Mon Jul 18, 2005 1:24 pm
Questions of Narratve Consistency are Moot
There's been a lot of hassle about how many sleeper ships there were, and other such questions about the narrative of the Freelancer world. These may be interesting quetions, but do not ignore a key point: the game is a patchwork produced by a number of writers and artists, and the seams don't always jive.
Take one example:
Juni's friend, van Pelt, the reclusive Binford scientist, remarks that "before your time" but within his time, there was a scandal/catastrophy. He says this was "of course before the GMG." This makes the GMG a relatively recent development.
Later we hear that Rheinland's aggression is the worst there's been since the "80-year war between Rheinland and the GMG."
The numbers don't add up. If the GMG was around for 80 years plus, how could they have emerged within van Pelt's lifetime?
There are numerous other places in the Freelancer narrative, where things simply don't add up. This is just a fact, a consequence of several writers of the game, sometimes writing at cross-purpose. You can try to rationalize this into a consistant narrative, but you'll achieve a rationalization, not a narrative.
It's good as flawed. Appreciate it for what it is. If you want to find some grand consistency, you'll be quickly disappointed.
I have better fun figuring out the point the writer is making in a specific case, rather than trying to map it onto the self-inconsistant grand narrative.
Take one example:
Juni's friend, van Pelt, the reclusive Binford scientist, remarks that "before your time" but within his time, there was a scandal/catastrophy. He says this was "of course before the GMG." This makes the GMG a relatively recent development.
Later we hear that Rheinland's aggression is the worst there's been since the "80-year war between Rheinland and the GMG."
The numbers don't add up. If the GMG was around for 80 years plus, how could they have emerged within van Pelt's lifetime?
There are numerous other places in the Freelancer narrative, where things simply don't add up. This is just a fact, a consequence of several writers of the game, sometimes writing at cross-purpose. You can try to rationalize this into a consistant narrative, but you'll achieve a rationalization, not a narrative.
It's good as flawed. Appreciate it for what it is. If you want to find some grand consistency, you'll be quickly disappointed.
I have better fun figuring out the point the writer is making in a specific case, rather than trying to map it onto the self-inconsistant grand narrative.
