Allam, and Communism

Thu Oct 13 11:35:17 PDT 2005

The only thing I don't like about Allam as a Great Weapon is that it seems 
to be to be a little too much trying to label and categorize the magic on 
Dragaera.  We know for a fact that there are at least two major forms of 
magic, and probably a third and fourth if Serioli and Jenoine are 1) both 
forms of magic and 2) not the same type of magic.

Of course that gets into the definition of magic and all that, and that's 
really beside the point.  You could technically call technology a form of 
magic, too.

But I *do* like the rest of the theory:

Verra taking an existing morganti weapon tied to a great destiny and either 
making or revealing its Great Weapon status, thus binding another Great 
Weapon into her service, as well as putting the East under her control to 
some degree.

I like that Bolk was willing to suffer being in the presence of Verra as 
Fenarr's Demon Goddess when he should have been enough--though the 
combination of their two powers was ultimately more effective for a while, 
it DID cause one to require being dominant over the other.

I think Bolk is natural to Dragaera, and Verra an interloper, which makes 
sense, given that Chaos itself is natural to the world, but not in the 
quantity (or probably the form) that shows up due to Jenoine meddling.

So I think that, if Allam were a Great Weapon, it wasn't meant to be, or 
perhaps, it was made so to provide the means by which Verra could 
temporarily overpower Bolcseseg.  Which would make _Brokedown Palace_ a tale 
of rebellion instead of growth>decay, which is very much his style :)

On a side note, I thought it a WONDERFUL touch that the Dragon defeats both 
the Athyra and then the Dzur in order.  Until  I realized that the order 
goes Dragon--> Lyorn --> Tiassa.  Ah well, it would have been a nice touch 

By the way, under the subject line of" Communism" and not "Re: Allam", I 
think that Communism is ultimately a stagnant system--the reason that 
communist countries turn oppressive is because Marx didn't include diversity 
of thought into his model, and that was just a product of his times.  Our 
focus on Utopian societies now makes it obvious to us that the only Utopia 
that can exist that will not eventually (if not immediately) turn into a 
Dystopian hell, is to include on a foundational level the idea of conflict 
of opinion.

One man's gold is another man's garbage.

Communism could become slightly more viable if the thinkers started to 
incorporate this idea into their thinking--but would communism still be 
communism at that point?

Still it seems stupid to me, to try to base a system of government on one 
man's ideas and no other's.  One man is not smart enough to rule a people, 
living or dead. (the living or dead applies both to the ruler AND the people 
being ruled).  He may have had a great inspiration, but it takes revision to 
make any system work, and that is precisely what communists for whatever 
reason choose to resist, citing that decadence or something is the ultimate 
product of change.

I think, however, that decadence is a product of human nature, and should 
not be seen as a failure or short-coming in any political (or anything else 
"ical") system.