WTLF is a Retro?

Originally posted by Bandit LOAF
Woah, there, bucko. Although I do consider pretty much everything you posted in this thread horribly stupid "look-at-me-I'm-so-smart" type pseudo-intellectualism, I think it's pretty obvious that I was kidding. See the smile-y?
Considering that these days I hardly ever post to the general forum at all, I can assure you I don't post anything just to show off :p. And yes, I do generally overreact to anything you say about me.
I think our views of what the other says are quite understandable given the arguments we've had in the past, though... what would you say to actually giving each other some respect for a change?

I don't really see that at all -- if you'd actually bother to provide a specific example I'd be happy to talk about it.
I would bother, then :). The Confed Handbook moves the Kilrathi war further down the line, and the author - who in this case represents the entire license - has explained that this was fully intentional. Yet, in this case the intentions are ignored for the sake of unifying the Handbook with everything else. Why is this permissible?
(note that I do in fact agree that this sort of thing needs to be done - which is why I disagree with your opinion that it would be pointless to attempt to interpret the Retros differently to how they were intended)
 
Considering that these days I hardly ever post to the general forum at all, I can assure you I don't post anything just to show off . And yes, I do generally overreact to anything you say about me.
I think our views of what the other says are quite understandable given the arguments we've had in the past, though... what would you say to actually giving each other some respect for a change?

Cold as it may seem, respect is *earned*, not awarded to diffuse tense situations.

I also fail to see the connection between the amount you post and whether or not you're showing off.

I would bother, then . The Confed Handbook moves the Kilrathi war further down the line, and the author - who in this case represents the entire license - has explained that this was fully intentional. Yet, in this case the intentions are ignored for the sake of unifying the Handbook with everything else. Why is this permissible?
(note that I do in fact agree that this sort of thing needs to be done - which is why I disagree with your opinion that it would be pointless to attempt to interpret the Retros differently to how they were intended)

I fail to see how the author represents the entire license -- which is something we've certainly gone over in the past. He is the licensee of a licensee of a licensee...
 
. . . it's certainly possible for a work to come to have completely unintended meanings, and for this to be for the better. But this case in point -- "Retros are the opposite of what they are!" -- isn't a case of this... it's a direct contradiction with what we all *know* (it's even stated in the game...) we're supposed to think about them.

Having scratched my head over the above and gone over Quarto’s and my comments again, I’d say we’ve focused on three different and quite independent answers to the question “What is a Retro?”

1. The Retros are Metaphor. The Retros symbolize hypocrisy. They are defined as hypocrisy. And while we may be free to argue whether the resulting “art” is good or bad, the vision or intent behind it is a fact and so is undeniable.

2. The Retros are Allegory. The Retros again represent hypocrisy, but specifically the hypocrisy of real world religion. The vision or intent here is social commentary, and can therefore be analyzed and criticized in the same way any political cartoon or editorial can.

3. The Retros are WC Characters. The Retros are as much “flesh and blood” as Blair and company, and subject to the same considerations of canon. The fact and extent of their hypocrisy (like much else in life) is ambiguous. We’re told in Privateer that the Retros want to achieve the goals of the Church of Man, which do allow for “minimal technology”. In RF, the Retros turn on themselves, conflicted over the ambitions of their leader.

LOAF’s comments make perfect sense under 1, mine are appropriate to 2, and Quarto’s fit under 3. The upshot is we’ve been talking past one another. But we’ve each raised good points that stand on their own ground. And of course a lot of fiction is “layered” like this.
 
Originally posted by Battler Hawke
and all this time i thought retros were targets and rep builders
thanks for the statining that out for me.


Certainly you didn´t play the game or read the conversations, right?
 
Originally posted by Bandit LOAF Cold as it may seem, respect is *earned*, not awarded to diffuse tense situations.
Absolutely right - but the benefit of the doubt can and should be awarded especially in such situations, where we've repeatedly shown uncanny abilities to totally misunderstand each other.

I also fail to see the connection between the amount you post and whether or not you're showing off.
Well, the connection is that coming here much more rarely these days, and choosing where I post more carefully, I don't waste my time on showing off.

I fail to see how the author represents the entire license -- which is something we've certainly gone over in the past. He is the licensee of a licensee of a licensee...
He could be the licensee of a licensee of a licensee of a licensee of a licensee of a licensee, and it wouldn't make any difference. That's what licensing agreements are about - the person who holds the license, regardless of who he obtained it from, speaks for the license. In a legal sense, there is no difference whatsoever between an official Wing Commander product developed by Origin, and an offical Wing Commander product developed by Incan Monkey God. Therefore, if we assume that the intent of the creator matters at all, it will matter equally in both cases.

In the meantime, Nemesis seems to have put it very well in his last post - we're focusing on different aspects of the same thing. This is the most fun part of analysing fiction - looking at the different layers of it, which exist independently of whatever the creator's intention had been. I mean, the ultimate intention behind most WC products had been to earn money - but I'm sure we all agree that it would be a damned shame to cut off their analysis at that conclusion :).
 
As an aside to earlier comments, it's been known that if a word is used improperly by intellectuals, it becomes legitimized :)
 
hmph... a debate about religion and political matters... here, I thought that was beneath you people...
 
Since we're on the topic of religion do the Kilrathi have any gods/deities besides Sivar?

Since Sivar is explicitly described as the Kilrathi's god of war, that implies a polytheistic religion--if the Kilrathi were following a monotheistic relgion, Sivar would simply be their God, and not just the god of warfare (analagous to Ares). I would assume that they also have a god of the hunt (Artemis), a god of sexual relations (Aphrodite), a god of wisdom (Athena), etc., but Sivar would naturally hold the most importance for the warriors.
 
Back
Top