My mind went to this one and I was “wow, I really don’t remember that book at all”.
I meant the guy’s solution to die from a weapon in whatever form was a cop-out, not your explanation, sorry if it came out differently.
My point was: we all tend to have read/ watched/ heard things. If these things aren’t known to the other party, the example doesn’t work and as a result the exchange of opinions suffers, since you place on the other party the burden to try to filter out what this has to do with anything and what they are supposed to take from the whole thing.
I happen to know the trope, but still, it’s a term that makes me feel unease while we are trying to reach common ground, because I’m forced to focus on this long, intimating term and not your argument.
About the situation I described: I could maybe write an essay on how this retired warrior is plagued by survivor’s guilt, is an alcoholic, and his probable PTSD makes him think dying a gruesome death in front of a child is honorable, instead of obvious suicidal thoughts that will traumatize a child. That indeed has the seeds of a tragic story. It could be, or it could be a toxic male with the depth of a frisbee. That’s not the matter at hand.
My issue was, Ubisoft can be so tone-deaf as to think a Viking (remember, we need to address the situation as that person, not as ourselves), would think the equivalent of a drunk bar fight counts as battle. In my opinion, they missed the mark completely; for a warrior a death isn’t just a death; the battle is what makes it, not the metal.
Yeah, I’m not sure Metamorphosis by Shindol is in the same genre…
Ahh. I’d liken it to the argument that suicide is a cop-out; an out for people too cowardly to face their problems. I am not convinced that that is an explanation for all suicides, but perhaps it is the reasoning whereby some resolve to kill themselves. Either way, I think it is up to the story to either decry this excuse, or provide the audience with the opportunity to identify with the character feeling this, and perhaps feel something they might not normally be able to feel.
Yeah, my communication tends to suffer when I’m tired and stop censoring my desire to make text subjectively pretty to me. Sorry about that; I hope it wasn’t too intrusive.
I find it the opposite. I find the one term is easier to digest than the phrase “the audience to become disenchanted with the work due to excessive darkness combined with an increasingly unrelatable and unsympathetic cast”, because “Darkness Induced Audience Apathy” is one unit of information, whereas the full phrase is many units which must all be parsed and comprehended in order to proceed. I guess this is the same conundrum between using technical language when communicating. I prefer to have technical language be used so long as it is not used so often that context becomes useless for determining what is being said. If I’m not interested in the subject, the important parts will still be clear, and if I am interested, I’ll learn the term eventually anyway.
In that case there’s another piece of context: his belief does not match the reality of the universe in which he resides. Without this piece of info, I am forced to give the author and character the benefit of the doubt and assume that everything they are doing makes internal sense; it is up to the author to show when that is not the case. In light of this, I think that the English word “heroic” covers a fair bit of semantic space, and doing something which one believes to be heroic, but objectively doesn’t accomplish any meaningful good, is right at the edge of the concept. So I will stick with my “Yes” vote both to give the benefit of the doubt to the story’s claim that it is heroic, and to balance out all the “No” votes since I don’t think the English word “heroic” is as clear cut as that.
No death in combat is “heroic”. At best, dying while protecting someone else is a tragic injustice. But the idea that people who die in wars are heroes (or that they are necessarily protecting you, for that matter) is only promoted to boost national pride.
When it is used as a plot point… uhmmm, I don’t know, I always find it too corny to be taken unironically.
What does “historical” mean? Worthy of being mentioned by historians?
Maybe the situation is comparable to “saints” in the catholic church. Anybody could be a saint and nobody knows their number. When the Pope canonicizes a person, he’s just saying “yep, about this one, we’re sure.” That doesn’t mean other persons are no saints.
In a very strict sense, everybody who at some point existed in this universe and plays Go is a historical Go player, because what would be the opposite? An ahistorical player, i.e. a fictitious person like Hikaru.
For other purposes, as soon as somebody becomes interested enough in a Go player to do scientific research about them, well, that’s historia.
Historical can really mean different things but not necessarily that stuff. Like I usually think in general, the person has been dead for a while or something like that, not just dead or been time since they did something. It can even mean just set in the past as in historical fiction. I would say it depends on the context, but not necessarily the context given there.
They were intended to represent different poll options or edge cases.
Cho Chikun is past his prime but not retired.
Lee Sedol retired recently, although still young.
Go Seigen retired a long time ago, but didn’t die until recently (2014).
Shusai retired a fairly long time ago (1938) and died in 1940, but his career is just about still in living memory.
@Groin, may I ask why you are called Groin? It has always puzzled me a bit.
Looking into your OGS history (here) it seems you used to be called Goule. We have actually played once, even. Sorry if I’m being a bit shallow, insensitive, or annoying, it’s just a bit confusing to me.
Sorry about that; I hope it wasn’t too intrusive.
