sun tzaro

People expect the wrong things out of religion. Every person, living or dead, religious or atheist, has had their own moral code. Each of these "personal moral codes" is different. What one person finds "right" can be very different from what another finds "right". Consider how much culture and society have changed in the last thousand years, you can expect that the people of a thousand years ago had wildly different definitions of"right". You can expect that the people of a thousand years from today will have just as wildly different definitions. (Philosophers try to systematically define a moral code. Unsuprisingly, they all come to very different conclusions.) That's something that I think nearly anyone can agree on. So why do people expect that God will agree with them? Why would God's will - a will that has existed for over a thousand years - bend to fit what you want and expect? Addressing this specifically, math is not a truth created by humans. It is a discovery and exploration of truth. All the math we know now has existed since the birth of earth (by God's hand). Humans have simply mapped it out (and I don't say simply to discredit mathematicians. Considering my own field of study, I owe a great deal to math). Anyway, the point I'm trying to get to is that it is your expectation that religious texts should contain mathematics. You place value on math. God values love and compassion over knowledge and its pursuit (First Corinthians 13:2). This is what you want. Although it this is what God delivers, he does not deliver it as a result of your desire for it. Your post was great though. This is your expectation of faith, but that doesn't change the words of the Bible: God punishes the unbelievers along with the wicked (Revelations 21:8). If God exists, then why would he be concerned with what you want and expect? If God exists, then his will has existed for many, many years. Why would it change to fit your standards? "Never again will I curse the ground of humans, even though every inclination of the human heart is evil from childhood." I assure you, God thinks very little of your inclinations. (Whenever I use that accusatory your, I mean your's and mine and everyone else's). People accuse the Bible - and by extension, God, of many things. Of misogyny, bigotry, hatred, and cruelty. Things against the modern progressive mentality - which is a part of a great many people's personal moral codes. Maybe these accusations are true. Maybe they aren't. But whether or not they are true, and whether or not you agree with them, does not change God's will. This might seem obvious, but apparently it's not. This is far from a problem with just atheists. It's a problem with believers as well. Churches and pastors interpret scripture in ways that appeal to their congregations' moral code. A very liberal church will the push interpretation of the Bible that its churchgoers will want to hear - Matthew 18:32 is more important than Leviticus 18:22 . A very conservative church will push a different interpretation of the Bible that its churchgoers will want to hear - Leviticus 18:22 is more important than Matthew 18:32. I am fond of my own church, because I believe it does good according to my own moral code. Donating to the charities like the Red Cross may mean that a great deal of my money is squandered, but when I donate to mission trips in my church, I know my money is going directly to help fellow members of my congregation build bridges and schoolhouses in Haiti. That doesn't mean that my own church isn't guilty of the above. Personally, I base my own religious beliefs on my own reading of the Bible. Of course, my reading is always subtly colored by my own moral code, but there are times when my own moral code comes directly into conflict with what God wants of me. And in those times, I do not try to change God's words to fit what I want. Instead, I realize that this conflict is representative as a failing of my own faith. If I truly believed, I would obey completely. I think a proper way to summarize it is this: What you want does not change reality. To say that you disagree with a religion for such and such reasons is irrelevant. If you believe in God, then you believe God is real. If you believe God is real, then you believe in what God commands, and what you want does not change what God commands. God's commands often differ from what you want. Faith is not an easy thing to follow; our personal moral codes are not easily changed. That's why God rewards the faithful. If you believe in a religion just because the religion agrees with you, then your belief is not faith, but an exercise in ego.

The problem is that schools don't assign the interesting classics. They need more authors like Dostoevsky. Dostoevsky writes exciting novels like Crime and Punishment (axe murder) and The Brothers Karamazov (love triangles and murder)... there are so many great classics out there, and in high school they just feed kids the boring ones and, unsurprisingly, kids sparknote all of them. And classics certainly are important. There's nothing quite like reading a book written a hundred years ago in a different country and a different culture and realizing how human nature doesn't change. Heck, classic authors have written fun things too. I picked up a Steinbeck anthology a year or two back and read In Dubious Battle, where a rather violent revolt is staged on an apple farm. It was like reading a thriller.

Since this is a subforum that only fans of the series visit regularly, you're not going to find any dissenting opinions. I bought WoK and WoR and shipped them to a friend who is a frustrating cynic, and he didn't get more than halfway through WoK, as he found issues with every character and nearly every scene. I bought WoK and WoR for my grandmother, who did finish (and at least mildly enjoyed) both. No doubt part of the reason that she was willing to stick with them was because they were given to her by her grandchildren, and as a loving and caring person with a strong sense of filial loyalty, she probably felt that she had to finish them. I, personally, can't for Szeth to cleanse Shinovar with his new best friend. I agree that the expectations we all have for the third book will be difficult to match. I'm not so worried, though - after finishing Firefight (a pleasant improvement over the first), I'm certain if Sanderson keeps up his upward trajectory in the forthcoming Mistborn books, he'll be able to write a beast for the third book. That's not something I would worry about. WoR was Shallan's book, and we still saw plenty of Mr. Mopey. Same with Adolin - just because we haven't very many chapters from his point of view doesn't mean that he hasn't been relevant for the last two books. My personal opinion is that as long as the character is doing something and participating in the plot somehow, it's acceptable if we don't get so many chapters from said character's POV.

Similarly, people shouldn't be abrasive when criticizing Shallan's father. Anger issues can be very difficult to deal with, and, as in the case of Lin, such issues can very adversely affect the lives of the afflicted and those around them. Similarly, people should be respectful when discussing Szeth. As the most unstable character in both books, before anyone judges him for all the murders he's made, they should consider the state of his mental health and all of the baggage that he brings with him. Similarly, people should watch what they say when condemning Amaram. He clearly has Empathy Deficit Disorder, judging from his willingness to murder in cold-blood and lie like a snake when confronted about it. His mental disorder should override your dislike of him. Few things are more important than being politically correct. I'm certain that if I were to find an autistic person, he (or she, of course) would be very offended by people calling Renarin "whiny". Why? Because in doing so, said people are offending the whole of the autistic population of the world. Think before you post. If your post breaches my arbitrary standards into the nebulous realm of "offensiveness", then don't post!

The Sons of Honor believe that they are doing the right thing. Gavilar was a Son of Honor. Near the end of his days, he started to follow the Way of Kings. He was the one who introduced the book to Dalinar, and Dalinar thought he was crazy. The Way of Kings is practically the foundation of Dalinar's notion of honor.I know that a lot of people write Gavilar off as "he wasn't as good a person as everyone sees him as" - but... that's also true of Dalinar, who at one point was the ruthless and terrifying Blackthorne. People change, and it seemed that Gavilar had changed quite a bit. To me, Amaram seems to be the type of person who acts honorably unless he believes that acting dishonorably better serves his notion of the greater good. Now, you could argue that inconsistent honor is hardly honor at all, but the fact remains that he had a near sterling reputation. Only a few were privy to knowledge of the ruthlessness he was capable of. It's really not a surprising decision. Amaram was well-liked, and he was in the service of Sadeas, so naming him head of the Radiants was a rather unifying gesture.

Huh, I could have sworn that not long after, the Cryptics said that they needed a stronger Truth. I'll have to find my copy of WoK and look up the passage. But, if it's WoB, I can hardly argue with that. Still, wouldn't that mean she had spoken two Truths in the span of minutes? That seems a little... rushed.

Can you elaborate on that first Truth? I don't remember anything about "I am afraid". As far as I can remember, she used her first Truth (I killed my father) when she was soulcasted the goblet into blood. I'd be surprised if Shallan spent the entirety of WoR as a third Oath Radiant, because Kaladin got a massive power-up after speaking his third oath, while Shallan's powers seemed rather underwhelming. I'm having a hard time accepting the idea that Shallan is one level away from being a fully powered Radiant when she hasn't touched the sound aspect of Illumination and has barely skimmed the surface of Soulcasting.

SA3 spoilers: I assume that the eye color change is linked to Oath level. Teft mentions that Kaladin's eyes have changed color after Kaladin had spoken the third Oath and used surgebinding against Szeth. Shallan doesn't do any surgebinding after speaking her second Truth (third Oath) at the end of WoR, so it makes sense that we haven't seen her eye color change.

I don't think Ardentia is, on the whole, that manipulative. The knee-jerk reaction to the knowledge that one of the Radiants can see the future will be to dismiss all of the Radiants (or at the very least, the Radiant in question) as Voidbringers. Remember, in Alethkar men don't read solely because it goes against Vorin culture. Illiteracy was once widespread in reality, but that was because it was a privilege reserved to only scholars and the wealthy. In today's society, I can't imagine people choosing not reading. Gaining nearly all of your knowledge of the past second hand seems ridiculous to me. If cultural norms go that far, I'm certain that it will take a very long time for people to let go of their misgivings when it comes to soothsaying. And... I meant to edit this into my last post. Whoops.

You're right - I edited my post before I saw yours. Sorry! I think the bumps will be bigger than you seem to believe. But yes, in the end, Renarin will find his place, and he will be part of saving the world along with bro-bro and dad. I agree. Just upvoted your posts. Rereading my last few posts, I sound really passive-aggressive in my last few posts. That's not my intention. Forgive me.

Dalinar and friends managed to hide the countdown on the walls, sure, I'll give you that. But Renarin isn't in control during his episodes. He won't be able to hide them if he doesn't know when they are going to happen. Sooner or later, he will be discovered. Renarin is a Radiant now. His every move will be watched and remembered. He may still be a weak boy on the inside, but that's not what the rest of the world will see him as. Hmmm. Let's take a look. Finally coming forward with his ability? He looked at them, then shrank back. Seen as accepting it? Renarin remained in the darkness, looking down. Embraced it? Embraced it? I'd quote the part where he shivers when Dalinar grabs him the shoulder, but I'm getting a palpable sense of deja vu. The will of the Ardentia is irrelevant now? Getting a strong sense of deja vu. Again.

I disagree completely. Dalinar couldn't hide his fits and he knew exactly when they would come. Do you really think there is any way whatsoever that Renarin will be able to hide his abilities? He doesn't know when his fits will come on, let alone if any of them will leave him in as much horrified mania as this one did. And he just screamed that he could see the future in front of a bunch of ardents. When Shallan begins to siphon through the texts stored in Urithiru, she will enlist the help of ardents in translating them. The history of the Radiants will be known again. The abilities of the Truthwatchers will become known. There is only one way that the ardentia will react to finding out that a Radiant can see the future. Sanderson has a ripe conflict in front of him when it comes to Renarin and Vorinism. There's no way he wouldn't take advantage of it. I'm still flabbergasted that anyone can read this line and think that Renarin has a bright dandy future hanging out with bro-bro and dad and saving the world from evil while everyone cheers him on. I agree with Trip. Renarin has a dark path ahead of him, and it would be interesting in terms of a sort of role-reversal to see Adolin in the shadow of Renarin.

While I agree that the Nalan certainly wouldn't have any problems with exploiting loopholes in the law, I'm certain that he and the Skybreakers have some sort of caveat against the type of entrapment in your example. I don't imagine that Nalan would have resorted to searching Ym's past for a single crime he committed 40 years ago if he had the option of setting up some sort of contrived situation in which Ym would be forced to commit a new crime. Of course, maybe you're right, and Iri just had a law against entrapment that Nalan could not violate. Now that certainly is an interesting question. I imagine a Herald, especially one like Nalan who has access to things like ancient Progression fabrials, has the resources to fulfill nearly any penalty. His minion was willing to kill Gawx - surely Nalan could have ordered the same minion to kill Lift too, and saved himself a great deal of trouble. If a leave of execution exists legally, it can probably be obtained legally. It is clear that a lot of planning went into Lift's capture. Nalan had predicted and had paperwork for three different offenses. That shows an incredible amount of foresight and an incredible amount of preparation. I think it's safe to say that no normal person would have been able to do the same. What Nalan did was by no means easy. It's also worth noting that many real-life countries have obscure laws that are rarely or at the very least irregularly enforced. Judging from the Vizier's surprise, I imagine that Nalan took advantage of some such laws.

I'm ashamed that this took me so long. Here's the promised quote I promised earlier, page numbers included since I believe we're all using the same hardcover copy of WoR: Now, I believe that Shallan had a positive relationship with her mother, and I believe that was why her mother's attempt to kill her was so deeply hurtful. When Shallan recalls her mother, she always does so in a positive light. When Shallan is walking at the fair, scared and alone: When Wit asks her what beauty is, the first words out of her mouth: If Shallan didn't at least once have a positive relationship with her mother, I don't think her mother's life would factor into her idea of beauty so strongly. Select other parts of the same passage: Now, you could interpret "Mother loves me" as Shallan suggesting that she wished her mother loved her, because that was not the case in reality - but I think Shallan was just somewhat subconsciously referring to how her last interaction with her mother was not a loving one. "It should have been" strongly implies that if Shallan's powers hadn't become apparent, then she would (most likely) have had a happy relationship with her father and her mother and her brothers. After her final revelation: Family is very important to Shallan. She loves her brothers. She loved her father, even after he became a monster. I think she loved her mother, too. There had to have been a time when Shallan was part of a happy family in the past, otherwise she wouldn't desire it so. Not to single out you specifically, but a lot of the responses in this thread seem to be along the lines of "Shallan's mother was a psychotic/evil person". I think it's a bit too early to assume that. In WoK, and through most of WoR, Lin, Shallan's father, appears to be an abusive monster. He murders Shallan's mother and her lover, and then sings to Shallan while he carries her out of the room. Psychotic, right? As the years progress, he beats and maims his servants and his sons. No one wants to make business deals with such an evil monster. Highprince Valam himself sends his bastard son to investigate Lin's crimes. Lin's own sons despise him for what he has done. Except Lin didn't kill his wife. He fought to save Shallan from Dreder and his own wife. He watched his own daughter murder twice, and then after that he held her in his arms and sang her a lullaby while he took her away from the bloody carnage she had wrought. He then goes on to completely shoulder the blame for a crime he did not commit. Yes, Lin did become an abusive monster. But he's not an abnormal person. He's a normal person. No normal person can survive being hated by their own family and by nearly everyone else they know, for a crime they did not commit, and avoid becoming twisted inside. Lin appeared an irredeemable monster until we found out the full extent of what happened in Shallan's past. Sanderson doesn't write too many black-and-white characters. I don't think Shallan's mother will be any different. Kaladin has a very close relationship to Syl. I'd go so far as to say a familial one. So we do have a precedent for parents murdering their children. Over three hundred Radiants, the heroes of honor that we, here on the 17th shard, love to praise and fawn upon, believed in something so strongly that they were willing to murder their closest friends and companions. Evidently the Radiants of old would have disagreed with you. Speaking of, I think I've found something. I'd start a topic on it, but I feel that I don't have enough content to warrant a full discussion. IIRC, we've never seen Shallan speak the first oath. Shallan still has secrets. I sense a 4th or 5th Truth right there.

Shallan's mother decided to try and kill Shallan after discovering Shallan's abilities. I'll try and dig up a quote for this later today. For the most part, Shallan remembers her mother fondly, I believe, so I don't think it was her relationship with her mother that "broke" her. In case it wasn't clear, we don't know for certain what it was that broke Shallan, and she still does have two more "Truths" to speak - so perhaps we'll find out what happened.