Make your own DLC 'true' ending to your choice of entertainment.

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

Greetings, biological curiosities and bearly convincing interweb AIs...it is time to get involved in what EA and other shameless AAA publishers do best; Create a 'real' ending for whatever entertainiums and release it separately for any price you deem worthy. Any. Price. ...even free, if you're one of those sort of communist hippy types.

All mediums are game, like, err well... games, films, books, plays, interpretative dances, acid trips, street mimes etc etc. Anything that ends in a way that encourages you to think "hmm...there is more bullshit to tell and sell here!" Doesn't matter if you believe it ended where it should've, there will always be people who don't and are willing to spend their hard-stolen money on extra lore!

Or maybe you do think an ending is severely lacking, or flat out wrong. Now is your time to set the record straight and profit immensely from showing those cheap hacks how it's done!

Now I shall start with a terrible example or two that hopefully will encourage others to do far better here (it's an effective tactic in other parts of life at least, such as paid work and chores).
It goes without saying there's probably going to be spoilers, but oh well, said it anyway.

There. They should be appalling enough examples to offend others into doing better!

An alternate cut ending of Dark Knight Rises where Batman actually dies, no mysterious hail mary save, thus conforming better with the themes and issues raised within the trilogy

Does it have to be grubby DLC? Can't it be an honest Expansion Pack?

Can I just do one for the Bloody Baron? Can we get a choice between his wife dying or being left with a person who beats her? Because that was stupid. I'm fine if both go to jail, since they are both culpable of DV. Just nothing like we got, a weak excuse for DV perpetrators to get what they want, their victim under their complete control.

No amount of justification on his part allows him to hit someone else.

Also, delete Skellige. It turned a great game into only a good one

A DLC for Arkham Knight that added in proper boss battles, proper conclusions to side missions (Hush was just...), and MORE FUCKING BATFAMILY. I cannot comprehend the insanity of actually designing actual playable characters (albeit essentially ported from an older game) and not using them more than three times in the whole game??? Not to mention Dick and Selina should have had a much bigger presence in the story considering their relationship to Bruce. The game was all about saying goodbye to Batman, but it was so emotionally stunted that it fell flat.

DLC for Halo where Foehammer drops in with her airship and out jumps Noble 6 and Sgt. Johnson and they kick EVERYONE'S ASS!

MGSV: The Phantom Pain. More of a wish list but oh well.

-Cut out the repeat missions of Chapter 2. They're mostly padding and you can already replay the same missions from chapter 1 at any time. Add difficulty options already completed missions for True Stealth(getting seen is an instant mission failure), No Gear and such for people who liked having the harder difficulties.

-Have more of the plot dealing with Cypher and Zero shown in game, not just sequestered in the last few audio tapes you unlock when you finish mission 50.

-Finish Mission 51 and make it playable, having that be the end of Chapter 2 and the game Proper. Because "The man who sold the world" was kind of a rip-off, being 90% the exact same mission as the prologue.

-Make Mother Base more interesting to visit. Add various places to go and people to see and events to witness as time goes on. Not just, you have this giant ass ocean base with no reason to visit other then to shower and occasionally visit the medical platform and the quarantine platform. Make it feel like a real home, like showing the men having parties, being able to visit the command center and talk to Kaz, have a bedroom or something for Snake to sleep in(like Shepherds Cabin in Mass Effect). Be able to hang with Ocelot or something.

Peace Walker's Audio Tapes alluded to the original Mother base having a culture and life of it's own and I really wanted to see something like that when you could actually walk around Mother Base in MGSV.

-Expand out the Outer Heaven bit at the end of the game to be more then just Venom Snake Punching a mirror and instead tie it more back to the main series. Or just do something like "Last Day in Outer Heaven" which ties in nicely with Metal Gear and Metal Gear 2.

I'd ask for the plot to be less stupid(cut as much of magical parasites as possible) but this is a metal gear game after all.

I kind of already have that with Mass Effect 3 because someone made the Happy Ending Mod.

I'll just do a patch, for The Last Guardian, how about that?

- Patch out the terrible naration.
- Patch out the ludicrously huge button prompts
- Make the circle button while on Trico more responsive.
- Patch in Kow Otani.
- And most importantly, patch in a 'hold' button like in Shadow of the Colossus. Just have the kid climb the same way Wander does minus the stamina circle.

And one for Uncharted: The Lost Legacy, but it's a writing patch.

- Keep Chloe as a snarky, cynical crook, DON'T just turn her into Nathan Drake near the end.
- Ditch the horrible daddy issue nonsense.
- A chemistry patch for her and Nadine, they severely lack it. When you-know-who shows up in the final quarter and the dynamic suddenly livens up considerably, it speaks volumes.

Saelune:
DLC for Halo where Foehammer drops in with her airship and out jumps Noble 6 and Sgt. Johnson and they kick EVERYONE'S ASS!

TOUCH DOWN, HIT IT MARINES!!!

Catcher in the Rye:

Just have some sort of ending. Anything will do.

Isn't this just a fancy way of asking "what endings do you want changed?"

Fine. Okay. Note that this isn't the same as saying "stuff that should have ended earlier," because that's a different list entirely.

Pretty much this dungeon:

A change altering the final dungeon of Final Fantasy X where each major segment is interspersed with pyrefly flashbacks of the summoner Yu Yevon gradually going insane and creating Sin during the Machina war. Maybe throw in a few additional mid-bosses besides Seymour Omnis and get rid of the annoying crystal-collecting segment at the very end.

Lastly, change the final battle so it is possible to lose (maybe instead of permanent auto-life, the Fayth can power you up some other way, like breaking the HP/damage caps for you without the need for special equipment and vastly increasing both?) and give Yu Yevon a more interesting strategy.

Hawki:
-Brave New World:

I know these are supposed to be things we just throw out and not really points of discussion, but..

Squilookle:
Does it have to be grubby DLC? Can't it be an honest Expansion Pack?

You can do whatever you want, I was only going for awful morally and creatively bankrupt examples (well, without resorting to the low-hanging sleaze fruits anyway) in the hope that it would inspire others to improve upon such horror.

trunkage:
Can I just do one for the Bloody Baron? Can we get a choice between his wife dying or being left with a person who beats her? Because that was stupid. I'm fine if both go to jail, since they are both culpable of DV. Just nothing like we got, a weak excuse for DV perpetrators to get what they want, their victim under their complete control.

No amount of justification on his part allows him to hit someone else.

Also, delete Skellige. It turned a great game into only a good one

Oh. my. gosh. A DLC that deletes half the game map is hilarious. That's being sent straight to bean counters for further testing and analysis. We can and will get away with this.

Hawki:
Isn't this just a fancy way of asking "what endings do you want changed?"

Nopetynopes. The intitial seed came from hearing the other day about how EA release paid-for DLC that either gives a far more satisfying and explanatory side to the main game's ending, or completely recontextualises the past series' story...both of which are considered essential enough to understanding the lore that many customers believe should've been part in the original game. The difference is that there is a noticeable split between those that buy and play the DLC, and those that stop when they finish the single story. Two experiences are still available depending on who wants to pay extra or not. I thought it was a gloriously terrible practice that could be put to intriguing use elsewhere by people who are not shitty AAA publishers for once.

evilthecat:
So, if you'll remember, Mustapha denied John the right to leave the world state and go live on an island with all the cool interesting people. His reasons for doing so are not stated explicitly, but it's very clearly to prove a point about their respective philosophies, which he succeeds in doing by driving John to suicide (although it's not clear if Mustapha meant it to go that far).

He mentions "continuing the experiment." Impression I got was that he was genuinely interested in seeing how John would act/react in the World State and how people would react to him. Like, John's already tried his 'revolution' and failed miserably, so Mond isn't really risking anything here.

Like, this is the actual strength of Brave New World as a story compared to many dystopian science fiction stories. John is wrong, he's just outright wrong. His position is incredibly naive. He claims the right to be unhappy as a concept but can't deal with the reality of being unhappy. In fact, when viewed alongside his behaviour, his philosophy is clearly a weak justification for his own neurotic inability to allow himself to be happy.

Just because he's our protagonist and our everyman observer of this strange society doesn't mean he's right, and it certainly doesn't mean he deserves a happy ending he claims not to actually want.

Have to disagree there. John claims the right to be unhappy, that's not to say he's against being happy. Part of his critique against the World State (in very simple terms) is that everything comes too easy - do away with all the hassles and inconveniences, life loses any meaning. John's driven to suicide, sure, but that's more an inditement on the World State than John himself, given that he's hounded by the equivalent of paparazi. Also, his body is mentioned as rotating around (north, east, south, west, or whatever order), as if passing judgement on every corner of the World State.

Also, if we're looking at this through the scope of authoratorial intent, Huxley was very much against the World State in as much as it represented what he loathed, so whatever John's flaws (and he does have them - naievete, as you point out), his suffering and end is more on the World State than on him.

trunkage:

Also, delete Skellige. It turned a great game into only a good one

It was the most visually interesting part of the game though, at least before Toussaint. What about it did you dislike? The general lack of major lore significance or did you find the questing bad? Was it the hopping into a boat for everything?

Hawki:
Have to disagree there. John claims the right to be unhappy, that's not to say he's against being happy.

But he kind of is against being happy..

He lusts after Lenina, but when she genuinely falls for him and throws herself at him he becomes so viscerally horrified that he physically attacks and threatens to kill her. He resents his mother for being happy in a drug induced haze on her deathbed because she isn't sharing his misery. His idea of escaping is to reject civilization, go live in a tower and beat himself with a whip. He gets angry at himself for singing because he feels guilty for enjoying himself. He kills himself because, when Lenina comes back to see him, he ends up beating her and it turns into a drug-fuelled orgy which he can't forgive himself for taking part in.

He's a neurotic, and his philosophy is just him wanting everyone else to share in his misery so he doesn't feel so lonely. In this sense, he's the opposite of Mustafa, who has accepted being lonely as the price for other people's happiness. They are both extreme positions, and they are both wrong by virtue of being extreme positions.

Huxley was against the ideas of the world state, but he was also against the kind of puritanical nonsense embodied by John. He would go on to be a major figure in promoting interest in and acceptance of hallucinogenic drug use both as a form of therapy and a religious experience. He chose to die on LSD, much as Linda dies on a Soma trip in the book. Huxley and John are not the same person.

evilthecat:

But he kind of is against being happy..

He lusts after Lenina, but when she genuinely falls for him and throws herself at him he becomes so viscerally horrified that he physically attacks and threatens to kill her.

Lenina isn't genuinely falling for him though, or at least, not in the sense of how John sees love. He's in it for a genuine connection, she just wants casual sex.

He resents his mother for being happy in a drug induced haze on her deathbed because she isn't sharing his misery.

I wouldn't say that. John is resentful towards his mother, but it's not so much that she's miserable - it's that she's dying, that soma has ensured that she doesn't even care, and it's an example of the dehumanizing effects of the World State. We even get the batch of clones coming in for "death conditioning" to top it off. Basically, John's the type of person who's going to follow "don't go quietly into the night," and the drugs the state has his mother on have robbed his mother of the dignity. After all, she goes on them as soon as she returns to 'civilization.'

His idea of escaping is to reject civilization, go live in a tower and beat himself with a whip. He gets angry at himself for singing because he feels guilty for enjoying himself.

Okay, but that's more an inditement on 'civilization' itself than John. Everything John does is reactionary to the World State from the moment he leaves with Bernard and co.

He's a neurotic, and his philosophy is just him wanting everyone else to share in his misery so he doesn't feel so lonely. In this sense, he's the opposite of Mustafa, who has accepted being lonely as the price for other people's happiness. They are both extreme positions, and they are both wrong by virtue of being extreme positions.

Disagree, unless sharing in misery equates to his attempted 'revolution' that lasts about five minutes. John at the end wants to be left alone, but 'civilization' keeps hounding him.

As for Mond, I can't call him having an "extreme" position per se, in as much that Mond's position is that of the World State. Despite being an alpha, and as intelligent as you'd expect an alpha to be, Mond is ultimately a cog in the machine.

Huxley was against the ideas of the world state, but he was also against the kind of puritanical nonsense embodied by John. He would go on to be a major figure in promoting interest in and acceptance of hallucinogenic drug use both as a form of therapy and a religious experience. He chose to die on LSD, much as Linda dies on a Soma trip in the book. Huxley and John are not the same person.

Didn't Huxley get into his drug phase in the 50s, after writing BNW in the 30s? I mean, it doesn't invalidate your claim, but a lot can change in 20 years.

Even if the book is inditing John, most of it makes it clear that at least in Huxley's mind, the World State, or at least its ideals of consumerism and vapidity is a bad thing - whatever John's flaws, they can't be held as an equivalent, especially since it's the World State itself that drives John to suicide. 1984 also comes to mind, when O'Brien plays back Winston's statements of everything he'd be willing to do against Ingsoc (e.g. splashing acid in a child's face). While that's partially an inditement of Winston, it's in no way equivalent to the horrors of the regime he's forced to live under.

Warhammer:
Tzeentch realises that he's made a terrible, terrible mistake. Not only is this new world trash, it's inhabitants nowhere near as interesting and corruptible, he realises he had the hots for Slaanesh and really misses him/her. So he conspires with Zuvassin to make an alternate Warhammer universe where things went back to normal after the Storm of Chaos. This keeps both universes intact and therefore pleases the great overgod known only as "GW" as they can now flog shit for both of them and prevents the rage at the scrapping of either universe fuelling the unstoppable ascendency of Khorne.

Phew! All got a bit /tg/ there.

Dragon Age Origins:
Your character tells Duncan to GFYA right at the start when he tells them they have to join the Grey Wardens, then goes off to do something much more entertaining.

Fallout 3:
"Why yes, seeing as I am a supermutant and actually healed by radiation, I think it is an excellent idea that I go in and activate the water purifier, rather than you, a human who will be killed by it". Or words to that effect.

Fallout 4:
Sure, you can't always engineer the peace you want, but having to destroy the institute every time? And as leader of the institute if you go that way, it would be nice to be able to steer it in a less "Stupid Evil" direction.
Basically more choice in terms of faction alliances, enemies, endings etc etc.

evilthecat:

Hawki:
-Brave New World:

I know these are supposed to be things we just throw out and not really points of discussion, but..

Okay. I haven't read this since high school but...

Anyway Brave New World was the book that I liked that I was forced to read at school. Screw you, Great Expectations

Edit: Just read the posts further down. Soz. Also, this feels like a book club

jademunky:

trunkage:

Also, delete Skellige. It turned a great game into only a good one

It was the most visually interesting part of the game though, at least before Toussaint. What about it did you dislike? The general lack of major lore significance or did you find the questing bad? Was it the hopping into a boat for everything?

Most of it was a copy from the original area but NOW WITH MORE VIKING. It doesn't add much to the overall storyline. It feels undercooked. Also, tough looking vikings are actually nice is very overplayed. There were no outstanding characters in the area. Where were the Djikstra's or Thalor? The quest with the monks encourages you to be a bully becuase you might think someone is snooty. Yes boating is terrible. And I can only remember one quest that was interesting and the only interesting monster on the whole island. In fact, Skyrim did Skellige better.

I hate gating in games, so the $10k getting there was a barrier (see any comments about New Vegas where they gate the city off from you and also use the story as a gating system, making sure you get all the story elements before getting to the city. Or Pillars of Eternity. The whole thing. Just let me play a game how I want. If I screw up it my fault. Stop trying to make me not 'play the game correctly') that automatically agrivates me.

trunkage:

Anyway Brave New World was the book that I liked that I was forced to read at school. Screw you, Great Expectations

As far as secondary school literature went, I got fairly lucky, in as much that I liked most of what I was assigned to read. Key exceptions were:

-The Tempest: I could at least appreciate most of Shakespeare's plays, but I really, REALLY dislike The Tempest...which you wouldn't think, because I've probably quoted this play more than any other in fan writing I've done.

-Heart of Darkness: Sorry Mr Conrad, I tried, I really did, but I just couldn't get into the book. Still, I did get to watch Apocalypse Now, so...

-Year 12 Journeys: As in, the 'theme' of the HSC year was journeys. Physical journeys, spiritual journeys, metaphorical journeys...gah!

trunkage:

jademunky:

trunkage:

Also, delete Skellige. It turned a great game into only a good one

It was the most visually interesting part of the game though, at least before Toussaint. What about it did you dislike? The general lack of major lore significance or did you find the questing bad? Was it the hopping into a boat for everything?

Most of it was a copy from the original area but NOW WITH MORE VIKING. It doesn't add much to the overall storyline. It feels undercooked. Also, tough looking vikings are actually nice is very overplayed. There were no outstanding characters in the area. Where were the Djikstra's or Thalor? The quest with the monks encourages you to be a bully becuase you might think someone is snooty. Yes boating is terrible. And I can only remember one quest that was interesting and the only interesting monster on the whole island. In fact, Skyrim did Skellige better.

I hate gating in games, so the $10k getting there was a barrier (see any comments about New Vegas where they gate the city off from you and also use the story as a gating system, making sure you get all the story elements before getting to the city. Or Pillars of Eternity. The whole thing. Just let me play a game how I want. If I screw up it my fault. Stop trying to make me not 'play the game correctly') that automatically agrivates me.

I guess I was so happy to be getting out of the forests I overlooked the fact that I was leaving behind all the interesting characters, taking twice as long to get anywhere and fighting my own personal phobias every time I found treasure underwater.

And yeah, for New Vegas, the interesting parts were all outside Vegas itself. Pillars of Eternity was just fifty dollars of disappointment.

Hawki:
Lenina isn't genuinely falling for him though, or at least, not in the sense of how John sees love. He's in it for a genuine connection, she just wants casual sex.

Like, you really thought this was the guy we were supposed to like and feel deserved a "happy" ending?

Hawki:
I wouldn't say that. John is resentful towards his mother, but it's not so much that she's miserable - it's that she's dying, that soma has ensured that she doesn't even care, and it's an example of the dehumanizing effects of the World State.

I mean, at this point I just have to start quoting..

Every single thing John does thinks or says in this moment is about him, his needs and above all, his unhappiness and guilt. He's a vicious, jealous, hateful little creature who resents his mothers moments of happiness (just as he resented them back in Malpais) because they don't revolve around him. Again, he is a neurotic, and I'm using that word very deliberately because the book displays an intimate understanding of what it means.

We can have sympathy with him to a degree, because he has had a hard life, but that's kind of the point. People who live hard lives don't always become good people, just as people who live easy and vacuous lives can't become good people. We need a caring society ("civilisation") to make us good, but we also need to be given space to be free. In terms of his actions and character, John is not an example of a healthy human being or the kind of person we're supposed to like or emulate. With apologies for the racial overtones in this extremely old story, being a savage is not a good thing, and it would be a profoundly reactionary point if it was.

Hawki:
As for Mond, I can't call him having an "extreme" position per se, in as much that Mond's position is that of the World State. Despite being an alpha, and as intelligent as you'd expect an alpha to be, Mond is ultimately a cog in the machine.

See, you've quite profoundly misunderstood his character if you think that's true.

evilthecat:

[spoiler]It's very obvious throughout the book that the way she feels about him is increasingly at odds with the demands of her own society. There's a whole scene of her coworkers chiding her for getting hung up on one person when there are so many others.

Um...is it?

The co-worker thing (Fanny) comes up at the start, and Lenina makes no effort to say anything along the lines of "no, I like this guy, I'm going to stay with him." Lenina may have slightly more independence than betas (hinted at when she flashes back to when she woke up as a child to the conditioning), but her actions are still within what's expected of her. And even for John, her 'dating' with him (if such a word can be used) is still within the expectations of her society. She expects him to come in after the movie. She can't comprehend any of the courtship he shows her, and as soon as she does understand (finally) "hey, he likes me," it's straight into attempted sex. It isn't love, it's barely even lust, it's just in keeping with 'the game' (or whatever term Fanny uses).

Heck, she comes back at the end, clearly still with feelings towards him and ready to forgive him, despite him having been violent towards her in the past, breaking every single conditioned impulse of her society. She both represents and offers every single thing he wants, and he cannot accept it because he is such a neurotic that the thought of getting what he wants sends him into a violent panic in which he is compelled to physically beat the object of his desire with a whip while she is screaming on the floor, just like the women of Malpais once beat his mother with a whip. Our hero, ladies and gentlemen!

Okay, I can't find my copy, but isn't it left up to interpretation at the end as to whether that girl is actually Lenina?

Like, you really thought this was the guy we were supposed to like and feel deserved a "happy" ending?

No, but not for the reasons given. John can't get a happy ending, because the world in which he exists prevents such a thing from happening. It's not really a question of 'deserving' a happy ending, because the framework of the story isn't set up for that. John is less a character and more a stand-in for the audience, in as much that he's as close to a 20th century human as you can get in this world, least as far as his attitudes go (albiet exagerated in areas). So when John dies, it's less a tragic ending for John, and more symbolic of the 'death' of the human spirit/culture/insert term here.

I mean, at this point I just have to start quoting..

Reads quote...

So, I'm not entirely sure how that invalidates much. You've highlighted certain passages, but that's not really conveying John as being neurotic, that's conveying his sense of grief. As in, the phrases you highlight are:

"And in his furious misery he actually caught her by the shoulder and shook her."

"He was angry because she liked Pop?, he was shaking her because Pop? was there in the bed ? as though there were something wrong, as though all civilized people didn't do the same."

"it was as though he were begging to be reassured."

"it seemed to him, reproach."

"I've killed her."

So, going through this, all I see is John being a son who's losing his mother, who's acting in a very human way. Who's partially reliving trauma over Pope. But, most importantly, John's actions, even within these highlighted phrases ("as though all civilized people didn't do the same"), is serving as a contrast to the World State. He's acting human. No-one else in this room is. We've already had the gaggle of clones (not called clones, but they might as well be) come in for "death conditioning."

Whatever John's flaws in this segment are, they're flaws that come from basic human nature - he doesn't want to lose his mother, and he's, understandably, acting like a child. In contrast, the flaws of the World State are on display, where familial bonds don't exist, where death is unmourned. The novel makes a point that hardly anyone actually visits the centre Linda's in because death isn't really such a big thing to the people of the World State.

In terms of his actions and character, John is not an example of a healthy human being or the kind of person we're supposed to like or emulate.

While that's true to an extent, John's still the result of the world he was born into. It's pretty clear that Linda wasn't the best mother in the world (which, in spite of all that, John clearly still cares about her, and is thus put off even more by the whole death conditioning thing).

Mond keeps bibles in his safe. He has long discussions with John about Shakespeare. He was a scientist who was once arrested and given a choice to be sent to an island (where he could have lived out a happy life continuing his passion for science surrounded by like-minded people) or to become a controller. He chose to become a controller, of his own free will. Now, there's a kind of supreme arrogance in appointing yourself martyr-king who rules for the "benefit" of everyone else without those people being able to make a choice in the matter, and that's why Mond represents an extreme position, and it's why he is wrong. But Mond is not a cog in the machine. He's a cog who was too big for the machine, but who decided the machine was a good thing even if he couldn't fit into it.[/spoiler]

Yes, Mond dabbled in science. Mond could have been sent to an island. Mond became a world controller. Mond keeps Shakespeare in the safe.

None of this changes how Mond is still a cog. Whatever his personal thoughts, every action he undertakes is in service to the World State, even when it goes against his own personal desires. He gives the position of the World State at the end, and he clearly believes in the necessity of the position. Mond, for all his power and intelligence, is still 'trapped' by the system. Same way Bernard and Hermholtz are. If anything, Mond arguably has less freedom, because they at least get to go to an island, whereas he can't make the same choice now.

Also, on the topic of being neurotic, I'd say Bernard is a much better example than John. Bernard suffers in society, but he makes it clear as to how unhappy he is to Hermholtz, to the point where Hermholtz thinks (paraphrased) "oh just suck it up."

I just watched this, so: I would love to add some more compelling visual effects in the Zone (CG effects or otherwise) to Stalker (1979).

I understand that the lengthy pauses and imagery are meant to make us reflect, but I felt like it was almost... tedious. For me, there needs to be some more urgent and bizarre stuff mixed in with the slow pans and creeps on dilapidated ruins and water pooling. I'm not suggesting that the movie needs enhancements like the game, necessarily, but... well, Annihilation was a very, very similar film that capitalized on more bizarre, and terrifying FX, though I didn't find the characters quite as interesting as in Stalker, but on the other hand the nature of the anomaly seemed more purposeful in execution, and some of the ideas at work were exciting ( a fascinating movie, which I enjoyed slightly more than Stalker on first watch).

I'll be reading Roadside Picnic as soon as I'm able, which is the source material for the film (and was, I suspect, likely a heavy influence on the Annihilation books as well).

Hawki:
The co-worker thing (Fanny) comes up at the start, and Lenina makes no effort to say anything along the lines of "no, I like this guy, I'm going to stay with him."

Hawki:
Okay, I can't find my copy, but isn't it left up to interpretation at the end as to whether that girl is actually Lenina?

Why would a random woman, from a society of people who don't know how to cry because they cannot understand the concept of grief, be crying at him? Why would he recoil immediately upon seeing her when there are plenty of women in the crowd?

See, you're handed the tools to figure this one out yourself, but the answer isn't exactly a deep mystery, and again, consider the tragedy of this moment by imagining it from Lenina's perspective..

Hawki:
Who's partially reliving trauma over Pope. But, most importantly, John's actions, even within these highlighted phrases ("as though all civilized people didn't do the same"), is serving as a contrast to the World State.

Hawki:
He's acting human. No-one else in this room is.

I mean, let's cut to the point. There are two levels to brave new world. On one hand, it's a warning about one possible direction society may progress. But on the other hand, it's a satire of a society that already exists and already existed in 1938. It's about the way the industrial society of the 20th century had already changed human nature, how mass production and consumer capitalism had become an overarching principle of society and had stripped things that used to have meaning of real value. The world state is extreme, but it reflects things that were already going on in 1938, and are still going on today, and many of those things cannot be straightforwardly disregarded as bad or evil. Most of us will die heavily medicated in hospital rather than screaming in pain like animals because it's more human.

If you read this book and came away with a simple reactionary metaphor about how civilization is bad and people need to suffer to be human, try harder, because there is a lot of complexity there which you'd have to be willfully ignoring to come to that conclusion.

So, I managed to dig out my copy. So on that note:

evilthecat:

This is not a subtle hidden subtext. It's text. The tragedy is that Lenina genuinely has fallen for John in exactly the way he claims to want, but he cannot accept her.. because he is a neurotic.

Except that isn't the case.

Lenina's fallen for John, in as much that she's 'fallen' for anyone else. The tragedy of Lenina, of the World State, is that she has no idea what love is, or at least, love as we'd define it. The point of the text is that Lenina's hung up over John, but she's hung up because he's acting so strange (to her), such as when they return from the feelies. And cut forward a bit when they're in her appartment, and as soon as John says he loves her, she literally digs her nails into his arm, later exclaiming:

"Sweet. Put your arms round me. Hug me till you drug me, honey. Kiss me, kiss me till I'm in a coma. Hug me, honey, snuggly..."

This isn't some declaration of true love, this is a declaration of true lust. Up to which Lenina has no idea of courtship or a permanant relationship.

Why would a random woman, from a society of people who don't know how to cry because they cannot understand the concept of grief, be crying at him? Why would he recoil immediately upon seeing her when there are plenty of women in the crowd?

See, you're handed the tools to figure this one out yourself, but the answer isn't exactly a deep mystery, and again, consider the tragedy of this moment by imagining it from Lenina's perspective..

So I went over the scene in the book again. There's certainly a strong chance that it is Lenina, but I can hardly call it definitive. She calls out for Henry (a character Lenina conversed with earlier in the book), but is Lenina still with Henry, or has Henry moved on to a new girl? We don't know, and I suspect that's kind of the point.

To answer your question about a random woman, bear in mind:

-We've seen people in this society express grief before (e.g. Bernard, Linda) and frustration (e.g. Mond and Lenina).

-By this point, John's a celebrity - it's possible that his plight has actually reached someone. Someone who could have a human reaction to his constant hounding rather than taking part in said hounding.

It's a fairly common trope for a protagonist to see someone that reminds them of X, triggering emotions, even if said person isn't exactly person X. Whether it's Lenina or not is pretty academic in the context of the moment - the moment itself is far more concerned with the orgy the people are in, and how it's driving John to madness. It's arguably even more impactful if it isn't Lenina, because it means that John's plight has reached someone, only in this world, at this stage, that doesn't mean anything, because the greater mass of people just want cheap entertainment. An orgy.

Read the context again. "As though all civilized people didn't do the same" refers to Linda's perception, not John.

Not really. The full line is "He was angry because she liked Pope, he was shaking her because Pope was there in the bed - as though there was something wrong, as though all civilized people didn't do the same?" If this is Linda's POV, the first two lines don't make sense, because she's too far gone to comprehend any of this. BNW uses loose third person, and it's quite happy to slip into omnipotent-type POV if the situation deems it. The writing here is one such example - the author is literally telling us how John feels, and posing a rhetorical question about "civilized people." While those sentiments are tied to Linda, it's the narrative itself that's doing the conveyance.

In essence, it's a case of where a perspective is offered from a character where we're expected to disagree with that perspective. "Civilized people" apparently drug themselves up, drag bunches of lab-born children for "death conditioning," visiting the dying for said conditioning while eating chocolate, and all in a world where it's established that hardly anyone comes to visit the dying because relationships mean so little. It's a version of civilization that we're expected to be repulsed at.

Linda is having a Soma dream in which she is back in Malpais with Pope, her lover, and she is happy. John cannot deal with this because in his mind she's with Pope and not with him, so he violently shakes his dying mother to get her to recognise him.

That's part of it, but a gross simplification.

She does recognize him, but she doesn't understand why John is shaking her and why he's acting as if something is wrong. One minute she is away in a lovely dream, and the next she is pulled back to a reality in which she is dying in terror and pain, and all because John needs his mummy now. John needs reassurance! Poor John!

Well, yes, poor John.

Linda's never been a good mother for him. As soon as they get back to civilization, she goes on soma. Dr. Shaw even makes it clear that she's shortening her life by going on the stuff (though states that they're lengthening it in a sense). So while John's actions are flawed, in as much that they're interrupting Linda's drug-induced bliss, she's still the one who's gone on such a drug-induced bliss without any other consideration. Which in part, is down to society wanting nothing to do with her.

John, for all his flaws, is demonstrating a human reaction. Linda, and the "death conditioning" surrounding her, isn't.

I mean, let's cut to the point. There are two levels to brave new world. On one hand, it's a warning about one possible direction society may progress. But on the other hand, it's a satire of a society that already exists and already existed in 1938. It's about the way the industrial society of the 20th century had already changed human nature, how mass production and consumer capitalism had become an overarching principle of society and had stripped things that used to have meaning of real value. The world state is extreme, but it reflects things that were already going on in 1938, and are still going on today, and many of those things cannot be straightforwardly disregarded as bad or evil. Most of us will die heavily medicated in hospital rather than screaming in pain like animals because it's more human.

Um, yes. And?

If you read this book and came away with a simple reactionary metaphor about how civilization is bad and people need to suffer to be human, try harder, because there is a lot of complexity there which you'd have to be willfully ignoring to come to that conclusion.

Which I didn't. I've never claimed that's the theme. It isn't even the point of contention, the point of contention is down to John, and how we clearly view his character differently.

Zykon TheLich:
Fallout 4:
Sure, you can't always engineer the peace you want, but having to destroy the institute every time? And as leader of the institute if you go that way, it would be nice to be able to steer it in a less "Stupid Evil" direction.
Basically more choice in terms of faction alliances, enemies, endings etc etc.

There is a lot of stuff already posted that I agree with here, but totally forgot about Fallout 4's shtick. I would probably even pay for an update simply titled "diplomacy 101, you idiotic fucks!" God, it was so annoying the only options were to sycophantly agree with their ignorance, or walk away and sycophantly agree with their rival's ignorance instead. The only truly fair action ultimately would be to destroy them all. No favourites.

'Sycophantly' is a word now? Eh?

Also would like the Mamma Murphy character to be an actual character and not a hollow cypher for "fictional drugs are bad, mkay." Regardless of how many times they literally saved my life. Err, in game.

Xsjadoblayde:

Zykon TheLich:
Fallout 4:
Sure, you can't always engineer the peace you want, but having to destroy the institute every time? And as leader of the institute if you go that way, it would be nice to be able to steer it in a less "Stupid Evil" direction.
Basically more choice in terms of faction alliances, enemies, endings etc etc.

There is a lot of stuff already posted that I agree with here, but totally forgot about Fallout 4's shtick. I would probably even pay for an update simply titled "diplomacy 101, you idiotic fucks!" God, it was so annoying the only options were to sycophantly agree with their ignorance, or walk away and sycophantly agree with their rival's ignorance instead. The only truly fair action ultimately would be to destroy them all. No favourites.

'Sycophantly' is a word now? Eh?

Also would like the Mamma Murphy character to be an actual character and not a hollow cypher for "fictional drugs are bad, mkay." Regardless of how many times they literally saved my life. Err, in game.

You know they copied that from New Vegas right? Just replace nuke for Hoover Dam fight? Also you enter the same place despite being on four different sides of the war. It doesn't matter which side you pick, roboarmy is not in your hands and you no longer control the Mojave destiny.

Why didn't I just take control of the robots and sat them on the dam and force each side to negotiate? Wouldn't have that been easier? Wasn't that their purpose?

Okay, one more post, and then I say we stop derailing this thread with a near-century old book.

evilthecat:
Okay, one more post, and then I say we stop derailing this thread with a near-century old book.

Oh I see - you get to decide when the last post is. :P

Well, having read said post, I'll just agree to disagree.

Oh the derailing over Brave New World is ending? Well here I come to derail it over an even older book! Hahaha!

Hawki:
-The Tempest: I could at least appreciate most of Shakespeare's plays, but I really, REALLY dislike The Tempest...which you wouldn't think, because I've probably quoted this play more than any other in fan writing I've done.

As it happens I quite liked the Tempest, I liked seeing how themes on colonialism were represented in the time when colonialism was just starting to catch on. It probably helps that the other play we were doing at the time was The Duchess of Malfi which I found...messy

Hawki:
Oh I see - you get to decide when the last post is. :P

I get to decide when my last post is. I'll still read anything you post.

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here