Hence the 'it doesn't excuse their actions' portion of my post. Fordola did truly awful things but the story never stops to take a second and imagine /why/ she turned out that way or even sympathize with her troops and their circumstances that led them into the Garlean's service. Fordola doesn't need to be a good person and we don't need to excuse with her heinous actions - she did wrong and she is now rightfully paying for it. However by refusing to provide any nuance to people like her in the narrative it drags itself down as a whole. How did someone like Fordola come to exist? Why did so many youths decide that being in service to Garlemald was a preferable alternative? Are some of them doing this under the slim hope it'll make things better for their families? Are some doing it out of greed? Just how far has Garlemald truly gone that this would even be an issue? Do some of their wages go home? Do they even get a wage? And did the change in Stewardship between Gaius and Zenos cause more issues like this or were they always there? For a story that tried to show the harsh realities of war these were questions that at the bare minimum needed to be considered during the conceptualization stage. And yet it doesn't feel like they were beyond a handful of blink and you'll miss them lines. Instead we have a pretty black and white 'they bad, we good' scenario that would be fine in any other narrative that wasn't trying to constantly tout itself as being nuanced.
It's Stormblood's refusal to stop thinking it's deeper than it really is that gets it into some of the worst trouble narratively, right up there with the split focus hampering the overall impact.



Reply With Quote





