Context also would not change anything. Defeated is a very definite term, and Scourge clearly saw situations where they could defeat Vitiate so it doesn't meant that. It's just straight up contradictory. Nothing else to it.
Authors take artistic license with definite terms, yea. Terms like undefeated or unbeatable are countlessly use din the mythos in ways which per your standards would be obvious bs. Sidious has an "unbeatable style", doesn't make him unbeatable.
And we've seen Scourge state after the fact that your interpretation is wrong here, not to mention the objective third person statement collaborating it.
The quote is false, by virtue of contradiction, even taken as hyperbolic.
Ignorance is not a response.
The fact that Scourge saw every possible scenario, but then was unable to determine which was the most likely, therefore means the scenario of Vitiate winning was not dominant.
It's simply following a logical conclusion to the end.
Let's go through your examples:
Revan is determined to keep the galaxy safe for his child.
Revan is the subject and performing the action (is) from a third-person narrator.
Scourge, Meetra, and Revan enter the Emperor's citadel and challenge the supreme ruler.
Scourge, Meetra, and Revan are the subjects and performing the action (enter) from a third-person narrator.
The Emperor’s power is too much for Revan.
Power is the subject and performing the action (is) from a third-person narrator.
Recognizing that the Emperor is undefeatable, Scourge kills Meetra and betrays Revan.
Scourge is the subject and performing the action (kills, betrays) from a third-person narrator.
The quote also has a dependent clause, still with Scourge has the subject, performing another action (recognizing).
(For the record, I think you completely misread my argument pertaining to perspective and narration. Cringe).
Anywho, so we have a third-person omniscient narrator describing Scourge as "realizing the that the Emperor is undefeatable."
Stating the only interpretation of such a quote is that Scourge is recognizing a "universal truth" is false for two reasons:
a.) A different definition for the word "realize" means to simply "perceive to be true," not "to be true."
b.) The quote would foster a direct contradiction with the lore, even in this instance, and will be dismissed.
I am trying to state, over and over, that the quote reads merely as follows, and when taken as true, no contradiction arises:
"Perceiving to be true that the Emperor is undefeatable, Scourge kills Meetra and betrays Revan."
That is a legitimate interpretation of the text, supported by factual evidence and a desire to avoid contradiction.
You are under the impression the fact Scourge "realizes" something must therefore mean his realization is what the narrator knows.
This is false.
If he could have done it otherwise, as in destroy him with lightning, the text would not have remarked that Revan's distraction provided him "the opportunity he needed."
If Vitiate can straight-up stomp Revan, he would not need such an opportunity, or opening. He would be capable of just storming through any time he wants.
Only one instance comes to mind, in which Vitiate's attention was solely focused on Revan's, where multiple opponents almost killed him.
All other examples have Vitiate performing against multiple opponents fine. The Dark Council. The Jedi strike team. Hero, Lana, Theron. Arcann, Vaylin. Etc.
Based on the confrontation between Revan and Darth Nyriss, Vitiate would be capable of instantly killing the Exile and Scourge - they are not a threat, distraction or not.
If the same situation happened to any slightly stronger character any slightly weaker character, the same would have happened.
The charging of energy would exaggerate the gap. Your comparison is flaw.
__________________ "There is only Revan. Only he can shape this galaxy as it is meant to be shaped."
Last edited by Jaggarath on Aug 30th, 2017 at 08:47 PM