BisectedBrioche's Brilliant Bread Random Banter Bthread #243

[Anonymouswizard]

I quite like spears, too. I think it's a combination of the visuals and the implied pragmatism of stabbing people while staying out of their reach. Also, swords are cool but rather overused in a lot of fiction (I prefer crossbows to regular bows for similar reasons).

There's a lot to be said for your weapon being slightly longer than your opponents.

My preference for longbows over crossbows has a LOT to do with them being a, sadly rarely used, national symbol. If the gun is the weapon of the US then the longbow is the weapon of England, even if it wasn't as devastating as we like to claim. Plus I just like Robin Hood.

Although I would like to see the idea of muscled archers come back, instead of bows being given to twigs.

[Amidus Drexel]

A proper polearm is a formation fighting weapon anyway. Theres a reason that all the heroes get swords and axes, and why the sword was the iconic knightly weapon.

Yes and no. Longspears/pikes were for formation fighting, no doubt, but a lot of other polearms were built to counter specific enemy gear, and weren't long enough for most formations besides "line". Specialized hook heads pull down shields, knock away or catch held weapons, and pull knights off of their horses. Pick heads are there to piece plate (and have some overlap with hook heads). Hammer heads can get a lot of leverage even with a relatively short handle for caving in plate joints or just bludgeoning people to death. Bladed heads are good for doing sword-like cutting and stabbing at a distance. Axe heads have a lot of overlap with all of the above, depending on the exact shape. Lances are for mounted charges. Javelins and the like are balanced for throwing.

Some other polearms are just converted farm equipment (war scythe, pitchfork, etc.), and there's no real way you're going to get your peasant levy to fight in formation.

Heroes mostly get swords because it was a status symbol for a long period of time and therefore cool (which, afaik, is largely why modern militaries sometimes issue swords to their officers).

Yep, polearms are peasant weapons. Or at least the easily improvised ones are, I believe stuff like halberds were more of a 'trained soldier' than 'conscripted farmer' deal.

Although the best hero used a longbow, which was also a peasant deal. Of course that's because every man in the country was legally obliged train with it once a week, and he was a peasant in the original ballads anyway.

There's a surprising amount of difference between "specialized anti-armor polearm" and "converted scythe", but both do share a lot in common with the archetypal long pointy stick.

Robin Hood is a pretty good hero, though I'm only familiar with the later writings that describe him as a nobleman.

I quite like spears, too. I think it's a combination of the visuals and the implied pragmatism of stabbing people while staying out of their reach. Also, swords are cool but rather overused in a lot of fiction (I prefer crossbows to regular bows for similar reasons).

Everybody knows what a cool sword looks like, and may even be able to name a few kinds, but if you have a wall of polearms in your house, you can excitedly explain the weird french name (it probably starts with "guisarme-") and the practical differences between each one to every guest.

[HalfTangible]

Wasn't the iconic knightly weapon a Lance anyway?

[Fyraltari]

Wasn't the iconic knightly weapon a Lance anyway?

Doesn't make for very long duels.

[LaZodiac]

Yep, polearms are peasant weapons. Or at least the easily improvised ones are, I believe stuff like halberds were more of a 'trained soldier' than 'conscripted farmer' deal.

Although the best hero used a longbow, which was also a peasant deal. Of course that's because every man in the country was legally obliged train with it once a week, and he was a peasant in the original ballads anyway.

Get hooked on the billhook!

Longbows are pretty great. Make your hero pretty deadly at any range, and buff to boot!

I quite like spears, too. I think it's a combination of the visuals and the implied pragmatism of stabbing people while staying out of their reach. Also, swords are cool but rather overused in a lot of fiction (I prefer crossbows to regular bows for similar reasons).

Likewise! I'll be sure to throw my writing at you when we reach the primary protagonist that uses a spear (and likewise, one of the MCs of another story uses a crossbow, nice!)

Because they all hate being able to attack from range?

We all appreciate you!

Seconded. DataNinja is one of my best friends!

Wasn't the iconic knightly weapon a Lance anyway?

Only in the sense of like, jousting duels and such. Lances are hardly heroic, and even Mr Lances The Lanceman, of the round table, used a rapier. The only like, legendary polearms I can think of associated with heroes are the ones who belong to people I can't actually bring up nevermind. If you have a spear, you have the vibe of "someone who is gonna do a murder real good", more than "a heroic hero/knight type". Just trust me.

[Anonymouswizard]

There's a reason that 'spear carrier' means 'bit part'. A character with a spear who isn't a red shirt is probably a competent soldier, and maybe even the hero's number two, but probably not the hero.

Although Arthur did have a named spear in some of the Welsh legends, but then again he also had multiple SONs. It doesn't appear in modern tellings, like the majority of his offspring, because it was mostly gone by the time that Lancelot the Frog appeared.

[HalfTangible]

Doesn't make for very long duels.

Eh. True.

Only in the sense of like, jousting duels and such. Lances are hardly heroic, and even Mr Lances The Lanceman, of the round table, used a rapier. The only like, legendary polearms I can think of associated with heroes are the ones who belong to people I can't actually bring up nevermind. If you have a spear, you have the vibe of "someone who is gonna do a murder real good", more than "a heroic hero/knight type". Just trust me.

I don't have a problem with swords as the main hero weapon. But I've become especially partial to polearms over the last few years, particularly halberds.

[Amidus Drexel]

Wasn't the iconic knightly weapon a Lance anyway?

I'd definitely be willing to make the argument that the lance was at least as iconic as the sword for knights, maybe even moreso. You hear of lots of people with swords, but you basically only hear about knights with lances.

Doesn't make for very long duels.

Neither do pistols, but they're probably the best-known dueling weapon.

(And while I'm not an expert on sword duels, fencing matches tend to be pretty fast from what I've seen).

[DataNinja]

We all appreciate you!

Seconded. DataNinja is one of my best friends!

Aw, you folks.

Also, swords are cool. Idk, there's just something about them that sings, but that's also probably the heroic propaganda speaking. "Buy stock in Big Sword for your heroes today!"

[Keltest]

Neither do pistols, but they're probably the best-known dueling weapon.

(And while I'm not an expert on sword duels, fencing matches tend to be pretty fast from what I've seen).

Sword duels cover a massive range of possible weapons and contexts. Modern fencing is fast because people are trying to not hurt themselves and each other. Old timey knight sword duels in armor could go on for quite a while, especially an actual lethal fight.

[Fyraltari]

Neither do pistols, but they're probably the best-known dueling weapon.

Cinema doesn't create tension the same way a book or song does. Watching two people eye each other to try to read their intent and trying to glimpse signs of nervousness is pretty intense. Reading about it isn't.

(And while I'm not an expert on sword duels, fencing matches tend to be pretty fast from what I've seen).

Sure, but jousting is just two dudes ramming into each other and the one who falls loses.

[Metastachydium]

(Man, this is a bad day to be a flower. Should I suddenly go silent, know that this is why.)

[LaZodiac]

Cinema doesn't create tension the same way a book or song does. Watching two people eye each other to try to read their intent and trying to glimpse signs of nervousness is pretty intense. Reading about it isn't.

Eh, it can if it's written well.

(Man, this is a bad day to be a flower. Should I suddenly go silent, know that this is why.)

Good luck Meta.

[Form]

Neither do pistols, but they're probably the best-known dueling weapon.

(And while I'm not an expert on sword duels, fencing matches tend to be pretty fast from what I've seen).

As someone who used to fence for a little while at the amateur level I can attest to that. Sometimes a match would take a little bit longer with multiple parries and ripostes, but those were rare (and more fun!) and still over pretty quickly. Just not as quickly as usual. The stabbing didn't tend to last long.

[HalfTangible]

Cinema doesn't create tension the same way a book or song does. Watching two people eye each other to try to read their intent and trying to glimpse signs of nervousness is pretty intense. Reading about it isn't.

No. It's harder to create tension in a written work, perhaps, but it's not THAT much harder and it's certainly not impossible.

The book is almost always better than the movie, and for good reason.

[LaZodiac]

No. It's harder to create tension in a written work, perhaps, but it's not THAT much harder and it's certainly not impossible.

The book is almost always better than the movie, and for good reason.

The reason for that being that adapting a book to film often involves a lot of difficulty due to the differences in medium, yeah. Movies will always have to cut some stuff or risk being terminally long, and the nuance of running narration can't really fit in a film except in very specific cases that are built around it. It's also very likely that the image in your head will always be better than the image put on screen, because one is semi-ephemeral and part of your own brain while the other is... not, that.

Books aren't inherently better.

(and like you implied, there are exceptions to that rule. Starship Troopers is much better in action imho)

[Rynjin]

Cinema doesn't create tension the same way a book or song does. Watching two people eye each other to try to read their intent and trying to glimpse signs of nervousness is pretty intense. Reading about it isn't.

Speak for yourself, I'd much rather get to actually hear what at least one party is thinking than end up with goofy ass scenes like the standoff in The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly where they're all just grunting and twitching their eyebrows at each other. Just get to the shooty part already.

[Peelee]

The reason for that being that adapting a book to film often involves a lot of difficulty due to the differences in medium, yeah. Movies will always have to cut some stuff or risk being terminally long, and the nuance of running narration can't really fit in a film except in very specific cases that are built around it. It's also very likely that the image in your head will always be better than the image put on screen, because one is semi-ephemeral and part of your own brain while the other is... not, that.

Books aren't inherently better.

(and like you implied, there are exceptions to that rule. Starship Troopers is much better in action imho)

Shawshank Redemption is also an example that bucks the rule. Cutting out all previous wardens was a good call.

[LaZodiac]

Shawshank Redemption is also an example that bucks the rule. Cutting out all previous wardens was a good call.

Shawshank Redemption is a perfect example of something bucking that rule because not only is it vastly ****ing superior to the novel, it also HAS AN ON GOING NOVEL LIKE NARRATION for like, the entire film, and makes it works. It's considered one of the greatest of all time for a reason!

I like writing with reality, and making my world feel lived in and True, but sometimes you need to slide a bit, and "the warden realistically changes a bunch" is a very true thing to happen... but also not really conducive to the story. It certainly ties into the themes of abuse and power structures, but it weakens the narrative at length.

[HalfTangible]

Books aren't inherently better.

In the sense that a book is automatically better than a movie? No.

In the sense that overall they are better? Yes.

Speak for yourself, I'd much rather get to actually hear what at least one party is thinking than end up with goofy ass scenes like the standoff in The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly where they're all just grunting and twitching their eyebrows at each other. Just get to the shooty part already.

I feel this is overly dismissive. Movies and books have different strengths and weaknesses. Overall I think books are stronger, but movies can do a lot more with visual storytelling than a book can. The build-up to the "shooty" part is what makes it work.

[Peelee]

Shawshank Redemption is a perfect example of something bucking that rule because not only is it vastly ****ing superior to the novel, it also HAS AN ON GOING NOVEL LIKE NARRATION for like, the entire film, and makes it works. It's considered one of the greatest of all time for a reason!

I like writing with reality, and making my world feel lived in and True, but sometimes you need to slide a bit, and "the warden realistically changes a bunch" is a very true thing to happen... but also not really conducive to the story. It certainly ties into the themes of abuse and power structures, but it weakens the narrative at length.

Also with the specific corruption he had, i could see him staying there for decades. He had a slave labor army at his beck and csll that he used to solicit hefty bribes and was able to hide and invest with Andy's help. No Andy would probably have had him try to be corrupt in other offices, but Andy likely made it more worrhwhile to stay with with having securely hidden funds and probably worth significantly more than moving on up in the political sphere.

[LaZodiac]

In the sense that a book is automatically better than a movie? No.

In the sense that overall they are better? Yes.

I feel this is overly dismissive. Movies and books have different strengths and weaknesses. Overall I think books are stronger, but movies can do a lot more with visual storytelling than a book can. The build-up to the "shooty" part is what makes it work.

Strongly disagreed. I feel like books and movies are seperate enough things that you can't really say one is overall "stronger/better" than the other.

Also with the specific corruption he had, i could see him staying there for decades. He had a slave labor army at his beck and csll that he used to solicit hefty bribes and was able to hide and invest with Andy's help. No Andy would probably have had him try to be corrupt in other offices, but Andy likely made it more worrhwhile to stay with with having securely hidden funds and probably worth significantly more than moving on up in the political sphere.

Yeah, that makes much more sense.

Also the place where the like... hammer and chisel/file/whatever he used to escape, I forget, being hidden? That works so much better in the film- so much so even King was like "god why didn't I write it like this ****" which can be a bit of a mood sometimes.

[HalfTangible]

Strongly disagreed. I feel like books and movies are seperate enough things that you can't really say one is overall "stronger/better" than the other.

*shrug*
I hard disagree but w/e, it's not a big deal.

That works so much better in the film- so much so even King was like "god why didn't I write it like this ****" which can be a bit of a mood sometimes.

Yeah... Someone will speculate on what you've written in some way and all you can think is "**** that's good why didn't I think of that".

[Anonymouswizard]

The reason for that being that adapting a book to film often involves a lot of difficulty due to the differences in medium, yeah. Movies will always have to cut some stuff or risk being terminally long, and the nuance of running narration can't really fit in a film except in very specific cases that are built around it. It's also very likely that the image in your head will always be better than the image put on screen, because one is semi-ephemeral and part of your own brain while the other is... not, that.

Books aren't inherently better.

(and like you implied, there are exceptions to that rule. Starship Troopers is much better in action imho)

The thing that annoys me a lot about evangelic literary fans and wannabe writers isd their idea that films or TV shouldn't change anything when adapting them. Which tends to involve ignoring most of the differences.

Starship Troopers IMO works much much better as a book, because the core of it isn't in the action. Unfortunately all the adaptations tend to ignore the interesting parts of the book. This memetic scene is a great example, in the book Zim undewrstands the intention behind the question, gives a reasonable explasnation about suitable force and the need to be deadly with what they have, and treats his recruits with respect. It's the best scene in the book and one that no screen version of the story has done right, but admittedly that's partially because the Cerhoven film is very heavy hasndily arguing the opposite point to the book.

Kind of, we can't get into the details here. The core of the book is an anti-draft argument, but it'sd tied up in a lot of other ideas and that's not getting into the views exdpressed in the rest of Heinlein's work. Bjt it's a book where I feel that no adaptation has actually been willing to engage with the core themes ofg the book, which is Heinlein's idea of how to have a motivated and effective military. Verhoven focused too much on the society, the cqartoon too much on the bugs, and the anime juat kind of had a light touch.

Also why does every single adaptation whitewash Juan?

[Metastachydium]

Good luck Meta.

Thanks! Dusk is drawing near, but I'm still somewhat worried.

[LaZodiac]

It's the best scene in the book and one that no screen version of the story has done right, but admittedly that's partially because the Cerhoven film is very heavy hasndily arguing the opposite point to the book.

Kind of, we can't get into the details here. The core of the book is an anti-draft argument, but it'sd tied up in a lot of other ideas and that's not getting into the views exdpressed in the rest of Heinlein's work. Bjt it's a book where I feel that no adaptation has actually been willing to engage with the core themes ofg the book, which is Heinlein's idea of how to have a motivated and effective military. Verhoven focused too much on the society, the cqartoon too much on the bugs, and the anime juat kind of had a light touch.

Also why does every single adaptation whitewash Juan?

The movie absolutely supports the same themes, though? Admittedly it's been awhile since I've seen it but an old war veteran saying "The military made me the man I was today" all proud and noble, when he's a quadruple paraplegic old man doing recruiting sign-ups because he cannot do anything else, is a brutal condemnation of the military machine.

Yeah that last complaint is completely valid though.

[Anonymouswizard]

The movie absolutely supports the same themes, though? Admittedly it's been awhile since I've seen it but an old war veteran saying "The military made me the man I was today" all proud and noble, when he's a quadruple paraplegic old man doing recruiting sign-ups because he cannot do anything else, is a brutal condemnation of the military machine.

Yeah that last complaint is completely valid though.

In short: the book is a pro-war argument for an entirely volunteer military, the film is an anti-war argument where people are coerced into the military en-mass. In the book the recruiting sergeant meets Rico after hours with all his cybernetic limbs on and explains it's because they really want recruits to know exactly what the consequences are. In the book his lack of limbs is completely visible as well, instead of having his legs hidden by a desk.

It actually returns again when Rico goes to OCS (which the film and cartoon cut), and every instructor is somebody unfit for service but so passionate they refuse to be discharged. Add in the other changes and you get radical changes to the MI, which causes massive changes to the tone and themes. Them not having the suits is the smallest of the changes the film makes.

It's also notable that the film condenses the 1-2 years of service Juan does in the book (he's convinced to attend OCS when it's pointed out his term won't end until the war is over) to maybe a few weeks or months in the film. Again it completely changes the tone of Rico getting promoted, in the book he's proved he's a competent soldier who's been groomed for command by multiple officers with careful promotions (including being promoted over Ace) and still barely becomes an officer, in the film he's just nearest to whoever happened to die and the hierarchy doesn't actually care who leads.

...sorry, I get really passionate about Starship Troopers.

[LaZodiac]

In short: the book is a pro-war argument for an entirely volunteer military, the film is an anti-war argument where people are coerced into the military en-mass. In the book the recruiting sergeant meets Rico after hours with all his cybernetic limbs on and explains it's because they really want recruits to know exactly what the consequences are. In the book his lack of limbs is completely visible as well, instead of having his legs hidden by a desk.

It actually returns again when Rico goes to OCS (which the film and cartoon cut), and every instructor is somebody unfit for service but so passionate they refuse to be discharged. Add in the other changes and you get radical changes to the MI, which causes massive changes to the tone and themes. Them not having the suits is the smallest of the changes the film makes.

It's also notable that the film condenses the 1-2 years of service Juan does in the book (he's convinced to attend OCS when it's pointed out his term won't end until the war is over) to maybe a few weeks or months in the film. Again it completely changes the tone of Rico getting promoted, in the book he's proved he's a competent soldier who's been groomed for command by multiple officers with careful promotions (including being promoted over Ace) and still barely becomes an officer, in the film he's just nearest to whoever happened to die and the hierarchy doesn't actually care who leads.

...sorry, I get really passionate about Starship Troopers.

Don't apologize, I think it's cool!

I also thought Starship Troopers was a much different book, so thanks for the clarification! Probably not a surprise which version I prefer.

[MadMusketeer]

But who will bell the cat?

Like, its one thing to say "we should rework the marriage system" but a whole 'nother thing to do it. Lets say Andy, Bob, and Chuck get poly married. Theyre all marriwd to each other. Time passes and Andy and Bob fall out of love and want to divorce. Are Andy and Chuck still married? Or Bob and Chuck? They were poly married, so how does separation of comingled assets work, or the marital home? Andy has to split tbings with Bob but if Bob is still married to Chuck and Andy is still married to Chuck then everything still stays the same through Chuck but Bob may object to Andy using family funds to pay for stuff since they got divorced. Andh has to psy alimony to Bob but Bob is still married to Chuck and what's Chuck's is also Andy's so is Andy even paying anything? And if he is, again, comingled assets mean Chuck is also paying, which isnt terribly fair to Chuck since he didn't want any sort of divorce. Or does the entire marriage between all parties dissolve, even though Chuck wants to remain married to both parties? Would he need to remarry and remarry only one of them? If that, how is that fair to Chuck, you're forcing a divorce on two parties who do not want divorce. Could he remarry both but separately? If that, how does the comingled assets work?

And, again, these are the easy parts. I'm just scratching the surface. Family law is already an entire branch of law that lawyers and judges specialize in, and its already hugely complicated, and that's with a two-person marriage. Three people? More? Its hard to underscore just how enormously complex this gets, and fast.

This is my first time posting in one of these threads (hello!), but I have a few suggestions (though I am not a lawyer, so take them with a grain of salt) to solve some of these issues - I am perfectly willing to bell the cat, as it were. First, allow people to have multiple marriages at once, so long as everyone involved agrees to it (proven by signing the marriage certificate). Second, remove the limit on the number of people in a given marriage by amending existing laws (to avoid voiding existing marriages), allowing for marriages of as many people as want to be involved in the marriage union. Third, allow as many people as are in a marriage to be legally considered a child's parents, potentially with some understanding that if a divorce were to take place, the biological parents (if the child is not adopted, or from IVF or something) are biased towards in terms of custody, and possibly with a system in which all parents get some rights to the kids, just in different ways (the kids get to alternate living with some of them, whereas maybe others get some amount of time with them in another way). Fourth (in response to the point about divorce), allow a divorce in a poly relationship split the marriage into multiple marriages if that's what the relevant parties want. In the example you proposed of one person in a three-way marriage who wants to split from one other person - the marriage is split into two two-person marriages, so long as all parties are OK with it, and collective assets are split into two, with half going to each pair, adjudicated the same way as a normal divorce would be. If both marriages want joint bank accounts, the income of the person in both marriages gets split between the bank accounts - maybe they get a special card that splits payments between the two or something (all this also applies if there was no divorce, just two marriages). Fifth, for things like power of attorney, either it's collective, the person nominates someone to make the decision, or the person leaves it in writing what they want done with them in a given situation (if there's nothing on the specific situation, default to one of the other options). I'm OK with letting people individually choose based on what would make the most sense in their individual case - many of the trade-offs (the collective option could lead to disagreements, the nominated person option could maybe lead to having to pick who your favorite is (which could suck), and the 'leave a will, but for if you get sick' might not be able to consider all situations) are dependent on the people in the relationship, so it makes sense to allow them to decide how to handle it, possibly in writing - maybe everyone creates a 'will' thingy with whatever relevant wishes they have or something. Sixth, in terms of default inheritance and next of kin status, this should just be split among all partners unless the person specifies something else in their will. Seventh, in terms of immigration, I frankly don't care about any kind of green card marriage exploits this might open up, if someone wants to marry people from another country to get them green cards they may as well get some value from it.

The benefit of this implementation is that it scales really nicely to larger and more complex marriages, in which not all members are in relationships with all members - it allows for marriages that fit the individual relationships people want to enshrine, rather than creating a cookie-cutter one-size-fits-all approach.

[Mystic Muse]

Alright, the people I would usually ask this are unavailable, so I'm asking the Star Wars experts in here.

Would you find it dumb/implausible/whatever other descriptor you wish to give if a unique lightsaber Crystal were basically fully sapient, and amplified unpleasant force visions so it can only be claimed by someone it considers worthy?