On the subject of unlikable characters and behavior

[Etrurian emperor]

Fire Emblem has its fair amount of brats, jerks and assholes in the playable roster. Not everyone in the cast can be a nice guy after all, but sometimes they take things too far, or are far nicer then you first imagine. At what point does a character being unlikable hinder your enjoyment of a character, or actively get you to despise the character. I myself am not always consistent on the matter. Shinon being a scumbag to everyone he meets for no reason makes me think he's detestable, but Vaida being a scumbag to everyone she meets makes me think she's a great deal of fun. 

I do have a few general rules on the matter though.

I think tone is important. Shinon is just unpleasant but Vaida is so over the top its hard to hold her actions against her. And while some characters are just unpleasant to watch you also have the likes of Hubert or Azama who seem to have a great amount of fun being as much of a jerk as they can possible be. This in turn can lead to some funny reactions like Sakura of all people completely losing her patience at Azama.

On how to judge an unpleasant character I also think its important how fair their constant criticism is. Felix for instance is incredibly harsh but he's also very fair. Very rarely does he say something that isn't at least somewhat true, and he's not above rephrasing his statements if he thinks people take it harsher than he intended. Hubert too is mostly fair in his criticism. He enjoys tormenting his classmates but given how wacky and eclectic the Black Eagles are you can also see him as a babysitter having to keep a bunch of rowdy kids in line. When there's nothing to criticize as with Petra Hubert is mostly cordial and helpful. Shinon meanwhile is just a drunk racist who barely bothers to make actual points when he goes off at people. Soren is in a weird middle ground where he often has very valid things to say, but other times he just wallows in his bad opinion of people. 

Who characters are jerks towards can be very important in judging them. Leonie is at her most hostile and unreasonable towards Byleth, but its Byleth. They can handle themselves easily. When it comes to sensitive Ignatz Leonie responds by being very patient and gentle with him. Felix too seems to be much nicer to young girls, implying both he and Leonie pick their criticism depending on what the persons can handle. Lysithea on the other hand ruthlessly bullies Ignatz who's the person least able to defend himself. That Lysithea goes out of her way to pick the most sensitive boy she can find without bullying anyone else carries some implications that don't reflect well on her. Meanwhile Shinon gets absolutely no props for having Rolf as the only person he's decent towards. Its Rolf. If Shinon was his usual self around a crybaby 10 year old orphan he might as well be a puppy kicking cartoon character. 

For me personally author intend is very important. Hana blaming Corrin for getting kidnapped and having Garon in his life is already so incredibly vile, but what makes it worse is that the game doesn't really seem to grasp just how out of line Hana was in that scene, and thus she never gets the comeuppance she should have. Similarly Ophelia deciding to bully Siegbert about his greatest insecurity just because his existence intrudes on her fantasies is a level of grotesque the writing doesn't seem to realize, and because Ophelia is otherwise a wacky but very nice girl its likely the writing never quite intended for her to come off like this. For Lysithea too its unclear if the writing intended for her to actively bully Ignatz because she realizes he's least able to defend himself, or that this impression is just an accident by the writers. Though personally I tend to judge characters more harshly, not more softly if this sort of confused writing makes them seem completely out of line. 

Age is an important thing to keep in mind. Raigh, Takumi and Severa are ill tempered brats but they're all just kids so I wouldn't take their lashing outs too seriously. To some extend this goes for Lyn and Hector too. Both can fly off the handle over imagined insults but they don't mean it so bad, and its likely more immaturity than malice what leads to them acting this way. Azama for all his comedy is a grown man willing to bully children which while amusing is really, really pathetic. 

[Saint Rubenio]

The line between an unlikeable character that's enjoyable to watch and an unlikeable character that rains on the game's parade is thin, blurry and very easy to cross. I couldn't explain quite all that makes me like an unlikeable character or dislike another, but I think you hit the nail on the head when you brought up author intent. I feel that a character that is not meant to be unlikeable, but is, will definitely be a lot more difficult to stomach because they're likely to be validated by the story. I'm one of those "Hilda Three Houses is a terrible person and I hate nobody around her seems to care" folks, you see. I also quite hated the Lysithea/Ignatz support you bring up, even more so because Iggy is one of my favorite 3H characters. I couldn't care less for Lys and her sob story, she can leave my boy well alone.

For an example of the opposite (WARNING: not FE), there's this little DS game called Valkyrie Profile: Covenant of the Plume. This game has a character called Fauxnel, who is a slimy, backstabbing rat that has people killed to further his designs every Tuesday, frames old friends for his crimes and pits them against one another, is responsible for like half of the bad things that happen in the game, says things like "how dreadful, war's horrors... my shoes will never be the same" and looks a bit like Narcian to boot.

He's also my favorite character in the game by a long-shot. The sheer audacity of the guy is such that it becomes incredibly fun to watch him fit every bad thing ever into his modest screentime. I wasn't even mad that he gets away with everything. Though that's partly because I understood how that was meant to interact with the game mechanics. Yeah, story interacting with gameplay, imagine that. Covenant of the Plume is amazing everyone, play it, it's way more than just "meme TLP song game."

That's probably my favorite unlikeable character I've seen... ever, in a videogame, but going back to FE... I rather like Saul in this regard. Saul is an absolute creepshow, but he's so bad at creeping that he cycles around and ends up being the good priest he's supposed to be by complete accident. In his supports and his introduction, he fails miserably at roping unsuspecting gals into his schemes, and ends up being genuinely helpful, entirely through his own sheer incompetence at being a pervert. I'm not fond of the "haha likeable pervy" types at all, but Saul feels like an interesting take on it. Or at least, that's my interpretation of him.

[Fire Emblem Fan]

There's definitely a few unlikable characters that I like quite a bit. Ones I consider to be genuinely good and well-written characters, characters that make a certain degree of sense as to why they are the way they are, or are just kinda fun-mean. But, like everyone else, there's those unlikable characters that are just...not good. Characters who take it too far, or the game isn't aware of how bad what they're saying/doing is, or just too unlikable even if they have a reason, etc. For me, personally, in my opinion, Vaida, Raigh, a few others are of the former category. Severa and Shinon are of the latter.

[Zapp Branniglenn]

Ah I find myself using characters like that often. I think what I like best about Shinon is that the casual Laguz racism proves to us what the narrative is saying about Tellius. If our army were 100% constructed of good boys and girls who have never had an insensitive thought or predisposition in their life, then the setting falls apart. In this fantasy realm of pure hearted individuals, racism stands out like a sore thumb. Where does it come from? It's unthinkable to imagine. Shinon never says a word in his own defense, he knows he's quickly becoming an outsider in a world that's ready to move on from people like him. And, for what it's worth, he is fighting for the Laguz at the end of the day, so the snide remarks can't eat too hard at his conscience, right? Bad men can end up on the right side of history as surely as the reverse. What about Jill? Well what about Jill? A cute, mean Laguz girl yells at her and her world view gets shattered? The only believable part of the arc is that she turns back after having one conversation with her dad. So many people would choose family over ideals in her position. She wouldn't just be killing her dad, she's killing herself. What's waiting for a traitor like her? Tellius has no answer for us.

I was really taken in with Lorenz too. We're presented with a setting that tells us (but never shows) a classism conflict between Crests and No Crests. And Lorenz just eats it up. When you have infinite self esteem and a world that tells you you're great from your lineage alone, it's a match made in heaven. Fodlan tries to convince us that it's on the verge of a Reformation-scale event that will finally achieve equality for all. 99.9% of people you speak with in the Monastery are frustratingly on board with abolishing Crest-based holdings. There's no conflict here. The Reformation has already happened by the time the game starts. Everybody arrived at the right side of history before Judgement day. But then you've got Lorenz. He's the only one sipping the kool-aid, unknowingly holding the seams of this universe together. Whichever un-credited writer was in charge of Lorenz uniquely understood the assignment. And in the War Phase he comes around only because he's not a monster at the end of the day. Show him a world that rewards men of merit, and he's not afraid. His Noble Self Esteem keeps him from panicking as the walls come down around him.

[Jotari]

There are few unlikeable characters that I outright dislike. I probably have the more damning stance of just not caring about those characters at all. Perry is the prime example. A lot of people are really rubbed the wrong way by her, but she just doesn't figure into my analysis or enjoyment of Fates and its cast at all. I'm more upset by the narrative not utilizing a character properly. Like I made that one thread about Karel saying he was wasted as an optional playable character in Blazing Blade and should have been a villain. It's not like I think Edgelord Karel is just a bad concept, just that he's wasted as a concept and doesn't fit in with the cast in the way Blazing Blade used him. And that's where Perry has the advantage over him, because of as OTT as she is, she is fulfilling the role of being a villain. Because the Nohrians are kind of meant to be the villains. So a character like Perry is fitting in there. Keaton and Camilla's support chain is about how comfortable they are with the stench of blood reeking from each other. That's the company she keeps (even if Conquest itself didn't quite understand that).

2 hours ago, Zapp Branniglenn said:

And, for what it's worth, he is fighting for the Laguz at the end of the day, so the snide remarks can't eat too hard at his conscience, right? Bad men can end up on the right side of history as surely as the reverse. What about Jill? Well what about Jill? A cute, mean Laguz girl yells at her and her world view gets shattered? The only believable part of the arc is that she turns back after having one conversation with her dad. So many people would choose family over ideals in her position. She wouldn't just be killing her dad, she's killing herself. What's waiting for a traitor like her? Tellius has no answer for us.

I feel that's a bit disingenuous to Jill. She ends up inadvertently trapped behind enemy lines and spends months with Ike's crew on a day to day basis before she actively makes the choice to fight against her own country. Boiling that down to a handful of conversations is the expedience of writing because it ultimately isn't Jill's story and she is just a minor side character representing Daein.

[Magenta Fantasies]

22 hours ago, Etrurian emperor said:

On how to judge an unpleasant character I also think its important how fair their constant criticism is. Felix for instance is incredibly harsh but he's also very fair. Very rarely does he say something that isn't at least somewhat true, and he's not above rephrasing his statements if he thinks people take it harsher than he intended. Hubert too is mostly fair in his criticism. He enjoys tormenting his classmates but given how wacky and eclectic the Black Eagles are you can also see him as a babysitter having to keep a bunch of rowdy kids in line. When there's nothing to criticize as with Petra Hubert is mostly cordial and helpful. Shinon meanwhile is just a drunk racist who barely bothers to make actual points when he goes off at people. Soren is in a weird middle ground where he often has very valid things to say, but other times he just wallows in his bad opinion of people.

This touches on one big reason why Jakob is one of my absolute favorite Fire Emblem characters and why Shinon is one of my absolute least favorites. Jakob is snarky and critical towards almost everyone, but his criticisms are very valid. When he’s not outright correct, he at least raises good points. It also helps that Jakob is hilarious in the delivery of said criticisms, and I consistently enjoy his dry wit.

A perfect example is Jakob and Silas’ support, which is probably one of the most “jerk-ish” supports Jakob has. Jakob antagonizes Silas about his altruism, but in doing so, he backhandedly shows his own willingness to help others in their time of need. He also makes Silas realize that his altruism can be detrimental to him. While I’m quite fond of Silas, I can’t stand that kind of “martyr complex” he has, where people feel obligated to help everybody who they see struggling, then complain about the burden of feeling like they have to help solve everyone’s problems. I’ve met people like this in real life and they can be incredibly annoying to deal with, so I take Jakob’s side in this argument. Sakura and Jakob’s support has a similar theme, although it’s one of several supports (Elise and Mozu come to mind) that shows that Jakob has a softer side. Also, his support with Corrin is one of the sweetest and most heartwarming supports in the series.

I’m also willing to pardon unpleasant behavior if a character acts in a way that is informed by their life experiences, especially if it’s done in a way that isn’t “tragic backstory as an excuse to be a jerk.” Shinon falls into that “tragic backstory as an excuse to be a jerk” category for me. It’s mentioned at some point that his mother never loved him (and maybe was an alcoholic, too,) but it doesn’t really influence his character in deeper or more meaningful ways.

Circling back to Jakob, even if he can be unpleasant, his behavior makes perfect sense given his life experiences. His support with Gunter shows that not only was Gunter extremely strict with him as a child and constantly berated him for not working hard enough even though Jakob was working himself to the bone, but had no real affection for him (unlike Corrin, and from a Japanese-only DLC conversation, Felicia.) Corrin was the only person who ever really cared about Jakob and saw him as a more than a burden, a coworker, or an employee. Jakob’s parents gave him away the first chance they had, the other servants he worked with berated him, and if not for Corrin’s intervention, he would have been fired and likely would have ended up on the streets. Flora has a crush on him, but still outwardly treats Jakob like a coworker. Jakob’s upbringing also influences his and Dwyer’s relationship. He criticizes Dwyer and always pushes him to work harder with little to no praise because Gunter did the same to him when he was growing up. This leads to Dwyer stoking the flames of animosity between them by competing with him and he even tells Corrin that he wants to take away Jakob’s raison d’etre and replace Jakob as Corrin’s butler.

Another example of a character who can be hostile and abrasive, but whose behavior makes perfect sense given her life experiences is Panne, another favorite of mine. She joins the Shepherds out of obligation and at first openly distrusts them and pushes them away from her. Her distrust is warranted, as her experience with humans has been overwhelmingly negative. Humans destroyed her home and her community, and she had to survive alone for most of her life while carrying the burden and loneliness of being the last of her species. Over time in her supports, she warms up to the Shepherds and has several genuinely touching scenes as she learns to work through her trauma, overcome her prejudice and find happiness.

[AnonymousSpeed]

There is none good but God. People just find some vices more familiar, comfortable, or acceptable than others. Hilda's vices bother Ruben a lot more than Lenticular. Obviously these are fictional characters, but fiction is only valuable to the extent it reflects reality (neither the audience or author necessarily have to realize how or that this is happening at all).

[Etrurian emperor]

Another instance of a character coming off far worse due to confused writing is Ryoma. 

Ryoma arguing that the Hoshidans are Corrin's real family and that the Nohrians just kidnapped them is fair enough. If its true. But because Corrin needs to marry everyone this explicitly is not the case. The Hoshidans aren't any more blood related then to Corrin then the Nohrians are. And what makes Ryoma come off so much worse is that Ryoma is established as already knowing this. He's not confused about his blood relation with Corrin, he knows he's not Corrin's real family either but chooses to hide it in order to deligitimize Corrin's bond with the people who raised him. That's actually really scummy. Ryoma using false information to lure Corrin to his side and turn him against people he has very close bonds with.

But because I highly suspect that the Hoshidans not being Corrin's blood family was decided extremely late in development I think its possible that when this scene was written Ryoma really was Corrin's biological sibling. Which to some extend is a saving grace for Ryoma, but on the other hand also reflects more poorly on Ryoma's writing in general.

[Jotari]

2 hours ago, Etrurian emperor said:

Another instance of a character coming off far worse due to confused writing is Ryoma. 

Ryoma arguing that the Hoshidans are Corrin's real family and that the Nohrians just kidnapped them is fair enough. If its true. But because Corrin needs to marry everyone this explicitly is not the case. The Hoshidans aren't any more blood related then to Corrin then the Nohrians are. And what makes Ryoma come off so much worse is that Ryoma is established as already knowing this. He's not confused about his blood relation with Corrin, he knows he's not Corrin's real family either but chooses to hide it in order to deligitimize Corrin's bond with the people who raised him. That's actually really scummy. Ryoma using false information to lure Corrin to his side and turn him against people he has very close bonds with.

But because I highly suspect that the Hoshidans not being Corrin's blood family was decided extremely late in development I think its possible that when this scene was written Ryoma really was Corrin's biological sibling. Which to some extend is a saving grace for Ryoma, but on the other hand also reflects more poorly on Ryoma's writing in general.

I try not to hold that against Ryoma personally too much. It's the game's poor writing, not his. That very same motivating factor also makes literally every playable unit in the game a scummy parent who abandons their children and only shows up once every few years at their own convince. I can't possibly factor that as an aspect of any of their characters as it's obviously not an element of their character at all and just a symptom of the overall writing issues with the game.

[AnonymousSpeed]

There is also perhaps something very dystopian about meta and circumstances factoring (if not at all than so heavily) into our assessment of writing, even if it is just for an FE game.

Edited September 3 by AnonymousSpeed

[Jotari]

54 minutes ago, AnonymousSpeed said:

There is also perhaps something very dystopian about meta and circumstances factoring (if not at all than so heavily) into our assessment of writing, even if it is just for an FE game.

Dystopian is a strange way to put it. I'd describe it more as cultural context when factoring in analysis. Which has pretty much always existed. When we judge Romeo and Juliet we're not judging "Teen romance tragedy X", were judging freaking Shakespeare and a story that's been around five hundred years. That's going to factor into our understanding of the context, and at this point, even the outright language of the play ("I bite my thumb at thee"??? No way I'm understanding that without a teacher to explain it).

When it comes to Fates, Fire Emblem and our own quasi global anime culture, it's context that waifu worship is a thing, that these games are made less by individuals and more by soulless corporations trying to find the best money printing algorithm and that gameplay is also a favor that impacts narrative (#FatesKidsWereAGoodThing). If Fates is studied in Highschools 500 years from now and a student asks "What the hell, Ryoma knew all along?" these are the answers that will be provided.

Edited September 3 by Jotari

[AnonymousSpeed]

Yeah that sounds like a critical theory which has been a disaster for the Bible so it can't work out well for anime.

Edit (Important):

Spoiler

 

Edited September 3 by AnonymousSpeed

[MeteorPhoenix]

For what it's worth, I don't even recruit the kids when I replay Fates. I usually have more characters than I know what to do with, and the kids' existence does so much damage to the narrative, the characters, the pacing, my immersion. I just don't recruit them and pretend they don't exist.

[Jotari]

10 minutes ago, AnonymousSpeed said:

Yeah that sounds like a critical theory which has been a disaster for the Bible so it can't work out well for anime.

Edit (Important):

  Reveal hidden contents

 

I don't quite get your response? Are you saying that understanding the cultural context of the people who wrote something has no value in understanding the work? Because that's something I would fine pretty much impossible to deny, and the Bible is probably one of the best examples of it.  At the very basic of basic levels you're not going to understanding anything about an old or foreign text without knowledge of the language it's written in (or, more commonly, having had someone do that leg work for you ahead of time and write a translation).

[Sunwoo]

I definitely have some intentionally unlikable characters that I just find hilarious, Kempf and Narcian come to mind. But I guess part of the reason why I do think they're hilarious is because in the end, they're kinda pathetic. They don't really succeed in anything and are kinda over-the-top in personality. So they're more entertaining than threatening. Meanwhile, characters who are played as legitimate threats who succeed in harming (or killing) someone are both unlikable and not hilarious.

Meanwhile, the characters who end up being unpleasant and unlikable even though it doesn't seem like the writers intended it to be like that are the worst. Since in those cases, it is absolutely a case of the writers not being competent enough to handle the topic. Or even they have no fucking idea what the problem and the disconnect is. Xander and Edelgard are honestly my two biggest contenders for this one. I find them extremely unlikable, and I would've been fine with that if the story realized this and leaned into the gray areas. But the story doesn't even seem to realize how Xander and Edelgard can come off as unlikable, choosing to go more into "THEY DID NOTHING WRONG GAIS" if you pick their paths.

[Jotari]

2 hours ago, Sunwoo said:

I definitely have some intentionally unlikable characters that I just find hilarious, Kempf and Narcian come to mind. But I guess part of the reason why I do think they're hilarious is because in the end, they're kinda pathetic. They don't really succeed in anything and are kinda over-the-top in personality. So they're more entertaining than threatening. Meanwhile, characters who are played as legitimate threats who succeed in harming (or killing) someone are both unlikable and not hilarious.

Meanwhile, the characters who end up being unpleasant and unlikable even though it doesn't seem like the writers intended it to be like that are the worst. Since in those cases, it is absolutely a case of the writers not being competent enough to handle the topic. Or even they have no fucking idea what the problem and the disconnect is. Xander and Edelgard are honestly my two biggest contenders for this one. I find them extremely unlikable, and I would've been fine with that if the story realized this and leaned into the gray areas. But the story doesn't even seem to realize how Xander and Edelgard can come off as unlikable, choosing to go more into "THEY DID NOTHING WRONG GAIS" if you pick their paths.

I think Edelgard has a touch more nuanced to her than Xander. Like, yes, the game never outright villifies her, but she still is treated as the villain. If that makes sense. I know it sounds a bit contradictory. Point being that in most routes you are fighting against her and you do kill her. And she even turns into a literal monster in one of them. That's more condemnation than Mr everyman Xander Camus.

[MeteorPhoenix]

1 hour ago, Jotari said:

I think Edelgard has a touch more nuanced to her than Xander. Like, yes, the game never outright villifies her, but she still is treated as the villain. If that makes sense. I know it sounds a bit contradictory. Point being that in most routes you are fighting against her and you do kill her. And she even turns into a literal monster in one of them. That's more condemnation than Mr everyman Xander Camus.

I agree. I think there's an element of tragedy and melancholy that Xander never gets. Xander is usually portrayed as straightforwardly heroic, even in Conquest. Conquest bends itself backwards to usually excuse Corrin and the Nohrian royals.

And while CF can be... problematic in how it portrays Edelgard, I feel the route doesn't shy away from her culpability in what's happening, and the suffering it's causing. And in the other routes, she's just outright a villain you need to kill.

Edited September 4 by MeteorPhoenix
typo

[Sunwoo]

2 hours ago, Jotari said:

I think Edelgard has a touch more nuanced to her than Xander. Like, yes, the game never outright villifies her, but she still is treated as the villain. If that makes sense. I know it sounds a bit contradictory. Point being that in most routes you are fighting against her and you do kill her. And she even turns into a literal monster in one of them. That's more condemnation than Mr everyman Xander Camus.

This is a fair point. Perhaps I'm being too uncharitable because a certain subset of her fanbase has made me dislike her way more than I already did. Actually, it's really only Crimson Flower's writing that I actually hate, now that I think about it.

[AnonymousSpeed]

17 hours ago, Jotari said:

I don't quite get your response? Are you saying that understanding the cultural context of the people who wrote something has no value in understanding the work? Because that's something I would fine pretty much impossible to deny, and the Bible is probably one of the best examples of it.  At the very basic of basic levels you're not going to understanding anything about an old or foreign text without knowledge of the language it's written in (or, more commonly, having had someone do that leg work for you ahead of time and write a translation).

Knowing what a Publican is or about Second Temple demonology can enrich ones understanding of Luke 19 or Genesis 6, but they ultimately support the text rather than circumvent it. Context is great but you don't appreciate Shakespeare by spending hours upon hours researching Elizabethan England first. A High School English teacher telling you about McCarthyism will not help you understand the actual character emotions in the Crucible. There comes a point where you actually have to engage with the text itself if you're going to make a criticism of it, because when you have an exchange like this:

• "I think it was kind of egregious and wrong that this character did this."
• "I do not factor this part of the text into my assessment because I speculate it was added due to circumstances."

It's hard to understand why we're even considering the work at all.

[Jotari]

2 hours ago, AnonymousSpeed said:

Knowing what a Publican is or about Second Temple demonology can enrich ones understanding of Luke 19 or Genesis 6, but they ultimately support the text rather than circumvent it. Context is great but you don't appreciate Shakespeare by spending hours upon hours researching Elizabethan England first. A High School English teacher telling you about McCarthyism will not help you understand the actual character emotions in the Crucible. There comes a point where you actually have to engage with the text itself if you're going to make a criticism of it, because when you have an exchange like this:

• "I think it was kind of egregious and wrong that this character did this."
• "I do not factor this part of the text into my assessment because I speculate it was added due to circumstances."

It's hard to understand why we're even considering the work at all.

Well obviously. I wasn't saying that context is literally the only way to view a text. Of course the text has merit in itself that you will have to grasp by understanding the characters and situation. But our ability to do so is going to be impacted by how far removed it is from us in a cultural and historical sense. If you read the Bible expecting it to be a best seller fantasy novel then you're absolutely going to miss the point. Likewise is you approach Fates, somehow, under the impression that it's a religious text then you're just going to be plain confused. These things are all written by people in a certain time and a certain place, for a certain reason and a certain audience. And understanding all that will help to understand why some decisions, which might otherwise seem odd, like Ryoma being a gaslighted, are made.

[AnonymousSpeed]

2 minutes ago, Jotari said:

If you read the Bible expecting it to be a best seller fantasy novel then you're absolutely going to miss the point.

"Fencing, fighting, torture, revenge, giants, monsters, chases, escapes, true love, miracles..."

I mean-

3 minutes ago, Jotari said:

Likewise is you approach Fates, somehow, under the impression that it's a religious text then you're just going to be plain confused.

2 minutes ago, Jotari said:

These things are all written by people in a certain time and a certain place, for a certain reason and a certain audience. And understanding all that will help to understand why some decisions, which might otherwise seem odd, like Ryoma being a gaslighted, are made.

Alright, but here's my take. I'm not the editor for the original author. I'm not here to assess his attentions or how effectively he conveys them or make a cost-benefit analysis between his artistic integrity and the demands of his publisher. Those things are neat trivia, but they are ultimately external to Fates. In fact, unlike a historical document like the Gospel of Luke, they are not even in the same universe as the events depicted. All because there was some "good reason" someone had to put it in the story doesn't mean the story isn't worse for having it.

[Jotari]

17 minutes ago, AnonymousSpeed said:

"Fencing, fighting, torture, revenge, giants, monsters, chases, escapes, true love, miracles..."

I mean-

Alright, but here's my take. I'm not the editor for the original author. I'm not here to assess his attentions or how effectively he conveys them or make a cost-benefit analysis between his artistic integrity and the demands of his publisher. Those things are neat trivia, but they are ultimately external to Fates. In fact, unlike a historical document like the Gospel of Luke, they are not even in the same universe as the events depicted. All because there was some "good reason" someone had to put it in the story doesn't mean the story isn't worse for having it.

Oh of course the story is worse for it. I'm not defending Fates decision to character assassinate it's entire cast for the sake of waifus. It's obviously a poor decision from a narrative stand point. Hilariously so. My original point on the topic though is that I don't hold it against my judgement of the characters individually, I hold it against the game's writing over all.

Edited September 4 by Jotari

[AnonymousSpeed]

4 hours ago, Jotari said:

My original point on the topic though is that I don't hold it against my judgement of the characters individually, I hold it against the game's writing over all.

I'm not sure we should (or should not) separate those two things. Like, I wouldn't get mad at a fictional character even if I found their source material abhorrent. Which sounds like I'm contradicting myself, but I guess what I mean is that poor/good writing produce Ryoma, he isn't separate from those things.

Edited September 4 by AnonymousSpeed

[Jotari]

18 minutes ago, AnonymousSpeed said:

I'm not sure we should (or should not) separate those two things. Like, I wouldn't get mad at a fictional character even if I found their source material abhorrent. Which sounds like I'm contradicting myself, but I guess what I mean is that poor/good writing produce Ryoma, he isn't separate from those things.

Well each to their own, but for me, wether rationale or not, its doesn't effect my personal assessment of him. When I see him in Warriors or heroes my first reaction is "oh it's the lightning samurai guy" not "there's that bastard who lied to a woman to convince her she was his sister, then fucked her and abandoned their son."

[SnowFire]

On 9/3/2023 at 6:32 PM, AnonymousSpeed said:

Yeah that sounds like a critical theory which has been a disaster for the Bible so it can't work out well for anime.

I'm going to presume you mean "textual criticism" here rather than "critical theory": Critical Theory is weirdo European Postmodernists who like to deny whatever is being talked about (but isn't really related to the Bible), Textual Criticism is something that is uncontroversially applied to lots of domains and only gets side-eye when applied to religious ones.  And while this is getting a bit off-topic, it's not a disaster, or at the very worst, it's merely exposing a disaster that was already there.  Like, if you're arguing with someone who is assuming into evidence facts from a piece of fanfiction, even a popular piece of fanfiction, it's totally valid to point out that this stuff wasn't actually in the game.  Or even an official spinoff book, but maybe one written by just a subset of the team - the Ultimania guides for Square's old stuff were infamous for coming up with weird stuff that wasn't in the game and thus was of dubious "canonicity."

Anyway, it's nothing new.  Nobody less than Martin Luther kicked the deuterocanonical books into a separate "Apocrypha" section back when they were considered canon.  And for the Catholic & Orthodox, there were several Church Councils arguing over which books are canon all the way from the 2nd into the 10th century, and coming up with different results.  And as for textual variations, well, they exist.  The Hebrew version of Jeremiah is a full 11% longer than than the Greek version, so you have to pick one to use - did the Hebrew version "Expand" over time with new authors (likely), or was the Greek version an abridged version (less likely)?  Regardless of which way you think, people disagree.  (I guess the Fire Emblem equivalent will be if World War 3 ruins our records and future gaming historians have to puzzle out whether a FE ROMhack that survived was ever an IntSys-blessed version or not.)

On 9/4/2023 at 12:10 PM, AnonymousSpeed said:

Knowing what a Publican is or about Second Temple demonology can enrich ones understanding of Luke 19 or Genesis 6, but they ultimately support the text rather than circumvent it. Context is great but you don't appreciate Shakespeare by spending hours upon hours researching Elizabethan England first. A High School English teacher telling you about McCarthyism will not help you understand the actual character emotions in the Crucible. There comes a point where you actually have to engage with the text itself if you're going to make a criticism of it, because when you have an exchange like this:

• "I think it was kind of egregious and wrong that this character did this."
• "I do not factor this part of the text into my assessment because I speculate it was added due to circumstances."

It's hard to understand why we're even considering the work at all.

Yeah, but the context can be pretty darn important sometimes, so at least *some* time spent considering what Shakespeare knew and how Elizabethan England worked is pretty valid.  Like, for one classic Biblical interpretation example that reaches common people, take the very famous Parable of the Good Samaritan.  It's cool that it's famous, but it's also changed the meaning of "Samaritan" to a person who does good deeds unprovoked.  If you're researching the parable, it's important to get back in the mindset of the time, where Levites are good and Samaritans are icky.  If you don't have that context, there's an alternate, worse interpretation where it's just saying awesome good Samaritans are cool, icky Jews are bad, an interpretation that has been unironically and directly propounded in the past.  When really it should be more like "The Tale of the Good [Insert the Vilest Ethnic Slur In Your Culture Here]" to get across the idea of "actions matter not cultural status."

As far as dismissing text for being added, what if it WAS added?  This is hardly an unknown phenomenon, it happens, and it's very obvious with books of multiple lengths (I already mentioned Jeremiah above, but there's also the Greek additions to Daniel, or the two endings of Mark, and so on).  Or for a whole-entity level addition, there's a famous fake play called "Vortigern" attributed to Shakespeare that was not really written in Shakespeare's time.  It's fine to read it anyway, but you should know going in that The Bard didn't write it.  And again, we literally have early Church Fathers arguing about precisely this in our records, accusing this work or that of being the work of heretics & forgers.  Hell, it's directly in the New Testament: the letter 2 Thessalonians directly warns about people writing fake letters in Paul's name.  (The darkly hilarious thing is that this might be referring to 1 Thessalonians, which really was written by Paul!  Lots of scholars think that 2 Thessalonians itself was forged by somebody else...  if it was, then it proves forgeries were going around, if it wasn't, then it shows Paul wrote that forgeries were going around.)

Bringing it back to the safer topic of anime, at least people are under no illusions that there was a singular writer behind most Fire Emblem games.  The Fates supports were written by different writers than the main plot writers, I believe, and the supports are almost never time-locked, which is why the supports sometimes "contradict" information from the main plot, or often dance around the main plot to talk about side issues.  This is handy information to know when deciding how seriously to take some of the wilder stories in the supports as being an intended part of the Fates world, say.