Kevin's Watch

wayfriend wrote:I think they were compelled, too.

Basically, an attempt to make a villain seem impressive, stretched to the point where Willing Suspension Of Disbelief is broken. In rare cases, a Xanatos Roulette can be successfully executed, but you really have to establish a character as The Chessmaster for them to be able to pull it off without arousing your audience's skepticism. Genuine precognition also helps.... as it turns out everything up to then (including the supposed successes of the heroes against the old villains) is all part of their scheme. Also often the justification of the Omniscient Morality License; their control over events is supposedly total. Additionally, if a character messes with their own mind, getting their memories back almost inevitably becomes a Xanatos Roulette at some point.

In the definition for Chessmaster was wrote:"if you ever think you are winning against a Chess Master, you have already lost. The only way to win against that dude is to stage a Xanatos Roulette so complex that even you yourself won't be sure it'd work. Or to act entirely at random, and hope you get lucky."

Relayer wrote:

In the definition for Chessmaster was wrote:"if you ever think you are winning against a Chess Master, you have already lost. The only way to win against that dude is to stage a Xanatos Roulette so complex that even you yourself won't be sure it'd work. Or to act entirely at random, and hope you get lucky."

As TC said to Linden, "Do something they don't expect."

Vraith wrote:Wow...the peeps at that site have way way way too much time on their hands: not to mention reducing every creative endeavor ever to a "Chessmaster" plot by the author.

Vraith wrote:Wow...the peeps at that site have way way way too much time on their hands: not to mention reducing every creative endeavor ever to a "Chessmaster" plot by the author.

Vraith wrote:Wow...the peeps at that site have way way way too much time on their hands: not to mention reducing every creative endeavor ever to a "Chessmaster" plot by the author.

Orlion wrote:That's because instead of looking at Blake, James, and Faulkner, these people look to Batman, Gargoyles, and Gummy Bears.

Relayer wrote:

Orlion wrote:That's because instead of looking at Blake, James, and Faulkner, these people look to Batman, Gargoyles, and Gummy Bears.

LOL. Those would be the Harrow, ur-viles, and the skest... ?

Orlion wrote:

Vraith wrote:Wow...the peeps at that site have way way way too much time on their hands: not to mention reducing every creative endeavor ever to a "Chessmaster" plot by the author.

I tend to agree... mainly because there's a lot of television/film analogies being used to describe what's happening in literature. When the two cross over, that's fine... but I think the guy misses the whole point when he reduces the entire Chronicles as a sliding between Idealism and Cynicism. That's because instead of looking at Blake, James, and Faulkner, these people look to Batman, Gargoyles, and Gummy Bears.

Not to say that some good points are made, I just think better points can be made with literary references.

TheWormoftheWorld'sEnd wrote:

Vraith wrote:Wow...the peeps at that site have way way way too much time on their hands: not to mention reducing every creative endeavor ever to a "Chessmaster" plot by the author.

Actually, the peeps at that site call Roger the Magnificent Bastard who goes beyond the Chess Master in villainy. "The Magnificent Bastard is what happens when you combine the Chessmaster, the Trickster ["The trickster is often a Master Of Disguise and may have magical or super-powers"], and the Manipulative Bastard..."

Vraith wrote:

TheWormoftheWorld'sEnd wrote:

Vraith wrote:Wow...the peeps at that site have way way way too much time on their hands: not to mention reducing every creative endeavor ever to a "Chessmaster" plot by the author.

Actually, the peeps at that site call Roger the Magnificent Bastard who goes beyond the Chess Master in villainy. "The Magnificent Bastard is what happens when you combine the Chessmaster, the Trickster ["The trickster is often a Master Of Disguise and may have magical or super-powers"], and the Manipulative Bastard..."

Don't get me wrong...the stuff there amuses me. But tropes are kinda like beams in a house: you sorta need them so the thing won't fall down, but just cuz you can see them doesn't mean you understand architecture, and all the interesting stuff happens between and inside.

TheWormoftheWorld'sEnd wrote:You see, I am giving Donaldson FAR more credit than some of you think. By giving Roger such and such an analysis, I am actually saving him from being a smaller, less devious trope or minor villain. Indeed, if Roger removed their masks himself, without being coerced by the Command, then he is without doubt the most ingenious villain ever contrived by the mind of man.

On the other hand, there are those on this forum who want to reduce Donaldson's achievement with this character, and this I will always fight against until the next book, or the next, proves me wrong.

Orlion wrote:

TheWormoftheWorld'sEnd wrote:You see, I am giving Donaldson FAR more credit than some of you think. By giving Roger such and such an analysis, I am actually saving him from being a smaller, less devious trope or minor villain. Indeed, if Roger removed their masks himself, without being coerced by the Command, then he is without doubt the most ingenious villain ever contrived by the mind of man.

On the other hand, there are those on this forum who want to reduce Donaldson's achievement with this character, and this I will always fight against until the next book, or the next, proves me wrong.

Which, if nothing else, I'm thankful for this topic. I kinda viewed Roger as just a whiny bastard, but now, it seems like he's...well, a Magnificent Bastard! And your introduction of these ideas leads to some good discussion... I just wouldn't swear by the website... That's what Blake is for!

Good catch on L. Frank Baum, BTW!

Orlion wrote:Hey, it's ultimately just another way to analyze the Chronicles. You like to use television troupes, I perfer Blake's poetic metaphors. What's interesting is that what one method might illuminate, the other can not begin to explain (at the moment, for example, my Blake method can explain how Covenant is Foul, but it can not touch the signifigance of Roger or Jeremiah)

High Lord Tolkien wrote:

Orlion wrote:Hey, it's ultimately just another way to analyze the Chronicles. You like to use television troupes, I perfer Blake's poetic metaphors. What's interesting is that what one method might illuminate, the other can not begin to explain (at the moment, for example, my Blake method can explain how Covenant is Foul, but it can not touch the signifigance of Roger or Jeremiah)

Only because you're assuming that they are real and exist outside of a dream and not simply what TC called Troy when he first met him: "something he made up " (not exact quote)