@Ant, when I try and quote you, the window comes up blank, so please make do with my formatting.
I'll be as concise as possible here.
Lets first establish some basic sh!t:
1. In the context it's being used here, undefeatable is an inherently hyperbolic term. No one is "undefeatable". If AOTC Anakin fought Sidious a trillion times, he could probably win one of those fights. A more accurate definition for the word given the context here would be unrealistic or extremely unlikely.
And yes, hyperbole is a thing.
And yes, it can be used in objective narration.
ĮStar Wars: The Old Republic: Revan
^^^^This is from Scourge's perspective. How can we tell? Because the entire passage is exclusively describing what Scourge thinks.
--Star Wars: The Essential Reader's Companion
^^^^ This is objective narration. How can we tell? Because the narration here alternates between statements regarding separate characters between sentences.
Now, lets analyze the evidence you're referring to, keeping in mind what "undefeatable" means in this context:
Emphasis mine. Since Scourge admits he has no way of telling which outcome is more likely from these visions, such visions remain an insufficient counter to the notion that Revan could win was [I]extremely unlikely. Objective narration later shows Scourge recognizing that for the trio here, Vitiate was virtually undefeatable here. You don't see the virtually because the author utilized hyperbole.
The meaning of the word "undefeatable" is easily one of the most direct in the language: the character cannot be defeated. You will be hardpressed to find any definition of the word across the hundreds of dictionary websites that even list another definition for the word than that. There is absolutely no reason to not take the word at face-value. There are countless other words that could have been used to convey the point otherwise, but the terminology is as direct as possible.
Further, we know the fight will be close enough that it is not even "unrealistic or extremely unlikely." The way Scourge's visions are portrayed in the text, it is evident that for every future he saw with the Emperor winning, he likewise saw one with Revan winning. Scourge explicitly thinks to himself that, after seeing every possible outcome, there is no way to know which one is more likely over the other, therefore demonstrating the regularity that Revan defeated the Emperor.
Thus, the notion that the Emperor would be defeated anywhere close to a false hyperbolic assessment of the terminology undefeatable.
I must admit, I did cringe reading this. You have no clue how this sort of thing works, but I'll explain it to you.
Recognizing that the Emperor is undefeatable, Scourge kills Meetra and betrays Revan.
Let's exclusively look at the independent clause for a second:
Scourge kills Meetra and betrays Revan.
The subject of the sentence is Scourge. The narrator is describing the action Scourge performs: Scourge kills and betrays.
Moving forward, let's look at the dependent clause of the sentence:
Recognizing that the Emperor is undefeatable
Since Scourge is the subject, he is the one "recognizing that the Emperor is undefeatable."
For whatever reason, yourself and TenebrousWay associate Scourge's "recognition" with a "realization of fact."
(please log in to view the image)
"Recognize" can also mean to simply perceive as true - the perception in question does not necessarily have to be fact.
In this case, Scourge is perceiving that the Emperor is undefeatable as true.
This has nothing to do with what the narrator of this teritary source believes. Scourge is the one doing the action, not the narrator.
You're not Nai.
This claim here is the perfect equivalent to saying, "I lost my glasses!" without realizing it's on your head.
To repeat, Scourge had millions of visions of different ways Revan or Vitiate would triumph. After seeing it all, Scourge notes how he is unsure "which was the most likely outcome."
If Vitiate would have defeated the strike team significantly more than vice versa, Scourge would not be in doubt, since he would see more victories for Vitiate.
This was not the case. The amount of wins the strike team landed against Vitiate was roughly equivalent to the amount Vitiate striked against them.
Therefore, the idea that Revan's victory is vastly unlikely is, by definition, false. Revan's chances are, if anything, close to 50 / 50 in this confrontation.
I actually have. I was unaware I had to also play connect-the-dots too.
Follow me here:
a.) Scourge has what he, as someone without substantial knowledge on how visions or the future works, believes is a "moment of clarity."
b.) Scourge does not have a vision of the strike team losing - Scourge has a vision of the Hero of Tython defeating the Emperor.
c.) Scourge personally concludes, therefore, the Emperor is undefeatable until the moment the Hero of Tython defeats him.
Here's the twist: remember Episode III and how Anakin has "visions of clarity" of Padme dying?
That the entire film is Anakin performing action after action in an attempt to prevent the vision from coming true?
But in the end, Anakin realizes the vision he saw was the reality if he performed the action he did, thus meaning he is responsible for her death?
This is a common trope in literature: the actions a character takes to prevent a reality is what ultimately causes the reality.
Same idea here.
The vision Scourge saw was the reality if he were to betray the strike team.
We know this because if Scourge decided not to, the reality of the Hero of Tython defeating Vitiate would not have happened.
If the fight continued, either Vitiate or Scourge would have died, but both are needed for the Hero of Tython to eventually confront Vitiate
Thus, Scourge's opinion is irrelevant since he incorrectly assessed the vision, believing it to mean the strike team would lose, but that was not the case.
--- --- ---
In an unrelated but relevant point, explain to me how the Emperor can one-shot Revan with lightning, yet the following happens:
Revanís head snapped to the side, shock and horror emanating from him even though his mask hid his expression.
The distraction gave the Emperor the opportunity he needed, and he unleashed another blast of lightning into the Jediís chest.
Why would the Emperor need a "distraction" for an "opportunity" to arise to destroy Revan? Why could he have not destroyed him regardless?
The Jedi Exile and Scourge, as the novel establishes, are weak enough to indeed be one-shot by Vitiate; they are not the reason for Vitiate not attacking.
Oh, perhaps, just perhaps, that Vitiate cannot straight-up one-shot Revan - that if he attacked Revan, the attack would be futile?
Just a thought.
__________________ "The Emperor had three-hundred years to break this man . . . and he never succumbed?"
Last edited by DarthAnt66 on Aug 30th, 2017 at 03:23 PM
Nice notice, on that fact Vitiate needed an opportunity, to take Revan down, even after Revan was badly wounded. Indicate's Vitiate couldn't draw on his charged force lightning again. Meaning he had expended a fair bit of his power.
Last edited by Haschwalth on Aug 30th, 2017 at 03:49 PM
I'll just summarize here the main point. The others are irrelevant.
Scourge can only recognize what is previously established to be true, even if no one knows it yet. Scourge doesn't conclude a "fact" (liberty taken, a conclusion isn't a fact, obviously) by his own reflexions, he recognizes it.
Think about the following sentence:
"Scourge, falsely recognizing the Emperor to be undefeatable, attacks Vitiate and is destroyed in the process."
In this case, we know, based on Scourge's recognizing the wrong universal fact, that the Emperor is, indeed, undefeatable.
@ant. Again I can't directly quote and respond, likely coz you're getting fancy with how you quote evidence.
1. We don't always take the most direct definitions when they don't align with the context they're taken in. To take this term literally would be accepting a falsehood, regardless of the perspective it's written in. And generally speaking sh!t like undefeatable, unbeatable, or unparalleled is hyperbolic because the literal definition of these words is rarely literally true.
2. Nowhere is it stated anywhere that Scourge saw an equal amount of visions for either side. That Scourge was overwhelmed with the number of scenarios he saw doesn't prove that one outcome wasn't significantly more likely than another. That there were an equal amount of scenarios is at best speculation. Unfortunate, I know.
3. Ant, you do realize that you can't identify the perspective of narration from a single sentence? In order to identify what perspective narration is coming from, we need to look at the whole of the passage, not a single sentence. And yes Ant, a sentence about Scourge will include Scourge's name. Much like the first sentence here mentioned Revan when it was talking about Revan:
This doesn't change regardless of whether the narration is third person or from a specific character's perspective. That a single sentence had Scourge as the subject does not prove that this is from Scourge's perspective. We can tell this is objective because the subjects of the sentences here are continuously being alternated:
The author is simply stating what is happening throughout the narrative with a variety of sentences that focus on a variety of characters. In other words, this is objective narration.
4. Realize means:
5. Yes Ant, you have to explain how you came to the conclusion you're arguing for, that's how debating works.
Anyway, as noted earlier, the quote regarding the visions was objective narration, your speculation notwithstanding.
6. Vitiate got the opportunity he needed to catch Revan off guard, yea. That he wouldn't have won otherwise is a baseless conclusion. That Revan's companions are one-shottable doesn't change they're distractions, which seems to be Vitiate's kryptonite. As we've repeatedly seen, he's absolute trash when dealing with multiple opponents. You could argue against the semantics of using the term one-shot for vitiate instantly defeating Revan with a charged up blast, but the point stands, Revan remained outclassed by Vitiate as clearly shown here:
Revan's still sh!t to Vitiate which is more than sufficient for my argument as a whole considering that Vaylin is shown both holistically and directly as someone who threatens Valk by virtue of her power.