Radiant turned evil

[Calderis]

21 minutes ago, Extesian said:

The only differences between a villain and an anti-hero are usually sympathetic viewpoint and whether their effect on the world is positive or negative. 

what if it ends up being that the Radiants are wrong, that their existence is creating a problem. Then were they villains or heroes?

First off, great post. 

They would absolutely be villains. I don't think many would agree with that but oh well. 

The mind places us all as the hero of our own stories. It's why the villains that are evil for the sake of being evil, or who declare "I'm evil" are usually so unbelievable. 

It's why Taravangian is such a compelling Villain. His reasoning is sound. If your options are everyone dies, or some survive, you do whatever is necessary for some to survive. 

If Taravangian is right and our Radiants are wrong and doom ingredients Roshar, we're totally rooting for the wrong team, and it's a brilliant story. 

[maxal]

There is a lot of plot and twists to be have when it comes to villains, heroes, protagonists and antagonists. What however matters to readers is whom they can sympathize with and whom they can't, whom they are reading about and whom they aren't. Thus, while it may be Taravangian is right in his approach, he is not the protagonist. He is a villain and his actions sound terrible to us. He is not sympathetic. Szeth also isn't sympathetic nor is he the protagonist. These characters thus definitely read as antagonists to our main crew, independently if their actions might end up being what it needed. I mean, who can honestly get behind slaughtering entire populace because, on a day you feel you were very smart, you wrote a text book which says you ought to? It is crazy none sense and even if the crazy none sense ends up being right, I will still wonder if there hadn't been another way.

I do not consider characters such as Dalinar, Shallan and Kaladin can be antagonists. They are the protagonists of the story and while the author might pull a rabbit out of his hat and make current antagonists such as Taravangian be the "good guy", it will feel terribly unsatisfying to me. Why? Because I don't storming care about Taravangian: I read him as a crazy old guy following some crazy plans he made on a day he was so stupid he thought he was bright. Him turning out being right and everyone else doing what I consider to be much better actions turning out to be wrong would be so anti-climatic it would ruin the story, for me, as a reader.

I will this disagree this would be an amazing story. It would actually ruin the story for me by depriving me of the satisfaction of seeing those I am perceiving as the "bad guys" to succeed against those I am perceiving as the "good guys". And sorry, but Taranvangian isn't one of the story's protagonists, but Dalinar, Kaladin and Shallan are.

[Calderis]

@maxalthe reason I say it would be a great story is because I agree with you. For the most part. Hear me out. 

The role of the villain, as you pointed out, is all about which characters we are made to sympathize with. So the Radiants are our heroes, and Taravangian a villain. 

If Taravangian is correct, he would still be the villain. Our heroes would still be heroes because they'd be standing by their principles even as their world dies. 

The only thing that I disagree with you on is unrelated to the point of the thread, but all evidence shows that Taravangian was not Stupid that day. His accuracy at predictions is far too on point for that. 

[maxal]

53 minutes ago, Calderis said:

@maxalthe reason I say it would be a great story is because I agree with you. For the most part. Hear me out. 

The role of the villain, as you pointed out, is all about which characters we are made to sympathize with. So the Radiants are our heroes, and Taravangian a villain. 

If Taravangian is correct, he would still be the villain. Our heroes would still be heroes because they'd be standing by their principles even as their world dies. 

The only thing that I disagree with you on is unrelated to the point of the thread, but all evidence shows that Taravangian was not Stupid that day. His accuracy at predictions is far too on point for that. 

I didn't mean he was stupid in the sense his predictions are wrong, I mean he was stupid enough to think it impossible he might have been wrong. So independently of how smart he really was, anyone not taking into consideration they might be wrong, when it comes to predicting future outcomes can't be very smart. I will never find blind followers who gives away their capacity of reasoning away to some code/diagram having supposedly all figured out smart. 

This being said, I would rather our heroes remained our heroes and figured out how to win. Taravangian and his ways winning would be an awful twist, to me at the very least.

Edited August 12, 2017 by maxal

[Calderis]

3 minutes ago, maxal said:

I didn't mean he was stupid in the sense his predictions are wrong, I mean he was stupid enough to think it impossible he might have been wrong. So independently of how smart he really was, anyone not taking into consideration they might be wrong, when it comes to predicting future outcomes can't be very smart. I will never find blind followers who gives away their capacity of reasoning away to some code/diagram having supposedly all figured out. 

This being said, I would rather our heroes remained our heroes and figured out how to win. Taravangian and his ways winning would be an awful twist, to me at the very least.

I doubt it will go that way. I won't lie, I think it would be an amazing story with a lot of fun philosophical discussions surrounding it. 

The vast majority of people would feel betrayed though, and Brandon is pretty good at gauging his readership.

Edited August 12, 2017 by Calderis

[maxal]

1 minute ago, Calderis said:

I doubt it will go that way. I won't lie, I think it would be an amazing story with a lot of fun philosophical discussions surrounding it. 

The vast majority of people would feel betrayed though, and Brandon is pretty good at gaging his readership.

This echos my thoughts except for the first sentence as I wouldn't think it a great story. I don't fancy stories where villains turn out being right, especially when I see villains acting within terrible manners.

[Fatling]

1 hour ago, Calderis said:

I doubt it will go that way. I won't lie, I think it would be an amazing story with a lot of fun philosophical discussions surrounding it. 

The vast majority of people would feel betrayed though, and Brandon is pretty good at gauging his readership.

Yeah, Brandon's pretty good at turning the story quickly enough to give everyone whiplash, but usually doesn't drive it off a cliff. Taravangian is such a wild card to me, I just can't figure out what's going to happen with him. Best I can guess, he's going to get killed off by someone who's annoyed about him causing a bunch of problems, like Sadeas did. But it could be that one of the main characters somehow falls under his spell too. So hard to say...

[Toaster Retribution]

Having Taravangian be right would be a good story, but not for Brandons fanbase. If GRRM or Joe Abercrombie wrote Stormlight, it would be storming perfect. 

On the subject of antagonists, I symphatize with and like a lot of antagonists. I think it has to do with what their goals are, and how they work as people. That is why Taravangian is so great, because he is a good person forced to do bad things. You feel symphaty for him, you might even see him as a hero. But he is still the villain. Having a villain be symphathetic and likeable is always preferable. It gives the story depth and complexity, and makes it way more engaging, and realistic. People like Taravangian, Denth and Miles makes the reader care on another level than for example Straff Venture, who is just a total crembag of epic porportions (seriously, is there anyone who likes Straff?)

[StormblessDave]

1 hour ago, Toaster Retribution said:

Having Taravangian be right would be a good story, but not for Brandons fanbase. If GRRM or Joe Abercrombie wrote Stormlight, it would be storming perfect. 

On the subject of antagonists, I symphatize with and like a lot of antagonists. I think it has to do with what their goals are, and how they work as people. That is why Taravangian is so great, because he is a good person forced to do bad things. You feel symphaty for him, you might even see him as a hero. But he is still the villain. Having a villain be symphathetic and likeable is always preferable. It gives the story depth and complexity, and makes it way more engaging, and realistic. People like Taravangian, Denth and Miles makes the reader care on another level than for example Straff Venture, who is just a total crembag of epic porportions (seriously, is there anyone who likes Straff?)

lol fair point I was so satisfied straff didn't die of the poison, instead Vin koed him out of  the sky lmao

[maxal]

2 hours ago, Toaster Retribution said:

Having Taravangian be right would be a good story, but not for Brandons fanbase. If GRRM or Joe Abercrombie wrote Stormlight, it would be storming perfect. 

Yes. This. Just because other authors might use a few given story reversals, such as having the villains win or killing the likable important viewpoint character in order to create a shock moment, does not mean it is perfect for SA. Brandon isn't writing one of those stories. The good guys will win, some will die, but not before the end of their story arcs, not before it makes sense for them to die.

I personally hate Abercrombie. The guy can't write a likable protagonist for the life of him and reading about a bunch of unlikable characters is really not my thing. 

[Toaster Retribution]

12 minutes ago, maxal said:

I personally hate Abercrombie. The guy can't write a likable protagonist for the life of him and reading about a bunch of unlikable characters is really not my thing. 

Logen Ninefingers is pretty likeable. I can buy the rest though. Most of the cast are crembags (although well-written crem bags, but I guess that is irrelevant here).

[Fatling]

4 hours ago, Toaster Retribution said:

(seriously, is there anyone who likes Straff?)

I liked Straff, mostly just because he was always consistently a total jerk and you could always count on him to do something rotten. Like, at least he's consistent, right? Also, I've never heard of this Abercrombie guy, but maybe I should try reading a book or two of his

[Toaster Retribution]

14 minutes ago, Fatling said:

I liked Straff, mostly just because he was always consistently a total jerk and you could always count on him to do something rotten. Like, at least he's consistent, right? Also, I've never heard of this Abercrombie guy, but maybe I should try reading a book or two of his

Abercrombie is good if you like dark, gritty fantasy. When it comes to Straff, I guess I could buy your reasoning. I liked him at first when he reminded me of Tywin Lannister. That respect disappeared when I learned how incompetent he really was.

[Calderis]

1 hour ago, Fatling said:

I liked Straff, mostly just because he was always consistently a total jerk and you could always count on him to do something rotten. Like, at least he's consistent, right? Also, I've never heard of this Abercrombie guy, but maybe I should try reading a book or two of his

Depends on what you want. If you like crem bags, you'll find them a plenty. If you want magic... It's rare and undefined. The writing is pretty solid. It's super dark, and just about every character will turn into someone who's death is something to celebrate. 

I'm pretty cynical. I think people in general are better at convincing themselves that they're good people than at actually being good people. Abercrombie's characters are pushing realism to me at times because a lot of the time not only are they disgusting people, but they know it and don't care, and typically that's not how people work. 

Edited August 12, 2017 by Calderis

[Fatling]

4 minutes ago, Calderis said:

I'm pretty cynical. I think people in general are better at convincing themselves that they're good people than at actually being good people. Abercrombie's characters are pushing realism to me at times because a lot of the time not only are they disgusting people, but they know it and don't care, and typically that's not how people work.

Huh, that's good to know, since that's a philosophy I generally share. I guess I'll just have to try out one of his books and see how I like it

[maxal]

I couldn't get into Abercrombie: not my style. It may be dark and gritty isn't my style either, I can't say, but really I enjoy characters who are likable, not a bunch of egocentric jerks having no consideration for the outside world. And I really didn't find Glotka to be an enthralling character: the guy was torture beyond any possible means and he is happy to return the favor. What .a jerk. 

I never bothered to read the third book of the trilogy.

[aemetha]

1 hour ago, Calderis said:

I'm pretty cynical. I think people in general are better at convincing themselves that they're good people than at actually being good people. Abercrombie's characters are pushing realism to me at times because a lot of the time not only are they disgusting people, but they know it and don't care, and typically that's not how people work. 

That's not cynicism, that's realism. Psychologists have showed time and time again that peoples rating of their own abilities and attributes across the board is inflated. If we were to trust peoples self-image everyone would be above average, and I'm quite sure such a phenomenon would make the universe explode.

I really like Abercrombies characters personally. I think context matters a great deal. They are self-interested in environments where self-interest is rewarded more than reciprocal altruism. I particularly like the portrayal of Logen Ninefingers / The Bloody Nine. It strikes me as quite a classic case of dissociative identity disorder where are second personality is manifested to deal with trauma that the first personality isn't capable of dealing with - with a dose of fantasy thrown in in the form of strength and endurance that might be seen as magical. 

Edited August 12, 2017 by aemetha

[Frostlander]

6 hours ago, Toaster Retribution said:

Having Taravangian be right would be a good story, but not for Brandons fanbase. If GRRM or Joe Abercrombie wrote Stormlight, it would be storming perfect. 

On the subject of antagonists, I symphatize with and like a lot of antagonists. I think it has to do with what their goals are, and how they work as people. That is why Taravangian is so great, because he is a good person forced to do bad things. You feel symphaty for him, you might even see him as a hero. But he is still the villain. Having a villain be symphathetic and likeable is always preferable. It gives the story depth and complexity, and makes it way more engaging, and realistic. People like Taravangian, Denth and Miles makes the reader care on another level than for example Straff Venture, who is just a total crembag of epic porportions (seriously, is there anyone who likes Straff?)

Agreed. I think it's important to separate highly complex antagonists that readers might empathize with or who could become sympathetic (Szeth, Eshonai, etc.) and antagonists I think of as "micro-bosses" or "mini-bosses." Here, I'm thinking of people like Straff and Sadeas. Sadeas, I think, is more complex than Straff, but they serve to introduce the reader to the world and conflicts of the story or to redirect the story as necessary. Once their role is finished, there's a sense of rightness (sometimes with reader fatigue) in their death, even if there are some lingering ramifications for the living characters.

So, I don't necessarily see squabbling highprinces and their wives being center stage for too much longer. If some of them join or form secret societies, that could be a way to keep them as important-ish characters. Otherwise, at the end of WoR, the series' scope broadened dramatically and we'll need new "mini-bosses" to help us understand new rules and new stakes.

That said, I'm not sure if we know who the primary mini-boss antagonists for the next 1-2 books will be. They could be a leader of a secret society or a Herald, for example. One of the more complex antagonists could get moved into that type of role, too. I would actually not be surprised to see us looking back at Odium as a mini-boss in 10 years. But we'll need additional rounds of mini-boss/scope-widening before we're close to that.

[Toaster Retribution]

1 hour ago, Frostlander said:

Agreed. I think it's important to separate highly complex antagonists that readers might empathize with or who could become sympathetic (Szeth, Eshonai, etc.) and antagonists I think of as "micro-bosses" or "mini-bosses." Here, I'm thinking of people like Straff and Sadeas. Sadeas, I think, is more complex than Straff, but they serve to introduce the reader to the world and conflicts of the story or to redirect the story as necessary. Once their role is finished, there's a sense of rightness (sometimes with reader fatigue) in their death, even if there are some lingering ramifications for the living characters.

So, I don't necessarily see squabbling highprinces and their wives being center stage for too much longer. If some of them join or form secret societies, that could be a way to keep them as important-ish characters. Otherwise, at the end of WoR, the series' scope broadened dramatically and we'll need new "mini-bosses" to help us understand new rules and new stakes.

That said, I'm not sure if we know who the primary mini-boss antagonists for the next 1-2 books will be. They could be a leader of a secret society or a Herald, for example. One of the more complex antagonists could get moved into that type of role, too. I would actually not be surprised to see us looking back at Odium as a mini-boss in 10 years. But we'll need additional rounds of mini-boss/scope-widening before we're close to that.

I really like the mini-boss image. Interesting way of thinking. Have an upvote!

[Calderis]

1 hour ago, Frostlander said:

That said, I'm not sure if we know who the primary mini-boss antagonists for the next 1-2 books will be. They could be a leader of a secret society or a Herald, for example. One of the more complex antagonists could get moved into that type of role, too. I would actually not be surprised to see us looking back at Odium as a mini-boss in 10 years. But we'll need additional rounds of mini-boss/scope-widening before we're close to that.

I like most of your reasoning, but if a full Shard is ever a "mini-boss" in the Cosmere, the whole Adonalsium premise would need some revision. 

[Yitzi2]

On 8/11/2017 at 9:44 PM, maxal said:

I do not consider characters such as Dalinar, Shallan and Kaladin can be antagonists.

What if they're opposing each others' goals?  Then wouldn't some of them need to be antagonists if the others are protagonists?

17 hours ago, Calderis said:

I like most of your reasoning, but if a full Shard is ever a "mini-boss" in the Cosmere, the whole Adonalsium premise would need some revision. 

I would consider Ruin to be a "mini-boss" in the Cosmere story as a whole.

[Hoids Imaginary Friend]

Well, I'm hessitant to say this because I'm afraid the 17th shard may.. Shatter..

Spoiler

Lift becomes an Antagonist when she's hungry.

And she eats and becomes... 

!~HIF~!

[aemetha]

2 hours ago, Hoids Imaginary Friend said:

Well, I'm hessitant to say this because I'm afraid the 17th shard may.. Shatter..

  Reveal hidden contents

Lift becomes an Antagonist when she's hungry.

And she eats and becomes... 

!~HIF~!

While I am inclined to agree, isn't this section for theorising? What you've posted here is an absolute certainty .

[kaellok]

On 8/12/2017 at 5:02 AM, Toaster Retribution said:

Having Taravangian be right would be a good story, but not for Brandons fanbase. If GRRM or Joe Abercrombie wrote Stormlight, it would be storming perfect. 

On the subject of antagonists, I symphatize with and like a lot of antagonists. I think it has to do with what their goals are, and how they work as people. That is why Taravangian is so great, because he is a good person forced to do bad things. You feel symphaty for him, you might even see him as a hero. But he is still the villain. Having a villain be symphathetic and likeable is always preferable. It gives the story depth and complexity, and makes it way more engaging, and realistic. People like Taravangian, Denth and Miles makes the reader care on another level than for example Straff Venture, who is just a total crembag of epic porportions (seriously, is there anyone who likes Straff?)

I strongly disagree your point re: Mr T here.  First, he is forced to do nothing.  The evil, despicable things that he does are entirely by his own will.  Even if the Diagram itself is a creation of some other entity, or was shaped and influenced by some other entity, blindly following it is still his choice.  There is NO evidence for coercion or force that I have seen evidence of, or that people have presented.

This means he is a legitimately terrible human being.  He understands this, and because he believes it is the surest way to preserve humanity he persists.  But he is NOT a good person.  Wholesale murder is never the answer or response for someone who is good, except for those that have a defined morality that is very opposed to my own.  Just because his intent is good does not mean that he is.  What I find interesting about his character is that he realizes these things, but persists anyway.  There are times when you can choose evil (let people die) or evil (kill some, to attempt to save the rest).  

I don't find the character himself sympathetic at all, let alone likable.  However, he IS interesting and adds a great deal more to the story than being a different type of Sadeas or Straff, who essentially seek power only for the sake of power.

Personally, the absolute faith that everyone is placing in the Diagram lets me know that it is doomed to fail.  On his other super-intelligent days, Mr T is not allowed to be king because he is wrong; adding significantly more of the attribute disqualifying him from making permanent changes or laws does not seem likely to overcome that fatal flaw.  I know there are many who believe that he was so smart on that day that he broke through the barrier, and I certainly believe that Mr T and Crew believe this, but I have not seen anything to convince me of the same.  Instead, I see a man who is devoted to chaos, death, and slaughter at a time when the world needs to be perfectly united; a man who knew that the Parshendi needed to be eliminated (according to the Diagram itself!  In floorboard 17, from https://coppermind.net/wiki/Diagram) but decided to take over Jah Keved instead.

[maxal]

21 minutes ago, kaellok said:

I strongly disagree your point re: Mr T here.  First, he is forced to do nothing.  The evil, despicable things that he does are entirely by his own will.  Even if the Diagram itself is a creation of some other entity, or was shaped and influenced by some other entity, blindly following it is still his choice.  There is NO evidence for coercion or force that I have seen evidence of, or that people have presented.

This means he is a legitimately terrible human being.  He understands this, and because he believes it is the surest way to preserve humanity he persists.  But he is NOT a good person.  Wholesale murder is never the answer or response for someone who is good, except for those that have a defined morality that is very opposed to my own.  Just because his intent is good does not mean that he is.  What I find interesting about his character is that he realizes these things, but persists anyway.  There are times when you can choose evil (let people die) or evil (kill some, to attempt to save the rest).  

I don't find the character himself sympathetic at all, let alone likable.  However, he IS interesting and adds a great deal more to the story than being a different type of Sadeas or Straff, who essentially seek power only for the sake of power.

Personally, the absolute faith that everyone is placing in the Diagram lets me know that it is doomed to fail.  On his other super-intelligent days, Mr T is not allowed to be king because he is wrong; adding significantly more of the attribute disqualifying him from making permanent changes or laws does not seem likely to overcome that fatal flaw.  I know there are many who believe that he was so smart on that day that he broke through the barrier, and I certainly believe that Mr T and Crew believe this, but I have not seen anything to convince me of the same.  Instead, I see a man who is devoted to chaos, death, and slaughter at a time when the world needs to be perfectly united; a man who knew that the Parshendi needed to be eliminated (according to the Diagram itself!  In floorboard 17, from https://coppermind.net/wiki/Diagram) but decided to take over Jah Keved instead.

And the voice of reason made itself heard  This being said, I have been trying to state murdering innocent people, even if it is to save other innocents is plain wrong, especially when your incentive to do so is a text book you wrote on a day you can't hardly remember but think you were so smart it is impossible you were wrong. Taranvagian perhaps is interesting, but he isn't a good person being forced to do terrible things: he is choosing to do those terrible things.