Mythology Explained: I Know the Plot, So I’m Invincible

How can I put it this way? This book gave me a very awkward feeling. It felt like it was forcibly stitching different articles together with some personal details. Just looking at the world of Tianlong is actually quite retro and interesting. The little monk doesn't want to cause trouble and just wants to practice silently to become invincible. But as the protagonist, trouble always comes to his door. What follows is an old-fashioned cool story about being injured in battle step by step, breaking through, killing teammates, killing the master, and then achieving great feats to take revenge. This is very good, but the author just writes a copy-style infinite flow story. It's not the kind where after one world breaks through the limit, Shattered Void comes to the next high-dimensional world to continue to experience. Instead, there is a main world of modern society that seems to be a mixture of martial arts and demons. What the author wants to create is nothing more than the fact that compared to the time travelers in the main world, the protagonist is a rebirth double time traveler who knows the plot well. Can rely on information differences to become stronger very quickly. But unfortunately, familiarity with the plot does not bring any advantage to the protagonist. The biggest cheat in Tianlong World is the comprehension bonus of being an ordinary time traveler (that weird 175% bonus), which allows the protagonist to quickly comprehend the secret knowledge. Being familiar with the plot only resulted in reluctance to save A'Zhu once? Think about it again: how old is the protagonist? It is not stated clearly how old he was before he was reborn, but he is barely 27/28 years old. At this age, I am reborn as a senior in high school and my thinking has not changed much. I can understand it, so let's leave it at that. But you have experienced Tianlong World for more than 40 years. For more than forty years, the protagonist's experience has not improved or changed at all. This is the biggest poisonous point! ! After it came out, it was said to hide the record, so it was hidden, right? Have you really thought about the hidden consequences? There are also interactions with parents. A person in his sixties or seventies can really be frightened by a shrew-like wake-up call, right? Isn't it too poisonous to talk about having another child between parents who are still flirting with each other? Does this have anything to do with this book? The author wanted to add some details to make the story fuller, but unfortunately all he added were poisonous points, big and small. (The disgusting laugh was "Jiejie"; the severe pain and strange liquid intensified after the dungeon was released; I was attacked and killed after reporting the results) After that, I couldn't hold on anymore. The senior brothers and masters in Tianlong World are very affectionate, and I quite like the occasional secondary points. Unfortunately, there are too many poisonous points outside the world, and I really can't hold on.

In this book, I encountered a child arguing with me about the Song Dynasty's foreign war winning rate. This argument has been hammered countless times on Zhihu. Today I am going to refute the rumor I believe that the winning rate of war cannot be counted as a reference for level. In statistics, the so-called rate actually defaults to a major premise, which is equivalence. What does this mean? Attendance rate, because every student is equal. After Xiao Ming's absence, the class attendance rate is 95%. If Xiao Ming's absence is replaced by Xiao Wang's absence, the effect is the same. Statistically, it is also 95%. It cannot be said that Xiao Wang's absence is counted as one person's absence, and Xiao Ming's absence is counted as two people. The oil yield rate is two kilograms of oil extracted from the first squeeze and one kilogram from the second squeeze. The total is three kilograms, divided by the total five kilograms of rapeseed, which is 60%. When you squeeze out one kilogram of oil from the first squeeze and two kilograms from the second squeeze, the oil yield rate is the same 60%. Take football as an example again. Leagues can count winning percentages, but competitions like the World Cup cannot. Why? Because they are equivalent. The league consists of sixteen teams taking turns to play against each other. Each team will play twice against fifteen opponents. There are thirty games in total. If you win, you will get three points, if you lose, you will get 0 points. Whoever you win, your points will be the same. You say you beat Real Madrid and Barcelona, but he won Spain. Renren and Atletico Madrid are good-looking in appearance, but the points are the same. In fact, in terms of impact, whoever wins and who loses is the same. Without considering draws, a high winning rate is a good one. If you win 25 games and lose five games, it is better than if you win 24 games and lose six games. And if it is the World Cup, almost no one will care about the team's winning rate in the World Cup. What is the use of a high winning rate? Is a victory in the World Cup semi-finals or finals equivalent to your victory in a group stage? The World Cup champions are in a sluggish state in the group stage, and it is common to barely qualify. If they lose in the group stage, they will lose. Can some teams that have won all three games in the group stage question these championships? Our winning rate is higher! We are the real champions! A more extreme example is the college entrance examination. The score between you and a certain classmate Comparatively, it is actually meaningless to count the winning rate of your competition. What's the use of saying that you won all the first, second and third models? So what if you won all the final exams from the first year to the third year of high school? Even if you said you won every small test and failed not one, it's useless. Someone has passed the college entrance examination, but you are in a slump. They have the last laugh, and you are the loser. Because your final exams and college entrance examinations are not of the same value. So we can understand this when we look at the Song Dynasty. In fact, I have read a lot of information on this aspect. On the one hand, many people question whether the Song Dynasty's winning rate is really 70%, thinking that this is data fraud. But I think the other aspect is more important,For war, statistical winning rate is meaningless. When you count the winning rate, the Battle of Gaoliang River is counted once, and some small-scale armed battles are also counted once. Those big defeats that left millions of corpses bleeding and drifting on oars are counted together with some small local battles. If you do this, it is equivalent to recognizing that the siege of Kaifeng and the Battle of Gaoliang River are equivalent to a thousand-man battle. It is equivalent to recognizing that the Tang Dynasty's pursuit of death and the northward victory and the capture of the Khan are equivalent to a sneak attack by the Song Dynasty. Since you put them all together for statistics. In fact, this kind of logical trap is set up secretly. Let's take a look at the biggest defeat in the Northern Song Dynasty. The siege of Kaifeng failed. The emperor was captured and the Northern Song Dynasty perished. Bianjing suffered countless casualties and blood flowed like a river. However, the Song Dynasty was not just beaten. During a certain border patrol, a small group of enemy troops dispersed and attacked in a sneak attack, and they could occasionally win. If I asked you what your winning rate is? Would you say 50%? But in your statistics, if you count them together, it actually means that they are all the same by default. It's like an arena match. You beat me once, I beat you once, and everyone is even. Suppose there is another situation. The siege of Kaifeng is successful and the Northern Song Dynasty is saved. However, a small border patrol team fails to attack and hundreds of people are killed. The winning rate is also 50%. But do you really think this is the same thing??? Who would choose to win a small-scale battle instead of winning a large-scale war? Even excluding the victory of small-scale battles, it is meaningless for us to dwell on the winning rate of large-scale wars. For example, the Battle of Kaifeng and the Great Victory of Caishiji were also the victories and defeats of the Song Dynasty against the Jin Kingdom. But is this called a tie? They are not equivalent. From a practical effect, the victory of Caishiji was a resistance against the invasion of the Jin Dynasty. The Southern Song Dynasty civil servant Yu Yunwen led the army and the people in Caishi to prevent the Jin army from crossing the Yangtze River and advancing southward. I admit that it was a great victory, but the Kaifeng defense battle directly caused the demise of the Northern Song Dynasty and the destruction of the Central Plains. The Caishiji victory only saved the country. Although the credit was great, it did not have the actual huge influence of the Kaifeng defense battle. In this battle, Yu Yunwen did not really go straight to Huanglong and capture the emperor of the Jin Kingdom, causing the demise of the Jin Kingdom. From the final result, the so-called victory and defeat were not even, and it returned to the original confrontation between the Northern Song Dynasty and the Jin Kingdom. So the winning rate of war statistics is meaningless. Even in the same disastrous defeat, the famous general Xue Rengui suffered the biggest defeat in foreign combat since the founding of the Tang Dynasty in the Battle of Dafeichuan. In terms of the number of soldiers, 100,000 people died, which seems to be completely comparable to the defense of Kaifeng. But if we count the political and military effects, the failure of the Tang Dynasty's foreign campaigns and the demise of the Northern Song Dynasty in the Kaifeng Defense War, where the emperor was captured, are still not the same thing. When you count the winning rate,if you count the Battle of Kaifeng and the Battle of Dafeichuan together, it would still be unfair to the Tang Dynasty. When all dynasties were counting wars, no one would be obsessed with the issue of winning rate. Because there are so many changes in war. In addition to the small victories and big victories I mentioned, the narrow defeats and the disastrous defeats, there are actually many factors. Political influence, impact on domestic morale, economic damage, changes in geographical situation, and various factors, cannot be summarized by a simple and crude winning rate. How to count, I don't want to count, Don't look at the winning rate Just look at the results, Isn't the comparison obvious between the Tang Dynasty and the Song Dynasty in terms of their contribution to the expansion of territory, their status in the world, and their status in military history?

She died from the poison, the thief is disgusting 🤢, she was threatened by Di Ni, she exploded and was run away. I am sure that she will be stronger than the protagonist in the next world, and will chase the protagonist everywhere. The thief is powerful, a person in the martial arts world can detect that something is wrong in the world, then people in my mythical world have not said anything yet, will everyone know?

It was embarrassing to persuade him to leave immediately😅

It was a bit interesting at first, but the more I read, the more poisonous and bloody it became, especially the reality chapters, and there is so much about reality, so I gave it up and will see if I make any progress next time when I open a new book. Delete my post? Why don't you let people tell you if your writing isn't good? If you can't eat this bowl of rice, don't eat it

The author revised it very quickly. In the morning, I felt that the Kunlun Shangqing Sect was a loophole. Kunlun Mountain was not in the Song Dynasty. Looking at it now, Kunlun has been removed and changed to the Shangqing Sect.

As a senior reader, I would not have read this book when I saw so many bad reviews in the comment area. However, I saw some good reviews among so many bad reviews, so I read this book. My opinion is that this book is worth reading. Why are there so many bad reviews? It is up to the beholder and the wise to understand.

Let's not talk about how the book is. After writing the introduction, I have no desire to click on it and read it.

Very good idea, poor writing style, inexplicable logic

Why does this kind of book that makes people unable to stand have so many votes? It's so embarrassing that it's worth scratching. It couldn't be because of it.