DanteGabriel Posted July 3, 2008 Share Posted July 3, 2008 This thread has turned into a mirror image of those "who is the baddest fighter in Westeros?" threads from the book forums. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Falagar Posted July 3, 2008 Share Posted July 3, 2008 [quote name='Kheldar' post='1426138' date='Jul 3 2008, 10.16']Out of curiosity, with what logic do you disagree? I've tried to argue many of the points from an Objectivist viewpoint, but I don't share that position. There are justifications for certain actions by the main characters with which I disagree...but I argued them from the Objectivist PoV as well as I could.[/quote] Well, for example: [quote]Because of their complete rejection of violence. They chose to stand between two people/groups of people who seemed to be intent on violent action, in the hopes/belief that their presence would prevent particular violence (i.e., Richard attacking Nicholas). It didn't matter that such violence would end Nicholas' ongoing violence.[/quote] [quote]Not disingenuous, merely an example of "peace protesters" using limited violence. Even Ghandi's followers, on occasion, resorted to violence.[/quote] 'Absolute rejection' doesn't quite jive with 'resorting to violence'. I believe lots of Indians supported Ghandi's goals without adhering to his philosophy. I've refrained from commenting more since I've only read WFR. It wasn't terrible, but the world and the characters lacked depth, the plot was very standard and there weren't enough original concepts to keep me going. The divide in this debate, though, seems to have a lot to do with political pov's. I'm curious, since you've said you don't agree with (all of) TG's philosophy, where do you disagree? [quote]No, it wasn't. The scene was written to show other things. 1. Inability or unwillingness to label people as "good" and "evil" can lead one to protect evil from good. The pacifists protected Nicholas from Richard. 2. Those who choose to ignore the "evilness" of others, and therefore protect the evil, are complicit in the evil. The pacifists' protection of Nicholas allowed Nicholas to continue his evil acts. 3. Sometimes violence is necessary. Absolute pacifism allows evil to continue.[/quote] Too much of a willingness to label people good and evil, without shades or looking at motivations (and treating those you label as 'evil' with unqualified contempt) will lead to mislabeling and blindness. A colorless world would (will?) be the death of humanity. As to the last point, partly agreed, but violence should still be treated as a last resort. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaxom 1974 Posted July 3, 2008 Author Share Posted July 3, 2008 [quote name='Kheldar' post='1426175' date='Jul 3 2008, 09.39']Editors make mistakes, too.[/quote] Bit of a cop out there dotcha think? [quote name='Kheldar' post='1426175' date='Jul 3 2008, 09.39']Ripped apart doesn't necessarily mean "destroyed from top to bottom". It's ripped apart at the point where Richard grabbed the spine...in the lumbar region. It doesn't say he was spineless...merely that he slumped down. Loss of the use of ones legs as a result of a broken/destroyed spinal column in the lumbar region would do that.[/quote] Make all the assumptions you want, but the simple fact is the text states Richard reached in, tore out the spine and ripped it apart. The body slumped forward. Dance about the issue all you want. Either the spine was ripped out or it was ripped apart. Calling it the lumbar region doesn't make it any less wrecked. Defending the indefensible. [quote name='Kheldar' post='1426175' date='Jul 3 2008, 09.39']As to standing up and moving, that's not necessary. If Richard thought Drefan was dead, he could stand too close to the "body". If TG wrote that Drefan somehow stood (and I can't check that), then that would be a major flaw in that scene.[/quote] There are major flaws in the entire scene. You're simply trying to paint with a wide brush to cover them so it doesn't look as bad. [quote name='Kheldar' post='1426175' date='Jul 3 2008, 09.39']You're stuck on this idea that the spinal column was completely removed/destroyed. Consider how things could work if the only part that was "ripped apart" was in the lumbar area of the spine.[/quote] Again, I don't need to consider how things would look if only part of the spine were ripped apart. The text doesn't say that. Richard reached his hand in and seized it (the spinal column) and he yanked it (the spinal column) back out and then he ripped it (the spinal column) apart. It's really hard to argue with what the text says plainly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaxom 1974 Posted July 3, 2008 Author Share Posted July 3, 2008 [quote name='MinDonner' post='1426185' date='Jul 3 2008, 09.44']Throat, eyes, soft tissue... how long is this sword, exactly? You do remember that Drefan's lying on the floor, don't you? And we know that Richard is taller than most men.[/quote] Actually, according to what I just read, Min, he's "leaning against the wall of the sliph, where he had fallen". So since it's contradictary, it's hard to know if he had fallen to the floor or against the wall. A contradiction that isn't a contradiction! But that's okay, editor's make mistakes! Which actually, begs a question: Is there an editor? If what we see in print is the first draft, according to Mr. Goodkind, then to what purpose does an editor serve? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaxom 1974 Posted July 3, 2008 Author Share Posted July 3, 2008 [quote name='DanteGabriel' post='1426195' date='Jul 3 2008, 09.50']This thread has turned into a mirror image of those "who is the baddest fighter in Westeros?" threads from the book forums.[/quote] Apparently it's Richard Rahl. :P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanteGabriel Posted July 3, 2008 Share Posted July 3, 2008 [quote name='Jaxom 1974' post='1426223' date='Jul 3 2008, 11.00']Apparently it's Richard Rahl. :P[/quote] No way u luzr teh Red Viper would totally pwn his ass with his poisoned spear! Or Jon Snow would [i]warg[/i] him to death. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Falagar Posted July 3, 2008 Share Posted July 3, 2008 [quote name='DanteGabriel' post='1426228' date='Jul 3 2008, 11.03']No way u luzr teh Red Viper would totally pwn his ass with his poisoned spear! Or Jon Snow would [i]warg[/i] him to death.[/quote] A duel is a fight to the death and in the end Darkstar wins (which reminds me, I saw a book dedicated to [url="http://www.amazon.com/Heath-Ledger-Hollywoods-Dark-Star/dp/0859654273"]Heath Ledger[/url] today...I laughed. :/) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MinDonner Posted July 3, 2008 Share Posted July 3, 2008 [quote name='Kheldar' post='1426138' date='Jul 3 2008, 15.16']From an Objectivist PoV, his actions were justified.[/quote] Fine. However, the extrapolation is made that "justified" equals "no need for regret or remorse" - just because Richard's position had been set up so that there was no other option, at the very least he should have had some slight moral qualms about it, but no. I know you say you're not an O'ist, but how can you be comfortable with a "hero" who has such a cold and functional approach to life? Contrast this with Kellhus, from Bakker's Prince of Nothing series. He has a similarly utilitarian philosophy, and yet comes across as a monster; TG writes Richard as if he's the paragon of all humanity. [quote name='Kheldar' post='1426138' date='Jul 3 2008, 15.16']No, it wasn't. The scene was written to show other things. 1. Inability or unwillingness to label people as "good" and "evil" can lead one to protect evil from good. The pacifists protected Nicholas from Richard. 2. Those who choose to ignore the "evilness" of others, and therefore protect the evil, are complicit in the evil. The pacifists' protection of Nicholas allowed Nicholas to continue his evil acts. 3. Sometimes violence is necessary. Absolute pacifism allows evil to continue.[/quote] 1. Why weren't they also protecting their fellows from being killed by Nicholas? Why weren't they helping Richard deal with the consequences of the violence (poisoning) that had been done to him? Why weren't they protecting Richard from Nicholas? Oh, that's right, because they are only unable to distinguish good from evil where it helps the plot. 2. What is the use in saying "you protect evil, therefore you are anti-good" when the people can't tell good from evil anyway? It's like killing a colour-blind person for not being able to pick red from green. 3. "Sometimes violence is necessary". OK, this may well be true, but why did we need such a painflly artificial situation in order to demonstrate it? The number of contrived factors that rendered this violence "necessary" is very high. [quote name='Kheldar' post='1426138' date='Jul 3 2008, 15.16']Now, you can argue that Richard is evil if you want.[/quote] Believe me, based on his actions, Richard is definitely evil. If TG had even hinted that Richard might not be entirely good, the series would have been a whole lot better. [quote name='Kheldar' post='1426138' date='Jul 3 2008, 15.16']Of course not. Author's prerogative.[/quote] Ummm yes, of course it's the author's prerogative. What's your point? It was TG's prerogative to write the series the way he did, and it's our prerogative to criticise it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aemon Stark Posted July 3, 2008 Share Posted July 3, 2008 [quote name='Kheldar' post='1426138' date='Jul 3 2008, 10.16']Front. One wouldn't need to punch through the soft tissue of the stomach if attacking from the back.[/quote] Erm, yeah. Gaping holes in the stomach (which, incidentally, is underneath the liver) don't tend to be good for people. [quote]Lots. Displacement and rupture of abdominal organs. The intestines would suffer the most direct damage, but the stomach, pancreas, liver, and other organs would be displaced. Severing of many blood vessels...not sure about any major arteries, though. The kidneys may shift some, but given their location to the sides near the back, I wouldn't expect them to be major.[/quote] If the stomach, pancreas, liver, and other organs get "displaced", you can bet they'll impact on the lungs and heart too. It's almost a given that a major blood vessel would be ruptured. To destroy part of the spine from the front, a deep, debilitating, and above all HUGE wound would have to be effected. [quote]A "very short time" is not "instantly". Given a type of legendary skill as a healer (I'm not going to cite real world examples of legends, thanks), it's possible that somebody could extend that "very short time" into "enough time to get in one last attack."[/quote] Postponing death a bit does not mean that someone would be capable of attacking, much less moving. [quote]If the knowledge and training is there (again, based on legend), is it all that hard to imagine the following steps? 1. Victim mentally blocks out pain. 2. Victim targets key nerve nodes on his own body to numb the pain (there won't be any pain from the point of break down, so it'd be limited to the upper lower body) 3. Victim reduces the flow of blood to the lower body (how, I don't know...but I also don't know how to focus chi or align chakras).[/quote] Fortunately, no. 2 is accomplished by the severing of the spinal chord. You're right that vasocontriction would occur as a response to such a severe injury, but this would be solely to reduce or slow down blood loss. That's not to say it would be effective. [quote]If no major arteries are damaged, a stomach wound can take a long time to kill somebody.[/quote] We're not talking about a stomach wound - we're talking about someone's being run-through to the point of the spine. [quote]If the pain isn't an issue, and the poor bastard is going to die anyway, does making it worse really matter?[/quote] How can a person lift a sword in any kind of threatening way after being so injured? It's NOT possible. [quote]Nerve nodes higher up on the body can be targeted to numb the lower body. Blood vessels that feed the lower body can be constricted (if one can accept that such control can exist), slowing the blood loss.[/quote] The numbing would be effected naturally by the severing of the spinal chord, and such vasoconstriction would occur automatically. In any case, loss of consciousness would be extremely likely, at minimum due to shock! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aemon Stark Posted July 3, 2008 Share Posted July 3, 2008 *double post* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CelticBrennus Posted July 3, 2008 Share Posted July 3, 2008 [quote]If the stomach, pancreas, liver, and other organs get "displaced", you can bet they'll impact on the lungs and heart too.[/quote] And by "displaced" do you mean fall out onto the floor through what would likely be a 4 inch wide hole completely through the body? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aemon Stark Posted July 3, 2008 Share Posted July 3, 2008 Well, to be fair, they may not all fall out at once, at least not before Drefan tries to swing the sword. But it's not as if those vital organs aren't all tightly packed, such that a gaping 4 inch wound would impact several at once. I don't what kind of "chi" powers this guy has - he'd be coughing up blood even while it poured out of the wound. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moosicus Posted July 3, 2008 Share Posted July 3, 2008 [quote name='Kheldar' post='1426175' date='Jul 3 2008, 11.39']If TG wrote that Drefan somehow stood (and I can't check that), then that would be a major flaw in that scene.[/quote] Doesn't come right out and say "standing", though "leaning" would indicate to me that Drefan is on his feet, if not particularly spry. [quote name='Kheldar' post='1426175' date='Jul 3 2008, 11.39']Just long enough for a last, desperate, attack.[/quote] In my copy, four pages full of dialog and action occur between the spine ripping and the sword swing, so it's not a matter of seconds or even a few minutes. Given that as soon as Drefan hits the floor he's already producing a "spreading, crimson flood", I would think he'd bleed out (use of the word "flood" suggests to me that the bleeding is profuse), even if he can slow down his heartbeat to slow the bleeding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Pita Posted July 3, 2008 Share Posted July 3, 2008 I'm thinking that to do what he did, Drefan has to be some form of Kratos. But let's leave this subject alone. How about that Oba Rahl, people? I've heard many complaints about him, but since I've only read Pillars of Creation once, I can not be the one to state these complaints. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moosicus Posted July 3, 2008 Share Posted July 3, 2008 [quote name='The Pita Enigma' post='1426699' date='Jul 3 2008, 18.19']How about that Oba Rahl, people? I've heard many complaints about him, but since I've only read Pillars of Creation once, I can not be the one to state these complaints.[/quote] Oba's another one of Dick's bastard half-siblings. He's quite insane and is fairly entertaining at first. I think most complaints center around the large detour that was Pillars of Creation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Myshkin Posted July 4, 2008 Share Posted July 4, 2008 [quote name='Moosicus' post='1426711' date='Jul 3 2008, 14.30']Oba's another one of Dick's bastard half-siblings. He's quite insane and is fairly entertaining at first. I think most complaints center around the large detour that was Pillars of Creation.[/quote] Oba Rahl was awesome. If Terry wrote an entire series based around Oba I'd read it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaxom 1974 Posted July 4, 2008 Author Share Posted July 4, 2008 [quote name='Moosicus' post='1426693' date='Jul 3 2008, 16.13']Doesn't come right out and say "standing", though "leaning" would indicate to me that Drefan is on his feet, if not particularly spry.[/quote] The exact phrase is: "leaning against the wall of the sliph, where he had fallen". Like I said above, it's a contradictory statement in and of itself, so yeah, it's hard to know if he's up or down. But he's got to be all holey. :P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MinDonner Posted July 4, 2008 Share Posted July 4, 2008 If there is a hole, it's probably melon-sized. It is known. *nods* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moosicus Posted July 4, 2008 Share Posted July 4, 2008 [quote name='Jaxom 1974' post='1427227' date='Jul 4 2008, 00.18']The exact phrase is: "leaning against the wall of the sliph, where he had fallen". Like I said above, it's a contradictory statement in and of itself, so yeah, it's hard to know if he's up or down. But he's got to be all holey. :P[/quote] I assume that it means he's standing/leaning against the well of the sliph in the same spot where he'd fallen. But even sitting upright would be quite the task if one lacks the lower part of the spine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lemming That Is Not Posted July 7, 2008 Share Posted July 7, 2008 [quote][i]"Before the sword could touch him, Richard struck like lightning, driving his hand through Defran's soft middle."[/i][/quote] That time Dickhard literally thrusted his hand trough shit. The smell must have been awful! :owned: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.