Book 5 - Prologue 7

A walking dictionary

Book 5 - Prologue 7
Comic - Book 5 - Page 7

Recent posts... (See full thread)
greycat wrote:
Lipkin wrote:
As far as we know, you can only pop one creature type at a time. So you need to halt production of your army to produce a commander. Unless they are producing an heir, I'd wager rulers would prefer to pop fighting forces at the Capital so that they are better protected.

That would depend on geography. If you're a fairly large side, your capital may be deep inside your territory, unreachable by your enemies without going through your borders. In that case, you might prefer to pop your large armies and heavy hitters/defenders out near the border, where they're more likely to be needed. Your inner cities can pop warlords, casters, or whatever's not needed immediately on the front lines.

Heavy hitters tend to have larger move, and thus can get to the front line faster.
Umbrathor wrote:
vreejack wrote:
Squall83 wrote:
But why does Language have a word for "child" at all? So far there haven't been any children in Erfworld. There are parents and offspring, but e.g. Prince Albert isn't just "playing", so that definition of "child" would not apply to heirs.


They have a word for "child" because they have "Language" and Language includes a word for children. They recognize the word as legitimate and sensible through natural signamancy even if they do not know what it means, though some signamancers can apparently root out the hidden meanings of these obscure terms.

It is crucial to factor in that Erfworlders do not learn language the way Stupidworlders do. They pop with Language and all kinds of knowledge and skills. The source of the words they know need not be part of any Erfworlder's experience, neither now nor in any past.

Apparently whoever created Language knew (and included) the words 'child' and 'year', but chose not to incorporate those phenomena in the world they created.


I really think this is at the heart of the matter. Erfworlders do not acquire language as we do - they in effect have an internal set of language lookup algorithms that refer to a universal dictionary as necessary. They are popped with this faculty, and it's really the rulesets of that algorithm - blocking swears, for example - that determines what they know. Only signamancers really work through these algorithms to probe the hidden dataset resulting in, for example, Noah finding strings of unused but usable words.

There could even be signamatic processes involving "casting stones" as our runamancers might do. Noah could have a scrabble-style tile set and use juice to positively influence a session of pulling letter combinations out. Each time a valid word comes out he knows its meaning and can then record it and use it to understand more about the universe. It'd be a very powerful tool.
ruleno2 wrote:
"Play"

On one word, the world turns.

As the pieces learn their lives are all a simulcrum of the Real World - a simplified game with rules of dubious fairness written by Authors beyond their control - everything comes down to what it means to "play" that game. Is it all a cruel joke of the Real Thing, or is the game its own Real Thing?

Is "play" just a simulation (in sequence) of the real thing, or is it an act of creation in-itself?

There's another faction missing from this debate. The players. The people who know that to play isn't just what it seems on its face - it isn't just a mockery of life, for losers to pretend they're heroes in their parents' basements, or unwitting pawns to be trapped inside a fake reality. To play is fun. It is life. It is reality!

However it is the Signamancers intuit their definitons, Noah has missed his mark on "play" - or at least picked the most cynical slant to the definition. Sure, it's technically right, but there's not a hint of "fun", or "dance", or "jazz", "ritual", or any other slant to "play" that involves a hint of something more to it than just rote mimickry of something else more real. To a game piece angry at the unfair world, it may feel like their lives really mean nothing with the dictionary definition. To the players that know how important play is, however, the lives of Erfworlders aren't without meaning - if anything, it's possible they're concentrated, abstracted, ritualized, perfected meaning.

There's something deep to this game of Erfworld, something that makes it the way it is. It is certainly unfair at times, cruel, and it is somewhat more simplified than what we consider the "real world", but it's not necessarily less meaningful or without merit. And the unfairness and cruelty might be necessary reflections of the greater world's laws (scarcity, economics, Numbers, a limited Source...), not just random punishments from uncaring designers.

It seems to me that the gamepieces of Erfworld are primed for an awakening. The awakening Paige promises is an angry one - of pieces rebelling against a false and unfair reality. But the awakening it needs is to understand why the rules are the way they are, and what every piece's role is. Perhaps the game that's being played out really has meaning. Perhaps the highs and lows and tricks and games produce something that is more than mere simulation of a simplistic game. Perhaps it really is just a purer (different) representation of Life - meant to be Played for the same reason our lives are.

In the end, we should Play not because we're told to or made to - but because going through the motions is fun, and an expression of the inner Signs of what makes us - us! Because to Play is Life!

Will Shaxper wrote:
All the world’s a stage,
And all the men and women merely players;
They have their exits and their entrances;
And one man in his time plays many parts,
His acts being seven ages. At first the infant,
Mewling and puking in the nurse’s arms;
And then the whining school-boy, with his satchel
And shining morning face, creeping like snail
Unwillingly to school. And then the lover,
Sighing like furnace, with a woeful ballad
Made to his mistress’ eyebrow. Then a soldier,
Full of strange oaths, and bearded like the pard,
Jealous in honour, sudden and quick in quarrel,
Seeking the bubble reputation
Even in the cannon’s mouth. And then the justice,
In fair round belly with good capon lin’d,
With eyes severe and beard of formal cut,
Full of wise saws and modern instances;
And so he plays his part. The sixth age shifts
Into the lean and slipper’d pantaloon,
With spectacles on nose and pouch on side;
His youthful hose, well sav’d, a world too wide
For his shrunk shank; and his big manly voice,
Turning again toward childish treble, pipes
And whistles in his sound. Last scene of all,
That ends this strange eventful history,
Is second childishness and mere oblivion;
Sans teeth, sans eyes, sans taste, sans everything.


Note how small a range of roles Erfworlders play compared to us. This, perhaps, is the tragedy being referred to.
Thecommander236 wrote:
Out of all those birds, I think Mudge is the most hen pecked.

HEYOOOOOOOO
DaRaginga wrote:
It may be a stupid question, but what is she wearing in "her" panel? Her position and lower body garment is confusing me

It's a skirt with a split and her legs are folded up beneath it.
seanfish wrote:
Erfworlders do not acquire language as we do - they in effect have an internal set of language lookup algorithms that refer to a universal dictionary as necessary. They are popped with this faculty, and it's really the rulesets of that algorithm - blocking swears, for example - that determines what they know. Only signamancers really work through these algorithms to probe the hidden dataset resulting in, for example, Noah finding strings of unused but usable words.

There could even be signamatic processes involving "casting stones" as our runamancers might do. Noah could have a scrabble-style tile set and use juice to positively influence a session of pulling letter combinations out. Each time a valid word comes out he knows its meaning and can then record it and use it to understand more about the universe. It'd be a very powerful tool.


Interesting. That might fit with the special senses all casters seem to have. Signamancers are probably able to sense meaning, even in Signs they were not familiar with before. Just as they know that everyone interprets Signs differently, and uses Signs differently - which was the essence of his 'impossibilty of communication' musings a few pages earlier.
Quote:
That would be an absolutely terrible translation. "Twilight Road" I could see, but how on earth did you get from "Boulevard" to "Gods"?


The movie title's translations from English to Portuguese are always... crappy. Name a movie in English, and most of the time we brazilians will have absolutely no idea what is the reference for that, except when we learn how it was presented in Portuguese and then we go "ooohhhh, riiiight, *that* movie!" and all. Yeah, even for Adam Sandler's movies this remains real. Some examples include:

The Shawshank Redemption = A Dream of Freedom
Dragons 3 = How To Train Your Dragon 3
How The Grinch Stole Christmas = The Grinch
Children of Men = Children of Hope
Ferris Bueller's Day Off = Enjoying the Sick Life

It goes on and on and on... Call a movie name, and I'll "translate it" to you all...

E.

P.S.: Avatar is Avatar, Scarface is still Scarface... but Alien is Alien: The 8th Passanger. Go figure.
Ah, so the movie titles are not actually being translated. The movies are just given a different title altogether, because someone thought they'd get more money that way, or because they thought the translated title would be confusing without the cultural context. I believe that also happens with Japanese films being done for the US, etc.
Eclison wrote:

Dragons 3 = How To Train Your Dragon 3


No, we call that movie How To Train Your Dragon 3 in english too
I follow what's going on in this update. But I don't get it.

Will have to read it more analytically when I'm not so tired.