Search the Community

In Kelsier's epilogue, he and Sazed discuss whether or not Sazed should lead the people of Scadrial to a technological revolution. Sazed states that it's better for the people to discover things on their own. Kelsier counters the conflict wouldn't have happened if the people of Scadrial had been more advanced. Sazed has admitted previously that he thinks he's made things to easy for the people of the Basin, and that's why they haven't advanced as much as he'd expected. But if he'd given them the technology, they wouldn't need to discover it. Who's beliefs are more valid? Personally, I think Sazed's opinion is more valid. This resonates with several other fictional sources I'm fond of, and I think it's true. In Stormlight Archives, Dalinar discusses with one of his ardents the value of growing stronger through adversity, both as an individual and as a people. And the two discussions resonate, I think. Beyond that, the concept of people valuing things they've earned over what they've been given is something that's often explored in literature and other media. And that appreciation affects how they treat whatever it is. Be it technology, peace, or even financial wealth. Right now, Sazed says he puts people where they need to be, but allows them to make their own decisions. That's not a bad approach, all things considered. Perhaps Sazed could help nudge people in the right direction a little, but just giving the secrets away seems unwise. Hand outs are dangerous, because people can start to rely on them very easily, and because once it happens a first time, it's much harder to argue against doing it a second time. Teach a man to fish, and all that.