victim turned Abuser herself; who like every hot damaged person in fiction (and many in RL) gets away with SO MUCH more than they should precisely because they’re both damaged and hot. We do be livin in a society.
Sylvanas is a very tragic person, there is no doubt. But she is also a horrible person. Who’s used other as witless tools for personal objectives, then discarded them, so many times in her history that that stunt might as well be called “The Sylvie Classic”. She IS a Selfish Nihilist. That’s not up for debate. And no matter how much she might have teased “sort of, maybe, kinda”, caring about her Forsaken … she never once cared about them more as people than as personal tools. And frankly, the only thing that surprised me about her bailing on the Forsaken again … especially after they failed in their one job in Stormheim so spectacularly … was WHO was giving her her alternative to thwart her afterlife. I was convinced it was Yoggie, not Super Satan. Lord of the nips.
2 Likes
We really have to stop treating Edge of Night like it’s some sort of biblical super-canon that supersedes and erases all other Sylvanas characterization. We get it, bulwark, yada yada, that was 12 years ago, move on.
They never focused on the victimization of the Forsaken largely because they were willing co-conspirators in everything Sylvanas did that could have negatively effected them. Except, well, that last thing.
3 Likes
What characterization? She had some redeeming qualities but she’s been a garbage person for ages. It genuinely feels like the gist of so many arguments with Sylvanas is “we like Sylvanas, she’s tragic an Hot, so she can’t be a bad person”. Which is why totally offscreen Sylvie “needed” to start caring for the Horde when she became Warchief. “It was implied guys, really!”. Its also why she “had the care for the Forsaken” … when in reality there is very little since Cata at least that actually suggested she does outside of their capacity to serve her needs. Beyond her initial “digust, but pity”, and her public performances to goad them to act for her. But she’s always had a private and a public persona, even back as far as WC3. She’s never been transparent in her intent, and for the last 12 years whenever we’ve gotten internal dialogue … its always painted her as awful. Outside of her “one true love that even her “broken” Dark side cared for” … the Steve’s self insert to his Waifu Nate.
EDIT: Side note, she DID/DOES care for her sisters. In a creepy, controlling, possessive sort of way. A way that revolves around her only allowing herself to love them if she had full dominance over them; like she did with Nate. But still, she was consistently and fairly transparent about all three of those characters, and her affections for them. Yet, somehow, the people she had FULL control and authority over, her Forsaken … she just happens to be consistently as opaque and counter on her “care” as she possibly can be. Strange that?
1 Like
Dude, she has admitted multiple times that she cares for her sisters, You know the ones on the Alliance. As well as Nathanos.
She just doesn’t care for the Forsaken.
edit: Ironically even after the horrible things Vereesa did to the Sunreavers during the purge her sister wanted to bring her into the Horde. Sylvanas didn’t give two hoots about the purge.
2 Likes
They are now, after several rounds of retcons. Back in the day, they wanted what she wanted. The ones who disagreed left, for the Argent Dawn or to show secret research to the Alliance.
5 Likes
Why on earth would her being a bad person mean she has a lack of characterization? I don’t think a single person in this conversation has argued she was a good person. That’s not the discussion at all.
As terrible a book as it is and as much as it disregards like half of all pre-existing Forsaken lore to make her look more evil (as if she needed it) Sylvanas’ internal monologue and private discussions with Nathanos about the Forsaken in Before the Storm are fairly consistently motherly, in a harsh, “I know what’s best for them, don’t these idiots understand I’m protecting them” sorta way that’s mainly just Sylvanas projecting her own fears onto them. Which is not an unreasonable projection to make as mostly their desires and benefits have been intertwined up until that point. But still, the framing is not selfish, and I don’t think Golden has the ability to be so subtle as to be misinterpreted on that.
3 Likes
YES, her “Ill only agree to the gathering to reinforce my control over them, to convince them that I’m right and they can depend on me and only me”. Then when things started going the other way, she massacred them all. Oh, wait, sorry, there were a tiny handful that she let live; only those that would most sell the narrative “Your families will never accept you, they wont even tolerate you”. Totally a “mother knows best” thing … and not a “keeping a TIGHT grip on her Bulwark while she still needed them” thing.
EDIT: And btw, Sylvie doesn’t believe her own Bull on that narrative btw. She was NEVER rejected by her sisters, until her own behaviors burned those bridges. And even then Vareesa still comes back and apologizes to her; never knowing Sylvie secretly intended to kill and raise her under her command, because Sylvie can’t allow herself to love anything she doesn’t completely control. Yet there is no group she’s more opaque about caring for than the one group of people she had total dominance over. Why? Because she never once cared about the Forsaken more as people, than as useful tools for her own goals? Naw, couldn’t be?
1 Like
Well, you’re imagining it’s a calculated move to manipulate the Forsaken, when it’s more of a “this will show them mother knows best” sort of thing and then a total breakdown freakout when something goes wrong that even Nathanos is briefly confused at. She’s not trying to lie to them, she genuinely believes that she is correct and they will agree with her in the end.
But also there’s more in that book that isn’t about the gathering, even. Again, her concerns about Stormheim are entirely framed as “this thing I was doing for them was ruined”.
3 Likes
I’m not imagining it at all. That’s LITERALLY the sales pitch Nate sells her to get her to agree to it, when at first she was opposed to it. And as I said in my edit, she doesn’t even believe her own BS she’s selling them either. Because the ONLY reason Sylvanas Windrunner doesn’t have a relationship with her sisters is because of her own nonsense. And Vareesa still came apologizing to her, never knowing Sylvie’s horrific intent in War Crimes. Its just like the Sales Pitch she sells to Saurfang to get him to agree to the war; but she clearly never believed it herself. Its almost like she’s good at manipulating people to do what she wants of their own volition or something; and has been doing that since WC friggen 3?
Sylvie is fairly transparent about her twisted sort of love she has for her sisters and Nate. But the twist is always lined with “She can only allow herself to be vulnerable and love them if she has full control over them”. Nate would do anything for her without question, no issue there. But it is the reason Vareesa “needed” to die for Sylvie to fully commit to a renewed relationship with her. Same for Alleria. Yet, the one group she’s always had nearly total control over … her Forsaken, she’s the most opaque (and regularly counter) to her care for. Why? Its because Sylvie ISN’T incapable of love, she just never cared for the Forsaken as people. Or certainly didn’t care for them more as people than as tools for her personal use.
1 Like
I think perhaps she may have once cared for them but I feel that because they became so utterly reliant on her she lost interest in them so them as ened up seeing them as little more than pawns. In the same way she will only accept people if they are completely devoted to her but at the same time hates them for it.
Its possible. But she also regularly takes steps to maintain that level of reliance, and even despises groups like the Desolate Council. Who popped up in her absence due to her duties as Warchief, and started creating waves within the Forsaken to threatened more independence. Its the same with the Gathering.
The idea that she participated in that event for their benefit is laughable; she committed to it only after Nate convinced her it would be a good way to reinforce the Forsaken’s dependence on her and ONLY her. And when things didn’t go her way on that, the only Forsaken that she allowed to survive were the ones who would most reinforce that dependency narrative. “Your families will NEVER accept you, in fact they wont even tolerate you. The only one you can depend on is ME”. Sounds like a emotionally manipulative abuser to me?
2 Likes
The primary issue here, and I think the primary issue with a lot of this, is that you’re mixing up third person logical views of the character with the characters own perception of things. “Sylvanas is knowingly lying to the Forsaken because she’s at fault in regards to her sisters” only works if she believes she as at fault in regards to her sisters, which she doesn’t. She thinks Vereesa betrayed her by not killing Garrosh and not moving to the Undercity. She believes that she knows best for the Forsaken, that they are better off under her control, and she allows the gathering because she believes its failure will make them happier because they’ll finally understand “the truth” or whatever. Again I refer to the framing of Stormheim which continues to go suspiciously unaddressed.
Rattling off how mean and bad and abusive and very very naughty it is do this…is largely irrelevant.
2 Likes
Yes, nothing quite like using her internal dialogue repeatedly referring her Forsaken as both tools to be used, and that she intends to use them … with “not understanding how a character percieves things”. Shame on me for recognizing Sylvie has always been transparent about her love and care for her siblings and Nate; yet for some reason is staggeringly opaque about her supposed love and care for the Forsaken. I guess I just “don’t get Sylvie” and “aren’t reading novels in between the lines” to give her the most benefit of the doubt possible.
Or … she cared for the Forsaken, but far more as tools for her own personal use than as people. And her primary concern then was expanding and maintaining control of those tools while she needed them.
1 Like
You’re just kind of repeating yourself ad nauseum now while not actually addressing any specific points and putting quotation marks around things neither I nor other posters have said so…you have fun with that, I guess.
4 Likes