She was extradited to SW.
Cotley is a he.
Who? I was talking about Sira.
I wasn’t. If you read the replies to the post you quoted I clarify I was talking about Apothecary Cotley.
1 Like
I think they are talking about the Forsaken that Alleria and Turalyon torture and take prisoner in Shadows Rising, during their hunt for Sylvanas.
Jaina wasn’t happy about it. It was maybe a glimpse at a potential rift in the Alliance going forward.
3 Likes
Today I learned that Sylvanas is a r-word-ist and that by simply ignoring certain people instead of engaging with their actually insane takes you can make your forum experience a lot better.
No no, they tortured an orc mother in front of her son and the Forsaken stepped forward to stop it and was taken in for “questioning” after he told them what they wanted to know.
If was implied that Anduin would release him after questioning but who knows if that happened as he got kidnapped shorty after.
They may have held on to him longer after Sylvanas escaped to the Shadowlands who knows. Smallz could be right, maybe he’s just an unimportant book character that will be easily forgotten.
I thought you did?
Which I disagreed with, and still do to be honest. I explained that disagreement here:
This seems a touch unfair, especially given that I did a google search of my own volition to try and gain a better understanding of where your perspective stems from, as well as looking up and reading the article you indicated.
I’ve since googled specifically the feminist perspective on it and I’m still predominantly finding articles (both scholarly and otherwise) that seem to be centred around not the assertion that sexual violence occurs without the physical acts themselves but a re-framing of sexual violence from the previously held perspective (which often consisted of egregious victim blaming) to a perspective that’s more centred around that of the victim, as well as exploring the psychological motives and effects surrounding it. Which as I said, I think is generally very important.
A big aspect I’ve gleaned through that research is the idea that sexual violence does not necessarily stem from a desire for sexual pleasure, but from a myriad of other reasons such as those you’ve highlighted - which I absolutely agree with.
Despite me not agreeing that the definition of it can be entirely separated from the act because, as I’ve tried to articulate, I feel that there are a number of abuses that stem from:
And I find it a little unusual/difficult to consider that the above is specific to sexual violence when I can think of a number of abuses that victims are subjected to, not of a sexual nature, which the above also holds true for. I won’t go into specifics as I agree with your earlier comments that this is a difficult topic to broach and I don’t want to list specific abuses and risk re-opening old wounds of people that may have experienced them themselves. But I think it would be disingenuous to say that those abuses don’t exist and can’t be linked with the above.
But as I was saying, despite my beliefs there - I do understand the connection, which I’ve tried to convey.
(Self quotes are because this is a 1000+ post thread and having to sift through it all is a pain, so I wanted to do that legwork and provide the context succinctly here for reference)
So to clarify, I don’t think that connecting it with sexual violence is wrong at all - I can absolutely see the connection and fully recognise that there is a valid and logical line between the situation with Arthas/Sylvanas and it. If a person has drawn that connection and it’s meaningful to them then in no way would I ever want to make them feel that said connection is invalid or wrong, I definitely see where it comes from and I think it’s always been a perfectly valid interpretation of it all.
I guess my point is that I don’t think it only applies to this one singular form of abuse.
I would, I guess our core disagreement at this point is that I believe that those are just generally pretty central to abuses of all kinds.
- fail to respect (someone’s peace, privacy, or rights).
“they denied that human rights were being violated”
I definitely understand you drawing that connation from the word, and stated as much. I don’t agree that every time the word is used it’s explicitly in reference to the literary definition and I think there’s a strong argument for Arthas having violated the “rights” of those he was raising and tormenting. Such as Sylvanas’ right to a “clean death”, the rights of people to not be raised as undead abominations and the right of free choice and autonomy that undeath under the scourge removed entirely.
I’d argue that the story being that of abuse only adds to the strength of it, as abuse is often intrinsically interconnected with the violation of the victims basic rights. I’d also argue that given the circumstances at hand were largely violations of peoples rights and not the literary definition, that keeping solely the literary definition in mind might not be an entirely balanced approach to the wider context.
I guess this is the crux of our disagreement on the subject. I don’t think that Arthas needed other ulterior motives, I think that the stated ulterior motives are present in a lot of cases of abuse - whether they be sexual in nature or not.
So I guess my question to you would be, do you think that other forms of abuse can stem from the motives you’ve highlighted above?
If so, could the assertion that this was specifically with the subtext of it being sexual in nature hold the potential risk of invalidating the connection that those who had suffered other forms of abuse developed with the story?
I actually find that statement from Danuser to be careless because of the above. Danuser has not been involved with Sylvanas for the entirety of her tenure as a character and I think that coming in years down the line to try and push a specific subtext when a wide array of survivors may have connected with her story over the years prior could be damaging.
I don’t agree with telling somebody that their personal connection is wrong - especially when for the bulk of Sylvanas story I feel it was fully open for a wide array of people to connect to. I think it’s especially egregious when you’re talking about a connection as personal as this.
I won’t go into it too much but I do think that Steve can generally be a bit thoughtless in his approach to things.
To clarify my overall position on it, to me the story of Arthas and Sylvanas has long been that of the abuser and the victim. I feel that it has long been a story that survivors of all types of abuse could connect with because although it didn’t necessarily focus on a singular form of abuse and is obviously not a form of abuse that anybody is going to physically experience (there is no raising people as undead abominations and exerting total control over them in the real world) - it held a lot of the hallmarks that a lot of forms of abuse also hold and so people could connect with those hallmarks in their own way.
If Danuser/the WoW team are now trying to push a specific subtext I don’t agree with them doing so, I don’t think it’s required and I don’t think that it serves any real purpose. I don’t think that victims of specifically sexual abuse needed that subtext to be pushed in order to connect with the wider hallmarks of abuse that the story presented and in fact I think the pushing of that subtext only serves to disparage the (what I feel to be entirely valid) connections that survivors of all sorts were able to establish with the story.
6 Likes
At this point, I think we just have to agree to disagree and move on.
I still feel like you are heavily downplaying this dynamic, and you haven’t proved an alternative reasoning, you just reiterated that you disagreed without presenting an alternative argument, or proof to support your alternative argument. You are very wordy for nothing, and it’s polite, no doubt, but there’s very little substance to your argument other than you disagree with my interpretation. You offer no counter interpretation. Not only that, but you throw out the literary definition for the literal one, how is that conversing in good faith?
It seems like you don’t have your own counterargument or proof in the text to support your argument, you just disagree with my interpretation.
You are free to think and feel and interpret this dynamic however you want.
I’m not talking about actual rape I’m talking about subtextual rape.
subtext is defined as: An implicit meaning or theme of a literary text. When they use the word “violate” in a literary context, but then leave it implied. There’s subtextual implication there. He didn’t just “break the rule or her privacy” or invade her kingdom, he defiled her corpse He literally desecrated her body, he brought it home with him, locked in a coffin and tormented her with it.
When it comes to things he did to her body without consent, that’s still rape even if it was not sexual penetration (but we can’t even be sure there wasn’t because this is a PG game) When it comes to defiling her body in any way, that’s rape. He mind controlled her and she wasn’t able to consent and what’s worse is he allowed her to keep her mind so that she would be powerless to stop him she could only watch as he made her do whatever he wanted.
There’s a nightmare she has in Stormrage involving her history with Arthas that is explicitly rape. It’s too long to post here because it’s several pages, but it’s hard to read that passage and not see the implications of rape. He forces her onto a table, pins her down and says something akin to “I’m going to do what I did to you, only this time you won’t be able to break free.”
3 Likes
Now that it’s cooled down a hair, I’ll just repeat that my big issue with Sylvanas is that she has no qualms about doing to others what was done to her (or arguably worse once you get to Shadowlands) and that she’s been set up as a broad Arthas parallel since Cata.
The abused becomes the abuser is common in fiction (and, depressingly, real life). It certainly doesn’t make me particularly sympathetic to a character, though. Neither does the fact that we don’t see her doing a lot of hand wringing or remorse (or even awareness and sympathy) over what she’s doing to others – though with new developments that, at least, may change.
13 Likes
I think that perhaps in my desire to ensure that I conveyed the validity of your perspective I’ve created a situation where you have not been required to support your own point of view in any tangible sense but have instead been in a position where you can pick at mine freely.
So allow me to break that pattern here, I’ll try to do so as tastefully as I can.
I have presented a number alternative reasonings and have explain why I think they’re valid.
I highlighted that there are multiple uses for the word “violate” and explained why I thought another use of the term could hold relevancy to the story of Arthas/Sylvanas and the use of the term therein.
I’ve highlighted how the motives you’ve mentioned are interlinked with abuses of all sorts and not specifically those of a sexual nature; and in turn how the situation could be perceived through the lens of abuses not sexual in nature.
I’ve tried to find where your definition of the term comes from and have struggled to find it, I highlighted what I did find in my research and how my interpretation of those sources found differs from your own.
I’ve highlighted how I feel the story of Arthas/Sylvanas was predominantly centred around a type of abuse that does not exist in the real world, but displayed the hallmarks of a wide variety of abuses and thus could be interpreted from the perspective of a wide variety of survivors.
Your above statement indicates to me that it’s not simply you not agreeing with me, but that you aren’t even trying to understand the perspective I’m presenting. You’ve discarded all of the explanation I’ve provided and deemed it to be:
That’s not openly engaging, that’s dismissing entirely.
I’ve provided my interpretation of those same events and detailed why I hold that interpretation.
Definition of subtext
: the implicit or metaphorical meaning (as of a literary text)
Implicit
/ɪmˈplɪsɪt/
adjective
suggested though not directly expressed.
“comments seen as implicit criticism of the policies”
Metaphorical
/ˌmɛtəˈfɒrɪkl/
adjective
- characteristic of or relating to metaphor; figurative.
“many of our metaphorical expressions develop from our perceptions of the body”
I don’t really think you can say that Arthas raising Sylvanas as a banshee and using her as he did is metaphorically nor implicitly sexually violent in nature.
I think that there is plenty of context that indicates that he targeted women and plenty of context that indicates that he did feel a certain sexual desire (thus the “leering”) with regard to Sylvanas in particular. However, I don’t think that necessarily means that his actions amount to sexual violence specifically.
That somebody holds those views does not make all abuse that they physically commit sexual violence, a perpetrator can hold those views and abuse somebody in a non-sexual way. Those views can be the cause of the abuse, but unless the abuse itself is sexual in nature then it’s not sexual violence in a “real” sense.
That’s not to say that the allegory can’t be drawn, and as I’ve tried to highlight my perception of the story between Arthas and Sylvanas is that of an otherwordly abuse that contains the hallmarks of a wide variety of real world abuses and can thus be interpreted through the lens of a variety of abuses - including abuse that’s sexual in nature.
I don’t know that they did, the context of it’s use in question was:
As you can see through the above passage, the term “violates” was used directly in conjunction with Arthas “pulling her back into the world” (turning her into a banshee). I don’t think that the implication here was necessarily specifically that Arthas violated her in the literary sense (whether implicitly or not) - I think interpreting that usage of “violates” as being a direct reference to his raising her into a banshee against her will and in turn violating her in a sense that’s not explicitly sexual is entirely reasonable.
I don’t really agree. From my perspective, if we use this as the definition of it - then a wide spectrum of abuses fall into that category. The more I think about this perspective on that kind of sexual violence the less I agree with it and in fact I find it to be a pretty dangerous line to walk.
There are a number of situations throughout history where people have had things done to their bodies without consent that were not sexual in nature. To conflate those instances with this particular form of abuse I think has the potential to detract from the actual occurences of sexual violence (which is something disproportiantly experienced by women).
Unless what Arthas did to her was sexual in nature, which I don’t specifically recall being the case. Even then it would mean that Arthas did commit sexual violence against her - I don’t think it would in turn make every abuse that Arthas committed against her sexual in nature.
Blizz have also indicated sexual violence in a more explicit manner as others have pointed out: an example being Alexstrasza who was highlighted as (alongside Ysera) being desired by Neltharion as a slave for breeding, which holds strong connotations of sexual violence given that they are unlikely to have wanted to willingly partake. Alexstrasza herself was captured by the Dragonmaw and taken to Grim Batol where she was forced to lay eggs for them.
Like I’ve tried to convey, I think that what you’ve said here are hallmarks of a wide array of abuses.
Many forms of abuse stem from a perpetrator enacting things upon a victim without the victims consent, many forms of abuse stem from a perpetrator exerting control over the victim. As I said, I don’t want to detail specific cases or situations here out of respect for those who may have suffered them - but it seems unusual to me that, had you taken a moment to consider the wider occurrence of abuse in society (now and throughout history), you’re unable to conclude that this is the case.
Wasn’t the premise of Stormrage that the Emerald Nightmare was spreading throughout the Emerald Dream and causing all sorts of nightmares across Azeroth? I don’t recall the specific passage in any kind of detail, but by the overall story presented in the book it would seem that this is less any kind of actual occurrence in the history between the two of them and more a manifestation of the fears Sylvanas felt - although I could be wrong there depending on how it was specifically framed in the book.
But as I said earlier, allow me to break the pattern a little here:
Why do you feel that the term “violates” is used specifically to reference sexual violence beyond it being a definition of the word?
Do you think that the following:
Applies to other forms of abuse that are not sexual in nature?
If the aspects of control/power, violence and humiliation/fear are applicable to other, non sexual, forms of abuse - then could the situation between Arthas & Sylvanas be interpreted as not being entirely sexual in nature?
It seems to me that your perspective here hinges on the following:
- That the most universally understood definition of sexual violence not be used
- That one specific definition of the word “violates” be used
- That the motives for abuse directly define the abuse itself and that those motives are not applicable, or considered applicable, to other forms of abuse as a result
To clarify once more, that’s not to say that I think your interpretation is wrong, but that it is not something that’s entirely ironclad with no room for other interpretations of the situation. I think the fact that it seems to hinge a lot on the above is indicative of the fact that there are multiple ways to interpret the overall situation.
That said, I’m fine with just agreeing to disagree at this stage.
Like you, I don’t really want to get into a prolonged debate about the semantics of abuses - it isn’t a comfortable topic and it’s a difficult line to tread given the experiences of many out there. It feels like at this stage our disagreement is largely centred on our interpretation of the abuses Sylvanas suffered themselves and so if you can’t come to see my perspective on it then we’re just going to debate those semantics endlessly.
7 Likes
Maybe the question should be what is the importance of whether what happened to Sylvanas was akin to sexual assault or rather a very abusive and controlling experience?
In the end this will become of a battle of semantics and subjective interpretation if the only intent is to say definitively whether it was physical sexual violence or not.
2 Likes
It’s to establish that Arthas is an irredeemable man, and that trying to redeem or sympathize with him paints a terrible lesson for the audience. Especially after revelations regarding the company.
It’s also used to argue that Sylvanas, as a victim, shouldn’t be punished for her abuse at best, or should be forgiven by her abuse survivors at worst.
2 Likes
That’s actually a very interesting observation.
It makes the misogyny that Arthas displayed a bit more unsettling.
Were they writing it to display how wrong it is, or was it a twisted reflection of the culture present in the company itself?
That’s a disturbing question that we shouldn’t be in the position of feeling the need to ask.
6 Likes
I’m just going to note that it’s not exactly an uncommon issue for fiction to coach fantastic violence (especially against women) in rather sexual terms. The problem is hardly limited to male authors, either.
1 Like
To expand upon what Arlifrex said.
I do think it’s important to acknowledge and highlight the occurrences of something like sexual violence in stories. The bitter truth is that women have historically, and still do, face sexual violence.
Take the story of Neltharion/Deathwing - I don’t think that his desire to use Ysera/Alexstrasza as objects for the express purpose of breeding is featured enough when people discuss what’s wrong with him as a character (as in what makes him “evil”).
Destroying the world is a largely fantastical “wrong”, but his perception of Ysera/Alexstrasza as objects with which to breed is a very real misogynistic viewpoint that has been prevalent throughout a lot of human history.
To me it is far more important that a viewpoint like that, which is rooted in reality and reflects a danger that women continue to face in society to this day, is thoroughly denounced over a nebulous desire to “destroy the world” or many of the other aspects of Deathwing’s character.
If Arthas has committed sexual violence against Sylvanas, then it’s also deserving of similarly thorough denouncement for the same reasons.
Fictional stories can often be used to hold a mirror up to us as humans, I do think that we need to acknowledge that reflection and in turn come to a wider understanding of what makes it wrong and how it affects people in the real world in which we live.
By acknowledging those wrongs, we can hopefully come to recognise them in our real lives and denounce it as strongly there too.
1 Like
This is why I feel like Sylvanas needed a character that would support her until she goes too far. Or they see that they cannot change them. At least not yet. Basically an Iroh or Scorpia. Or even a Mai and Ty Lee 
Hell the breaking point should’ve been what she was going to do with Derek. And I feel like Nathanos should’ve been the one to call her out on it instead of Baine.
But instead Nathanos is just a simp.
2 Likes
You know, that actually could have been a really interesting interaction to witness.
We know that Nathanos was the character with the greatest capacity to “reach” Banshee Queen Sylvanas as she cared for him in a way that she seemed to care for few others.
Even if Teldrassil was that breaking point and when she commanded the tree be burnt Nathanos was just like - “No, Sylvanas. This isn’t Gilneas, the battle has been won. This is too far.”
It would have contextualised the gravity of that action in that even Nathanos thought it was too much.
That could have been a great point for Sylvanas to actively reflect on how far she was going for this “Jailer” and in turn whether or not her loyalty to him and his plan was entirely justified.
7 Likes
Tbf Deathwing was interesting before Cata.