Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Welcome to the Shard @Rockobar *waves*. I must say, you have certainly entered with bang. Also, upvote because I don't think you deserve all those downvotes, you stated your opinion, and, even though I don't agree with it, I can respect the fact that you did so in a respectful manner. Anyway, welcome! Now onwards to my points (this sounds like a debate now...) which turned out waaay longer than I expected. Whoops.

Overall, I would say that you are asking Brandon to be un-Brandon. Every artist has a hallmark to their art, and I think that if Brandon were to do some of the things you talk about, it would ultimately diverge his writing from his personality in his writing, as well as the story that he wants to tell. You refer to the upbringing and how it resulted in this view which is obviously misguided, but if we did not have authors of different upbringings and views, what would be the point in reading. If every story was the same in the outlook it presents, would you be interested in reading it? I know that I wouldn't.

Firstly, on the topic of sexuality. I am personally very grateful for the fact that there is very little sexual scenes in the Cosmere. As an asexual myself, I find it refreshing to see a modern, adult fantasy series that doesn't involve some kind of explicit sex. Half the time when it occurs in a book, I'll roll my eyes skim the section to see if there is anything important and move on (I skipped pages and pages of Game of Thrones, rolling my eyes as I did). I would personally prefer to read about something that actually influences story and character in books (which are already getting very, very long) rather than a sex scene for the sake of a sex scene.  "Raw primal desire" as you put it, is not the sole form of what makes us human. Humans are a complex being, as you have pointed out, and while it is a factor in who we are, I personally believe that humans are so, so much more than lust that they feel, and not every part of human life can, or indeed should be included in a book, simply because it does not have enough relevance to the story to warrant being included. Also, I would say that doing this makes the books more accessible to people of younger years  

On your point on religion now. Religion is something that has been a foundation of human society for milenia, and has had a profound impact in culture throughout much of the world, from creating the backbone of morality, to societal structure. Violence and peace can both result from religion, and it is a vital part of a culture. I would also say, particularly on your points on the diagram is to wait and see, because I think it will be an interesting ride, because we're only 2 books in.

Now, onto genre. I must say, we have highly different opinions on this, because the mish-mash of genres is something that really appeals to me. Fantasy owes a lot to Grandpa Tolkien, but far too often, I believe, authors get stuck in a rut of making very fantasy fantasy (hopefully that makes sense). I know very few fantasy trilogies that show an obvious growth of society, over time, as culture is not static, but is a very fluid concept that is always changing, as does technology. I find that it is extremely refreshing to see this in a fantasy book. Also, on a bit of a side note, I love how I have no idea what genre Mistborn era 2 (1.5?) in that it's a strange cross between fantasy, sci-fi, western, crime, thriller and probably a few more chucked in there. Life is rarely so black and white.

So, whilst I disagree with many of the points that you have made, I think it is great that you put your ideas out there, even though they might not be very popular ideas (especially on your first post). I hope I didn't sound too aggressive in my writing (sorry if I did), but I would love your thoughts on my thoughts on your thoughts (yay for overly confusing sentence). See you round the shard! :) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Rockobar Welcome to the shard.  I think that there is a lot of value to the opinions you have expressed.  I think what is causing the majority of the backlash against you is the tone you have taken in expressing it, and that you have shared what seems like the opener to a private conversation in a very public forum.  I did take the time to read your full letter, which I fully admit is not something I usually do.  No offense to many of the wordsmiths on the site, but many of us, myself included, tend to get overly verbose and lengthy in our replies.  

 

I personally found your tone to be overly condescending, and maybe a little pretentious.  In other situations, it may have qualified as what is currently being called Man-splaining.  Telling an artist who has been successfully hitting some of the top laurels in their field that they are not doing it the way you like, and that you have some pointers for how they could do better is not, well, very diplomatic.  I know it would put me on the defensive, and from the numerous reactions you've received, a lot of people seem to feel this was more an attack than a conversation opener.

 

I think you may have been better served to open a topic along the lines of "Things I'd like to see explored in more depth in the Cosmere"  If you had posted there a few topics you'd like to see Brandon explore or expand on, like sexuality, or meaningful death (I'll give you, after a few of the latest entries in the Cosmere, I have been questioning whether death has lost all meaning in the Cosmere) or the place of religion, you may have ended up with a far more positive discussion.  

 

It definitely does not help that some of these topics are sensitive, hot-button type subjects.

 

But at the end of the day, I think the core of the reaction you've received comes down to this:  Unless you are the mentor/teacher of a given artist, or a contemporary colleague who has been asked specifically for advice, telling an artist how to art is not cool.  Whether it be a writer writing, a sculptor, painter or actor.

 

That said, I really do hope to see some more of your thoughts and opinions in the future.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only way I see this being redeemed is if he/she responds w/ something like, "Psych! I got you good you loyal, uptight, cant-take-a-joke, overly defensive $%#@ers!" Until then I'm going to continue to be a loyal, uptight, cant-take-a-joke, overly defensive $%#@er.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I certainly hope Sanderson does not take the OP's advice; I really like his books, but prefer to not have so much sexuality in them.  Yes, it is an important part of human experience, but so are many things that don't make it into most books.

Edited by Yitzi2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello @Rockobar,

I'm closing this topic as it is getting too heated. I would encourage you to contact Brandon directly: https://brandonsanderson.com/contact/ I don't think Brandon reads the forum much, if at all. 

Since this topic hasn't been good at fostering discussion, I am closing it, but I do think your attention to detail can definitely be great for the community and so I encourage you to stick around. I appreciate the time you took to write this. 

I would also encourage others to realize that it's okay for people to disagree. I generally think the reaction to this post has been super overblown, even if you think it's a bit abrasively written. It has its points to it and I think that should be encouraged. But regardless, clearly this discussion is not going anywhere.

As for your content, I would say that Brandon has steadily put in more and more sexual references into books, so that aspect is improving. I wouldn't expect many straight up sex scenes though, but I think it's a reasonable balance. 

EDIT: Upon Rockobar's request I have reopened this, but let's keep things civil! I will be watching.

Edited by Chaos
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Chaos locked this topic
  • Chaos unlocked this topic
16 hours ago, Oversleep said:

tl;dr:

Now that I saved everyone's time on reading that wall of text you can decide whether you want to downvote him or let it be.

Hello, thank you for replying. I felt it best to leave the letter without summary so that we might not miss each other's points that have been stated within the missive. Although I can see that you might have portrayed my letter as a bit simplistic and do not agree with my thoughts, I hope that people will just read the section(s) that they wish to take the time to discuss.

16 hours ago, king of nowhere said:

you expressed your persnal opinions, which are different from those of most others here. not because we are mindless fans who like everything their idol does, but because liking what sanderson does made us fans. it is strange to find on this site one with so much disagreement with the writer because one with so much disagreement generally does not become involved enough to post on a fan forum.

preamble said, I disagree with most all of your opinions.

- sexuality. I like it as it is, or at most hinted a bit more. not because I am prude or shy, in fact I have quite a lot of experience with erotic literature, but simply because I don't think the books would gain anything from more sex. ok, we know those two guys are having sex. do we really need a description? Not me. It would feel like a bit of the aforementioned erotic literature just got teleported into the middle of a fantasy book. It just doesn't work for me. I've read books with more explicit sexuality, and I never enjoied it. While I don't mind hints that characters have a sexual life (since you mentioned wot, I appreciated the references to the white tower being ripe with lesbism, which is a realistic consequence of segregating so many pubescent girls together away from boys) I would rather the details remained private among the characters.

- religion. You are wrong in saying that in sanderson's books religious characters are good characters. There are plenty of religious negative characters (dilaf and his dakor monks come first, hraten at least has good intentions, but there is also vivenna's judgmental attitude) and plenty of not-religious good characters (jasnah takes the cake here, but kelsier is also another shining example). heck, brandon is regularly praised by atheistic people telling him how well he represented one of them and how amazed they were at fidning a strongly religious person who could portray and atheist so well. he takes effort in giving justice to any ideological view different from his own, and he does a really good job of it. I think you cherry-picked a couple of examples that are not representative of brandon's general writing.

- death. yes, most times his characters die at the end of the story arc. but then, brandon always kills his characters when he feels it's appropriate for the story. most times it's at the end, which makes sense because it's the climax, the time when the characters take more risks. ok, it would be a bit more realistic to have, say, adolin randomly killed by a stray arrow through the eyeslit in a meaningless plateau run, but again, i don't see the story gaining much from it. in fact, the story follows the main characters because they are main characters. if they get killed before accomplishing much, then clearly they didn't add much to the story, and they are not worthy of being followed closely, they are not main characters. giving lots of space to someone who will just get killed may not be the best storytelling.

- genre. I don't consider myself a fan of fantasy. in fact, most standard fantasy just feels to me like a cheap lord of the rings ripoff. what i actually like about fantasy in interesting worldbuilding. if a world was sketched well enough, I could read about it without even a story happening. And so i strongly apppreciate that brandon is carrying his worlds in different directions. I absolutely love what he's doing with scadrial, and I absolutely love the way he's mixing magic and technology. I never appreciated how the two didn't mix in the wot. I am a scientist and a strong believer in progress, and the general attitude of traditional fantasy of progress=bad, ancient=good, things get worse with time, was always veery unsatisfying to me. anyway, i love the exploration part of fantasy, and so exploring what happens to a world with the passing of time is very interesting to me.

Hello, thank you for your reply, I am glad that you welcome some conflicting ideas that we can discuss. It may look like a lot of criticism, but as I mentioned in the letter, I would have a letter of praise twice as long, but I fear I would only be retreading old ground that Sanderson has already received from the forum.

Sexuality: Thank you, I appreciate your views. I welcome talking with people of all backgrounds and environmental upbringings. As I hope to convey in the letter, the sexuality I talk of hopes to inject not the smut of strange fanfiction, but as another element of Sanderson's art. "What you put into your book is pushing your artform and your art is capturing the human nature. If you want to see under the skin of what makes a human graceful, an artist draws nude pictures; if you want to see beneath the skin of what really makes a human tick, you write in their deepest primal urges." 

Religion: To be more specific, what I mean is that the side of good tends to connect to a religious aspect e.g. Mistborn the Church of the Survivor, Saze/Preservation, Elantris: Elantrians/Shu-Koreth, Stormlight Archives: the Almighty/Honor. The only character on the side of good that I can see not a part of this is Jasnah which is why  I love her so. Yet she still is only a side character at the moment and one we have not seen for some time.

Death: Again, just a differing of perspective that we have, thank you though.

Genre: I agree with you that there are conventional fantasy themes that are overdone (one of them is sexual modesty but we have covered that), Sanderson rebelling and exploring alternatives is what drew me to his cosmology. I would have to disagree that traditional fantasy that things just worse with time and the world does not progress from its era. Brandon himself acknowledged this when commenting on Elantris: Lord of the Rings has the elves leaving for the West and the time of Men coming about, WoT progresses into technological advancement etc. Elantris was interesting as it did the opposite, it was the resurgence of magic to a near magic-less world.

17 hours ago, strumienpola said:

You're like one of those guys telling Brandon to be more like GRRM before he got published. 

If I wanted to read something like GRRM I would read storming GRRM. I, we here, like BS because he is different. He's his own person, not another pervy old man buying his audience with sex and violence. I am personally storming fed up with sex in every modern fantasy book. Erotic scenes add as much substance to the story as describing someone's defecation. It's natural, yes, but I don't give a rust. 

The religion thing - you didn't pay much attention to what you were reading, eh? Probably you were too focused on finding fantasies material or something. I'm not going to bother explaining you how the whole cosmere is build upon Adonalsium. Or that Dalinar wasn't always this way. You should have noticed by now. 

To summarize. People who try to impose their believes on others - that is like you, not like Brandon - make me angry. 

 

Edit: I am sorry for the choice of words and being emotional. I stand by the context. 

Hi, it's is understandable to be emotional, we all care deeply about these books and invest much of ourselves in them.

Sexuality: I think it might be a bit cruel to label GRRM as a perverted creep - while his sexual scenes might be a shock to the average consumer base of fantasy, the political intrigue set within a fantasy world is what drives the story forward and keeps readers interested. I recognise and thank you for clarifying your position on GRRM in a later post. As I mentioned, "While in the last 15 years sex has been rising to the pages, it just seems to be making a big splash when surrounded in an ocean of meekness. I’m not asking you to go as visceral in sexual details as GRRM, for that is his style and how he plays with sexuality. If I wanted to see more of that kind, I would go read more GRRM.". On the contrary, I believe if Sanderson wanted to create a feeling of disgust or pity at a horrible situation, he might well have a scene with someone defecating. It is less of a taboo subject and so one he can broach with less fear. Black humour such as Tyrion Lannister shooting his father with a crossbow while the old man is on the toilet is a contemporary example.

Religion: As we know there was a basis for a near omnipotent (in the balanced sense) god in Adonalsium, religion of course deserves its place in the world. However, as we have seen with Jasnah, that does not mean it has to take the lead role in governing the charge of the heroes. In worlds were Shards are actually 'dead' or absent such Threnody, we can expect agnostic/atheist ideas to be more commonplace. As for Dalinar, he can be seen as the born again theist, for when we come to him in the current timeline of the books he is staunchly in the ideas of preserving the tenets of the Heralds and deceased Almighty. I do not expect his role in the Archive to end with him not leading from this theological basis.

I hope not to impose my thoughts upon people - I hope to discuss as we are now and if I make some people think and compare a different viewpoint to their own, it is just a happy side effect.

17 hours ago, Pagerunner said:

What, is OP not allowed to have an opinion on what would improve Brandon's books in their mind? Or just not allowed to mention it around you guys? Many of their points (religious views of characters, hidden sexuality, and overuse of resurrection) are all things Brandon has engaged with in detail on Reddit when people have posted similar complaints. Nothing here that deserves downvotes.

They're well-considered ideas, backed up with plenty of explanation and comparisons that are designed to give concrete examples. I'll disagree with the fundamentals of the opinions, and honestly I wouldn't enjoy if Brandon followed the advice given. My preferences for discussion range more towards in-universe theories than these sorts of metatextual analyses, so I'm not particularly interested in engaging with the topic at hand. But let's not flame a brand new user for sharing thoughts.

Welcome to the Shard, @Rockobar. Normally, the level of detail you put into your post would get a much better reception around these parts. I guess you've just managed to find a sensitive topic to make an entrance on; by all means, don't let it stop you from visiting other parts of the forum.

 

Thank you very much for the welcome and openness, I look forward to talking with people of all different beliefs on Sanderson's work.

17 hours ago, Binnut said:

Welcome to the forums, I hope you will find your place here.

That said, I find myself agreeing with some of the points raised by others here and I think that the tone of your letter is what some of us are having issues with.

What is bringing us together here is a love for Brandon Sandersons books, and we might not always like all of his decisions, but we can generally agree that he is doing what he believes to be the right decisions for these books. Some of us might give some feedback, and tell him what we liked and did not like as much.

I think your letter comes of as not suggesting something that you might like take a bigger place, but as telling him that he is doing it wrong, and the telling him what he should do. Expressing the same "feedback" as "I feel that there is to much of this and to little of that" instead might make it more likely to give effect, as well as triggering discussion about how explicit sexual relationships should be for example. This would also make it sound less like you are demanding these changes.

If you write your opinions in a less "strong" style, and more diplomatic style, I think that you would find a good home here, as most posts is motivated by opinions in one way or another.

As a final note, I do not think that sex should be much more explicit in the books, but I do respect that you would like that.

Hi there, thank you for your comment. I agree that the letter does look to be as if coming from a lecturer and so people might respond to the content more heatedly than the content itself might warrant. It was not my mission in writing this letter to set demands towards Brandon, but to let him know that there is an opinion that is open to changes within his work. The instructing quality of it might come about from me attempting to prove that there is a way to write sexuality without creating a guilty conscience. Thank you again for your words and advice.

17 hours ago, swieczq said:

The only thing I could possibly agree with is the paragraph about death of characters, but I wouldn't want Brandon to change his style only to accomodate to that, reading through his Sanderson Avalancheâ„¢ is VERY satysfying. Apart from that, this could destroy the beautiful thing about Brandon's books - hope that they bear. Reading his books gives me lots of positive energy. Let's leave GRRM things to GRRM and Sanderson things to Sanderson, I guess.

Apart from that, I actually disagree with everything else, I don't think that Brandon's books need more sex, or that religion/atheism is not displayed well/tends to favour religious characters (although I'm a religious person myself, so my viewpoint can be influenced by this)

Hello, thank you for your comments. I too am hoping that the scope of an epic series such as Stormlight will encourage Brandon to space his deaths more widely. As I mentioned "I’m not asking you to go as visceral in sexual details as GRRM, for that is his style and how he plays with sexuality. If I wanted to see more of that kind, I would go read more GRRM." However, GRRM does not claim the monopoly on sexuality of characters in fantasy. He would be at the extreme end of the scale which would never work with Sanderson's works. I can feel the potential that Sanderson has for working with sexuality, as we saw with sexuality in Warbreaker where Sanderson played with our the fear and creating endearment. I hoped to offer any encouragement if he might be tempted to take those steps.

17 hours ago, king of nowhere said:

everyone, try to calm down. yes, that letter is poorly conceived and it has some "my world view is the one true view and so I feel i must impose it on everyone else", but it was politely worded and therefore deserves a polite response. Do we not brag about the niceness of this community? Is this not a place where one can write his ideas without fear of being bashed if they do not conform to the majority?

And, perhaps most relevant to the specific case, can we convince him of his mistake by calling GRRM an old pervy and his followers people who are only in for the sex and violence? This is the same attitude we want to discourage. Yes, the OP dislikes many of the things that are the mark of sanderson and that are exactly what most of us likes about his books. Yes, the OP shows he has not understood some subtleties of the story - you'd be surprised, but not everyone reread every book several times looking for subtle clues and then goes to find all the author's interviews; casual readers don't know of adonalsium or hoid - and he probably cherry-picked some evidence to support his wrong conclusions about religion in the books. and yes, he had a somewhat arrogant attitude about it - something many people, me included, can adopt without realizing. There just isn't enough to bash him like some of the replies did.

Hello, thank you for your kind words. As I mentioned above with Binnut: I agree that the letter does look to be as if coming from a lecturer and so people might respond to the content more heatedly than the content itself might warrant. It was not my mission in writing this letter to set demands towards Brandon, but to let him know that there is an opinion that is open to changes within his work. The instructing quality of it might come about from me attempting to prove that there is a way to write sexuality without creating a guilty conscience. 

Indeed, I too appreciate GRRM for more than his depiction of sexuality as I hoped to express to strumienpola: I think it might be a bit cruel to label GRRM as a perverted creep - while his sexual scenes might be a shock to the average consumer base of fantasy, the political intrigue set within a fantasy world is what drives the story forward and keeps readers interested.

Religion: As I mentioned to strumienpola: As we know there was a basis for a near omnipotent (in the balanced sense) god in Adonalsium, religion of course deserves its place in the world. However, as we have seen with Jasnah, that does not mean it has to take the lead role in governing the charge of the heroes. In worlds were Shards are actually 'dead' or absent such Threnody, we can expect agnostic/atheist ideas to be more commonplace.

Although Hoid's complete motives are largely up for debate, I admire his interventionist attitude. His scorn for the Shardholders as consciousnesses of the people he once used to know are refreshing when most worlds in the genre have a respect for at least one overarching figure e.g. Eru Iluvatar, the Light. In this regard, he shares something of Jasnah.

17 hours ago, Extesian said:

A lot of effort to make Zucchini status!

But on a more serious note I'm not going to criticize it. People are entitled to their opinion. I disagree, but hey, that's ok.

Welcome to the Shard @Rockobar.

Hi, thank you for your welcome and understanding. Please feel free to voice any opinions on the topics if you wish to and I would be happy to talk about any fresh points. 

17 hours ago, TwiLyghtSansSparkles said:

If an author is uncomfortable writing graphic violence, they shouldn't be pressured to add more graphic violence to their work. 

If an author is uncomfortable writing about religion, they shouldn't be pressured to add a religious character to their next book. 

If an author is uncomfortable writing sex scenes, they shouldn't be pressured into writing sex scenes. 

End of discussion. 

Hi, thank you for your reply. However, I would hope that it is not the end of the discussion as there are many replies below. I agree wholeheartedly about making demands of writers, as I mentioned to Binnut: I agree that the letter does look to be as if coming from a lecturer and so people might respond to the content more heatedly than the content itself might warrant. It was not my mission in writing this letter to set demands towards Brandon, but to let him know that there is an opinion that is open to changes within his work. The instructing quality of it might come about from me attempting to prove that there is a way to write sexuality without creating a guilty conscience. 

However, as to the first clause of that tricolon, I do disagree. As an artist, I feel there is a creative integrity to hold to yourself to keep pushing what you know and are capable of. As Sanderson has expressed that he wants to reverse and push the bounds of what has been done in the genre. I hope to convey to him a way of fulfilling might be a diversity of sexual and religious experiences. Realism: As there is already a healthy dose of violence within his books, a proportional amount of sexuality would not be amiss. Part of it is that I view of all these three factors an inevitable part of life. I would mark it as strange to censor any one of them out.

17 hours ago, CaptainRyan said:

SUPER EDIT: In my opinion, I do not think a downvote is warranted for this post. I will be supplying an upvote to counteract the downvotes I am seeing. I do not agree with the general premise, or delivery, of the OP but I also think we, as a community, need to be welcoming to new people and new ideas - even if we do not agree with them. Rockobar did not do anything worthy of a downvote, imo. I also recognize that people might disagree with me so please take this simply as a request for kindness and not a reprimand to anyone who did downvote.

 

First of all, welcome to the forums @Rockobar! Thanks for sharing your thoughts with the rest of the 17th Shard.

Second, I want to add a disclaimer before I respond. It should go without saying, though I will say it anyway, that each and every person is allowed their own opinion of Brandon's work, his style, their favorite ice cream, etc. My response is merely a reflection of my own opinion.

That out of the way, I would have to say that I object to some of what you wrote Rockobar. Particularly this line:

Is that really his task as an artist? Because, honestly, I think it can be far more expansive than that. I've viewed Brandon's "task" or, #jokingnotjoking, his "Intent" as sharing with us the Cosmere and any other works he decides to write. Brandon is under no obligation to produce a certain style of work, to explore certain themes, or to do anything really other than what he and his publishers work out in contract. Now, obviously, Brandon needs to write things that people want or else he will not be offered more contracts by his publishers haha, but, in the end, Brandon has no mandate to relate or expound upon the emotions that are in our lives. You might want that. Others might want that. But to declare it his task as an artist is a bit presumptuous in my opinion.

 

Honestly, this letter seems to be your projection of what a writer is or what they should write about mingled with your inherent assumptions and biases. E.g.:

Do you find it inconceivable that there exists a subset of people who would choose to save six (6) billion strangers over their family?

This is what you boil religion down to? A social construct to prevent STIs? Again, you can have any opinion you want but I guarantee you that Brandon, and millions of other followers of religion, will not be swayed by this theory. 

I am optimistic that we will see an amazing blend of fantasy and sci-fi.

 

All that being said, I did want to say, again, welcome and I hope you will not take the tepid reception of your first post too hard. 

Hello, thank you for your welcome and understanding. As to the matter of what his task is as an artist is, the definition is always up for contention. However, I do believe that to relate and expound emotions is a kernel of truth in writing. What may be more accurate is that it is part of his overall task, but a large part at that. As a novelist, interaction between characters is paramount. You could write a book detailing the biogeography of Roshar and I would read it, but that is not an epic story nor a novel; it is a reference book. The 'expounding' is all the more important in fantastical fiction, as fantasy is escapism. We look for that burst of emotions, whether it be excitement or dismay, in the time we set aside for reading. Sanderson is already an expert at this as is clear in our fond reception to character pairs he has created. However, even an expert looks to do more and I hope my suggestion to him might stir some more ideas.

On the hypothetical moral question of killing the rest of the world instead of killing your family, it is an interesting question. However, that is all it is, a moral quandry for characters and readers to ponder. I would certainly believe that some parents would make that devasting sacrifice of turning the gun on their own children, yet again some people would regretfully say goodbye to all the strangers of the world to live on earth with their family for the rest of their days. What I hoped to illustrate was that Sanderson leans more heavily on favouring the deontological decision for his heroes.

Religion as a social construct: Not at all, religion has been very useful beyond sexuality, whether that be in the organisation and governing of society, advancing artistic and technological endeavour or giving a structure of morals to follow, etc. To look at the issue of sexuality from a theist's view, the question would be why did God command that sex should be within a devoted relationship, specifically for married couples. God wanted it so children could be raised in a stable environment, you can have twice as much time to raise a child than an accidental pregnancy outside of marriage; if you have said marriage vows, the likelihood of catching an STD would go down dramatically, preventing infertility or affected children that would not be able to spread out across the world and spread God's message, etc.

As for a sci-fi fantasy blend, as I expressed in my worries, there will be a point where this plausible but then will inevitably progress into a recognisable sci-fi world.

18 hours ago, bleeder said:

I concur with Twi. 

Look, man, your suggestions and opinions are yours and are valid, but if he were to change all these things you suggest (and, side note, the method of suggestion wasn't exactly the best; you wouldn't walk up to an admired artist and say "I like your work... but I like that other person's better; change this, this, this, and this," but I digress), if Brandon didn't write in the way he did, and hadn't garnered up enough avid readers like ourselves to his wonderful works, this site wouldn't exist. Sanderson is Sanderson, not Jordan or Martin. And we love him.

tl;dr:

I'm sad to see that you spent up some of your free time penning this thorough letter telling my favorite author where he has gone wrong, but thanks for your input. 

Hi, thank you for your reply. I direct to my response to Twi, but also would add that in human history there has never been a perfect artist. Sanderson is a master, Michelango was a master yet as we are only an individual, we will never reach objective perfection. Offering my opinions to Sanderson I think more as some source material that he might read, a perspective from yet another individual. Maybe he might mull these ideas over, develop or reject the ideas that would strengthen his resolve that what he is doing is right.

As we might discuss a theory amongst each other as friends arguing the finer moments of a TV show so we increase our involvement and enjoyment of said universe further, I live in the hope that I might gain some perspective on these ideas from the master source, Sanderson himself.

18 hours ago, Weltall said:

There's nothing inherently wrong about disagreeing with some of Brandon's choices but as a first post on a fansite, a long wall of text that smacks of 'I think you should write differently and here's how you should do it' isn't the best way to make a first impression. And with some of the content...

I'm going to preface this response by pointing out that I am one of those readers who is both a fan of Brandon Sanderson's work and an atheist. I don't see why the two should be in any way mutually exclusive or why I should find an author whose religious views inform their work to be an inherently bad thing, especially when it's done as well as Brandon handles it. Jasnah's already been mentioned so I won't belabor the point but it was really a treat to see a character like that with a well thought-out worldview and an openness to other perspectives (which I think I am too, 'lack belief' versus 'don't believe in' and all that). Which doesn't in any way imply that I don't like any characters who do have strong religious convictions. It's all part of the Cosmere's worldbuilding and Brandon always tries to explore different facets of religion in his works. Elantris has Hrathen with his religion where everything fits into a neat and tidy order and some exploration of what it would mean in a world where anyone could become godlike, Mistborn runs the entire range of options, Warbreaker has a god who doesn't believe his own religion and the ways that different cultures have reacted to the existence of the Returned and Awakening, SA has Dalinar trying to decide how to react when a major pillar of his faith is knocked down... it's all part of what makes the characters and settings fascinating. I love reading that sort of thing even if I'm not religious myself.

Fantasy is a global phenomenon. Fiction as a literary genre is a far newer thing but its antecedents are everywhere. What are the Thousand and One Nights if not fantasies within a framing story? Journey to the West may have been based (very loosely) on a historical event but it's effectively an adventure story with gods and monsters and a party of travellers on A Quest. That the European and American tradition of fantasy was heavily influenced by Renaissance literature doesn't mean that all fantasy must follow all its elements.

One might also point out that the granddaddy of modern English-language fantasy literature is every bit as influenced by its authors religious views as anything Brandon has written.

Dalinar and Navani spring immediately to mind. Yes, they courted in the past and both have been married to other people but they weren't married when they started up their relationship. Kaladin from the same books is implied to have had at least one offscreen relationship. Wayne and MeLaan certainly weren't married when they got 'distracted' during a gunfight in Bands of Mourning... yes, I know you mention this one later, I just want to point out that it contradicts your above absolute statement. I for one am perfectly content to see 'Kiss, fade to the aftermath' rather than Brandon try to write a sex scene just because some readers wanted to see it. That would feel awkward and gratuitious and it's extremely unlikely it would add anything to the characters or the setting that we can't get from the before and after aspects..

Does the name Calmseer ring any bells?

You know that Brandon has been up-front about his plans for Mistborn since practically the beginning of his published career, yes? Just because you don't like Fantasy that shades into other genres (never mind that it's all part of the greater speculative fiction umbrella) doesn't mean the concept isn't worth writing about. Brandon specifically wanted to show a dynamic world that changes over the course of the series and Scadrial just happens to be that world. It being the closest analogue to Earth, it's not a surprising pick either. Basically what I'm getting is that you want Brandon to write how you want him to (trodding well-worn paths) instead of experimenting with the genre and finding new things to do, or new ways to explore old ideas. You may like one take on the fantasy genre more than others but that doesn't mean that you can demand an author only write stories in that particular mold. I'll take the dynamic Brandon Sanderson who can write things as diverse as Reckoners or the planned Era 4 Mistborn as well as something more traditional in feel (relatively speaking) like Stormlight Archive.

I'll end this with a single word that I think sums up the tone of your letter: Errorgant.

Hey, thank you for covering new ground from the letter. 

Religion seems to be the first paragraph of choice. I am glad indeed to share your love of Jasnah, she is refreshing. As with Lightsong, he is another of my favourite characters, as he is for many drawn by his his cynical humour and wit. What did disappoint me and reflects back to my point was I felt it unnecessary for Sanderson in the end to prove that Lightsong really is a god by his predictions of viewing the paintings are true and justify the Returned as figures in the Hallandren pantheon. Lightsong proves noble and true which in my opinion has been done already often. Dalinar I mentioned in response to stumienpola.

 Fantasy as a phenomenon: Indeed, fantasy is a global phenomenon and Asian influences are obvious. Fantasy is global as the need to explain and the desire for escapism are intrinsic part of the human psyche since time immemorial. Just as in the same way sexuality is intrinsic part of the human psyche since time immemorial which was the point that I was addressing here. The majority of Sanderson's societies come from the West (the notable exception The Emperor's Soul), the same as much of the genre. Asian influences are underlying to the basis of Western medieval/renaissance society. Still, I can apply the example that you gave and it compounds on my points that sexuality is a thick thread woven throughout the tapestry of all societies: the premise of One Thousand and One Nights is a ruler who has sex with a virgin every night only to execute her in the morning and although I am not familiar with Chinese literature, I imagine we would be able to recognise elements of sexuality even within a supposedly reserved society.

Sexual Personal Experience: Dalinar and Navani are a couple that do have the potential to do interesting - the relationship is considered taboo and I hope that they do not need to marry to consummate their relationship. However, from the outside world looking in, there are factors that do downplay the excitement of the relationship. Both are widowed and both have done their duty to produce children. In a way, it gives a free pass to do more than anyone else in the novels. Their role in sexuality is assumed to be done, much as Navani feels ignored by society as she is a relic of past royal tenure. So society is meant to just ignore their sexuality. Dalinar and Navani both declare to each other when they kiss they don't care what people think of their relationship from now on, but after Dalinar declares to Elhokar he is courting his mother, society supposedly forgets that it was meant to be a big taboo. I think that there would have been real opportunity for Brandon to milk the scandalous possibility of sex in a country where high necks and covered left hand are the norm. In reality, crude pictures of Dalinar and Navani naked and humping each other would have been among the circulated papers, whores dressing up to match Navani as funded by Sadeas. Instead there is the campaign to slander Dalinar's person with criticism of his visions swamps the chance to explore the sexual scandal over multiple books. I feel like Sanderson might have held back here. On another point, I think we can presume that Dalinar and Navani have not actually had sex yet, due to Dalinar's embarrassment when Navani pushes for them to share rooms in Dalinar's quarters. As for MeLaan and Wax, as indeed I did state in my letter, the two are just meant to be kissing, which in reality would turn out to be unlikely.

Blushweaver and Lightsong: The reference to Lightsong having a sexual relationship with Calmseer makes it all the more disappointing that we did not see the relationship consummated between two in book characters whose chemistry and natures we have actually seen acted out on page.

Genre: The problem with making Scadrial eventually a sci-fi world is that eventually the entire Cosmere has to become a sci-fi universe e.g. flying cars on Roshar. The hinted at visitation between planets in Sixth of the Dusk and the nature of Worldhoppers just make it a countdown until technology from Scadrial infects all worlds. The ideal solution would have been to have Scadrial outside of the Cosmere.

 

19 hours ago, Oversleep said:

Okay. What really makes me angry is not your points, @Rockobar. I actually agree with some of them.

No, the thing that makes me twitch is the way you're conveying those points. Especially how you dive into Brandon's personal history or how you dismiss the themes a lot of people, including Brandon, consider interesting. Or how you go and, how @CaptainRyan put it:

This is not "people are offended by everything now" thing. This is actively being rude by belittling beliefs of many people.

Anyway, I'd prefer the whole thing to calm down, so I'll be doing some summoning.
Summon: @Chaos, @WeiryWriter, @Rubix... um, @Kaymyth? This is similar to the "drop everything but Stormlight" thing and this time I'd rather it not to end with somebody banned.

 

Hello, thank you for your words. I will refer you to my response to CaptainRyan: Not at all, religion has been very useful beyond sexuality, whether that be in the organisation and governing of society, advancing artistic and technological endeavour or giving a structure of morals to follow, etc. To look at the issue of sexuality from a theist's view, the question would be why did God command that sex should be within a devoted relationship, specifically for married couples. God wanted it so children could be raised in a stable environment, you can have twice as much time to raise a child than an accidental pregnancy outside of marriage; if you have said marriage vows, the likelihood of catching an STD would go down dramatically, preventing infertility or affected children that would not be able to spread out across the world and spread God's message, etc.

In short, I cannot see in the letter that I say the definition of religion is to suppress STIs. It would be silly of me to say.

19 hours ago, Djarskublar said:

@Rockobar My question is why you felt the need to post this. I don't really care what you send to Brandon. It made for an interesting read anyway, but I don't think that posting something that I think should have been more private between you and Brandon is fully appropriate. I won't judge for it since that is your prerogative, but that was my first thought on seeing this, since it wasn't just a question you asked that he answered. Beyond that, your language was confrontational and demanding. If I was Brandon, I would just throw your letter in the trash after reading the first couple paragraphs simply because your tone was rude. You are projecting your personal feelings on to Brandon and demanding that he write to conform to your view, rather than allow the artistry you respect by simply pointing out things you think are flawed for him to think about.

On another point, I disagree with many of your premises and points. If it was a choice between my family dying and the rest of humanity dying, or even the number of people in my family plus one, I would choose to lose my family. Storms, I would pull the trigger myself. Those 6 billion people you are willing to kill are no more or less valuable than the people in my family. I will take the choice that results in less loss of life. It is better that I personally suffer the grief than many others grieving over their families that I could have saved. Even though that would certainly be emotionally traumatic for me, the net suffering is lower this way.

On your points about having sex in books, I partially disagree with you. I agree that it shouldn't be avoided entirely, but you don't need anything graphic. Discussion of sex is fine, but showing people having sex is not something that fits Brandon's aesthetic. Children read these books, and adding in erotic scenes really isn't appropriate for that audience. You have also taken your examples pretty selectively. In Mistborn, you criticize Elend and Vin for not having sex that you know of before they are married. Beyond that, in Mistborn there are entire discussions about the nobles raping skaa women, and it is one of the central moral issues in the book. I think that fulfills your requirement.

I completely disagree with pretty much all of your other points entirely. Elantris had many religiously devoted people. Dilaf was extremely zealous, and he didn't come out on top of anything other than the pile of monk bodies. Hrathen held true to his beliefs to the end, and was honestly one of the best villains I have ever read. My only regret with that was that he was unable to express his reasons to Sarene. Also, your near complete dismissal of religion is frankly more a sign of ignorance than sophistication. Even if you think it is only a social construct, it still had many more effects than just controlling STIs. Religions are integral to humanity. Wars are fought over them, science is propelled by them, and statistically speaking, people with religious beliefs are happier. To provide examples, conflicts over Israel are partially over religion, astronomy is what it is today due to studying the stars because of religious belief, and statistics speak for themselves. All of those points don't even mention whether there is any form of deity or not. What your and my religious beliefs are is irrelevant to the discussion.

I think his handling of death has been quality so far. He is highly aware of the difficulties around character death, and has talked about this subject pretty extensively. Part of the reason fewer people die during the body of his books is because most of the important action happens at the end. It isn't that there isn't anything going on before then, but there is less action and more character development and positioning for the climax. If someone needs to die to set that up, Brandon will kill them. If nobody needs to die, then adding in more deaths would only lessen the impact of important deaths. He has expressed concern that his resurrection of certain characters will cheapen death like Marvel has done.

All in all, welcome to the Shard, but keep it casual. Also, I have been ninja'd by Oversleep. I think this thread really should be done now, before we end up in all out flame war.

 

Hello, thank you for the reply. I was considering whether keeping the letter to myself, but it seems unlikely Brandon would be unable to reply to a letter and topic of this length when he is so prolific in his writing and some time has passed since I sent it to him. I think it does make for interesting reading here though as it generates a good deal of discussion and exploring opposing ideas.

As for the demanding nature of the letter, I will refer you to the response I give to Binnut: I agree that the letter does look to be as if coming from a lecturer and so people might respond to the content more heatedly than the content itself might warrant. It was not my mission in writing this letter to set demands towards Brandon, but to let him know that there is an opinion that is open to changes within his work. The instructing quality of it might come about from me attempting to prove that there is a way to write sexuality without creating a guilty conscience.

As for the moral quandry, I will refer you to the response I give to CaptainRyan: On the hypothetical moral question of killing the rest of the world instead of killing your family, it is an interesting question. However, that is all it is, a moral quandry for characters and readers to ponder. I would certainly believe that some parents would make that devasting sacrifice of turning the gun on their own children, yet again some people would regretfully say goodbye to all the strangers of the world to live on earth with their family for the rest of their days. What I hoped to illustrate was that Sanderson leans more heavily on favouring the deontological decision for his heroes.

Sexuality: Thank you for raising some new points here. I suppose it starts with my premise that this an adult series and is marketed to adults, given their label on the back. The violence in them is indicative of this. Reading books of the young adult variety might be more appropriate if you would wish to share fantasy with younger relatives if they are not ready to know about sex. With Elend and Vin, as I mentioned in the letter, it is pointedly made known that they have not had sex before marriage as they sleep in separate rooms despite a year or two in a relationship clearly desiring each other. Sex is mentioned after marriage as in the tent. In regards to nobles raping skaa, this is one of the details that makes up the gritty world that is Mistborn. Unfortunately, it feels only like a passing mention, another detail to paint a grey world. Dealing with the implications of the trauma that these instances of sexual violence causes would have been interesting. From a character viewpoint, that does not mean them being raped as that would be obscene. But talking through the fact that you are a product of rape, the self hate that it must cause, I would welcome for Sanderson to explore.

Religion: I will refer you to the reponse I give to CaptainRyan and Oversleep: "Not at all, religion has been very useful beyond sexuality, whether that be in the organisation and governing of society, advancing artistic and technological endeavour or giving a structure of morals to follow, etc. To look at the issue of sexuality from a theist's view, the question would be why did God command that sex should be within a devoted relationship, specifically for married couples. God wanted it so children could be raised in a stable environment, you can have twice as much time to raise a child than an accidental pregnancy outside of marriage; if you have said marriage vows, the likelihood of catching an STD would go down dramatically, preventing infertility or affected children that would not be able to spread out across the world and spread God's message, etc.

In short, I cannot see in the letter that I say the definition of religion is to suppress STIs. It would be silly of me to say."

In regards to Hrathen, I will now play the devil's advocate for the sake of discussion. Hrathen's religion is complicated, as it can be divided into what the consensual orthodoxy is vs his personal beliefs. For the first half of the novel he follows his task in the general modern mindset of Shu-Dereth that is common to Wyrm, the Dakhor and Fjorden - work to reason, dominate etc. He then wrestles with these ideas until the end of the book and ultimately develops a 'purer' idea of Shu-Dereth that he can convince himself to follow and still call Shu-Dereth. By adopting this now 'morally good' version of Shu-Dereth does he become a hero and therefore can let himself save Sarene, one of the leading figures of Shu-Korath. He did not need to become a hero as Sarene proclaims him to be, a sudden realisation does not have to mean 'coming to the light side'. On a personal level, I enjoyed Hrathen's redemptive arch.

As for death, I believe the points to be covered in my letter just that we have separate viewpoints.

19 hours ago, Kaymyth said:

Lo, I have been summoned.

I'm not entirely sure that it's appropriate for me to make any sort of official judgments here. I'll leave that for the Admins. So, setting aside my Moderator hat for a moment...

It is OK to have personal opinions about an author's works. It is OK to wish that they would cater more to your tastes.

It is of somewhat questionable taste to post a long, drawn-out diatribe on that author's supposed failings on his official fansite. I'm not going to bother dissecting the merits of the arguments as I see little point.

But I find the fact that this letter was actually sent to Brandon to be staggeringly, mind-bogglingly rude. Seriously. This man spends hundreds upon hundreds of hours pouring time, energy, and care into everything he writes. Writing is work. To actually submit to him a treatise that tears his work into little pieces, showcasing every alleged flaw for your own self-aggrandizement is just beyond the pale. The things you laid out, if actually implemented, would completely change the tone and timbre of his works. If these elements are really that important to you, go write your own stories. (Learn just how much work it is!)

You are not entitled to tailor other people's work to suit your own preferences. The closest anyone gets to come to that is writing fanfic.

 

Hello, thank you for your reply. As for the demanding nature of the letter, I will refer you to the response I give to Binnut: "I agree that the letter does look to be as if coming from a lecturer and so people might respond to the content more heatedly than the content itself might warrant. It was not my mission in writing this letter to set demands towards Brandon, but to let him know that there is an opinion that is open to changes within his work. The instructing quality of it might come about from me attempting to prove that there is a way to write sexuality without creating a guilty conscience."

To add to that, Brandon's work will be ever changing, as no artist can remain static as they journey throughout life. Offering my opinions to Sanderson I think more as some source material that he might read, a perspective from yet another individual. Maybe he might mull these ideas over, develop or reject the ideas that would strengthen his resolve that what he is doing is right.

18 hours ago, maxal said:

I have a non downvote policy. I have made my non downvote policy public on numerous occasions and I am sure I have caused the Mods quite a few headaches about my antics concerning the downvotes and yet I almost nearly did downvote this post.

Why?

Certainly not because he is expressing an unpopular opinion. I have expressed unpopular opinions more often than most regular posters. There is however a way to phrase one's thoughts and when you are purposefully going against the masses, you have to be clever enough to use the right words. It is an intrinsically difficult task to form up a decent criticism of a beloved author in a non-confrontational way, open-minded to discourse. Thus, the problem with this post aren't the thoughts being expressed, it is how they were expressed combined with the sick feeling the OP is shoving down his own opinion as the One Absolute Truth which basically is Mistake Number One of What Not to Write into an Unpopular post.

I am absolutely not surprised by the downvotes, worst I am surprised it hasn't gotten more, yet.

@Rockobar, yes, we could essentially discuss the sexual content within Brandon Sanderson's books, we could discuss as to whether or not Shallan and Jasnah should a homosexual relationship, we could discuss the religious content within Brandon Sanderson's books, we could discuss every one of the points raised into appropriate threads and guess what? We did. We did have those discussions and while we do not all agree with each other, we all agree Brandon Sanderson has the write to write his story how he sees fit. His prerogative as a writer to craft his characters as he feels are required by his story, our prerogative as readers is to decide whether or not his story is one we wish to read. Brandon is a swell guy, if you say you don't like his books because their content is not up to your personal preferences, he would be totally fine with it. Even better, I have seen him NOT recommend his own books onto Reddit to a few readers because, based on their tastes, he didn't feel they would enjoy them.

We can express thoughts as to what we wish to read within future books, we can say we feel this or that would make a very good story arc, we can even be sadden if the author doesn't share our views and/or retain our favorite idea, but we can't barge in there saying it is his duty to write his story as we wish it to be. I understand wanting a story to unfold into a particular way, I do, I really do, nobody understands this better than I, but I fear a line has been crossed here.

Your opinion isn't the only opinion nor is it the only valuable opinion. It is one opinion and we can discuss it, but it doesn't have precedence over other people's opinion and yes, this is hard, at times, to swallow it up. This too, I know all too well.

For my part, I love the fact Brandon is actually writing low sexual content books, I love how he has dared, in the 21st century, to write mature characters whom are waiting before having their first sexual relationship. I love how Adolin is a virgin and somewhat ill-at-ease with the whole intimacy concept despite being in his twenties, loud and naturally bragging. Why do I love it? Because in a world where medias and mass entertainment promote to our kids the idea sexual relationships should happen during the first half of their teen years if they are so much as to claim to normality, I find it refreshing to read characters whom aren't following those unseen rules, whom are showing the young readers it is alright to be 23 years old and not having had an intimate relationship yet. It is all right if you haven't really had any serious relationship by the time you are in your twenties. It is alright if you haven't have sex and guess what? There are a great deal lot of people whom are within the same position. So while yes, Brandon could have written Adolin as a pure Casanova moving half-dress from one room to the next answering to the sole call of his male parts, he would have missed the chance to write a much better character, IMHO. So while yes, Brandon could have written Jasnah and Shallan having torrid sex, but it might have read more like heterosexual male dream fantasy than a real genuine relationship. 

So yes, there are numerous ways Brandon could have written the story differently, when it comes to sex/religion/whatsoever, but in the end what he has to offer does hold itself pretty well.

This being said, I wouldn't fear too much about Brandon reading the letter. He might not answer, but Brandon is a swell guy, he won't be offended. He'd just think perhaps you should not read his books if you find them not to your personal tastes, he might even send you a list of books he feels you would prefer. That's just how swell Brandon is.

Edit: Typos.

Edit 2: I forgot to mention the fact Brandon chose Adolin to be the virgin shy about relationship character is incredibly amazing because he is exactly the kind of character people would take for the exact opposite. Young people can be social, outgoing, friendly. They can date numerous people, but it doesn't mean they have to have sex, right away with everyone. They can even be a bit scared about it, just like Adolin. I feel this message is increasingly important to send in today's world and no it has nothing to do with religion: I am atheist. I just think sex, as a whole, is taken up too much place within nowadays relationships, too much emphasis in put on sex, especially on young people.

Hello, thank you for your words. For the first part of your reply, I will refer you to the well used response I give further in this post: 

"I agree that the letter does look to be as if coming from a lecturer and so people might respond to the content more heatedly than the content itself might warrant. It was not my mission in writing this letter to set demands towards Brandon, but to let him know that there is an opinion that is open to changes within his work. The instructing quality of it might come about from me attempting to prove that there is a way to write sexuality without creating a guilty conscience.

To add to that, Brandon's work will be ever changing, as no artist can remain static as they journey throughout life. Offering my opinions to Sanderson I think more as some source material that he might read, a perspective from yet another individual. Maybe he might mull these ideas over, develop or reject the ideas that would strengthen his resolve that what he is doing is right."

I admire your opinion on finding someone being sexually inexperienced before marriage an interesting comparision to the majority of today's youth. However, I would find it more revolutionary if it came from not from Brandon's familiarity with the situation itself. This is no fault of his own, just his happenstance. That is why I would find it so interesting to see Brandon attempt the challenge to write a fully fledged pre-marital sexual relationship. However, the main point I would address is that fantasy writing has not first caught up to exhibiting what the sexuality of today is in the West. GRRM went in the extreme end of this direction, sexual licentiousness that is not realistic beyond lifestyle of celebrities (his nobles) or the unwholesome quirks (incest).

I had not given thought if Adolin is a virgin. I see that there are two notable threads, on from here and one on reddit that have a spectrum of conflicting opinions: https://www.reddit.com/r/Stormlight_Archive/comments/4ss9pm/wor_how_far_has_adolin_gone_with_his_many/

After I have skimmed through these, I come down on the side that in all likeliness Adolin would not be a virgin. The amount of opportunity, his high status and his inability to be tethered throughout his dozens of flings, would lead to some ladies employing more direct tactics in an attempt to seduce and hold him. Due to the appearance of Vorin propriety, such attempts would be done well behind closed doors. Hence his blushing when having to kiss Shallan outside. By the age of 22 with the number of his potential partners, the 'reputation' the soldiers give him seems warranted. Further, he did seem to consider or at least be willing for the rescued whore's offer of sex despite his father's Codes making him need to decline. Renarin seems better placed as the shy, less desirable second son.

@StormyQueen  's reply: "Welcome to the Shard @Rockobar *waves*. I must say, you have certainly entered with bang. Also, upvote because I don't think you deserve all those downvotes, you stated your opinion, and, even though I don't agree with it, I can respect the fact that you did so in a respectful manner. Anyway, welcome! Now onwards to my points (this sounds like a debate now...) which turned out waaay longer than I expected. Whoops.

Overall, I would say that you are asking Brandon to be un-Brandon. Every artist has a hallmark to their art, and I think that if Brandon were to do some of the things you talk about, it would ultimately diverge his writing from his personality in his writing, as well as the story that he wants to tell. You refer to the upbringing and how it resulted in this view which is obviously misguided, but if we did not have authors of different upbringings and views, what would be the point in reading. If every story was the same in the outlook it presents, would you be interested in reading it? I know that I wouldn't.

Firstly, on the topic of sexuality. I am personally very grateful for the fact that there is very little sexual scenes in the Cosmere. As an asexual myself, I find it refreshing to see a modern, adult fantasy series that doesn't involve some kind of explicit sex. Half the time when it occurs in a book, I'll roll my eyes skim the section to see if there is anything important and move on (I skipped pages and pages of Game of Thrones, rolling my eyes as I did). I would personally prefer to read about something that actually influences story and character in books (which are already getting very, very long) rather than a sex scene for the sake of a sex scene.  "Raw primal desire" as you put it, is not the sole form of what makes us human. Humans are a complex being, as you have pointed out, and while it is a factor in who we are, I personally believe that humans are so, so much more than lust that they feel, and not every part of human life can, or indeed should be included in a book, simply because it does not have enough relevance to the story to warrant being included. Also, I would say that doing this makes the books more accessible to people of younger years  

On your point on religion now. Religion is something that has been a foundation of human society for milenia, and has had a profound impact in culture throughout much of the world, from creating the backbone of morality, to societal structure. Violence and peace can both result from religion, and it is a vital part of a culture. I would also say, particularly on your points on the diagram is to wait and see, because I think it will be an interesting ride, because we're only 2 books in.

Now, onto genre. I must say, we have highly different opinions on this, because the mish-mash of genres is something that really appeals to me. Fantasy owes a lot to Grandpa Tolkien, but far too often, I believe, authors get stuck in a rut of making very fantasy fantasy (hopefully that makes sense). I know very few fantasy trilogies that show an obvious growth of society, over time, as culture is not static, but is a very fluid concept that is always changing, as does technology. I find that it is extremely refreshing to see this in a fantasy book. Also, on a bit of a side note, I love how I have no idea what genre Mistborn era 2 (1.5?) in that it's a strange cross between fantasy, sci-fi, western, crime, thriller and probably a few more chucked in there. Life is rarely so black and white.

So, whilst I disagree with many of the points that you have made, I think it is great that you put your ideas out there, even though they might not be very popular ideas (especially on your first post). I hope I didn't sound too aggressive in my writing (sorry if I did), but I would love your thoughts on my thoughts on your thoughts (yay for overly confusing sentence). See you round the shard!"

 

Thank you for your thoughtful reply StormyQueen. 

Sexuality: It is indeed an unusual position you have and would make for one of the most insightful into the topic of sexuality in fantasy. I would be interested in hearing more on your perspective of reading fantasy as someone who does not have the "raw primal desire". I am not hugely familiar with asexuality, but I can only presume it is sexuality 'turned off' from birth. I can only say that when I say "realistically", that I hope to cover as wide an area as possible. I would not be able to add much more on the topic than what I have in the letter would be my guess, but for what I mentioned in this post earlier on reading with younger children: I suppose it starts with my premise that this an adult series and is marketed to adults, given their label on the back. The violence in them is indicative of this. Reading books of the young adult variety might be more appropriate if you would wish to share fantasy with younger relatives if they are not ready to know about sex.

 

Religion: 

I will refer you to the reponse I give to CaptainRyan and Oversleep: "Not at all, religion has been very useful beyond sexuality, whether that be in the organisation and governing of society, advancing artistic and technological endeavour or giving a structure of morals to follow, etc. To look at the issue of sexuality from a theist's view, the question would be why did God command that sex should be within a devoted relationship, specifically for married couples. God wanted it so children could be raised in a stable environment, you can have twice as much time to raise a child than an accidental pregnancy outside of marriage; if you have said marriage vows, the likelihood of catching an STD would go down dramatically, preventing infertility or affected children that would not be able to spread out across the world and spread God's message, etc.

In short, I cannot see in the letter that I say the definition of religion is to suppress STIs. It would be silly of me to say."

@Stark 's reply: 

@Rockobar Welcome to the shard.  I think that there is a lot of value to the opinions you have expressed.  I think what is causing the majority of the backlash against you is the tone you have taken in expressing it, and that you have shared what seems like the opener to a private conversation in a very public forum.  I did take the time to read your full letter, which I fully admit is not something I usually do.  No offense to many of the wordsmiths on the site, but many of us, myself included, tend to get overly verbose and lengthy in our replies.  

 

I personally found your tone to be overly condescending, and maybe a little pretentious.  In other situations, it may have qualified as what is currently being called Man-splaining.  Telling an artist who has been successfully hitting some of the top laurels in their field that they are not doing it the way you like, and that you have some pointers for how they could do better is not, well, very diplomatic.  I know it would put me on the defensive, and from the numerous reactions you've received, a lot of people seem to feel this was more an attack than a conversation opener.

 

I think you may have been better served to open a topic along the lines of "Things I'd like to see explored in more depth in the Cosmere"  If you had posted there a few topics you'd like to see Brandon explore or expand on, like sexuality, or meaningful death (I'll give you, after a few of the latest entries in the Cosmere, I have been questioning whether death has lost all meaning in the Cosmere) or the place of religion, you may have ended up with a far more positive discussion.  

 

It definitely does not help that some of these topics are sensitive, hot-button type subjects.

 

But at the end of the day, I think the core of the reaction you've received comes down to this:  Unless you are the mentor/teacher of a given artist, or a contemporary colleague who has been asked specifically for advice, telling an artist how to art is not cool.  Whether it be a writer writing, a sculptor, painter or actor.

 

That said, I really do hope to see some more of your thoughts and opinions in the future.

   3

Hello Stark, thank you for your reply, I shall forward you to my response to others concerning the demanding tone: 

"I agree that the letter does look to be as if coming from a lecturer and so people might respond to the content more heatedly than the content itself might warrant. It was not my mission in writing this letter to set demands towards Brandon, but to let him know that there is an opinion that is open to changes within his work. The instructing quality of it might come about from me attempting to prove that there is a way to write sexuality without creating a guilty conscience.

To add to that, Brandon's work will be ever changing, as no artist can remain static as they journey throughout life. Offering my opinions to Sanderson I think more as some source material that he might read, a perspective from yet another individual. Maybe he might mull these ideas over, develop or reject the ideas that would strengthen his resolve that what he is doing is right."

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@ rockobar: I just want to discuss one specific point of your answer to me

Quote

If you want to see under the skin of what makes a human graceful, an artist draws nude pictures; if you want to see beneath the skin of what really makes a human tick, you write in their deepest primal urges." 

probably this is where our disagreements come, because I totally disagree with this premise. To me, our deepest primal urges are what make us animals. What make us humans is what we build upon it. If I read about a character having "deep primal urges", I'd see him at best as an immature kid who hasn't taken charge of his hormones yet. At worst, as a potential rapist.

Again, don't take this as the remark of a prude, because I'm anything but prude. I don't want to give detailed descriptions here because many other forumites may not like them, so please take me by my word; and in fact I kinda regret being unable to be direct here, but plenty of people read this forum. But the important thing here is, sexuality isn't an important part of who I am. Even if I spend a sizable chunk of my free time on it, it is not somehting that defines my identity. It is a pleasurable activity that I do for fun. incidentally I also need it, but I need it like I need food: I eat way before I am at risk of starving, so the "need" thing doesn't really come up. But that's it.

If I was a character in a book, readers would not need to read about it to know who I am. Other stuff I do for leisure are important for my personality. I am an avid videogamer with a preference for strategy-focused games, and this is part of my personality: I like intellectual challenges where I have to outsmart an opponent. I am an active chess player, again this is important, it reinforces the "intellectual gaming" part and it also instilled me several ideas about personal responsibility (you make a wrong move, you can't blame someone else. But you can't also be blamed for somebody else's move, so I'd feel very uncomfortable in a position of responsibility, where I'd have to take credit or blame for what others are doing). I am very competitive in games, but I am nonconfrontational in real life, because one thing is a game, and another thing when people can actually suffer as a consequence.

All those things actually tell things about me. But not sex. the food metaphor is again appropriate; I'd need some to live, I get more to feel well, but it doesn't impact more (tthe metaphor is not accurate in that sex doesn't make you fat; luckily). Even with girls, I am much more likely to want cuddles than sex; I don't remember ever feeling the need (as in, a strong urge that is difficult to resist)  to have sex with a girl, while wanting to hug one is pretty common. the only thing about sex that would actually tell something about me is that I am very free about it. My most important moral guideline states "an action that hurts nobody cannot possibly be wrong", and I see no way sex practiced under the "safe, sane & consensual" unbrella can hurt somebody, not directly.

I am not very satisfied with this post, I fear it may read as too self-absorbed and linked to my particular experience, but I can't really find a way to express it better. Yes, sex is an important part of life. No, sex is not an important part of a person, not for most people. That dichotomy is justified by sex not being linked to what a person strongly believes or opposes. Here, now I like those two lines much better than the rest of the post, except that if I cut away the rest of the post, they would come as "out of the blue" statements with no justification.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well this has been fascinating. When I saw the OP I knew it would get downvotes, which is fine, life isn't all about reputation. But I didn't expect that level of outrage. I disagree with so much of the OP, I love Brandon for many of those reasons, we all do. But really it was something that took time and effort, from someone who was clearly a Sanderfan. So I won't fan the flames, I just want to say thanks again @Rockobar for coming on the site, having the courage to post something that would be unpopular and even more courage for responding in such detail to people. I hope you don't get most of the things you want, but I'm glad you care and I really hope you'll be sticking around here and applying that interest to discussions about the Cosmere. 

I understand people's reactions, just remember that people here are very protective of Brandon. But I'm also glad for your restrained response Chaos; this place should be one of tolerance of different views when they're not abusive to others on the site. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

oh, and i forgot to mention about religion: you probably do not know, because there are hints hidden around but they are not obvious and the only real way to figure it out is to read the various questions and answers with the author, but every cosmere book has a greater story happening in the background.

You see, there was once a single god, named adonalsium, which was shattered into sixteen pieces (names shards) and scattered across several planets. ruin and preservation were two of those shards. on roshar there are three: honor (dead), cultivation and odium. odium is particularly important to the cosmere, because he is trying to destroy the other shards and shatter their power. on sel (the planet of elantris) there are devotion and dominion, both shattered by odium. there are many minor characters that are actually appearing in many books, they can travel between planets using the cognitive realm (what on roshar is known as shadesmar) and pursue their own agendas, at the time still unclear. The most important of those figures is hoid.

So, it is not a wonder that religion takes a central part in many of those books; most of the conflict is actually generated by conflict among the shards, with the book's protagonists acting as unwitting pawn in larger games.

It deserves mention that while we think of shards as good or evil, they are more like forces of nature than real people. ruin is not evil per se, it just has a goal that is conflicting with our biological imperative to stay alive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Fedcomic said:

Man, if I started a second date with: I really like you, but have you ever considered changing your appearance, personality, friends, clothes, hobbies, and profession?

I regret that I have but one upvote to give for this comment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, Kaymyth said:

I regret that I have but one upvote to give for this comment.

It's okay, I had another one to add.

 

I have nothing else to add to this thread.  Happy Thursday everyone!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know, @rockobar, you can be rude using polite words. Some people do it on purpose, others just can't place themselves in someone else's shoes. But it happens. I will not judge whether you meant this letter to be rude or not, but it just was. That's what made people universally mad at you. 

I, personally, also cringed af reading the detailed description of Blushweaver/Lightsong cell floor sex you imagined would be great. It was so ridiculous to me I could not contain myself. Still have my eyebrow rised. Sorry for the ad personam though, not proud of that. 

Anyways, it's nice you responded to everyone. Hope we can all get along. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/29/2017 at 10:47 PM, king of nowhere said:

@ rockobar: I just want to discuss one specific point of your answer to me

probably this is where our disagreements come, because I totally disagree with this premise. To me, our deepest primal urges are what make us animals. What make us humans is what we build upon it. If I read about a character having "deep primal urges", I'd see him at best as an immature kid who hasn't taken charge of his hormones yet. At worst, as a potential rapist.

Again, don't take this as the remark of a prude, because I'm anything but prude. I don't want to give detailed descriptions here because many other forumites may not like them, so please take me by my word; and in fact I kinda regret being unable to be direct here, but plenty of people read this forum. But the important thing here is, sexuality isn't an important part of who I am. Even if I spend a sizable chunk of my free time on it, it is not somehting that defines my identity. It is a pleasurable activity that I do for fun. incidentally I also need it, but I need it like I need food: I eat way before I am at risk of starving, so the "need" thing doesn't really come up. But that's it.

If I was a character in a book, readers would not need to read about it to know who I am. Other stuff I do for leisure are important for my personality. I am an avid videogamer with a preference for strategy-focused games, and this is part of my personality: I like intellectual challenges where I have to outsmart an opponent. I am an active chess player, again this is important, it reinforces the "intellectual gaming" part and it also instilled me several ideas about personal responsibility (you make a wrong move, you can't blame someone else. But you can't also be blamed for somebody else's move, so I'd feel very uncomfortable in a position of responsibility, where I'd have to take credit or blame for what others are doing). I am very competitive in games, but I am nonconfrontational in real life, because one thing is a game, and another thing when people can actually suffer as a consequence.

All those things actually tell things about me. But not sex. the food metaphor is again appropriate; I'd need some to live, I get more to feel well, but it doesn't impact more (tthe metaphor is not accurate in that sex doesn't make you fat; luckily). Even with girls, I am much more likely to want cuddles than sex; I don't remember ever feeling the need (as in, a strong urge that is difficult to resist)  to have sex with a girl, while wanting to hug one is pretty common. the only thing about sex that would actually tell something about me is that I am very free about it. My most important moral guideline states "an action that hurts nobody cannot possibly be wrong", and I see no way sex practiced under the "safe, sane & consensual" unbrella can hurt somebody, not directly.

I am not very satisfied with this post, I fear it may read as too self-absorbed and linked to my particular experience, but I can't really find a way to express it better. Yes, sex is an important part of life. No, sex is not an important part of a person, not for most people. That dichotomy is justified by sex not being linked to what a person strongly believes or opposes. Here, now I like those two lines much better than the rest of the post, except that if I cut away the rest of the post, they would come as "out of the blue" statements with no justification.

 

Hello, thank you for your reply. It might simply be that we have differing philosophies of human psychology. I am by no means a psychologist who would be able to adequately be able to describe the theories of human evolution of the mind, nor would I know the most popular consensus among scientists as to how the human brain functions. However, I can state that ultimately I believe all our advanced interactions and emotions can be relayed down to two simple ideas: sex and death. Death, in that we desperately want to live and keep on living, for the second driving factor: sex. We want to pass on our genes in the most efficient manner possible, whether that be through having lots of sex or staying in a committed relationship to make sure your offspring survive to maturity to continue passing your genes along. In the modern era, we can psuedo-fulfil the idea of passing on our genes without the complications of pregnancy in the form of contraception. The orgasm is the reward our instincts offer for passing on our genes, but now we can do it without children. If that sounds quite basic, even animalistic, then yes: we are highly intelligent animals.

To put these unconscious action into your context: playing strategy games, reading fantasy books -  a way to forget about impeding death. Playing chess - a way to prove to yourself that yourself that that you are worth something in the vastness of the world before death takes you, a way to prove to yourself to your rival that you are intelligent, worthy of passing on your genes and seek the subconscious elevation in society that you are a more attractive candidate to share genes with. Etc etc.

At this moment in our stage of evolution, we have not outgrown these notions. We are not elves that live so long that sex becomes irrelevant and death meaningless.

 

On 3/30/2017 at 0:24 AM, Extesian said:

Well this has been fascinating. When I saw the OP I knew it would get downvotes, which is fine, life isn't all about reputation. But I didn't expect that level of outrage. I disagree with so much of the OP, I love Brandon for many of those reasons, we all do. But really it was something that took time and effort, from someone who was clearly a Sanderfan. So I won't fan the flames, I just want to say thanks again @Rockobar for coming on the site, having the courage to post something that would be unpopular and even more courage for responding in such detail to people. I hope you don't get most of the things you want, but I'm glad you care and I really hope you'll be sticking around here and applying that interest to discussions about the Cosmere. 

I understand people's reactions, just remember that people here are very protective of Brandon. But I'm also glad for your restrained response Chaos; this place should be one of tolerance of different views when they're not abusive to others on the site. 

Hi, cheers +1 + @Cognizantastic

On 3/30/2017 at 0:32 PM, Fedcomic said:

Man, if I started a second date with: I really like you, but have you ever considered changing your appearance, personality, friends, clothes, hobbies, and profession?

Indeed, it is not a distressing issue for me, not something that would ever make me stop reading his books. Just in the examples I give concerning sexuality and I felt Sanderson held himself back is a "Oh common" kind of moment. Although I touch on a number of topics, I feel they are more tweaks, as I said in my letter that I did not want Sanderson to go to the extremes of GRRM. I could still very easily recognise Sanderson with some of the changes; his style, his plotting, overall character development, worldbuilding etc. If we continue in the metaphor of dating, perhaps I'm doing the unconventional: I'm a girl who sees a guy she likes the look of, listens in on him talking to some friends and goes to him and says 'Hey, I really believe I like you, let's go on a date right now and I'll probably have sex with you at the end of it if all things go well". Perhaps some people will still judge her for that, but it all would have come out in actions at some point, we're just avoiding the small talk. In the same way I could have sent the aforementioned letter of praise to Brandon, maybe it would have made him or Peter Ahlstrom smile, just as a thousand fan letters have. I believe the criticism will prove more useful if any of these ideas trickle back to them.

 

On 3/30/2017 at 1:34 PM, king of nowhere said:

oh, and i forgot to mention about religion: you probably do not know, because there are hints hidden around but they are not obvious and the only real way to figure it out is to read the various questions and answers with the author, but every cosmere book has a greater story happening in the background.

You see, there was once a single god, named adonalsium, which was shattered into sixteen pieces (names shards) and scattered across several planets. ruin and preservation were two of those shards. on roshar there are three: honor (dead), cultivation and odium. odium is particularly important to the cosmere, because he is trying to destroy the other shards and shatter their power. on sel (the planet of elantris) there are devotion and dominion, both shattered by odium. there are many minor characters that are actually appearing in many books, they can travel between planets using the cognitive realm (what on roshar is known as shadesmar) and pursue their own agendas, at the time still unclear. The most important of those figures is hoid.

So, it is not a wonder that religion takes a central part in many of those books; most of the conflict is actually generated by conflict among the shards, with the book's protagonists acting as unwitting pawn in larger games.

It deserves mention that while we think of shards as good or evil, they are more like forces of nature than real people. ruin is not evil per se, it just has a goal that is conflicting with our biological imperative to stay alive.

Indeed I am aware, as I mentioned to strumienpola: "As we know there was a basis for a near omnipotent (in the balanced sense) god in Adonalsium, religion of course deserves its place in the world. However, as we have seen with Jasnah, that does not mean it has to take the lead role in governing the charge of the heroes. In worlds were Shards are actually 'dead' or absent such Threnody, we can expect agnostic/atheist ideas to be more commonplace.

Although Hoid's complete motives are largely up for debate, I admire his interventionist attitude. His scorn for the Shardholders as consciousnesses of the people he once used to know are refreshing when most worlds in the genre have a respect for at least one overarching figure e.g. Eru Iluvatar, the Light. In this regard, he shares something of Jasnah."

17 hours ago, strumienpola said:

You know, @rockobar, you can be rude using polite words. Some people do it on purpose, others just can't place themselves in someone else's shoes. But it happens. I will not judge whether you meant this letter to be rude or not, but it just was. That's what made people universally mad at you. 

I, personally, also cringed af reading the detailed description of Blushweaver/Lightsong cell floor sex you imagined would be great. It was so ridiculous to me I could not contain myself. Still have my eyebrow rised. Sorry for the ad personam though, not proud of that. 

Anyways, it's nice you responded to everyone. Hope we can all get along. 

Indeed, polite-rude words can trigger greater outrage. Sometimes they can get to the point more directly. Perhaps the greater emotional impact will have the side effect of sticking longer in the minds of people in Brandon's team/fanbase. Anyway, that was not my intention, but I should leave the following here again: 

"I agree that the letter does look to be as if coming from a lecturer and so people might respond to the content more heatedly than the content itself might warrant. It was not my mission in writing this letter to set demands towards Brandon, but to let him know that there is an opinion that is open to changes within his work. The instructing quality of it might come about from me attempting to prove that there is a way to write sexuality without creating a guilty conscience.

To add to that, Brandon's work will be ever changing, as no artist can remain static as they journey throughout life. Offering my opinions to Sanderson I think more as some source material that he might read, a perspective from yet another individual. Maybe he might mull these ideas over, develop or reject the ideas that would strengthen his resolve that what he is doing is right."

As for the Blushweaver/Lightsong cell sex scene, it would have been awkward to fit in amid the action so the consummation might happen the night before Lightsong finds her bound by the Pahn Kahl. On the other hand, if you think you're going to be murdered shortly, you might just admit your feelings and do it. As I said, I am still not sure if it would have been more tragic, Blushweaver dying as she did without knowing Lightsong reciprocated or dying just as they begin a romantic relationship.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Rockobar said:

Hello, thank you for your reply. It might simply be that we have differing philosophies of human psychology. I am by no means a psychologist who would be able to adequately be able to describe the theories of human evolution of the mind, nor would I know the most popular consensus among scientists as to how the human brain functions. However, I can state that ultimately I believe all our advanced interactions and emotions can be relayed down to two simple ideas: sex and death. Death, in that we desperately want to live and keep on living, for the second driving factor: sex. We want to pass on our genes in the most efficient manner possible, whether that be through having lots of sex or staying in a committed relationship to make sure your offspring survive to maturity to continue passing your genes along. In the modern era, we can psuedo-fulfil the idea of passing on our genes without the complications of pregnancy in the form of contraception. The orgasm is the reward our instincts offer for passing on our genes, but now we can do it without children. If that sounds quite basic, even animalistic, then yes: we are highly intelligent animals.

To put these unconscious action into your context: playing strategy games, reading fantasy books -  a way to forget about impeding death. Playing chess - a way to prove to yourself that yourself that that you are worth something in the vastness of the world before death takes you, a way to prove to yourself to your rival that you are intelligent, worthy of passing on your genes and seek the subconscious elevation in society that you are a more attractive candidate to share genes with. Etc etc.

At this moment in our stage of evolution, we have not outgrown these notions. We are not elves that live so long that sex becomes irrelevant and death meaningless

 

I am not a pshycologist either, but I am a scientist who specialized in complex systems, and I am particularly fond of the notion of emergent behavior: you take a simple system obeying simple rules, you let it expand, and it will gradually get more complicated, until at some point it will form new rules that are in no way apparent from the starting conditions. Take for example an animal: an animal is a collection of atoms, and everything in an animal coul be described in terms of electrostatical interactions between its protons and electrons. All the interactions in the animal can be described by one single equation.

Well, except they don't. An animal is a complex system that obeys rules that have nothing to do with the schroedinger's equation. And yes, you could theoretically describe the instinct to survive and to mate in terms of schroedinger's equation, write the equation for all the atoms that make up the animal, but not only it is way too complex  to be realistically done, but it wouldn't help you actually understand what the animal is. To understand what an animal is, you need other rules, emegent rules.

So, while it is true that everything in humans was shaped by the evolutionary forces, which can be summed up as "maximize the amount of descendants you leave behind", and while it is true that many patterns in the human brain, from the tendency to gang up in communities to the different courting preferences of the sexes, can be traced back to self-preservation and mating instinct, at the same time a human is a much more complex construction, and it has made its own rules. Trying to understand a human in terms of instinct is like trying to understand an animal in terms of schroedinger's equation: technically accurate, but it completely misses the point of being human. Humans are defined in other ways, by what we believe, what we stand for and what we stand against, which beliefs are flexible and which are absolute, and how much we are willing to sacrifice for those beliefs. You certainly could describe them all as being derived from instincts, maybe the will to persuade others of your opinion comes from you thinking you knew best how to make the tribe - and thus your genes carried ammong your offspring and relatives - survive. But by doing so, are you gaining depth, or are you losing it? There are some pretty good musings on the subject on some of the volumes of "the science of discworld", by the way.

There is also another reason to see a human as an intelligent, free individual, and it is that it actually improves the world. I once spectated a conference on the subject of free will, and one talk described a very interesting experiment. Some volunteers were subject to some kind of experiment, which was irrelevant. during the experiment, they had a chance to steal something, apparently without the researchers knowing. before the experiment, they had to read a few phrases: one group had phrases denying free will, stating that humanss are slaves of their instincts, or maybe of their very atomistic determinism; the other group had similar phrases, but with different meanings. Result: the people that were made to think they had no free will, i.e. that they were not ultimately responsible for their actions, stole more. The people who tought they were responsible were more honest. Yes, we are such an emergent behavior that our own emergent behavior changes our own rules and make up more emergent behaviors.

And so it is important that people think they are responsible for their actions, that people choose, that people decide. And it is not even a lie: if by thinking that I have a choice I can act differently, well, then it pretty well demonstrates that I really had a choice. Yes, ok, ultimately it may all be just a necessary result of an overly complicated schroedinger's equation, but does it really matter? Maybe there is a god, and maybe such god can see us as our schroedinger's equations and figure out the solution and know exactly what we are going to do, but at our own human levels, as far as we can see, as far as we're concerned, we do have a choice, we are not an equation, we are not animals driven by instincts. At least we are not as long as we think we are not. If we don't want to find ourselves living in some crappy steampunk dystopia where all the people around us are edonistic egoists motivated only by surviving and mating, I strongly suggest we try to instill into people the opposite view, and we use the comprehension of our animal instincts to find our weaknesses and improve them.

Yes, I try to spread this point of view because I believe I, or people sharing genes with me, will live better if this point of view gains more traction. I am ultimately acting out of a selfish instinct to spread my DNA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, king of nowhere said:

I am not a pshycologist either, but I am a scientist who specialized in complex systems, and I am particularly fond of the notion of emergent behavior: you take a simple system obeying simple rules, you let it expand, and it will gradually get more complicated, until at some point it will form new rules that are in no way apparent from the starting conditions. Take for example an animal: an animal is a collection of atoms, and everything in an animal coul be described in terms of electrostatical interactions between its protons and electrons. All the interactions in the animal can be described by one single equation.

Well, except they don't. An animal is a complex system that obeys rules that have nothing to do with the schroedinger's equation. And yes, you could theoretically describe the instinct to survive and to mate in terms of schroedinger's equation, write the equation for all the atoms that make up the animal, but not only it is way too complex  to be realistically done, but it wouldn't help you actually understand what the animal is. To understand what an animal is, you need other rules, emegent rules.

So, while it is true that everything in humans was shaped by the evolutionary forces, which can be summed up as "maximize the amount of descendants you leave behind", and while it is true that many patterns in the human brain, from the tendency to gang up in communities to the different courting preferences of the sexes, can be traced back to self-preservation and mating instinct, at the same time a human is a much more complex construction, and it has made its own rules. Trying to understand a human in terms of instinct is like trying to understand an animal in terms of schroedinger's equation: technically accurate, but it completely misses the point of being human. Humans are defined in other ways, by what we believe, what we stand for and what we stand against, which beliefs are flexible and which are absolute, and how much we are willing to sacrifice for those beliefs. You certainly could describe them all as being derived from instincts, maybe the will to persuade others of your opinion comes from you thinking you knew best how to make the tribe - and thus your genes carried ammong your offspring and relatives - survive. But by doing so, are you gaining depth, or are you losing it? There are some pretty good musings on the subject on some of the volumes of "the science of discworld", by the way.

There is also another reason to see a human as an intelligent, free individual, and it is that it actually improves the world. I once spectated a conference on the subject of free will, and one talk described a very interesting experiment. Some volunteers were subject to some kind of experiment, which was irrelevant. during the experiment, they had a chance to steal something, apparently without the researchers knowing. before the experiment, they had to read a few phrases: one group had phrases denying free will, stating that humanss are slaves of their instincts, or maybe of their very atomistic determinism; the other group had similar phrases, but with different meanings. Result: the people that were made to think they had no free will, i.e. that they were not ultimately responsible for their actions, stole more. The people who tought they were responsible were more honest. Yes, we are such an emergent behavior that our own emergent behavior changes our own rules and make up more emergent behaviors.

And so it is important that people think they are responsible for their actions, that people choose, that people decide. And it is not even a lie: if by thinking that I have a choice I can act differently, well, then it pretty well demonstrates that I really had a choice. Yes, ok, ultimately it may all be just a necessary result of an overly complicated schroedinger's equation, but does it really matter? Maybe there is a god, and maybe such god can see us as our schroedinger's equations and figure out the solution and know exactly what we are going to do, but at our own human levels, as far as we can see, as far as we're concerned, we do have a choice, we are not an equation, we are not animals driven by instincts. At least we are not as long as we think we are not. If we don't want to find ourselves living in some crappy steampunk dystopia where all the people around us are edonistic egoists motivated only by surviving and mating, I strongly suggest we try to instill into people the opposite view, and we use the comprehension of our animal instincts to find our weaknesses and improve them.

Yes, I try to spread this point of view because I believe I, or people sharing genes with me, will live better if this point of view gains more traction. I am ultimately acting out of a selfish instinct to spread my DNA.

Hello, thank you for your reply. I am sorry, but I've read your reply through a couple times and cannot see the refutation against the fact that we are animals driven by sex and death. I cannot see the second clause against "while", in the third paragraph, which continues to reinforce my idea of rear offspring, die so your genes survive and all complicated appearing decisions of human really are broken down to animal instincts. Indeed, it reflects the scientific process: biological interactions can be broken down into chemical reactions, those into the movements of atoms, the theory of matter in complicated maths. Thus psychologists dissect our apparently complex motives into primal hardwiring. 

 

As for the free will experiment, all that I got out of that was that humans are animals very susceptible to the opinions of others - to acede and fit in order to survive and move up in the group. 

 

EDIT: This is not meant to be a personal attack on you or your argument, just I failed to get the gist of your rebuttal.

Edited by Rockobar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Rockobar said:

Hello, thank you for your reply. I am sorry, but I've read your reply through a couple times and cannot see the refutation against the fact that we are animals driven by sex and death. I cannot see the second clause against "while", in the third paragraph, which continues to reinforce my idea of rear offspring, die so your genes survive and all complicated appearing decisions of human really are broken down to animal instincts. Indeed, it reflects the scientific process: biological interactions can be broken down into chemical reactions, those into the movements of atoms, the theory of matter in complicated maths. Thus psychologists dissect our apparently complex motives into primal hardwiring.

I am not refuting the thesis that we are animals and ultimately driven by instincts. I am refuting the thesis that such is a good description of a human. I am stating the thesis that we are so complex, we become something very different from our constituents, and we can no more be described as just the sum of our parts. So I am reaching the conclusion that instincts are not a good description of an individual's motivation. "Technically correct", here, mean "in practice, wrong".

As for pshycologists dissecting our motivations into primal hardwiring, I'd be very careful in accepting that. You can "demonstrate" anything by justified a posteriori something that has already happened. This guy loves his wife? clearly it's so that the stable coouple will give more chances for the offspring to survive to adulthood. This guy cheats on his wiffe? clearly he is increasing his chances of reproduction by mating outside the couple. This guy killed his wife? clearly his instinct was telling him to move on to a more attractive partner, and the old one was weighting him down. this woman killed her children and then committed suicide? well, clearly her biological imperative found that those children were too much of a hassle to raise, and she'd have better chances at reproduction by killing them and starting with some new ones. but then she realized how horrible was the thing she did, and so she killed herself out of a desire to protect the tribe, which also carries her genes, from herself.

No. Science doesn't work this way. Those theories may be fascinating, they may make one think he understand anything and can explain anything, but they are scientifically worthless, because they cannot be falsified. Because in order to have value, a theory must not predict what will happen. A theory must predict what will not happen. For example, the law of gravity predicts that between two objects there will be a certain force; and if we found a slightly different force, just in one single case that we could confirm, then we'd have to change the theory. Those phsycological theories, instead, can be fitted to justify anything, therefore they predict nothing. That doesn't make them completely worthless, but I wouldn't trust them to actually describe what happens in our brains. You can try to find something from Karl Popper about the distinction between science and pseudoscience.

By the way, I used to think as you do when I was a kid and I was trying to figure out the world. Then I realized it just doesn't hold. There are too many genuine acts of altruism, too many people doing pretty much the opposite of what their instincts should suggest, for that explanation to be exhaustive.

Quote

As for the free will experiment, all that I got out of that was that humans are animals very susceptible to the opinions of others - to acede and fit in order to survive and move up in the group.

Not exactly: it shows that we are very susceptible to our own opinion. It shows that what we think of ourselves becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. And if we have this power of persuasion over ourselves, then it is in our bes interest to use it to become better, not to become worse.

I knew a few guys who eventually became criminals, and guess what they all had in common? parents who never blamed them, who never held them responsible for anything. they are people who are more accurately described by pulsions to survive and mate, and last I knew they still think there's nothing wrong with them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, king of nowhere said:

As for pshycologists dissecting our motivations into primal hardwiring, I'd be very careful in accepting that. You can "demonstrate" anything by justified a posteriori something that has already happened. This guy loves his wife? clearly it's so that the stable coouple will give more chances for the offspring to survive to adulthood. This guy cheats on his wiffe? clearly he is increasing his chances of reproduction by mating outside the couple. This guy killed his wife? clearly his instinct was telling him to move on to a more attractive partner, and the old one was weighting him down. this woman killed her children and then committed suicide? well, clearly her biological imperative found that those children were too much of a hassle to raise, and she'd have better chances at reproduction by killing them and starting with some new ones. but then she realized how horrible was the thing she did, and so she killed herself out of a desire to protect the tribe, which also carries her genes, from herself.

No. Science doesn't work this way.

Actually indeed most of these actions, semantically opposite one another, can be related back to the pursuit of sex and fear of death. Generally, when men cheat it is due to a lack of sexual attention, when women cheat from a lack of emotional attention. If the husband perceives he is not getting enough opportunities to mate, he seeks other sources; if a woman feels emotionally ignored by her spouse, it could result in a potential lack of care for a child in the future and so finding another male provides a potential back up and at the same time re-establishes self worth as a reproducer. As for an ordinary person killing their wife, it would need a dissection of the anger required to murder someone. Shame, betrayal our self worth offended. In a moment of rage, the long term implications are ignored and the murderer seeks to re-establish self worth by removing the cause of the anger.

As for more horrific and harder to understand acts, it is where chance genetic mutation/environmental factors in your formative years shunt your mental development slightly off kilter from genetic formula. The result are a plethora of personality disorders whose motives I am not informed enough to explain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Rockobar But how would this sex/death philosophy explain social norms like the practice of having only one regular sexual partner at a time? Having multiple partners in one household, such as in polygamy, leads to increased sexual activity, an increase in birth rate, and the propagation of fitter genes into the gene pool of future generations. If human instinct was based solely off of sex drive, fear of death, and occasional biochemical imbalances due to mutation, we should expect to see polygamy and other multiple-partner relationships as a much more widespread social organization than it exists today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just want to throw my oppinion in, i could probably explain my every action and base them not on a desire for sex or fear of death but on a desire to read and discuss Sanderson books. In the end you can find an explanation for every action and can base it on whatever you want, that makes the statement that we are only driven by sex/fear difficult to prove. (It would probably work better to say we are driven by pleasure).

While i agree that we´re basicly just a chemical reaction there seems to be a difference between a normal reaction (like in the lab) and a "living chemical reaction" (being alive), something´s missing (finding out what is more or less the holy grail of syntethic biology). The main difference is that the "living" reaciton also can have a non-physical result (for example most thinking looks the same from a chemical perspective but the thoughts can be quite different, although i have to admit we could just be limited by our current technology) and this non-physical result could lead us to be less defined by the chemistry and allow us to do things without a chemical imperative.

p.s.: Because i feel a bit uncomfortable talking like that i want to point out that i said that from a biological perspective and not a religious one

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Rockobar said:

Actually indeed most of these actions, semantically opposite one another, can be related back to the pursuit of sex and fear of death. Generally, when men cheat it is due to a lack of sexual attention, when women cheat from a lack of emotional attention. If the husband perceives he is not getting enough opportunities to mate, he seeks other sources; if a woman feels emotionally ignored by her spouse, it could result in a potential lack of care for a child in the future and so finding another male provides a potential back up and at the same time re-establishes self worth as a reproducer. As for an ordinary person killing their wife, it would need a dissection of the anger required to murder someone. Shame, betrayal our self worth offended. In a moment of rage, the long term implications are ignored and the murderer seeks to re-establish self worth by removing the cause of the anger.

I did say myself that those factors have a lot of influence. What I disagree about is that they are not the only influence. they work well at explaining average behavior, but not at explaining individuals. On average, men are more sex-oriented, women are more romance-oriented, because men get a better reproductive success by mating with many women, while women have better success by forming a stable relation with a partner that will help her raise the children. but when you go down to individuals, you'll find many sex-oriented women and romance-oriented men. On average, men are more power-oriented, because being the boss of the tribe would offer you more reproductive chances, while women are more family-oriented; but you'll find plenty of career-women with housewife husbands. You can use those ancestral influences to explain why on average there are some tendencies, but you cannot use them to explain why mr. john smith is feeling a certain way.

Anyway, now it's my turn to not understand your more general point. So, you are arguing that people are more animal-like than we think, and you'd want to see them portrayed as such in books? Are you saying that you would want to read about Dalinar losing control to emotions, because that's how humans are supposed to behave and all the polish we acquired from civilization is but an illusion? Would you want to see Elend's honesty explained in terms of instinct to mate, because that would make the character ring more realistic to you? I can't get what's your problem with people not succumbing to passions in brandon's books. If the problem is that they seem too stable to be real, consider that they are exceptional people, otherwise they would not be the protagonists.

 

EDIT: @samaldin

Quote

While i agree that we´re basicly just a chemical reaction there seems to be a difference between a normal reaction (like in the lab) and a "living chemical reaction" (being alive), something´s missing (finding out what is more or less the holy grail of syntethic biology).

it's not a specific factor, it's the result of complexity. it's what I was defining an emergent behavior

Edited by king of nowhere
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/1/2017 at 6:23 AM, Elenion said:

@Rockobar But how would this sex/death philosophy explain social norms like the practice of having only one regular sexual partner at a time? Having multiple partners in one household, such as in polygamy, leads to increased sexual activity, an increase in birth rate, and the propagation of fitter genes into the gene pool of future generations. If human instinct was based solely off of sex drive, fear of death, and occasional biochemical imbalances due to mutation, we should expect to see polygamy and other multiple-partner relationships as a much more widespread social organization than it exists today.

"Death, in that we desperately want to live and keep on living, for the second driving factor: sex. We want to pass on our genes in the most efficient manner possible, whether that be through having lots of sex or staying in a committed relationship to make sure your offspring survive to maturity to continue passing your genes along. In the modern era, we can psuedo-fulfil the idea of passing on our genes without the complications of pregnancy in the form of contraception. The orgasm is the reward our instincts offer for passing on our genes, but now we can do it without children."

 

Anyway, I advise we save the discussion of the philosophies of the human mind for someone to make an Off Topic thread, unless we directly link in context to the books. I fear we'll just go in circles disagreeing otherwise. I'm not quite sure where we are at moment as in who there is to reply to, but I'll wait for any responses following this post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Man, this thread is hard to follow, everybody has such long posts... I've probably missed some response addressing these comments or something. Oh well, here goes :D

On 01/04/2017 at 8:46 AM, Rockobar said:

However, I can state that ultimately I believe all our advanced interactions and emotions can be relayed down to two simple ideas: sex and death. Death, in that we desperately want to live and keep on living, for the second driving factor: sex. We want to pass on our genes in the most efficient manner possible, whether that be through having lots of sex or staying in a committed relationship to make sure your offspring survive to maturity to continue passing your genes along. In the modern era, we can psuedo-fulfil the idea of passing on our genes without the complications of pregnancy in the form of contraception. The orgasm is the reward our instincts offer for passing on our genes, but now we can do it without children. If that sounds quite basic, even animalistic, then yes: we are highly intelligent animals.

To put these unconscious action into your context: playing strategy games, reading fantasy books -  a way to forget about impeding death. Playing chess - a way to prove to yourself that yourself that that you are worth something in the vastness of the world before death takes you, a way to prove to yourself to your rival that you are intelligent, worthy of passing on your genes and seek the subconscious elevation in society that you are a more attractive candidate to share genes with. Etc etc.

I think in this regard, we just have very different views on human psychology. Maybe I'm just being an optimist, but I think that humans are driven more than their oncoming death, and sex. Why go to the extent that we have gone in creation? You might argue that it is to forget our impending death, but have you read how dark some literature can get? If it is a way to distract ourselves from our inevitable death, some of those classics clearly weren't doing a good job. In my opinion there is more to life than death and sex. Humans are more than their need to survive. But, back on topic anyway.

On 01/04/2017 at 8:46 AM, Rockobar said:

Indeed I am aware, as I mentioned to strumienpola: "As we know there was a basis for a near omnipotent (in the balanced sense) god in Adonalsium, religion of course deserves its place in the world. However, as we have seen with Jasnah, that does not mean it has to take the lead role in governing the charge of the heroes. In worlds were Shards are actually 'dead' or absent such Threnody, we can expect agnostic/atheist ideas to be more commonplace.

Although Hoid's complete motives are largely up for debate, I admire his interventionist attitude. His scorn for the Shardholders as consciousnesses of the people he once used to know are refreshing when most worlds in the genre have a respect for at least one overarching figure e.g. Eru Iluvatar, the Light. In this regard, he shares something of Jasnah."

While there is a basis for religion in the Cosmere in Adonalsium, religion absolutely has its place in the Cosmere. But, I would also argue that it seems to be an area Brandon likes to explore, as it is an area that seems to interest him. In my opinion, books are more than stories told. They have been a way to exploring the role of elements of life, and are most often based around an issue that an author wants to explore within his/her writing.

I would also say that religion is not always the lead role in change over the protagonists. Sure, we have characters like Sazed who were deeply connected with religion. But for every character like that, we have characters like Kal, Elend, Wax, Wayne and Siri (characters who aren't neceserially agnostic/atheist) who weren't really that connected with religion. Whilst we do have characters like Sazed who are impacted greatly by religion, I would argue that it is justified because of the concept of religion that is being explored within the cosmere.

On 01/04/2017 at 8:46 AM, Rockobar said:

As for the Blushweaver/Lightsong cell sex scene, it would have been awkward to fit in amid the action so the consummation might happen the night before Lightsong finds her bound by the Pahn Kahl. On the other hand, if you think you're going to be murdered shortly, you might just admit your feelings and do it. As I said, I am still not sure if it would have been more tragic, Blushweaver dying as she did without knowing Lightsong reciprocated or dying just as they begin a romantic relationship.

Wow. No offence or anything, but that really rubs me the wrong way. I feel like here we probably have different views on this, but here I feel as if you are treating sex as the climax for romantic relationships, whereas I see it more of an occurrence along the way. If I was about to be murdered the last thing on my mind would be admitting my feelings and doing it (not that that is ever really on my mind :P), I would be more concerned with comforting myself and the other person with comforting words and actions. To write that would feel wildly out of place and more than slightly creepy.

Anyway, feel free to let me know what you think of what I think of what you think of what other people think (sorry, I had to).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...