Darth Maul vs Kas'im

Originally posted by truejedi
yeah, that's not bane thinking: The only thing that is bane thinking is "knowing he couldn't win." an OOUN then goes ahead to explain why.

Really? So the third-person limited narrator who is clearly present here as the story is narrated from the perspective of different characters appearing within does suddenly jump out of his role to deliver an "out of universe" statement?

You link that idea to what part of the text. Bane knew that Kas'im mastered all forms and honed that skills over decades. How would it not be Bane's idea, that Kas'im is the most skilled duellist alive (or ever for that matter), if anything else present in the particular part of the text is spawning from Bane's perceptions and thoughts?

Because you want it to be that way? I don't think so.

Ignoring the fact that your claim that the story is narrated entirely from the perspectives of the characters within the segment in question not only remains entirely unsupported but can also be disproven (see the posts in this thread on the matter), you also seem to be under the impression that fictional works have to stick to a fixed form of narrative, which is not only incorrect in principle (no logical reason for a story to remain fixed in its narrative, and its entirely a matter of the preference of the storyteller and/or as a device to be used by the storyteller) but also in practise (as there are cases where pieces of fiction switch between different forms of narrative).

Originally posted by Borbarad
Really? So the third-person limited narrator who is clearly present here as the story is narrated from the perspective of different characters appearing within does suddenly jump out of his role to deliver an "out of universe" statement?

You link that idea to what part of the text. Bane knew that Kas'im mastered all forms and honed that skills over decades. How would it not be Bane's idea, that Kas'im is the most skilled duellist alive (or ever for that matter), if anything else present in the particular part of the text is spawning from Bane's perceptions and thoughts?

Because you want it to be that way? I don't think so.

Because the statements in question lack any kind of qualifier that would make them the thoughts of Bane. If there were evidence to support such a view, i would have no problem supporting it, but right now, its just wishful thinking.

Originally posted by Lavos
Ignoring the fact that your claim that the story is narrated entirely from the perspectives of the characters within the segment in question not only remains entirely unsupported but can also be disproven (see the posts in this thread on the matter), you also seem to be under the impression that fictional works have to stick to a fixed form of narrative, which is not only incorrect in principle (no logical reason for a story to remain fixed in its narrative, and its entirely a matter of the preference of the storyteller and/or as a device to be used by the storyteller) but also in practise (as there are cases where pieces of fiction switch between different forms of narrative).

Excuse me.
Given that I studied literature - among other subjects - I'm quite informed about narrative modes, contrary to other people here - specifically you, as it seems.

Of course the narration doesn't have to follow a single mode. But in case of "Path of Destruction" this is absolutely the case. You can disprove that? Than I'd really love to see the part of the story which isn't narrated by a third-person limited narrator. Because I just see a narrator following different persons (mainly Bane, also Kaan, Kopecz, Kas'im, Githany) with the entire content of the narration clearly within the thoughts or perception of that individuals.

Where is the "true omniscience" here? Just to clarify this: a real "omniscience" or "OOU" narrator would be present, if something is said that none of the characters within the story could possible know. Hence omniscient narrators are used in a fashion known as "little did he know"-writing. If the narrator accurately predicts future events, or mentions things that none of the characters within the story could know. So, please, give me an example of that happening within the story.

Because the statements in question lack any kind of qualifier that would make them the thoughts of Bane. If there were evidence to support such a view, i would have no problem supporting it, but right now, its just wishful thinking.

You mean besides the fact that the statement in question is opened with a thought of Bane himself? "Within the first few passes Bane knew he couldn't win." Nice try. Or was that the omniscient narrator? In that case, one should also question the omniscience here, considering the fact that Bane won the fight.

Nice try...

All I know is that a certain someone spent months arguing against the statements and accolades for Yoda and Count Dooku from Revenge of the Sith, Palpatine from every single source imaginable, and, conveniently, that same certain someone says that all of Kas'im's and Bane's accolades are taken from an unquestionable omniscient narrator?

Sorry, I'm not buying it.

Now the Yoda quote is the only one I'm knowledgable in, so although I don't have the source with me I can make an educated argument from memory. In that case first Yoda was said to have come to a conclusion and then its followed by a colon indicating that what follows is directly linked to the previous sentence i.e. Yoda's conclusion and the sentence is clearly detailing that conclusion; that he, Yoda, the greatest foe of darkness evars, couldn't beat up an old man.

Now the Bane paragraph in question could very well be seen as different. First it details us with Banes thinking i.e. That he couldn't win, but then it go's into details about why couldn't do so. Details he has no reason to actually know, indicating a third person narration taking place. I'm not saying that this is what I think, as it very easily swing the other way, so yeah....

Nai, you're clearly confused on the matter. I'd suggest expanding your studies beyond the realms of wikipedia and urban dictionary and look deeply into what it means to be an omniscient narrator, and what function it serves in telling the story.

Originally posted by Borbarad
Excuse me.
Given that I studied literature - among other subjects - I'm quite informed about narrative modes, contrary to other people here - specifically you, as it seems.

Of course the narration doesn't have to follow a single mode.

Well may I ask why you expressed such incredulity regarding the idea earlier when you stated:

"Really? So the third-person limited narrator who is clearly present here as the story is narrated from the perspective of different characters appearing within does suddenly jump out of his role to deliver an "out of universe" statement?"

Not saying you really were working under such an idea (my original statement was that it "seemed" to be the case), just curious as to what the real intention behind the point you were making was.

But in case of "Path of Destruction" this is absolutely the case. You can disprove that? Than I'd really love to see the part of the story which isn't narrated by a third-person limited narrator. Because I just see a narrator following different persons (mainly Bane, also Kaan, Kopecz, Kas'im, Githany) with the entire content of the narration clearly within the thoughts or perception of that individuals.

Well now you seem to be under the impression that just because the narration covers content that characters within the story are capable of possessing knowledge of, that it has to be indirectly coming from their perspectives, which is again, clearly wrong in principle (information can be within the thoughts and feelings of the characters but still be delivered to us through the words of an omniscient narrator - again, it's a matter of personal preference of the storyteller and a device use to tell the story; the immediate advantage of the omniscient narrator being that of authenticity).

Where is the "true omniscience" here? Just to clarify this: a real "omniscience" or "OOU" narrator would be present, if something is said that none of the characters within the story could possible know.

Ignoring that what you're describing here is the very basis for my declaration of the narration as "omniscient" as I'll get to in a bit, you are again seemingly under the [false] impression that the narrative can only be coming directly from the omniscient narrator when his omniscience is absolutely required, and unaware that it's subject to the personal style of the storyteller as to whether or not he will narrate information clearly accessible to the characters from within the story, from their perspective, or from an omniscient perspective.

Hence omniscient narrators are used in a fashion known as "little did he know"-writing. If the narrator accurately predicts future events, or mentions things that none of the characters within the story could know.

They are used in such a manner, yes, however their use isn't limited to such a manner.

So, please, give me an example of that happening within the story.

Originally posted by EID
The extent of Kas'im's mastery, how long it took him to originally master every form, how long he had spent perfecting them, as well as the fact that he was the greatest swordsman in the Galaxy, and possibly ever.

While it is not totally beyond the realms of possibility that Kas'im had informed Bane of the extents of his training, and that Bane may have simply been vaguely assuming the latter about Kas'im's status as a swordsman, it's the fact that the descriptions encompass a form that Bane wasn't even aware that Kas'im was even slightly proficient in, until a few moments ago, that renders it something that Bane absolutely would have not been in a position to know.

That he had been winning the duel all the way until Kas'im switched to Jar'Kai, as well as the fact that the descriptions of Kas'im's mastery of the lightsaber were being used as the reason for Bane being unable to defeat him would indicate that the descriptions took into account Kas'im's mastery of Jar'Kai, a form Bane didn't even know that Kas'im was even a practitioner of until moments ago, affirming the idea that he clearly would not have been in a position to recall the extents of Kas'im's mastery in such detail.

To expand on that slightly; one of the prime reasons given for Bane's early dominance over Kas'im was that he had memorised all of Kas'im's moves and was able to recognise and counter every one of them.

But then when Kas'im uses a form that Bane hadn't even been aware that Kas'im was slightly proficient in, those descriptions regarding his mastery are largely attributed to the reason he was now on the losing end of their engagement (which we know was because Kas'im switched to Jar'Kai, a form Bane was unfamiliar with), which would indicate that those descriptions were taking into account Kas'im's mastery of Jar'kai (and not simply Kas'im's mastery of the forms that Bane did know about and could counter perfectly - something that was attributed to his early dominance), a form Bane hadn't even known that Kas'im could use, let alone being able to recall his studies under the form [even when grouped together with those that Bane knew, the detail would correspond with all of the forms, including Jar'Kai].

You mean besides the fact that the statement in question is opened with a thought of Bane himself? "Within the first few passes Bane knew he couldn't win." Nice try. Or was that the omniscient narrator? In that case, one should also question the omniscience here, considering the fact that Bane won the fight.

Nice try...

Or we could also question exactly what exactly it was that "Bane knew he couldn't win" and conclude that it wasn't necessarily the ultimate end result of their engagement but quite possibly the immediate lightsaber duel they were currently engaged in?

Originally posted by Borbarad

You mean besides the fact that the statement in question is opened with a thought of Bane himself? "Within the first few passes Bane knew he couldn't win." Nice try. Or was that the omniscient narrator? In that case, one should also question the omniscience here, considering the fact that Bane won the fight.

Nice try...

Pretty obviously talking about the lightsaber fight, which he didn't win. : )

Originally posted by Lavos
Nai, you're clearly confused on the matter. I'd suggest expanding your studies beyond the realms of wikipedia and urban dictionary and look deeply into what it means to be an omniscient narrator, and what function it serves in telling the story.

I would suggest that you do that, provided that you don't seem to be familiar with literature analysis. But well. I'll try another concept which is - maybe - easier for you to grasp: focalization (From which point of view a story is told?).

There are, essentially, three different types of focalization:

a) Zero-Focalization: Narrator > characters ['overview' - the narrator knows or tells more than any of the characters appearing in the story can know]

b) Internal Focalization: Narrator = characters ['bysight' - the narrator doesn't know / tell more than the character(s) know]

c) External Focalization: Narrator < Character ['outer view' - the narrator tells less than the characters appearing in the story know]

The only form of true omniscience would appear in example "a". A limited omniscience is coined by example "b". The narrator is aware of all thoughts and all knowledge of all characters in the story, but his knowledge doesn't exceed that.

Hence I asked you of an example, where the narrator in PoD makes a statement that is clearly spawning from anyhwhere else than from the knowledge / thoughts of the characters within the story. In the present example, the presented ideas ("best duelist alive", "greates swordsman ever"😉 could be a result of Bane's thoughts or even be a mixture of the knowledge of all characters present within the story. The point is, that you can't prove that those statements are universal or spawning from a source outside of that "limited" knowledge the narrator in a third-person limited narration has.

Well now you seem to be under the impression that just because the narration covers content that characters within the story are capable of possessing knowledge of, that it has to be indirectly coming from their perspectives, which is again, clearly wrong in principle (information can be within the thoughts and feelings of the characters but still be delivered to us through the words of an omniscient narrator - again, it's a matter of personal preference of the storyteller and a device use to tell the story; the immediate advantage of the omniscient narrator being that of authenticity).

OH MY GOD.
The point is that to have a really omniscient narrator (in contrast to a limited omniscient one) there must be information that can't come from the characters in a direct or indirect fashion. So either bring me an example of such knowledge presented by the narrator, or accept that he's bound to the knowledge / thoughts / perceptions of the characters and accept that you're wrong.

Ignoring that what you're describing here is the very basis for my declaration of the narration as "omniscient" as I'll get to in a bit, you are again seemingly under the [false] impression that the narrative can only be coming directly from the omniscient narrator when his omniscience is absolutely required, and unaware that it's subject to the personal style of the storyteller as to whether or not he will narrate information clearly accessible to the characters from within the story, from their perspective, or from an omniscient perspective.

You may want to do a check up on the different forms of narration. "Omniscience" in everyday literature analysis terms is already present, when the narrator can "look into the thoughts" of more than one character appearing in the story. However. You realize that there is a difference between "reading the thoughts" of two persons and being able to come up with universal binding statements (facts), correct?

To do the latter, there has to be an instance in a story, where the narrator does come up with something that none of the characters could be possible aware of (e.g. future events). Unless that happens, a charactization of the narrator as "true omniscient" has to be rejected. Fact.

They are used in such a manner, yes, however their use isn't limited to such a manner.

They are - at least when you want to have them produce universal binding statements. Otherwise it's still a third person limited narrator, which can't come up with statements exceeding the cognition of the characters within the story. End of debate.

truejedi
yeah, that's not bane thinking: The only thing that is bane thinking is "knowing he couldn't win." an OOUN then goes ahead to explain why.

The omniscient out of universe narrator believes that Kasi'm might be the greatest swordsman ever?

Originally posted by Eminence
...

The omniscient out of universe narrator believes that Kasi'm might be the greatest swordsman ever?

Just because the omniscient narrator knows, doesn't mean he is sharing. Otherwise every single encounter between characters would go something like: Luke advanced against the... enemy. The enemy couldn't win. (2 pages of fighting) Luke killed the enemy.

You aren't given all of it at once.

Remember that "ever" in this case doesn't refer to future Jedi/Sith, since the thoughts were from Bane.

Originally posted by Hewhoknowsall
Remember that "ever" in this case doesn't refer to future Jedi/Sith, since the thoughts were from Bane.

Thoughts, no. But it does say the greatest there had ever been, which would necessarily mean as of POD.

Originally posted by truejedi
Thoughts, no. But it does say the greatest there had ever been, which would necessarily mean as of POD.

But they were thoughts; PoD is from third person limited view; hence why Bane goes on in his thoughts rambling about his philosophies and ideas and saying them in absolutes, whereas an omniscient writer wouldn't do that since such opinions are not absolutes from an impartial, all knowing third party. Also, the text talks about how Bane could easily survive the poison that Githany put on her lips when he kissed her, when in reality there was that hidden, far more deadly poison. Had it been omniscient, the author wouldn't have made such a false statement.

So the statement was coming from Bane, who wouldn't know about the future.

Then why does it bother to qualify SOME of the novel with "Bane thought" and "It seemed to Bane?"

If the whole book is from that perspective, aren't those comments redundant?

Originally posted by truejedi
Then why does it bother to qualify SOME of the novel with "Bane thought" and "It seemed to Bane?"

If the whole book is from that perspective, aren't those comments redundant?

Well, I don't have the book right in front of me, but I think that it said something like "Bane knew he couldn't win" and then elaborated, which led to the statement/thought about Kas'im being perhaps the greatest swordsman ever. So it was still part of the "Bane knew..." phrase.

Or maybe I'm getting it wrong.

Think about this though: If it was from Bane's point of view, it would have said "I know I can't win."

The proof is actually in the pudding. How do we, from a third person perspective (which this is) know what Bane is thinking? It takes an omniscient narrator to tell us his thought. Then the narrator continues, no longer talking about Bane's thoughts, the subject had been switched to Kas'sim. We got more information that is from an omniscient source.

If the source isn't omniscient, we can't get Bane's thoughts.

Originally posted by truejedi
Think about this though: If it was from Bane's point of view, it would have said "I know I can't win."

The proof is actually in the pudding. How do we, from a third person perspective (which this is) know what Bane is thinking? It takes an omniscient narrator to tell us his thought. Then the narrator continues, no longer talking about Bane's thoughts, the subject had been switched to Kas'sim. We got more information that is from an omniscient source.

If the source isn't omniscient, we can't get Bane's thoughts.

I find it kind of funny, that you still haven't got the difference between a "limited" and a "true" omniscient perspective, despite the fact that I explained it in my last posting. Please read it, before you keep inserting already defeated points.

Originally posted by truejedi
Think about this though: If it was from Bane's point of view, it would have said "I know I can't win."

The proof is actually in the pudding. How do we, from a third person perspective (which this is) know what Bane is thinking? It takes an omniscient narrator to tell us his thought. Then the narrator continues, no longer talking about Bane's thoughts, the subject had been switched to Kas'sim. We got more information that is from an omniscient source.

If the source isn't omniscient, we can't get Bane's thoughts.

b) Internal Focalization: Narrator = characters ['bysight' - the narrator doesn't know / tell more than the character(s) know]

Apparently Nai has this one in the bag?

Originally posted by Gideon
Apparently Nai has this one in the bag?

The Nai is definitive. Reality is frequently inaccurate.