Kanubis Posted February 15, 2012 Report Share Posted February 15, 2012 (edited) Hi, I've just finished the Mistborn trilogy and although I rally enjoyed them (he sure can conjure up an original setting) one aspect has been playing on my mind, and I thought that a dedicated fan forum would be the best place to get some... I don't know, closure? Anyway... The skaa. Their plight is such a focus in the first book. In fact, them being treated like rust is the first thing we see. But as the series draws to a close it seems to get forgotten in a swamp of sympathy for the Lord Ruler and a lot of respect, albeit grudging, for nobles who happily participated in the 'rape & murder' relationship he set down. The final verdict on the Lord Ruler seems to be very much that he started out with good intentions. The Ashmounts and crappy brown foliage were the best he could do with the powers he was granted. And yet it explicitly states that he created the Skaa immediately, and never explains why an underclass that would suffer a lifetime of abuse and terror were in any way a necessity for his plan against Ruin. We know that the noble class weren't created from his friends, because they become the Kandra, so it was nepotism. Likewise, the nobles who are 'ok really when you see it from their point of view.' Like King Yomen. Sanderson oozes empathy for this character. Yes, yes, the skaa feel abandoned by a loss of structure. But even if we accept that it's ok for them to stay in the role of servile underclass, we're never told why we should have even the smallest ounce of positive feeling for a person who can condone the frequent rape, murder and subjugation of a people that even if they were designed 'inferior' clearly have full sentience and the capacity to feel love, fear, pain and loss as much as any noble. Maybe I missed something, but at the end of it all Sanderson seemed more concerned with making us see how the Skaa/Noble dynamic was ok or at least understandable by trying to make us empathise with characters like Yomen, than he did with demonising the horrific treatment they received. It left a bit of a sour taste to be honest. Have I missed something that puts this in a different perspective? Thanks in advance... Quick edit: Love the funky metal symbols next to each thread! Edited February 15, 2012 by Kanubis 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReaderAt2046 Posted February 15, 2012 Report Share Posted February 15, 2012 Hi, I've just finished the Mistborn trilogy and although I rally enjoyed them (he sure can conjure up an original setting) one aspect has been playing on my mind, and I thought that a dedicated fan forum would be the best place to get some... I don't know, closure? Anyway... The skaa. Their plight is such a focus in the first book. In fact, them being treated like rust is the first thing we see. But as the series draws to a close it seems to get forgotten in a swamp of sympathy for the Lord Ruler and a lot of respect, albeit grudging, for nobles who happily participated in the 'rape & murder' relationship he set down. The final verdict on the Lord Ruler seems to be very much that he started out with good intentions. The Ashmounts and crappy brown foliage were the best he could do with the powers he was granted. And yet it explicitly states that he created the Skaa immediately, and never explains why an underclass that would suffer a lifetime of abuse and terror were in any way a necessity for his plan against Ruin. We know that the noble class weren't created from his friends, because they become the Kandra, so it was nepotism. Likewise, the nobles who are 'ok really when you see it from their point of view.' Like King Yomen. Sanderson oozes empathy for this character. Yes, yes, the skaa feel abandoned by a loss of structure. But even if we accept that it's ok for them to stay in the role of servile underclass, we're never told why we should have even the smallest ounce of positive feeling for a person who can condone the frequent rape, murder and subjugation of a people that even if they were designed 'inferior' clearly have full sentience and the capacity to feel love, fear, pain and loss as much as any noble. Maybe I missed something, but at the end of it all Sanderson seemed more concerned with making us see how the Skaa/Noble dynamic was ok or at least understandable by trying to make us empathise with characters like Yomen, than he did with demonising the horrific treatment they received. It left a bit of a sour taste to be honest. Have I missed something that puts this in a different perspective? Thanks in advance... Quick edit: Love the funky metal symbols next to each thread! I think Brandon was trying to get us to see that Rashek and the nobles weren't demons. I agree with you that a lot of what the nobles did was bad, and I think any of the decent ones would agree too. But they weren't unredeemables like kelsier and quellion thought. In short, the nobles are people too. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts