[Aptorian]

It seems in this book Erikson took some space out to address two of the forums favorite past times. Timeline jokes and who'd win lists.

I thought we could have a little discussion on Buggs speech to Seren Pedac in DOD. It's the scene right after the two Alco-gods melted and Seren is a bit flustered. She asks Bugg how he thinks Kilava could hope to defend her unborn child if three ancient gods could not.

p. 107 DOD:

Quote

Bugg sighed. "A conviction I am slowly coming to accept. People do not understand power. They view it exclusively as a contest, this against that; which is the greater? Which wins, which fails? Power is less about actual conflict - recognizing as it does the mutual damage confict entails, with such damage making one vulnerable - less about actual conflict, then, than it is about statements. Presence, Acquitor, is power's truest expression. And presence is, at its core, the occupation of space. An assertion, if you will. One that must be acknowledged by other powers, lesser or greater, it matters not."
"I am not sure I understand you."
"Kilava would have invoked her presence, Acquitor. One that embraced you. Now if you still insist on simplistic comparisons, then I tell you, she would have been as a stone in a stream. The water may dream of victory, may even yearn for it, but it had best learn patience, yes? Consider every dried stream bed you have seen, Acquitor, and judge who was the ultimate victor in that war of patience.

Now I understand the idea of presence, and the conservation of power, because convergence is an unwanted result.

But I fail to see how one lesser gods "presence" can be "more imposing" than another, theoretically, greater gods "presence". I remember there being talk earlier of unborn life and pregnancy having a great power of its own, and Kilava's blessing having an effect, but I still fail to see how Kilava could have been a "stronger stone in the stream" than the two drunks and Mael. It was the deck that was reaching out, an apparently very powerfull force that treats gods like pawns... or candles.

This post has been edited by Aptorian: 06 September 2009 - 04:25 PM

[Morgoth]

 Aptorian, on Sep 4 2009, 11:28 AM, said:

It seems in this book Erikson took some space out to address two of the forums favorite past times. Timeline jokes and who'd win lists.

I thought we could have a little discussion on Buggs speech to Seren Pedac in DOD. It's the scene right after the two Alco-gods melted and Seren is a bit flustered. She asks Bugg how he thinks Kilava could hope to defend her unborn child if three ancient gods could not.

p. 107 DOD:

Quote

Bugg sighed. "A conviction I am slowly coming to accept. People do not understand power. They view it exclusively as a contest, this against that; which is the greater? Which wins, which fails? Power is less about actual conflict - recognizing as it does the mutual damage confict entails, with such damage making one vulnerable - less about actual conflict, then, than it is about statements. Presence, Acquitor, is power's truest expression. And presence is, at its core, the occupation of space. An assertion, if you will. One that must be acknowledged by other powers, lesser or greater, it matters not."
"I am not sure I understand you."
"Kilava would have invoked her presence, Acquitor. One that embraced you. Now if you still insist on simplistic comparisons, then I tell you, she would have been as a stone in a stream. The water may dream of victory, may even yearn for it, but it had best learn patience, yes? Consider every dried stream bed you have seen, Acquitor, and judge who was the ultimate victor in that war of patience.

Now I understand the idea of presence, and the conservation of power, because convergence is an unwanted result.

But I fail to see how one lesser gods "presence" can be "more imposing" than another, theoretically, greater gods "presence". I remember there being talk earlier of unborn life and pregnancy having a great power of its own, and Kilava's blessing having an effect, but I still fail to see how Kilava could have been a "stronger stone in the stream" than the two drunks and Mael. It was the deck that was reaching out, an apparently very powerfull force that treats gods like pawns... or candles.

I still hold it's a question of will. As it is in professional sports, and most other things. Rake and Andarist were brothers, but Rake's will was absolute whereas Andarist's was broken.

[blackzoid]

Unfortunatedly, this statement by Bugg (which certainly seems designed to tell us readers to shut up about who would-win lists) actually does destroy any chance of building a hierarchical list of the characters based on "power".
It basically says that whoever wins is now based on how they feel at the time and their "presense" And Bugg's definition of "presence" is pretty handywavey and does not have phyisical units.

Yap, Erikson was basically saying "Shut up nerds!"

[Morgoth]

 blackzoid, on Sep 4 2009, 11:45 AM, said:

Unfortunatedly, this statement by Bugg (which certainly seems designed to tell us readers to shut up about who would-win lists) actually does destroy any chance of building a hierarchical list of the characters based on "power".
It basically says that whoever wins is now based on how they feel at the time and their "presense" And Bugg's definition of "presence" is pretty handywavey and does not have phyisical units.

Yap, Erikson was basically saying "Shut up nerds!"

And it makes sense! Outside of computer games you can never make an absolute statement about who would win pretty much anything. Power is subjective. Utilization of it is as much about strenght of will as it is potential power.

[MTS]

I'm with Morgoth. "Presence" isn't about quantifiable power, it's more like an imposition of will. Like, an average-sized person can be a lot more imposing than a big guy, depending on how they comport themselves. The average guy could have a greater effect on proceedings due to a greater imposition of will than the other guy.

This post has been edited by Mappo's Travelling Sack: 04 September 2009 - 09:49 AM

[Morgoth]

 Mappo's Travelling Sack, on Sep 4 2009, 11:48 AM, said:

I'm with Morgoth. "Presence" isn't about quantifiable power, it's more like an imposition of will. Like, an average-sized person can be a lot more imposing than a big guy, depending on how they comport themselves. The average guy could have a greater effect on proceedings due to a greater imposition of will than the other guy.

which is why Rake was so powerfull. As stated in gotm, he wielded his power rather than being wielded by it, as Baruk mentioned. For Rake, his power was an extension of his will. His control was absolute, and he never wavered.

[blackzoid]

 Morgoth, on Sep 4 2009, 10:47 AM, said:

 blackzoid, on Sep 4 2009, 11:45 AM, said:

Unfortunatedly, this statement by Bugg (which certainly seems designed to tell us readers to shut up about who would-win lists) actually does destroy any chance of building a hierarchical list of the characters based on "power".
It basically says that whoever wins is now based on how they feel at the time and their "presense" And Bugg's definition of "presence" is pretty handywavey and does not have phyisical units.

Yap, Erikson was basically saying "Shut up nerds!"

And it makes sense! Outside of computer games you can never make an absolute statement about who would win pretty much anything. Power is subjective. Utilization of it is as much about strenght of will as it is potential power.

Sorry but no.
A kitten will never win against a croc, a dog will never beat a T-rex, etc.
Anything against a black hole (except a bigger black hole).
Certain things (in our world) cannot beat other things. Full stop. No maybe about it.

SE has decided to not follow that path for his fiction and its no problem for me, I just don't have to think about that in the future.
No probs.

[MTS]

Quote

Quote

I'm with Morgoth. "Presence" isn't about quantifiable power, it's more like an imposition of will. Like, an average-sized person can be a lot more imposing than a big guy, depending on how they comport themselves. The average guy could have a greater effect on proceedings due to a greater imposition of will than the other guy.

which is why Rake was so powerfull. As stated in gotm, he wielded his power rather than being wielded by it, as Baruk mentioned. For Rake, his power was an extension of his will. His control was absolute, and he never wavered.

Pretty much. I would argue, though, that there is more to "power" than the imposition of will. Such things are not comparable and beyond comparison though, as different people wield the same tools differently, after all. Silchas, for example, is not completely in control of his own power (by this I mean his Eleint blood), unlike Rake, who is in complete control, but one cannot make a judgment about ho'd win based on will alone. Because then you've established a different hierarchy.

This post has been edited by Mappo's Travelling Sack: 04 September 2009 - 10:03 AM

[Morgoth]

 Mappo's Travelling Sack, on Sep 4 2009, 12:01 PM, said:

Quote

Quote

I'm with Morgoth. "Presence" isn't about quantifiable power, it's more like an imposition of will. Like, an average-sized person can be a lot more imposing than a big guy, depending on how they comport themselves. The average guy could have a greater effect on proceedings due to a greater imposition of will than the other guy.

which is why Rake was so powerfull. As stated in gotm, he wielded his power rather than being wielded by it, as Baruk mentioned. For Rake, his power was an extension of his will. His control was absolute, and he never wavered.

Pretty much. I would argue, though, that there is more to "power" than the imposition of will. Such things are not comparable and beyond comparison though, as different people wield the same tools differently, after all. Silchas, for example, is not completely in control of his own power (by this I mean his Eleint blood), unlike Rake, who is in complete control, but one cannot make a judgment about ho'd win based on will alone. Because then you've established a different hierarchy.

Oh absolutely. But will is subjective and by no means constant. In ideal enviromentents where both fighters are at their peak, with no outside influence and no physical and mental distractions, then I'd say you can have a who'd win scenario. It never works like that though and each circumstance has to be considered independt of any other.

Hmm, I'm having a hard time articulating myself properly. A good example I guess is Rake and Osseric. They've clashed a number of times. Last that we know of was after the stabbing of Ruin when Osseric went to stall Rake. Rake won that time because of his state of mind in comparison to Osseric. Rake was ready to carve bloody vengeance whereas Osseric was only there to stall him.

[MTS]

 Morgoth, on Sep 4 2009, 08:22 PM, said:

 Mappo's Travelling Sack, on Sep 4 2009, 12:01 PM, said:

Quote

Quote

I'm with Morgoth. "Presence" isn't about quantifiable power, it's more like an imposition of will. Like, an average-sized person can be a lot more imposing than a big guy, depending on how they comport themselves. The average guy could have a greater effect on proceedings due to a greater imposition of will than the other guy.

which is why Rake was so powerfull. As stated in gotm, he wielded his power rather than being wielded by it, as Baruk mentioned. For Rake, his power was an extension of his will. His control was absolute, and he never wavered.

Pretty much. I would argue, though, that there is more to "power" than the imposition of will. Such things are not comparable and beyond comparison though, as different people wield the same tools differently, after all. Silchas, for example, is not completely in control of his own power (by this I mean his Eleint blood), unlike Rake, who is in complete control, but one cannot make a judgment about ho'd win based on will alone. Because then you've established a different hierarchy.

Oh absolutely. But will is subjective and by no means constant. In ideal enviromentents where both fighters are at their peak, with no outside influence and no physical and mental distractions, then I'd say you can have a who'd win scenario. It never works like that though and each circumstance has to be considered independt of any other.

Hmm, I'm having a hard time articulating myself properly. A good example I guess is Rake and Osseric. They've clashed a number of times. Last that we know of was after the stabbing of Ruin when Osseric went to stall Rake. Rake won that time because of his state of mind in comparison to Osseric. Rake was ready to carve bloody vengeance whereas Osseric was only there to stall him.

No, I understand you well enough, and I agree with you whole-heartedly.

Although, I'm confused with your example. I was under the impression that Rake and Osseric didn't fight at that stage? Osserc, Mael and Killy were thinking Rake would want to avenge Silchas, and so Osserc went off looking for him to stall him until they could kill him. Then Rake showed up at the portal, unbeknownst to Osserc, and said something about Osserc flying in circles looking for him. Perhaps I'm getting my chronology wrong. The only instance I can remember is the time Osserc talks to Menandore and Sukul in MT, and he's all carved up. But I thought that was referring to a different time.

EDIT: Sheltatha was in the Azath at that point. Hmm...I'm gonna check that out, I'm confused.

This post has been edited by Mappo's Travelling Sack: 04 September 2009 - 10:32 AM

[Tiste Simeon]

 Mappo's Travelling Sack, on Sep 4 2009, 11:30 AM, said:

Morgoth said:

Hmm, I'm having a hard time articulating myself properly. A good example I guess is Rake and Osseric. They've clashed a number of times. Last that we know of was after the stabbing of Ruin when Osseric went to stall Rake. Rake won that time because of his state of mind in comparison to Osseric. Rake was ready to carve bloody vengeance whereas Osseric was only there to stall him.

No, I understand you well enough, and I agree with you whole-heartedly.

Although, I'm confused with your example. I was under the impression that Rake and Osseric didn't fight at that stage? Osserc, Mael and Killy were thinking Rake would want to avenge Silchas, and so Osserc went off looking for him to stall him until they could kill him. Then Rake showed up at the portal, unbeknownst to Osserc, and said something about Osserc flying in circles looking for him. Perhaps I'm getting my chronology wrong. The only instance I can remember is the time Osserc talks to Menandore and Sukul in MT, and he's all carved up. But I thought that was referring to a different time.

EDIT: Sheltatha was in the Azath at that point. Hmm...I'm gonna check that out, I'm confused.

I would have thought that if the idea was to stall Rake, then Osserc won, because Rake didn't immediately fly off and wreak vengeance on the Edur. Although I think MTS is right, as Rake had another plan anyway, and it seems that Ruin knew what was going to happen and it was all part of the plan anyway... Unless I read it wrong.

[Veilside]

So now instead of arguing about X beating Y, we're going to argue about X being more willful than Y. Yawn.

[Hellian's Keg Lid]

Not that I have read the book (going to preface every statement I make until the damn thing arrives) but that does make sense to me.

If Kilava claims Seren, however backhandedly - and thats all the assertion is, a claim "this is mine, hands off or I will smite you" whoever comes along has to consider.... One, Bonecaster. Two, who this bonecaster is friends with. Three, is finding out a viable option.

Or thats how it seems to me - Bugg simplifies it with the streambed analogy but you could say the same applies to Kruppe and Caladan Brood, or a few other things like Malazans with cussers and giant Ruin dragons - big guy does not win every time.

Scorch & Leff in TtH raised crossbows at a HoS and it decided it couldn't be assed to go for it...

Fair enough I have noooo idea what I am talking about outside of what I have seen from that quote, but the stance of "I am here and this is mine" seems to make perfect sense to me throughout the series with most ascendant/godly/EG/pwnsome characters.

Karsa is pretty much a walking example as well, I suppose.

And just for blackzoid - maybe not, but did you ever see the terrier that got swallowed by a croc, then Alien-style chewed its way out and went home a few hours later? (that dog is awesome)

[Illuyankas]

See, I read it as 'the amount of space needed for the force they can bring to bear against you'. Mael couldn't put the amount of power into threatening the Errant successfully at that time due to all the other things he has going on. Kilava has no such restrictions and can go balls to the wall crazy. It's all situational, as well as depending on whether you've spread your power too thin or whatnot.

[blackzoid]

Hmm, the KCNR did destroy the Bonehunters however.
Sometimes will is not enough? Unless the KCNR were really willful and had massive presence.
Although I guess they did have the superior numbers.

[Sinisdar Toste]

if you take quick bens thoughts on them just before the battle, then yeah those were a willful pack of kcnr with a presence like a thundercloud. lots of lizards, but one will. dont you love hiveminds?

[lorddarkflare]

I thought that the entire purpose of his speech was to say that 'power' defies definition. The idea of power levels, and indeed a power 'hierarchy' could not exist because different powers act different around and against different powers, and different circumstances and states of mind also affect this as well.

Hell, we even know that there are 'rules'(That princess and Mael reminded us of this) and that you can only exert certain powers in certain ways depending on your location. And let us not forget that these 'gods' are not omniscient. They can leave themselves open to simple things by not being attentive. They can make errors in judgment that leave them in bad positions, and most importantly of all, they may apply their power(which is often specialized) in an inefficient manner(if they remember to bring it to bear in the first place)

Not to mention that many often are surpisingly easy to kill/Harm when they are not actively applying themselves in staying alive(Poliel, Rake, The sisters, The Errant, ETC)

I mean, i do not completely like the fact that he is hand waiving all the weirdness when it comes to power, but it makes sense.

Also, let us not mistake 'Will' and power. 'Will' can lead to power, it has an effect on power, but in the end it is simply a state of mind. Will alone will not save you, but it can help.

I believe that the idea of will is a good one, and it is similar to what Tolkien did, with the power of the spirit transcending the flesh. Erickson can often go to far with ths though, but then again, so did Tolkien.

This post has been edited by lorddarkflare: 06 September 2009 - 04:32 AM

[Sinisdar Toste]

 lorddarkflare, on 06 September 2009 - 04:29 AM, said:

I thought that the entire purpose of his speech was to say that 'power' defies definition. The idea of power levels, and indeed a power 'hierarchy' could not exist because different powers act different around and against different powers, and different circumstances and states of mind also affect this as well.

Hell, we even know that there are 'rules'(That princess and Mael reminded us of this) and that you can only exert certain powers in certain ways depending on your location. And let us not forget that these 'gods' are not omniscient. They can leave themselves open to simple things by not being attentive. They can make errors in judgment that leave them in bad positions, and most importantly of all, they may apply their power(which is often specialized) in an inefficient manner(if they remember to bring it to bear in the first place)

Not to mention that many often are surpisingly easy to kill/Harm when they are not actively applying themselves in staying alive(Poliel, Rake, The sisters, The Errant, ETC)

I mean, i do not completely like the fact that he is hand waiving all the weirdness when it comes to power, but it makes sense.

Also, let us not mistake 'Will' and power. 'Will' can lead to power, it has an effect on power, but in the end it is simply a state of mind. Will alone will not save you, but it can help.

I believe that the idea of will is a good one, and it is similar to what Tolkien did, with the power of the spirit transcending the flesh. Erickson can often go to far with ths though, but then again, so did Tolkien.

ok... brilliant... i dont know why the little plus button in the bottom corner of this post doesn't work, but this post needs pluses. and that little plus minus function on the posts. thats kinda like rep..................

[Morgoth]

 Veilside, on 04 September 2009 - 11:05 AM, said:

So now instead of arguing about X beating Y, we're going to argue about X being more willful than Y. Yawn.

So, are you purposefully trying not to read what's been posted, or do you just enjoy trolling?

[Veilside]

 Morgoth, on 07 September 2009 - 06:55 AM, said:

 Veilside, on 04 September 2009 - 11:05 AM, said:

So now instead of arguing about X beating Y, we're going to argue about X being more willful than Y. Yawn.

So, are you purposefully trying not to read what's been posted, or do you just enjoy trolling?

I was just refferring to the propensity of members of this forum towards discussing who's the best at what, and how we'll just have the same discussions, but now people will make assumptions of their will, as opposed to assumptions of their respective skill at whatever.


Interestingly, if you re-read TtH, you'll notice how Dassem's will is described, with someone (Samar Dev I believe) mentioning that if he chose to, his will alone could reconstruct the moon. And then obviously Shadowthrone tells him that Rake killed Hood, and then the shit hits the fan.