Black Pearl

The Black Pearl should become an exercise in any school of formal logic and argumentation studies. I really enjoyed the proximity with game theory, in the ways rules are reversed.

There is a set of rules, and at a time, a reversing of these rules. But "where" and "how" this reversing appears as a real plot.

The curse on pirates make them living-dead.
=> They want to lift (stop) the curse

Sparrow wants to kill the pirate chief.
=> He needs to make him alive before he can kill him [Unfortunately, this is not a reversing, but a simple tautology. ]
=> Sparrow wants the curse to be lifted too

We get nearer

Saprrow needs to be cursed to fight them
[We come nearer, but it is not yet the moment of reversed application of the rules]

Sparrow steals a coin
[THIS IS THE POINT]
=>This is why the tautology is blocked.
If you omit to focus on this point, there in no stopping in the transformation from "The curse make you living-dead. There are advantages at being living-dead .You must become a living-dead to fight them."
But by inserting "Sparrow steals a coin", you insert another level inside the continous line of deduction.

Is it the insertion of another "ontology" which makes the suspens work, by stoping the obvious deduction and making the plot being a plot, not a scenarist taking the watcher for a dummy? I'm not sure if the set of items: curse, living-dead, fight, can be opposed at the other set : stealing, coin as two ontologies could be distinguished.

Strategy is a level totally different from the previous level, although they interfere as a narrative building of the story.
Sparrow has to change many times his strategy. That's what makes the story funny, and studyable as variations of pieces on a chess set. Let's try and define the rules

Sparrows can:

                 (DEAD)

Sparrow steals a coin to become cursed
                                                 (NOT DIE)

           Rechercher:

           Jetzt suchen:

           Search Now:

           Search Now: