![]() ![]() ![]() But that may have been because Blizz had yet to flesh out that last name and dynasty and or WotA story hadn’t been written or thought of so none of that lore is yet relevant. I first want to say it’s odd that Keal didn’t introduced him self as a Sunstrider, which would have lead to Tyrande picking up on the relation to Dath’remar. It’s after this where I think the problems start. Tyrande nearly sacrificed her self to save them. She said she also grieved for his people and that shouldn’t let rage and despair poison his heart as he may still lead his people to a brighter future. During this time Maiev wondered about where the rest of his people were and Tyrande tried to encourage Kael. Hyjal so Tyrande was quick to repay that debt to the elves. During that encounter both of them chose to help the blood elves because they knew they needed it, in exchange for help with Illidan. Tyrande and Maiev discovered this information when they encountered Kael’Thas. Malfurion leaned this apparently from the Alliance (or the forest). I just watched the W3 video to make sure I got the story correct.Īfter the third war Quel’thalas was in shambles and its citizens broken. Specifically the Night Elves and the High/Blood Elves. I’m sure there are multiple examples that can be looked at but I want to about the relationship between the Elves first. Superman is a simplistic example of a paragon and Jimmy and Lois are not consistently written, but my point is even with the same paragon character we can have multiple protagonists who serve different narrative purposes and appeal to different readers.I have a question on where do we draw the line between natural and sensical story progression and bad writing on Blizzard’s part. Probably more significant, Lois becomes destructible when Superman is someplace else and that makes for a perfect suspense plot. She can do things as the protagonist the paragon would never do. Lois is practically an indestructible superhero herself, but she has human flaws that make her character useful for plot opportunities. We also enjoy schadenfreude that her own machinations against Kent leave her stranded. She is over-confident and has to be rescued, which knocks her down a peg or two. In the end she is also practically a paragon, she is a better reporter and a better detective than Superman, but without his superpowers she is either brave or crazy. She doesn't follow Superman around, he follows her – if he didn't she would be dead by now. She never saw a villain's lair that she did not walk up and ring the doorbell to demand an interview. She leads all the stories she's in by being the most risk-taking, most aggressively fearless reporter ever. ![]() Jimmy can be worried when Superman is captured, surprised to learn Superman was faking it, and Jimmy can be put in danger himself.īut in the character of Lois Lane (as she was originally created: a Torchy Blane hero) we see a protagonist in her own right. He becomes a proxy for those young readers while "fixing" many of the narrative issues. As the newspaper's photographer it is literally Jimmy's job to follow Superman around and document his amazing abilities. In the case of Jimmy Olsen there is hero worship of the paragon. In the earliest comics it is just Superman and some villain bouncing rocks off each other, but later incarnations (especially film and TV) the protagonist shifts to a less perfect character who does take risks and can be in peril: Jimmy Olsen or Lois Lane. As the comic matured writers needed to focus on less indestructible characters. As we get older this kind of story becomes routine and boring. They know Superman can break his chains at anytime and is just pretending to be captured, and that's what they like about him. Young children prefer paragon characters like Superman. When the paragon is too powerful and too wholesome they can become uninteresting as protagonists. You might not have a protagonist, you might have a Paragon. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |