tunewalker Posted February 13, 2014 Share Posted February 13, 2014 Actually if you think about it Thrawn rarely engaged the brightest of the New Republic he had a plot to get Akbar out of the way for most of the War and the moment Iblis took charge he backed off knowing fighting would get more costly. The rare time he did engage the New republics finest like Akbar and Wedge he didnt out right beat them he just tricked them or out maneuvered them by a small margin from good planning right before hand. I always felt the books suggested that with out more ships + clones supplementing his numbers as time went on the New Republic would preform better and better against him as they understood him more and more. Thats also kind of how he ended up losing in the end, and in fact that is how the empire over all was toppled a few members came in and added unexpected variables that werent acounted for giving the New Republic that one momentary edge they needed to end it all. Thrawn HAD to preform everything perfectly one mess up was all it would take to bring him down and ultimately it did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jandi Posted February 13, 2014 Share Posted February 13, 2014 Technology was more advanced, but Thrawn was fighting the people using those machines. I think of Thrawn as a flawless tactician, who had a deep understanding of technology, and how to utilise it in ways that others cannot comprehend, and the best strategist in the galaxy, but not flawless. Keep in mind, outside of their own geniuses, the commanders of the New Republic were trained. in relatively, the same way, likewise with the Imperial commanders. There always was a "standardized military doctrine". This is why I found the introduction of Garm Bel Iblis as a foil for Thrawn appropriate, he was fighting the war his own way, with his methodology, which produced innovations(a-wing slash) that Thrawn couldnt have anticipated, since Bel Iblis operated outside the NR military doctrine. Yes the 10 steps ahead was a bit of a stretch, but you have to admit, Thrawn completely dominated most NR forces utterly. As a story telling mechanic, it stressed that Thrawn wasnt going to be beaten via "by-the-book" commanders. He was probably 5-6 steps ahead in reality, but that doesnt quite have the same ring to it as 10 =3 As for the art thing, well I kind of believe it. There are always over-riding impulses that are ingrained deeply into individuals, fight or flight, the urge to breed(giggity). Individuality is always present, but there is always a unity behind a culture whether it is genetically ingrained or socially trained from birth. Thrawn simply saw those impulses, and manipulated it to his advantage Christ... you sound as if any of it *actually* happened. They are books, fictional books and, if you look at it from a non-fanboy aspect, bad ones. Why bad? For the simple points I already raised, which you just... ignored completely and responded with... what, exactly? Thrawn isn't real man, chill out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jandi Posted February 13, 2014 Share Posted February 13, 2014 In other words, it's fiction...of course it's not believable and it would be ridiculous, yet it still worked for the character. Of course not nearly ridiculous as some DC/Marvel characters, you wanna talk about ridiculous they make anything SW characters do rather tame by comparsion! Yes, obviously BUT there are fictional stories that are believable. Believable and realistic aren't the same thing. I've made this point over and over again over the years in these forums and, quite frankly, I'm tired of repeating myself but I'll give an example. The Force, obviously not real, right? Believable? In this fictional universe, yes because why? Because Lucas said so. Ok, we have the Force. But what does it do? Whatever Lucas said it does in one of his drug addled hazes. Now, is it believable that Yoda lifted the X-wing? Yes, because, within this universe, such things ARE possible. It is realistic? No, of course not. Now, let's use the Thrawn character. He is a Chiss, Ok. In this universe, are Chiss a species of... anything besides blue skin? Not to my knowledge, so Human abilities apply. Humans are Humans, ok. So, a Chiss is a Human with blue skin and wonky eyes? Yes, Now that we have established the premise *within* the ifctional universe, we can start to build characters and if those characters go wildly outside the premise it becomes unbelievable. If the author had told that he had some weird Force affinity thingy that granted him the abilitiy to do what he did, for whatever reason, then it becomes believable. But he didn't, he is a blue skinned human and as such, human premise applies. Realism is irrelevant in fitcion. Believability is what separates good and bad fiction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaulderBenson Posted February 13, 2014 Share Posted February 13, 2014 (edited) Too often he knew how people would react too accurately. In addition, this "10 steps ahead" gimmick is not believable because if you actually take the time to think about any scenario, at step 4 you realize that the possibilities of what step 5 might be become too numerous to actually plan for in advance. As I stated, Thrawn was actually wrong quite a bit in the trilogy. However, if you continue to feel that way, it's fine. We're all entitled to our opinions. Read some actual history about the military geniuses of the real world and you'll realize this. I read nonfiction military history quite a bit, and your statement is not particularly relevant since we're talking about a fictional character in the SW universe that can tailor military strategy to their psychological blind spots based on their artwork. But hey, if you just want to suspend all disbelief and just enjoy the books, more power to you. I'm stating why *I* found it ridiculous. Thank you, I will. I merely responded to your claim that Thrawn was portrayed at omniscient, and that's simply inaccurate. The books, as written, don't corroborate that statement. Omniscience is having complete or unlimited knowledge, awareness, or understanding; perceiving all things. As stated, the first book ends with Thrawn losing and having to retreat. Thrawn dies in the last book, precisely because he failed to predict everything around him. That is not omniscience. They are books, fictional books and, if you look at it from a non-fanboy aspect, bad ones. Why bad? For the simple points I already raised, which you just... ignored completely and responded with... what, exactly? The above statement wasn't directed at me, but your simple points were addressed, and refuted. The books don't bear out your opinion, in fact, it's the opposite. However, it doesn't matter to me if someone dislikes these particular books, different strokes for different folks. I suspect we'll simply have to agree to disagree. Edited February 13, 2014 by CaulderBenson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jandi Posted February 14, 2014 Share Posted February 14, 2014 (edited) As I stated, Thrawn was actually wrong quite a bit in the trilogy. However, if you continue to feel that way, it's fine. We're all entitled to our opinions. Only when the story demanded it and only because he had to lose. Which, irnoically, makes it even more silly. I read nonfiction military history quite a bit, and your statement is not particularly relevant since we're talking about a fictional character in the SW universe that can tailor military strategy to their psychological blind spots based on their artwork. No, you don't. Tailoring military strategy to... artwork? That's retarded on a level where a retarded person would make fun of it. The only thing you can discern from something as subjective as art is the level of pretentiousness in the culture and sophistication of tools used to create it. Thank you, I will. I merely responded to your claim that Thrawn was portrayed at omniscient, and that's simply inaccurate. The books, as written, don't corroborate that statement. He was, except when he couldn't be due to the story. The above statement wasn't directed at me, but your simple points were addressed, and refuted. The books don't bear out your opinion, in fact, it's the opposite. Stating something doesn't make it true you know. The poster that quoted me refuted nothing. Not a single thing. However, it doesn't matter to me if someone dislikes these particular books, different strokes for different folks. I suspect we'll simply have to agree to disagree. Obviously it does. My issue isn't with the books as much as certain aspects of Thrawn. If he was a Columi, yeah, I'd buy it but not from a Chiss. Edited February 14, 2014 by Jandi Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Machshoot Posted February 14, 2014 Author Share Posted February 14, 2014 My biggest issue was the entire ability to determine what every opponent will do in battle based on the art of his species/race. If that part was not in the novels, I would have had far less of a problem surrounding Thrawn. It just felt like a cop-out to me, easy writing if you will. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seireeni Posted February 14, 2014 Share Posted February 14, 2014 People seem to assume that Thrawn just watches a painting and sees what sort of military strategies painted somewhere in there. He doesn't. What he sees in those artworks is the personality of the person who painted them or the personality of the person who likes them. He tries to understand what made that person paint just that kind of picture or like that kind of sculpture. And this may not be as ridiculous as it sounds: after all, there is some reason you made that piece of art or liked other piece of art, and when provided enough pieces of art you have made/you like, there probably is some patterns. If I showed you all the things I have in my bedroom that could be considered at some kind of art, especially if I also tell where in the room I keep them, I bet pretty much everyone could tell at least a thing or two about me by just looking at them. Thrawn just is a bit more brilliant about it and combines it with information he have gained from other sources (like how the person usually behaves). Same thing with species, expect that he's looking at multiple artworks by different people from that species and then trying to find patterns and combine them with whatever he knows about that species. Is he ridicously accurate? Sure. The same way Sherlock Holmes is, or the characters in the TV-series Criminal Minds. But he doesn't just know things. He thinks about the personality of the person (or people) and then reasons what's the most likely thing that person (/people) will do. If you find the accuracy of his conclusions unbelievable to the point that it ruins the whole trilogy, fine. Me, I found a couple of them a bit supernaturally accurate, and the two that I can remember right now both led to Thrawn's defeat. So one could say that Thrawn was ridicously clever only when the plot demanded so. Rest of the time, Thrawn was clever, but it was Sherlock Holmes -clever. There was logic behind his conclusions and it was understandable. Then again, I'm the kind of girl who loves Criminal Minds, and not only because Thomas Gibson looks great in a suit. Even though they are right more often and more accurate than real profilers. I suppose it's a bigger deal to some people, the same way "impossible" (or unexplained) techology is a big deal to some people. (I once had a chat with a friend who criticized Star Wars for not explaining how lightsabers are possible and how things like that make the whole Star Wars ridiculous. And I seriously couldn't understand why it bugged him so much.) Though I'm not sure if the OP here is criticizing Thrawn's accuracy as unbelievable or just trying to call Thrawn some sort of Canon sue Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts