The Princess Bride: What can we learn from The Duel of Wits?

Greetings,

When most people think of "The Princess Bride" (1987), they think of the duel on the cliffs, especially if you are of the "swordy" nature; in the same vein they think of "My name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my father, prepare to die." the relentless revenge of a boy trying to avenge the death of his father. They think of the reputation of the Dread Pirate Roberts, or of true love and how it will never separate Buttercup and Westley. 

<SPOILER WARNING> (for anyone silly enough not to have watched this movie which has so many lessons hidden within it)

There is another scene I would like to discuss a scene that happens after the duel on the cliffs; it happens after Westley (currently the Man in Black) wrestles with Fezzik and brings the mountain of a man down. It is the meeting of Vizzini and the Man in Black the duel of wits. 

Vizzini holds the Princess with a knife to her throat, there is a little banter between the two of them, and then the following is said:

Vizzini: I can't compete with you physically, and you're no match for my brains.

Man in Black: You're that smart?

Vizzini: Let me put it this way. Have you ever heard of Plato, Aristotle, Socrates?

Man in Black: Yes.

Vizzini: Morons. (Source)

They then decide to have a "duel of wits," between them. Two cups of wine are poured. The Man in Black produces a container of poison, which he has Vizzini smell, it is odourless, tasteless and dissolves instantly in water "iocane poison" it is named. It will be placed in one of the cups, they will drink and find out "which one is right, and which one is dead." The Man in Black takes the cups and places the poison then places them back on the rock. Vizzini then uses logic to figure out which cup has the poison. He distracts the Man in Black and switches the cups. They both drink, and after a little gloating about how he switched glasses, Vizzini falls dead. Both cups were poisoned. The Man in Black had spent time developing a resistance to "iocane poison."

The first question: Could Vizzini have survived the encounter with the Man in Black? 

An argument could be made that as the poison is odourless and tasteless, Vizzini ingested the poison as soon as the Man in black offered it to him to smell, particles of the poison could have been ingested at this early stage and Vizzini was a dead man already. This is more a "Kennedy assassination/magic bullet" sort of approach to the situation. So, we will leave this one alone and focus on the duel of wits.

If a person follows Vizzini's logic through his argument, it is a rambling statement of facts and theories, where he starts with some sound theories, but ends up going completely off-track. The same process could have been used. In the movie, Vizzini was going to die, it was a plot point that was required, so the Man in Black could plan for the castle assault in the final part of the story. Even if the wine had been spilt, thus Vizzini not choosing either cup, duel would have started again, just with a different game. In the end Vizzini was going to die.

Next question: What can we learn from the duel of wits?

Do you want to see all the answers? Join me Patreon page for more discussions along with many others.

Monetisation: A Question of Requirement

 Greetings,

I have previously discussed the question of what my time is worth, and also a post about whether or not my time at university was a waste of time. I have been happy cruising along with my payments from Services Australia, under the auspices of the Department of Social Services. Yes, regardless of their re-branding, change of logo, or whatever, they are still the Department of Social Services, or DSS in Australia. However, more recently, there have been comments about what advantages I have, what privileges I have, and quite frankly with the way that the government has been managing the country, I have been feeling the squeeze on the more social/comfort parts of my life.

The result of all of this consideration? 

There needs to be a little background before I get to that. I write four blogs at the moment, this one, "A Fencer's Ramblings" my fencing blog where I discuss fencing and training in fencing, and all of the details that go along with that pursuit; "A Life with Fibromyalgia" where I discuss some of my medical history, and how I deal with my chronic illnesses, primarily fibromyalgia; and "Olde Wordes: An Examination of Elizabethan English" which began as a foundation for writing the Elizabethan portion of one of my books, which I published, His Practice in Modern and Elizabethan English. This was the second book that I have published, the first one was a book version of a series of my fencing blog articles, plus some extras added in, entitled Un-Blogged: A Fencer's Ramblings.

I write a lot most of my writing does not see the light of day, unless I find that the articles are of particular interest to a particular group. You can find a profile of me on academia.edu with more of my articles; these are more of a scholarly bend to them, though at least one of them is a bit of fun. The point here being that I have written a lot and seen very little in the way of financial recompense for the hours of work and the thousands and thousands of words I have written.

I have begun a profile on Patreon. I will be putting my more considered and researched articles on this site where people can pay me for the effort that has gone into producing the articles. I will not be removing articles from sites where they are already held, unless I do updates or improvements. In this case the newer versions will appear on the Patreon site for access to those people willing to pay me for my time and expertise.

I have no doubt that there will be some who will scoff at these efforts and who will make comment about the monetisation of my writing. To these people, I will say that I am simply expecting to be paid for the work that I am putting in, for the information that I am supplying, for the expertise that I am supplying in the process. If that is not sufficient explanation, then they can simply go elsewhere, as they are not my concern.

I will still put articles on my various blogs, but they will not be of the same size or quality that they used to be, they will be shorter, and likely pointing to more significant articles on the Patreon site. If you want someone to blame for all of this, you can blame the government; all the rich individuals who don't want to pay their taxes; and all those who still believe that people with disabilities choose not to work, and choose to allow their disabilities to impact their lives so much that the government keeps disability payments low, so low that they are under the taxable threshold, while the prices of basic food and accommodation rises.

Cheers,

Henry.

Symbols of Hate: What is a Symbol?

Greetings,

I have been thinking about this post for a while. It is about a sensitive topic, and likely to get me hounded from some quarters, but such is the nature of being a person willing to put their thoughts to print. This should be noted, I am just putting my thoughts to print, nothing more.

There are certain symbols which have been recognised as "symbols of hate" due to certain crimes which have been perpetrated in association with them. In some instances, these have been crimes against humanity. This discussion does not deny any of these crimes, nor does it deny that they were crimes. This is an examination of the symbols which have become associated with them.

The government of Queensland, Australia decided, along with several other governments in Australia, that symbols of hate should not be tolerated, and thus they proposed a ban on hate symbols, so the media tells us. Now, one should always be careful about what the media tells us, and what exactly the media is telling us. The purpose of this ban is to strengthen the government's stand against hate crimes, "Queensland’s attorney general has confirmed the Nazi salute will be captured under proposed laws that ban hate symbols and strengthen the state’s response to vilification." 

Now, of importance about this proposal, is that it is not to ban images or symbols of Nazism, as has been interpreted by some, it is a ban on the "public display of hate symbols" which is a much broader area, and allows for much broader interpretation. One should really read the ministerial statement a little more closely to realise what is actually going on.

A symbol on its own means nothing. It is just a character, a pictogram, an image. When that same symbol is carried by a group of individuals, then it comes to have meaning. National flags are symbols not because of the images themselves, but because of their association with the nations to which they belong.

The Eureka flag, for example, is now associated with trade unionists, and it is now banned from being flown. It's original association was for gold miners on the Ballarat gold fields who revolted against the British administration and their taxation of the miners, culminating in the Eureka Stockade. 

We should all carefully consider what the symbols mean, and what they are associated with. In every situation, context is of great importance. The question that should be asked, is whose interpretation of "hate symbol" is going to be used when a symbol is banned in Queensland and other places that adopt such legislation? Will the Eureka flag fall under such jurisdiction? Will this be simply another method to curb our "freedom of expression"? Hopefully, the government finally use a tool correctly, as it was designed to be used and use it to reduce hate crimes.

Just for a thought process: Consider what the Palestinians think of the Star of David, painted over the tanks of the Israeli Army which come through their streets, marked on the members of the military who  kill members of their families, and force them into refugee camps. In reverse, consider what the Israelis think of the Crescent and Star, or the white Arabic script on a black background, as a terrorist group celebrates another attack on an Israeli target. Are these symbols of hate? Certainly not to those who carry them.

The individual's interpretation of a symbol, the society's interpretation of the symbol, the use of the symbol and what it is associated with give the symbol meaning. A symbol gives everyone something to rally around; sometimes the symbol is an individual, sometimes it is an icon. It gives power through the strength of those who rally around it. Consider the symbols of Star Wars or Star Trek, and what would happen if the people who rally around these symbols were motivated? Then again, who says they are not.

Cheers,

Henry.