The Killing Stroke

[wayfriend]

Stevie G, you have the same issue I have, as far as I can tell.

I think the crux of the issue is in the passage you quoted. If I have chosen to die, you cannot kill me. I agree with that, and I admire the sentiment.

But its the converse that I need to see demonstrated, for "there is no killing stroke" to make sense. If I have not chosen to die, you cannot kill me.

[StevieG]

I agree!

If I were walking down the street and hadn't chosen to die (just going to the shop for example), yet you attacked me from behind and killed me, then there has to be a killing stroke.

Perhaps "there is no killing stroke" is only valid amongst "honorable" people?

[Rigel]

Spoiler

But then the nerishi-qa DOES strike an apparent "killing stroke" but it doesn't touch the shin-te warrior. Then the nerishi-qa declares defeat.

My understanding was that the nerishi-qa never completed the stroke, recognizing that he would be unable to deprive the shin-te of his choice.

[StevieG]

Spoiler

But then the nerishi-qa DOES strike an apparent "killing stroke" but it doesn't touch the shin-te warrior. Then the nerishi-qa declares defeat.

My understanding was that the nerishi-qa never completed the stroke, recognizing that he would be unable to deprive the shin-te of his choice.

I've just re-read the passage, and yeah, that is something that I haven't picked up in 3 reads. It still seems a little ambiguous (to me at least):

Spoiler

"Without warning, the nerishi-qa struck - a blow so fierce that it seemed to stun my own heart. His fist flashed forward with all his qa behind it. Under its force, the cloth of the young man's robe sprang to tatters across his chest, torn thread from thread."

I assumed that he was struck, but for the next line:

"And yet the shin-te did not flinch. His skin had not been touched."

For some reason I couldn't connect the dots. I wasn't thinking literally.

However I still have the issue with the Killing Stroke itself....

[wayfriend]

My understanding was that the nerishi-qa never completed the stroke, recognizing that he would be unable to deprive the shin-te of his choice.

Ah, but no one has said, "There is no Choice-Depriving Stroke".

[StevieG]

Has SRD given any light on this subject? (I might have a browse now....)

[Rigel]

While I love this story, and the point it makes, at the same time I don't really believe it.

I can't help but feeling that one of the great tragedies of this world is that the Killing Stroke does, indeed exist. Not literally, of course, just as there's no such thing as a Vulcan Nerve Pinch. But the fact exists that an amoral person is completely capable of depriving another of their freedom for no reason at all.

[StevieG]

I can't help but feeling that one of the great tragedies of this world is that the Killing Stroke does, indeed exist. Not literally, of course, just as there's no such thing as a Vulcan Nerve Pinch. But the fact exists that an amoral person is completely capable of depriving another of their freedom for no reason at all.

Too true. (PS. what's a vulcan nerve pinch? )

Here's a response from SRD in 2004 that may be of interest:

James: Stephen,

I was hoping for a little more clarification on your explanation of there not being a killing stroke. You'd stated that if you choose not to be killed, your attacker becomes the instrument of your own will.

But in the situation as in The Killing Stroke, where the shin-te's attacker was more skilled and *could* have killed him, even if the shin-te had chose to fight on -- how is the attacker the instrument of the shin-te's will? Or, are you saying that in choosing to fight on, he is electing to die?

I like the broad strokes of this philosophy, but am a little shaky on that point

Or to pose the question in a way that follows the rape example: if the woman is raped despite her best efforts to fight off the attacker, she has been 'victimized' in that her will to not be raped was overridden by the rapist's will. But would you say she isn't truly a victim because she never gave in? That the key of being a victim is giving in, and the actual occurrence of what happens doesn't determine her status as 'victim' or 'prey' or 'survivor' or whatever word might be suitable there..?




As I've just demonstrated, it's hard to be clear about these things, in part because our use of certain words ("victim" in this case) precludes clarity: we use the word to refer to too many different things.

I'll try again.

The point that the shin-te makes in "The Killing Stroke" is *any* outcome to the fight which leads to his death is the result of his own choices: he might choose to fight on and be killed, or he might choose to stop fighting and be killed; but in either case, he CHOSE. Therefore he is not a "victim" ("there is no killing stroke"). Instead he has created a situation in which his attacker can only impose his *own* will by choosing NOT to kill. (Anyone who has studied the martial arts for a while knows that the attacker is always at a disadvantage. This is one demonstration of that principle. The attacker chose to offer combat [in that sense he is not a predator], he chose to conduct the combat in a life-threatening fashion [in that sense he *is* a predator]; but he can only choose the outcome by withholding a fatal blow.)

As for the rape example: this is a very different question morally than the situation in "The Killing Stroke" (except insofar as the shin-te's attacker chose to try to kill his opponent). There both fighters chose to fight. Where rape, and similar crimes, are concerned, no one (well, no one sane) *chooses* to be prey. But everyone *can* choose his/her response to being treated as prey. Therefore the prey always determines the meaning of his/her own life REGARDLESS of the outcome. As for the poor (he said sardonically) predator, he/she can only regain his/her freedom of choice by refusing to continue the attack.

Perhaps this is becoming less and less clear as I explain it more and more. I should probably stop....

[Avatar]

I think that's the first time I saw that, unless it appears in one of the Lena discussions.

Anyway, as Rigel said, the nerishi-qa pulled his punch. Regaining control of the situation by not killing the shin-te.

But the fact exists that an amoral person is completely capable of depriving another of their freedom for no reason at all.

Even the supposedly moral are quite capable of it.

But yes, in practical terms, as WF argued before, the outcome is still the same, wether you "allow" the person to kill you or not, you are still dead.

Perhaps the context of the story, which must spring from SRD's own interest in martial arts, takes that "honourable" requirement as given in this world of martial arts practitioners.

Perhaps the "choice" is a broader reaching one, more subtle, than simply consciously choosing life or death. Or struggle or death, as the case may be. I think SRD suggests this when he mentions the choice to fight on and die, and the choice to surrender and die.

Choices are choices, no matter how unpalatable. If somebody puts a gun to your head and says "give me your money or I'll shoot you," you still have a choice.

--A

[Rigel]

So what deprives the Killing Stroke of its efficacy is the reaction of the "victim"...

By choosing to continue to fight a stronger, more skilled opponent, you are resisting the stroke - but you know the outcome, and accept it.

By refusing to fight, you are again accepting the stroke.

So, the only way the Killing Stroke is, indeed, a "Killing Stroke" is if you do not accept the outcome.

[Avatar]

Not even it's "efficacy," it is, afterall, still going to kill you. But it is deprived of its moral power over you. Cold comfort.

--A

[StevieG]

Perhaps the context of the story, which must spring from SRD's own interest in martial arts, takes that "honourable" requirement as given in this world of martial arts practitioners

Yes - "Honourable" is the key, IMO.

So what deprives the Killing Stroke of its efficacy is the reaction of the "victim"...

Good point.

Choices are choices, no matter how unpalatable. If somebody puts a gun to your head and says "give me your money or I'll shoot you," you still have a choice.

True - but what happens when you don't have a choice - ie. someone puts a gun to your head, shoots you, and then just takes your money? You're dead, but didn't choose to die, because you weren't aware that you were going to die. Unlucky, I guess....

[Orlion]

SRD's main point is not that a Stroke does not exist that will not kill you, but rather that one can not be a victim of a Killing Stroke. The confusion arises in that one can be prey of the Killing Stroke. This is because we often equate prey=victim, which SRD does not do, as shown by the following post:

Brad: The Killing Stroke is easily my favorite short story ever. I was wondering what philosophy, if any, inspired the concept 'there is no killing stroke', and what disciplines you modeled the clan types after....


Also, thank you for writing the Last Chronicles, I've been hoping you would follow up on them for ten years.

-B





Actually, I tried not to "model" my clan types on particular disciplines. Nevertheless there is quite a bit of "bleed-through." You don't have to look very far to see elements of Ninjitsu, or of "hard" (linear) styles like Shotokan and Shorin-Ryu vs "soft" (circular) styles like Tumpai and Wing Chun.

I developed the philosophy behind the "there is no killing stroke" concept through my own study of Shotokan; but the concept is not one that I've ever been taught (either as part of Shotokan or as an element in any of the many other styles I've been exposed to). But as my training progressed I gradually came to believe that there is no such thing as a "victim" (except to the extent that many people are self-victimized). There is, of course, such as thing as "prey"; and when a predator comes after you, you are commonly referred to as a "victim." But there's a useful distinction to be made here. In my lexicon, "prey" has no say in the matter: "victim" does (hence the emphasis on self-victimization). To pick a crude example: a woman is attacked by a rapist. She is "prey" (i.e. she has no responsibility whatsoever for the fact that she was chosen for attack). And if she fights back with all of her resources (as "prey" always does in nature), she remains "prey." But if she gives up on herself and submits, she becomes a "victim"--and she is self-victimized by her decision to give up on herself. The important point (in "The Killing Stroke" as in life) is: how do you *choose* to respond to the behavior of a predator? And if your attacker is *not* a predator (i.e. you've chosen to engage in combat when you could have avoided the fight, as in running like hell away from the rapist, or staying out of vulnerable situations), then you have--in effect--chosen your own fate. Your attacker becomes merely the instrument of your own will. Therefore "there is no killing stroke": there is only the decision to be killed, or to not be killed. And if you choose not to be killed, you don't get to call yourself a "victim," since your will determined what happened.

I'm afraid this isn't very clear. Sorry about that. Maybe I'll try again when somebody flames me for criticizing rape victims (which is definitely NOT what I'm trying to do here).

(06/25/2004)

Just some more stuff to chew on...

[StevieG]

This is because we often equate prey=victim, which SRD does not do, as shown by the following post:

Hmmm, definitely something to ponder. I understand the distinction SRD makes - it still hasn't fully settled in my head though. But thanks for the reference.

[Barnetto]

Just reading Reave the Just and other stories for the first time and actually the Killing Stroke is my least favourite! I'm probably going to reveal my simplicity and ignorance here but...

OK - I like the twist at the end whereby the White Lords are shown to be dogmatic and suppressors of knowledge rather than the good guys...

And I sort of like the paradox set up by the situation that only a person who accepts and gives in to his opponent (in the very specific circumstances of this story) is actually safe from his opponent...

BUT "there is no killing stroke"....? Absolute sophistry!

Firstly, and most importantly, it is viewing the matter only from one perspective - that of the shin-te - it completely ignores the perspective of the nerishi-qua. Perhaps that is the main point of the story, that only the perspective of the individual matters.

Secondly, in a practical sense, it only works in the specific martial arts code set up by the story where the nerishi-qua's philosophy apparently does not allow him to strike someone not fighting back.

Thirdly, as Wayfriend has pointed out, even if you accept that because the shin-te has chosen to die he cannot be killed, it doesn't mean that someone who hasn't chosen to die cannot be killed. Also the suggestion that one who chooses to fight a stronger opponent and is killed isn't subject to a "killing stroke" (as suggested in the GI) is even more tenous!

Fourthly, I don't even accept, in the context of the story, that the shin-te had "chosen to die". He had done no such thing! Either he had chosen to allow the nerishi-qua to kill him (or not to - passing the choice back to the nerishi-qua in effect). That is not choosing to die - choosing to die would involve suicide, and he isn't committing suicide. OR he knows that the code of honour that the nerishi-qua operate under does not allow them to kill a person not defending themselves, in which case he has done quite the opposite from "choosing to die".

Perhaps I'm being a bit literal here, and I've read the GI posts etc about victims and prey etc, and yes there are some fine sentiments about choice and avoiding despair, but this story takes them too far and so (for me) lacks all credibility (to the extent that fantasy can be credible!)

[Avatar]

The Shin-te definitely doesn't know anything about the moral code of the Nerishi-qa. Nobody does, they're the most secretive/isolated of all the arts.

But it wasn't about being safe from the opponent. It was about making the choice yourself, instead of allowing the opponent to make it.

It wasn't that the Nerishi-qa's code didn't allow them to strike anybody not fighting back at all. There is no suggestion of that in the book. It was about showing the Nerishi-qa that he would be carrying out his opponents will in delivering the killing stroke, not his own.

--A

[Barnetto]

You are probably right - though I thought the example given of the farmer and the master suggested that the moral code might be universal amongst those practicising the martial arts?

In any event, it still doesn't work for me - the shin-te was merely passing the choice back to the nerishi-qua - and if you take the opposite view, you end up with the paradox that the shin-te also failed in that the nerishi-qua failed to carry out the will of the shin-te by not delivering the killing stroke!

[Rigel]

Ultimately, it's a battle of wills.

The whole point of the Nerishi-qua was the ability to impose their will on others.

The point of the Shin-te was that they can choose not to be victimized (you can still be a "victim" without being "victimized"...)

Fundamentally, the two ideas clash, though they aren't polar opposites. In this instance, the Shin-te kid demonstrated that the Nerishi-qua couldn't make him his b*tch. Sure, the NQ could win the fight, but he couldn't break the kid's spirit. This philosophical argument was much more personal, and therefore important, to the NQ, so he gave it precedence over the mages' conflict. When he saw he couldn't win his personal fight, he gave up on the mages' fight, since he didn't really care about it anyway.

[Avatar]

I think it's time for another re-read.

--A

[Cord Hurn]

While I find the different warrior codes in this story intriguing, it's the fact that the bad guy, Black Mage Argoyne, turns out in mid-story to be more moral than the White Lords who oppose him, that makes me like this story. I enjoyed Argoyne's accounting of himself, while Isla the mashu-te warrior has him in a headlock.

"Do you think that it's easy," he [Argoyne] panted quickly, "bringing people back from death?" With both hands he pulled against her grasp. "Do you think all I have to do is wave my arms and wish? You don't know what you're asking.
"If you reanimate a corpse, what you get is a walking corpse. A body without a mind. But restoring the mind--Ah, that's hard. Dreams, memory, reason, layer by layer, you have to bring it all back, or the corpse isn't fully alive. And hardest of all to bring back is the spirit, the"--he muttered a curse--"you don't have words for it. It's qa, but it isn't--not the way you think about it."
Squirming against Isla's insistence, he tried to explain. "It's the resilience and hunger that makes people want to go on living in the face of death. When you reanimate a corpse, if you restore the memory of death and don't restore the spirit that refuses to accept it, what you get is a madman.
"I've been fighting a war here." Sorrow mounted in his tone as he spoke. His plight might have been the same as the young shin-te master's.
"The whole time while I tested you, I've been fighting for my life. And I've been losing. When I brought you back from death, all of you, I didn't have the time or the power to do everything. So I chose to keep you sane. Instead of making you whole. You're all useless as warriors without qa. So I held back memory instead."
I could see--as Argoyne could not--that he baffled her. Her anger could not accommodate his account of himself. Frightened by uncertainty, she demanded, "Then why did you restore our own memories when you were done with us? Why did you bother?"
"I hoped," he admitted, "that if you were whole you might find some way to help me. But even if you didn't--even if you hated me too much to try--" He sighed, sagging within his robes. "I couldn't bear to leave you that way. You didn't ask to serve me. And nobody deserves to be crippled like that. To be alive without memory or spirit--" He shrugged weakly.
"You'd be better off dead."

Obviously, Argoyne has been desperate to imprison Asper, Isla, and the young shin-te master. But he has a moral code as solid as that of the warriors. And I would have concluded as Asper did, that anybody who went to the trouble fo restoring warriors that had failed him could not be as bad as he had been painted, and he and his knowledge deserved to survive.
This world would indeed be interesting if SRD chose to expand its creation into a novel.