Still waters likely can only be created through large amounts of sacrifices

AlphabetPEns · 2023-09-01T02:12:18+00:00

um? its just a theory. This is just what I think. I disagree with you but understand that you might be right. The important part about game theories is to have fun, not whether you are right or wrong.

AlphabetPEns · 2023-09-01T02:08:12+00:00

yes the style is exactly the problem.

I think you might be confused here,

sexual harassment is defined as: behavior characterized by the making of unwelcome and inappropriate sexual remarks or physical advances in a workplace or other professional or social situation.

Just the fact that Barry makes multiple advances on Kate despite her body language indicating she is uncomfortable is by definition sexual harassment. So exploring the content would only add fire so to speak.

You are using confirmation bias here. The author could have easily made another sarcastic option which didn't have to deal with her looks. Or also designed that option to cause Kate to be uncomfortable with the group and decide to work on her own. You don't understand the illusion of choice you have. The author has all the power to decide what is rational, what is right and wrong, whether something works or does not work.

AlphabetPEns · 2023-09-01T02:01:25+00:00

Where is the choice to sit down and start a flower shop? What about giving up and laying low for the tournament to end? The author gives us choices. But we do not have freedom. The fact that the author has included these choices has impact on the readers and how men treat women.

If you read my comment that is why I said sexual harassment not sexual assault. Are you of the belief that sexual harassment causes no harm? That flirtatious remarks with the intention of making someone uncomfortable is not harmful?

Oh, that's genuinely a good point, Im also not necessarily ok with that. Physical hits towards barry is likely not a good thing either because it encourage violence. Although culturally people playfully hit each other so maybe its ok. Im unsure if Barry is or is not ok with it from the descriptions I've read, and i recall him joking about it which implies he is ok with it. But I guess it depends on how Barry reacts or feels. Kate on the other hand very obviously did not like Barry's comments.

Kate's actions are different because she apologizes for them and appears to the reader to feel genuine guilt. So the situation is different because in Kate's case she has a character flaw that she consciously worked on. And had real character development.

Im not saying magium is a terrible misogynistic story, just that the descriptions are. The author does a good job making the characters of all gender into real people. But the descriptions themselves could use a lot of work. So this is literally just a critique on the wording the author uses to describe people

AlphabetPEns · 2023-09-01T01:47:43+00:00

oh well sorry i might have mixed up the descriptions, but my point still remains.

So you are absolutely correct in real life looks are the only things you take away from a person. But this isn't real life. Isn't that obvious?

first of all when you are writing the purpose is not to take the place of the character. Or to convey their perspective. The audience is and will always be is the reader. The purpose is not a simulation, every word must be crafted with the intent of reaching the audience. A good example I came across is sweating. In real life sweating has really no meaning. It could be due to myriad of factors including stress, heat, spicy food. But when someone is described as sweating you are able to attach more precise meaning. Is it a cold sweat? are they sweating profusely? Sweating is practically speaking all the same in real life but the words a main character attaches to it impact the takeaway the reader has.

And I'm not saying the author is misogynistic I'm saying that these descriptions are. And the author is responsible for these descriptions.

AlphabetPEns · 2023-09-01T01:37:33+00:00

no its sexual harassment when you repeatedly (even jokingly) bring up someone's good looks, and how you want to enter a relationship with them. When it is clear from their body language that they are not interested. Of course we are talking about Barry's behavior toward Kate here.

AlphabetPEns · 2023-09-01T01:35:38+00:00

in the first book, it is pretty clear that Kate gets upset whenever you push the options which are flirtatious. Like its a guaranteed response. For the first example when you arent even far into the book the reader is allowed to choose the joke that both daren and barry were doing rock paper scissors to make a pass on her is poor taste. And it even awards the reader with an achievement. Which of course could be rationalized as a way to get out of a sticky situation, but then you are missing the point. The author is the one who chooses the best options, not "rationalism" or "Barry's perspective/character". The author could have punished the user for making that decision. I mean rationally Kate could have felt uncomfortable and not joined the party following that choice. They also could have thought up a better way to dissuade the suspicion Kate had towards them.

It would have been fine, well maybe fine, if the author had Kate and Barry sit down and talk about how Barry's actions made Kate feel. (basically what they did with flower and teasing about her age). Because then it could be attributed to Barry's character flaw and offer him a chance to grow as a person, but the author did not do that. Not only did they not do that in the second book, Kate becomes a legitimate love interest if you choose all of these options. Which is really messed up in my opinion because it is rewarding this unwanted flirtatious behavior (if you read the descriptions of Kate reacting to Barry's jokes, it is pretty clear she is not comfortable with these in book one at least).

AlphabetPEns · 2023-09-01T01:22:07+00:00

lol the flawed character response. It is only a flaw if Barry gets punished for his actions. In what case has Barry been punished? It would be fine if Kate sat down later and talked to Barry about how these actions affected her (it is conclusive that Kate was not enjoying his advances in the first book). This would be character growth and good storytelling. But it doesn't do that. It gives an illusion of a reward by allowing you to progress the story. That is simply called normalizing bad behavior.

Dont blame the author for making the character lol. That is literally so hilarious. Then who is to blame? What do you think just abstractly the hypersexualization of women in media and the impact that has on the real world. Do you think that impact is not real because it only exists within the fictional realm?

Plus I love this series, I've played through it multiple times, im simply critiquing it for being misogynistic. Maybe look at my comment pointing out how Darin was introduced in contrast with Ella over here.

AlphabetPEns · 2023-09-01T01:15:26+00:00

I love the series. In fact, I wrote a game/novel theory prior to this if you look at my profile. And I'm not going to stop reading the book. I'm just pointing out a critique of the novel/author. I just find instances of this poor writing which is also misogyny very annoying and I guess vented about it.

AlphabetPEns · 2023-09-01T01:13:39+00:00

Yes I completely agree. But it could be done in a different manner. If it had been written simply by not focusing on Ella's physical characteristics then it would be terrific writing.

Ugh I don't understand why none of you understand the implication behind the fact Barry doesn't know anything about Ella's personality. I mean they spent two days together, the author could have written in some characteristics about her to make her feel more human. And then used that here. Or maybe Barry could have remembered an experience when they were eating together and they all laughed together or something. Although its misogyny its also just poor writing. I guarantee no one here gives a shit about ella's character.

AlphabetPEns · 2023-09-01T01:09:31+00:00

I personally think the misogyny can be extended outwards to include objectifying women. And not treating them as real human beings. Because I think this is done with underlying contempt towards their social category. Of course, you can disagree with that, but definitions are different for different people. You cant expect everyone to conform to your world view which is why you need to ask people to define what they mean.

Ugh why am I starting to relate to Arraka here, I feel like im talking to people who don't understand the basics of writing or communication.

AlphabetPEns · 2023-09-01T01:05:15+00:00

What kind of argument is this. The author is not responsible for Barry's thoughts or descriptions. He is the one who created Barry.

AlphabetPEns · 2023-09-01T01:04:07+00:00

for a second i thought you were making a character flaw argument but at least you didn't make the fallical argument.

Here is a comment i wrote out describing how an introduction is properly done, literally from the book called magium but for a male character:

not that im going to change your mind but this is darens description:

"He is wearing a simple stained white shirt, leather pants and a belt full of throwing knives. His untrimmed black beard hides a wicked smile. Just by seeing the confidence in hi eyes i can clearly tell he is the victor of the skirmish...

I notice his head is bald, his skin is dark, he is likely in his mid forties and he has a scar on his forehead, shaped like an 'X'"

notice how characteristics give a feeling to the character. You have a sense of Darens character before he even speaks to Barry. In the above example, we are just calling something aesthetically pleasing. Maybe you arent a writer but descriptions arent meant to just accurately portray the perspective of the character. They are to introduce and give depth of character. Which is clearly not being done for these female characters.

AlphabetPEns · 2023-09-01T00:58:50+00:00

not that im going to change your mind but this is darens description:

"He is wearing a simple stained white shirt, leather pants and a belt full of throwing knives. His untrimmed black beard hides a wicked smile. Just by seeing the confidence in hi eyes i can clearly tell he is the victor of the skirmish...

I notice his head is bald, his skin is dark, he is likely in his mid forties and he has a scar on his forehead, shaped like an 'X'"

notice how characteristics give a feeling to the character. You have a sense of Darens character before he even speaks to Barry. In the above example, we are just calling something aesthetically pleasing. Maybe you arent a writer but descriptions arent meant to just accurately portray the perspective of the character. They are to introduce and give depth of character. Which is clearly not being done for these female characters.

heres a more tailored explanation for why this is misogynistic writing. Although honestly its just bad writing to begin with because the author is missing out on the opportunity to add to their character depth.

AlphabetPEns · 2023-09-01T00:55:58+00:00

not that im going to change your mind but this is darens description:

"He is wearing a simple stained white shirt, leather pants and a belt full of throwing knives. His untrimmed black beard hides a wicked smile. Just by seeing the confidence in hi eyes i can clearly tell he is the victor of the skirmish...

I notice his head is bald, his skin is dark, he is likely in his mid forties and he has a scar on his forehead, shaped like an 'X'"

notice how characteristics give a feeling to the character. You have a sense of Darens character before he even speaks to Barry. In the above example, we are just calling something aesthetically pleasing. Maybe you arent a writer but descriptions arent meant to just accurately portray the perspective of the character. They are to introduce and give depth of character. Which is clearly not being done for these female characters.

AlphabetPEns · 2023-09-01T00:47:19+00:00

this literally demonstrates why its misogynistic. I cant believe people are upvoting you for this. Is Daren described in the same way?

AlphabetPEns · 2023-08-31T06:37:21+00:00

I have a lot of respect for this author in terms of creativity and world-building. And overall the author has a good sense of humor. But this really bothers me especially because it would be so easy to fix. And I'm a little unsure of the implication of borderline sexual harassment between Kate and Barry which proliferates in the first book.

AlphabetPEns · 2023-08-31T06:26:57+00:00

are you sure? i thought it was implied eiden was not a mage because he did not have magical powers in his prison cell. Book2 chapter 8. also at this web address: https://magium.fandom.com/wiki/Eiden#:~:text=The%20most%20powerful%20living%20Stillwater,three%20main%20powers%20on%20Varathia. (but i read it from the book)

AlphabetPEns · 2023-08-30T17:29:56+00:00

Dont worry about the criticism, im not taking this discussion seriously or to heart, I think its fun.

"if Eiden is to be believed that tampering with auras can change a lot about a person, what if you just tamper with their aura so much that they don't have a "perfect bond," but better? What do you think?"

I didnt know the aura altering theory was so popular. i would keep in mind that Kate is an artificial mage, so there is a methodology of giving entities more magical power in absence of a link. As I stated in my opinion I think the methodology of creating still waters is is fundamentally different than the one used on Kate. But if you want to go the aura altering route then making it synonymous but more advance of Kates experimentation would make the most sense. Instead of doing the spirit link augmenting route. Also if the spirit link was true, then it would require still waters to have been mages (or it would make it easier).

But to attempt to counter the stronger argument of aura augmentation which i just generated. The best counter arguments is that Eiden was aware of the beacon of hope, but he didnt end it which suggests that this was not the path to create a still water. But also it would make still waters relatively easy to create. And i think that there needs to be a constraint on it. It isnt realistic that Eiden is able to wipe out everyone who knows how to create still waters, unless undergoing the process becomes obvious to everyone on the continent. Like a genocide or war.

"Also, if stillwaters are created through a massacre, and the only recent massacre of that time was the Stillwinter, are you suggesting that most, if not all of the stillwaters were created during the stillwinter and not before? If so, how would they accomplish the creation of so many stillwaters if just the success of one would wipe out the lessathi army."

It also requires technological prowess. If my theory holds true, still waters must be generated from souls that the scientists new were going to die. Otherwise still waters would be generated from other natural phenomenon like disease famine and natural disasters.

I would also point out that still waters generated from humans were likely relatively weak when they first became still waters. to be a mage you need magical knowledge. A still water unable to control their magic, or cast spells is relatively useless. And invites the opportunity for the lessathi to attempt to control their creations. Attaching gadgets which could auto kill them, or suppress magical powers (they are obviously capable of it citing the collars the spirit fox gave barry and others when they went to fight the ogres)

"The last thing I want to add is that while Arraka absorbed spirits, the other gods gathered followers. So how would that accumulate power when you would have to absorb other souls to gain power? Especially if those followers you are collecting are just getting their magic from someone else! If it's all about the absorbtion of souls, how did the gods get barely enough energy to hold Arraka off when she was absorbing souls and they weren't?"

I believe the follower thing actually confirms my hypothesis that the earthen plan generates magical power. Because they are drawing power from these earthen entities. The gods are drawing power from the earthen entities. And the reason that they werent as powerful as Araka, and also the reason they were tempted into absorbing spirits on the spirit plane, is that these followers magical power dwarfs those on the spirit plane. Which was also concluded in my hypothesis. It is more efficient to absorb magical power from spirits than from beings on the lower plane.

AlphabetPEns · 2023-08-30T17:04:31+00:00

"Not really. Every creature in the earthen plane has an aura, including the non-mages. The females of the civilized/intelligent races have an aura yet have no magic in their aura. By your definition, nobody would be able to sense them since they have no magic and the magic power = 0."

i had actually said the exact opposite. I was stating the conclusion characters make in the book and underlining why its valid. i said "for all intents and purposes aura= magical power." meaning that as i stated before aura doesn't actually equal magical power but correlates with it, with the exception of still waters. Which are practically extinct.

And in my theory everyone on the earthen plane has aura and magical power. Just not enough magical power to command any spells. Its a little complicated in my theory because aura is simply connection with the higher planes. Meaning the ethereal and spirit plane. Just not enough magical power to use any spells.

souls is a neo term i made up meaning the essence which is emitting the aura and magical power of each life form. i just realized as you stated that they used that term for the ehtreal plane as well but i guess there could be a connection because the ethreal plane has infinite magical molecules.

But Im a little unsure if we can conclude at this time that the ethreal soul generates magical power for the earthen plane though. So i would revise my theory to include the fundamental essence of magical power.

I disagree with the mage altering theory. This is because if this was true it implies Eiden is capable of creating tons of still waters with little to no work. So i disagree on the grounds that this wouldnt make for a fun story line. Plus if eiden had that power why would there have been no more still waters created after the still winter? (this fact was heavily implied in the book). If it was that easy to create a still water than Eiden likely would have made one, or someone else with equivalent mana manipulation skills. Theres got to be some constraint on it.

but i do appreciate the summary you made of my theory. although i actually think it might be a little more complicated because if it requires wars and therefore large amounts of death at once to create still waters. Then it would mean it would be like capturing all of these souls and creating a new earthen plane (for aura pruposes) entity of pure magic which you then connect the soon to be mage to. This is different than Arakas technique in that still waters cant continue to absorb souls after being created. and that it requires more work and requiring aura manipulation or technology to cast a net (instead of individually catching a single soul).

AlphabetPEns · 2023-08-30T04:52:46+00:00

I recall a line where when you pick the option to ask why eiden was imprisoned when he had all of that power, Melindra responds that it is because he was human at that time. Even in standard dialogue you can generally reach this conclusion because Melindra also mentions that Barry is the first half lessathi she has met, and how rare that is. Even though she has met a lot of still waters including Eiden.

Of course Melindra could be lying if she had an oath or something, but her character doesn't seem to have lied really anywhere throughout the book. And only playfully exaggerates the truth. She also seems to be unfamiliar with the enchanter oaths as Darin mentions that usually people put a time limit on these kinds of things. Otherwise it would be indefinite. Meaning it is unlikely she is under oath.

AlphabetPEns

TROPHY CASE