Revan versus Yoda and Mace Windu

Started by King Adas8 pages

'There came a turning point in the clash of the light againstthe dark.

It did not come from a flash of lightning or slash of energy blade, though there were these in plenty; it did not come from aflying kick or a surgically precise punch, though these weretraded, too.

It came as the battle shifted from the holding office to thegreat Chancellor's Podium; it came as the hydraulic lift beneaththe Podium raised it on its tower of durasteel a hundred metersand more, so that it became a laserpoint of battle flaring at thefocus of the vast emptiness of the Senate Arena; it came as theForce and the podium's controls ripped delegation pods free ofthe curving walls and made of them hammers, battering rams,catapult stones crashing and crushing against each other in arolling thunder-roar that echoed the Senate's cheers for thegalaxy's new Emperor.

It came when the avatar of light resolved into the lineageof the Jedi; when the lineage of the Jedi refined into one singleJedi.

It came when Yoda found himself alone against the dark.

In that lightning-speared tornado of feet and fists and bladesand bashing machines, his vision finally pierced the darkness thathad clouded the Force.

Finally, he saw the truth.

This truth: that he, the avatar of light, Supreme Master of the Jedi Order, the fiercest, most implacable, most devastatinglypowerful foe the darkness had ever known...just—didn't—haveit.

He'd never had it. He had lost before he started.

He had lost before he was born.

The Sith had changed. The Sith had grown, had adapted,had invested a thousand years' intensive study into every aspect of not only the Force but Jedi lore itself, in preparation for exactly this day. The Sith had remade themselves.

They had becomenew.

While the Jedi—

The Jedi had spent that same millennium training to refightthelast war.

The new Sith could not be destroyed with a lightsaber; theycould not be burned away by any torch of the Force. Thebrighter his light, the darker their shadow. How could one win awar against the dark, when war itself had become the dark's ownweapon?

He knew, at that instant, that this insight held the hope ofthe galaxy. But if he fell here, that hope would die with him.Hmmm,Yoda thought.A problem this is...' - ROTS Novelisation, CH20.

It's open to interpretation whether it is directly factually stated by the omniscient narrator, or a case of free indirect discourse, I personally see it as the latter.

It most definately seems poetic to me, not a factual statement.

I agree, I myself can actually see Revan, Hoth and maybe a few other jedi before Yoda's time being above him.

Ya. It's open to speculation, but it can safely be put away as a point in an argument.

actually that statement seems quite definitive. It is made by the author, and there's nothing to interpret. If the author wrote it, it's fact.

He most likely was indirectly voicing Yoda.

Originally posted by Darth Sexy
actually that statement seems quite definitive. It is made by the author, and there's nothing to interpret. If the author wrote it, it's fact.

And the writer was being poetic.

you can THINK anything you want about the writers motives, but its pretty clear that he was depicting the strongest of the lightside versus the strongest of the darkside.

The point is DS, that quote can no longer be used as proof that Yoda is the strongest because its credibility has been undermined. Now you'll just have to accept that, what's clear to you, and only to you might I add has no bearing on the debate.

Originally posted by Darth Sexy
you can THINK anything you want about the writers motives, but its pretty clear that he was depicting the strongest of the lightside versus the strongest of the darkside.

You can think anything too- you still don't have a defintive argument for that passage.

of course I do.. It's made in the book, therefore its canon, regardless of what you THINK he said.

No.

@ King Adas

The point is DS, that quote can no longer be used as proof that Yoda is the strongest because its credibility has been undermined. Now you'll just have to accept that, what's clear to you, and only to you might I add has no bearing on the debate.

Forgive me, but simply choosing not to accept a canon statement isn't "undermining" the credibility of the statement itself. You are attempting to interpret what is plainly stated in the narrative as "poetic".

This isn't the case. Because you don't have a telepathic link with the author, nor are you the author itself, you have no position to state that it is hyperbole or poetic.

Therefore, until such a time when you can bring about ironclad proof that this entire statement was indeed false - then you are in no position to deny it in debates.

You don't seem to have any.

@RocasAtoll

No.

What a stunning - and extremely convincing, I might add - argument.

Don't be so egotistical as to presume that your "opinion" (the "no"! command) has any bearing on this argument. If you want your opinion or your point of view to be taken seriously, please back it up with more than simple denials and one word statements of disagreement.

You've brought nothing to the table.

Originally posted by Escape81
@ King Adas

Forgive me, but simply choosing [B]not to accept a canon statement isn't "undermining" the credibility of the statement itself. You are attempting to interpret what is plainly stated in the narrative as "poetic".[/B]

That would be Himokun, not me.

This isn't the case. Because you don't have a telepathic link with the author, nor are you the author itself, you have no position to state that it is hyperbole or poetic.

This works both ways you know, you are in no position to state that the statement is omniscient and infallible.

Therefore, until such a time when you can bring about ironclad proof that this entire statement was indeed false - then you are in no position to deny it in debates.

You don't seem to have any.

It's not that I'm not accepting it, there are just more ways of looking at it than one. Free indirect discourse, look it up -http://www.litencyc.com/php/stopics.php?rec=true&UID=444, I'd say that there's lots of evidence that this is the case here, which would mean that the statement is indeed fallible and shouldn't be used in debates until proven otherwise.

Originally posted by King Adas
That would be Himokun, not me.

This works both ways you know, you are in no position to state that the statement is omniscient and infallible.

It's not that I'm not accepting it, there are just more ways of looking at it than one. Free indirect discourse, look it up -http://www.litencyc.com/php/stopics.php?rec=true&UID=444, I'd say that there's lots of evidence that this is the case here, which would mean that the statement is indeed fallible and shouldn't be used in debates until proven otherwise.

You are missing the point. It is stated in the book and it's clear as day. Who are YOU to interpret it to fit your argument? You can't pick and choose what you want to interpet, that's not logical debating.

Originally posted by Darth Sexy
You are missing the point. It is stated in the book and it's clear as day. Who are YOU to interpret it to fit your argument? You can't pick and choose what you want to interpet, that's not logical debating.

It's really not as clear as day, if you knew how to interpret literature one bit, you would know this. If the link I posted earlier was too complex for you, try this - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_indirect_discourse.

Originally posted by Darth Sexy
You are missing the point. It is stated in the book and it's clear as day. Who are YOU to interpret it to fit your argument? You can't pick and choose what you want to interpet, that's not logical debating.

What gives YOU the right to interpret it to help YOUR argument?

Originally posted by King Adas
That would be Himokun, not me.

This works both ways you know, you are in no position to state that the statement is omniscient and infallible.

It's not that I'm not accepting it, there are just more ways of looking at it than one. Free indirect discourse, look it up -http://www.litencyc.com/php/stopics.php?rec=true&UID=444, I'd say that there's lots of evidence that this is the case here, which would mean that the statement is indeed fallible and shouldn't be used in debates until proven otherwise.

It wasn't meant to be intelligent. I'm being as cloased minded as him.

huh?

Don't try to make sense of what I say sometimes. 😬

Originally posted by RocasAtoll
Don't try to make sense of what I say sometimes. 😬

That, m'dear, would be impossible.

It's written clear as day.