PiedPiper

Members
  • Content count

    184
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by PiedPiper

  1. No worries! Are you thinking we'd have a book 4 situation again, where the flashbacks are Eshonai's and Venli's but it's sorta Navani's book anyway? Because in that case, it's entirely possible we have a non-Radiant character becoming a Dustbringer
  2. Ash becoming a Dustbringer is the going theory. I could see it; but at the same time, it feels too convenient. Besides, if that were true, the structure of the series would spoil Ash's entire arc. My guess? Our theories are wrong, and there's an option c we're missing. Also, Ash wouldn't belong to two orders if she became a Dustbringer; the Heralds, except for Nale, never actually joined their orders. They just had a different method of accessing the same powers.
  3. Ok so I tried to phrase the title to be as innocuous as possible, but here's my question: why oh why would the Cryptics send Shallan Pattern after she killed Testament? ON PURPOSE, and not with Testament's consent like in the Recreance! And we know that Pattern crossed over with the support of other Cryptics because he talks about how famous he is... so... theories? If the Cryptics were so determined to start bonding humans again, why not choose another to become a Lightweaver? Does this have something to do with the Unmade influencing Shallan's family? Is House Davar that crucial to the fight against Odium? And also, why did the Cryptics decide to return? Wyndle mentions in Edgedancer that the cultivationspren don't really know what they're doing, that they're returning only because the Honorspren and the Cryptics have already started doing it... but of course we know that the Honorspren who did bond humans were outliers, so from this we can surmise that the Cryptics were the trailblazers here. Why? What do they know? I NEED to see their Shadesmar home!
  4. This is also not the discussion I was hoping to have in this thread. Does anyone have other thoughts on Roshar and its music and Wit?
  5. He's always talking about how desolate (ba dum ch) Roshar is, and that's simply not true. Roshar is a musical world, and you'd think that, as a pretentious artist, he'd be much more appreciative of that fact. You can lean into the artistry or you can complain about the storms -- you can't do both, because the storms bring the music.
  6. Let's leave it at this: we have different interpretations of the event. You found it offensive, I didn't. That's fine. But I made this thread to talk about Wit's perceptions of Roshar, not Jasnah, so could we please stay on topic?
  7. Sure, he can find some aspects of it unappealing while enjoying other parts of it. But I haven't once seen him describe Roshar and call it anything other than disgusting. And regarding Jasnah, I interpreted his confusion to be more about the fact that she doesn't want sex than the fact that she is female and doesn't want sex. He probably hasn't encountered someone asexual before (or, at the very least, someone secure enough to express their lack of interest in sex), and would be equally perplexed by it in a man, except he doesn't date men. So he's puzzled not by her lack of sexuality as a woman, but her lack of sexuality as a person.
  8. Here's what I think will happen: Brandon will release the first 9, but never write the tenth -- and when we ask him about it, he'll just shrug and be like, "journey before destination!"
  9. US Hardback, first edition I don't know if typos in the women's script count -- and maybe it's something they can't fix regardless, since this is an actual image -- but on the second page of Rhythm of War (the in-book text), the word "the" is repeatedly spelled with a "t" symbol followed by an "h" symbol, rather than the "th" symbol. Is this actually important, or am I being a geek? If it is, though, I can post the translation of the quote and point out where they spelled it wrong.
  10. So we have several wobs talking about how a Radiant could bond spren from different orders and get access to different surges -- but could you, for example, bond two cryptics and therefore have super-duper Lightweaver powers?
  11. Who wrote it? The obvious suspect would be Navani, but I've ruled her out; the handwriting is too good (seriously, Navani has terrible handwriting and it's very frustrating), and we have no notebook pages of hers about fabriology anyway.
  12. True, but I just realized: it it were Nazh, he wouldn't have written it in a Rosharan script -- and besides, there would have been annotations complaining about all the work he had to do procuring the information.
  13. It's your poem. Whatever you decide will be the correct choice.
  14. I disagree, actually. The word choice of "for" and "shore" adds an extra rhyme that doesn't fit in the rhyme scheme, which makes the flow worse in the context of the poem.
  15. A fine Wednesday afternoon for critiquing! A Mariner's Heart First: kudos to you for writing a rhyming poem. They're so hard. I liked the way you personified the sea, but I also wonder if it's something you could explore more? I think it's a very human attribute to ascribe life-like quality to something you love, and it would add to the sense of struggle -- of battle -- that this sailor talks about. (I personally happen to really like figurative devices, so I look for excuses to incorporate them where I can. Maybe that's not your thing.) Line 23 doesn't make a lot of sense to me: "I'd through swamps and deserts hot" -- it feels as though you've accidentally dropped a verb there. The first two stanzas have a pattern of repetition in the first line: "The sea, the sea, the helm's a game," and "A storm, a storm, a crashing beast," which creates an expectation that the pattern will be continued. When you don't, the transition into the third stanza feels a little strange, and I couldn't figure out why until I saw the pattern you'd established in the first two. Jack I love your imagery. It's very evocative. You use the word "cold" in both lines 12 and 14, but it doesn't seem like intentional repetition, just clunky. The line about the Mother's hair (line 20) is a little confusing. I'm not sure what hair is supposed to symbolize in this metaphor. There's a typo in line 35: I think "until out..." was supposed to be "until our." Line 40: "urging blood to stiff and silent fingers." Two things: 1) "to" is an awkward preposition here, and 2) I don't understand why the fingers are silent. Is this an underexplained metaphor? The same is true for the "fading toes" a line later Introducing a rhyme in the very last stanza "air, fair, there" makes it feel a little stilted. The Editor I do not know the tune for these lyrics. And I don't really know how to critique this one because I'm having a hard time figuring out what you're trying to do. I guess maybe that's something -- it doesn't feel very purposeful, and I get the sense that I'm missing something, some inside joke, as I read it. Maybe that's because I am, and it has something to do with the tune to which these lyrics are set?
  16. Well, I think I've said all that will ever need to be said in the email, so I'll just repeat here: no content warnings. Except maybe Seashell Creatures will make you sad? Have at it!
  17. @Robinski thank you for your critiques and your compliments -- and I don't mind at all that you're a little late. It seems I've gotten a lot of feedback about inconsistent themes in Seashell Creatures, so I've done a couple new drafts focusing on just one of the emotions, and I think they work better. This is actually about my own grandma and my experiences with her, because my family cut off contact with her (for reasons not related to the dimentia) when I was 7, so I hadn't talked to her in around 8 years when we started calling each other and video chatting again. The title of Blue and Orange actually came from my original desire to explore blue and orange morality with this book... and then I realized that, by its nature, morality is no longer blue and orange once explored. The title is the last vestige of the original concept. And yes, parts of the world will be unsuspecting of the return. Parts will not be. Thanks for your line edits. You're right, it makes the prose more purposeful, more active. And you will see more of it, but right now I'm working on a short story set in the world of the novel. It has nothing to do with the novel's plot or characters, it just helps me explore things in a different way. The story is a little confused right now (not confusing; it's confused. That isn't a typo.) because I keep trying to make it into an adventure when it isn't one, and I don't know where I went wrong but the tone has made this abrupt shift. It's with my alpha reader right now (my dad), so he'll tell me if it feels weird or if it's just my imagination. I'll still submit it when it's ready. I can't wait to read one of your novels someday, and I hope to read your poetry in the very near future. The way you critique, I have a feeling it'll be great. Why do I get the sense I need a formal signature after this? Signed, - PiedPiper
  18. Hi! Thoughts as I go: Pg. 1: If you're going for a Gettysburg address-style thing ("by the people, for the people, of the people"), might I suggest: "selected by the people, composed of the people, and acting for the people?" I think the parallel sentence structure might help, and you missed "for the people." Obviously just a suggestion; if it's that way for a reason, I don't want to step on your writing toes. Pg. 1: Another picky thing, but when you say "scraped the ceiling of the massive building, typically used to store newly arrived imports" you make it sound like they use specifically the ceiling to store newly arrived imports. Pg. 2: "O lunged through the closed doors, throwing S to the ground. She landed on her sword, gasping at the pain." I'm confused about the mechanics here? I'm especially confused going forward, because falling on your sword means you got stabbed, no? How is she still an active participant in the battle? Pg. 6: "Yet, two wars and countless successes had weaved trust." You want to replace "weaved" with "woven" here. Pg. 6: "The direwolf twitched an..." the pronoun here feels awkward. Pg. 7: Again, your use of "the direwolf" as a pronoun rubs me wrong somehow... I think it's just that we generally don't refer to someone by their species? If I wrote a line that went, "the human walked down the street," it sounds weird -- not just because it's unspecific, but because it's not conventionally done. I think the non-specificity of referring to humans by their species is what made it a bad idea, and so now species names just make awkward pronouns. I'll stop pointing this out every time I see it, though. Pg. 8: Am I a terrible person for liking Wa a little bit? Pg. 9: "There's no way I could find it" should probably be "there's no way I could have found it" -- since he's talking about a mission that's already happened, right? Pg. 11: So here Wo gets really mad at Wa and assumes that Wa is trying to get them to change sides. This came a little out of the blue, I feel, because there was no tension between the two earlier in the chapter. This scene makes me think that Wo has some kind of distaste for Wa -- but if they do, they paint Wa in at least a neutral light in the previous scene, which doesn't make so much sense to me. Obviously Wo wouldn't be openly disrespectful to Wa in front of the King, especially if they're as loyal as they say, but Wo's internal thoughts seem incongruous between the two scenes. It's just that something about the tone is a little disjointed. I'm not sure what purpose Wo's scene serves, but I've written (maybe too much?) about Wa and Wo below and how their dynamic serves to inform the reader and could maybe back up S's impression of Wa? Pg. 13: You mentioned you should cut Wa's PoV in this chapter even though you like him? I agree. (Killing your darlings, eh?) The fewer PoVs you have, the easier it is to follow. Also, the PoV detracts from the mystery surrounding him, so the less we see through him and the more we hear of him, the more relatable S's fear/wonder is. Of course, I also get the sense you're trying to add depth to his character, make him less of a faceless villain -- but I think the scene with Wo could serve that purpose, considering the comments Wa makes to the King. Of course, if you decide to incorporate the comment about Wo's dynamic with Wa, you'd be walking a fine line trying to show that Wa isn't terrible while still making it obvious that Wo hates him. I guess you then could take more time to get us to dislike Wo so we like Wa more because Wo dislikes him. God, I'm confused now, between the abbreviated names and the whole complicated like/dislike web. But the real problem is that I'm now compiling a long list of (possibly major) changes that might not actually help you further your goal. So my critiques from page 11 downward are things I personally might do if it were my story, with the information I currently have. You might have something better planned. I'm putting it out there anyway as a sort of stream-of-consciousness reaction/brainstorm. There's my feedback! It might be disjointed and confusing (what do you know -- it's just like my fiction writing!) and unhelpful, but I did my best.
  19. Thank you! About Seashell Creatures: I'm worried that the metaphor falls flat without the first two stanzas because you won't understand what I'm talking about. I mention this not to try defending it, but to ask what you think -- as the author, my perspective isn't as helpful as your here. Would it be more confusing without the first two stanzas?
  20. I've been considering this for a while, and I'm not certain that Sadeas's bridge crews are as evil as Sanderson makes them out to be. Before you call my a psychopathic monster, listen to my reasoning. In effect, what Sadeas is doing is sacrificing the lives of thousands of the worst criminals -- murderers, deserters, etc. -- to save at least ten times as many good men. (Although I do think that it's wrong to not inform the bridgemen that their true purpose is to act as bait.) Now, we know that a lot of the men in Bridge 4 were falsely accused, and addicts like Teft should have gotten treatment, not punishment. But if bridge crews had been a real-life phenomenon, the men in them would actually have deserved their sentences. Some might argue that, considering the Alethi social structure and their justice system, there's no way to ensure that any darkeyes assigned to a bridge crew received a fair sentence. However, this seems to me a greater testament to the necessity of social justice reform in Vorin societies than to the immorality of bridge crews. All the reflection we get on this system of Sadeas's is from the perspective of Kaladin, who is much too close to the issue to offer a fair and objective analysis. I will counter my own argument with this: in Judaism, we have something called a minyan, which is when a group of 10 men pray together in shul, the idea being that 10 voices together is greater than the sum of their parts. (I promise this is relevant to the point; I'll get there eventually. I bring up this story not for religious purposes, but for philosophical ones -- somewhat like Talmudic study.) This concept comes from a very specific story (and I might have some of the details wrong here, so I ask any fellow Jews to forgive my inaccuracies) in which God, frustrated with the wicked ways of humanity, decides to destroy Israel and everyone in it, then make the world anew -- a similar start to that of the story of Noah's Ark. However, God's prophet intervenes, asking: "if I can find a thousand holy men in this land, will you spare it all on their behalf?" God answers that He will. The prophet asks the same about a hundred men, and then about 10, and God again answers with the affirmative. When God's prophet asks if God will spare Jerusalem on the behalf of one holy man, God says no; and thus the concept of 10 being the number of voices preferable (although not necessary) to reach God's ears with a strong message was born. Here's how this relates to the bridge crews: is it worth saving x number of men if you must kill a tenth of that number? The fact that 10 good men are enough to save Jerusalem makes me think that the ratio of 1:10 might have moral significance, so the person who sends men to their deaths to save 10 times as many might live would be on the wrong moral ground, according to this story. I guess the point of this post is just to spark discussion; I'd love to hear other opinions so that I can move this debate outside of my head.
  21. Okay, question for y'all: if I explain more about the situation that the dragons are in and how they got there/why they're there, would it make the prologue more useful? Because it still wouldn't detract from the plot of the novel, and I think the ending would make more sense. (I'd be careful about info-dumping, of course.)
  22. I am in a slam poetry club, but I'm no good at performance, so I do only written. But I help others with their poems and they help me with mine. Well, I'm glad it seems like a poem? If it didn't, I'd have a much bigger problem on my hands. Thanks for pointing out the weird wordings, all. I'll continue smoothing the rhythms for Seashell Creatures. As for the prologue: it seems that, if I do want to keep it, it should be simplified and moved to a different location? I'll keep that in mind as I plan. I do like the idea of it being an epic poem, although I don't know exactly how I'd incorporate that since this happens so far away from the book's main setting. Zahra isn't the PoV character in this story -- there are two, a dragon and a human, but she is a character about halfway through the book. As for your comment, Sarah -- yeah, this definitely isn't a classic poem. I follow more modern trends, and I tried playing with stanza length on purpose, but I think it comes down to personal preference here. I have been trying to figure out how to make it feel more rhythmic, though.
  23. No, we didn't get a discussion of it in WoK, we got Kaladin's thoughts on it. I'm just trying to talk about it with more than one person, and yes, it is an irreversible dilemma. Sadeas is in a war. Granted, it's a war he started, and I believe he was wrong to do it. But it's still his responsibility to preserve as many lives as he can, and we're not even debating about the bridge crews anymore; you're just nitpicking my language. I wanted to have an intelligent discussion about the morality of the bridge crews, and we've gotten into a pissing contest about criminal justice. This is not what this thread was supposed to be about.
  24. It might fill you with disgust, but it's a necessary choice. My point is that no, this isn't some absurd situation where you must decide the fate of two people, but an irreversible dilemma that will still be an issue regardless of whether or not you're filled with disgust about it. Your personal feelings are irrelevant if the lives of thousands are at stake -- and before we return to the "do bridge crews really save lives?" question again, which is a pointless argument, let's just assume that said thousands are at stake. Your argument boils down to you not wanting the guilt weighing down on you, the blood on your hands. That isn't a good reason. You're missing the point here: it's not about their criminal status, it's about the ratio of lives you lose to live you save. Just because you'll feel sad about it doesn't mean you shouldn't do it.
  25. Again, this answers a different question than the one I asked, and I can't see us ever getting anywhere debating it because, again, we don't have numbers. So are you saying that you would rather kill the normal man than the murderer? Because I don't believe in the death penalty, but I also don't believe that anyone would actually chose to save the bad person over the good one.