[002]
69.172.221.4
Current Version
Changed line(s) 3 from:
n
That would have been utterly bizarre. Elizabeth is Comstock\'s heir. Comstock doesn\'t want anybody taking his heir away, because he\'s obsessed with his prophecy coming to pass. He loves Elizabeth, but as an object - hypocritically, as a \
to:
That would have been utterly bizarre. Elizabeth is Comstock\\\'s heir. Comstock doesn\\\'t want anybody taking his heir away, because he\\\'s obsessed with his prophecy coming to pass. He loves Elizabeth, but as an object - hypocritically, as a \\\"means to an end\\\". \\\'\\\'The\\\'\\\' end. Booker (to him) is the sinful man he left behind in the baptismal font; he\\\'s proven it with what he did to Elizabeth. But Booker winds up caring about her as a person. Someone who deserves to have her own life and her own desires fulfilled - nothing to do with what he wants. Were he a romantic partner, he would want her to stay with him, and she would want the same, but ultimately both understand that there comes a point where they have to \\\"let go\\\", just like parents and children.
I didn\\\'t get any sense of antitheism (and I\\\'m Catholic). I got a sense of terror from the misunderstanding and misuse of theism. Comstock doesn\\\'t really follows the ideals of religions that use baptism - he directs worship towards himself, he shows off his power over people, he twists ritualistic language to dress up tyranny, bigotry and genocide in pretty words, he never atones or asks forgiveness to pave the way for grace, nor does he offer it to anybody he judges unfit (when it\\\'s not supposed to be his place to judge. Judge not and all). He\\\'s all things wrong with religious movements and people, hypocrisy and self-righteousness, nothing wrong with religion itself.
It\\\'s not a deconstruction. It\\\'s a pretty damn basic girl-in-a-tower story. Girl escapes tower, symbolically matures, claims the power she was always meant to have, restoring agency to herself. The \\\'\\\'twist\\\'\\\' is that she uses her power to prevent all iterations of her story, the girl-in-the-tower, from ever happening - no girls in towers groomed to be symbols. Just girls. And she does this by destroying her warden three times - the one who kept her in the tower, the one who put her in the tower, and the one who took her from the tower, because all three furthered the story. All of them are reflections of the same individual. Not Booker [=DeWitt=], but a \\\'\\\'Big Daddy\\\'\\\'. A twisted father figure.
The twist is that the game is not about Booker\\\'s growth, but hers.
\\\'\\\'If people can get the wrong idea at all, then something has gone wrong.\\\'\\\'
Uh...that just plain isn\\\'t true. And guessing the twist is okay. I guessed (or suspected). For that matter, \\\'\\\'not\\\'\\\' guessing the twist means you can use hindsight to recognise the moments that pointed the conclusion. Which is fun! And it leads to discussion of the game, which is also fun. Usually. How many people guessed \\\"Would you kindly?\\\" And how many people cared whether they did or not?
Storming a lab to rescue a person you care deeply about, someone you\\\'re connected to in a way that\\\'s hard to define but incredibly powerful? Preventing a girl from suffering under decades of torture and having her will broken? Worked for me! The daughter reveal just framed it - and their relationship - as sadder and sweeter. Just like learning that Ryan was Jack\\\'s father made the game Fontaine played all the more twisted.
\\\'\\\'If you want to tell a father/daughter story, the very concept that there are parts ambiguous enough to let someone believe a romance is even possible means you\\\'ve done something wrong.\\\'\\\'
Really? That\\\'s weird, considering the [[LukeYouAreMyFather number]] of [[LukeIAmYourFather tropes]] about such ambiguous [[ParentalSubstitute relationships]] and reveals. And considering the complete absence of any LoveTropes in their interaction. Because I haven\\\'t seen anybody point them out - aside from one moment of hand-touching (saucy!) and one vaguely interpretable question which, in context, is not especially romantic.
I didn\\\'t get any sense of antitheism (and I\\\'m Catholic). I got a sense of terror from the misunderstanding and misuse of theism. Comstock doesn\\\'t really follows the ideals of religions that use baptism - he directs worship towards himself, he shows off his power over people, he twists ritualistic language to dress up tyranny, bigotry and genocide in pretty words, he never atones or asks forgiveness to pave the way for grace, nor does he offer it to anybody he judges unfit (when it\\\'s not supposed to be his place to judge. Judge not and all). He\\\'s all things wrong with religious movements and people, hypocrisy and self-righteousness, nothing wrong with religion itself.
It\\\'s not a deconstruction. It\\\'s a pretty damn basic girl-in-a-tower story. Girl escapes tower, symbolically matures, claims the power she was always meant to have, restoring agency to herself. The \\\'\\\'twist\\\'\\\' is that she uses her power to prevent all iterations of her story, the girl-in-the-tower, from ever happening - no girls in towers groomed to be symbols. Just girls. And she does this by destroying her warden three times - the one who kept her in the tower, the one who put her in the tower, and the one who took her from the tower, because all three furthered the story. All of them are reflections of the same individual. Not Booker [=DeWitt=], but a \\\'\\\'Big Daddy\\\'\\\'. A twisted father figure.
The twist is that the game is not about Booker\\\'s growth, but hers.
\\\'\\\'If people can get the wrong idea at all, then something has gone wrong.\\\'\\\'
Uh...that just plain isn\\\'t true. And guessing the twist is okay. I guessed (or suspected). For that matter, \\\'\\\'not\\\'\\\' guessing the twist means you can use hindsight to recognise the moments that pointed the conclusion. Which is fun! And it leads to discussion of the game, which is also fun. Usually. How many people guessed \\\"Would you kindly?\\\" And how many people cared whether they did or not?
Storming a lab to rescue a person you care deeply about, someone you\\\'re connected to in a way that\\\'s hard to define but incredibly powerful? Preventing a girl from suffering under decades of torture and having her will broken? Worked for me! The daughter reveal just framed it - and their relationship - as sadder and sweeter. Just like learning that Ryan was Jack\\\'s father made the game Fontaine played all the more twisted.
\\\'\\\'If you want to tell a father/daughter story, the very concept that there are parts ambiguous enough to let someone believe a romance is even possible means you\\\'ve done something wrong.\\\'\\\'
Really? That\\\'s weird, considering the [[LukeYouAreMyFather number]] of [[LukeIAmYourFather tropes]] about such ambiguous [[ParentalSubstitute relationships]] and reveals. And considering the complete absence of any LoveTropes in their interaction. Because I haven\\\'t seen anybody point them out - aside from one moment of hand-touching (saucy!) and one vaguely interpretable question which, in context, is not especially romantic.
Changed line(s) 3 from:
n
That would have been utterly bizarre. Elizabeth is Comstock\'s heir. Comstock doesn\'t want anybody taking his heir away, because he\'s obsessed with his prophecy coming to pass. He loves Elizabeth, but as an object - ironically enough, as a \
to:
That would have been utterly bizarre. Elizabeth is Comstock\\\'s heir. Comstock doesn\\\'t want anybody taking his heir away, because he\\\'s obsessed with his prophecy coming to pass. He loves Elizabeth, but as an object - hypocritically, as a \\\"means to an end\\\". \\\'\\\'The\\\'\\\' end. Booker (to him) is the sinful man he left behind in the baptismal font; he\\\'s proven it with what he did to Elizabeth. But Booker winds up caring about her as a person. Someone who deserves to have her own life and her own desires fulfilled - nothing to do with what he wants. Were he a romantic partner, he would want her to stay with him, and she would want the same, but ultimately both understand that there comes a point where they have to \\\"let go\\\", just like parents and children.
I didn\\\'t get any sense of antitheism (and I\\\'m Catholic). I got a sense of terror from the misunderstanding and misuse of theism. Comstock doesn\\\'t really follows the ideals of religions that use baptism - he directs worship towards himself, he shows off his power over people, he twists ritualistic language to dress up bigotry and genocide in pretty words, he never atones or asks forgiveness to pave the way for grace, nor does he offer it to anybody he judges unfit (when it\\\'s not supposed to be his place to judge. Judge not and all). He\\\'s all things wrong with religious movements and people, hypocrisy and self-righteousness, nothing wrong with religion itself.
It\\\'s not a deconstruction. It\\\'s a pretty damn basic girl-in-a-tower story. Girl escapes tower, symbolically matures, claims the power she was always meant to have, restoring agency to herself. The \\\'\\\'twist\\\'\\\' is that she uses her power to prevent all iterations of her story, the girl-in-the-tower, from ever happening - no girls in towers groomed to be symbols. Just girls. And she does this by destroying her warden three times - the one who kept her in the tower, the one who put her in the tower, and the one who took her from the tower, because all three furthered the story. All of them are reflections of the same individual. Not Booker [=DeWitt=], but a \\\'\\\'Big Daddy\\\'\\\'. A twisted father figure.
The twist is that the game is not about Booker\\\'s growth, but hers.
\\\'\\\'If people can get the wrong idea at all, then something has gone wrong.\\\'\\\'
Uh...that just plain isn\\\'t true. And guessing the twist is okay. I guessed (or suspected). For that matter, \\\'\\\'not\\\'\\\' guessing the twist means you can use hindsight to recognise the moments that pointed the conclusion. Which is fun! And it leads to discussion of the game, which is also fun. Usually. How many people guessed \\\"Would you kindly?\\\" And how many people cared whether they did or not?
Storming a lab to rescue a person you care deeply about, someone you\\\'re connected to in a way that\\\'s hard to define but incredibly powerful? Preventing a girl from suffering under decades of torture and having her will broken? Worked for me! The daughter reveal just framed it - and their relationship - as sadder and sweeter. Just like learning that Ryan was Jack\\\'s father made the game Fontaine played all the more twisted.
\\\'\\\'If you want to tell a father/daughter story, the very concept that there are parts ambiguous enough to let someone believe a romance is even possible means you\\\'ve done something wrong.\\\'\\\'
Really? That\\\'s weird, considering the [[LukeYouAreMyFather number]] of [[LukeIAmYourFather tropes]] about such ambiguous [[ParentalSubstitute relationships]] and reveals. And considering the complete absence of any LoveTropes in their interaction. Because I haven\\\'t seen anybody point them out - aside from one moment of hand-touching (saucy!) and one vaguely interpretable question which, in context, is not especially romantic.
I didn\\\'t get any sense of antitheism (and I\\\'m Catholic). I got a sense of terror from the misunderstanding and misuse of theism. Comstock doesn\\\'t really follows the ideals of religions that use baptism - he directs worship towards himself, he shows off his power over people, he twists ritualistic language to dress up bigotry and genocide in pretty words, he never atones or asks forgiveness to pave the way for grace, nor does he offer it to anybody he judges unfit (when it\\\'s not supposed to be his place to judge. Judge not and all). He\\\'s all things wrong with religious movements and people, hypocrisy and self-righteousness, nothing wrong with religion itself.
It\\\'s not a deconstruction. It\\\'s a pretty damn basic girl-in-a-tower story. Girl escapes tower, symbolically matures, claims the power she was always meant to have, restoring agency to herself. The \\\'\\\'twist\\\'\\\' is that she uses her power to prevent all iterations of her story, the girl-in-the-tower, from ever happening - no girls in towers groomed to be symbols. Just girls. And she does this by destroying her warden three times - the one who kept her in the tower, the one who put her in the tower, and the one who took her from the tower, because all three furthered the story. All of them are reflections of the same individual. Not Booker [=DeWitt=], but a \\\'\\\'Big Daddy\\\'\\\'. A twisted father figure.
The twist is that the game is not about Booker\\\'s growth, but hers.
\\\'\\\'If people can get the wrong idea at all, then something has gone wrong.\\\'\\\'
Uh...that just plain isn\\\'t true. And guessing the twist is okay. I guessed (or suspected). For that matter, \\\'\\\'not\\\'\\\' guessing the twist means you can use hindsight to recognise the moments that pointed the conclusion. Which is fun! And it leads to discussion of the game, which is also fun. Usually. How many people guessed \\\"Would you kindly?\\\" And how many people cared whether they did or not?
Storming a lab to rescue a person you care deeply about, someone you\\\'re connected to in a way that\\\'s hard to define but incredibly powerful? Preventing a girl from suffering under decades of torture and having her will broken? Worked for me! The daughter reveal just framed it - and their relationship - as sadder and sweeter. Just like learning that Ryan was Jack\\\'s father made the game Fontaine played all the more twisted.
\\\'\\\'If you want to tell a father/daughter story, the very concept that there are parts ambiguous enough to let someone believe a romance is even possible means you\\\'ve done something wrong.\\\'\\\'
Really? That\\\'s weird, considering the [[LukeYouAreMyFather number]] of [[LukeIAmYourFather tropes]] about such ambiguous [[ParentalSubstitute relationships]] and reveals. And considering the complete absence of any LoveTropes in their interaction. Because I haven\\\'t seen anybody point them out - aside from one moment of hand-touching (saucy!) and one vaguely interpretable question which, in context, is not especially romantic.
