|
Post by monkeybucks on Apr 27, 2008 11:25:57 GMT
I think the connection is that it's illiterate and immature, like most of the internet. That guy really seems to hate the internet. For someone who produces a webcomic.
|
|
|
Post by Tenjen on Apr 27, 2008 15:22:31 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Boksha on Apr 28, 2008 0:44:45 GMT
Uhh.
|
|
|
Post by cenit on Apr 28, 2008 18:33:37 GMT
I wonder what kind of sword Annie would prefer ? Like I said a long time a go, she kinda looks like a dagger person
|
|
|
Post by Mezzaphor on Apr 29, 2008 2:42:29 GMT
I think drive-by poster syzygy had a dead-on analysis of Annie's preferred swordfighting style. (Namely: none.)
|
|
|
Post by fr4tbrn on Apr 29, 2008 5:48:20 GMT
I think the connection is that it's illiterate and immature, like most of the internet. That guy really seems to hate the internet. For someone who produces a webcomic. Well, it's easier to spread media via the internet. And I can see why someone would hate it. I just kind of watch in horror sometimes. And after all, Tom says this about himself.
|
|
|
Post by todd on Apr 29, 2008 22:22:34 GMT
I don't have any problems with the "I think swords are cool" line being a representation of the Internet; that level of discourse seems sadly rife on the Web. Most of the time, it's "Parley-level"; it's a pity that it doesn't rise to "Smith-level" or "Annie-level" more often.
(By "Parley-level", "Smith-level", and "Annie-level", I'm referring to the scene in Chapter Seventeen where Jones asks them for their observations on the events in Chapter Fourteen. Parley gave the obvious - Ysengrin's hostile tone - while Smith and Annie gave more in-depth answers that showed they were taking a more analytical approach to what took place in the meeting.)
|
|
|
Post by Mezzaphor on Apr 30, 2008 0:20:11 GMT
|
|
|
Post by silvercat on May 2, 2008 17:33:26 GMT
Much as Tea's cheery horror fascinates me, I disagree with her and with one of the previous posts.
Swords were/are not merely a revered symbol of humanity's savage nature.
Allow me to illustrate with the example of the katana : while part of its appeal is indeed the stylish and stylised murder of one's opponent, the actual history of the katana shows there's more to this sword than meets the eye. A samurai had to forge his own sword. This test, literally of vital importance for the rest of his carreer as a samurai, meant that he'd been practising "the way of the warrior" long enough. In formal training, a samurai learnt about many subjects : the warrior's art of fighting and weapons, obviously, but also the blacksmith's art of welding and maintaining those weapons. Ideally he would also master the courtier's arts like tea ceremony decorum, classic colour combinations in silk kimono's and timeless lines of poetry. The creation of a katana was a lengthy process of itself : the metal had to be treated in a special way, which took ages and ages.
I think the clearest comparison is the black belt in judo or karate : originally, one was not allowed to wash one's belt. The belt started as white, but during practice (think of all the sweat from the exercises and the grim from falling down) it gradually changed colour. That way if you met someone in a ki, you just had to look at his or her belt and you could guess how many hours of practice he or she had... and run away if necessary *wink*
You don't get a black belt just like that, you don't get a katana just like that. Likewise the medieval shield-bearer had to go on a quest (either in real life or spiritually) in order to be knighted. Think of the boy Arthur proving that he's fit to be the king by pulling the sword out of the stone *grin*
Well, I personally like symbols a LOT. So I think it's only natural that I've always seen the sword as a symbol of humanity : there's a horizontal line and a vertical line. In several mystic traditions, that's a reference to humanity : we're at the cross roads of heaven and hell and we must fight to make the right choices...
I wonder if that's an element in alchemy too? Does anyone know?
|
|
|
Post by King Mir on May 3, 2008 1:42:30 GMT
You don't get a black belt just like that, you don't get a katana just like that. Likewise the medieval shield-bearer had to go on a quest (either in real life or spiritually) in order to be knighted. Think of the boy Arthur proving that he's fit to be the king by pulling the sword out of the stone *grin* Of all the Arthurian legends of someone being knighted or raised in rank, you probably pricked the worst possible example. Arther was able to pull the sword form the stone because he was the son of Uther Pendragon, and therefore rightful heir to the throne. It was magicked such that he would be capable of pulling it out, while no one else could.
|
|
|
Post by silvercat on May 3, 2008 7:21:38 GMT
I disagree that it was the worst example possible - well, I would, wouldn't I ? *grins*
Think of Antimony stepping onto the bridge when Robot and Shadow2 return. She faces the unknown, even though the school's alarm goes off and Reynardine tries to stop her.
Likewise, Arthur had to face the unknown : he was unaware of his heritage and the magic so as fas as he knew, failure was entirely possible. The knighting process does not depend on circumstances, but on what happens inside the knight to be. For Arthur, the most important moment is stepping up to the stone and =trying=
|
|
|
Post by King Mir on May 3, 2008 10:41:39 GMT
That would be true, except that he wasn't trying to face the unknown. He just urgently needed a sword for his brother Sir Kay, and thought to take the one nobody lay claim to in the city square. He didn't even bother reading the inscription on the anvil.
|
|
|
Post by todd on May 3, 2008 10:47:30 GMT
That would be true, except that he wasn't trying to face the unknown. He just urgently needed a sword for his brother Sir Kay, and thought to take the one nobody lay claim to in the city square. He didn't even bother reading the inscription on the anvil. That's one of the big plotholes in the story, incidentally. The reason why the tournament that Kay's to compete in (and needs a sword for) is being held is to attract as many knights to London as possible for the Sword in the Stone test - which raises the question as to why Arthur was unaware of it. (The Disney animated version provided one of the better solutions for that problem. In it, the Sword in the Stone had been abandoned years before when nobody could pull it out; the tournament was being held as a way of deciding the succession by having the winner being crowned king. Thus, Arthur's ignorance becomes more believable.)
|
|
|
Post by silvercat on May 3, 2008 11:09:59 GMT
That would be true, except that he wasn't trying to face the unknown. He just urgently needed a sword for his brother Sir Kay, and thought to take the one nobody lay claim to in the city square. He didn't even bother reading the inscription on the anvil. ai ai ai *wails like a mexican chico deserted in the desert* We've got such differing views of knighting ceremonies! Fetching his brother's sword is just another circumstance for Arthur : exactly the fact that he's unaware of this being his test shows his mettle as a knight. He's always prepared to help, he's resourceful enough to look for another sword when the inn where Kay's sword is... If you compare that to his brother who just let his sword laying around on his bedside table... it's clear Arthur should be king, eh? *wink* well, I'm sorry to get carried away - I learnt how to read on Arthurian legends and I'm still kind of wild about them *grin* so to remain on topic : I think swords are neat! I think you think swords are neat too. *grin*
|
|
|
Post by Boksha on May 4, 2008 0:08:14 GMT
Interesting read. Personally, as opposed to loving to hate it, I prefer rolling in it while laughing maniacally, but that's just me.
|
|
|
Post by fr4tbrn on May 4, 2008 4:14:40 GMT
Well, to each his own. After all, without the Internet, people would have to have.... lives.
Ew.
|
|
|
Post by popo on May 4, 2008 15:19:43 GMT
a shiver went up my spine as I read that.
|
|
|
Post by pulvissolaris on May 20, 2008 21:38:06 GMT
Unfortunately, neither the part about Samurai forging their own swords nor the one about black belts is true. The black belt tradition got started when Kano Jigoro, the founder of Judo, gave black belts to his most trusted students. Samurai did not forge their own swords. Both being a warrior and being a smith requires long, full-time training. Especially as Japanese iron ore is of bad quality, so it has to be handled carefully and patiently. It would simply make no sense to devote precious time that could be spent learning how to handle a sword to learning how to forge one, a completely different skill set. Most of the mystique surrounding swords actually comes from the Tokugawa shogunate, where Japan was united under a peaceful, but oppressive regime for almost 300 years. Samurai stopped being warriors and became full-time rulers.
|
|
|
Post by Mezzaphor on May 20, 2008 21:54:48 GMT
So Mr. Siddell was even more right than we knew.
|
|
Grey
New Member
Gray Goo
Posts: 22
|
Post by Grey on May 21, 2008 1:37:01 GMT
Somebody boxing, other uses fencing for to release them aggressions. Okay, most uses boxing, but i prefer fencing. At least.. hitting itself with that wooden thing (yes, wood for amateurs) will keep unaggressive while :-P
|
|
|
Post by silvercat on May 27, 2008 11:15:19 GMT
Unfortunately, neither the part about Samurai forging their own swords nor the one about black belts is true. Samurai did not forge their own swords. Faced with this bleak post, I'm stealing Kat's famous words when confronted with the horrid void in Zimmy's eyes : EEP! While I don't care about judo or black belts, it turns out that the only time I saw black on white that a samurai forges his own katana was in a "graphic novel"... Van der Meij's drawings do seem well researched, but that's no guarantee, eh? From what I've been able to find online, it would appear that only old old hermits at the end of their carreer would move on from active fighting to forging. Those swords appear to have been revered both for their quality and their minute innovations. As for the ore in Japan being low quality, I've not found anything to either prove or disprove that. Their smithing process was very labour intensive, but that's due to their demands for quality. The Vikings had (independently) discovered and used the same process for their double bladed axes, even after they plundered half of europe... seems like my enthousiasm for myths and stories ran away with my interest in truth again *wink* I still think swords are neat, so all's well ;-)
|
|
|
Post by eightyfour on May 27, 2008 11:44:18 GMT
Well, I cannot quote sources, but I pretty much agree with pulvissolaris. To my knowledge, ancient/medieval Japan did only have access to very poor quality iron. That is for example also the reason why japanese armor from that period isn't made from metal.
The main difference between European and Japanese weaponsmithing and swordsmanship in my opinion is that the Japanese are a lot better at honoring traditions and keeping them alive, I don't believe that either is really superior to the other.
Or to put it like I read somewhere on the rpg.net forums: "The Katana is just another bastardsword, but with a really good PR-campaign."
As for the "symbol of humanity's savage nature" thing: To my knowledge, swords are the first real weapon designed by mankind. The first thing that only has the purpose to inflict physical harm on others. Axes, hammers, pikes, spears, bow & arrow were originally all imporvised and developed from either hunting, agriculture or artisan's tools. Not so the sword.
That being said, I totally agree that swords are awesome! ;D I find nothing wrong with being fascinated with weapons. One shouldn't glorify them, though. Always keep in mind what they were made for.
|
|
|
Post by Mezzaphor on May 27, 2008 22:38:13 GMT
I don't have any problems with the "I think swords are cool" line being a representation of the Internet; that level of discourse seems sadly rife on the Web. Most of the time, it's "Parley-level"; it's a pity that it doesn't rise to "Smith-level" or "Annie-level" more often. (By "Parley-level", "Smith-level", and "Annie-level", I'm referring to the scene in Chapter Seventeen where Jones asks them for their observations on the events in Chapter Fourteen. Parley gave the obvious - Ysengrin's hostile tone - while Smith and Annie gave more in-depth answers that showed they were taking a more analytical approach to what took place in the meeting.) Parley's analysis may have been superficial, but it at least had some basis in fact. I think you give the internet too much credit, todd.
|
|