CONGRATULATIONS TO THE RAVAGES DISCORD SERVER FOR SURVIVING ITS FIRST YEAR!
To appropriately honour the masterpiece that inspired the formation of the server, I have written a series of thought pieces, scattered in various venues. Here is where I shall lay them all out, in chronological order.
Part 1 (Ravages Essay)
Part 2 (Ravages Tract)
Part 3 (Ravages Sentences)
Part 4 (Brief Ravages Precis)
Part 5 (Ravages Letter Pamphlet)
This post serves as the culminating portion, with a few extra bonus remarks.
After all I've said, I'll take a few steps back. For one thing, there are other works that also tackle the topics featured in Ravages (though this also means Ravages is within reach). Secondly, while I claim that Ravages has few to rival it in its special template, there are works that do better than Ravages in some aspects of that template (plus Ravages doesn't necessarily excel in certain areas others are good at). A third point to consider is that despite its intricacy, Ravages is far from impeccable (meaning that there is still room for improvement and space for criticism). Fourth, it's not as if Ravages is an esoteric manual for initiates, or a technical treatise (that is to say, lay readers can still appreciate it, since it is ostensibly a comic for teens and thus has appropriate gimmicks to catch people's attention). Ravages may not be supremely exceptional (since all works are trivially unique, yet have resemblances), but it remains excellent, and that's the thing that matters.
Currently, international Anglophone appreciation for Ravages is beset with several hurdles, some having to do with the scanlation, others pertaining to the complex content of the text, a few more related to market dynamics and audience responses. It is indeed a cause of worry that few hear (good and fair points) about this series, and fewer give it a try (and survive). I can only wish and pray that, God willing, my humble efforts to make Ravages more appealing and approachable are not in vain...
ADDENDUM: A Few Salient Intellectual Dilemmas Presented and Discussed in Ravages (partial restoration of a post in the defunct Ravages disqus channel)
on heaven and earth: benign providence vs inscrutable silence
on honor and heroism: nobility in sacrifice vs vindication in survival
on life and death: immortal legacy vs infamous longevity
on virtue and principle: integrity vs self-interest
on remembrance and representation: formal records vs folk recollections
on governance: proper guidance vs pragmatic control
on succession: inheritance vs conquest
on hegemony: influence vs resources
on schemes: prediction/preemption vs adaptation/improvisation
on reforms: repair/reconstruction vs rupture/replacement
APPENDIX: Some More Musings on Planning Variations (discord server second anniversary commemoration)
Given that Ravages is very heavy on the schemes, this section shall try to clarify and comment on selected elements, focusing on those notions developed in-universe as special authorial contributions.
On the dark art of war, some may wonder why there is even such a tendency since war is already a dark and bloody endeavor. Perhaps one way to shed light on it is in terms of priorities: during military campaigns, commanders can still actively decide to avoid the use of harsh methods (in order to win hearts and minds) and focus on more benign plans and ruses (especially if the situation is already generally favorable). The dark art can thus be characterized as an approach to warfare that embraces and prefers tough controversial acts for the sake of expedient victory (whether it involves sacrificing one's commander as part of a gambit, or conducting a thorough encirclement to force a surrender). It must be noted that although the dark art endorses ruthlessness, it does not glamorize gratuitous cruelty and brutality (which could backfire badly), and moreover assumes (or perhaps requires) that there will be 'light' cleanup procedures after the campaign to placate the vanquished survivors.
The benevolent realist path of ending war and seizing power articulates something similar, and can be seen as an offshoot or an affiliate of the dark art. In a messy situation where various factions are more concerned about securing interests and consolidating control (or at least, wishing for peace on terms rigged in their favor), appeals to high-minded ideals are ineffective, thus the path of least resistance would be to first support a viable contender for hegemony that can quickly pacify the realm, before subverting and overthrowing the problematic elements of the new conquerors, and finally inaugurating a more benign new world order. As with the dark art, its efficacy hinges on the promise that competent ministers will step up after the power struggle and be able to keep things in check and spare the people from further suffering (rather than scheme to become the next conquerors and extend the cycle further).
With regard to the three types of deploying schemes, it can be interpreted as follows: the first type mobilizes one key plan (though in the course of its implementation this can involve a number of subsidiary steps and secondary tricks); the second type relies on the concurrent deployment of two big plans (or perhaps the employment of a main plan shadowed by a contingency plan), with each part bringing together a bunch of minor plays; the third type coordinates many little plans into an intricate matrix, or relies on multiple improvisations to flexibly carry out the agenda.
As for the one type of strategy summed up in terms of letting enemies 'know' one's next n moves to better counter their responses, this is basically about deception and dissimulation (and the importance of setting up ruses in multiple layers). As more players follow this guideline, the contests of mutual anticipation and deceit escalate, making it harder to identify genuine plans without using shady porous intelligence channels that in turn amplify the risks of both leaks and fabrications.