And on the topic of Cary Elwes… (Iocane Powder in The Princess Bride) #endreal
(I tried to reblog this, but it was too long. So I am tagging all the rebloggers that I could see)
#adventureswithbrett has a different take on this “battle of the wits”.
I think this supposition is problematic for a couple of reasons, the foremost being that it's a completely unnecessary hypothesis. There are no internal problems fixed by proposing this.
Westley hands an open vial to Vizzini and tells him it contains iocane powder. He tells him it is odorless, tasteless and dissolves instantly in liquid. The last is important because in liquid is when iocane powder becomes undetectable to the eye. In handing the vial to Vizzini Westley tells him to inhale, yes, but he doe not tell him not to look. We can assume the vial contained a visible powder and that Westley was comfortable with this.
We must also consider that Vizzini is well aware of what iocane powder is. He's heard of it, appears comfortable with the facts of it's potency and properties as presented and later uses his knowledge of the powder's country of origin in his argument. Being involved in the sort of business he is, if iocane was also a poisonous inhalant Vizzini should have known this.
If we assume that he would have known all about iocane and that it was NOT in fact iocane in that vial, the script makes no mention of it and Westley has lied about it throughout the scene, including to Buttercup after Vizzini dies... and worst of all to us, the audience.
If Vizzini had been ignorant of one of iocane's delivery methods, we should have been told that Vizzini was a fool after all. If it wasn't iocane it would be more in line with the scene if Westley explained to Buttercup, "It wasn't iocane. It was deadwart gas, guaranteed to kill."
But the foremost point remains. As told, the story doesn't contain any clear problems that need to be addressed by alternative theories. Westley puts iocane powder into both goblets. He's spent several years building up an immunity and therefore ingests it safely while Vizzini does not. Simple and straightforward and without clear holes.
I suspect that the quibble here is that it's supposed to be a battle of wits while surviving poison seems more of a physical feat. But this new proposition does worse violence to this idea and has Westley dodge the battle entirely by sabotage, something a bit out of line with his rakishness.
The battle of wits is much less straightforward than a simple chess match between players and it's one with some dishonesty on Westley's behalf but I don't believe that there was no wit involved. Westley became a pirate and spent years honing his skills. Fencing, fighting, anything anyone could teach him. Notorious pirates are used to having people not trust them and when sailing the seas and being both predator and prey (not to mention the threat of mutinous crews) death by poison is not a far-fetched fantasy. It would not be inconsistent for Westley to prepare his body for such an attack by immunizing himself over time. A wise and prudent pirate captain who intended to live a long time with his true love would do such a thing.
When Westley encounters Vizzini he proposes a battle of wits, and this is the true beginning of the battle. Westley has already marked Vizzini for being a very intelligent yet arrogant man blinded by his own ego. He proposes a game in which Vizzini must measure Westley for what sort of man he is and then stake his life on his choice, something Vizzini has supreme confidence in his own abilities toward.
What Vizzini should have deduced was that he was dealing with a pirate. Not a gentleman who would stake his success on a wager but a man of will who would secure his win through any means. Now as a heroic pirate he also has style but he's still willing to take Vizzini's life to rescue Buttercup.
The question of the contest is "Where is the poison?" and not "which goblet has the poison?" Vizzini should have correctly assessed Westley's intentions, or at least his character, and declared them both unsafe. Westley would then have to admit he HAD lost that battle, or else go on to lie, which he has not strictly done yet.
Before our battle has begun Westley has recognized that he outclasses Vizinni and baits him into a game he will lose by his own ego. In some ways Vizinni "lost" the battle of wits when he agreed to play Westley's game. There's no need to assume a different poison or more ignorance on Vizzini's part.
Also, griddlebandits says this:
But you know Westley didn't say it was iocane until after Vizzini inhaled it. Does that change anything? Are we all still absurdly obsessed with this movie?
If you have not read Cary's book yet, I highly recommend it.
grandmadeb says: All comments are welcome. I just liked the movie and all this deep intellectual stuff is above me.
