• Announcements

    • Chaos

      Oathbringer Spoiler Policy   11/13/2017

      Oathbringer is out! Let's make our policy on spoilers clear! 1. You must preface topics with Oathbringer spoilers with the prefix [OB] in the front 2. You are only allowed to post spoilers and spoiler topics in the Oathbringer Spoiler Board, Cosmere Theories, and some select work-related forums. 3. For posts in the Oathbringer Spoiler Board you do not need to use spoiler tags inside a topic marked [OB]. For Cosmere Theories, you also do not need to put spoiler tags inside your topic if the topic has [OB] in the title. However, for Cosmere Theories, if you are adding Oathbringer stuff to an old theory without the [OB] tag, those must go in spoiler tags and you must make it obvious outside the spoiler tag that the spoiler is regarding Oathbringer content. 4. For select things that do require talking about OB spoilers, in Events, Coppermind, and Arcanum forums, those are allowed but keep OB spoilers in spoiler tags 5. Avoid and minimize spoilers in topic titles--even though those two boards will not appear in the Recent Topics ticker, topic titles still appear in Recent Activity and the forum home.  6. You aren't allowed to post Oathbringer spoilers in places other than listed, even with spoiler tags.  It will be nine months and then the Oathbringer board will be re-merged with the Stormlight board and you will not need to tag these spoilers. If you'd like to move something in the Stormlight Archive board to the Oathbringer board, to update it with new Oathbringer information, Report the post and we will happily move it to the Oathbringer spoiler board. Part-by-part Reactions Though the Oathbringer Spoiler Board will be very spoilery, very fast (maybe don't come there until you've read the book, as people do have copies that bookstores sold early), you'll have these five topics for reactions if you want to nerd out: Part 1 Reactions
      Part 2 Reactions
      Part 3 Reactions
      Part 4 Reactions
      Full Book Reactions For parts 1-4, they will not include the interludes immediately following it. On Discord All Oathbringer spoilers on Discord will be exclusively in the #oathbringer_spoilers channel for the nine month spoiler period and nowhere else.


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

103 House Lord

About straits

Recent Profile Visitors

871 profile views
  1. The tools that you use to break a system (violent revolution) and the tools that you use to build a state (economics, diplomacy, etc) are not necessarily facilitated by the same parties. Nor is the slave required to plan for a positive, organized and egalitarian society after the revolution - the slave does not have the tools nor the network to do so, and is only interested in breaking the chains and killing the masters. And if breaking the chains happens to be inconvenient for the masters at that second, so what? Perhaps the master should have thought about liberating the slave before the house was lit on fire. You can hardly start attacking the elites during peacetime and economic prosperity. That's when they're strongest. Your anecdote is somewhat consequentialist, which I don't fully oppose. Maybe the anarchy that comes after the revolution will be overall worse for everyone. But this is the price of discontent in a racist and classist society. And the moral failing is not that of the slave, but of the master. As a side point: Kaladin post-duel is a prime example of why peacefully airing your grievances to the elites does not work. He won the favour of the lighteyes crowd, and held the confidence of Dalinar after putting his life on the line for his highborn sons. When he verbally and publicly accused Amaram of the wrongs he committed, he was thrown in prison despite all of his achievements and it took all of Dalinar's clout not to have him executed for daring to step up to the supremacist masters.
  2. Yes, you can say it is treason as dictated by the law. However, the same constitution(s) that define this treason, also allow lighteyes to own darkeyes as slaves and hold them several social classes below them. In that sense I argue that the law is immoral, and breaking it is righteous - and it is even morally imperative to do so. The "rule of law" is less a moral compass and more a system designed to maintain the status quo, no matter how bad the status quo may be. As an aside - this is why despite his many failings, I don't hold Moash's murder of Elhokar as a crime worth lamenting. He did many things wrong, and killing a king is nowhere near the worst.
  3. That doesn't actually surprise me very much, given that the newly minted bridgeman units don't really have oversight from anyone other than Kaladin (who is probably the only "visible" person to the lighteyes). I don't really remember where Moash got the shards from though... Kaladin handed those to him after he got them as a reward, right?
  4. I actually hope he continues to provide social commentary on lighteyes in Alethi society and that he doesn't lose distrust and dislike of the caste system. Kaladin should be wary of being allowed to "succeed" as a Brightlord within this society, because the title itself holds the connotations of a slavemaster. Moash was briefly a good vehicle for this analysis. He saw it in the prison camps of the Parshendi - how lighteyes reinforce the racist Alethi status quo, with lighteyes taking an excess of food and resources while an old darkeyed woman (and child?) starves outside of their quarters. I think Sanderson put that scene in for a reason. What saddens me is that the way Moash has been radicalized against the Alethi elite has been tainted by his own nihilism. I hope that the validity of Moash's grievances against the Alethi class system does not get lost in his transformation into a villain. I don't fully understand this claim of treason, but mostly because I don't classify an attack on the ruling elite lighteyes (the king), by disenfranchised darkeyes, as treason. It may not be entirely well-timed given the looming world war, but absolutely understandable in its motivations.
  5. For when Kaladin is in a dark mood.
  6. Hey, the guy was the kingiest of kings thousands of years ago. But yeah, I was half-kidding. I still don't think his apathy necessarily means he's a super-villain, though.
  7. Only the bourgeoisie
  8. That's not in the spirit of Windrunners at all. Vengeance is not a component of their ideology.
  9. Maybe, with a metallic spin on blonde hair. But with somewhat Asiatic eyes? Actually, that sounds a bit like east Finland/Karelia.
  10. Agreed. Their People's Revolution has been hijacked by malignant extraterrestrial interest
  11. The brilliant thing about Sanderson's series is that he demonstrates the humanity (or sapience) of the Parshmen. It is the humans who committed cultural and literal genocide upon the Parshmen. Which leads us to the question - is humanity in this case something good and noble? Or should Moash align himself with the victims of the original sin on Roshar? Interesting food for thought, in a fantasy series of course
  12. That makes perfect sense. I kind of imagined the Alethi to be of Arab complexion, with east-Asiatic eyes and bone structure of something in between. Of course, no 1:1 mapping between them and our world. What puzzles me is the Iriali. Metallic golden hair, yellow eyes, but what do their faces look like really?
  13. I read it as the sardonic, malicious salute of someone who fulfilled his original goal. Calling it cowardice is appealing to a component of fair play that didn't exist in the war the Kholins waged to get their throne. I don't see why Moash should have waited to kill an enemy combatant until some kind of chance for an honorable duel presented itself. I understand the sentiment in the bolded sentence and I don't claim Moash is a good person. But your last phrase about his humanity, I find to be hyperbolic, his transformation notwithstanding. This may be whataboutism, but the readership here generally holds Dalinar in high esteem. This is someone who waged an aggressor's war (read: the Kholinar brothers caused the war, they weren't defending themselves) and left thousands if not more innocent civilians dead in his wake. And this murderous adventurism is supposed to be forgiven because Dalinar took the Sweet Forgetfulness pill and is now a better man? No. He has yet to answer for these crimes. But if a man like Dalinar can redeem himself, why can't Moash at some point?
  14. Hear hear. He lived the reality of the bridges and the chasms. The experiences down there are part of what led him to killing a king, and to becoming who he is today. He has the right to that salute. He might be distasteful as a person, but as several other posters have said, he is not a supervillain for his deeds up to this point. Whether he might become that later in the books, is up for debate. And to echo @Ookla the Obtuse, the salute was an incredible literary moment. It hurt to read.
  15. His freezing in combat is the highest point of his arc, along with his failure to say the words. It is the epiphany you were waiting for, and seemingly missed. He realizes the conflict is not black and white, and he is witnessing good people from both sides die in it, not to mention his PTSD and other combat-related trauma kicking in. I think you're misusing the metrics of "success" and "failure" for Kaladin's arc and character development. For him, experiencing decision paralysis and actually relying on other people to save him (even with the "final" fight with Amaram), is a huge character development. It is the foundation of the road to his fourth Ideal. I personally enjoyed reading about his failures and depressive episodes through OB. When you listen to a song, sometimes the silences between notes can be used for great emphasis, and I think that's what Sanderson did with Kaladin's arc in a literary equivalent.