i just read a washington post article on romcoms aging poorly due to the pushiness (and oft-stalkery conduct) of the male characters therein, and it got me thinking about pride and prejudice, and specifically darcy saying, “one word from you will silence me on this subject forever.”
because, like, that’s the seldom-portrayed romantic dream in the patriarchal hellscape that is our world, isn’t it?
a dude being willing to say, “i understand if you don’t feel the same way about me, and i’ll leave you alone forever about this if my attention is unwanted.”
so simple, yet so wonderful in its basic human decency
and dudes to this day wonder why women still swoon over darcy
Note also: Elizabeth turns down Darcy’s first proposal, and in the process, accuses him of doing some stuff he did not do (and also some stuff he totally did).
The next day, he surprises her on her walk. He hands her a letter, asks that she read it, and then takes off.
When this happened to me after I had turned someone down IN REAL LIFE, the letter contained a passionate argument to the tune of “actually you’re wrong and you do like me and you should go out with me” and it was creepy af.
Darcy’s letter to Elizabeth starts with: “Be not alarmed, Madam, on receiving this letter, by the apprehension of its containing any repetition of those sentiments, or renewal of those offers, which were last night so disgusting to you”. He goes on to set the record straight about the stuff he didn’t do (as well as the stuff he did) which is *actually relevant* to Elizabeth. And he, as promised, doesn’t romance her further.
It’s totally bizarre that even now, this can be considered unusually great dude behaviour.
Darcy’s first proposal: “You must allow me to tell you how ardently I admire and love you.”
Darcy’s second proposal: “One word from you will silence me on this subject forever.”
His whole arc in the book is about learning to consider other people’s feelings and not just his own, but the fact that it’s expressed via who gets to talk and who is told to shut up is so, so telling. The first time around, he imposes his voice on her whether she wants it or not. The second time, he asks how she feels, and in exchange, offers her the gift of his silence.
And yeah, the fact that dudes still! have! not! learned! this! lesson! is exhausting.
How surprising is it that Pride and Prejudice was written by a woman, when many romantic comedies are produced and directed by men?
Answer: not at all
200 years later and the world is still full of guys who think they’re a Mr Darcy when they’re actually a Mr Collins.
200 years later and the world is still full of guys who think they’re a Mr Darcy when they’re actually a Ross Geller.
Uh so either this is potentially one of the biggest retcons in Warcraft history OR Afrasiabi is talking out of his ass. Even though the Battle for Undercity questline/scenario isn’t available anymore, it’s pretty fucking clear that Varimathras and Putress were Legion collaborators trying to deflect blame onto the Forsaken/Horde. Varimathras literally starts talking about ‘The Master’ during the climactic battle where he’s holding open portals to the Twisting Nether for demons to come through. There’s no grey area in this.
If Sylvanas was actively involved, it was only in setting things up (moving Blight production to Northrend), then allowing Putress and Varimathras to do what she expected them to. That’s still far from ‘ordering’ the attack itself. Afrasiabi is full of shit. We were there, we played the questline, we saw what was going on. Blizzard, please stop trying to support your awful writing retroactively.
EDIT:
I read the article that THIS article was quoting, and something really struck me, a quote from Afrasiabi.
“Any time we get a player base that’s divided in their support for a
character, I feel like we’re doing our jobs. Any time it’s one-sided to
the point of ‘this is clearly the right direction’, it’s not as
interesting.”
I’ve bolded the important part, because it potentially says a lot about Blizzard’s story choices and philosophy, the philosophy of keeping things ‘interesting.’
I literally took a class on this, and it can be summed up in one phrase:
A leg wound is interesting.
In that class, we learned to differentiate between interest and entertainment – they’re both close to each other, but there’s some distinct differences, differences to be aware of when writing and designing games/stories/etc. There’s only one requirement for something to be interesting, and that’s this: it has to hold your attention. For entertainment, there’s more complex requirements: it has to provoke a response that the viewer wants to revisit, see more of, and/or continue experiencing. Obviously, all entertaining things are interesting, but not all interesting things are entertaining.
When I’m talking about ‘wanting’ to experience something, that’s not just referring to positive experiences. Schindler’s List isn’t a movie that most people ‘want’ to see in the basic ‘looking for a good time’ definition, and yet people intentionally choose to sit down and watch it. They want to have that experience, even if that experience entails grief and horror. The bottom line is that the brain is craving a certain experience, whether naturally or because it was surprised by novelty and desired more input. That’s what I mean when I’m talking about want and entertainment.
Interest, on the other hand, is completely devoid of any emotional charge. It can produce an emotional charge, but it is itself a neutral word. Someone in a hockey mask hunting you through your house is interesting. So is a pair of socks you’ve never seen before. An interesting thing holds your attention by virtue of its difference from everyday existence, not because of any content.
This leads me back to Afrasiabi talking about things being not as interesting when everyone’s agreeing. This sort of thought process is pretty dangerous, in my opinion, because it only attaches value to interest, not entertainment. This design philosophy doesn’t care how the game makes you feel, only that it makes you play; every event, no matter how triumphant or horrendous, has the same transactional value – it keeps you in the seat, so they’ll keep doing it. There’s no care for the emotional arc, character fidelity, or narrative weight – just ‘push button, receive attention.’
In my opinion, this is a terrible – and furthermore lazy – way to write a story. If you view your players as just reserves of attention to endlessly mine, then all narrative accountability goes out the window. You’re writing a narrative with the mindset that setting the house on fire is as valid a choice as cooking a surprise dinner – and, more insulting, you’re expecting that players should want to be interested instead of entertained; you’re expecting that they’ll put up with any nonsense you vomit out because they want their attention to be held, not because they actually give a shit about anything or anyone in the game world. And if you’re designing/writing a game with that mindset knowing that your players are wanting to be entertained, it’s even more irresponsible, because you’re taking characters and places and worlds that people have serious attachments to and you’re disregarding any narrative context as you bang these elements together to produce loud noises.
This faction war is interesting. Sylvanas being retconned into a genocidal monster 10 years ago is interesting. But so is a fucking leg wound, and who in their right fucking mind would want a leg wound?
In other words, it’s being written by a bunch of petulant edgelords stuck in the “plot twists above all” era who can’t stand it if their story isn’t “controversial.”
“The Wrathgate was an inside job” —Afrasiabi, 2018
I saw this a while back and it’s absolutely amazing. Like, we already knew Sylvie was brewing that plague canonically before the Wrathgate. We knew she was conducting Unit 731 level human experiments on civilians and prisoners of war.
This doesn’t change a whole lot other than confirming a pretty popular fan theory that Sylvanas was always batshit evil, which, surprise, she is. Not exactly an increase in her evil, even. Just further showing that she’s always been evil in more hamfisted ways.
I am an old sage…listen closely to my wisdom before my soul withers away…
Teach us, o wise one
you are not an anime character. your actions impact others and do not only exist in theory. nobody is required to stick around for your tragic backstory or to learn the reasons behind your actions. if you treat people like garbage, they are allowed to think of you as a jerk and nothing more. nobody is obligated to analyze you or think twice when you hurt them. similarly, you are not required to stick around to listen to other people’s reasons for treating you like trash. you can call them a jerk, cut them out of your life, and call it a day.
Vaknosh Blackwolf's Refuge 