(This is an entirely meta post, which feels like it might not be helpful, but I’ll post it anyway because I’m trying to have weaker babble filters. Feel free to ignore if it’s useless.
I generally enjoy your writing style, and think it’s evocative and clear-in-aggregate. But I find this comment entirely inscrutable. I think there’s something about the interaction between your “gesturing” style and a short comment, that doesn’t work as well for me as a reader compared to that style in a longer piece where the I can get into the flow of what you’re saying and figure out your referents inductively.
Either that or you’re referencing things I haven’t read or don’t remember.)
Thank you, good feedback. My feeling was that as a short comment it was 100% fine if it didn’t make sense to non-MtG people (or at least, anyone without the color wheel), and I’d rather keep it short than give the necessary background. Plus, it was more of a ‘fun exploration’ thing than trying to make a serious point.
Likely I should have linked back to the color wheel post, though.
For the record, I play Magic regularly and have for a long time, and I didn’t get it. I’m still not sure to what extent the colors really align with the descriptions given by either Duncan or Zvi.
The red knight values individual sovereignty, yes, but is not risk-averse or cautious. Red is certainly capable of forming armies that follow a leader.
Black doesn’t particularly care about “convincing arguments.”
Green could be a plant-like thing that’s hard to kill, but it could also be a very fragile plant that shrivels up and dies. Or judgy, racist elves, or whatever.
Perhaps these are not so much absolute representations, as the representation of each color that is most likely to appear in a rationalist house (basically, these are all X/u knights, not pure X knights).
FWIW I understood Zvi’s comment, but feel like I might not have understood it if I hadn’t played Magic: The Gathering in the past.
EDIT: Although I don’t understand the link to Sir Arthur’s green knight, unless it was a reference to the fact that M:tG doesn’t actually have a green knight card.
I also think I wouldn’t have understood his comments without MTG or at least having read Duncan’s explanation to the MTG color wheel.
(Nitpicking) Though I’d add that MTG doesn’t have a literal Blue Knight card either, so I doubt it’s that reference. (There are knights that are blue and green, but none with the exact names “Blue Knight” or “Green Knight”.)
(This is an entirely meta post, which feels like it might not be helpful, but I’ll post it anyway because I’m trying to have weaker babble filters. Feel free to ignore if it’s useless.
I generally enjoy your writing style, and think it’s evocative and clear-in-aggregate. But I find this comment entirely inscrutable. I think there’s something about the interaction between your “gesturing” style and a short comment, that doesn’t work as well for me as a reader compared to that style in a longer piece where the I can get into the flow of what you’re saying and figure out your referents inductively.
Either that or you’re referencing things I haven’t read or don’t remember.)
Thank you, good feedback. My feeling was that as a short comment it was 100% fine if it didn’t make sense to non-MtG people (or at least, anyone without the color wheel), and I’d rather keep it short than give the necessary background. Plus, it was more of a ‘fun exploration’ thing than trying to make a serious point.
Likely I should have linked back to the color wheel post, though.
For the record, I play Magic regularly and have for a long time, and I didn’t get it. I’m still not sure to what extent the colors really align with the descriptions given by either Duncan or Zvi.
The red knight values individual sovereignty, yes, but is not risk-averse or cautious. Red is certainly capable of forming armies that follow a leader.
Black doesn’t particularly care about “convincing arguments.”
Green could be a plant-like thing that’s hard to kill, but it could also be a very fragile plant that shrivels up and dies. Or judgy, racist elves, or whatever.
Perhaps these are not so much absolute representations, as the representation of each color that is most likely to appear in a rationalist house (basically, these are all X/u knights, not pure X knights).
FWIW I understood Zvi’s comment, but feel like I might not have understood it if I hadn’t played Magic: The Gathering in the past.
EDIT: Although I don’t understand the link to Sir Arthur’s green knight, unless it was a reference to the fact that M:tG doesn’t actually have a green knight card.
The Arthurian Green Knight lets Gawain cut off his head, then picks it up and puts it back on. Trying to use force on the Green Knight is useless.
I also think I wouldn’t have understood his comments without MTG or at least having read Duncan’s explanation to the MTG color wheel.
(Nitpicking) Though I’d add that MTG doesn’t have a literal Blue Knight card either, so I doubt it’s that reference. (There are knights that are blue and green, but none with the exact names “Blue Knight” or “Green Knight”.)
Also the Red Knight card is named “Blood Knight”.