Because some people think they can raise their own social capital through performative activism.
And I’m honestly just so tired of it.
All this talk about fictional writings always being political statements reminds me of:
https://i0.wp.com/jerz.setonhill.edu/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/the-curtains-were-blue.png?resize=600%2C600&ssl=1
https://i0.wp.com/jerz.setonhill.edu/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/what-the-author-meant.jpg?resize=300%2C286&ssl=1
That said, I am wholly on the boat that says that fictional writing are not always political, sometimes someone just made up an interesting story in their head and they wanted to tell it, about dragons and knights that stab dragons to death, without it having any meanings such as “the little man wanting to take down the greedy corporate snakes” - knight being the little man and dragons being the corporate snakes, obviously.
But I do also like fictional writing that DO come with some political messaging.
Such as Mike Pondsmith’s ‘Cyberpunk’ universe.
Did Cyberpunk actually aim to tell a political story or was gender politics only used as a backdrop for dystopia? I’ve read some conflicting takes.
Not all political stories are good stories. Atomic Heart was a very political story that wasn’t making any political statement. Politics were just the backdrop of this dystopia. That’s my main criticism of the cyber punk genre, it misses the anarchy side of ‘punk.’
Tolkien was considered an ‘anarchist’ in his letters, but not an activist. He was a philosophical non-violent anarchist but mostly just anti-war.
I think Mike Pondsmith at some point did state
“Cyberpunk is a warning not an aspiration”
So I would assume there is some intentional political statements.
Cyberpunk as one example focuses a lot on the power abuse of corporations, the heavy lobbyism and such where corporations kick the governments in the nuts and takes power away from them and the people, because money.
But yeah, I do not think Cyberpunk proposed anarchy, nor do I think many in the Cyberpunk universe think much of anarchy, the wheel have just turned so far into total oligarchy, that the wish is simply a little more freedom, a little more humanity. Hence the whole deal with cyberware as well. People become less human, and they view others as lesser humans.
As for Atomic Heart, yes, I also believe it is possible to use politics to simply tell a story without it being political. I would need a little more from the author him/herself in order to determine whether they meant to make a political statement or not.
Such as Mike Pondsmiths quote.
1 Like
Sylvannas is a problem issue to discuss in this context, since it came out that much of the hatchet job done on her character was not so much to make a statement but as a personal vendetta of one or more of the Blizzard creatives on another. It was essentially done more to specifically make people hate the character in order to yank some personal chains than to make any form of “statement”.
In this case the author process is more of a statement than the result.
1 Like
Because children keep barging into this thread and crying about the scary words “problematic” and “political”, and keep derailing the discussion to vent their ridiculous arguments.
Isn’t it so funny how people are fine with projecting THEIR politics on a story (while being too stupid to even realize they’re doing it), but the moment someone else tries to address political stuff SOLELY AS A CRITIQUE OF THE STORY, they flip out and clutch their pearls?
Almost like it’s not politics they’re against, just the politics THEY don’t like to think about.
I’m sorry your feelings are hurt, you absolute children, but I am not your therapist.
To the morons saying to me, “Well why are you complaining instead of suggesting what you would do differently?”
You just told on yourself so hard because half this thread has been us doing exactly that. You are not even reading the thread. You see politics and go “REEEEEE”. You people are living jokes.
Also, stop putting words in Sarm’s mouth. Sarm is dope as hell.
3 Likes
I dono, really does not seem tht serious.
2 Likes
Sometimes politics is just the set dressing to the story and it has no deeper political agenda or message.
As I once read an author write Sometimes the door is just red.
People do have a habit of reading too deeply into things sometimes. Though, on the other hand, there is content people have a right to complain or be concerned about.
Like the time rift quest with Alex that was rightfully cut. When we put our energy into things that do matter, that’s how we can change things for the better
Though I personally agree with everything Zaranista has been saying
3 Likes
Thank you for bringing this conversation back to earth, lol.
And I wish I could explain this to the people who think I have some agenda beyond wanting good writing.
We should all acknowledge 3 things:
What Jokiro is saying: ALL writing exists to transmit ideas, intentionally or otherwise, “political” or otherwise. You can not avoid it, and everyone who’s tried in this thread has been immediately shot down with solid examples.
What I’m saying: “politics” is an incredibly broad, common, and perfectly valid method of expressing ideas within a fictional setting, and we should feel free to critique it like any other aspect of a story.
And what you’re saying: There’s nuance and wiggle room with literally all of this, and it’s nonsensical to get stuck in the weeds arguing over whether this is a conversation we should be having at all.
I just RELALY like classic Warcraft lore.
I just REALLY wish the new devs would expand upon what was already present, fix issues (with an actual understanding of how they happened), and actually show PASSION for the established worldbuilding of this setting.
I just REALLY wish that, if the devs are going to address political or social topics, they would do so in a way that doesn’t feel like we’re being infantilized by the writers. I also wish that they were less afraid of their bosses firing them over having an opinion (like with the venture co incident).
Stories without any vision or passion are doomed to feel hollow and pointless. THAT’S what I’m so angry about.
As for how tone-deaf it all is: I literally say in the title I think it’s hilarious.
3 Likes
It wasn’t even just worshiping, it was those who revered and spent a lot of time around them.
Back then too (Prior to Catacaclysm at least), all dragons were immortal (which has now been retconned, unless you’re an aspect - as per Dragonflight) — So ones transformation would essentially give them more gifts than just the dragonflight colour they were deemed with. I’d always found that wicked cool.
Yeah, honestly when I learnt more about the role & caste system of Drakonid & the Dragonspawn — I was deadset like: “Eranog was right.”
The Primalists that want to turn the world into a chaotic elemental wasteland are obviously flawed – But the Primalists fighting to give the elements more freedom, and fighting for dragon rights, whether they be proto, drakonid, dragonspawn or those who simply want to forge their own path — I could understand & agree with completely. THAT’S morally grey.
Would had liked if at least one of the aspects could see the sensibility & nobility in that, be humble and put aside their prejudice & old customs to make a deal of sorts (Heck that’d be cool: If one of the aspects + one of the Incarnates severed from both their orders, forming a ‘third’ faction of sorts; being in the middle of the two).
If they use Dracthyr to tell the story that the races with free-will are more - than simple puppets of the aspects that either forged, directed or raised them — It’d be cool to see the aspects release Drakonid who choose to forge their own path & become a playable race.
Personally I would’ve found it better if they hadn’t made them essential-slaves in the first place, and as you said — Left it at its original lore, and then had the aspects send out small handfuls move forward along-side adventurers to help with the campaign in the isles & forge their own path once again.
Heck having Drakonid with the above story, alongside Dracthyr would’ve been wicked cool + had a lot more lore-dynamics to compare & cross over symbolism within the story-writing too.
2 Likes
What? The dragons are not holding anyone against their will. We even have a quest where we help a drakonid guard decide to leave her post and continue her passion of drawing.
There’s a questline “Cause without a Rebel” released on 10.1 that deals with the matter.
I suggest op would look up into.
1 Like
I suggest you read any part of this entire thread because we’ve already talked about this. I even allude to it in the OP. We’ve been talking about how Blizzard handled the issue this entire time. 
3 Likes
Does Silvermoon still have Leaper Gnome sweatshop workers and mindcontroled people?
Also, was Orgimmars gladiatorial slaves ever ended?
I remember walking around the cities and finding these for the first time,not to mention the tortured people in Undercity, and just being like “…holy crap”
Silvermoon still has all of that, but no doubt they’ll retcon it when they eventually update Silvermoon as part of their endless mission to sanitize them.
Meanwhile, they took the obvious flaws and “evils” of the Forsaken, and magnified them so much that they became genocidal maniacs. Because these writers have no sense of nuance.
Again, it’s not problematic stuff I have an issue with. It’s the context, purpose, and quality of the writing. Silvermoon was supposed to feel like an authoritarian dystopia wearing the skin of a magical utopia. That’s literally the whole point.
The Undercity was supposed to be disturbing and creepy. That’s literally the whole point.
2 Likes
That’s understandable,maybe the reason people don’t have problems with the dragons is because for the first time in history we kind of get the opposite of what were used to.
Instead of the dragon’s just being evil and saying “get back to work” We get to see what i’m assuming was blizzard’s attempt at character development and realizing a wrong.
I wouldn’t necessarily call this sanitization, just seems like growth.
What people? You seem to be making a blanket statement on what the majority of the playerbase cares about. A large portion of the playerbase (not saying it’s the majority because neither of us can know that) has been ignoring WoW’s story for years because it’s so bad, and those who still care seem split on the matter. It’s kind of a wild thing to lump “people” together without any qualifiers, in a way that supports your personal opinion.
You’re acting like there’s not an entire library of ideas between “evil dragons” and “humans with horns putting Order into the water to turn the reptiles into himbos”.
Portraying dragons as “not evil” isn’t even a remotely new idea. You gotta do better than that before I’ll start praising your work.
For the dragons, it’s a series of retcons and a total reframing of what dragons are and how they act. It’s not growth. It’s lobotomization.
Like…just look at Alexstrazsa talk. She acts like she’s been drugged. She’s like a soft-eyed robot who can only recite vapid nonsense about teamwork.
If you’re referring to the Blood Elves:
There’s growth and then there’s a complete narrative revamp. Looking back, the arc of the Blood Elves feels incredibly sloppy, erratic, random, and lacking in a central vision. Even going by their own Blizzcon interview on the Blood Elves, it’s very obvious their intended story changed drastically from Warcraft 3 to the end of Burning Crusade.
You can show character growth without immediately removing the driving conflict from the race within the span of a few years, and not replacing it with anything substantial. You can show character growth without completely reverting their culture to where it started a few years prior.
This was bad writing.
I don’t think I need to explain why the Blood Elves were handled poorly. Hundreds of people have been doing so since 2007, and retreading this old ground in full would be an insult to your intelligence.
So, I understand that your personal tastes and opinions on this matter differ from my own, and that’s perfectly fine. But, I want to make it clear that things aren’t as simple as “character changes, therefore good”. That’s the absolute bare minimum for a story. There are MILES worth of options, and they keep choosing the lamest ones, in my personal opinion.
Edit: added parentheses and bolded words for clarity.
Ahhhhh…
1 Like
Notice the addition of qualifiers.
Jesus Christ, dude.
I did not say “people” in a way that implies all or almost everyone.
I used words like “many” or “large portions”.
You know how the English language works. Stop this silliness.