Monday, September 18, 2023

[Netflix] One Piece S01 Review

I've been reading manga and watching anime of One Piece close to 15 years. I care about fidelity, and the new adaptation staying true to the source material. I understand there are certain unavoidable changes when adapting a show for the new medium, especially if it's as cartoony as One Piece when making a live action. Still, I demand consistency. And I hate Netflix. That takes care of my biases.

From this point onward, there might be spoilers for manga, anime and live action. If you have any interest in One Piece, and wish to experience any of the listed versions for yourself, consider yourself warned.

First, the things that bothered me, or I did not like:

- Koby is played by a woman.

- Luffy is more prone to stress, but also more inventive.

- Because they made Luffy more inventive, they made Nami more of a bruiser.

- Making Nami a damsel in distress for no reason.

- Casting Nami's adopted sister as black is a catastrophy.

- They changed Usopp's nose.

- Kaya kissed Usopp.

- They killed Merry.

- Netflix making stuff up, especially the Marine side of the story.

All in all, the show gets a passing grade. It's enjoyable. Especially parts where they tried to be as true to the source as possible. And those parts outnumber the instances where Netflix took its poetic liberty to try and force some of their diversity agenda down the watcher's throat.

What is more, it is visible from the get go, at every instance where Netflix followed the source material, and where they veered in their own direction. The difference in quality is that obvious.

The decision to keep the cartoonish elements of the manga was a correct one. It gives the show a breath of authenticity, and separates it from any other show currently available.

Now for the things that bothered me. 

The idea behind making Luffy more inventive and prone to stress was probably done with the goal of making him more relatable. But this just makes him weird. What makes Luffy entertaining is that he's an aspirational hero. He wants to bcome King of the pirates, sail the Grand Line and find the One Piece. He cares about his nakama, his crew, but that doesn't mean he ever reaches the point of freezing up because of doubts and denials. He's a man f action. If anyone wrongs his nakama, or anyboy he took an instant liking to, then Luffy gets angry, and then he gets even. There is never "What should we do now?" with Luffy. He's goofy, likes to eat, laugh, and take it easy. He's not the one to overthink things.

Netflix took the liberty to force Nami join Strawhats a lot sooner then in source material. This was another thing that took away from Nami's character development, and was completely redundant storywise. When we first meet Nami in the source material she is a cat burglar. She hates pirates, and she justifies her thievery by saying she steals only from pirates. And then she infiltrates a marine base in order to steal a map. When she first comes accross Luffy and Zoro, it is a convenience. She uses the two in order to get herself out of trouble. And after both Luffy and Zoro survive the troubles she got them in, she's roped into fleeing the town together with them. She's sticking with the two because it is profitable to her. There's a whole arc that comes after that where Nami's story is revealed, and she actually wants to become one of the Strawhats. That connects us to the Netflix's changes in story to make Nami a damsel in distress. It was done in order not to maka Nami a despicable thief who is willing to betray her friends at the first opportunity she gets. Meaning, her character development was sacrificed in order she wouldn't look bad.

Usopp's nose in manga is inspired by Pinocchio. And just like the wooden puppet, Usopp is a grand liar extrodinaire. It's part of who and what Usopp is. Like Luffy's hat, like Zoro's three katanas, like Sanji's curly eyebrows and a cigarette, and Nami's cheeky faces, when she pulls a fast one on a villain.

In normal circumstances, I'd agree, that the nose probably had no chance to survive transition to live action. But then, the noses of Buggy the Clown and Arlong did. So if those two could have their signature noses, why couldn't Usopp?

Merry was Kaya's butler. In the source material Merry survived the attack of Black Cat pirates. In live action, they killed him. His death was meaningless. It's not like they did it for the story. Merry and Kaya appear sporadically. Only to show how people who knew Usopp before he became a pirate react to his adventure on the Grand Line. This arc in general is the one where Netflix felt like they know better, they started changing thing, and then never stopped.

Kaya kissing Usopp is downright betrayal of the source material. The very reason why Usopp decides to join Strawhats, and venture to the Grand Line is to become "great warrior of the sea". In other words, Usopp knows he is inferior to Kaya, and could never be anything more than the childhood friend who entertained a rich sickly girl by playing pretend games and making up stories. So her kiss actually robs him of any purpose of why he should go with Strawhats.

Nami's sister Nojiko is another problem. In the source material she has a tan skin. In the Netflix adaptation, she's black. In the source material Nojiko is hot. In Netflix adaptation, she's ugly. This is unfortunate, because it affect's Sanji, who is incorrigible womanizer. What looks like Sanji being a charming young man in the source material, looks like a sarcasm in Netflix adaptation. And Sanji cares only for beauties.

I'l admit there were some good ideas, like streamlining the fights to just one location, and having them take a relatively short amount of time in comparison to manga or anime, where fights can take awhile. They did it with Buggy, Kuro, and Arlong. I should also add that visually, the live action tried to stay true to the source material as much as possible. The costumes, the ships, even the scenes are at times uncanny in their resemblance to anime or manga.

As for the Marine sidestory. I believe the decision to cast a woman to play Koby was Netflix trying to fill some of their diversity quotas. Morgan Davies does a good job playing a young insecure boy who wants to become a marine, but I'm left wondering, if they really couldn't find any other male teenager to play the part. The whole Marine sidestory seems to exist only to develop Koby's character, and have us see Luffy's grandfather. Both are things we could do without at this point. I guess they did it in order to add an element of chase in the series. Which could be spent on staying true to the source material.

I would speculate that had they stayed true to the source, the first season would finish with escape from Loguetown. But this way, Loguetown will have to wait for season 2.

But what can be said about the series, is that it serves as a gateway drug to the anime for people who probably had no intention of watching it before they saw the Netflix show.

Tuesday, March 21, 2023

[Anime] Why you should watch: Space Brothers

 


Today we take a look at Space Brothers (Uchū Kyōdai). 

This is an anime about two brothers and their childhood promise to one day stand on the Moon together. But more than about the goal, it is about the journey, and their love for space. While the younger Hibito aims for the Moon, the elder Mutta, who thinks he cannot let his your brother outshine him, aims for Mars.

This is a show full of optimism. The belief that in vast emptiness of space, Earth with all its life and humanity is a miracle unto itself. But no matter how great that is, the real astronaut always wants to go deeper into space. 

The protagonist, Mutta Nanba has his own problems. He gave up on his dream of going to space when young, and had to watch his younger brother Hibito become an astronaut and go to the Moon. Now he's playing catch-up and rediscovering his love for space. 

The show is about testing the budding astronaut's character, and through various trials and tribulations, we see how Mutta grows. At least in anime, he never really gets over his impostor syndrome. He is never really confident, he always thinks he has to put in extra effort in order not to fall behind his colleagues, and he can be his own worst critic. But all these traits make his quirkiness endearing.

The anime loves to repeat certain scenes of formative memories, from Mutta's childhood stargazing to Agony of Doha, and it is a shame that after 99 episodes it ends at a point where things should really get interesting. The manga goes on. 

Nevertheless, if you're looking for a show about brotherly love, the cameradery and rivalry that comes with it, a show with everoptimistic outlook on the future, of space exploration, then Space Brothers is a show for you.

Tuesday, March 14, 2023

Why internal consistency in stories matters

Jack Reacher, created by starryai.com

 Internal consistency. 

This is something I discovered needs to be present throughout the series, or even a story. The realisation came while reading Jack Reacher novels by Lee Child. I understand that the author leaves the protagonist as a mostly blank slate. Gives him the manoeuvring space and allows the reader to imagine himself as Reacher. That at least is the theory. If we agree with that, is something else. 

Child likes to pay lip service through Reacher to the cause of the day, to show how hip and with times his hero is. All well and fine. But it's jarring when there is no reflection on the hero's actions that contradict his beliefs, even if they were meant as lip service. 

Example: Reacher states that women are as capable as men in combat. He trully believes that. And then later on with one swing he accidentally snaps the neck of a female serial killer who got in his way. 

Another example is the way he is extorted into helping FBI. Through previous books it's established Reacher doesn't let bullies get away with it no matter who they are. He's going to tolerate them as long as they're pestering him, but if they go after someone innocent or someone he likes, the gloves are off.

 So the way in which Reacher helps FBI because they threaten to doxx his girlfriend, and thus put her life in danger from a local crime lord is just stupid. Especially when you take in consideration that one call from Reacher to the highest echelons of FBI would get him rid of those wicked agents, because they owe him from previous books. 

But we're supposed to just accept it, so the story can happen, even when that same story could happen while also staying true to the character. 

I draw comparison with another thriller author, Tom Clancy. He also loved to pay lip service to the cause of the day, but he had the wisdom to do it in a way it didn't come back to bite him. 

Example: Women are as capable in leadership positions as men. Prime example through Jack Ryan series is the head of Secret Service. Clancy acknowledges that in normal circumstances she could never become the head of the secret service, but once the opportunity arises, Clancy has her rise up to the occasion and demonstrate her capabilities in action. 

When there appeared an incapable woman in leadership position Clancy went to great lengths in order to demonstrate she wasn't incapable because she was a woman, but because she was promoted to the position without merit. 

In short, it is often said, show don't tell. With internal consistency is show what you tell, or at least acknowledge how the actions that contradict already stated facts influence the beliefs of the characters.

 It doesn't have to be much, it doesn't have to be definitive, but it has to be acknowledged. One simple sentence can make a world of difference. 

For example: "Reacher always believed women were as capable in combat as men, and then he remembered X lying on the bathroom floor. He thought she just passed out, but in truth she was dead." Something like that. It doesn't have to mean the hero immediately radically changes his views. It just has to show the reader that the hero has minimum reflection on things happening to him.

Wednesday, March 8, 2023

What makes "Dark arts" dark in Harry Potter?

Voldemort, created by starryai.com

 I always assumed there is some sort of hard delineation between the "ordinary" magic and the "dark arts" in the Harry Potter universe.

I always assumed there must be some special reason why the three unforgivable curses are a class of their own.

With the latest craze around Hogwarts Legacy, and all the Youtubers happily burning their enemies to ashes while slamming them up and down on the floor, only to vary it up with an occasional torture curse, I decided to look it up.

It turns out I was wrong.

"The Dark Arts,[1] also known as Dark Magic,[2][3] was a term that referred to any type of magic that was mainly used to cause harm to, exert control over, or even kill people and creatures.[4][1] Most people who practised what was known as the Dark Arts were evil, but not all."

This is the definition from the official Wiki.

Considering you can kill, torture, or even control another with an ordinary spell, the only difference between "dark magic" and the rest is that the former is specialised enough that you can't do harm by accident. I would even argue that this feature makes it safer to use.

There is no such thing as accidental misfire with dark magic. Its use is by definition premeditated and thought out.

Now for the unforgivable curses:

"The Unforgivable Curses were three of the most powerful and sinister spells known to the wizarding world,[1] as well as the strongest known Dark spells in existence.[2] They were tools of the Dark Arts and were first classified as "Unforgivable" in 1717, with the strictest penalties attached to their use.[3]"

I always thought there was more to it. Like there was deeper reasoning why those three would be unforgivable. I assumed, that the use of those curses would at least scar the soul of its caster or some such. I thought that dark magic would be powerful, but at a terrible price, that rare few would be willing to pay. 

That made sense to me. It turns out it's all just a trivial matter that somebody decided once upon a time.

What does this all mean?

That the delineation between good and evil in Harry Potter is arbitrary and trivial. What is good or allowed depends on some random sheet of paper, and can be changed at any given time. What is considered dark magic is called as such because the people who like to use it are usually wicked, or mean, or evil. But there is nothing inherently good, bad, or anything else about the dark magic spells in Harry Potter universe. They are just tools for the job.

The "good guys" are on the other hand "good" because unlike the dark wizards, they kill people with normal spells where they burn them to death. Or petrify and throw them into an ocean. I made up those examples, but according to provided definitions, people would still die, while the killers would not be considered dark wizards.

While dark wizards use specialised tools for their evil equivalent to a mace or a flail, the regular wizards are fine using the equivalent of a blacksmith's hammer. Both can achieve the same result, one is just meant for that purpose while the other is among other things also capable of it.

We can argue the intentions, try to whitewash it as a last resort, say it was in self-defence. But at the end of the day, there is no real difference between dark arts and the rest of the magic in HP universe. Because the only thing that separates dark magic in Harry Potter from the rest of it is its specialisation.

And while fire spells can be "accidentally" used for torture, for threats, and for killing, unforgivable curses cannot.

Wednesday, January 4, 2023

Book list 2022

Five stars

The Hundred, Jason Anspach & Nick Cole

Without Remorse, Tom Clancy

Rainbow Six, Tom Clancy 

The Screwtape Letters, C.S. Lewis 

The Black Swan: The Impact of the Highly Improbable, Nassim Nicholas Taleb 

Antifragile: Things That Gain from Disorder, Nassim Nicholas Taleb 

Violence of Action, Jason Anspach & Nick Cole

Grave Peril, Jim Butcher

Death Masks, Jim Butcher

Sources of Japanese Tradition: Volume I, William Theodore de Bary 


Four stars

Gods & Legionnaires, Jason Anspach & Nick Cole

Dawn. Yoshiki Tanaka

Ambition, Yoshiki Tanaka

The Hunt for Red October, Tom Clancy

Patriot Games, Tom Clancy

The Cardinal in the Kremlin, Tom Clancy

Clear and Present Danger, Tom Clancy

The Sum of All Fears, Tom Clancy

Rainbow Six, Tom Clancy 

The Bear and the Dragon, Tom Clancy 

Red Rabbit, Tom Clancy 

Fooled by Randomness: The Hidden Role of Chance in Life and in the Markets, Nassim Nicholas Taleb

Skin in the Game: The Hidden Asymmetries in Daily Life, Nassim Nicholas Taleb

Son of the Black Sword, Larry Correia 

House of Assassins, Larry Correia 

Destroyer of Worlds, Larry Correia

Lay the Hate, Jason Anspach & Nick Cole

The Book of Joe, Jason Anspach & Nick Cole

Storm Front, Jim Butcher 

Fool Moon, Jim Butcher 

Summer Knight, Jim Butcher

Blood Rites, Jim Butcher 

Dead Beat, Jim Butcher 

Proven Guilty, Jim Butcher 

White Night, Jim Butcher

Small Favor, Jim Butcher

Turn Coat, Jim Butcher 

Changes, Jim Butcher 

Ghost Story, Jim Butcher 

Skin Game, Jim Butcher 

Battle Ground, Jim Butcher

Azijske filozofije in religije, Maja Milčinski 

Klasiki konfucijanstva: Štiri Knjige, Maja Milčinski 

A History of Japan to 1334, George Sansom 

A History of Japan 1334-1615, George Sansom 

A History of Japan 1615-1867, George Sansom 

Ideals Of The Samurai, William S. Willson 

State and Diplomacy in Early Modern Japan: Asia in the Development of the Tokugawa Bakufu, Ronald P Toby 

A Modern History of Japan: From Tokugawa Times to the Present, Andrew Gordon

Japanese Philosophy, H. Gene Blocker & Christopher L. Starling

History of the Peloponnesian War, Thucydides

Dauntless, Jack Campbell

Pop Kult Warlord, Nick Cole

Meditations, Marcus Aurelius

First Blood, David Morrell


Three stars

Casino Royale, Ian Fleming

Debt of Honor, Tom Clancy 

Executive Orders, Tom Clancy 

The Teeth of the Tiger, Tom Clancy

The Dogs of War, Frederick Forsyth

The Blade Itself, Joe Abercrombie 

Cold Days, Jim Butcher 

Peace Talks, Jim Butcher

Lead the Way, Jason Anspach & Nick Cole

The Black Company, Glen Cook

Killing Floor, Lee Child

Strange Company, Nick Cole

Monster Hunter Vendetta, Larry Correia

Monster Hunter Alpha, Larry Correia

Fearless, Jack Campbell 

Courageous, Jack Campbell

Valiant, Jack Campbell

Relentless, Jack Campbell

Victorious, Jack Campbell


Two stars

David Hume on Faith or Idealism and Realism: A Dialogue, Friedrich H. Jacobi

Neuromancer, William Gibson 

The Man in the High Castle, Philip K. Dick

A Darker Shade of Magic, V.E. Schwab

Snow Crash, Neal Stephenson 

Live and Let Die, Ian Fleming


One star

Critique of Pure Reason, Immanuel Kant

Phenomenology of Spirit, G. W. F. Hegel

The Open Society and Its Enemies, Karl Popper 

The Satanic Verses, Salman Rushdie


Friday, December 2, 2022

Tom Holland is not fit to play Zorro

 Bounding Into Comics reports that Antonio Banderas, the actor known for his roles of Zorro, and El Mariachi in Robert Rodriguez's Mexico trilogy is not opposed to Tom Holland, the actor known for playing Spiderman taking on the mantle of Zorro.

I take this for another Hollywood attempt at softly easing the public to the idea, that Holland can play Zorro.

He can't. He is not fit for the role. It is another miscast, just like it was with Holland playing Nathan Drake in the Uncharted film.

But these days, Hollywood cares a lot more about Twitter buzz, than they do about common sense. And Holland is big among the neurotic Twitter crowd, because he likes to dress in skirts and wear make-up.

Holland is short, at 26 he looks like an eternal teen. He might be fit to play Peter Pan, but not Zorro. And I'll admit, that not all Zorro actors were tall, but they all looked like grown men, and had that heroic presence on screen.

Holland lacks that. Because deep down, he is a Tinseltown Cindarella, not a swaggering swashbuckling playboy.

But that won't stop Hollywood.

Expect "reboot" of Zorro with Tom Holland in titular role by 2028.

Wednesday, November 30, 2022

The more things change, the more they stay the same ...

Excerpt from The History of the Peloponnesian War by Thucydides 431 BC, CHAPTER XVII Sixteenth Year of the War—The Melian Conference—Fate of Melos

The Athenians also made an expedition against the isle of Melos with thirty ships of their own, six Chian, and two Lesbian vessels, sixteen hundred heavy infantry, three hundred archers, and twenty mounted archers from Athens, and about fifteen hundred heavy infantry from the allies and the islanders. The Melians are a colony of Lacedaemon that would not submit to the Athenians like the other islanders, and at first remained neutral and took no part in the struggle, but afterwards upon the Athenians using violence and plundering their territory, assumed an attitude of open hostility. Cleomedes, son of Lycomedes, and Tisias, son of Tisimachus, the generals, encamping in their territory with the above armament, before doing any harm to their land, sent envoys to negotiate. These the Melians did not bring before the people, but bade them state the object of their mission to the magistrates and the few; upon which the Athenian envoys spoke as follows:

Athenians. Since the negotiations are not to go on before the people, in order that we may not be able to speak straight on without interruption, and deceive the ears of the multitude by seductive arguments which would pass without refutation (for we know that this is the meaning of our being brought before the few), what if you who sit there were to pursue a method more cautious still? Make no set speech yourselves, but take us up at whatever you do not like, and settle that before going any farther. And first tell us if this proposition of ours suits you.

The Melian commissioners answered:

Melians. To the fairness of quietly instructing each other as you propose there is nothing to object; but your military preparations are too far advanced to agree with what you say, as we see you are come to be judges in your own cause, and that all we can reasonably expect from this negotiation is war, if we prove to have right on our side and refuse to submit, and in the contrary case, slavery.

Athenians. If you have met to reason about presentiments of the future, or for anything else than to consult for the safety of your state upon the facts that you see before you, we will give over; otherwise we will go on.

Melians. It is natural and excusable for men in our position to turn more ways than one both in thought and utterance. However, the question in this conference is, as you say, the safety of our country; and the discussion, if you please, can proceed in the way which you propose.

Athenians. For ourselves, we shall not trouble you with specious pretences—either of how we have a right to our empire because we overthrew the Mede, or are now attacking you because of wrong that you have done us—and make a long speech which would not be believed; and in return we hope that you, instead of thinking to influence us by saying that you did not join the Lacedaemonians, although their colonists, or that you have done us no wrong, will aim at what is feasible, holding in view the real sentiments of us both; since you know as well as we do that right, as the world goes, is only in question between equals in power, while the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must.

Melians. As we think, at any rate, it is expedient—we speak as we are obliged, since you enjoin us to let right alone and talk only of interest—that you should not destroy what is our common protection, the privilege of being allowed in danger to invoke what is fair and right, and even to profit by arguments not strictly valid if they can be got to pass current. And you are as much interested in this as any, as your fall would be a signal for the heaviest vengeance and an example for the world to meditate upon.

Athenians. The end of our empire, if end it should, does not frighten us: a rival empire like Lacedaemon, even if Lacedaemon was our real antagonist, is not so terrible to the vanquished as subjects who by themselves attack and overpower their rulers. This, however, is a risk that we are content to take. We will now proceed to show you that we are come here in the interest of our empire, and that we shall say what we are now going to say, for the preservation of your country; as we would fain exercise that empire over you without trouble, and see you preserved for the good of us both.

Melians. And how, pray, could it turn out as good for us to serve as for you to rule?

Athenians. Because you would have the advantage of submitting before suffering the worst, and we should gain by not destroying you.

Melians. So that you would not consent to our being neutral, friends instead of enemies, but allies of neither side.

Athenians. No; for your hostility cannot so much hurt us as your friendship will be an argument to our subjects of our weakness, and your enmity of our power.

Melians. Is that your subjects’ idea of equity, to put those who have nothing to do with you in the same category with peoples that are most of them your own colonists, and some conquered rebels?

Athenians. As far as right goes they think one has as much of it as the other, and that if any maintain their independence it is because they are strong, and that if we do not molest them it is because we are afraid; so that besides extending our empire we should gain in security by your subjection; the fact that you are islanders and weaker than others rendering it all the more important that you should not succeed in baffling the masters of the sea.

Melians. But do you consider that there is no security in the policy which we indicate? For here again if you debar us from talking about justice and invite us to obey your interest, we also must explain ours, and try to persuade you, if the two happen to coincide. How can you avoid making enemies of all existing neutrals who shall look at case from it that one day or another you will attack them? And what is this but to make greater the enemies that you have already, and to force others to become so who would otherwise have never thought of it?

Athenians. Why, the fact is that continentals generally give us but little alarm; the liberty which they enjoy will long prevent their taking precautions against us; it is rather islanders like yourselves, outside our empire, and subjects smarting under the yoke, who would be the most likely to take a rash step and lead themselves and us into obvious danger.

Melians. Well then, if you risk so much to retain your empire, and your subjects to get rid of it, it were surely great baseness and cowardice in us who are still free not to try everything that can be tried, before submitting to your yoke.

Athenians. Not if you are well advised, the contest not being an equal one, with honour as the prize and shame as the penalty, but a question of self-preservation and of not resisting those who are far stronger than you are.

Melians. But we know that the fortune of war is sometimes more impartial than the disproportion of numbers might lead one to suppose; to submit is to give ourselves over to despair, while action still preserves for us a hope that we may stand erect.

Athenians. Hope, danger’s comforter, may be indulged in by those who have abundant resources, if not without loss at all events without ruin; but its nature is to be extravagant, and those who go so far as to put their all upon the venture see it in its true colours only when they are ruined; but so long as the discovery would enable them to guard against it, it is never found wanting. Let not this be the case with you, who are weak and hang on a single turn of the scale; nor be like the vulgar, who, abandoning such security as human means may still afford, when visible hopes fail them in extremity, turn to invisible, to prophecies and oracles, and other such inventions that delude men with hopes to their destruction.

Melians. You may be sure that we are as well aware as you of the difficulty of contending against your power and fortune, unless the terms be equal. But we trust that the gods may grant us fortune as good as yours, since we are just men fighting against unjust, and that what we want in power will be made up by the alliance of the Lacedaemonians, who are bound, if only for very shame, to come to the aid of their kindred. Our confidence, therefore, after all is not so utterly irrational.

Athenians. When you speak of the favour of the gods, we may as fairly hope for that as yourselves; neither our pretensions nor our conduct being in any way contrary to what men believe of the gods, or practise among themselves. Of the gods we believe, and of men we know, that by a necessary law of their nature they rule wherever they can. And it is not as if we were the first to make this law, or to act upon it when made: we found it existing before us, and shall leave it to exist for ever after us; all we do is to make use of it, knowing that you and everybody else, having the same power as we have, would do the same as we do. Thus, as far as the gods are concerned, we have no fear and no reason to fear that we shall be at a disadvantage. But when we come to your notion about the Lacedaemonians, which leads you to believe that shame will make them help you, here we bless your simplicity but do not envy your folly. The Lacedaemonians, when their own interests or their country’s laws are in question, are the worthiest men alive; of their conduct towards others much might be said, but no clearer idea of it could be given than by shortly saying that of all the men we know they are most conspicuous in considering what is agreeable honourable, and what is expedient just. Such a way of thinking does not promise much for the safety which you now unreasonably count upon.

Melians. But it is for this very reason that we now trust to their respect for expediency to prevent them from betraying the Melians, their colonists, and thereby losing the confidence of their friends in Hellas and helping their enemies.

Athenians. Then you do not adopt the view that expediency goes with security, while justice and honour cannot be followed without danger; and danger the Lacedaemonians generally court as little as possible.

Melians. But we believe that they would be more likely to face even danger for our sake, and with more confidence than for others, as our nearness to Peloponnese makes it easier for them to act, and our common blood ensures our fidelity.

Athenians. Yes, but what an intending ally trusts to is not the goodwill of those who ask his aid, but a decided superiority of power for action; and the Lacedaemonians look to this even more than others. At least, such is their distrust of their home resources that it is only with numerous allies that they attack a neighbour; now is it likely that while we are masters of the sea they will cross over to an island?

Melians. But they would have others to send. The Cretan Sea is a wide one, and it is more difficult for those who command it to intercept others, than for those who wish to elude them to do so safely. And should the Lacedaemonians miscarry in this, they would fall upon your land, and upon those left of your allies whom Brasidas did not reach; and instead of places which are not yours, you will have to fight for your own country and your own confederacy.

Athenians. Some diversion of the kind you speak of you may one day experience, only to learn, as others have done, that the Athenians never once yet withdrew from a siege for fear of any. But we are struck by the fact that, after saying you would consult for the safety of your country, in all this discussion you have mentioned nothing which men might trust in and think to be saved by. Your strongest arguments depend upon hope and the future, and your actual resources are too scanty, as compared with those arrayed against you, for you to come out victorious. You will therefore show great blindness of judgment, unless, after allowing us to retire, you can find some counsel more prudent than this. You will surely not be caught by that idea of disgrace, which in dangers that are disgraceful, and at the same time too plain to be mistaken, proves so fatal to mankind; since in too many cases the very men that have their eyes perfectly open to what they are rushing into, let the thing called disgrace, by the mere influence of a seductive name, lead them on to a point at which they become so enslaved by the phrase as in fact to fall wilfully into hopeless disaster, and incur disgrace more disgraceful as the companion of error, than when it comes as the result of misfortune. This, if you are well advised, you will guard against; and you will not think it dishonourable to submit to the greatest city in Hellas, when it makes you the moderate offer of becoming its tributary ally, without ceasing to enjoy the country that belongs to you; nor when you have the choice given you between war and security, will you be so blinded as to choose the worse. And it is certain that those who do not yield to their equals, who keep terms with their superiors, and are moderate towards their inferiors, on the whole succeed best. Think over the matter, therefore, after our withdrawal, and reflect once and again that it is for your country that you are consulting, that you have not more than one, and that upon this one deliberation depends its prosperity or ruin.

The Athenians now withdrew from the conference; and the Melians, left to themselves, came to a decision corresponding with what they had maintained in the discussion, and answered: “Our resolution, Athenians, is the same as it was at first. We will not in a moment deprive of freedom a city that has been inhabited these seven hundred years; but we put our trust in the fortune by which the gods have preserved it until now, and in the help of men, that is, of the Lacedaemonians; and so we will try and save ourselves. Meanwhile we invite you to allow us to be friends to you and foes to neither party, and to retire from our country after making such a treaty as shall seem fit to us both.”

Such was the answer of the Melians. The Athenians now departing from the conference said: “Well, you alone, as it seems to us, judging from these resolutions, regard what is future as more certain than what is before your eyes, and what is out of sight, in your eagerness, as already coming to pass; and as you have staked most on, and trusted most in, the Lacedaemonians, your fortune, and your hopes, so will you be most completely deceived.”

You can find the full text on Project Gutenberg.