jtr7 on 21/3/2008 at 20:33
Yes. I've admitted I was in a minority. The big problem with convincing others, lies not only in telling them to put aside their own ingrained and firmly-held impressions that have since become hard-wired belief, but also convincing them not to dismiss what is revealed in the media out of personal taste or inconvenience. It's quite a chore to break the habits formed from confabulating a personally-satisfying fiction based on another's fiction.
Absorbing the story in-game, as opposed to looking at the media files closely outside the game, gives a Swiss-cheesed impression that the mind fills in with what makes sense moment to moment.
I'll be back later with an attempt to show how I came to that conclusion, although I've touched on it in ThiefGen recently.
Renault on 21/3/2008 at 20:45
The sermon is really not necessary. But I will say that if something was created by LGS, and didn't make it into the game, there's a reason for it. Therefore, anything that shipped with the game but wasn't actually contained within, should not only be dismissed but considered counter to what LGS was trying to portray as the true storyline.
That said, I'll wait until your thesis on this topic is ready for public release.
jtr7 on 21/3/2008 at 20:53
The snottiness is also not needed. But I do believe I had to make the points above, because my theory hurts people's feelings and makes people feel I ruined their enjoyment of the game. I sullied their memories.
My theory, already expressed elsewhere in rougher form, is based entirely on hard-canon, and will likely not apply to those who've played Thief in a language other than English. My comment about the Swiss-cheesed effect has to do with being distracted by other things, like gameplay, or the sounds, or the colors, or the special effects, while the story is being told. I'm bringing attention to things people don't notice, that are there, because they are focused elsewhere, even for a split-second.
R Soul on 21/3/2008 at 22:55
The 'spellbound' idea is a convenient way of explaining why Garrett starts to trust Vikroria - thought it could just be pragmatism. I.e. he doesn't have a better idea. It's also a convenient way of explaining why he seems to get relatively emotional upon hearing that she's gone to Soulforge, and quite angry when she explodes all over the place.
jtr7 on 21/3/2008 at 23:03
And it's the only way I've ever been able to reconcile his exchange with Lotus. I'll include all that I can in my...heh...thesis.
Renault on 21/3/2008 at 23:25
If he was somehow "spellbound," he wouldn't have resisted Viktoria's idea about assaulting the cathedral. Or gotten upset with her when he found out she already knew about Markham's Isle. Or threatened to terminate their arrangement right from the start (before LOTP).
I don't see why everything that transpires in T2 can simply be exactly as it is stated in the game - two lesser foes teaming up against a greater foe. It's been done so many times in the past that it's almost a cliche.
theBlackman on 22/3/2008 at 00:24
I have a tendency to agree with Brethren.
The enemy of my enemy is my friend. Not a complicated, nor earthshaking conclusion. History has examples too numerous to mention.
"Spellbound", by definition means the inability to do other than what the spell directs you to. In this case, to be amienable to every command, suggestion, wish of Victoria.
jtr7 on 22/3/2008 at 00:48
On the surface you guys are correct. And I
have addressed this very thing elsewhere, though roughly. There's more going on than just the cliché. This is an
addition to it,
not a denial of it. I'll change the word "spellbound" to something more accurate, but the
point remains. When I used that word for the first time, it was seconds after it
(http://www.ttlg.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1714552#post1714552) first occurred to me. I've used it only to bring the reader's attention to the possibility. It is a purposeful and
mild exaggeration to help me apply the idea to the entire scope of the trilogy. A bold new color applied lightly to the story's pallette to make the grand picture come together. By reading this within the same day I wrote it, you are literally (and hopefully not regretfully) witnessing me put these ideas together for the first time, to our mutual mixed reaction. It
is rough.
My theory addresses problems many people have had over the years, time and again. Garrett's emotions being too caring. He and Viki being romantically involved. The out-of-character way he talks with Lotus when he has no reason to, nor shown anything like it before. The general dismissal of Viki's blood oath and threat/promise that the earth will keep it for them, as though that moment never happened, even though Viki was creating a psychological lever. The theory is all-inclusive of the in-game facts, never dismissing anything to serve my emotions or preserve my impressions.
It's an argument of impressions vs. impressions. Feelings will get hurt. Please don't read what I post on these topics if you only find yourself wanting to "correct" my subjective ideas with your own. This opinion has been forming in only the last three or four months, years after I played the games for the first time. The conclusions I've drawn are my own, but I've been influenced by statements from other taffers I admire, which have challenged my thinking and brought things to light. Feel free to express your opinions, but don't expect me to become anymore enlightened, just as I don't expect my ideas to change your firmly-held opinions. If anyone changes anyone's mind, it's a plus. My theory strives to include all canon while challenging impressions, including my own. My appreciation for what LGS did has been ever-growing. I do think it's safe to say, they didn't intend all of these harmonius coincidences.:D
Since late December, I've been working on other theoretical conclusions about other aspects of the Thief Universe and Event Timeline. I've made about a hundred edits to just one of them, adding new canon, and revising the fanon speculation to include and respect the canon, as well as chopping pieces out when I found I was in error. It is a goal of mine to NOT be rigid and closed-minded, always correcting and attempting to improve. Another way to look at what I'm doing with these theories is that I'm trying to create a solid story, like pieces of a Thief novel where the chapters are temporarily out of sequence, out of disparate fragments of various sizes. Some tiny, some substantial. Being a story, you can only make of it what you will. As the author, I really can't worry about a backlash. I'm not making any money from this, so I have no reason to compromise myself. Adjust my paradigm, yes, but not cave in and pretend I don't believe what I do.
theBlackman on 22/3/2008 at 01:38
Interpretation is in the background of the viewers experience. So all points are valid.
The seemingly overlooked point is that, for all his foibles and faults, Garrett is human, a child of the time and his upbringing. His association with the keepers and the accumulated training that he rebelled against, does not negate that.
His desire to be independent and self-directed can easily be linked to his childhood abandonment and "self survival" instincts.
His solitary existance and avoidance of close relationships can also be linked to the same abandonment. "If I trust people, I get hurt", whereas "I" won't betray "me".
His "cold" reaction to the Pagan could well be a defense mechanism, or a reality view of the situation. "He will die, and I would like the same courtesy extended to me in a hopeless situation", for example.
His interaction with Cutty, is pragmatic. I need Cutty to fence this item. If I keep it it's useless to me and a source of future trouble if I expose myself by trying to dispose of it myself.
Basso was a by product. What the hell. I came in to get Cutty, Cutty died, why not drag Basso out. He might come in handy in the future.
Scenarios of this type are well within the realm of Garrett's behaviour. The old saw "no man is an Island" is pretty much a truism unless the "man" is a psychopath, which Garrett is not.
jtr7's views, after indepth study of the "game" is valid, but not necessarily the only one. jt's views are colored and formed by the pressures of his own existance and experience. They are therefore as valid as any based on "his" particular view of the world, its inhabitants, and his life experience.
Good work on the overall JT.
jtr7 on 22/3/2008 at 02:45
Thank you, Sir. Well spoken. And thank you for your compliments, too.
