[004]
69.172.221.2
Current Version
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
I have seen no evidence whatsoever that it was \'\'ever\'\' written with the idea in mind that Elizabeth would be a love interest. I have seen plenty of versions of Booker, and they all follow the same rough lines; all the versions of Elizabeth are similar as well, always significantly younger than him. There\'s \'\'plenty\'\' paternal in their interactions. His exasperated exclamation when she won\'t squish a bug (pretty stereotypical dad job, squishing bugs for the girls). Her running off on the beach and him having to wander around asking strangers if they\'ve seen her (\'\'tell me\'\' you\'ve never seen that happen). Picking a brooch for her (being unable to choose between two functionally identical things and thus asking parents who couldn\'t care less, seen that). Her reaction to his betrayal of her trust, slightly like a little girl throwing a tantrum (\
to:
I have seen no evidence whatsoever that it was \\\'\\\'ever\\\'\\\' written with the idea in mind that Elizabeth would be a love interest. I have seen plenty of versions of Booker, and they all follow the same rough lines; all the versions of Elizabeth are similar as well, always significantly younger than him. There\\\'s \\\'\\\'plenty\\\'\\\' paternal in their interactions. His exasperated exclamation when she won\\\'t squish a bug (pretty stereotypical dad job, squishing bugs for the girls). Her running off on the beach and him having to wander around asking strangers if they\\\'ve seen her (\\\'\\\'tell me\\\'\\\' you\\\'ve never seen that happen). Picking a brooch for her (being unable to choose between two functionally identical things and thus asking parents who couldn\\\'t care less, seen that). Her reaction to his betrayal of her trust, slightly like a little girl throwing a tantrum (\\\"Go away! Leave me alone!\\\" \\\"Elizabeth, I\\\'m not angry!\\\"). Knocking on her closed door, trying to get her to talk to him. His help after she\\\'s tortured - he touches her, but only when necessary, and for a wholly practical purpose (like pulling splinters, bandaging cuts and grazes, applying disinfectant, cooling burns, holding icepacks, handing out tissues, taking off bandaids...and on the clothes front, sashes, braids, buttons, socks, bows, shoelaces, pins). There are photos of her growing up around her home, toys she\\\'s played with, childish things she\\\'s been interested in. Booker calls her \\\"kid\\\", \\\"girl\\\" and \\\"Miss\\\".
She\\\'s characterised as a child. Booker as a widower who\\\'s lost a child. Similarly, the series itself already has an established history of faux/surrogate/weird parent and child pairs. \\\"Vague semi-potential with no foreshadowing unfulfilled\\\" still isn\\\'t a fumble, even if you \\\'\\\'do\\\'\\\' think your perception is totally objective. That just means that neither ShippingGoggles or RelationshipWritingFumble should be here.
\\\'\\\'Also, Lady Comstock\\\'s name started with \\\"A\\\" and I was already beginning to suspect Comstock was alternate Booker, so I thought it was also possible that Lady Comstock was another version of Elizabeth.\\\'\\\'
...Seriously? Uh. Where do we learn Lady Comstock\\\'s first name? Why would Comstock refer to a cross-dimensional copy of his \\\'\\\'wife\\\'\\\' as his \\\"seed\\\" and his \\\"heir\\\"? If this is to prove you made a reasonable assumption that should be recognised as a path that the story, as it \\\'\\\'is\\\'\\\', could have taken, I don\\\'t know what to tell you. Other than that it wasn\\\'t because of a mistake on the writers\\\' part that it didn\\\'t.
She\\\'s characterised as a child. Booker as a widower who\\\'s lost a child. Similarly, the series itself already has an established history of faux/surrogate/weird parent and child pairs. \\\"Vague semi-potential with no foreshadowing unfulfilled\\\" still isn\\\'t a fumble, even if you \\\'\\\'do\\\'\\\' think your perception is totally objective. That just means that neither ShippingGoggles or RelationshipWritingFumble should be here.
\\\'\\\'Also, Lady Comstock\\\'s name started with \\\"A\\\" and I was already beginning to suspect Comstock was alternate Booker, so I thought it was also possible that Lady Comstock was another version of Elizabeth.\\\'\\\'
...Seriously? Uh. Where do we learn Lady Comstock\\\'s first name? Why would Comstock refer to a cross-dimensional copy of his \\\'\\\'wife\\\'\\\' as his \\\"seed\\\" and his \\\"heir\\\"? If this is to prove you made a reasonable assumption that should be recognised as a path that the story, as it \\\'\\\'is\\\'\\\', could have taken, I don\\\'t know what to tell you. Other than that it wasn\\\'t because of a mistake on the writers\\\' part that it didn\\\'t.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
I have seen no evidence whatsoever that it was \'\'ever\'\' written with the idea in mind that Elizabeth would be a love interest. I have seen plenty of versions of Booker, and they all follow the same rough lines; all the versions of Elizabeth are similar as well, always significantly younger than him. There\'s \'\'plenty\'\' paternal in their interactions. His exasperated exclamation when she won\'t squish a bug (pretty stereotypical dad job, squishing bugs for the girls). Her running off on the beach and him having to wander around asking strangers if they\'ve seen her (\'\'tell me\'\' you\'ve never seen that happen). Picking a brooch for her (being unable to choose between two functionally identical things and thus asking parents who couldn\'t care less, seen that). Her reaction to his betrayal of her trust, slightly like a little girl throwing a tantrum (\
to:
I have seen no evidence whatsoever that it was \\\'\\\'ever\\\'\\\' written with the idea in mind that Elizabeth would be a love interest. I have seen plenty of versions of Booker, and they all follow the same rough lines; all the versions of Elizabeth are similar as well, always significantly younger than him. There\\\'s \\\'\\\'plenty\\\'\\\' paternal in their interactions. His exasperated exclamation when she won\\\'t squish a bug (pretty stereotypical dad job, squishing bugs for the girls). Her running off on the beach and him having to wander around asking strangers if they\\\'ve seen her (\\\'\\\'tell me\\\'\\\' you\\\'ve never seen that happen). Picking a brooch for her (being unable to choose between two functionally identical things and thus asking parents who couldn\\\'t care less, seen that). Her reaction to his betrayal of her trust, slightly like a little girl throwing a tantrum (\\\"Go away! Leave me alone!\\\" \\\"Elizabeth, I\\\'m not angry!\\\"). Knocking on her closed door, trying to get her to talk to him. His help after she\\\'s tortured - he touches her, but only when necessary, and for a wholly practical purpose (like pulling splinters, bandaging cuts and grazes, applying disinfectant, cooling burns, holding icepacks, handing out tissues, taking off bandaids...and on the clothes front, sashes, braids, buttons, socks, bows, shoelaces, pins). There are photos of her growing up around her home, toys she\\\'s played with, childish things she\\\'s been interested in. Booker calls her \\\"kid\\\", \\\"girl\\\" and \\\"Miss\\\".
She\\\'s characterised as a child. Booker as a widower who\\\'s lost a child. Similarly, the series itself already has an established history of faux/surrogate/weird parent and child pairs. \\\"Vague semi-potential unfulfilled with no foreshadowing\\\" still isn\\\'t a fumble, even if you \\\'\\\'do\\\'\\\' think your perception is totally objective. That just means that neither ShippingGoggles or RelationshipWritingFumble should be here.
\\\'\\\'Also, Lady Comstock\\\'s name started with \\\"A\\\" and I was already beginning to suspect Comstock was alternate Booker, so I thought it was also possible that Lady Comstock was another version of Elizabeth.\\\'\\\'
...Seriously? Uh. Where do we learn Lady Comstock\\\'s first name? Why would Comstock refer to a cross-dimensional copy of his \\\'\\\'wife\\\'\\\' as his \\\"seed\\\" and his \\\"heir\\\"? If this is to prove you made a reasonable assumption that should be recognised as a path that the story, as it \\\'\\\'is\\\'\\\', could have taken, I don\\\'t know what to tell you. Other than that it wasn\\\'t because of a mistake on the writers\\\' part that it didn\\\'t.
She\\\'s characterised as a child. Booker as a widower who\\\'s lost a child. Similarly, the series itself already has an established history of faux/surrogate/weird parent and child pairs. \\\"Vague semi-potential unfulfilled with no foreshadowing\\\" still isn\\\'t a fumble, even if you \\\'\\\'do\\\'\\\' think your perception is totally objective. That just means that neither ShippingGoggles or RelationshipWritingFumble should be here.
\\\'\\\'Also, Lady Comstock\\\'s name started with \\\"A\\\" and I was already beginning to suspect Comstock was alternate Booker, so I thought it was also possible that Lady Comstock was another version of Elizabeth.\\\'\\\'
...Seriously? Uh. Where do we learn Lady Comstock\\\'s first name? Why would Comstock refer to a cross-dimensional copy of his \\\'\\\'wife\\\'\\\' as his \\\"seed\\\" and his \\\"heir\\\"? If this is to prove you made a reasonable assumption that should be recognised as a path that the story, as it \\\'\\\'is\\\'\\\', could have taken, I don\\\'t know what to tell you. Other than that it wasn\\\'t because of a mistake on the writers\\\' part that it didn\\\'t.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
I have seen no evidence whatsoever that it was \'\'ever\'\' written with the idea in mind that Elizabeth would be a love interest. I have seen plenty of versions of Booker, and they all follow the same rough lines; all the versions of Elizabeth are similar as well, always significantly younger than him. There\'s \'\'plenty\'\' paternal in their interactions. His exasperated exclamation when she won\'t squish a bug (pretty stereotypical dad job, squishing bugs for the girls). Her running off on the beach and him having to wander around asking strangers if they\'ve seen her (\'\'tell me\'\' you\'ve never seen that happen). Picking a brooch for her (being unable to choose between two functionally identical things and thus asking parents who couldn\'t care less, seen that). Her reaction to his betrayal of her trust, slightly like a little girl throwing a tantrum (\
to:
I have seen no evidence whatsoever that it was \\\'\\\'ever\\\'\\\' written with the idea in mind that Elizabeth would be a love interest. I have seen plenty of versions of Booker, and they all follow the same rough lines; all the versions of Elizabeth are similar as well, always significantly younger than him. There\\\'s \\\'\\\'plenty\\\'\\\' paternal in their interactions. His exasperated exclamation when she won\\\'t squish a bug (pretty stereotypical dad job, squishing bugs for the girls). Her running off on the beach and him having to wander around asking strangers if they\\\'ve seen her (\\\'\\\'tell me\\\'\\\' you\\\'ve never seen that happen). Picking a brooch for her (being unable to choose between two functionally identical things and thus asking parents who couldn\\\'t care less, seen that). Her reaction to his betrayal of her trust, slightly like a little girl throwing a tantrum (\\\"Go away! Leave me alone!\\\" \\\"Elizabeth, I\\\'m not angry!\\\"). Knocking on her closed door, trying to get her to talk to him. His help after she\\\'s tortured - he touches her, but only when necessary, and for a wholly practical purpose (like pulling splinters, bandaging cuts and grazes, applying disinfectant, cooling burns, holding icepacks, handing out tissues, taking off bandaids...and on the clothes front, sashes, braids, buttons, socks, bows, shoelaces, pins). There are photos of her growing up around her home, toys she\\\'s played with, childish things she\\\'s been interested in. Booker calls her \\\"kid\\\", \\\"girl\\\" and \\\"Miss\\\".
She\\\'s characterised as a child. Booker as a widower who\\\'s lost a child. Similarly, the series itself already has an established history of faux/surrogate/weird parent and child pairs. \\\"Vague semi-potential unfulfilled with no foreshadowing\\\" still isn\\\'t a fumble, even if you \\\'\\\'do\\\'\\\' think your perception is totally objective.
\\\'\\\'Also, Lady Comstock\\\'s name started with \\\"A\\\" and I was already beginning to suspect Comstock was alternate Booker, so I thought it was also possible that Lady Comstock was another version of Elizabeth.\\\'\\\'
...Seriously? Uh. Where do we learn Lady Comstock\\\'s first name? Why would Comstock refer to a cross-dimensional copy of his \\\'\\\'wife\\\'\\\' as his \\\"seed\\\" and his \\\"heir\\\"? If this is to prove you made a reasonable assumption that should be recognised as a path that the story, as it \\\'\\\'is\\\'\\\', could have taken, I don\\\'t know what to tell you. Other than that it wasn\\\'t because of a mistake on the writers\\\' part that it didn\\\'t.
She\\\'s characterised as a child. Booker as a widower who\\\'s lost a child. Similarly, the series itself already has an established history of faux/surrogate/weird parent and child pairs. \\\"Vague semi-potential unfulfilled with no foreshadowing\\\" still isn\\\'t a fumble, even if you \\\'\\\'do\\\'\\\' think your perception is totally objective.
\\\'\\\'Also, Lady Comstock\\\'s name started with \\\"A\\\" and I was already beginning to suspect Comstock was alternate Booker, so I thought it was also possible that Lady Comstock was another version of Elizabeth.\\\'\\\'
...Seriously? Uh. Where do we learn Lady Comstock\\\'s first name? Why would Comstock refer to a cross-dimensional copy of his \\\'\\\'wife\\\'\\\' as his \\\"seed\\\" and his \\\"heir\\\"? If this is to prove you made a reasonable assumption that should be recognised as a path that the story, as it \\\'\\\'is\\\'\\\', could have taken, I don\\\'t know what to tell you. Other than that it wasn\\\'t because of a mistake on the writers\\\' part that it didn\\\'t.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
I have seen no evidence whatsoever that it was \'\'ever\'\' written with the idea in mind that Elizabeth would be a love interest. I have seen plenty of versions of Booker, and they all follow the same rough lines; all the versions of Elizabeth are similar as well, always significantly younger than him. There\'s \'\'plenty\'\' paternal in their interactions. His exasperated exclamation when she won\'t squish a bug (pretty stereotypical dad job, squishing bugs for the girls). Her running off on the beach and him having to wander around asking strangers if they\'ve seen her (\'\'tell me\'\' you\'ve never seen that happen). Picking a brooch for her (being unable to choose between two functionally identical things and thus asking parents who couldn\'t care less, seen that). Her reaction to his betrayal of her trust, slightly like a little girl throwing a tantrum (\
to:
I have seen no evidence whatsoever that it was \\\'\\\'ever\\\'\\\' written with the idea in mind that Elizabeth would be a love interest. I have seen plenty of versions of Booker, and they all follow the same rough lines; all the versions of Elizabeth are similar as well, always significantly younger than him. There\\\'s \\\'\\\'plenty\\\'\\\' paternal in their interactions. His exasperated exclamation when she won\\\'t squish a bug (pretty stereotypical dad job, squishing bugs for the girls). Her running off on the beach and him having to wander around asking strangers if they\\\'ve seen her (\\\'\\\'tell me\\\'\\\' you\\\'ve never seen that happen). Picking a brooch for her (being unable to choose between two functionally identical things and thus asking parents who couldn\\\'t care less, seen that). Her reaction to his betrayal of her trust, slightly like a little girl throwing a tantrum (\\\"Go away! Leave me alone!\\\" \\\"Elizabeth, I\\\'m not angry!\\\"). Knocking on her closed door, trying to get her to talk to him. His help after she\\\'s tortured - he touches her, but only when necessary, and for a wholly practical purpose (like pulling splinters, bandaging cuts and grazes, applying disinfectant, cooling burns, holding icepacks, handing out tissues, taking off bandaids...and on the clothes front, sashes, braids, buttons, socks, bows, shoelaces, pins). There are photos of her growing up around her home, toys she\\\'s played with, childish things she\\\'s been interested in. Booker calls her \\\"kid\\\", \\\"girl\\\" and \\\"Miss\\\".
She\\\'s characterised as a child. Booker as a widower who\\\'s lost a child. Similarly, the series itself already has an established history of faux/surrogate/weird parent and child pairs.
\\\'\\\'Also, Lady Comstock\\\'s name started with \\\"A\\\" and I was already beginning to suspect Comstock was alternate Booker, so I thought it was also possible that Lady Comstock was another version of Elizabeth.\\\'\\\'
...Seriously? Uh. Where do we learn Lady Comstock\\\'s first name? Why would Comstock refer to a cross-dimensional copy of his \\\'\\\'wife\\\'\\\' as his \\\"seed\\\" and his \\\"heir\\\"? If this is to prove you made a reasonable assumption that should be recognised as a path that the story, as it \\\'\\\'is\\\'\\\', could have taken, I don\\\'t know what to tell you. Other than that it wasn\\\'t because of a mistake on the writers\\\' part that it didn\\\'t.
She\\\'s characterised as a child. Booker as a widower who\\\'s lost a child. Similarly, the series itself already has an established history of faux/surrogate/weird parent and child pairs.
\\\'\\\'Also, Lady Comstock\\\'s name started with \\\"A\\\" and I was already beginning to suspect Comstock was alternate Booker, so I thought it was also possible that Lady Comstock was another version of Elizabeth.\\\'\\\'
...Seriously? Uh. Where do we learn Lady Comstock\\\'s first name? Why would Comstock refer to a cross-dimensional copy of his \\\'\\\'wife\\\'\\\' as his \\\"seed\\\" and his \\\"heir\\\"? If this is to prove you made a reasonable assumption that should be recognised as a path that the story, as it \\\'\\\'is\\\'\\\', could have taken, I don\\\'t know what to tell you. Other than that it wasn\\\'t because of a mistake on the writers\\\' part that it didn\\\'t.
