(Mass Effect game and book spoilers ahead)
I'll never admit to being a "fanboy" of anything, unless it's Mass Effect. Now that I've read all three books, I'm currently replaying the two games on a new save file, my "renegade run," as it were.
For those that don't remember the mission on Feros in the first game, I'll quickly refresh your memory: You save (or destroy) the Zhu's Hope colonists after finding out they are indoctrinated by a huge plant-like creature called the Thorian. While dealing with the mind-controlling plant, Commander Shepard meets Shiala, an asari who served Matriarch Benezia and Saren blindly. As is often the case for the Mass Effect games, players get the choice to save or kill the colonists, as well as Shiala.
Thanks to the ridiculously well-maintained Mass Effect Wiki, we're reminded of what happens when you see Shiala in Mass Effect 2, which leaves hints for future encounters with her, hopefully as more of an ally in the third installment in the trilogy.
But something didn't sit right as I wrapped this mission up late last night.
Being that I'm in my "renegade run," I obviously chose to kill Shiala, but not before I got to hear a bit of her story. She was a tool used by Saren, left to die in the clutches of the Thorian, which then used her clones in its defense.
As a plot device, Shiala gives Shepard the "cipher" in a joining, which allows the game's hero to eventually understand the crazy Prothean visions (at least after another joining with the asari ally of the game, Liara). Renegade Shepard can then cast Shiala aside by executing her, using her much like Saren did. Paragon Shepard saves Shiala, certain they will meet again now that she's not under the control of Saren, Sovereign, or the Thorian.
But let me trip my way over to the third book by Drew Karpyshyn, Mass Effect: Retribution, released in 2010. Sure, a book critic might not find Karpyshyn's work to be ranked among the classics in literature, but this author does a fantastic job of luring a Mass Effect nut-job like myself further into the universe that the first game set up.
Retribution follows the story of Paul Grayson, who after a series of experiments by the controversial Cerberus group has reaper-based technology implanted into him, which takes over his body. In fact, the theme of the entire Mass Effect series is about this struggle for control and power (a whole other discussion worth having, certainly), and the stories of Grayson and Shiala (and while we're at it, Saren) parallel one another.
Since we're now on the topic of a book, it's safe to say that Retribution describes awfully well the horrifying feeling of Grayson being relegated to the back-seat of his own body. He's fully aware of the reapers and their strong grip on his mind, using him as a tool they can bend to their will. The initial passage in the book where he was under their control was the moment where I went from a passive reader to an obsessed one, and I finished the book in record time.
But back to Mass Effect, it seems that BioWare didn't take the opportunity to really get that feeling across. Of all the "NPCs" in the game, Shiala might be one of the most under-appreciated for her importance in the story, and possibly the most under-used.
Like Grayson, she went through hell. The Mass Effect Wiki describes her as "the only individual who has managed to completely overcome Sovereign's indoctrination without resorting to suicide." And while I was selecting the option that led to Shiala placing her hands behind her head, kneeling on the ground in a submissive manner while saying that she's accepted her fate and Shepard's decision to kill her, an idea popped in my head:
Why the hell is that "it?" Why did Mass Effect drop an enormous story-line bomb on me by simply having Shiala say, in a surprisingly calm manner, that she was enslaved by both Sovereign and the Thorian? Why did this cold-blooded execution end in a closed journal entry, some renegade points, and less "feeling" on behalf of Shiala?
For a powerful potential story, which I hope is told in some depth in the future outside of a piece of dialogue that says "these events happened," I still found myself sympathetic to Shiala (even more now that I'd chosen to kill her). Perhaps reading the third book and playing through Mass Effect 2 before experiencing this small slice of the story has something to do with it.
In a way, Shiala was used as a narrative tool by BioWare, serving a small purpose to push the story along before being pushed away like she was by Saren or Renegade Shepard. If we see more of Shiala in the future, maybe it suits some kind of artistic purpose that she is "used" all over again. But for now, I call her story a missed opportunity of sorts.