The irony of bozzok being right

[dancrilis]

Spoiler: Start of Darkness

Show

You could say the same way that Bozzok died more because of Crystal's choice to believe Haley and rebel against being Bozzok's tool than Bozzok's choices. Or that Crystal died because Haley decided to kill her. Or that Nale died because Tarquin decided to kill him. Or that Malack died because Nale decided to kill him. Or...

I could go on nearly as long as there are dead developed characters in the comic, probably. To say that a character's own choices lead to her/his death is not to say that they're the only factor doing so, and Redcloak's brother chose to try to destroy Xykon, not to keep serving him like his cowardly brother did, nor to simply sneak away and trust to Xykon's apathetic inattention that Xykon would not chase him down.

Spoiler: Start of Darkness

Show

You could also say that his choice to ignore his better judgement and follow Redcloak and Xykon for most of his life had something to do with it - and that finally following his better judgement is what allowed him to live to a reasonable age (although this is unprovable).
As such his choice to leave could be said to have lead to his life (in an abstract sense) - I suppose credit to Eugene Greenhilt for telling him he could make such a choice.

[Amphiox]

If possible, can you explain about

Spoiler: Start of Darkness

Show

Right-Eye? I mean, I can see that his flaw was trusting that his brother would side with him instead of Xykon, but everything up to that point said that he would. Even Redcloak rejected Xykon, and after the MitD rescue, even decided to forget the Plan. Sure, he decided to go back to the Plan when Xykon conscripted the whole freaking village, but Redcloak was still always there for his brother. He had returned once, and even through the disagreement near the end, Right-Eye said, "We CAN turn back - if we admit we were wrong, and try to fix our mistakes." This was what Redcloak had done before already. And, for all they knew, this was the singular moment in which they could destroy Xykon forever. The choice was entirely on Redcloak. He could choose to stop Right-Eye, or stop Xykon. Wasn't this choice the deciding factor in Right-Eye's death, moreso than Right-Eye's decision to trust in his brother (at the very least, if not to help him, then not to stop him)?


Regardless of whether you choose respond, that battle was probably my favorite part of the whole series. Right up there with O-Chul and V against Xykon. Thank you for writing it.

On should not think of it as a "flaw" that causes a character's death. The choices that lead to a character's death may be perfectly reasonable, "good" choices, that end unfavorably anyways, because universes, fictional or otherwise, are not required to be fair.

Also, in universes wherein cause and effect apply (and it is hard to imagine compelling fiction taking place in a universe where it doesn't) every outcome can be traced back along a long string of causes, some the result of a character's choice, and some not. An individual character's own choices only ever directly puts him or her in a position wherein his or her death became possible, if other circumstances played out just right (or wrong, depending on perspective). Nothing Nale did or chose "forced" Tarquin to kill him.

In the other direction, for every character who dies one could say "if only he/she did not choose to get out of bed that morning, he/she would not have died in this way or that day". At some point along the chain of causation we decide that it is reasonable to attribute the character's choice as a significantly contributing to their fate, while at another point in that chain we decide that it is not reasonable to attribute that particular choice as a significant part of the causation of their fate. Where we make these distinctions is arbitrary, and each writer and reader may decide differently. Fiction would be far less interesting if that were not so.

[The Giant]

Spoiler: Start of Darkness

Show

To say that a character's own choices lead to her/his death is not to say that they're the only factor doing so, and Redcloak's brother chose to try to destroy Xykon, not to keep serving him like his cowardly brother did, nor to simply sneak away and trust to Xykon's apathetic inattention that Xykon would not chase him down.

This. I used the word "flaw" in my previous quote once or twice, but in some characters' cases it's only a flaw because it happened to be what got them killed. "Traits" is a better word, really.

In Right-Eye's case, he flies off to fight Xykon believing that Redcloak's loyalty to him will ultimately triumph over his loyalty to the Plan if he just forces the issue physically. As it turns out, that was not the case. Like many of the other characters in my previous post, he took a chance based on what he thought was an accurate understanding of other peoples' priorities and lost. That's still a death that leads out from his own traits—the trait that he trusted his brother implicitly. One could easily imagine a situation where he flew up to fight Xykon while invisible without even telling Redcloak first; he chose otherwise, and it's why he was killed by Redcloak the way he was. And he still would have been killed by Xykon in that scenario, but that would have made for a worse story. That's the point.

I don't know why, but I think many of you are reading way too much into this idea. It's really just about stories holding together and one thing leading to another. It is not some sort of mandate that puts moral responsibility for every character's death on their own head. In some cases, yes, if that's the point of the death in the first place. But not exclusively. Xykon killed Roy, but he killed Roy when and how he did because of who Roy was and how he acted. Roy is not responsible for his own death, but the circumstances of his death do flow from his character traits and choices. It's about plotting a compelling narrative, not victim blaming.

[Darth Paul]

I don't know why, but I think many of you are reading way too much into this idea. It's really just about stories holding together and one thing leading to another. It is not some sort of mandate that puts moral responsibility for every character's death on their own head. In some cases, yes, if that's the point of the death in the first place. But not exclusively. Xykon killed Roy, but he killed Roy when and how he did because of who Roy was and how he acted. Roy is not responsible for his own death, but the circumstances of his death do flow from his character traits and choices. It's about plotting a compelling narrative, not victim blaming.

I think (and I know it's terribly, terribly presumptuous of me to attempt to analyze a huge portion of the Forum, but oh, well, here goes anyway) it's because so many of us are compulsive "what if?" thinkers. You know better than anyone the number of threads that ask, "What if Character X had done Action Y at Time Z? Then Situation A would have been resolved in a completely different way, and the heroes would now be ruling Azure City and sitting on a pile of treasure as high as their horses!"

Spoiler

Show

(Apologies to the late, great Sir Terry Pratchett for borrowing that phrase, but I felt a tribute coming on.)

So we seek for something that the character could have or, in our minds, should have done differently that would fit in with the way we wish the story had gone. I, for one, can't help shouting at Miko every time she raises that sword above the gem.

I think we're treating your characters as if they were real people, in a world that is in some way a real world. Please, take it as a compliment. We know it's your world and your story, and you have the right and responsibility (to yourself, not us) to tell it your way; but we can't help ourselves sometimes.

[skim172]

That's not irony. It isn't anything more than a coincidence.

Yes, that would be the joke.

Unfortunately, it seems my references are far too dated.

[Rogar Demonblud]

The only thing ironic about that song is that it contains not one ironic thing while purportedly being all about irony. And then because of it, idiots misuse 'ironic' so badly as to drive me to flaming rage.

[goodpeople25]

I think (and I know it's terribly, terribly presumptuous of me to attempt to analyze a huge portion of the Forum, but oh, well, here goes anyway) it's because so many of us are compulsive "what if?" thinkers. You know better than anyone the number of threads that ask, "What if Character X had done Action Y at Time Z? Then Situation A would have been resolved in a completely different way, and the heroes would now be ruling Azure City and sitting on a pile of treasure as high as their horses!"

Spoiler

Show

(Apologies to the late, great Sir Terry Pratchett for borrowing that phrase, but I felt a tribute coming on.)

So we seek for something that the character could have or, in our minds, should have done differently that would fit in with the way we wish the story had gone. I, for one, can't help shouting at Miko every time she raises that sword above the gem.

I think we're treating your characters as if they were real people, in a world that is in some way a real world. Please, take it as a compliment. We know it's your world and your story, and you have the right and responsibility (to yourself, not us) to tell it your way; but we can't help ourselves sometimes.

I would agree on most of this, but like most generally good things too much can be a bad thing, thinking too much about what could have happened to the characters in the comic, what they could or would do, can lead to thinking about what the characters should do, and then getting upset if they don't do exactly what you think they should do.
Though on the title, can someone please explain to me how Bozzok being right is something like iron. RIP Terry Prachtett

[Killer Angel]

Nale lasted for two years.

…or we could say that Nale survived, ‘til Tarquin effectively decided to kill him.

[Necris Omega]

I guess it just goes to show that... Hm. I don't want to say learning as I doubt there's a whole lot of opportunity for formal education in this setting (especially in Crystal's case). Intelligence sounds too stat based, and wisdom comes with its own connotations.

We'll go with awareness and understanding. Yes, that'll work. Freedom in the absence of awareness and understanding, how ever they're gleaned, is the surest way freedom can end badly. Book learning, street smarts, natural intellect, uncanny intuition, an effective mentor, copious experience... what ever the source, it helps when it comes to not being herded onto a drop plate and dunked in a pool of molten lava/steel.

... Then again, this really doesn't necessarily have anything to do with Bozzak's influence. Sure, Crystal only calmed down once he was so much hummus staining the floor, but really, this kind of trickery is how Haley offed her the first time anyways. Sure, killing Bozzak definitely put her in a state more pliable to being dialoged to her destruction, but she's already proven she can be killed in much this way even when she's a minion.

I guess Crystal was always just a doomed character. Oh well, time for waffles.

[King of Nowhere]

So crystal was not safe even when she was letting bozzok dictate her agenda.
Oh, well, that removes some of the irony from it.
Technically, she still died as a result of her decision to rebel to bozzok, since that gave haley time to set her trap. But I'm sure Haley would have found another way to off her otherwise. I mean, she's a protagonist. and in the worst case, she can still fly and get help from the rest of the party, while crystal can at most kill a few dozen gnomes to make her feel guilty.
I still find funny the whole concept "bozzok is using you! start thinking for yourself!" "cool! I don't listen to bozzok anymore. I want to do X!" "you can't do X. Now we kill you for it", even if it is completely justified.
When looked that way, she's much like belkar, except belkar was smart enough to keep from doing bad stuff in front of high level people. Except with Miko, and he got the mark of justice for that slip. But belkar has been learning, through trial and error, how to be evil and get away with it. crystal had bozzok to tell her how to, and therefore she was totally unprepared the moment bozzok was no more and she faced someone high level enough to do something about it.

[martianmister]

Following Bozzok is what got Crystal turned into a golem that feels near constant pain--a fate (arguably) worse than death.

Crystal didn't think so.

[ti'esar]

Crystal didn't think so.

Crystal may not have wanted to die again, but she pretty clearly endorsed Haley's argument that Bozzok turning her into a golem was a lot worse than Haley "just" killing her.

[Taelas]

Probably because Bozzok could have chosen to raise her normally instead. That doesn't say anything about what she would prefer given the choice between being dead and being a golem (even one in constant pain).

[Throknor]

The only thing ironic about that song is that it contains not one ironic thing while purportedly being all about irony. And then because of it, idiots misuse 'ironic' so badly as to drive me to flaming rage.

No, what's ironic is that you think people misuse 'irony' because of the song, instead of the song flowing from years of people misusing the word 'irony' - possibly even mocking them.

She's good but the song wasn't that influential.

[Shining Wrath]

Reading the Giant on choices leading to deaths, I daresay he's familiar with Greek tragedy and the definition thereof.

Aristotle once said that "A man doesn't become a hero until he can see the root of his own downfall." An Aristotelian tragic hero must possess specific characteristics, five of which are below:
1) Flaw or error of judgment (hamartia) Note the role of justice and/or revenge in the judgments.
2) A reversal of fortune (peripeteia) brought about because of the hero's error in judgment.
3) The discovery or recognition that the reversal was brought about by the hero's own
actions (anagnorisis)
4) Excessive Pride (hubris)
5) The character's fate must be greater than deserved.

Source.

EDIT:

Clearly not everyone who dies in OotS is a hero, nor does Mr. Burlew view them as such, nor does he intend that we view them as such. That's where #5 comes in: no one thinks Bozzok didn't deserve to die for his mistakes, or Crystal. They were not tragic heroes.
Roy? Roy deserved to live, and Xykon to die, but that's not what happened. Tragic hero.

It's hard to come up with another example of someone who didn't deserve to die. Lord Shojo, perhaps. Miko, from her own viewpoint even if no one else would see it that way.

[Nightcanon]

The only thing ironic about that song is that it contains not one ironic thing while purportedly being all about irony. And then because of it, idiots misuse 'ironic' so badly as to drive me to flaming rage.

Which is i...nteresting

[Rogar Demonblud]

No, what's ironic is that you think people misuse 'irony' because of the song, instead of the song flowing from years of people misusing the word 'irony' - possibly even mocking them.

She's good but the song wasn't that influential.

Actually, until the song came out you pretty much never heard people use the word 'irony'. It just wasn't part of the general use lexicon.

[Snails]

Roy? Roy deserved to live, and Xykon to die, but that's not what happened. Tragic hero.

It's hard to come up with another example of someone who didn't deserve to die. Lord Shojo, perhaps. Miko, from her own viewpoint even if no one else would see it that way.

I think that bringing in the word "deserve" only takes the discussion into misleading directions. At a matter of personal morality, Roy did not "deserve" to be killed; but he certainly "earned" his death by the logic of the stickyverse, logic that Roy himself adequately understood at the time. "Choices" is about one's fate being mostly "earned" by ones actions, by it seeming highly sensible to an objective observer, not about one's fate being deserved.

[Shining Wrath]

I think that bringing in the word "deserve" only takes the discussion into misleading directions. At a matter of personal morality, Roy did not "deserve" to be killed; but he certainly "earned" his death by the logic of the stickyverse, logic that Roy himself adequately understood at the time. "Choices" is about one's fate being mostly "earned" by ones actions, by it seeming highly sensible to an objective observer, not about one's fate being deserved.

Note point #5, and direct your complaints regarding what is deserved to Aristotle.

[Snails]

Note point #5, and direct your complaints regarding what is deserved to Aristotle.

I have no doubt that the Giant is familiar with the Aristotelian definition of tragedy, but it is not established that he is attempting to adhere to it at all. In particular, I think the Giant does not adhere to #3 in more than a very loosey-goosey sense, thus there is no proper context to apply #4 or #5.

The first 2-1/2 points are simply Storytelling 101, as modern writers/readers know of the craft.

My point still stands: "deserve" is rather too loaded a word to be useful in this discussion, because it suggests goals that the Giant does not seem to share.

[Clistenes]

So, Bozzok told crystal that she was too dumb to be on her own and she needed to listen to him.
She followed her new-found independence, killed bozzok, and started to think for herself.
She died five minutes later. at most. something that would have never happened if she had kept listening to bozzok.
Not only it is ironic because disobeying bozzok lead to her getting killled by her stupidity immediately afterwards, but it is twice as ironic because rich has a policy of always killing major characters as a result of their choices, and the first choice crystal ever took was fatal to her.

Yet she still managed to last more than nale. when nale decided he didn't want his father's protection, he died the next round.

I feel there's an aesop to be learned from this. Something like, "all that great talk about freedom only works if you're smart enough to take care of yourself"

Bozzok turned Crystal into a flesh golem that felt nothing but pain. Anything would be better than that. Even getting killed by Haley is a step upwards.

[martianmister]

Bozzok turned Crystal into a flesh golem that felt nothing but pain. Anything would be better than that. Even getting killed by Haley is a step upwards.

If that's the case, why was she angry at Haley for killing her? Why didn't she commit suicide?

[Domino Quartz]

If that's the case, why was she angry at Haley for killing her? Why didn't she commit suicide?

Because getting revenge on Haley would be even better.

[martianmister]

Because getting revenge on Haley would be even better.

She was planning to stay and live in Tinker Town.

[Clistenes]

She was planning to stay and live in Tinker Town.

Because hurting others lessened her own pain. That had nothing to do with the fact that Bozzok did something horrible to her and couldn't be trusted to take care of her.

[Takver]

If that's the case, why was she angry at Haley for killing her? Why didn't she commit suicide?

First, because a step upward (being killed by Haley) from the worst thing (being a golem that feels pain all the time) is still pretty bad. Second, and this is just conjecture, but I don't think Crystal is capable of suicide. That's just not the way her mind works. In Crystal's experience, life is always brutal; it's just a matter of degree. "Quitting" isn't something that would ever occur to her, and it would require seizing a degree of control over her own fate that isn't fathomable for her. Instead, she gets as much enjoyment as she can at the expense of others.

3) The discovery or recognition that the reversal was brought about by the hero's own
actions (anagnorisis)

Maybe this doesn't apply to characters who get a chance to seek redemption, but Vaarsuvius seems to have achieved/completed her anagnorisis.

[Kantaki]

If that's the case, why was she angry at Haley for killing her? Why didn't she commit suicide?

A) She didn't want to die, she had just found a good (well evil) way to deal with her pain and she still wanted to kill Haley.
2) Haley tricked her! Again!