#8548030, By GloatingSwine Mass Effect 3 *SPOILERS THREAD*

  • GloatingSwine 27 Mar 2012 22:10:42 3,713 posts
    Seen 7 hours ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    disusedgenius wrote:
    Of course the other point of Mass Effect us that this is the cycle which breaks the pattern. So yeah, of course most of the examples aren't going to prove the star child right - he's not meant to be.
    Except as I pointed out, he is never gainsaid in the narrative. If you want to argue that a character having faulty beliefs is an intentional part of the narrative then those beliefs must be challenged in and by the narrative.

    The catalyst's beliefs are never challenged in the narrative, Shepard never says "you are wrong and we reject the very concept of a solution, because this problem does not exist". In order for your argument to have weight, that would have had to happen. Instead, Shepard is "allowed" to choose a "new solution", but in doing so the narrative makes it implicit that the Catalyst's original diagnosis of the problem was correct, there is still a problem, but periodic genocide is no longer the solution to it.

    From the point of view of the narrative, we must accept what the Catalyst says, because there is no counterpoint made to it within the narrative. A counterpoint which is only formulated by the audience and not by the writers is indicative of bad writing, not the catalyst having been wrong in the narrative.

    As an example, watch this scene from Return of the Jedi. This is an example of a character giving information which is incorrect. Obi Wan says that "the good man who was your father was destroyed", and refuses to countenance the mere idea that Vader can be redeemed, yet at the climax of the story Luke rejects both the Emperor and his own mentors and is proved right. That's what it means for a character to be wrong within the narrative. The demonstration that they are wrong is also presented in the narrative.
Log in or register to reply