ercles on 16/10/2006 at 02:30

---

Weird...

Jashin on 16/10/2006 at 19:27

---

Yet you continue to espouse nothing of value.

I will contact my sources within the press and ask the original writer of Thief directly.

Having said that, have you got an alternative to what I proposed? Or is Thief just a "dream world that you escape into to try to avoid making the tough decisions in the real world?"

Elentari on 16/10/2006 at 20:29

---

Jashin, while your theories are interesting - I have to say I SERIOUSLY doubt that so much 'meaning' went into the creation of the stories by any of the authors. I can almost guarantee that when they started, they merely thought this would be an interesting story and these were good ideas to play with.

As for the design of the medieval/victorian eras mixed, well its not a hard stretch still without going into that sort of 'analysis'. Medieval is very common for fantasy genres. And from the victorian - edwardian eras are not a huge step from that. The later eras offering a little more of the modern conveniences without getting into 'modern' and not being quite so backwards as medieval. Its a good way to mix it and not something I have avoided when creating my own world in which to write stories. Many of my 'ideas' are to 'Victorian' for the general medieval setting. Not that I care. It works for me so I do it.

The architecture is the same. Its not quite medieval standard - but its not modern either. Its somewhere in between, lending the world its own semi-unique flavour. It was doubtful the creators planned it this way so much as they wanted to mix elements (electricity with a basically medieval setting) and this sort of 'worked'.

As a writer myself, I can tell you its FAR more likely the creators were more interested in the story and how they were going to present it than the underlying 'meanings' they were trying to get through. Most of us don't have the time or energy to pick apart the underlying reasoning of why something works so much as just knowing that it does and what is going to keep people reading and coming back for more.

If I'm going to analyze something, I'd rather get into the character's heads and figure out what makes them tick so I can better write their reactions to the things around them. Although, I know from experience, most writers/creators don't do this either. They just create and use what works.

And ercles was right. I don't really care what the ending 'signifies'. I just want to know what HAPPENS. What does Garrett do now? Does he take on this apprentice? Does he continue being a thief? Does his life change much or does he pretty much just let the remainder of the Keepers find their way while he finds his? Is this the end of the adventures for him and does the torch pass on to his apprentice? Does the city get better or worse after this event? Does the key on his hand mean he has control of the glyphs now and they all have to be 'redone', or are they entirely gone and the magic is unusable now? What is the impact of the 'loss' of the Keepers have on the city? Does it go on pretty much as it has before, obvlivious to the fate its narrowly escaped, except for the minor mystery of thsi building reappearing? (my guess is it would. in a year or two most people would get used to the building and forget it was never there before, except for the few that'd keep it as a story to pass to their grandchildren. lol)

I also have to add that the type of 'analysis' presented in the first post here tends to have a very insulting effect on most people. Unless you are in a class and specifically interested in that sort of thing - try to use it on most people and you may as well just slap them in the face. Personally, while I love reading, and literature, etc. . .I had one girl come up to me in the library one time and was taking a class of the sort and try to do the same thing with me. I have *no* idea what she was trying to say, but to me she basically said that the only literature worth spending time with is the old classics (which are good, but they arent everything) and all the modern fiction was trash and unless it was a deep meaningful text it was a waste of paper. By which she was insulting me, because I enjoy modern fiction, insulting the books that I have enjoyed, and indeed, even insulting what I write. Granted I seriously doubt she meant it like that at all, but she may as well have hit me, for all it sounded like to me was nothing but a blow to what I enjoyed and did.

Most people care about the stories, the characters and what happens to them. They do not care what it 'means', past what how they identify to it, and picking it apart in such a way removes all the emotional all the spiritual meanings to things and breaks it down to mechanics. WHile some people enjoy that, the majority of people don't care *how* it works so much as that it does.

Phew. Ok, I'll shut up now. :) I do tend to be longwinded. Did I mention I am a writer? lol

Jashin on 17/10/2006 at 00:46

---

Good post, let me take some time to reply to you.

Very possible, the point is it's not nothing to discover these ideas about a body of work that you admire. In fact, it's on the part of the fan to give back to the work itself. The work has a place, as well as the critique of it.


The actions of the character are based on the dispositions of the writer, and it really comes out in the body of the work. This is a ways deeper than the common reading, which is to care about the character. I think everybody cares about the character, but as to what the characters do, could be fancifully self-indulgent on the part of the writer or adhere more to the ugly reality of things. HBO's The Wire is a good example of how something is "as-real-as-it-gets" on TV, and still be entertaining.


You got a point here. I think the quality of a certain work does NOT invalidate the other works' right to exist, if the latter is intended for stricter interpretations - entertainment for example, or the projection of some persona. So if this girl says that modern fiction is trash, she's wrong, they have their place in the culture. The point is they come and go, and doesn't try to tackle the tougher issues that plaque not just a few people, but whole countries or a species. They don't last past their time.


I think everyone can move up to broader meanings to try to learn how it's related to you as a member of something larger than your own personal universe, or your troubles. Cus there's no loyalty in just knowing about characters or stories, there'll be endless supply of that, some of which we'll come to like. When something is bested, most people move on. When something is not, people stay. It's transient.

However, there are works that are beyond popular judgment: Shakespeare, the Van Goghs, Martial Arts - cultural treasures which are admired and sometimes condemned, but still significant through out the ages. I did a theoritical reading of Thief because I think that beyond the mechanics, there's something else that moves the player. It could be differenent for diff. people, it could even be detestable under our notion of right-and-wrong, but still it exists and should be explored. At the end of the day it's what makes the setup complete.

Anyway, here's the real insult if you choose to see it that way: I thought this would be the kind of place with the kind of people to have a discussion, or at least allow something the right to exist apart from yourself. I suppose it is what it is.

ercles on 17/10/2006 at 07:29

---

Not as weird as picking up people for making a fucking typo