@nyoka-gorefell
I'm going to take this opportunity to talk about Logan! Yeehaw!
I mained human so I kinda liked Logan. I've always been biased toward him. I didn't necessarily think he'd made the right decision, but I supported his right to make it. Like he said in the Dream-vision of him: you would have made the same choice, any of you, if the one you loved was in danger!
Basically, it was a bad spot all around. Lose-lose situation. He made the most of it. That was my view.
I'm planning a rewrite of Edge of Destiny (someday lol) to make it better + clearer what was going on with Logan + etc.
And I found something: the narrative in the book does not condemn or exalt either decision. Either decision would have been bad, no way around it.
One problem: that's not how books work.
The way the climactic decision-point works is that you make a personal sacrifice for the good, moral quality being extolled by the narrative. If the thing you sacrificed was, itself, considered good by the narrative, there would come a surprise twist that would mean the thing wasn't actually sacrificed, as a "reward" for making the selfless decision to uphold good and moral purity or whatever.
The problem with Logan's story is that neither option was presented as the 'moral, good' option. As Logan was leaving, Eir said "you have to do what is right," but beyond this, no indication is given to Logan which option is morally superior. You can? sorta? infer that of course the main conflict with the dragon is the preferred one. Rytlock and Eir's dialogue after Logan leaves also clarifies this.
But Logan himself was never presented with a clear moral dichotomy; he was merely given the trolley problem, which is bad however you slice it.
I bet Logan would have haters even if he'd stayed; Kryta would have fallen into disarray. The Ministry would have taken power. We'd have Caudecus in charge. Human/charr relations would heat up. We'd have the return of the White Mantle like snap, or else all-out anarchy. Humanity would be toast. Logan would get all the blame from the playerbase.
So in my rewrite of Edge of Destiny, I'm fixing the problem. I'm going to assign a clear moral status to each option, and make it clear where Logan stood on that moral issue when deciding. How did I pick which option was favored?
Easy. I look at the rest of ArenaNet's storytelling. Their centuries of lore and worldbuilding. The lessons of the other story arcs. Anet's message is consistently unity. Stand together. Stand strong. The races stand unified. The Orders stand unified. With unity, many impossible things [slaying an Elder Dragon] may be achieved.
So the preferred option, the morally good option according to the storytellers, was that Logan stay. Stand with his allies. Represent human/charr unity. Defeat an Elder Dragon.
And, somehow, Queen Jennah would survive, because love and protecting people is not morally bad. If Logan sacrificed the queen for the sake of the moral truth of the narrative, proving his selflessness and commitment to the ideal of the narrative, then the queen would survive to "reward" him for his virtuousness.
It doesn't seem in-character for Anet to write Jennah as a typical damsel-in-distress, hero-gets-the-girl type of story, BUT: he didn't. Logan DIDN'T choose the morally-good option.
Typical Corruption arc: hero begins with the ideal of the story (unity is good), then over time, some negative trait overtakes him. Greed, selfishness, over-protectiveness, whatever - and leads him to destroy everything he holds dear (Destiny's Edge; his broship with Rytlock; Snaff dying; Glint, hero of humanity, dying; Kralkatorrik surviving).
I think if the book had actually written Logan like this (with the base game of GW2 being his redemption arc), he would have a lot less hate. I think a lot of the hate comes from the fact that the Edge of Destiny narrative DIDN'T outright condemn Logan's actions. And even the base game is a bit vague.
Logan didn't get his comeuppance for his bad choices (beyond the queen ditching him a few years down the line, I suppose). That's where the hate comes from.
Because nuanced, flawed characters exist, and those are the best kind. I really like Logan's character. He's one of the most human characters in the game. I like that for him.
(Also, perhaps, some of the hate stems from the assumption that Logan was simping the whole time. I'd be fed up with him too, actually, if that were true. But the queen for sure returned his feelings. Logan was acting within the bounds of an established relationship.)
This has been
Character Study: Logan Thackeray (part II)
thank you for reading!
7 notes
路
View notes