Moxxie (
imp_resario) wrote in
dreamcrystals2022-12-08 12:24 pm
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png)
Entry tags:
A Matter Of Opinion
Sender: Moxxie
Subject: re: Armaments, traditions, and customs, vis-a-vis names
Reverein, I need a little help in resolving a minor dispute on a matter of opinion. And weapons.
Namely, the naming thereof.
Now, I've always had a mind for the classics in both music and literature, and giving a weapon a name all its own is a way of establishing personal significance, identity, and legacy, to say nothing of gravitas in recognition of or anticipation of the deeds ascribed to it. What, pray tell, would be Der Ring des Nibelungen without Nothung, the accursed sword of Siegfried? What would be the Arthurian legends without Excalibur or La Chanson de Roland without Durandal?
I would assert, therefore, that the practice is timeless, and has a well-earned place in the modern day, and with modern weaponry besides; that something like, for example, a shotgun can have enough significance to its wielder and within its deeds that it is no less worthy of being given a name than the weapons of old.
HOWEVER, in contrast, a certain colleague of mine does not share my views on this matter and describes the entire practice as, and I quote them directly,
"Cringe, T B H".
Which to me not only shows a lack of dramatic appreciation but also ignorance of the proud tradition upheld by the act of doing so. Thus I put it to a vote in a public forum before my fellow dreamers:
Is the practice of naming weapons really just a relic of a bygone sentimentality, or is it a timeless practice honoring the tools of the world's second-oldest trade?
Subject: re: Armaments, traditions, and customs, vis-a-vis names
Reverein, I need a little help in resolving a minor dispute on a matter of opinion. And weapons.
Namely, the naming thereof.
Now, I've always had a mind for the classics in both music and literature, and giving a weapon a name all its own is a way of establishing personal significance, identity, and legacy, to say nothing of gravitas in recognition of or anticipation of the deeds ascribed to it. What, pray tell, would be Der Ring des Nibelungen without Nothung, the accursed sword of Siegfried? What would be the Arthurian legends without Excalibur or La Chanson de Roland without Durandal?
I would assert, therefore, that the practice is timeless, and has a well-earned place in the modern day, and with modern weaponry besides; that something like, for example, a shotgun can have enough significance to its wielder and within its deeds that it is no less worthy of being given a name than the weapons of old.
HOWEVER, in contrast, a certain colleague of mine does not share my views on this matter and describes the entire practice as, and I quote them directly,
"Cringe, T B H".
Which to me not only shows a lack of dramatic appreciation but also ignorance of the proud tradition upheld by the act of doing so. Thus I put it to a vote in a public forum before my fellow dreamers:
Is the practice of naming weapons really just a relic of a bygone sentimentality, or is it a timeless practice honoring the tools of the world's second-oldest trade?
Sender: Eustace
However... If one is naming a weapon with no meaning to it like some kind of collector's item, then I would have to side with your colleague.
no subject
What, do you have to address a sword by name if you want it to actually cut someone?
no subject
However, realistically it's mostly due to the magical properties. Similar to summoning or casting as spell, referring to the weapon specifically helps keep focus.
no subject
It sounds like you're talking about weapons that already have names, as well. But I'm talking about giving a name to a weapon in the first place, and more likely than not something not of magical nature.
no subject
no subject
Is yours the sort of world where a weapon that can withstand several gruelling battles is a rare feat of craftsmanship?
no subject
no subject
In my world, modern methods and improved materials have resulted in mass-produced arms capable of regular field use becoming more the norm than the exception; and even the most well-regarded brands, makes, and models are still manufactured in bulk.
So that might make it difficult for an individual weapon out of the lot to really 'stand out' enough to get a name, at least on quality and survival alone.
no subject
[For Moxxie, naming weapons for whatever reason really would seem more "antiquated" and "traditional" whereas for him it's just the norm.]
However, does it really matter what your colleague thinks?
no subject
As for my colleague's opinion, I suppose not, but it's still nice to know I'm not completely out of touch. I represent my employers when I work, after all, and if naming a weapon somehow leaves me at a loss of credibility that would be a point worthy of consideration.
no subject
[Does he actually work with weapons...?]