Onslaught

From: David Cake <dave_at_starfish.net.au>
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 09:47:49 +0800

>> But mostly, its the first reason. Jar-Eel is known to be have many
>>notable capabilities, Onslaught is known only for killing stuff. Of course
>>he seems like a less interesting person. He is.
>
>Hmm, disagree, but then lets look at the abilities you mentioned about
>Jar-eel and see my view of heroics to find out why I find the extreme more
>interesting.

        There are two levels on which we can take 'interesting'. As a object of a narrative, and as a putative person.

        On the latter, Jar-Eel probably wins easily, on the basis that she is probably a good deal more interesting in conversation, at parties, etc. Cultured, able to gossip about the Emperor, skilled at debate, interesting friends. Though the possibility that she might start spouting poetry could be good or bad - is she a Dorothy Parker or a Wordsworth? Whereas I can just imagine Onslaughts attempts to make small talk - discussing types of blade with the pedantic enthusiasm of the collector, best ways to get to the kidney, attack positions for multiple opponents. Even when everyone else is trying to discuss something else. THe only saving graces are that a) he might just sit in the corner and not bother talking to anybody and b) its unlikely that he will keep it up for too long, as he will probably end up killing somebody before then.

        As a fictional creation, I also find him a lot less interesting. But thats a matter of taste - if my tastes ran only to violent death, then Onslaught might start to look better.

>To you Jar-eel is more interesting because she is
>diverse and has cool social skills. To me she's dull because most heroes are
>like that, I like the extreme, arbitrary dudes like Harrek best of all, or
>selfish bastards like Ethilrist or nutcase demons like Death on a Horse.

        I prefer contradictions to extremes. I like Jar-Eel because she is all she is (cultured, poetic, etc), and a vicious efficient magical assassin. I like Ethilrist because he is a great warrior and hero, and such a flawed man in other ways - pompous and selfish. Death on a Horse actually is pretty much like Onslaught, a character defined in terms of a few extreme characteristics with no internal contradictions (that we know of) - such characters are best kept as villains or minor players in my opinion, but thats just my taste again.

>Its a matter of taste as to what is interesting.

        Absolutely. Train spotters, and all that.

	Cheers
		David

------------------------------