I might have found a retcon - SoD spoilers

[Xapi]

An older strip was linked for something entirely not related to this, and reading it I found what appers to be proof of a retcon by The Giant:

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0196.html

Xykon is talking about Serini's diary, and says:

"When I first found the diary, I desciphered the locations of two of the gates"

However, in SoD we learn that he already knew the location of Lyrian's gate (Hell, he was actually there) when he learned that there even WAS more than one gate.

So, by SoD the logical chain of events is:

Redcloak knows about Lyrian's gate from his cloak/God
They attack it, fail, but Xykon learns of the existance of more gates
Xykon finds Serini's diary and desciphers the location of Dorukan's gate
etc.

Wich is not at all consistent with "When I first found the diary, I desciphered the locations of two of the gates"

So, what do you think, retcon, honest mistake, or am I failing in logic?

[Optimystik]

So, what do you think, retcon, honest mistake, or am I failing in logic?

With respect, it's option 3.

The two gates whose location he deciphered are Lirian's and Dorukan's. Despite having already been to Lirian's, he still needed to decipher its location in order to gain enough insight into Serini's secret code to decipher Dorukan's location.

Having already been to Lirian's gate is not mutually exclusive with deciphering its location in the diary later.

EDIT: Adding his SoD quote as further proof:

"I found the location of one of the other Gates - in the diary of a halfling woman, oddly enough. It took me forever to translate, because I had to first translate the location of Lirian's Gate and work backwards, but I got it."

So no, it's not a retcon or continuity error.

[Acero]

ur logic is okay.

Xykon could have easily found a code in the diary, but didn't know what the deciphered stuff is.

He could hav been @ the gate, learned that there were more, and thought to himself

Ooh. The book has the locations!

[NerfTW]

Indeed, it seems likely that they used the location of Lirian's gate to decode the diary in the first place. Once you know what one of the codes says, you can figure out what the cypher(or whatever it's called) was.

And he didn't have the diary until AFTER Lirian's gate. That's what he spent so much time finding. Lirian:

accidently let slip that there were other gates. Knowing that, he went searching, found some small link to Serini, tracked her or her diary down, used the location he knew of to decipher a second location and go there.

It wasn't until they failed at Dorukon's gate that Redcloak bothered to decipher the last three locations.

[Xapi]

With respect, it's option 3.

The two gates he deciphered are Lirian's and Dorukan's. Despite having already been to Lirian's, he still needed to decipher its location in order to gain enough insight into Serini's secret code to decipher Dorukan's location.

Having already been to Lirian's gate is not mutually exclusive with deciphering its location in the diary later.

Interesting point.

I wouldn't call it "desciphering the location" though, in that case, he worked backwards from the location to crack the code, wich he certainly had to do, but imlpiyng that from the spoken phrase seems a bit of a stretch.

[NerfTW]

but imlpiyng that from the spoken phrase seems a bit of a stretch.

Not really. It's more of a stretch to assume a retcon than a fuzzy wording.

[Xapi]

Also, he says "Lirian's gate, wich was SOMEHOW destroyed in a forest fire...", wich again, although technically correct, it would seem to imply that his efforts to descipher it's location were made useless by the gate burning, wich is clearly not true.

I'm not 100% sure of this, but taking into account that The Giant has said that this comic started as a "gag a day" and only later he developed an actual plot, I don't think it's a huge stretch to think that he might have had to retcon a bit as the overarching plot was in development.

[Optimystik]

I wouldn't call it "desciphering the location" though, in that case, he worked backwards from the location to crack the code, wich he certainly had to do, but imlpiyng that from the spoken phrase seems a bit of a stretch.

What do you mean? He did decipher the location of both gates - first using his knowledge of the Lirian's Gate location to break the cipher, and then using what he learned of the code in that section of the diary to decipher the location of Dorukan's Gate.

Decipher: "to interpret by use of a key or cipher" (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/decipher)


Also, he says "Lirian's gate, wich was SOMEHOW destroyed in a forest fire...", wich again, although technically correct, it would seem to imply that his efforts to descipher it's location were made useless by the gate burning, wich is clearly not true.

He clearly said his attempts to decipher the location of Lirian's Gate were successful, not unsuccessful. "I deciphered the locations of two of the Gates: Lirian's Gate..."

It was also not useless, because his goal in deciphering Lirian's Gate wasn't to go there (since it was already destroyed) but to use his knowledge of its location as a key to uncovering the rest of the cipher.

[Jackson]

Even if it were strictly speaking inaccurate to say he deciphered two locations at one time, it wouldn't be a retcon for the simple reason that it's Xykon claiming to have done so rather than an actual demonstration of Xykon doing so, and he could easily be lying or misremembering or what have you. If the linked comic showed Xykon, in the 'present,' deciphering both gates immediately, then it would be a retcon to later show that he didn't do so. But having him make a claim about the past that eventually turns out to be mildly inaccurate is not retconning that past.

But as noted, what he says is correct: he deciphered the location of Lirian's gate, and then of Dorukan's, when he first got the diary. Full stop.

[Xapi]

What do you mean? He did decipher the location of both gates - first using his knowledge of the Lirian's Gate location to break the cipher, and then using what he learned of the code in that section of the diary to decipher the location of Dorukan's Gate.

Decipher: "to interpret by use of a key or cipher" (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/decipher)

using his knowledge of the Lirian's Gate location to break the cipher, and then using what he learned of the code in that section of the diary to decipher the location of Dorukan's Gate.

This is precisely what I mean. He didn't descipher Lirian's, he knew it already. He desciphered Dorukan's.

If I had to describe those actions, I could tell them in many ways, but I wouldn't use "I desciphered the locations of two of the gates"

I do accept that what we're talking about here might just be fuzzy wording, as NerfTW said.

[Xapi]

Originally Posted by Xapi
***
Also, he says "Lirian's gate, wich was SOMEHOW destroyed in a forest fire...", wich again, although technically correct, it would seem to imply that his efforts to descipher it's location were made useless by the gate burning, wich is clearly not true.
***
He clearly said his attempts to decipher the location of Lirian's Gate were successful, not unsuccessful. "I deciphered the locations of two of the Gates: Lirian's Gate..."

It was also not useless, because his goal in deciphering Lirian's Gate wasn't to go there (since it was already destroyed) but to use his knowledge of its location as a key to uncovering the rest of the cipher.


I clearly said they were "useless", not unsuccesfull.

You seem to be proving my point. Xykon's speach here seems to point at this: "I desciphered the location, we went there and SOMEONE burnt the gate down". I'm certain anyone reading this without the information we have now would read it this way.

[Optimystik]

This is precisely what I mean. He didn't descipher Lirian's, he knew it already.

But he knew it from having been there, not from following Serini's code. Thus, he had to decipher its location in the book as well as Dorukan's.


I clearly said they were "useless", not unsuccesfull.

See my edit. It was not useless.

[Xapi]

But he knew it from having been there, not from following Serini's code. Thus, he had to decipher its location in the book as well as Dorukan's.



See my edit. It was not useless.

I know it wasn't useless. What I'm saying is that Xykon in that strip seems to be implying that it was, when we know now it wasn't.

If you read Xykon's phrase without the knowledge you have that automatically fills the blanks, you'd interpret:

"I desciphered the location to two gates, we went to the first and it was destroyed by Redcloak, twe came to the other and those meddling kids destroyed it."

[RMS Oceanic]

Think of it as two equations.

Lirian's Gate = 3x + 5
Dorukan's Gate = 6x - 32

By already being there, Xykon knew that Lirian's Gate = 50

So he worked out that 3x + 5 = 50 means x = 15.

Therefore, Dorukan's gate = (6*15) - 32 = 90 - 32 = 58

It was obviously more complicated than that, but that what he worked with.

[NerfTW]

No, the "It was destroyed" is so the reader would know why it isn't an option anymore. At the time the strip was posted, SOD wasn't out, so people would have spent the next three years asking "What about Lirian's gate?". He deciphered the location of two gates. Neither is available to use for his plans, so he has to decipher the other three.


I'm really still not seeing your point. It's very clear, just worded so that the reader would know why there were only three gate options given later.

[Optimystik]

I know it wasn't useless. What I'm saying is that Xykon in that strip seems to be implying that it was, when we know now it wasn't.

I think I understand you - you're saying it sounds like he deciphered Lirian's Gate, then went there, then deciphered Dorukan's Gate, then went there. When in reality, the first two events were reversed.

It didn't (and still doesn't) read that way to me, but I can see why you would think that way. However, that's just an issue of fuzzy language rather than a continuity error or retcon. Meaning my original post (Option 3) is still correct with regards to yours.

[Xapi]

I think I understand you - you're saying it sounds like he deciphered Lirian's Gate, then went there, then deciphered Dorukan's Gate, then went there. When in reality, the first two events were reversed.

It didn't (and still doesn't) read that way to me, but I can see why you would think that way. However, that's just an issue of fuzzy language rather than a continuity error or retcon. Meaning my original post (Option 3) is still correct with regards to yours.

My point is that it *might* be either.

I'm not ruling out a simple weird wording, but I think it's plausible that the timeline wasn't so clear in Rich's head at the time (This is pre-SoD) and when the plot was fully developed, this (older) line by Xykon became out of sync with that plot.

[Lissou]

I see two possibilities:

a) the Giant had a general idea of what was going to happen, but not the details. When he worked on SoD, he worked with what he had, without contradicting it directly, but without following it in the most "obvious" way either. See also: Master Fyron's death. What we see in the main comic isn't actually /wrong/ but it surely is misleading.

b) same thing, except on purpose. As in, the Giant already knew it, and phrased it so people wouldn't actually know what happened, and would assume the wrong thing.

Both are possible. SoD doesn't contradict the main strip, and saying "Lirian's Gate, which was somehow destroyed in a fire" isn't like saying "Lirian's gate, which was somehow destroyed in a fire afterwards".

I'm not too worried about whether it was his plan all along or he had a vague idea at the time he developed it later. Either way, misleading or not (and it's only misleading if you assume things), this strip isn't contradicting the events as we see him in SoD, no more than Fyron's death as depicted in the strip is.

[FujinAkari]

this is in no way a retcon. Xykon says it took him ages to decypher the locations of two of the gates and that is precisely what we see as having occured.

It may have been initially misread or misinterpreted, but the written text does not contradict actual events.

[B. Dandelion]

If all of the Gates had been fully intact when Xykon came across the diary, doesn't it seem a bit odd that he'd decipher two locations? It would make more sense for him to have either done one, or else done them all. But if you presume that he was working backwards from the location of a now-destroyed Gate, it fits better. He had to decipher two Gates just to get to one.

[Lissou]

If all of the Gates had been fully intact when Xykon came across the diary, doesn't it seem a bit odd that he'd decipher two locations? It would make more sense for him to have either done one, or else done them all. But if you presume that he was working backwards from the location of a now-destroyed Gate, it fits better. He had to decipher two Gates just to get to one.

Also, you can assume Serini would have used a complicated code, possibly one she was the only person to know. She wouldn't want other people to be able to understand it. And if Xykon hadn't known the location of one of the gates already, then I'm sure he would never have been able to get anywhere with the code at all.
But using a location he DID know, he got a partial understanding of the code, enough to figure out where Dorukan's Gate was. Not enough for the others.
Redcloak, on the other hand, managed to put everything together and get the rest of the locations with the two they did have.

I think it just makes more sense that he'd know the location of at least one gate prior to cracking the code. Otherwise, how did he crack the code, and if he cracked it, why for just one gate rather than all of them?

[AceOfFools]

using his knowledge of the Lirian's Gate location to break the cipher, and then using what he learned of the code in that section of the diary to decipher the location of Dorukan's Gate.

This is precisely what I mean. He didn't descipher Lirian's, he knew it already. He desciphered Dorukan's.

If I had to describe those actions, I could tell them in many ways, but I wouldn't use "I desciphered the locations of two of the gates"

I do accept that what we're talking about here might just be fuzzy wording, as NerfTW said.

You assume that Xykon is using precise terminology to actually describe his actions.

I think you need to carefully examine the lich's character and revisit that assumption.

[Optimystik]

I'm not ruling out a simple weird wording, but I think it's plausible that the timeline wasn't so clear in Rich's head at the time (This is pre-SoD) and when the plot was fully developed, this (older) line by Xykon became out of sync with that plot.

There's a problem with your theory - namely, that it's only "out of sync" to you.

[Xapi]

There's a problem with your theory - namely, that it's only "out of sync" to you.

You really see nothing weird in the use of the phrase "I desciphered the location of two of the gates" to describe the actions "I worked backwards from the gate's location I knew, cracked the code, and thus desciphered the location of the second gate".

No one does?

That's even weirder.

[Shale]

If I decipher a code that tells me something I already knew, that doesn't mean I didn't break the code. Just because Xykon knew what he was going to get doesn't mean he didn't have to go through the process of decoding the location.

[SaintRidley]

Not really. It's still an action accurately described by the word decipher. In fact, it's probably closer to the word's original meaning, all things considered.

[Optimystik]

You really see nothing weird in the use of the phrase "I desciphered the location of two of the gates" to describe the actions "I worked backwards from the gate's location I knew, cracked the code, and thus desciphered the location of the second gate".

No one does?

That's even weirder.

No, because in both cases he's cracking the code. The first bit he cracked using his real-world knowledge of the gate's location, and the second bit he cracked by working backwards from the first bit.

[SadisticFishing]

How do we know he didn't also discover the Azure City Gate? Just wondering >_>

[Xapi]

Not really. It's still an action accurately described by the word decipher. In fact, it's probably closer to the word's original meaning, all things considered.

Descipher: to interpret by the use of a key, as something written in cipher: to decipher a secret message.

Same link as Optimystik gave.

To descipher is to take the coded message, and from that (normally through an algorithm) get the real message. What he did was take the coded "message", the real message, and used that knowledge to learn the algorithm. Really, I don't see how descipher is the right word there.

But I guess if you're all so convinced, I must be the one who's wrong.

[SadisticFishing]

I actually agree with Xapi, if anyone cares. That's a very awkward way to word it. Sure, it may even be accurate, but it's just.. not how people say things, out loud. Especially someone like Xykon.

[Xapi]

I actually agree with Xapi, if anyone cares. That's a very awkward way to word it. Sure, it may even be accurate, but it's just.. not how people say things, out loud. Especially someone like Xykon.

* feels a lot less crazy *

[metal_man465]

what about Redcloaks line right after xykon says that? that would imply to me at least that he had something to do with Lirian's gate getting burned down, nothing there says xykon didnt decipher the location after it got burned down.

[Conuly]

Well...

Redcloak WAS the one responsible for burning down Lirian's Gate. At the time, it was the only gate he knew about. Xykon found the diary afterwards, and presumably had to figure out which set of coded coordinates were Lirian's and work backwards.

[GooeyChewie]

While Xykon's wording probably isn't all that accurate, keep in mind the fact that he's talking to Monster in the Dark. He probably doesn't want to explain the whole timeline, and found it easier to fudge the facts a bit (and still get the general idea across) than to explain everything in detail.

Sure, it might be a retcon in the sense that the Giant might have revised the timeline in his head. But it is exceedingly difficult to prove retcon through dialogue alone, because you always have to account for the possibility that the person is fudging the facts, out and out lying or simply mistaken.

[Lissou]

You really see nothing weird in the use of the phrase "I desciphered the location of two of the gates" to describe the actions "I worked backwards from the gate's location I knew, cracked the code, and thus desciphered the location of the second gate".

We're talking about Xykon, who's impatient and doesn't care about details, talking to MitD, who keeps forgetting there are gates. I'm not sure either of them has the attention span necessary for the second sentence.

[Spiky]

* feels a lot less crazy *

It's not you. You are ignoring the most important point, stated very well:


You assume that Xykon is using precise terminology to actually describe his actions.

I think you need to carefully examine the lich's character and revisit that assumption.
OOTS characters don't always use words perfectly. Check out Crystal for the best proof.

[factotum]

We're talking about Xykon, who's impatient and doesn't care about details, talking to MitD, who keeps forgetting there are gates.

The MitD doesn't just forget about the gates...he didn't notice one when it was standing right in front of him!

[Teddy]

Descipher: to interpret by the use of a key, as something written in cipher: to decipher a secret message.

Same link as Optimystik gave.

To descipher is to take the coded message, and from that (normally through an algorithm) get the real message. What he did was take the coded "message", the real message, and used that knowledge to learn the algorithm. Really, I don't see how descipher is the right word there.

But I guess if you're all so convinced, I must be the one who's wrong.

Well, he did interpret the algorithm by the use of the true location as a key, so it's possible to keep the wording with only a minimal stretch. Now, I'm more fond of the idea that he's only shortening it to minimize the amount of inconvenience involved in explaining something to the MitD.


The MitD doesn't just forget about the gates...he didn't notice one when it was standing right in front of him!

He very clearly noticed its existence. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0096.html) I believe that he very well notices the gate, but he never realizes that the glowing-thing-with-doors that Xykon points at is the gate he's been talking about. MitD doesn't have a that long attention span and he forgets things very easily.

SoD example:
He believes that the assault on Dorukans castle was months ago (or something like that) and sent the zombies to get some tacos for him even though he recieved the orders to lead the assault just minutes earlier.