I think Eric is to mean to tris and Christina
- )
- -) :-)
You think?
he's mean to everyone
I think he's the meanest to them because they come from factions he doesn't appreciate, and aren't similar to him like some other Candor transfers are, so all in all they are the most 'favorable' for him to be mean to. And they stood up to him the most too.
Eric was not the true meaning of Dauntless. He was cruel and vile- killing children and civilians. Twisting the faction and the intiates to be everything Four observed in his own book: Mindless bringers of violence that those who followed Jeanine could control. He tried to bring others down to his level too in his execution. I am so glad he failed. He had no compassion or mercy or the true Dauntless spirit. Sure, he didn't back down, but that isn't reason to celebrate him: It's what he didn't back down from. And frankly, it was being a monster. Those are my thoughts.
I strongly agree (although I try to avoid calling anyone a monster, especially when being GD affects his views too), I noticed Eric's page describes him as 'true meaning of Dauntless' and immediately thought the same as you- I think he literally represents the corruption of Dauntless. Whoever wrote that was not very unbiased in my opinion. But I don't really have an official reason (or a good ideaabout what to write instead) to edit that, so I didn't. However, your words are what I think is essential about the difference between true Dauntless and its corruption, very wisely said.
I think Eric is what “could” be considered a true Dauntless, all the things you said are exactly what being too Dauntless means. Remember what David said “Too Brave and You’re Cruel”
He might even be What early Dauntless’ were like
I don't really consider too Dauntless as true Dauntless, as it's the exaggerated version, so it becomes a flaw, while true Dauntless (and other factions) were supposed to be a virtue. I feel what Eric is like is the corruption of Dauntless, and corruptions happened later, in the beginning when everything wasn't so strict factions were centered around pretty good ideas. There's a saying in my country 'too good is no good', so that's about why I don't see too much of something as its true nature. I think the point of Eric's character was to show what Dauntless is misunderstood as, what it corrupted into.
Yeah I don’t actually personally think he’s “a true Dauntless” that’s why I said it like “Could” be considered.
Like some may think that strongly having the faction flaws along with its values “could” be considered a true Dauntless.
Because you’re 100% that faction.
But yeah saying the “exaggerated version” is a great way to put it
Thanks! Ah yes, I see what you mean now. In that sense, yeah.(Incredible how many basically opposite meanings one thing can have). On one hand, it turns out a true Dauntless is like Eric, because the true nature of damaged genes isn't good. It sounded wrong to me that it said 'the true MEANING of Dauntless'. I think the essence here is that those who did experiments believed they could achieve true virtues, but they didn't because they did it artificially. So Dauntless isn't truly Dauntless! Basically factions can't achieve their own true values because their people are already made to do so artificially, maybe it means no one can achieve them naturally either, as everyone has flaws, or it paradoxally means you have to be something else too if you want to be fully one thing.
Did Eric just inspire a philosophic discussion? In fact I'm not even sure I still understand what I started explaining lol.