Page 11 of 11

Posted: Fri Jun 15, 2018 4:06 pm
by Occluded Sun
phlapjackage wrote:Do those limits ever meaningfully affect him?

Let's be fair: he clearly states that he doesn't bother acquiring such knowledge because he doesn't use it in the narrow field of endeavor he's interested in - and he thinks there's an opportunity cost involved with storage. (Certainly there IS one with time spent learning.)

I can think of a few characters that are both acknowledged geniuses and yet have meaningful limits, flaws, and failures. Grand Admiral Thrawn and Miles Vorkosigan both come to mind as characters that are made more plausible by the times the author has them realistically fail - or realistically succeed partially rather than completely.

Posted: Sat Jun 16, 2018 12:26 am
by Chamomile
Omegonthesane wrote: Your claim appears to be that Star Wars adequately establishes that literally no entry level Force user, ever, anywhere in the entire universe, no matter what can Mind Trick.
This is a dishonest exaggeration designed to make the claim seem more extreme than it is in an effort to make your refusal to acknowledge the rules of narrative seem less obviously wrong. My claim is that Star Wars adequately establishes that entry level Force users do not typically manifest mind trick as their first conscious use of the Force. Rey can be an exception, but the rules of narrative demand you establish that in act one, not act three.

The rest of your post is complaining about power levels. This is not how non-interactive narrative works. Powers are level-gated according to their significance in video games and tabletop RPGs in order to preserve a sense of steady progression, because dead levels suck and a level at which the only power you get is something that's less useful than what you already have, that's basically a dead level. In real life, it is frequently the case that mastering a very difficult ability may not give you a significant power-up at all, and it's fine for movies or novels to do the same. A bicycle kick is both much harder and far less useful than a roundhouse kick. It is perfectly fine to establish that affecting a living being's thoughts is more difficult than affecting inanimate matter even if it's the least useful trick the Jedi have. Undercutting the rules of your setting isn't bad for game balance, it's bad for the setting. The power of mind trick is irrelevant, founding your argument on it just serves to illustrate that you have no idea how the medium you're discussing works.

The narrative principle you're refusing to acknowledge here is slightly more obscure than ubiquitously known things like "foreshadowing" which other people have tried to assert don't count when it's inconvenient for them, but not undercutting the significance of earlier scenes by trivializing their accomplishments is still inarguably a bad thing. The super saiyan transformation was trivialized almost immediately after it happened, and that was bad for DBZ. That the scene establishing mind trick as the sign post that Luke was a Jedi knight was less critical to the plot makes overturning that precedent without warning less bad, but doesn't make the problem go away completely. You're no longer trying to argue that no one else but me noticed it was weird that Rey could perform mind trick as her first usage of the Force, so it's not surprising that you're now retreating into a weird misunderstanding of how the medium of film even works to try and defend your point. If people noticed it was weird that Rey can use mind trick so quickly, and if that weirdness could've been defused by just establishing Rey as an exception to the heretofore established rules in advance and not as soon as she uses that power to further the plot, then not establishing that exception in advance is objectively a flaw in the film. Full stop. That's how creative projects work: Their success is measured in the impact they leave on people, not what impact the creator wanted to have on people. Any argument that includes at any point an accusation that the audience consumed the media wrong is automatically invalid.

Posted: Sat Jun 16, 2018 2:33 am
by deaddmwalking
Chamomile wrote: Any argument that includes at any point an accusation that the audience consumed the media wrong is automatically invalid.
That's why I object to anyone trying to tell me a book isn't good if they didn't even swallow a bite.

Posted: Fri Jun 22, 2018 4:47 am
by phlapjackage
Sorry for the necro, I just wanted to post this for completeness sake...

@erik I'd forgotten about my hatred for Kvothe
https://old.reddit.com/r/books/comments ... d/d9l4dwu/

Posted: Fri Jun 22, 2018 4:58 am
by Kaelik
I uh...... dude. It's a fucking personal story told by a guy who's one definitely good ability is telling stories. It's weird that you would call someone a Mary Sue in their own autobiography. Of course he's a self insert super protagonists who's flaws are blessings, he's telling his own puff piece! Do you take Donald Trump seriously about how much he's worth?

This isn't even subtext, it's literal text. His apprentice says "look you describe every single woman who ever talked to you as the most beautiful woman ever, but this one that you are saying is the most beautiful of all is the only one I've ever met, and yeah she is pretty, sure, but she has noticeable stand out flaws that I saw."

It's text in the story that Kvothe is full of himself and telling the story to his own benefit.

Posted: Fri Jun 22, 2018 7:02 am
by Starmaker
Kaelik wrote:I uh...... dude. It's a fucking personal story told by a guy who's one definitely good ability is telling stories. It's weird that you would call someone a Mary Sue in their own autobiography. Of course he's a self insert super protagonists who's flaws are blessings, he's telling his own puff piece! Do you take Donald Trump seriously about how much he's worth?

This isn't even subtext, it's literal text. His apprentice says "look you describe every single woman who ever talked to you as the most beautiful woman ever, but this one that you are saying is the most beautiful of all is the only one I've ever met, and yeah she is pretty, sure, but she has noticeable stand out flaws that I saw."

It's text in the story that Kvothe is full of himself and telling the story to his own benefit.
Nope.

1. It's a personal story of a Mary Sue, in which factual Mary Sue events happen. Like, I could tell an epic tale about my life, but the facts of the matter are it's just a regular fucking life of a regular fucking person. Kvothe doesn't just puff himself up, he is factually "awesome". His parents get killed by the big bad of the setting (craaaaaawling in my skiiiin), he gets admitted to the university with a stipend as a kid (unprecedented), he's factually a legend there, he's royalty AND magical gypsy, he wins the most prestigious musical contest, he fucks a fairy goddess and a bunch of hot ninja girls, he has a hot yaoi-tease student/servant, he mighty-whiteys a whole nation into giving him an artefact sword, and he singlehandedly dooms the entire fucking world. The reader does not doubt this and is not meant to doubt this; "hur hur he's full of himself" is a fig leaf justification.

2. It's not autobiography, it's fiction. These events didn't happen, Rothfuss made them up. Kvothe is not real. (And, for what it's worth, we can judge an autobiography by what you choose to tell, how you choose to tell it, and whether you straight up lie.)

3. Kvothe is a literary character in a book people read for entertainment. Regardless in whose voice the text is, it's still words on the page. A nested story is not an excuse for shitty writing, and liking shitty writing is not a virtue.

Posted: Fri Jun 22, 2018 7:26 am
by phlapjackage
Kaelik wrote:I uh...... dude. It's a fucking personal story told by a guy who's one definitely good ability is telling stories.
I didn't post that to have a discussion about Kvothe, although that could be ok too I guess. I wanted to respond to eric's request for examples of previous times I'd complained about Mary Sues, in regards to the (irresponsible) slinging around of the sexogony complaints.
Starmaker wrote:<everything you said, better than I could>
Yep - exactly!

Posted: Mon Jun 25, 2018 2:39 pm
by Whiysper
phlapjackage wrote:
angelfromanotherpin wrote:
A Study in Scarlet wrote:SHERLOCK HOLMES—his limits.

1. Knowledge of Literature.—Nil.
2. Philosophy.—Nil.
3. Astronomy.—Nil.
4. Politics.—Feeble.
Do those limits ever meaningfully affect him?
aside on a necro, I know, but if you watch the BBC drama of the same name, there's one episode where Sherlock does indeed miss the conclusion because of him not bothering to retain info on the solar system. It doesn't stop him reaching the correct conclusion in the end, obviously, but there's a very tense scene of him on-the-clock banging his head on this knowledge gap.

Series 1, Ep3, 'The Great Game' - basically 'we had 4 mini-plots that didn't quite make up an episode. Let's string them together!'. Fun though.

Agreed that the books don't really play up on his limits getting in the way so much, but I found the Cumberbatch/Feeman pairing rather excellent, albeit with a couple of weaker moments. (you mean the guy climbed a building! Impossible!)

Posted: Mon Jun 25, 2018 3:24 pm
by erik
See, I almost cited that episode as an example of my annoyance with Sherlock because they stress his ignorance of celestial mechanics and events but he knows about some event that I’d never heard of. It rather invalidated the claims that there are things he is absurdly ignorant about.

Posted: Tue Jun 26, 2018 4:37 am
by Surgo
phlapjackage wrote:
angelfromanotherpin wrote:
A Study in Scarlet wrote:SHERLOCK HOLMES—his limits.

1. Knowledge of Literature.—Nil.
2. Philosophy.—Nil.
3. Astronomy.—Nil.
4. Politics.—Feeble.
Do those limits ever meaningfully affect him?
Maybe not but at least Arthur Conan Doyle himself wrote an entire parody of how fucking stupid it was and how all his abilities were actually ass-pulls. I guess that's worth something.

Posted: Tue Jun 26, 2018 12:38 pm
by Whiysper
erik wrote:See, I almost cited that episode as an example of my annoyance with Sherlock because they stress his ignorance of celestial mechanics and events but he knows about some event that I’d never heard of. It rather invalidated the claims that there are things he is absurdly ignorant about.
Mm. IIRC, his amazing google-fu on the Blackberry saves the day... but honestly, yes, it was very much played for tension, and used as an excuse why he didn't just look at the painting and immediately go 'That's fake'. Only example I've got, though.. Sherlock does appear to run on the 'fucked-up home life, solves all problems' model Frank keeps mentioning with regard to FATE.