Jᴀᴄᴜʀᴜᴛᴜ - Tʜᴇ Cᴀsᴛ Oᴜᴛ

A Thing of Eternity wrote:

Setzer wrote:Assuming the Five to One kill ratio includes the Sardaukar's pogrom against Fremen civilians (for lack of a better term) that would mean that the kill ratio would be even more skewed in favor of the Fremen if it were purely army on army.

That's how I take that quote to mean, total deaths of Fremen vs total Sardaukar deaths. Which makes sense when compared to the other part where I believe it says some number of Fremen took out 1 or 2 hundred Sardaukar and lost less than a handful. I really need to read the quotes I'm talking about before posting though!

Refer back to post eight:

"You . . . took one?" Hawat asked.
"It was a good fight," the Fremen said. "We lost only two men and spilled the water from more than a hundred of theirs."
There were Sardaukar at every gun, Hawat thought. This desert madman speaks casually of losing only two men against Sardaukar!
"We would not have lost the two except for those others fighting beside the Harkonnens," the Fremen said. "Some of those are good fighters."

It was a mixed group, so the ratio may even be more favorable for the Fremen in that instance. Furthermore, what should be considered here is that this is an example of a Fremen raid very early in the war. In the scene not too long after that where the Fremen capture a thopter, the Sardaukar are routed because the Fremen used tactics against them that were tempered by the environment. The Sardaukar were probably studious of occasions like that, and adapted their tactics in order to follow suit. This could explain the difference between Hawat's ratio and this early figure, but of course it doesn't explain Frank Herbert's two different estimations of how many Sardaukar were dispatched to Arrakis.

SandChigger wrote:The "Terminology of the Imperium" is an in-universe document, so whenever the narrative text and the "glossary" disagree like this, the narrative takes precedence so long as it can be shown that what it says is not a printing error, etc.

Meh... I wouldn't be so quick to assume that about something being an in-unverse document. We can't know what margin of error Frank Herbert ascribed to the people in his dune universe.

Caveat: This sort of a discussion would probably have driven Herbert senior mad, anyways. However much his books worked as far as consistency goes is a testament to his intelligence, because he didn't have much intention in the first place to be nit-picky. The series is a kind of sweeping meta-narrative, you could say.

lukecash12 wrote:I wouldn't be so quick to assume that about something being an in-unverse document.

I never assume anything quickly. (Although it did not take long to conclude that you're an idiot.)

The Terminology is an in-universe text. Narrative text trumps it every time. Even a statement by a character trumps it unless some reason can be shown to believe that the character is lying or joking, etc.

Whether you can know the "margin of error" or not is irrelevant. The fact that in-universe texts can be in error is what matters.

And who the fuck are you to tell us what Frank Herbert intended?

Yeah the terminology is clearly in-universe.

That said, I don't think an in-universe document would be likely have something so simple as the size of a military group wrong. I'm at the point now where I'm pretty confident this is either an editing error or simply bad math on FH's behalf.

Certainly it doesn't matter at all though, it's just fun to find these little mistakes, especially from an author who made so few.

Of course, there's also the possibility that the two Sardaukar legions were highly over strength and had more then thirty thousand, but that doesn't fit with all I've read about Shaddam IV. The glossary said the number of Bursegs doubled while appropriations for new Sardaukar training steadily dropped. So while there were more Sardaukar officers strutting like roosters at Court functions, the number of actual front line soldiers House Corrino could field would have been reduced overall. It seems to me that if he had two Sardaukar legions numbering 100,000+, he probably would have spun the extras off into another Legion so he could give the command to a loyal officer.

I never assume anything quickly. (Although it did not take long to conclude that you're an idiot.)

It's childish to immediately resort to name calling, especially when such a light suggestion was made. At this point, I can just as easily say that you are incapable of not being mellodramatic, and that you are probably prone to using the ad hominem fallacy. But it wouldn't be the result of very much reconnaissance, would it?

The Terminology is an in-universe text. Narrative text trumps it every time. Even a statement by a character trumps it unless some reason can be shown to believe that the character is lying or joking, etc.

This hasn't been established, in a dialectic correspondence with me. Should this fact be so clear as you say it is, then I would like to see the relevant discussion.

Whether you can know the "margin of error" or not is irrelevant. The fact that in-universe texts can be in error is what matters.

I would defer to a person relative to the account with qualities like Thufir Hawat in the stead of in-universe texts, but considering the advancements of that day and age, it doesn't make sense to regard the in-universe texts like we might regard comparisons between Suetonius and Tacitus of the ancient Roman empire.

And who the fuck are you to tell us what Frank Herbert intended?

Dude, Frank Herbert gave us some good ideas as to what he intended: http://sinanvural.com/seksek/inien/tvd/tvd2.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; So, I can also safely argue that Frank Herbert was more interested in ecology and anthropology, than hard history.

lukecash12 wrote:It's childish to immediately resort to name calling, especially when such a light suggestion was made. At this point, I can just as easily say that you are incapable of not being mellodramatic, and that you are probably prone to using the ad hominem fallacy. But it wouldn't be the result of very much reconnaissance, would it?

Go fuck yourself, ya kus kalbat.

The Terminology is an in-universe text. Narrative text trumps it every time. Even a statement by a character trumps it unless some reason can be shown to believe that the character is lying or joking, etc.

This hasn't been established, in a dialectic correspondence with me.

Such is not necessary. If you've read the Terminology in its entirety, it should be obvious that it's an in-universe text. (If not, reread it.)

Should this fact be so clear as you say it is, then I would like to see the relevant discussion.

Here.

I would defer to a person relative to the account with qualities like Thufir Hawat in the stead of in-universe texts, but considering the advancements of that day and age, it doesn't make sense to regard the in-universe texts like we might regard comparisons between Suetonius and Tacitus of the ancient Roman empire.

You're missing the point.

Dude, Frank Herbert gave us some good ideas as to what he intended: http://sinanvural.com/seksek/inien/tvd/tvd2.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; So, I can also safely argue that Frank Herbert was more interested in ecology and anthropology, than hard history.

Ah, the McNelly interview! I guess you're convinced the spice is worm sperm, too, yes?

SandChigger wrote:

Dude, Frank Herbert gave us some good ideas as to what he intended: http://sinanvural.com/seksek/inien/tvd/tvd2.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; So, I can also safely argue that Frank Herbert was more interested in ecology and anthropology, than hard history.

Ah, the McNelly interview! I guess you're convinced the spice is worm sperm, too, yes?

LIKE worm sperm. It's only apropriate since the worms are giant phallic symbols.

At least they're not peeing on people.

lukecash12 wrote: Meh... I wouldn't be so quick to assume that about something being an in-unverse document. We can't know what margin of error Frank Herbert ascribed to the people in his dune universe.

Mehhhhhhhhhhhhh... I don't think you know what an in-universe document is, or understand the basic relationship of an in-universe document to the narrative.

lukecash12 wrote:

The Terminology is an in-universe text. Narrative text trumps it every time. Even a statement by a character trumps it unless some reason can be shown to believe that the character is lying or joking, etc.

This hasn't been established, in a dialectic correspondence with me.

Are you saying it hasn't been established that the Terminology is an in-universe text? Or that it hasn't been established that narrative text trumps in-universe? Because it has, and it has.

merkin muffley wrote:

lukecash12 wrote:

The Terminology is an in-universe text. Narrative text trumps it every time. Even a statement by a character trumps it unless some reason can be shown to believe that the character is lying or joking, etc.

This hasn't been established, in a dialectic correspondence with me.

Are you saying it hasn't been established that the Terminology is an in-universe text? Or that it hasn't been established that narrative text trumps in-universe? Because it has, and it has.

I thought the phrase "dialectic correspondence with me" was pretty clear. I have not been involved with anyone here in establishing good grounds for thinking that narratives trump in-universe texts. It is not obvious to me why a narrative text has to trump an in-universe text, and that the idea is being pressed so adamantly has the odor of canonizing. Is it anyone's opinion that Herbert's work had the air of a canon? Seems loco to me

lukecash12 wrote:

merkin muffley wrote:

lukecash12 wrote:

The Terminology is an in-universe text. Narrative text trumps it every time. Even a statement by a character trumps it unless some reason can be shown to believe that the character is lying or joking, etc.

This hasn't been established, in a dialectic correspondence with me.

Are you saying it hasn't been established that the Terminology is an in-universe text? Or that it hasn't been established that narrative text trumps in-universe? Because it has, and it has.

I thought the phrase "dialectic correspondence with me" was pretty clear. I have not been involved with anyone here in establishing good grounds for thinking that narratives trump in-universe texts. It is not obvious to me why a narrative text has to trump an in-universe text, and that the idea is being pressed so adamantly has the odor of canonizing. Is it anyone's opinion that Herbert's work had the air of a canon? Seems loco to me

Why WOULDN'T an in-universe text be trumped by narrative?! Unless the author is working the unreliable narrator thing (which FH clearly was not) or something is clearly the opinion of a character, the narrative is the be-all end-all. "In-universe" texts are meant to be coloured, or even flawed, because otherwise there's no point to them being "in-universe".

I don't really understand your confusion on this one, this is fiction 101 honestly.

Dialogue is another seperate issue, where the likelihood of the character being right or wrong, lying or telling the truth has to be weighed.


A simple example: how big does the appendix/glossary say sandworms get? Not all that big, compared to the first one Paul rode they're puny in fact. Now, if someone who wasn't a mentat had been the one describing the length of that worm, it would be suspect of course, and we could argue about whether the book's text or the in-universe doc were correct. BUT, it's a mentat thinking to himself, so in that case Paul's inner dialogue clearly trumps the in-universe document.

lukecash12 wrote:It is not obvious to me why a narrative text has to trump an in-universe text

It doesn't have to in general or when, say, the narrative is related in first person. But we're discussing the specific case of Dune.

and that the idea is being pressed so adamantly has the odor of canonizing. Is it anyone's opinion that Herbert's work had the air of a canon? Seems loco to me

Gibberish. Get a new dictionary.

A Thing of Eternity wrote: Why WOULDN'T an in-universe text be trumped by narrative?! Unless the author is working the unreliable narrator thing (which FH clearly was not) or something is clearly the opinion of a character, the narrative is the be-all end-all. "In-universe" texts are meant to be coloured, or even flawed, because otherwise there's no point to them being "in-universe".

I don't really understand your confusion on this one, this is fiction 101 honestly.

Yeah, this is pretty obvious, lukecash. We're not working with an unreliable narrator in Dune. Or, should I say, it's not like we aren't working with a reliable narrator. The narrator isn't unreliable. There ain't no unreliable narrator - NOT.

SandChigger wrote:

and that the idea is being pressed so adamantly has the odor of canonizing. Is it anyone's opinion that Herbert's work had the air of a canon? Seems loco to me

Gibberish. Get a new dictionary.

Oh good, I was worried my vocabulary was failing to line up with my grammar/syntax. But now I can stop worrying about that, nothing like a linguist to reassure you that yes, you do in fact speak your native language!

A Thing of Eternity wrote:

SandChigger wrote:

and that the idea is being pressed so adamantly has the odor of canonizing. Is it anyone's opinion that Herbert's work had the air of a canon? Seems loco to me

Gibberish. Get a new dictionary.

Oh good, I was worried my vocabulary was failing to line up with my grammar/syntax. But now I can stop worrying about that, nothing like a linguist to reassure you that yes, you do in fact speak your native language!

I thought I was just really stoned.

Setzer wrote:Assuming the Five to One kill ratio includes the Sardaukar's pogrom against Fremen civilians (for lack of a better term) that would mean that the kill ratio would be even more skewed in favor of the Fremen if it were purely army on army.

Moot point, but all Fremen were combatants, no?

inhuien wrote:

Setzer wrote:Assuming the Five to One kill ratio includes the Sardaukar's pogrom against Fremen civilians (for lack of a better term) that would mean that the kill ratio would be even more skewed in favor of the Fremen if it were purely army on army.

Moot point, but all Fremen were combatants, no?

"His people scream his name as they leap into battle. The women throw their
babies at us and hurl themselves onto our knives to open a wedge for their men
to attack us. They have no . . . no . . . decency!"
~Dune

I'd say that's a yes.

Combatants in the sense that they're the primary force for fighting. I'm certain Paul's Jihad didn't fill out its ranks with children, and he didn't win the Battle of Arrakeen with old men or nursing mothers. Sure the Fremen would give you hell wherever you attack, but that's basically guerrilla warfare. It's not like all the Fremen were warriors first.

Setzer wrote:Combatants in the sense that they're the primary force for fighting. I'm certain Paul's Jihad didn't fill out its ranks with children, and he didn't win the Battle of Arrakeen with old men or nursing mothers. Sure the Fremen would give you hell wherever you attack, but that's basically guerrilla warfare. It's not like all the Fremen were warriors first.

Anyone who attacks your soldiers are combatants.

And I dissagree, Fremen were trained fighters from birth, not only for survival but for climbing the social ladder of the sietch.

Good Fremen children kill the wounded and mark them for the deathstill.

Freakzilla wrote:Anyone who attacks your soldiers are combatants.

They're engaging in combat, that doesn't make them an equal of a trained and experienced Fremen warrior. The Baron isn't so much shocked by their combat skill as by their fanaticism. He's probably used to Giedi peasants who knuckle under after you kill a few.

And I dissagree, Fremen were trained fighters from birth, not only for survival but for climbing the social ladder of the sietch.

That's dueling. There's a difference between warfare and duels. The Fremen were tough, but they weren't really the soldiers they could have been until Paul came along and trained them.

Good Fremen children kill the wounded and mark them for the deathstill.

So you shank a wounded man and mark him for the water recovery teams. That's not combat training, that's just the Arrakeen version of looting a fallen foe. It doesn't make you a soldier.

So, it seems this ones gonna run. Was every Freman a card carrying soldier, No. Was every single Freman born up to the events in Dune born and raised in a entirely martial, regimented and structured society.

com·bat·ant (km-btnt, kmb-tnt)
n.
One, such as a person or a combat vehicle, that takes part in armed strife.
adj.
Engaging in armed strife.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
combatant [ˈkɒmbətənt ˈkʌm-]
n
a person or group engaged in or prepared for a fight, struggle, or dispute
adj
engaged in or ready for combat


It doesn't say you need to be a trained soldier.

So are you seriously arguing that boys like Jamis' sons are as valuable in a fight as grown adults like Stilgar or Chani?

Setzer wrote:So are you seriously arguing that boys like Jamis' sons are as valuable in a fight as grown adults like Stilgar or Chani?

Is a kid who plants an IED as valuable as a trained militia man?

A kill is a kill no matter how much the killer was trained.