Explain this contradiction for me, please. Because if we apply the logic of your claim, Obi-Wan thinks of himself as a devastating warrior and a phenomenal pilot, yet that he is also always modest, kind, and centered, and -- lastly -- that he feels like he is none of these things and just a padawan.
There is no contradiction. Third-person limited applies to text that assesses the character using their own perspective, too. What that means is that the narrator can state things that the character may not actually realize about him/herself, but only as long as it can be judged through their eyes. That is why the narrative mode still has a level of omniscience to it.
What it says about Kenobi is something that could be gathered from seeing his life in first-person on a theater screen. How he feels is just that--his feelings. The lines regarding Yoda and Anakin are feelings, too; a reflection of their own thoughts about themselves.
Notice how every scene follows a specific character? That's because the entire novel is written in close third-person with a shifting viewpoint character. Each scene is told from a single character's perspective. There is no universal omniscience.
As well, the passage doesn't state that he is always modest, kind, and centered; only that he is always kind.
Explain to me why I'm wrong rather than ignore my entire post, please.
Originally posted by LightsnakeThat doesn't qualify him as one of the best ever, sorry. Perhaps he was one of the most proficient swordsmen in the Order at the time, but one N-Canon line that came from a third-person source to begin with isn't quite enough to say anymore about him.
Saesee's apparently got some backing given the extreme regard Mace holds him in, that he's one of the crack team Mace brought to take down the Bounty Hunter's guild and we see him sparring with Mace in an early Republic comic
Originally posted by Advent
There is no contradiction. Third-person limited applies to text that assesses the character using their own perspective, too. What that means is that the narrator can state things that the character may not actually realize about him/herself, but only as long as it can be judged through their eyes. That is why the narrative mode still has a level of omniscience to it.What it says about Kenobi is something that could be gathered from seeing his life in first-person on a theater screen. How he feels is just that--his feelings. The lines regarding Yoda and Anakin are feelings, too; a reflection of their own thoughts about themselves.
Notice how every scene follows a specific character? That's because the entire novel is written in close third-person with a shifting viewpoint character. Each scene is told from a single character's perspective. There is no universal omniscience.
As well, the passage doesn't state that he is always modest, kind, and centered; only that he is always kind.
I'm afraid I still don't quite understand. Your assertion is that the entire novel is written from the perspective of a limited omniscient? A fallible party? I see a blatant contradiction; how can "the ultimate Jedi" who is "modest, centered, and always kind" consider himself to be a "phenomenal pilot," "a devastating warrior," and "a negotiator without peer" and -- at the same time -- shrug off his accolades and consider himself "still a Padawan." Moreover, the statement regarding Anakin Skywalker being "the most powerful Jedi of his generation" and all that is not stated to be from his perspective or feelings.
Explain to me why I'm wrong rather than ignore my entire post, please.
It's a waste of time. Because if you can prove me wrong here, on this subject, regarding the interjected synopsises of the specific characters, then I'll have no choice but to concede.
I'm afraid I still don't quite understand. Your assertion is that the entire novel is written from the perspective of a limited omniscient? A fallible party?
Read the novel and do your homework instead of questioning me and then assuming you're right. And yes; it's not like it is an uncommon mode in literature. Indeed, a universal omniscient narrator is rare because the reader won't be connecting with the characters as much.
To be perfectly clear, every single scene is being told from the perspective of a single character. What can be known from that character alone, they can describe what other people say, do, etc. but not exactly their [the other characters'] inner thoughts.
For example, take a look at Chapter 13, the Will of the Force. The beginning scene is from Padme's POV, notice how--despite describing his actions and dialogue--it never gives Obi-Wan's actual thoughts or really follows him; just Padme and hers. Of course, the whole book is done in the same fashion; it is proof of third-person limited.
I see a blatant contradiction; how can "the ultimate Jedi" who is "modest, centered, and always kind" consider himself to be a "phenomenal pilot," "a devastating warrior," and "a negotiator without peer" and -- at the same time -- shrug off his accolades and consider himself "still a Padawan."
Dharma F'ing Buddha, there is NO contradiction. Just because you don't know what you're talking about, doesn't mean GV and I don't. As I JUST explained, a third-person limited omniscient narrator can also state things that the character may not realize or think about itself.
Imagine: there is a movie theater screen playing Kenobi's entire life in first-person view, the narrator is watching the movie and can make judgments based off of what it sees. These judgments are, however, obviously limited to what is being shown.
To put it into context, the narrator can gather from the screen that Kenobi is a "phenomenal pilot who doesn't like to fly" and a "devastating warrior who'd rather not fight".
We know that the narrator is making those judgments on Obi-Wan, this is apparent because it notes that "And yet, inside" then goes on to describe how he feels. At that point, it is describing Obi-Wan's thoughts about himself.
Moreover, the statement regarding Anakin Skywalker being "the most powerful Jedi of his generation" and all that is not stated to be from his perspective or feelings.
So then Anakin is the fastest, the strongest, and no one even comes close? Thanks for clearing that up, Gideon. Additionally, a truly omniscient narrator would know whether or not he was the most powerful of every generation, not 'perhaps'.
And again, the entire book is written in close third person with a shifting viewpoint character. The text is written in third person, but is only from a single character's POV. Even if there is no initial notation that it might be coming from the mind, it still is. That is what close third person is all about.
It's a waste of time.
I'm sorry, what? You, in fact, are wasting time. If you had read my post, you wouldn't be stating your mistaken interpretation on Anakin's passage as fact like above.
Because if you can prove me wrong here, on this subject, regarding the interjected synopsises of the specific characters, then I'll have no choice but to concede.
Did you really think you ever had a choice besides conceding? I know that narrative perspective may cause confusion, but you've been wasting my invaluable time by making me respond to posts that pick and choose lines without thinking. Then, of course, you seem to assume yourself as correct when I'm not even sure you know anything about third-person limited.
Originally posted by Advent
Read the novel and do your homework instead of questioning me and then assuming you're right. And yes; it's not like it is an uncommon mode in literature. Indeed, a universal omniscient narrator is rare because the reader won't be connecting with the characters as much.To be perfectly clear, every single scene is being told from the perspective of a single character. What can be known from that character alone, they can describe what other people say, do, etc. but not exactly their [the other characters'] inner thoughts.
And again, the entire book is written in close third person with a shifting viewpoint character. The text is written in third person, but is only from a single character's POV. Even if there is no initial notation that it might be coming from the mind, it still is. That is what close third person is all about.
I know that narrative perspective may cause confusion...
True enough. The limited third person (same as limited omniscient third person) is extremely popular in most science fiction/fantasy novels, and was really popularized by Orson Scott Card (and advocated for in many of his works of how to write science fiction properly).
"New writers are often baffled when trying to choose a point of view for their stories and novels. But, actually, the choice is easy. Over ninety percent of all modern speculative fiction is written using the same POV: limited third person."
"When inside a given head, the reader can see, hear, touch, smell, and taste everything that particular character is experiencing, and he or she can also read the thoughts of that one character. But it takes effort for the little person to move out of one head and into another. Not only that — it's disorienting."
"Although at first glance, omniscient narration might seem an ideal way to involve the reader in every aspect of the story, it actually ends up making the reader feel unconnected to all the characters. The rule is simple: pick one character, and follow the entire scene through his or her eyes only."
Those quotes are taken from Robert J. Sawyer, Canadian Sci-Fi writer whose books have won numerous, numerous awards.
A Wikipedia article on limited omniscient explains one more detail:
"Henry met Madeline on New Year's Eve in 2002. He went to a party and she opened the door. Her hair! Only a goddess could have hair so fine.
The final sentence is in the mind of the character, yet is not identified as a thought. The style has become psychologically close."
And there you have it. Essentially, the unwritten rule for good fiction entails using the third person limited omniscient point of view in order to get into the heads of the characters you want the readers to understand better, but limiting that to one character per scene so as to not confuse the reader by jumping in and out of everyones heads.
Third person omniscient is almost as annoying as second person narrative.
EDIT: Ooh. Editing Advent's comments nearly makes her post look completely civil. 😉
Originally posted by Schwarzenegger
So, if the quotes of sidious being the number 1 sith lord are all "limited third person", then who is the number 1 sith?
"Palpatine has risen from the dead. The most powerful Sith Lord who ever lived had returned." From the Dark Empire Sourcebook does qualify.
Hm...You know, I think that might actually in fact be the only out of universe and truly omniscient quote explicitly stating Palpatine's superiority in power. And even that can be spun by saying, "Well, they meant political power."
Heh. Gideon has more sources though, he'll probably be able to pull other quotes.
EDIT: Ooh. Editing Advent's comments nearly makes her post look completely civil. :wink:
Yeah, they do, lol. Being exposed to KMC long-term can cause acute rudeness in posts. Go get a vaccination while you still can. 🧑⚕️
Hm...You know, I think that might actually in fact be the only out of universe and truly omniscient quote explicitly stating Palpatine's superiority in power. And even that can be spun by saying, "Well, they meant political power."Heh. Gideon has more sources though, he'll probably be able to pull other quotes.
If that is the only one, then Sidious ain't the most powerful as of ROTS! Huzzah! Well, maybe.
Originally posted by SchwarzeneggerIn all technicality, he lives again, gaining even more power. So... as of DE, he's still the most powerful, just as he was in ROTJ.
I do believe that ROTJ sidious could also be the most powerful sith."The most powerful Sith Lord who ever [b]lived
had returned" [/B]
I'm not inclined to get involved in another flame war, Advent. Spare me your jabs and insults.
Originally posted by Advent
Read the novel and do your homework instead of questioning me and then assuming you're right. And yes; it's not like it is an uncommon mode in literature. Indeed, a universal omniscient narrator is rare because the reader won't be connecting with the characters as much.
I don't know where I have claimed to be right in this argument. In fact, as I recall, I stopped addressing the bulk of your argument for the simple fact that I lack understanding of what you're trying to explain. If you live in some demented world where those who do not understand must be disagreeing with you, I do sincerely apologize. But that wasn't my intention at all.
To be perfectly clear, every single scene is being told from the perspective of a single character. What can be known from that character alone, they can describe what other people say, do, etc. but not exactly their [the other characters'] inner thoughts.For example, take a look at Chapter 13, the Will of the Force. The beginning scene is from Padme's POV, notice how--despite describing his actions and dialogue--it never gives Obi-Wan's actual thoughts or really follows him; just Padme and hers. Of course, the whole book is done in the same fashion; it is proof of third-person limited.
I see. Conceded here, then.
Dharma F'ing Buddha, there is NO contradiction. Just because you don't know what you're talking about, doesn't mean GV and I don't. As I JUST explained, a third-person limited omniscient narrator can also state things that the character may not realize or think about itself.Imagine: there is a movie theater screen playing Kenobi's entire life in first-person view, the narrator is watching the movie and can make judgments based off of what it sees. These judgments are, however, obviously limited to what is being shown.
To put it into context, the narrator can gather from the screen that Kenobi is a "phenomenal pilot who doesn't like to fly" and a "devastating warrior who'd rather not fight".
We know that the narrator is making those judgments on Obi-Wan, this is apparent because it notes that "And yet, inside" then goes on to describe how he feels. At that point, it is describing Obi-Wan's thoughts about himself.
Then you're not at liberty to dismiss the statement given by Yoda, since you haven't got the means to provide the proof that it came from Yoda himself, since the line is that "[Yoda] saw the truth." Moreover, the line about him being an avatar of light and all that? Also no indication that that came from Yoda himself.
The rest, I will concede.
Originally posted by Gideon
Then you're not at liberty to dismiss the statement given by Yoda, since you haven't got the means to provide the proof that it came from Yoda himself, since the line is that "[Yoda] saw the truth." Moreover, the line about him being an avatar of light and all that? Also no indication that that came from Yoda himself.
Assuming it's a third-person limited, Gideon, [and yes...that is true] all the judgements given in that very situation, are based on Yoda's knowledge, which the narrator has complete access to. Yet, it's not based on the knowledge of an omniscient being.
So practically - based on Yoda's knowledge - the narrator makes the judgement that Yoda is an avatar of light, the most devastatingly powerful foe the Dark Side has ever known etc. That doesn't mean that Yoda would descripe himself like that. It's the narrators take on the issue. But yet, because it is just based on everything that Yoda knew at that point in time, it naturally doesn't have to be "true" in an universal sense - because Yodas knowledge is limited.
For example: Yoda can just judge the power of individuals he personally encountered. That makes it impossible to judge the power of an individual [Sidious] in comparison to other individuals that Yoda didn't encounter personally [e.g. Ancient Sith, Bane]. Hence it comes pretty much down to this: Based on Yoda's knowledge, he himself is the most powerful Jedi in history and he's facing the most powerful Sith Lord in history. Which doesn't rule out of the possibility that, because of things Yoda didn't know, other individuals of the respective orders might still be more powerful.
So what you're saying is that Yoda isn't arrogantly proclaiming himself to be the most powerful Jedi in history, but that the narrator is declaring that to be the case based off of Yoda's own experiences and knowledge?
Leave it to the German guy to explain this scenario better than two people who speak English.
Edit: For the record, Yoda doesn't think of the Emperor as the most powerful Sith Lord ever. He just comes to the conclusion he's in the middle of a fight that he's destined to lose.
Originally posted by Advent
Yeah, they do, lol. Being exposed to KMC long-term can cause acute rudeness in posts. Go get a vaccination while you still can. 🧑⚕️
Are you offering to be the nurse?
Originally posted by Advent
If that is the only one, then Sidious ain't the most powerful as of ROTS! Huzzah! Well, maybe.
I find it highly unlikely that Palaptine's raw power in the Force made him the strongest Sith ever by ROTS....ROTJ, eh, why not. We already see how powerful he is in TFU, 6 years before ROTJ.
/end