Steven UnIVerse: 4shadowing

[Keltest]

I'm not saying that Rose dind't shatter Pink.

But literally everyone who describes the event describes her as having shattered Pink with the sword that explicitly can't chatter gems.

If the Sword was used to Shatter Pink, then there's no point in Bismuth having said that the Sword can't shatter gems or the resulting doubt that Bismuth's claims put on the official story.

Meaning either 1: Rose didn't shatter Pink

2: Rose shattered Pink under differant circumstances than what Eyeball testified to.

For the purposes of this argument, I don't really care whether or not it was actually Rose who did it. I'm just disputing the literal interpretation of Bismuth's statement about the sword.

The surviving CGs were Rose's elite guard, but they still seem to think that Rose shattered PD with her sword. Unless Rose kept it a secret from them for some inexplicable reason, they should be calling shenanigans on this, but they seem to believe it. Rose herself survived the war for however many hundreds or thousands of years. She presumably wants them to think that she did it, so you would think that she would tell them a version that is actually possible if her sword couldn't shatter a gem. If nothing else, they've seen Rose use it, and so would probably have a decent idea of how it works. But everybody accepts this story at face value, even the people who should know better. Even STEVEN, who Bismuth was speaking to at the time, doesn't point out that his mother's sword shouldn't be able to do the things it allegedly did, even when his life seems to be on the line.

That scene still makes the same point without a literal interpretation, and fits better into the mystery of what actually went on there without it.

[Aquillion]

There was a promo recently that pointed out the discrepancy with Rose's sword. So it's definitely intended to be something viewers noticed.

[John Cribati]

Here's the exact quote:

I designed this sword for a fair fight. It can cut through a Gem's physical form in an instant! Destroying the body, but never the Gem.

You're interpreting this sentence as "I somehow instilled this property into the blade," while I'm interpreting it as "this blade was made with this specific goal in mind." Because frankly, Bismuth basically says "this thing is really, really sharo, to!"

[LaZodiac]

Here's the exact quote:



You're interpreting this sentence as "I somehow instilled this property into the blade," while I'm interpreting it as "this blade was made with this specific goal in mind." Because frankly, Bismuth basically says "this thing is really, really sharo, to!"

And my response to that is:

There was a promo recently that pointed out the discrepancy with Rose's sword. So it's definitely intended to be something viewers noticed.

As Aquillon said. The one eye Ruby said she saw Rose use her sword. Garnet in her story to the offcolours says Rose used her sword. The promo for those four episodes (wherein Garnet says that story) contrasted those two moments with Bismuth saying the sword was designed for a fair fight, destroying the body but never the gem. The contrast makes it very clear SOMETHING is up, at the very least.

Given Bismuth made the sword, I think it's safe to say that what she says about it is true. Bismuth said the sword is for a fair fight, destroys bodies and not gems. While this could be just her clarifying what she means by slicing through the body in one swipe, given it's been INTENTIONALLY contrasted with the statements of Oneye and Garnet, explicitly, it's clearly something that is important.

[Snowbluff]

The simplest explanation is that she used the Shatterpoint and everyone thought it was a sword. Either that or Pinkie isn’t dead and is faking it to make her sisters worry about her.

Then again, there is that mural that showed Whitey attacking a diamond shape Rose was holding, iirc. Maybe Pinkie was poofed and Rose trucked another diamond into breaking her.

[John Cribati]

Or Steven is misinterpreting Bismuth's statement. Bismuth makes one statement of intent (fair fight), one statement of capability (one-strike cut), and one statement (destroy body but not gem) that could go either way. Granted, it makes absolutely no sense as a statement of capability (I somehow removed a quality this metal weapon should have by virtue of being made of metal, a quality that is the very reason weapons like this are made of metal) as opposed to a stetement of intent (I made this weapon for someone who was worried about a specific consequence, so that they wouldn't have to worry about that consequence).

[LaZodiac]

Or Steven is misinterpreting Bismuth's statement. Bismuth makes one statement of intent (fair fight), one statement of capability (one-strike cut), and one statement (destroy body but not gem) that could go either way. Granted, it makes absolutely no sense as a statement of capability (I somehow removed a quality this metal weapon should have by virtue of being made of metal, a quality that is the very reason weapons like this are made of metal) as opposed to a stetement of intent (I made this weapon for someone who was worried about a specific consequence, so that they wouldn't have to worry about that consequence).

I mean it IS a magic sword. It could be incapable of destroying gems. Point is we'll see in another half year once Cartoon Network decides to drip feed us more.

[John Cribati]

I mean it IS a magic sword. It could be incapable of destroying gems. Point is we'll see in another half year once Cartoon Network decides to drip feed us more.

It's a pink sword. There's nothing explicitly extraordinary about it beyond that.

[Devonix]

It's a pink sword. There's nothing explicitly extraordinary about it beyond that.

If there's nothing extra ordinary about it then it's not a special main character sword. This is a show about magic space rocks. The main character's weapon of legend being magic is pretty much a requirement.

[John Cribati]

If there's nothing extra ordinary about it then it's not a special main character sword. This is a show about magic space rocks. The main character's weapon of legend being magic is pretty much a requirement.

Name an instance where Rose's sword has showb any properties that set it apart from any other mundane, if slightly fancy, sword and I'll agree with you.

[Lord Raziere]

.......Wait.

Do we know when Rose recruited Bismuth? lets think for a moment: Garnet only came in AFTER the war started, with the person before her being Pearl. Yet we never got when Bismuth came into the picture, and what she did. Bismuth did develop the Breaking Point after all, and was the one most all for shattering the elite class.

Because if Bismuth was with Rose in the beginning and she did the shattering instead of Rose, things would make a lot more sense: say Bismuth and Rose knew each other before they rebelled and talked with one another about Bismuth hated her job and Rose cared for the life around her and didn't want it to die, and formed a bond from that. Rose wants to stop Pink Diamond from destroying Earth's life, so Bismuth, being sympathetic and getting the same appreciation of that life from her, makes a prototype breaking point in the form of a sword and shatters Pink Diamond by presenting it as a weapon for her highness to wield then sneak attacking her out of nowhere. Bismuth goes back to Rose and reveals this, Rose is horrified that she did this, Bismuth convinces her that shattering Pink Diamond was necessary for this rebellion to start and Rose goes along with this and takes the leadership position as well as the credit to protect Bismuth from the Diamond's wrath by Rose the target and use it to inspire the Gems because Rose is better at that than Bismuth, but Rose tells her to make a sword that can't shatter people for her, as she won't wield a weapon that can.

The war goes on, Bismuth makes a better Breaking Point and shows it to Rose, saying that if it was successful the first time, why not do it a second time? Its not as if the Diamonds would be able to tell the difference between one Bismuth and the next, and Rose can keep taking the credit and thus being the Diamond's target. Rose rejects the idea and bubble-poofs Bismuth. The rest is history.

It would neatly solve the whole mystery, as we already have someone fanatically devoted to the Diamond's destruction right there, that was there along side Rose, with the motive, the means and the opportunity to do so.

[Phexar]

As Aquillon said. The one eye Ruby said she saw Rose use her sword. Garnet in her story to the offcolours says Rose used her sword. The promo for those four episodes (wherein Garnet says that story) contrasted those two moments with Bismuth saying the sword was designed for a fair fight, destroying the body but never the gem. The contrast makes it very clear SOMETHING is up, at the very least.

Given Bismuth made the sword, I think it's safe to say that what she says about it is true. Bismuth said the sword is for a fair fight, destroys bodies and not gems. While this could be just her clarifying what she means by slicing through the body in one swipe, given it's been INTENTIONALLY contrasted with the statements of Oneye and Garnet, explicitly, it's clearly something that is important.

Don't forget Rose's Sword itself was also set up by Bismuth as a direct contrast to the Breaking Point, which was specifically designed to shatter gems. She told Steven the sword was made for a fair fight, but that he deserved a better weapon which was -not- made for fighting fair, and presented the Breaking Point to him.

[Lord Raziere]

No wait, my theory doesn't make sense, the war was already going on when Pink Diamond was killed.

Hm. Bismuth still could've done it though.

....was Rose the ONLY Rose Quartz that rebelled? could a different Rose Quartz Gem have shattered Pink Diamond? I mean, given that most gems are interchangeable and supposed to look the same....its not outside imagination to think that the one who killed Pink Diamond is one of those Roses bubbled up at that station.

[Ibrinar]

Or Steven is misinterpreting Bismuth's statement. Bismuth makes one statement of intent (fair fight), one statement of capability (one-strike cut), and one statement (destroy body but not gem) that could go either way. Granted, it makes absolutely no sense as a statement of capability (I somehow removed a quality this metal weapon should have by virtue of being made of metal, a quality that is the very reason weapons like this are made of metal) as opposed to a stetement of intent (I made this weapon for someone who was worried about a specific consequence, so that they wouldn't have to worry about that consequence).

Your formulation makes little sense imo, "so that they wouldn't have to worry about that consequence" so if nothing about the sword is special in that regard how would the weapon make her worry about it less? Your second formulation only makes sense if in some way it is at least easier to avoid destroying gems than with an ordinary gem weapon.

[John Cribati]

Don't forget Rose's Sword itself was also set up by Bismuth as a direct contrast to the Breaking Point, which was specifically designed to shatter gems. She told Steven the sword was made for a fair fight, but that he deserved a better weapon which was -not- made for fighting fair, and presented the Breaking Point to him.

And that clearly means it's impossible to poof a gem with the Breaking Point, then.

[John Cribati]

Your formulation makes little sense imo, "so that they wouldn't have to worry about that consequence" so if nothing about the sword is special in that regard how would the weapon make her worry about it less? Your second formulation only makes sense if in some way it is at least easier to avoid destroying gems than with an ordinary gem weapon.

Peridot is tough. Lots of stuff has fallen onto her and she's an Era 2 engineer. Garnet poofed her with the sheer pressure of her squeeze. Then look at all the damage Jasper could take as an Era 1 warrior, who in terms of sheer power was more than a match for her- Garnet tossed her into a ship's power core and she still didn't poof. That was the Era of Gems Rose actually fought. So yes, I'd say it would be pretty difficult to poof them back then, probably take multiple strikes, or one well-placed one.

Remember when Rose attacked the three-Ruby fusion? Instead of making it fall apart, it poofed two of them instantly. That's how good it is at destabilizing forms. That's why she won't have to worry about harming the gem, because she only has to take one swing.

[Devonix]

Peridot is tough. Lots of stuff has fallen onto her and she's an Era 2 engineer. Garnet poofed her with the sheer pressure of her squeeze. Then look at all the damage Jasper could take as an Era 1 warrior, who in terms of sheer power was more than a match for her- Garnet tossed her into a ship's power core and she still didn't poof. That was the Era of Gems Rose actually fought. So yes, I'd say it would be pretty difficult to poof them back then, probably take multiple strikes, or one well-placed one.

Remember when Rose attacked the three-Ruby fusion? Instead of making it fall apart, it poofed two of them instantly. That's how good it is at destabilizing forms. That's why she won't have to worry about harming the gem, because she only has to take one swing.

She wasn't poofed because those episodes were comedic. Poofing only happens when a story is about a physical and mental change to a character.

[Rater202]

@Raz

In Your Mother and Mine, when Garnet is telling the storyof Rose Quartz to Lars and the Offcolors, she explicitly states that Rose shattering Pink(or whatever else happened) was the last things the Crystal Gems did in the War--It ended the War, but the CGs technically didn't win due to being devestated by the Diamond's parting "screw you."

[John Cribati]

She wasn't poofed because those episodes were comedic. Poofing only happens when a story is about a physical and mental change to a character.

So your argument is narrative convention rather than what literally happened?

[Devonix]

So your argument is narrative convention rather than what literally happened?

When in Universe events contradict each other sometimes you have to rely on how this affects the narrative. Especially when dealing with episodes that shift focus to toon logic

[Keltest]

When in Universe events contradict each other sometimes you have to rely on how this affects the narrative. Especially when dealing with episodes that shift focus to toon logic

Or maybe gem bodies are just durable. Even Steven, who has an actual meat body instead of a hard light construct, is more durable than a normal human would be. Its not really that implausible.

[Devonix]

Or maybe gem bodies are just durable. Even Steven, who has an actual meat body instead of a hard light construct, is more durable than a normal human would be. Its not really that implausible.

We've seen gems poofed with minimal force. And the same gems being hit with multiple times of force and not poof. Proofing is entirely done at the whim of the story and cannot be predicted in any other way.

[Rater202]

I have to imagine that for a race of short, ferrokinetic engineers, being crushed by falling debris is an expected occupational hazard and is compensated for.

And extra durability isn't exactly a trait that could it's plausible that someone competent would decide to leave out to save resources.

[Devonix]

For me it's simply how I experience stories. I almost always look at them as stories and what the author is trying to convey rather than seeing them as real things obeying the same laws as us.

It's why I almost never hate characters. Because I never blame characters for their actions.

[endoperez]

For me it's simply how I experience stories. I almost always look at them as stories and what the author is trying to convey rather than seeing them as real things obeying the same laws as us.

It's why I almost never hate characters. Because I never blame characters for their actions.

It's the same for me. I can be super caught in a story, shocked or awed with the characters as something is revealed, dislike a character or their actions, but it's still a clearly fictional portrayal.

Storytelling is often more about the telling than the story itself. Arguing about the minutiae while ignoring big, ongoing themes is like arguing about in-universe effects of art style changes.

[Phexar]

And that clearly means it's impossible to poof a gem with the Breaking Point, then.

I go by narrative convention too I'm just looking at it as simple themes. Rose's Sword was made to not shatter gems, the Breaking Point was made to shatter gems. Opposites. Nothing too more detailed than that. Plus the main character having a special weapon would be fitting. It even fits Steven's more pacifist nature. He's got a shield and a weapon that can't actually kill/shatter gems.

As others have said, I think the promo was a hint to that something was up with the nature of the sword as well. And why would Bismuth add "but never the Gem" if it could harm the actual gemstone anyway? Pretty much any other vanilla weapon that could easily poof a gem wouldn't harm the gemstone if it wasn't aimed at it. That's not a special quality in a weapon that needs pointing out.

[John Cribati]

Again, it depends on whether you think Bismuth was talking about a capability of the sword, or the mindset of the person the sword was made for. It just makes infinitely more sense in my head that it means the latter, because taking away the world's capacity to harm a Gem's gem means you've either taken away its hardness, or made it out of some material that is repelled by Gem energy.

[Draconi Redfir]

because taking away the world's capacity to harm a Gem's gem means you've either taken away its hardness, or made it out of some material that is repelled by Gem energy.

most likely it just means it's strong enough to destroy hard-light, but not strong enough to destroy the much more solid Gems.

the Gem itself is likely always very tough to break since it's the lifeblood of the Gem creature. In this situation it's like a human fist VS Drywall and VS a Diamond.

A strong enough swing with a human fist can punch through Drywall no problem. It is however VERY unlikely that a human fist would ever be able to damage a diamond.

[John Cribati]

most likely it just means it's strong enough to destroy hard-light, but not strong enough to destroy the much more solid Gems.

the Gem itself is likely always very tough to break since it's the lifeblood of the Gem creature. In this situation it's like a human fist VS Drywall and VS a Diamond.

Amethyst fell onto a rock. Eyeball got hit by a tiny meteor. Both of those resulted in cracks that started to spread. Gems seem pretty easy to damage of you hit them right.

[Lord Raziere]

Amethyst fell onto a rock. Eyeball got hit by a tiny meteor. Both of those resulted in cracks that started to spread. Gems seem pretty easy to damage of you hit them right.

Your arguing over the properties of a sword for a pacifist when we've already seen a relic made by gems that allows for some as physics breakingly ridiculous as time travel?

no matter how right you are, this clearly isn't the show for logical nitpicking. much like many. Tis the folly of many a nerd to have all this logic and desire for consistency and misapply it to entertainment and art.