[Spoilers] Why Zenos is the most important character moving forward

[LineageRazor]

I am pretty sure Hamlet would fail the Bechdel test.

There's a big difference between the Bechdel Test and the Edax test. The Bechdel Test was never intended to be a measure of the quality of a work, by the author's own admission. Its sole purpose is to illustrate a TREND in writing, in works both good and bad. The implication being that it's far more common to find a "Hamlet" in literature than a "Hamlette", as it were. What this trend actually means is up to interpretation; certainly there are no shortage of individuals quick to point out how it might relate to "the Patriarchy", or what have you.

The Edax Test is VERY MUCH intended to be a measure for the quality of a work, and stands by the principle that any work that utilizes a certain trope MUST BE BAD. That there is NO WAY to take that particular literary formula and construct an enjoyable and meaningful story from it.

I stand by the assertion that there is no trope that by its very nature cannot be written well, and thereby feel that the Edax Test is invalid. It was constructed on the fly to try to add legitimacy to Edax's dislike of a certain character, who does admittedly qualify as a not-very-compelling use of the trope.

While I haven't brought it up before, it may well be the case that NOT EVEN ZENOS qualifies for the Edax Test. Can Zenos progress the story if he kills the Warrior of Light? Certainly he could! In fact, we know exactly what he would do, if he were to overcome his worthy foe. It's the same thing he did when he overcame his tutor: Seek out a NEW worthy foe. In fact, wouldn't it be a hoot if he decided that a grand contender for the position of next-worthy-foe could well be the foes who've been giving his PREVIOUS worthy foe so much trouble? I could easily see Zenos taking his battle to the Ascians themselves - or if he felt truly ambitious, he might assist them in their plans so that he could take on Zodiark himself. There's always a bigger fish - but Zenos is not satisfied with that. The Hunt continues until he is the biggest fish of all.

One could argue, "Nuh uh, that won't happen, if Zenos won he'd do X!!!1!" until one is blue in the face - but we don't know. And we never will know, because, for obvious reasons, Zenos isn't gonna kill us. If this was a work of literature, however, and not an MMO, What Comes After would depend on the talents of the writer, not some arbitrary rule.

[Edax]

There's a big difference between the Bechdel Test and the Edax test. The Bechdel Test was never intended to be a measure of the quality of a work, by the author's own admission. Its sole purpose is to illustrate a TREND in writing, in works both good and bad. The implication being that it's far more common to find a "Hamlet" in literature than a "Hamlette", as it were. What this trend actually means is up to interpretation; certainly there are no shortage of individuals quick to point out how it might relate to "the Patriarchy", or what have you.

The Edax Test is VERY MUCH intended to be a measure for the quality of a work, and stands by the principle that any work that utilizes a certain trope MUST BE BAD. That there is NO WAY to take that particular literary formula and construct an enjoyable and meaningful story from it.

You misunderstand, the Edax Test is a meant to be a measure of the writing. Perhaps it would be better if I edit my signature even through this results in me committing a double negative.
"Can the Antagonist progress the story if they destroy the Protagonist? If the Antagonist cannot, then they are not well written." The Alien in Alien is barely written as it remains largely an unknown, but it is not necessarily a bad antagonist, just not a well written one. The Alien in Alien is appropriate for a horror movie, but what makes Ash so great is that Ash is a well written antagonist. And we know full well what would happen if Ash, and by extension The Company had won because it was a detailed part of the story.

While I haven't brought it up before, it may well be the case that NOT EVEN ZENOS qualifies for the Edax Test. Can Zenos progress the story if he kills the Warrior of Light? Certainly he could! In fact, we know exactly what he would do, if he were to overcome his worthy foe. It's the same thing he did when he overcame his tutor: Seek out a NEW worthy foe. In fact, wouldn't it be a hoot if he decided that a grand contender for the position of next-worthy-foe could well be the foes who've been giving his PREVIOUS worthy foe so much trouble? I could easily see Zenos taking his battle to the Ascians themselves - or if he felt truly ambitious, he might assist them in their plans so that he could take on Zodiark himself. There's always a bigger fish - but Zenos is not satisfied with that. The Hunt continues until he is the biggest fish of all.

One could argue, "Nuh uh, that won't happen, if Zenos won he'd do X!!!1!" until one is blue in the face - but we don't know. And we never will know, because, for obvious reasons, Zenos isn't gonna kill us. If this was a work of literature, however, and not an MMO, What Comes After would depend on the talents of the writer, not some arbitrary rule.

The reason we can argue until we're blue in the face is because Zenos is not well written. His motives are so simplistic that Zenos can't function on his own because he's not a fully formed character. His motivations are vague apart from his single fixation, take that fixation away and he'll be vague again.

Zenos might fight the Ascians, but we he wont do it for any reason related to the story. Again I have to stress that FFXIV is not a fighting anime and we are not in a tournament arc, Zenos seeking the strongest opponents has nothing to do with the story. The fact that there are some strong figures in the Light vs Dark storyline does not mean the story is at all related to Zeno's hunt.

Now tropes aren't always bad, but they aren't always good either and the tropes that Zenos imbues harms the story. Zenos pulls the "Not So Different" trope when he claims that he and the Warrior of Light are the same since both want to taste the blood of their enemies in battle and it falls completely flat. Zenos is clueless, he has nothing of value to say as he knows nothing about the WoL and thus he does not even care about the Warrior of Light despite being a creepo stalker. A villain monologue that has nothing of value to say is just wasting time. We all already knew that stalkers are bad, we didn't need 2 expansions dedicated to a stalker whose unrelated to the core story.

[YianKutku]

You misunderstand, the Edax Test is a meant to be a measure of the writing. Perhaps it would be better if I edit my signature even through this results in me committing a double negative.
"Can the Antagonist progress the story if they destroy the Protagonist? If the Antagonist cannot, then they are not well written." The Alien in Alien is barely written as it remains largely an unknown, but it is not necessarily a bad antagonist, just not a well written one. The Alien in Alien is appropriate for a horror movie, but what makes Ash so great is that Ash is a well written antagonist. And we know full well what would happen if Ash, and by extension The Company had won because it was a detailed part of the story.

To be specific, the difference seems to be that the Edax Test is meant to be applied to individual pieces of work, to measure that specific work's quality of writing.

Whereas the Bechdel Test is meant to be applied to trends among multiple works, and is irrelevant when applied to singular works.

[Iscah]

A philanthropist giving money to someone can be seen by some as a selfless act, but you have to take into account who is receiving that money and what they do with it. A philanthropist giving money to a somnus addict is actively helping destroy a life quite likely for their own amusement. Not so selfless anymore. Just look at how "selfless" Teleji Adeleji was.

A philanthropist he was however. He handed out money to the needy, a selfless act by your own definition, so that they could rebel against the people they hated who slighted them, who held them back, who refused to help them, who refused to help their homeland... and he wanted gone for different reasons. He was all about helping those less fortunate.

Same thing with a somnus addict. You give them money they get more somnus, it takes intervention to save them from their addiction, which would be a selfless act. Feeding their addiction to watch them self destruct is not.

I think you're confusing what a philanthropist is with something that a philanthropist might do.

A philanthropist - literally "lover of mankind" - would by definition be giving money or assistance to others out of good intentions and genuine concern. Nanamo is a much better example of the mindset that the label implies.

Teledji Adeledji is acting to give the illusion that he is a philanthropist, a good person who is concerned for the wellbeing of refugees and the poor - when it's all just a front and he is actually doing it to further his own selfish plans.

It's not the act, it's the intention behind it.

[LineageRazor]

The reason we can argue until we're blue in the face is because Zenos is not well written.

Actually, the reason we can argue until we're blue in the face is because what we're arguing about is SUBJECTIVE, not OBJECTIVE. Different people have different ideas about what constitutes good writing. As evidenced by this very thread, some find Zenos to be a very compelling character. You and I do not; we care about the story and are worried that it will be lessened by setting the guy up to be the primary antagonist - but that does not mean that they are WRONG, or that you and I are RIGHT. The Edax Test, no matter how you edit and re-edit its text, is fundamentally nothing more than an expression of your personal opinion, and one I believe to be unhealthily wrapped up around a specific instance. Perhaps you'd change your mind about the test if you found the right story to use as a counter-example, or perhaps not. Regardless, your test is applicable to you and you alone. Others may agree with it, but that is purely a matter of their opinions meshing with yours, and not indicative of any kind of fundamental truthfulness of the test. The Bechdel Test, for its part, is purely objective. Any two people reading a work will give you the same answer as to whether it passes or fails (barring weird fringe cases, like having one of the women be a hallucination by the other, or something). They may disagree on what the results of that test MEAN, but the test itself is entirely divorced of personal opinion.

The supporting examples you've provided also seem to be trending toward the questionable assertion that "well written" is equivalent to knowing so much about the character that we can accurately predict what they will do upon achieving their goals. Readers don't always have that kind of omniscient viewpoint, nor is it a requirement for a work of literature - or the antagonist within it - to be well written. Very compelling antagonists can be developed, for instance, by knowing only what the protagonist knows about them (which, of course, is the general rule in stories told in the first-person). The protagonist could be biased, or outright incorrect in what they know, or they might not know the antagonist well at all. In such a situation the reader, too, will be biased or incorrect about what the antagonist would do if they destroyed the protagonist. It's not the author's obligation to tell the reader what the villain had for breakfast, nor does failing to do so lessen the quality of the character.

You could argue that early in an antagonist's development, that character is not well-written, but as the character develops it BECOMES well-written - but I feel this is basically just redefining the term to support your case. It may be irrelevant in Zeno's case, as the writers SEEM to have already laid all of his cards on the table (I would argue that there is room for further character development, myself), but when stated as a general rule for all works of literature, it becomes tougher to swallow.

[Edax]

Actually, the reason we can argue until we're blue in the face is because what we're arguing about is SUBJECTIVE, not OBJECTIVE. Different people have different ideas about what constitutes good writing. As evidenced by this very thread, some find Zenos to be a very compelling character. You and I do not; we care about the story and are worried that it will be lessened by setting the guy up to be the primary antagonist - but that does not mean that they are WRONG, or that you and I are RIGHT. The Edax Test, no matter how you edit and re-edit its text, is fundamentally nothing more than an expression of your personal opinion, and one I believe to be unhealthily wrapped up around a specific instance. Perhaps you'd change your mind about the test if you found the right story to use as a counter-example, or perhaps not. Regardless, your test is applicable to you and you alone. Others may agree with it, but that is purely a matter of their opinions meshing with yours, and not indicative of any kind of fundamental truthfulness of the test. The Bechdel Test, for its part, is purely objective. Any two people reading a work will give you the same answer as to whether it passes or fails (barring weird fringe cases, like having one of the women be a hallucination by the other, or something). They may disagree on what the results of that test MEAN, but the test itself is entirely divorced of personal opinion.

Craftsmanship is measured objectively, not subjectively. Everyone has different ideas on what constitutes good writing but we understand that most 5 years olds aren't capable of making objectively good writing. This is why writing is taught in school because it is an objective skill. We can identify the lack of Zeno's characterisation or his lack of relation to the story objectively. Whether you enjoy Zenos is subjective. How you feel about Zenos is subjective. But how well written Zenos is can be measured. The story should be mechanically sound.

The supporting examples you've provided also seem to be trending toward the questionable assertion that "well written" is equivalent to knowing so much about the character that we can accurately predict what they will do upon achieving their goals. Readers don't always have that kind of omniscient viewpoint, nor is it a requirement for a work of literature - or the antagonist within it - to be well written. Very compelling antagonists can be developed, for instance, by knowing only what the protagonist knows about them (which, of course, is the general rule in stories told in the first-person). The protagonist could be biased, or outright incorrect in what they know, or they might not know the antagonist well at all. In such a situation the reader, too, will be biased or incorrect about what the antagonist would do if they destroyed the protagonist. It's not the author's obligation to tell the reader what the villain had for breakfast, nor does failing to do so lessen the quality of the character.

Very well compelling antagonists can be developed in a story and used effectively, but the absence in writing of that antagonist disqualifies it as "well written". How the protagonist perceives an antagonist, would be character development of the protagonist, not the antagonist. With a 1st person perspective, the antagonist could be a hallucination that might not even physically exist. But in cases like this, what your looking at is the psyche of the protagonist.

You could argue that early in an antagonist's development, that character is not well-written, but as the character develops it BECOMES well-written - but I feel this is basically just redefining the term to support your case. It may be irrelevant in Zeno's case, as the writers SEEM to have already laid all of his cards on the table (I would argue that there is room for further character development, myself), but when stated as a general rule for all works of literature, it becomes tougher to swallow.

I'm sure fundamentally you are right in that I have no authority over literature. I only sought to provoke a thought experiment.

[Keever]

Craftsmanship is measured objectively, not subjectively. Everyone has different ideas on what constitutes good writing but we understand that most 5 years olds aren't capable of making objectively good writing. This is why writing is taught in school because it is an objective skill.

Craftsmanship/art is not always measured objectively, that is an absurd assertion. Art and music are not measured objectively. Children in school learn how to write with good grammar and to use a style that gets their points across--they're not usually graded how how compelling they are at storytelling, because that's subjective.

This level of prescriptivism in writing criticism is absolutely absurd.

Something being "well-written" from a narrative standpoint is absolutely subjective. If a reader finds a character or story element effective and compelling in their narrative role, then from that reader's perspective the writer was successful at writing it. That means that the writer did a good job. That means it's well-written, in that reader's opinion. You are equating "lots of details" with "good writing", which is laughable. You hold up your preferred style of narrative as the supreme form of narrative, which shows an alarming lack of perspective and insight.

Music is not "badly composed" if it does not conform to Baroque-era rules of counterpoint. Visual art is not "badly drawn" if it is not very finely detailed. And so it goes with writing.

[Edax]

Craftsmanship/art is not always measured objectively, that is an absurd assertion. Art and music are not measured objectively. Children in school learn how to write with good grammar and to use a style that gets their points across--they're not usually graded how how compelling they are at storytelling, because that's subjective.

Art and music are measured objectively. There's a reason art education and music education exists, because they are skills to be learned. If you want to say people measure their feelings in music, then fine, that's subjective. But the art of music and art of art is a skill.

Something being "well-written" from a narrative standpoint is absolutely subjective. If a reader finds a character or story element effective and compelling in their narrative role, then from that reader's perspective the writer was successful at writing it. That means that the writer did a good job. That means it's well-written, in that reader's opinion. You are equating "lots of details" with "good writing", which is laughable. You hold up your preferred style of narrative as the supreme form of narrative, which shows an alarming lack of perspective and insight.

The movie Gladiator was compelling but how many people truly walked out of movie theaters talking about how "well written" it was? Compelling ≠Well Written
Real life can be compelling and real life doesn't even have to follow story structure, it doesn't even have to be written. I think you're confusing "Not Well Written" with "Bad" and "Well Written" with "Preferred Style of Narrative".

When you see bad filmmakers make movies with no plot structure, it's not subjective that the story becomes incomprehensible and thus "badly written". "I liked it" can be the subjective opinion of the reader, but "well written" requires criteria. If a plane cannot fly because of it's design, to say it is "badly engineered" is not subjective. We don't judge the effectiveness of machine based on "feelings" just as we understand that stories or art are not entirely based in "feelings". This is why movie critics exist. I'm not interested in Roger Ebert's subjective personal feelings on a movie, I'm interested in the quality of the movie. He wasn't always objective, but it isn't other people's subjectivity that people are interested in when deciding what movie to see. If a reviewer wasn't "bored" the 4th time watching a film, that subjective information is worthless to the goal of learning about the quality of a film. But if the critic is doing their job right, they will discuss the quality of the film using what is quantifiable.