not an Evil Librarian

could Alcatraz break a shardblade?

13 posts in this topic

Welcome to the Shard!

While I think that yes, he probably could break a Shardblade if you gave him one, I think there's an important qualifier to that: Whether it would be funnier for him to succeed or fail under the specific circumstances involved. :D

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think yes, that it would be possible for Alcatraz to break a shardblade. And I would love to see the outcome of that! But sadly Alcattaz isn't a part of the cosmere.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/11/2019 at 11:51 PM, not an Evil Librarian said:

The answer is obviously yes, but what do you think?

Just because you're so confident, I'm going to offer an opposing viewpoint. :D (Although I'll admit my initial reaction was along the same lines as your hypothesis.) 

In chapter 21 of The Knights of Crystallia, Alcatraz successfully breaks a sword. Shardblades are, for our purposes, just big ol' swords wielded by people with big ol' suits of armor. But wait, there's more.   

In chapter one of the first book, Alcatraz states, 

Quote

When I was very young, kids called me a klutz. I was always breaking things—plates, cameras, chickens.

The chicken in question lost all of its feathers and would only eat cat food from then on. This would seem to imply that a living spren, in the form of a shardblade, could still be broken. If Alcatraz can break swords and creatures, what's stopping him from breaking both at the same time?

I'm very glad you asked that question. I propose that spren, being sentient beings, are less likely to be broken by the young Smedry spawn. Have we ever seen him break something that could think before? That would be the precedent I'd demand be exhibited before any of you could even hope to convince me your hero could snap such a majestic weapon! I'd suggest he has mental blocks in place to stop him from doing such a thing, like how people can't bring themselves to chew off their own fingers. (Don't believe me? Try it.)

*drags a table over to the middle of the stage*

*dramatically flips the aforementioned table*

Ha! I can see I have stupefied you all with my incredible logic. Disprove that

Edited by Archer
Or don't. I'm cool either way.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Archer said:

(Don't believe me? Try it.)

But what if I just don't want to bite off my fingers? 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Kidpen said:

But what if I just don't want to bite off my fingers? 

Bah! With that kind of attitude, you'll never become a popsicle. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Archer said:

Have we ever seen him break something that could think before?

Yes. The chicken. Unless you can prove that chickens aren't sentient, your argument is invalid.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Silva said:

Yes. The chicken. Unless you can prove that chickens aren't sentient, your argument is invalid.

Exhibit A: I present to you this security footage from Roshar of the chicken in question. As you can see, the cat clearly denounces the chicken as being non-sentient. Given Mr. Cat's extensive experience with poultry, his testimony should be considered indisputable. 

Spoiler



 

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Archer said:

Exhibit A: I present to you this security footage from Roshar of the chicken in question. As you can see, the cat clearly denounces the chicken as being non-sentient. Given Mr. Cat's extensive experience with poultry, his testimony should be considered indisputable. 

  Reveal hidden contents

 

 

 

 

 

 

He actually just calls the chicken stupid - the chicken's sentience is never doubted.

Exhibit B: I present to you the definition of stupid.

5c3bdbc561ace_Screenshot2019-01-13at7_35_38PM.png.dc0dfc1282fa804a432361b1861606ad.png

It clearly states that showing a lack of intelligence can make one considered stupid. Therefore, one who acts like they are lacking intelligence would technically be showing a lack of intelligence and are so too stupid. But is one who can create a plan like that really stupid? This means that the word 'stupid' can not have any meaning because its definition contradicts itself. The cat calling the chicken stupid neither proves nor disproves your point.

And if the above has faults, see Exhibit C:

5c3bdd4392cca_Screenshot2019-01-13at7_51_09PM.png.244fb42f5c4acf50c3a4850fb590d212.png

By definition, sentient beings are those able to percieve or feel things. The chicken in that footage was able to perceive that cat food was edible since the Mr. Cat was eating it. Hence, the chicken must have been sentient.

Edited by Silva
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gak! You're got exhibits too! Well then, permit me to present another of my own. According to a transcript of the above conversation (which was provided for myself by the court's liebrarian, but we didn't have enough copies to share) Mr. Cat actually called the chicken 'stoopid'. 

Behold, Exhibit E: In the foreword of book four, Alcatraz writes,

Quote

My name is Alcatraz Smedry, my Talent is breaking things, and I’m stoopid. Really, really stoopid.

We can extrapolate from that sentence that the definition of 'stoopid' is 'one who is Alcatraz Smedry and has a Talent for breaking things'. That's just basic context analysis. Given the term's lack of use elsewhere, we can assume that it is the only available definition. The adverbs merely indicate how similar one is to an Alcatraz. In this case, they are very similar. Nearly identical, in fact. 

It's common knowledge that Alcatraz in an unreliable narrator. He keeps trying to convince readers that he is not much of a hero. It's obvious he's lying, to cover up his cold-hearted psychopathic nature. Every time he says he has feelings or emotions, he is spouting falsehoods! Him, and all who are like him, including the chicken in question, have no ability to feel things. They're all non-sentient. The chicken was merely acting randomly in the scene shown above, with no conscious direction. 

Spren, on the other hand, are acutely aware of their surroundings. You'd never see them just fluttering about aimlessly, disconnected from the world. If they acted like that, they'd be no better than the wind. No, spren are thinking, capable beings. They can turn themselves into shardblades on command, or shardaxes, or shardpikes, or anything with the word 'shard' in front of it. That makes them indestructible by Alcatraz. 

Edited by Archer
I was hungry, so I ate Exhibit D. Sorry.
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ahah! In exhibit B you presented security footage from Roshar of the chicken in question.

Except there's an issue. The chicken obviously still has feathers. Meaning this footage could only be from before Alcatraz broke it. But then, if the chicken already ate cat food, that couldn't have been broken about him.* The footage obviously must be from the wrong chicken. This also means that the chicken is not 'stupid' or 'stoopid' as your transcripts say. 

Wait. NO! I've figured it out. You're right, but not for the reasons you thought. 

Alcatraz Smedry is a liar. He says so himself. And after the lying about the color of his shoes one time, he says the best lies are the most obvious ones. I can't believe I didn't see it until now....

Alcatraz Smedry lied about being able to break things. The books obviously were found and tainted by librarians. They stuck that in. Any time it has him breaking something it's a lie. The chicken's sentience was never important. Well, it is important - ALL CHICKENS MATTER - but not in this context. Alcatraz Smedry has no Breaking talent. Alcatraz Smedry can't break a shard.

Edited by Silva
*If you say that he didn't eat ONLY cat food before, how do you know he didn't simply decide he preferred cat food since it tasted better in his opinion?
2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Invested objects are harder to break, because the only way he could break things in the cosmere would be if he used investiture to do it.

Just a theory I'm chucking out there.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/20/2019 at 3:03 AM, Sharshiblarb said:

Invested objects are harder to break, because the only way he could break things in the cosmere would be if he used investiture to do it.

Just a theory I'm chucking out there.

Well, the reason I'd disagree is that lenses, crystin swords, the glass dome, and smedry talents would also all be heavily invested, and Alcatraz broke all of them, or could have.

Edited by Ark1002
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.