Remember that scene in The Princess Bride where Westley challenges Vizzini to a battle of the wits—you know, the one with the iocane powder?
The last few times I watched the movie, something about that scene didn’t set quite right with me, and I’ve been developing a theory about what’s really going on.
Westley was involved in a battle of wits against Vizzini, a battle which, necessarily, involves a certain amount of deception. I think that Westley was deceiving Vizzini about his use of the iocane powder.
Westley describes iocane powder to Vizzini as being “odorless, tasteless, dissolves instantly in liquid, and is among the more deadly poisons known to man.”
When presenting the poison to Vizzini, Westley also gives him the explicit instructions “Inhale this, but do not touch.”
While I believe Westley may truthfully have spent several years building up a resistance to the effects of iocane powder, I propose that rather than poisoning both goblets as he claimed to have done, Westley didn’t pour the iocane powder into either cup of wine!
Especially since the iocane was in powder form, I suspect that rather than being an ingested poison, it was an inhalation poison!
Vizzini wasn’t poisoned when Westley poured (or didn’t pour) iocane powder into the wine goblets, but when Westley told him to waft the vial of iocane powder. Since iocane powder is odorless, Vizzini wouldn’t have noticed that trace amounts of one of the “more deadly poisons known to man” had been introduced into his system…trace amounts that were still enough to kill a man within minutes.
And since iocane powder came from Australia, and it’s well documented that Australia is home to some of the most venomous species of plants and animals on earth, there’s no reason not to believe that such a small quantity iocane powder could have killed a man of Vizzini’s stature.
Westley had already won the battle of wits before it had begun, and was simply stalling for time until the poison took it’s effect.
All quotes from the script accessed from this site: [X]
This is, in all likelihood, the most important post I’ve ever made on this blue-bordered website.
As awesome as this theory is… I have to say that it’s unlikely for exactly one reason.
After the battle of wits, Buttercup exclaims that it was his cup that was poisoned all along. He admits that both were poisoned.
That’s important because at no point in the movie does Westley lie to Buttercup.
Hi @vgjustice, thanks for the comment!
First and foremost, thanks for thinking my headcanon is awesome! I’m really proud of it and absolutely floored with the reception it’s gotten on tumblr. Wow wow wow!
Secondly, it’s been a while since anyone’s offered the “but Westley is an honorable man” critique of this headcanon, and that’s really easily addressed by a couple of alterations that are both consistent with the headcanon I’ve presented, Westley’s personality, and the canon events the movie displays.
TL;DR, Westley did pour the vial into both cups!
But if iocane powder works by being inhaled, then it would reasonably get absorbed into the body via cilia in the lungs, so what would happen to the toxin if it was mixed with a fluid and ingested instead? Perhaps it’d have no effect at all, or a reduced effect, or at the very least take way way longer to act (but could serve as a secondary assurance if for some reason Vizzini wasn’t totally done in by wafting the vial.) So Vizzini still inhales a lethal dose from the vial, Westley still pours poison into both goblets, and he feels confident to do so because he has spent the last years building up a resistance to iocane powder.
He’s not only bested Vizzini in a battle of wits, but also in a battle of battle of wits, and even in the preparation for a battle of wits. And if we know anything about Dread Pirate Roberts in general, and Westley in specific, it’s that 1) he’s a master of manipulating the odds of his own games, and 2) you’re 157% correct that he’d never lie to his love Buttercup.
This lets us polish the headcanon to not only remain consistent, but also add a facet that potentially makes it more interesting. Which is a pretty awesome thing!
That’s the beauty of headcanon, though, isn’t it? It’s a way for us, the enthusiastic audience, to interact with the gray areas and glossed-over details in our media to put a new, original, and sometimes powerfully resonating spin on the stories we love. And since headcanons are shared in communities of interest, it gives us a way to share those ideas with others and compound them together in ways that elevate both the canon and fanon layers of the story to new heights. There are few things more exciting than seeing someone’s cool idea and getting to say “this is great, and I think this detail would make it even cooler!” One of them is seeing someone else take your idea and add details that light it up in a whole new way!
So thank you @vgjustice for the comment, and for bringing an awesome new angle to this headcanon. Keep on sharing, and never lose your love for stories!
The first time we saw the movie, my family and I were waiting for Wesley to say “Actually, neither cup was poisoned, he inhaled the fatal dose at the beginning,” and I was faintly disappointed at the explanation, so I support this headcannon.
Now, who thinks the taxi driver in “A Study in Pink” was using his blood thinners, or whatever meds were slowing down his fatal illness, to poison his victims, and that both capsules really were identical?
Mooncustafer 