Gender: Male
Location: America
Rank: Decisive Witness
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2010 9:54 pm
Posts: 151
Maxie Marauder wrote:
Really? I figure that would be great basis of a pairing, because it's realistic. Quarrels never appealed to me. I know real life romance is abound with quarrels, but I've never liked them in pre-romantic conditions. It doesn't seem genuine to me, but then again, I've fallen victim to being treated horribly by people that crushed on me. It's not fun being on that end, and it isn't cute, either. I like Franziska as a character but I'd hate to be her love interest.
This definitely gets a bit into personal and subjective desires in regards to the types or kinds of relationships one pursues. Nonetheless, I do want to correct statements I've made that may have led to a misjudgment on your part. While I do like the
verbal antagonism and bickering between Phoenix and Franziska (and between romantic interests in general), I'm not a huge fan of the whipping. I know some out there might find Franziska appealing due to sadomasochism, but I'm not one of those people. I don't think Phoenix is, either; he's genuinely angry enough when the whippings occur.
Aside from pairings of Franny and Larry (and
possibly Franny and Adrian,) I'd imagine just about every other Franny pairing requires an assumption that she'd grow and mature through the relationship and stop the whipping habit. This may seem like a generous assumption, as it's true that a person's personality can't suddenly change just because they've entered into a relationship.
However, I think it's important to distinguish a
personality trait from a
physical habit or action. From Franziska's perspective, I view the physical violence as less an indelible element of her personality and more a bad Von Karma impulse, akin to a subconscious habit like biting one's nails
(this is supported by the fact that she is not, truly, a terribly evil person; see the end of GS 2-4 and her concern for Phoenix's well-being in GS 3-5.) Her whipping stems from angry feelings, but the angry feelings sort of "automatically flip on" a faulty switch in her brain that leads to the whipping. That's akin to how someone might constantly resort to biting one's nails whenever he or she feels nervous. It's a social flaw resulting from her upbringing that she could mature from (and that she shows signs of growing out of in terms of her character growth between GS2 and GS3)
in the exact same way that Edgeworth abandons the Von Karma philosophy and becomes a better person as a direct result of Phoenix's positive influence.
So, let me just establish that I completely agree with you that relationships involving physical violence are generally unhealthy. When I say that I like the Phoenix and Franziska pairing because of the "acrimony," I'm referring to their verbal spars, and not so much the whip-wielding antics. (I'm also being somewhat more generous to Franziska than I would a woman who whipped others in real life, insofar as the narrative of
Ace Attorney guides us to; we're practically guided by the hand to feel sympathy for her.)
Maxie Marauder wrote:
Ah, how about this: he may have an attraction to her, or he may have some sort of attraction that he is mistaking for love but it actually isn't. He then wouldn't be concerned about his sexuality or image at that point.
I understand your point, but I just feel that it seems more reasonable to assume that Gumshoe's behavior towards Maggey is honest and genuine
unless evidence exists to suggest otherwise. It's akin to why I'd similarly argue that Phoenix's fundamentally different behavior, canonical past relationships, and internal monologues around women establishes something of a presumption of heterosexuality that requires evidence to debunk. It is theoretically possible, of course, that Gumshoe is struggling with his sexuality throughout his pursuit of Maggey. It just seems extraordinarily unlikely; the odds seem against it.
I like to revert to societal norms as "tiebreaker" when direct quotes from the narrative don't really establish a clear position on an issue. For example, my belief that Franziska's whip wielding antics stems from "curable" immaturity and a "curably" flawed upbringing as opposed to an incurably violent disposition stems partially from canon facts and canon dialogue (her breakdown with Edgeworth at the end of GS 2-4, the fact that she's only nineteen) but
also from a broader sociological analysis. If confronted by a nineteen year old violent child prodigy, raised by a convicted murderer and a corrupted attorney, we would interpret Franziska's disposition as an "immature" side-effect of her pursuit of perfection, as opposed to an "unredeemable" trait.
Similarly, if we were confronted with a generally honest, upstanding, adorably loyal and quaint Detective and saw him earnestly pursuing a girl, and saw
no evidence whatsoever to support a conclusion that he was conflicted or hiding an alternative sexuality, societal norms would lead us to assume that he most likely
was a heterosexual man (or a man who at least "preferred women") and that his intentions in pursuing a relationship were sincere and not misguided. A few simple lines of dialogue that established ambiguities in Gumshoe's character would rebut this assumption (in a way comparable to how a presumption of heterosexuality would be easily rebutted with Edgeworth; there's plenty of dialogue with Edgey that can reasonably be interpreted to support a conclusion that he does not find women physically attractive.) It just strikes me as making more sense to rely on facts and societal norms to establish sexuality before relying on a series of interpretative assumptions.
(Of course, all of this relies somewhat on settling on a definition of sexuality before even beginning the debate. If you're a fervent believer in the psychologically popular notion that "everyone is inherently and to some extent bisexual," then you may have a stronger case simply by ruling out heterosexuality or homosexuality as options from the outset. I personally disagree with this notion...not because I perceive every "straight" or "gay" person as necessarily 100% "straight" or 100% "gay," but rather because I perceive the vast majority of people (and even most bisexuals) as having a strong enough preference in favor of pursuing one gender or the other that they can be treated as "effectively" heterosexual or homosexual when analyzing their behavior.)Maxie Marauder wrote:
I can say upfront that coming out to someone, especially your boss can be very difficult even if they think they will accept you. Add on to my hypothetical interpretation of Gumshoe not really knowing his own sexuality, so Edgeworth would be the very first person he'd tell in this little scenario. That's a lot of pressure, without even mentioning that he has feelings for him. Think of it this way: "Hey boss, I'm gay and I like you." Talk about dropping a bomb - one you're not even sure of too well.
This is an accurate concern and not one I had not thoroughly considered when debating my position.
(My apologies. It's easy for those of us who identify as "heterosexuals" to fall into hetero-normative assumptions, and I can't really fathom what it would truly be like to "come out" to your boss. My inability to consider this properly stems from a lack of firsthand knowledge of the hardships GLBT groups suffer from in contemporary society, but not from any willful ignorance that such hardships exist in the first place.)
Even assuming a gay Gumshoe would feel horrifically awkward with the notion of "coming out" to his superiors, however, there were plenty of opportunities in the context of
Ace Attorney's script for Gumshoe to hint (to the gamer, if not to any other character) of his true sexuality. The fact that Capcom didn't exploit these opportunities (as they did with Edgeworth, frankly) supports a conclusion that we weren't intended to infer that Gumshoe was gay.
Gumshoe interacts frequently with Phoenix and Maya outside of the spectrum of his employment responsibilities, for example, and Edgeworth's "best friend" would both represent a potential romantic rival and a great source of relational intel. And even the most closeted of characters in the literary world have moments of vulnerability where they "let their guard down" and their true colors surface.
Maxie Marauder wrote:
While this makes sense and it's a different and very interesting interpretation, I have a hard time agreeing with certain aspects of it which I explained above. To me antagonism just strains a relationship even more, though seeing someone you like not being up to your standards I can get behind and find it realistic.
I think the problem you're having is less with the interpretation itself and more with my inability to accurately represent it (because I'm nowhere near the argumentative genius I like to
pretend I can be.) My error in my previous post was portraying only one aspect of the Franziska and Phoenix pairing that appeals to me (the antagonism) and portraying it as separate and independent from other factors. Antagonism
alone doesn't provide sufficient chemistry or passion to sustain romantic interest. If Franziska and Phoenix merely mutually disliked and constantly disagreed with each other, that on its own wouldn't make for much of an argument in favor of "them dating."
I think the key is whether the antagonism stems from a deeper, more positive and more conciliatory interest, as opposed to the antagonism just existing in a vacuum.
I interpret Franziska and Phoenix's mutual antagonism as stemming from positions of mutual interest, tainted by each other "falling short."
Franziska looks at Phoenix and says quietly to herself
"What a handsome guy...it's too bad he's a naive idiot and a terrible attorney who relies on bluffs as opposed to sound legal philosophy. And it's too bad he's directly responsible for my beloved father's tarnished reputation and imprisonment." Phoenix looks at Franziska and says quietly to himself
"She's drop-dead gorgeous. It's too bad she's the violent whip-wielding maniac daughter of the murdering psychopath who killed Edgeworth's father." (This latter interpretation is particularly well supported by Phoenix's own internal monologues on the subject.)
If they merely hated each other and felt
no sexual chemistry, they'd avoid or ignore each other, or their arguments would be bland and quickly terminated; neither would view each other as worthy of wasting time on. The intensity and passion of their antagonism stems (as I believe such intensity and passion would stem in real life) from their mutual interest
and their mutual disappointment with each other's flaws and foibles.
Under my theory, then, Franziska passionately pushes Phoenix's buttons and forcibly intrudes on Phoenix's investigation in GS3-5 because she's desperately searching for evidence that Phoenix isn't in fact a dimwitted dolt and
would in fact merit her romantic interest. Her true colors show when Phoenix's life is in jeopardy, and she suddenly lets her guard down and concedes that
she's worried about him. Phoenix gives Franziska tulips and visits her in the hospital in GS2-4 despite his disdain for her because he's
desperately searching for her "better half" and a justification for his romantic and sexual interest in her. He has no obligation to do so, and if he truly merely
hated her he'd just avoid any interaction outright. Yet he's repeatedly willing to indulge Franziska because he
wants to believe she is an inherently better person than she comes across, and this belief is driven by the fact that she is "cute" and they honestly enjoy each other's company better than either can confess. The antagonism stems from their mutual desire for the other to prescribe to their idealized notions of what their future partner
should act like.
Which is precisely what I'd argue, for the record, happens with a multitude of other characters in literature and cinema. Leia Organa was raised to believe she'd probably marry gentlemanly nobility, and here comes this suave, unsophisticated and undiplomatic smuggler named Han who pushes her buttons. She's attracted to him, but he's not what she
expected, so she antagonizes him, prodding him deliberately to either provide a sufficient defense to justify his behavior (and thus, justify her own interest in him) or simply pushing herself out of her own comfort zone (realizing that she can feel affection for a guy who doesn't fit her preconceived conception of an ideal partner.) I guess my error in my previous post was merely establishing the antagonistic element without noting that the
romantic interest has to precede it.There's an even longer argument I could make, believe it or not. Much longer, honestly, and an argument that dived more into meta arguments about the narrative of Ace Attorney as a whole. Just ask poor Asa Turney, who has had the misfortune of being bombarded by more walls of my text than can or should reasonably be justified. Honestly, I feel bad for the poor girl. No one, and certainly none of you, deserves to read to my at-times incoherent and neverending rants. Anyway, maybe it's best we take future arguments to PMs. I always hate this perpetual feeling that I'm ruining everyone else's threads by simply showing up and tossing up
walls of text that hardly any sane human being would want to drift through. Sorry everyone.