|
Post by joshua on Mar 27, 2009 22:38:33 GMT -5
I thought it was just a discussing about ideas, not a personal matter. But for some people everything is personal. And this last post is clearly unpolite. What can i do? i thought it was interesting speaking about the style from the LW death endings. Probably i should say: "Ok, everything is perfect. Dever is Shakespeare and you are the unique one entitled to speak about him".
|
|
|
Post by jan on Mar 28, 2009 4:52:27 GMT -5
OK, ok, calm down, everybody, there is no need for an argument. I think it was all just a slight misunderstanding, and that we are not in any principal disagreement.
|
|
|
Post by Beowuuf on Mar 28, 2009 7:49:54 GMT -5
Well said!
|
|
|
Post by jan on Mar 28, 2009 8:26:26 GMT -5
Yes, Minister!
;D
|
|
|
Post by joshua on Mar 28, 2009 8:42:59 GMT -5
For me, no problem.
|
|
|
Post by Samildanach on Mar 28, 2009 11:36:13 GMT -5
*sigh*
Alright. I'll address your post.
I have no objection to poetic prose in Lone Wolf, but there are times and styles that are appropriate. A couple of words dramatically summing up Lone Wolf's impending centuries of torture is quite different to a paragraph or two of optimistic and redemptive demise. It's pretty obvious that the 'eternity' mentioned in your example is probably not strictly literal (though it might be - we don't know exactly what the Lake is or whether it might survive the end of Magnamund) and that isn't a 'mistake'. It's just a more potent way of describing something, and is close enough to accuracy for that not to matter. Plus, it is consistent with the tone of the books and the nature of the situation Lone Wolf is in at the time, where an angelic chorus spiriting him away to an afterlife of unconcerned joy while the world burn...is not.
As far as I can see, it'd be difficult to misunderstand my meaning, and it strikes me that the only reason you would do so is because you see hell where no-one else does, and can't support your case, so you resort to sniping at contrived inconsistencies. I've had a lot of such 'discussions' with people recently, people who ask a question but only want to hear their own answer, and I have no patience for it.
|
|
|
Post by joshua on Mar 28, 2009 18:39:37 GMT -5
O.K! That´s your position but not mine. And i understand perfectly your argument, but i cannot support it. Although good manners are essential in a conversation.
|
|
|
Post by Simey on Mar 29, 2009 6:27:39 GMT -5
It´s not a secret that LW was not a high literature level, that´s the reason Joe Dever needs another writer to make the LW novels. Ooh - controversial! (Though I'm not saying I disagree with you. ) But these books were written for - what? - eleven to fifteen year olds? Everyone's different, of course, but I know I wouldn't have appreciated such poeticism at all at that sort of age! And I must agree that the endings were designed to make it very clear that you've failed and therefore must try again - any sense that your failure is okay because at least you were nobly trying your hardest would have been at odds with the required effect of the Your life and mission end here sections. It is crucial that your failure is a major problem, not only for Lone Wolf or Magnamund, but for you personally as a reader - if you don't try again until you eventually complete the book (quite possibly by resorting to cheating at some point! ;D) then you won't have nearly as much motivation to move on to the next one and boost Mr. Dever's book sales!
|
|
|
Post by joshua on Mar 29, 2009 9:50:30 GMT -5
Yes, you´re probably right. The books work just like this. I wanted to suggest an alternative beautiful death to LW, because these ends are always a disgrace with no honour to the player. And they look to mean "failure= shame". But i think a very young boy could understand a lyric quote well enough, and at the same time he assimilates the defeat. The reason of the polemic question is that i see in bookgames a pedagogic value and i don´t wish that a boy would believe that victory is always an ethical value. It´s an objective, but we live in times where victory justifies everything and "there is no glory to losers". Of course LW fights to win, but not always everything is what it looks...
|
|
|
Post by Black Cat on Mar 29, 2009 11:31:07 GMT -5
The only time there should be a beautiful LW death is if the death of the hero is the only way to fulfill your mission. Yeah, in other words, it is when LW has to sacrifice himself to accomplish his mission. Of course, LW can't die because otherwise, the series would end. However, we did have a discussion over at the PA boards regarding what could be feature in the remaining four books of the series, and one member suggested that book 32 could end with the sacrifice of LW to save the rest of Magnamund from, let's say, Agarash. Of course, this is just a suggestion from a fan and it's not official, but in this case, that could be the only place where LW could die in a "poetic" way.
|
|
|
Post by Shadow Crow on Mar 29, 2009 11:52:13 GMT -5
I see plenty of material for a great discussion here. Apart for the tension of the last post, I think both point of view have their reasons to be in LW but there is to consider the time in which they could be used.
I'm agree that our LW could achieve a great hroic death and gain access to a Magnamund version of Valhalla for his great deeds against the Darkness, but this simply cannot happen (by my point of view) in the first 12 books.
LW is the last of the Kai the only one who can wield properly the Sommerswerd and destroy the Darklords forever.
Putting a glorious death here (specially in book 12) would not be right. LW could obviously go in the Plane of Light and rest in peace for all eternity (well, not in he's cast in the Lake of Blood. Dying in the Hearth of Darkness in Magnamund could result only in eternal torment even for the noblest and purest of soul) but the death of LW in this perior of the timeline would almost certainly end with the demise of the Free People and the dominion of Darklord Gnaag over Magnamund.
The Grand Master series offer some use of a "beatiful death" moment, for example in book 17 after the defeat of Ixiataaga if LW die in the collapsing of Xaagon. Section 313 of book 16 (cannot connect with project aon right now, I'll post the link as soon as possible) offer an example of this, although with less symbolism.
Now that the Kai are reborn LW could possibly die and enjoying an afterlife rewar knowing that others will step in against the forces of Naar.
|
|
|
Post by Beowuuf on Mar 29, 2009 12:05:30 GMT -5
I can see that for psychological reasons, not impossing the 'you better do it right and perfectly or it's all your fault' lessons in books children may read.
The failures could always focus on the hope that all is not lost, acknowledgment of achievement, but the terrible cost associated with the failure.
If you fai in book 12. "Legends of your courage to challege the darkness are whispered through the generations under the oppression of the Darklords, as far as the tentarius. One day a century from now, your inspiration, and the legends of Sommlending courage, will see the dawn of a new age of freedom from the Darklords.
However, your life, your mission, and the lives of your kinsmen, end here."
See above does lack punch. And also, in its hopeful finality it makes the character of Lone Wolf both unimportant (someone will do it eventually) while still emphasising failure.
|
|
|
Post by joshua on Mar 29, 2009 12:41:23 GMT -5
The philosophy i would like to express is that "Darkness won´t last for ever". I remember how serious i took my death as a player when i was a kid and even today, because i don´t know playing to lose. So i play with responsability and without traps or short cuts. But Hope must be a reference as principle, even in Magnamund. Sometimes i think that in real life the bad guys usually win. But it´s always a temporary "victory" because by definition Darkness won´t last for ever. The Darklords can destroy you today, but it´s just a postponed victory to the Light forces, because the evil is defeated before of starting. It´s just a question of time. And History show us that an heroic defeat can sow with blood the future victory. A heroe´s defeat is a tragedy in the temporary plane, but maybe it isn´t in the eternal dimension. A death heroe is like that dead seed. But a wonderful garden is made by lots of dead seeds, and each of them help to the final beauty.
|
|
|
Post by Black Cat on Mar 29, 2009 17:33:08 GMT -5
But Hope must be a reference as principle, even in Magnamund. Sometimes i think that in real life the bad guys usually win. But it´s always a temporary "victory" because by definition Darkness won´t last for ever. Hey?... What definition? Darkness is Darkness and there's nothing in the dictionnary that says it must be temporary. But you are somehow right: it is temporary, not by definition, but because all things are temporary. Even Light is temporary. If Darkness wins, as you admit it can win, this means Light, who had won previously, was the temporary winner before Darkness wins again. And then Light will win again, lose again, win again, lose again, etc. It's a constant battle. Hope is a principle that applies to both Light and Darkness. It means to cherish a desire with anticipation or to desire with expectation of obtainment. Good guys hope the bad guys lose, and the bad guys hope to beat the good guys. We see this in real life: how many empires existed in history? And well, they all disappeared. And then other empires raised, and then disappeared again. In Magnamund, there were many empires too: Nyxator, who got beaten by Agarash, who in turn was beaten by the Elder Magi, who were then wiped out by the Cener's Plague... Later on, we got Vashna who was beaten by Ulnar, and even later on Gnaag built on his own empire before being slained by LW. In the future, the bad guys will win, but they will be beaten by the good guys after that, who will then be beaten by some other bad guys, etc. One can only hope that his own empire will last the longest time as possible because it will one day disappeared, whatever he might think of.
|
|
|
Post by joshua on Mar 29, 2009 18:43:39 GMT -5
Yes, you have made an interesting reflexion but try to see my point. Maybe we enter in a very deep philosophical problem. Because the key is the next: the evil forces doesn´t love anything. Even they Darklords are fighting against themselves. You say "no one empire has survived in History", it´s true. Because the term "empire" got a negative connotation. It´s always when a country submits another people by the force. And it is something artificial. Even in temporary life no empire lasts more than one thousand years, because the vindication of freedom always appears in the horizon of the slavish countries. If you analize the most terrible dictatorships in History you always find the seed of their own destruction,because you need people, you need something good to believe. When you are bad you trust nothing but power and money. And that´s your perdition. The Evil is always rotten. That´s the reason to think they won´t win. Because the Evil is always a weakness. Magnamund is a legendary place where the afterlife exits, and i would like to think (like other myths and legends) the eternity is fair to the right people. And i speak about "eternal light" and of course, the eternal justice. If the eternal justice( in Maganamund) doesn´t exist ...what´s the difference between the Kai and the Darklords? If the battle "Light vs Darkness" is just a football league "this year we win the championship, and you will win tomorrow"... It is necessary a METHAPHISYCAL REASON to base the legitimacy of the Good. On the contrary, if the power of will is the only thing to decide what is fine or not...well, we enter in a nihilist land.
|
|