bentflame | (no subject)

All it takes is one bent nail.

You haven't gotten one from me.

It's rather the point of that saying that you'd not be aware of it. But then, I'm don't know if you have the fable it's derived from in your world. I apologise.

Have you heard the story of 'The Kingdom Lost for the Want of a Nail?'

You're missing my point; I'm always aware of it. I don't let things slip by accident, and I don't make mistakes.

No.

And there's another nail.

I'll give you the short version. Due to a single bent nail in a horse shoe, a single warrior falls during a battle. Without that single warrior, the king he was meant to protect died. Without that king, the kingdom was conquered. Thus, the kingdom was lost for the want of a nail.

No.

That sort of thing would never happen in real life; at least not in the Fire Nation. A single soldier's failure could never be the downfall of the entire army.

What's a "horse shoe"?

Heh.

Strictly speaking, it could. If the soldier was in an important position. Some accounts are that the king himself falls due to the faulty nail. It's mostly a fable with a number of possible morals. The main ones are 'a single piece out of place can destroy the whole' or 'strong things are only as strong as their weakest point.'

A horse shoe is a metal cover for the hoof of a horse. A horse is a large quadruped, commonly used as a beast of burden. The shoes are nailed to their hooves, hence when a nail is bent it becomes loose and the shoe may fall off or twist into a position that will cause the horse to fall.

If we put someone in such an important position, we make sure they have plenty of back-up.

I see. It doesn't hurt the animal? I don't know much about hooved creatures.

Wise, but what it's not to be taken too literally. A similar fable involving clocks exists, but it's possible you don't have clocks in your world either.

As far as I'm aware, no. The nail is inserted into the keratin covering of the foot, not into actual flesh. Keratin is the same material which makes up finger nails and some animal horns and thus has no nerves.

Of course we do.

Ah, I see.

I see. Do they use mechanical springs and cogs? Otherwise the fable will still be meaningless.

I'm always happy to educate.

They do, actually.

The fable is a simple one. A man spends his entire life building a clock made from the finest, sturdiest materials. All the cogs are perfect and practically indestructible. But springs have to be flexible, meaning building them too sturdily would simply not work. Thus the springs could not handle the pressure of the invincible cogs and broke.
The most obvious moral is 'no matter how sturdy an object is, the weakest points can only take so much pressure' and 'denying flaws will only make things worse.'

Then it's a good thing that I don't deny flaws-- I eliminate them.

You do seem the type to attempt that. But that leads us to the third moral of the clock-'no matter how strong something is, it can never be completely indestructable.' Making yourself stronger endlessly will create new flaws as you grow. Although I'm far from saying one should simply accept their own flaws-people who believe that are just lazy.

Any new "flaws" that are created are in turn eliminated.

And in turn, new ones follow. It's better to perfectly understand ones weaknesses and then apply that knowledge to limit them or even turn them to ones advantage. A friend of mine has a terrible temper. Just to even scratch him in battle will drive him into an uncontrollable rage. But he can easily use this flaw to increase his conviction not to receive any damage in combat, and through practice he has learnt to channel his rage to devastating effect. If he merely tried to control his temper, he would suffer undue mental pressure or be unable to properly utilise his strength.

Turning a former disadvantage into an advantage certainly sounds like elimination to me.

I wouldn't call it elimination. He still has the disadvantage. If he is to lose his temper when not in combat or becomes enraged too early in battle, he suffers for it. But the fact remains that the advantages of having the flaw and understanding it outweigh removing it completely.

He can't eliminate that part of it?

If he truly wanted to, I suppose he could. But to learn to control even a part of his anger would lessen the effectiveness of the rage as a whole. The real question you're asking is, should he seek his own unique strength and master that, or should he search for a generic universal strength? I believe you're the type who prefers to have a universal strength, but that can never be totally mastered.

I can control myself, but I'm not a worse fighter because of it. Your argument is lacking, at least when you try to apply it to me.

I'm not implying that you should lose your self control. In fact, from what I've seen of you already, that would likely be the worst step you could take. I am saying that it is better to consider carefully personal specialties and flaws, then create an individual type of strength. Rather than reaching for an all encompassing strength that cannot be fully achieved.

I'm curious as to why you think that can't be achieved. Personal experience?

Quite the opposite. Of all the people I know, I am the person most able to reach a strength you could call 'complete strength', but that is due having first realised an individual strength which can be applied to reaching for that. But you, on the other hand, are neglecting personal strength to reach for complete strength. I have no doubt that a woman of your conviction and confidence could possess an individual strength far superior to any universal strength you could ever achieve.

[Anon]

Re: [Anon]

[Anon]

Re: [Anon]

[Anon]

Re: [Anon]

[Anon]

Re: [Anon]

[Anon]

Re: [Anon]

[Anon]

Re: [Anon]

[Anon]

Re: [Anon]

[Anon]

Re: [Anon]

[Anon]

Re: [Anon]

[Anon]

Re: [Anon]

[Anon]

Re: [Anon]

[Anon]

Re: [Anon]

[Anon]