It’s still part of the story, as much as you hate it.
It is a part, but it is an inconsequential part. But this is going in circles.
Since it IS going in circles - I’m going to leave you with this article. Hopefully it will give you some ideas about why I think the pure-text analysis is deficient and of issue.
http^s://io9.gizmodo.com/our-fascination-with-canon-is-killing-the-way-we-value-1842590915
Your opinion on this is irrelevant.
Lore is lore, and canon is canon, regardless of whether it’s visual or textual—you don’t get to pick and choose because you personally like one over the other.
Otherwise, I’m sure you would be (happily) deriding every Horde player as delusional for trying to act like much of Battle for Azeroth didn’t happen, rather than acknowledging that it did and expressing their displeasure that it did.
I’m going to leave you with this quote. Hopefully it will help you come to terms with the reality that lore happens whether we like it or not:
When Mathias Shaw and Flynn Fairwind embarked on their journey to explore Azeroth as well as catalogue the locations of various artifacts, they visited Silverpine forest.
Shaw noted his main contact in the area as Ivar Bloodfang, stating that the packleader was his contact within Shadowfang Keep. The pack has apparently claimed it, alongside Fenris Isle, and has taken most of the artifacts within the Shadowfang to Fenris Keep to be guarded closely.
WoWPedia, “Shadowfang Keep,” source: World of Warcraft: Exploring Azeroth: The Eastern Kingdoms, by: Christie Golden, page 99
1 Like
Again, the comment I made previously is backed by two premises with bases in facts. This is not all wishy-washy opinion. Visual information has an outsized and comparatively massive effect when stacked against text. That’s how the human brain works.
You do not get to pretend that merely because something is stated that it has the same impact - and while I acknowledge that yes, Horde players were given a raw deal, their consistent attempts to shut down Alliance players’ concerns about how the game as a whole is presented with some arcane lore fact from page 47 of a book that no one read are at odds with basic concepts of storytelling.
3 Likes
That does not automatically negate any and all textual (non-visual) material as canon.
Again, irrelevant. You’re trying to conflate the human brain’s processing of text vs. visual materials with whether or not those materials can be considered a part of a canon narrative.
That’s literally a logical fallacy, because you’re comparing apples to oranges.
Yes, because Horde players’ concerns about how their faction has been portrayed for the past decade are unworthy of discussion. /s
You’re wrong.
What you just did is another logical fallacy; you’re literally trying to discredit and dismiss the source in question because you personally don’t find it worthy of value…which is especially ridiculous, because a book literally printed last year hardly qualifies as “arcane.” Also, statements like, “eh, nobody reads it anyway” aren’t statements of fact.
They’re statements of ignorance.
I suggest you quit while you’re behind, at least until you’re ready to be less arrogant and condescending.
5 Likes
I’m sorry that you don’t like that a framework that takes text into its proper context is “arrogant and condescending” to you - (I think the word you’re actually looking for is “inconvenient”) - but that framework is more in line with understanding how people actually consume the story than one that only considers text. You’ve seen my prior statements by now, you know that blocks 1 and 2 were refuted already.
Your third statement is pure projection. I’m more than happy to discuss Horde concerns. I’m the author of a thread that’s circulating now with over 2k posts about the question of redeeming them (in the eyes of their playerbase). But I dispute that ONLY they have issues - which is a position that a small cabal of Horde posters (read: Not the majority of Horde players) defends by discounting Alliance concerns - which frequently have to do with what makes it onscreen versus what explicitly doesn’t - by acting as though those concerns are met with obscure snippets of text, or even worse: developer tweets. They are not.
Do they matter? Yes. But do they hold a candle to the impact of a cinematic? Or an in-game quest? Or even to things like environmental design or a character’s actions during a questline? No - not even close.
1 Like
I haven’t read the book, but learning about the Shadowfang Keep thing still bugged me anyway, even knowing there’s likely to never be anything in-game about it.
This is literally what you’re doing, not me.
Because again, you’re dismissing a text-based piece of lore on the basis of, “well, visual materials have a greater impact on the human brain.”
While that is undoubtedly true, it’s still irrelevant as to whether or not text-based lore (i.e. novels) are canonical (they are).
How people consume the story is irrelevant.
The Last Guardian, Lord of the Clans, Day of the Dragon, War of the Ancients, and Of Blood and Honor are all novels (text-based).
They are all canon.
Period.
You’re free to delude yourself however you wish.
It really isn’t, but ok.
Now you’re being a hypocrite.
Kyalin: I care about Horde concerns.
Also Kyalin: I want to talk about how the Horde can redeem itself.
If you really cared about Horde players’ concerns, you would have taken notice by now—you know, because every Horde poster from Baalsamael to Micah has said this—that “in the eyes of their playerbase,” the Horde has been forced into the role of villains, rather than going there naturally or voluntarily.
4 Likes
Because again, you’re dismissing a text-based piece of lore on the basis of, “well, visual materials have a greater impact on the human brain.”
While that is undoubtedly true, it’s still irrelevant as to whether or not text-based lore (i.e. novels) are canonical (they are).
If you agree with the bolded parts, then I’m not sure what you’re arguing. You seem to be filling in that I don’t regard these as canon, when I’ve clarified this point repeatedly. At this point - when I clarify something over and over again and people bulldoze past the clarifications, I have to regard that act as intentional. But saying this again for those in the back - I have not claimed that these elements are not canon. I have claimed that they don’t matter anywhere near as much as visual information does.
Further, claiming that I’m a hypocrite because you’re filling in your own interpretation of what I meant rather than what the OP of the post suggested is once again something that tells me that you’re looking for the least charitable interpretation of what I actually was going for because it helps your argument, and helps you to not have to consider that the other side has issues in need of fixing as well. Again, this looks intentional, and like you’re less concerned with reflecting reality and more concerned with carrying on this delusion that only Horde players have issues that require attention.
2 Likes
Yes you are—you’re just deliberately ignoring it. Here, let me fix it for ya:
Because again, you’re dismissing a text-based piece of lore on the basis of, “well, visual materials have a greater impact on the human brain.”
While that is undoubtedly true, it’s still irrelevant as to whether or not text-based lore (i.e. novels) are canonical (they are).
Which is still your personal opinion—they don’t matter as much to you.
That doesn’t make them any less relevant as pieces of official, canon, lore.
Funny, I think you made yourself pretty clear:
- You claim to care about Horde players’ concerns, then proceed to dismiss them.
- You went out of your way to make a topic about where the Horde should go following the events of Battle for Azeroth…but only on the basis that it needs to redeem itself from a position that Blizzard forced it into to begin with.
“the least charitable interpretation”? Really?
I think you may be projecting your own biases here, because the only thing I’m doing is holding you responsible for your own words.
But please, continue trying to explain and reality-twist your way out of accountability.
Issues that can compare to having your faction’s overall leader be villain-batted not once, but twice, followed by the humiliation of needing to rely on the opposing faction to “save you from yourself”?
I’m not buying it.
Nope, that’s just your insecurity talking.
This is coming from the same person who made the claim that
And you wonder why I called you a hypocrite?
It’s not a delusion if it’s confirmed by lore.
Oh, right…non-visual lore doesn’t matter as much.
Your words, not mine.
Which of us is really deluded by their own reality, I wonder?
2 Likes
So, where I complained that my clarifications were being ignored and then repeated my clarification, you claimed that I deliberately ignored the part that I clarified, and then repeated the assertion that my clarifications addressed.
I am left with only two conclusions following that.
a) You are doing this intentionally.
b) You lack basic reading comprehension.
Please confirm which of these is the case. We won’t go forward unless and until you engage with the clarifications I made (which I shouldn’t have had to have made because this canon matter is a completely manufactured objection) instead of flagrantly ignoring them.
Because you did; you didn’t “clarify” anything. You literally said, and I quote:
Given your other comments, I didn’t take you to be that ignorant, which means you deliberately decided to overlook my response.
Oh, I 'm sure you could come to many other conclusions, if you tried.
The fact that these are your only two says a lot, namely:
a) You are insecure and believe every point of dissent is a personal attack on you (It is not).
b) You are insecure and naturally lash out at others with personal attacks, such as you questioning my reading comprehension.
No prizes for guessing here.
1 Like
Just because you failed to block quote it doesn’t mean it isn’t there.
You’re that demon hunter, aren’t you? The one who mistakes selectively snipping an argument into 50 blocks for “analysis”?
If you’re going to claim that I “failed” at something, at least have the decency to explain what I failed at and how.
I’m surprised it took you that long to figure it out; I’m fairly certain I’ve already identified myself in a few different posts.
But yes; I am the same person who plays Velskar, a night elf demon hunter.
If you mean “breaking up your argument in order to address it piece by piece,” yes: that does fall under “analysis.”
Of course, the fact that you chose to put that one word in quotes tells me you don’t have much experience in that area.
1 Like
Alright, so we’ve revealed this conversation as pointless then. But regarding this:
If you’re going to claim that I “failed” at something, at least have the decency to explain what I failed at and how.
No, I tried to do that and you resisted that explanation because once again, you were too focused on reacting instead of understanding what you even were reacting to.
So if you want to understand how you failed - I’m going to make you go back to the posts from before. Read them from start to finish. Understand what they are trying to say BEFORE you comment. Don’t even form a counterpoint until you have understood what you are forming the counterpoint to.
This won’t just help you here, this will help you in life. Because what you’re doing? That isn’t analysis, that’s mindless reaction, and once again, it has caused you to miss critical elements of what you were reacting to.
I don’t know who thinks that… both in and out of character, they’re freaky abominations as far as I’m concerned.
Sure you can…after all your own character doesn’t fit in to that narrative.
I’ve been on this forum more than most and I haven’t read it.
So, I seem to recall you trying a similar tactic in the past, with similar results.
You seem to have this habit of making an absurd claim, and then when someone calls you out on it, you make the even more absurd claim that that person is either twisting your words or just “failing or refusing to understand what you were trying to say.” You, of course, never make any real attempt to clarify or help that person understand.
Supposedly, it’s because “well, there’s no hope for them, they’ll never understand anyway.”
But I think we both know it’s really more about you stroking your own ego.
I’m curious as to how you think you will “make” me do anything.
Your arrogance and condescension really aren’t doing you any favors here.
No, I’m pretty sure it’s analysis.
Because if what I were doing really were “mindless reaction,” as you’re claiming, I certainly wouldn’t be able to pride myself on the quality of:
- Spelling
- Grammar
- Punctuation
- Paragraphing
- Organization of points and counter-points
All of which is (I hope) fairly evident in each of my posts.
I also certainly wouldn’t invest the time and effort necessary to edit my own comments for clarity, either—or did you not notice how many of my comments are clearly marked as having been edited? Repeatedly?
No, what I am doing, as I have explained to you many times, is taking the parts of your argument which I find most worthy of the time and effort required to compose a reply or to counter, and then proceeding to do so.
This is basic Debating 101.
4 Likes
Regarding your first block, there is nothing absurd about the claim that visual information is far and away more impactful than text. You even agreed with it previously. Where we have an issue is your repeated attempt to claim that I meant that text information wasn’t canon, which I repeatedly disclaimed, and you ignored. If you want to bring this back to accusations of not knowing how to debate - why don’t you try to sketch out a flow diagram and incorporate the number of times I shot down your straw man?
Shrieking “arrogance and condescension” further does not address my point. It’s just a dodge, and a rather transparent one at that.
And again, no, it’s not analysis. Analysis requires obtaining an understanding of what it is you’re even analyzing, which you have repeatedly failed to do. But one of your points is interesting, and I’m going to quote it directly, with some corrections that I will highlight in bold.
No, what I am doing, […] is taking the parts of your argument that I can remove from their context and reply to in isolation, and then proceeding to do so.
Why do I say this? Because you deliberately ignored my repeated responses to your straw-man attack that I somehow don’t regard textual information as canon on the basis that it’s of substantially less impact than visual information. Addressing my WHOLE argument would have forced you to consider that - so you block quoted the parts that were convenient, and replied to those.
Hence why I’m calling you out for this dishonesty. And sure, I used to debate competitively myself. I’m well aware that logical fallacies are tactics used to defeat one’s opponent too - that doesn’t mean I’m going to let them slide here.