The Nightwatcher: Odium and Cultivation's Cognitive Dance

[Confused]

"Oh! I love to climb a mountain,
And to reach the highest peak,
But it doesn't thrill me half as much
As dancing cheek to cheek."

 

- "Dancing Cheek to Cheek," Irving Berlin, from the1935 movie Top Hat, starring Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers

 

 

THE FOLLOWING IS SPECULATION ABOUT THE NIGHTWATCHER. PLEASE READ IT AS SUCH.

 

 

I believe there are several bars to the "prison" that binds Odium to Greater Roshar. The Nightwatcher is one such bar, the Cognitive Realm bar.

 

Somehow Honor bound Odium’s and Cultivation’s consciousness together – a cognitive prison like Ruin’s was on Scadrial. Honor intended these restraints to limit Odium’s Physical Realm power to the creation of cognitive curses as part of the Nightwatcher. With his mind thus limited, Odium cannot otherwise direct his power. (See the “Origin of the Cosmere” post.) Honor must bind the other Shards together because neither Cultivation nor Odium on their own can forge such bonds (even if they wanted to).

 

1. Renarin calls the Nightwatcher a “powerful spren” (WoK, Kindle p. 735), as do Jasnah (WoR, Kindle, p. 71), Shallan (ibid, pp. 108, 309), and Sigzil (ibid, p. 469). [i envision a distorted “Adam and Eve” story (especially in view of Brandon’s apparent interest in Paradise Lost): instead of Satan tempting Adam through Eve, Honor tempts Odium through Cultivation, springing Honor’s trap. (Maybe…? But the trap was somehow sprung.)] The Nightwatcher’s characterization as a “spren,” if accurate, identifies it as cognitive investiture manifesting in the Physical Realm. See “A Confused Guide to Spren” and "Why Radiant Spren Are Not Sapient Until They Bond.")

 

2. Evidence of my assertion is the one known example of a Nightwatcher boon: the granting of “heaps of cloth” to Av’s father (in the WoK “Baxil” interlude (I-7)). Av’s father sold that cloth and saved his family during the “lurnip famine.” Av says the Nightwatcher gives people what they “deserve,” regardless of what they ask for or how they ask. That observation is consistent with Cultivation’s Survival mandate. Unlike Odium, whose power is limited to cognitive curses, Cultivation is free to help people Survive in the Physical Realm. (I don’t think it’s been confirmed whether Shshshsh is Dalinar’s boon or curse. If it’s his boon, then the forgetfulness helps him move on with his life...Survival.)

 

3. I describe Odium’s Physical Realm power as limited to “cognitive curses” because they all occur in the mind. Dalinar forgets Shshshsh’s name (if it IS his curse); Av’s father sees the world upside down; his brother loses the ability to feel his hands (a perception issue, since Av didn’t say his brother couldn’t use his hands).

 

There's been tons of speculation about the Nightwatcher. How does this theory fly?

Edited August 25, 2015 by Confused

[hoser]

Interesting. 

• Honor and Cultivation are romantic partners and Tanavast honored her by pairing her mind to the spirit of hatred.  It would be a noble sacrifice if he was the one bound, but to do it to another seems off to me. 
• Odium splinters Shards left and right, but does not pick up their power for fear that it will change him.  But he somehow allows Tanavast to tie his mind to another's in a way that limits him. 

The theory seems creative and interesting, but it seems contrary to the little we know about how Honor and Odium work to me.

[Frosted Flakes]

Upvoted simply because I had never considered that Shshshsh might be Dalinar's boon rather than his curse.

[Alfa]

The theory is interesting (upvote), but I think that won't be what Honor will do. Journey before destination. It is not a very first-ideal-conform way to bind your lover and friendly shard to your enemy (both on personal and shardic level), even if this prevents something catastrophal. I believe Preservation would be able to do this, he was never the Shard that was completely against collateral damage; Honor certainly not.

 

But probably, if we can look on it the other way around: What if the nightwatcher is a bar on Odiums prison crafted not by Honor, but by Cultivation herself. I am quite sure, that cultivation knows exactly, that Odium wants to kill her. Storm, she knows, that he killed three Shards more, than anyone other in the Cosmere. And: the nightwatcher is a very "cultivated" way to spread Odium's curses over the world. They are limited in number, in power and in almost everything else; control pure - exactly a Cultivation-like behaviour.

[DreamEternal]

I disagree with this theory. Curses do not go against Cultivation's mandate(wich I think is growth, rather than survival), since they are a way of forcing change and adaptation. You must remenber the Nightwatcher only gives curses as a price for her boons and gives people what she thinks they deserve, so in this case it is more about mantaining simmetry than tormenting people. Come to the Nightwatcher and ask for what you need, but don't bother her unless you are sure you can't do othereise, or you know you will be able to put your boon to good use.

[Confused]

OP objections focus on my view of Shardic "mandates" (intents). I'll address your objections on that basis.

 

I see Honor’s mandate (intent) as “Relationships,” enabling Rosharan bonding. I do not believe either Cultivation (which may enable rudimentary bonds) or Odium (which can’t bond at all, IMO) by themselves can produce the kind of complex life we see on Roshar. (See the “Mandates of the Known Shards” thread.)

 

Many of you, however, see Honor’s mandate as more akin to the Shard’s name. You emphasize Syl’s self-description as an “honorspren,” which includes “nobility.”

 

The responses to my “Honor Caused the Desolations” post conclude “Honor” would never do such a thing. Hoser says the same thing here. I feel this view falls into an anthropomorphic trap: it assumes Honor favors humans. (This is ironic, since even Kaladin observes how much more “honorable” listeners are than humans.)

 

I suggest the opposite. I believe Odium herded humans to Roshar by pogroms and wars on their home planets. To protect Rosharan humanoid life (the listeners) from destructive land-grabbing humans, Honor (and Cultivation) caused Desolations, to “prune back” the results of the human invasions. The Oathpact was Honor’s choice to the Heralds: fight against “Voidbringers” – which I think includes Odium-influenced humans - or I, Honor, will kill all humans.

 

What question does “honorable” Kaladin always ask: “Can you kill to protect?” I believe that’s exactly what Honor and Cultivation are doing with the Desolations – they are killing to protect. (Not the case with the "True Desolation," though, which clearly is from Odium only.)

 

You don’t have to agree with my overarching view of the narrative to recognize that Honor may want to help honorable sentient creatures in preference to humans. Even if you think a former human (as we believe Tanavast was) WOULD prefer to help humans more than listeners, doesn’t creating Odium’s prison accomplish that? Would it be better for humans if Honor and Cultivation simply allowed Odium free rein on both Roshar and elsewhere in the Cosmere? Where does Honor lie?

 

In my description of the Shards’ mandates, I mention that Cultivation and Odium work well together. Odium, whose mandate I believe is Aggression, provides the “survival of the fittest” component to Cultivation’s mandate of Survival. I don’t think Cultivation would hesitate to cognitively embrace Odium. It suits her. And her mandate would compel her to expend investiture to ensure Survival.

 

Which brings me to your comments, CPP… [One more “P” and you could pretend you’re Chris Paul of the Clippers – “CP III.”] I note that you, Shaggai and Kaellok each make a similar point on the “Mandates” thread mentioned above, about Cultivation's mandate being "growth."

 

I explain there why mere “growth” is inadequate to fully encompass Cultivation’s nature. Among other things, the word “growth” doesn’t account for the decay and recycling of organic material that “growth” requires. “Growth” and “death” are not synonyms, but death must occur for “growth” to happen. The absence of this “decay” component in the word “growth” is why I believe it is too limiting to describe Cultivation’s mandate. (And why, Shaggai, “flourishing” or “improvement” aren’t the right words either.)

 

You and I, CPP, further disagree about the nature of boons and curses. There seems to be no relationship between them. You state the curse is the “price” of the boon. If that were true, then the better the boon the worse the curse. We have no evidence of any such relationship; only that the Nightwatcher does grant a boon and curse.

 

[An unimportant observation, not necessary to your argument or mine, but why are curses any more likely than boons to “forc[e] change and adaptation”? (Or for that matter, anything else…EVERYTHING causes change, unless your name is “Preservation.”)]

 

The OP’s point, though, is that, in each case, the curse is cognitive; it occurs in the mind. That is not true of the boon. The difference both in the nature of the magic gifted and the manner in which it is gifted – boons vs. curses, physical vs. cognitive – provides evidence of my assertion that the Nightwatcher is part of what binds Odium to Greater Roshar.

[Alfa]

Honor does not seem to be a Shard which says: serve me or I will destroy your race. It is absolutely not first-ideal conform. I also think, that Honor's mandate is far more than only relationships. It includes the Ideals of the Radiants. We know, that bring people together is one of them, but there are also more; about protecting the weak, remembering the forgotten and following laws. Also, one point is (Kaladin and Dalinar have both their struggles with it) to let people make their own decisions.

 

I believe, that Honor could bind Odium and Cultivation together. But he would not do it, if it won't be Cultivation's wish for it. I am not quite sure, that Cultivation will have a wish for it. Cultivation and Honor could get along till the point, where Odium will splinter her.

 

Next: Honor does not prefer Humans. He only protects them during the desolations, most likely because the 2nd Ideal of the Windrunners. Desolation - even the name seems related to Odium, who, as you said, could not bind things together at all. Also, we know, that the Desolation-related Stormform of the Parshendi is absolutely not honorable. Eshonai was about to starting a massacre on those who disagreed with her. I think it is not that Honor prefers Humans but that Odium prefers Parshendi in certain forms. I am sure, that the Listener forms correspond with certain Shards: Warform is likely from Honor (look at their behaviour), Workform probably from Cultivation, and Stormform (and other Godforms) from the Unmade/Odium.

[hoser]

These posts are very interesting and creative.  With a foundation of ignoring what we know of Brandon's world, it seems that you are spinning off into your own fantasy.  That's fine, but it gets confusing for me when you assert that it is similar to Brandon's Cosmere.

OP objections focus on my view of Shardic "mandates" (intents). I'll address your objections on that basis.

 

I see Honor’s mandate (intent) as “Relationships,” enabling Rosharan bonding. I do not believe either Cultivation (which may enable rudimentary bonds) or Odium (which can’t bond at all, IMO) by themselves can produce the kind of complex life we see on Roshar. (See the “Mandates of the Known Shards” thread.)

 

Many of you, however, see Honor’s mandate as more akin to the Shard’s name. You emphasize Syl’s self-description as an “honorspren,” which includes “nobility.”

 

The responses to my “Honor Caused the Desolations” post conclude “Honor” would never do such a thing. Hoser says the same thing here. I feel this view falls into an anthropomorphic trap: it assumes Honor favors humans. (This is ironic, since even Kaladin observes how much more “honorable” listeners are than humans.)

The Shards have been very carefully named in meaningful ways relating to their intent.  Honor is not called "Relationships."  Relationships is not even close to a synonym for honor.  Any logic based upon the idea that "Honor" means "Relationships" is claptrap. 

 

EDIT (added this paragraph): Further, connecting Honor as the enabler of Rosharan bonding seems strange given what we know about the planet.  We know that it was invested by Adonalsium at one time.  It has a wide variety of creatures that are dependent on bonds, including the Parshendi, who are barely sentient without them.  The Parshendi apparently predate the humans, who arrived with Honor and Cultivation.  To me, it is apparent that the bonds predate Honor on Roshar, with Adonalsium possibly involved in the creation of the Parshendi and bonding in general. 

 

Responding to a post of mine that isn't even in this thread seems impossibly confusing. 

 

In this thread, I suggested that tying his romantic partner to Odium would not be in line with Honor's interests or intent.  I think the element of romantic partner trumps concerns of race by so much that the comment about anthropomorphic trap is more claptrap. 

 

Using Kaladin's observation comparing an Odiously-influenced human army to Odium-free warforms long after Honor has been splintered shows that someone has fallen into the trap of assuming that all humans represent Honor long after he is gone.  It also falls into the trap of assuming that all Parshendi are like the warforms. 

 

OP ...

 

I suggest the opposite. I believe Odium herded humans to Roshar by pogroms and wars on their home planets. To protect Rosharan humanoid life (the listeners) from destructive land-grabbing humans, Honor (and Cultivation) caused Desolations, to “prune back” the results of the human invasions. The Oathpact was Honor’s choice to the Heralds: fight against “Voidbringers” – which I think includes Odium-influenced humans - or I, Honor, will kill all humans.

 

What question does “honorable” Kaladin always ask: “Can you kill to protect?” I believe that’s exactly what Honor and Cultivation are doing with the Desolations – they are killing to protect. (Not the case with the "True Desolation," though, which clearly is from Odium only.)

This is contradicted by much of what we know: Word of Brandon, the visions sent by Honor and the Listeners own visions.   Here are just a few of many examples:

 Interview: Mar 11th, 2014

WoR Signing Report - Awesomeness Summoned (Verbatim)

Question

Are the Parshendi of Odium?

Brandon Sanderson

Not originally.

Question

Are the Parshendi of Cultivation?

Brandon Sanderson

Not originally.

Question

Are the Parshendi of Honor?

Brandon Sanderson

No.

 

 

“I miss these times,” Taffa said. Dalinar jumped. That voice wasn’t hers. It was a man’s voice, deep and powerful. It was the voice that spoke to him during every vision. “Who are you?” Dalinar asked. “They were one, once,” Taffa— or whatever it was— said. “The orders. Men. Not without problems or strife, of course. But focused.”

Sanderson, Brandon (2010-08-31). The Way of Kings (The Stormlight Archive) (p. 307). Tom Doherty Associates. Kindle Edition.

Edited August 26, 2015 by hoser

[Confused]

Wow! Hosed by Hoser! What an “Honor”!

 

I’m not sure where to begin. I seemed to have touched a sore spot with my reference to an “anthropomorphic trap.” I did not mean to offend you, Hoser. I used the phrase to highlight the general tendency to assume that Honor is the “good guy.” (If you look again at my comment, I was not focusing on you, even though I referenced your post on this thread.) Honor may be a good guy, and nothing I suggest counters that. But that doesn’t mean he must always wear a “white hat” from everyone’s perspective. No one is a hero to everyone, not even the Almighty.

 

My posts are generally pure speculation. They’re interpretive. THEY CAN’T BE “WRONG” except in two ways: (i) an actual factual error, or (ii) internal inconsistency. I am grateful for any help with these types of mistakes. If you simply disagree with my maundering, as you appear to, that’s okay too. We all have different points of view, but none of these views are “wrong” except for factual errors and internal inconsistencies.

 

I am trying to formulate a comprehensive, overarching theory of SLA, on very little evidence. “Brandon’s world” hardly has a “foundation” yet, so I feel entitled to my “fantasy” as you put it. I’ve parceled out dribs and drabs of my theory over the weeks. Because of the paucity of evidence, the likelihood of my being correct is the same as Schrodinger’s Cat being both alive and dead.

 

If you disagree with my conclusions, fine. Just state not only your alternative, but how you fit that alternative into a comprehensive storyline, spelled out in detail. If you think “Honor” means “honor,” explain how and why the magic acts as it does, how it supports the narrative, how it interacts with the other Shards. What are the natural consequences of concluding as you do?

 

If all people want to do in these forums is state the easy and obvious, I leave folks to it. But if one wants to understand the direction of Brandon’s thinking, one needs to experiment. One needs to change up and consider things upside down, backwards, inside out, and every which way. Your life like mine may be Confused, but it will never be boring…Who knows, you may even learn something along the way.

 

To your specific comments:

 

Shard Names

 

“The Shards have been very carefully named in meaningful ways relating to their intent.  Honor is not called ‘Relationships.’ Relationships is not even close to a synonym for honor.  Any logic based upon the idea that ‘Honor’ means ‘Relationships’ is claptrap.” 

 

[Aside about the word “claptrap.” It’s a wonderful word and properly used throughout your post. (Maybe a bit harsh, but whatever.) I do conjure up a different image when I picture a “claptrap,” one not intended by you or its actual definition…]

 

You observe the “care” Brandon takes in naming the Shards. I agree. It’s hard to find a one-word descriptor for a mandate that is both specific enough to capture the concept and broad enough to encompass all the ways that mandate changes a Shard’s expression of its power. I err in favor of the latter by focusing on what a Shard DOES rather than what it’s named.

 

I do not propose that “’Honor’ means ‘Relationships’.” But when you consider what Honor DOES – using his investiture to forge various kinds of relationships – it’s not a bad choice. If you can come up with a different word than “Relationships” to express the same concept, I’m okay with that. “What’s in a name…?”

 

Before you do, however, let’s review what the word “honor” actually means. The following comes from the online Merriam-Webster Dictionary. I copied this whole and made no changes or omissions:

 

1 a :  good name or public esteem :  reputation

b :  a showing of usually merited respect :  recognition <pay honor to our founder>

 

2:  privilege <had the honor of joining the captain for dinner>

 

3:  a person of superior standing —now used especially as a title for a holder of high office <if Your Honor please>

 

4:  one whose worth brings respect or fame :  credit <an honor to the profession>

 

5:  the center point of the upper half of an armorial escutcheon

 

6:  an evidence or symbol of distinction: as

a :  an exalted title or rank

b (1) :  badge, decoration (2) :  a ceremonial rite or observance <buried with full military honors>

c :  an award in a contest or field of competition

d archaic :  a gesture of deference :  bow

e plural (1) :  an academic distinction conferred on a superior student (2) :  a course of study for superior students supplementing or replacing a regular course

 

7:  chastity, purity <fought fiercely for her honor and her life — Barton Black>

 

8 a :  a keen sense of ethical conduct :  integrity <a man of honor>

b :  one's word given as a guarantee of performance <on my honor, I will be there>

 

9 plural :  social courtesies or civilities extended by a host <asked her to do the honors>

 

10 a (1) :  an ace, king, queen, jack, or ten especially of the trump suit in bridge (2) :  the scoring value of honors held in bridge —usually used in plural

b :  the privilege of playing first from the tee in golf

 

Please note that NONE of the definitions you suggest apply UNTIL YOU GET TO NUMBER 8: “a keen sense of ethical conduct: integrity.” Even “chastity” is used more often as a definition than “integrity.”

 

I further note that my “definition” (which it really isn’t) doesn’t appear at all on this list. Point for you. I, however, concede that the word (not the concept) can be improved. You insist on an 8^th-level definition. That suggests Brandon intends something more than “mere” integrity as Honor’s mandate.

 

As I say elsewhere, mandates should be viewed abstractly. If you tie them down too literally, they will not encompass the broad swathe of human behavior they appear designed to represent.

 

Rosharan Bonding

 

“Further, connecting Honor as the enabler of Rosharan bonding seems strange given what we know about the planet.  We know that it was invested by Adonalsium at one time.  It has a wide variety of creatures that are dependent on bonds, including the Parshendi, who are barely sentient without them.  The Parshendi apparently predate the humans, who arrived with Honor and Cultivation.  To me, it is apparent that the bonds predate Honor on Roshar, with Adonalsium possibly involved in the creation of the Parshendi and bonding in general.”

 

Yes, bonding predates the Shards’ arrival on Roshar. Everything a Shard can do Adonalsium could do. I agree with everything you say in this paragraph, except your statement that Parshmen are “barely sentient.” I would say they are clearly sentient, but barely sapient. Not a big deal…

 

I just don’t see your point’s relevance, now that Adonalsium has been Shattered. Are you suggesting that bonds are now impossible on Roshar, that the only bonds we see pre-exist the Shattering? I have to assume that’s not your argument, given Syl’s self-description.

 

Of the three Shards, would you agree that Odium does not bond? I see Rayse as a grizzled, cunning lone wolf who’s not much of a pack animal. You can make a case for Cultivation causing bonds, but I think she’s limited to simple bonds, the kind that enable sentient spren like windpsren, lifespren, and riverspren. (See “Why Spren Are Not Sapient Until They Bond.”) Who else but Honor, creator of the Oathpact, would have the ability to forge bonds? That’s one reason I describe his mandate as “Relationships.”

 

Honor Is “Good”

 

“Responding to a post of mine that isn't even in this thread seems impossibly confusing.”

 

I want to quote again the passage in my post that you object to, to put your objection in context:

 

“The responses to my “Honor Caused the Desolations” post conclude “Honor” would never do such a thing. Hoser says the same thing here. I feel this view falls into an anthropomorphic trap: it assumes Honor favors humans. (This is ironic, since even Kaladin observes how much more “honorable” listeners are than humans.)”

 

First, there is no post by you in the cited thread. The quoted language alludes to all the people on that thread who disagreed with me for the same reasons you do here. That’s all I said.

 

Second, I consider that “view” to be an “anthropomorphic trap.” Yes, you share that view, but the comment was not directed at you personally. And the fact that I consider it a “trap” doesn’t mean I’m correct. But it’s a bias everyone should be alert to avoiding.

 

Vine and Romance

 

“In this thread, I suggested that tying his romantic partner to Odium would not be in line with Honor's interests or intent.  I think the element of romantic partner trumps concerns of race by so much that the comment about anthropomorphic trap is more claptrap.”

 

Well…whether romance trumps race is an interesting question. Fortunately, it’s not presented here.

 

First, I agree that Tanavast’s and nee-Cultivation’s romance would survive their ascension, because “thoughts and personalities” were not originally attached to the powers according to Sazed. (HoA.) The “persons who became Shards” added them. If these two loved each other before, that love would continue in Shardic form (unless it was only physical…)

 

Second, are you suggesting lovers never work together for an important purpose that risks their lives? A lover will never put the other lover into danger to protect the Cosmere from Odium’s rapacity? “Roman[ce] trumps” all, including Armageddon? Your argument assumes that Cultivation was not an equal partner in this decision. It further assumes that Cultivation’s close contact with Odium somehow impairs her power or is undesirable in some way. Our only evidence is to the contrary: Cultivation can do what she wants as the Nightwatcher, but Odium is limited to cognitive curses. And Odium’s Aggression mandate is very compatible with Cultivation’s, leading to natural selection and the evolution of new life forms.

 

Third (and less seriously), I’ve observed that “old married’s” change their relationship over time. The widow of Mao Zedong, herself one of the Gang of Four who fomented China’s Cultural Revolution, once described marriage as (paraphrasing) “after the sex, there is only the power.” Very apt for Shards.

 

Honor Among the Parshendi

 

“Using Kaladin's observation comparing an Odiously-influenced human army to Odium-free warforms long after Honor has been splintered shows that someone has fallen into the trap of assuming that all humans represent Honor long after he is gone.  It also falls into the trap of assuming that all Parshendi are like the warforms.”

 

Thank you, Hoser, for making my point for me. Yes! Humans are “Odiously-influenced” and listeners before stormform are not! (I’m using the word “listeners” rather than “Parshendi” because the latter is a human word – once again I’m highlighting your anthro-centrism (JK).)

 

I’m not saying ALL humans are influenced by Odium. I’ve never said that, and it’s self-evidently not true. But Kaladin observes humans are fighting wars all over Roshar. As Honor tells Dalinar in one of the visions, Odium came to realize that humans could create discord on their own. Odium doesn’t need to nudge them much.

 

I assume that listener warform would be more Odium-influenced, not less, than other forms. Warform is Aggressive, matching (what I believe is) Odium’s mandate. Even earth humans believe war suspends normal notions of decency (to a point – past that point, it’s a war crime). That listeners maintain their “honor” in warform is even MORE impressive.

 

Parshendi Are Not “of Honor”

 

I’ve read this WoB. Brandon implies that Adonalsium created the listeners, and sometime later Cultivation and Odium invested in them as well. Honor did not.

 

What is your point? That because Honor did not invest in listeners, they cannot act “honorably”? We agree that Adonalsium could do everything any Shard can. Doesn’t that suggest listeners were MADE “honorable” by Adonalsium? They clearly acted with “honor” on the battlefield as you define it.

 

Cultivation added her investiture through some of the listener forms. Mateform must involve spren from Cultivation, for example. And we know stormspren and the “God-forms” come from Odium. I think it’s irrelevant that Honor didn’t also invest in them.

 

Conclusion

 

Hoser, we obviously disagree on this stuff. That’s what keeps the Forum interesting. But I do urge you to formulate your own theory before saying “this can’t be” or “that’s wrong.” Theory is about fitting pieces together in a predictive way. I look forward to seeing what you come up, and I promise not to yarp at you about it.

[hoser]

First of all, please accept my appreciation (and an upvote) for your patient response.  I appreciate that you are going on a deep dive.  I respect the attempt. 

I am personally not interested in deep diving, as I believe my projections would diverge too heavily from Brandon's reality.  I am interested in understanding the Cosmere and putting the related hints together to go one or two steps ahead, but not making an overall structure (bottom-up, rather than top-down, if you will).  So I have no interest and consider it absurd to ask me, as a critic who studies minutiae, to "Just state not only your alternative, but how you fit that alternative into a comprehensive storyline, spelled out in detail." as a precondition.  

The problems with your overarching theories may first show up as cracks in the foundation.  If the cracks are there, and I see them, it shouldn't matter whether I formulate my own overarching theories.  If the cracks in the foundation of your theory are present in Book Two, it is not hard to predict a collapse before very long. 

I can treat your theories like a shipping thread, where people are enjoying their projections and I am better off not referring to the most likely extrapolation of the text, but I thought you were aiming for an accurate projection.  Please let me know if you want me to treat your theories with the kid gloves that I use for shipping.  If that is so, I apologize for all my comments about them and will do my best to refrain from further analysis. 

Wow! Hosed by Hoser! What an “Honor”!

 

I’m not sure where to begin. I seemed to have touched a sore spot with my reference to an “anthropomorphic trap.” I did not mean to offend you, Hoser. I used the phrase to highlight the general tendency to assume that Honor is the “good guy.” (If you look again at my comment, I was not focusing on you, even though I referenced your post on this thread.) Honor may be a good guy, and nothing I suggest counters that. But that doesn’t mean he must always wear a “white hat” from everyone’s perspective. No one is a hero to everyone, not even the Almighty.

I made a specific criticism.  I can understand that you integrate the various criticisms of your theories and amalgamate them.  I challenge you to disintegrate your response to specifically answer the criticism presented.  Responding to my specific comment and calling me out by handle with your general defense boilerplate seems like bad manners to me, particularly when it does not really apply. 

If Honor is causing the Desolations, it is hard to see him as a good guy from any perspective.  If he just wanted to stop humans from encroaching on the listeners, there are many solution that are less contemptible and more "honor"able. 

Wow! Hosed by Hoser! What an “Honor”!

...

My posts are generally pure speculation. They’re interpretive. THEY CAN’T BE “WRONG” except in two ways: (i) an actual factual error, or (ii) internal inconsistency. I am grateful for any help with these types of mistakes. If you simply disagree with my maundering, as you appear to, that’s okay too. We all have different points of view, but none of these views are “wrong” except for factual errors and internal inconsistencies.

 

I am trying to formulate a comprehensive, overarching theory of SLA, on very little evidence. “Brandon’s world” hardly has a “foundation” yet, so I feel entitled to my “fantasy” as you put it. I’ve parceled out dribs and drabs of my theory over the weeks. Because of the paucity of evidence, the likelihood of my being correct is the same as Schrodinger’s Cat being both alive and dead.

 

If you disagree with my conclusions, fine. Just state not only your alternative, but how you fit that alternative into a comprehensive storyline, spelled out in detail. If you think “Honor” means “honor,” explain how and why the magic acts as it does, how it supports the narrative, how it interacts with the other Shards. What are the natural consequences of concluding as you do?

 

If all people want to do in these forums is state the easy and obvious, I leave folks to it. But if one wants to understand the direction of Brandon’s thinking, one needs to experiment. One needs to change up and consider things upside down, backwards, inside out, and every which way. Your life like mine may be Confused, but it will never be boring…Who knows, you may even learn something along the way.

I do not see your posts as "pure speculation."  They seem to me to be based on the text that Brandon has written.  Various evidence is filtered, integrated, weighed and judged to fit into patterns that attempt to flesh out the structure behind the presented surface.  If the filtering, judgements, integration or weighting is wrong, then the structure may not be accurate. 

Claiming that your posts can only be criticized for factual inaccuracy or internal inconsistency seems like a defensive trap to me.  If you are attempting to understand Brandon's Cosmere, your filtering, integration, weighting and judgements are all legitimate grounds for criticism.  Referring to Schroedinger's Cat is in fact a red herring, because we do have a lot of data to work with in addition to great uncertainty. 

As I said above, demanding that your critics come up with their own overarching theories seems like just another defensive trap to me.  If the criticism is legitimate, why does it need to be attached to a grand and almost certainly incorrect facade?

Wow! Hosed by Hoser! What an “Honor”!

...

To your specific comments:

 

Shard Names

 

“The Shards have been very carefully named in meaningful ways relating to their intent.  Honor is not called ‘Relationships.’ Relationships is not even close to a synonym for honor.  Any logic based upon the idea that ‘Honor’ means ‘Relationships’ is claptrap.” 

 

[Aside about the word “claptrap.” It’s a wonderful word and properly used throughout your post. (Maybe a bit harsh, but whatever.) I do conjure up a different image when I picture a “claptrap,” one not intended by you or its actual definition…]

 

You observe the “care” Brandon takes in naming the Shards. I agree. It’s hard to find a one-word descriptor for a mandate that is both specific enough to capture the concept and broad enough to encompass all the ways that mandate changes a Shard’s expression of its power. I err in favor of the latter by focusing on what a Shard DOES rather than what it’s named.

 

I do not propose that “’Honor’ means ‘Relationships’.” But when you consider what Honor DOES – using his investiture to forge various kinds of relationships – it’s not a bad choice. If you can come up with a different word than “Relationships” to express the same concept, I’m okay with that. “What’s in a name…?”

 

Before you do, however, let’s review what the word “honor” actually means. The following comes from the online Merriam-Webster Dictionary. I copied this whole and made no changes or omissions:

 

1 a :  good name or public esteem :  reputation

b :  a showing of usually merited respect :  recognition <pay honor to our founder>

 

2:  privilege <had the honor of joining the captain for dinner>

 

3:  a person of superior standing —now used especially as a title for a holder of high office <if Your Honor please>

 

4:  one whose worth brings respect or fame :  credit <an honor to the profession>

 

5:  the center point of the upper half of an armorial escutcheon

 

6:  an evidence or symbol of distinction: as

a :  an exalted title or rank

b (1) :  badge, decoration (2) :  a ceremonial rite or observance <buried with full military honors>

c :  an award in a contest or field of competition

d archaic :  a gesture of deference :  bow

e plural (1) :  an academic distinction conferred on a superior student (2) :  a course of study for superior students supplementing or replacing a regular course

 

7:  chastity, purity <fought fiercely for her honor and her life — Barton Black>

 

8 a :  a keen sense of ethical conduct :  integrity <a man of honor>

b :  one's word given as a guarantee of performance <on my honor, I will be there>

 

9 plural :  social courtesies or civilities extended by a host <asked her to do the honors>

 

10 a (1) :  an ace, king, queen, jack, or ten especially of the trump suit in bridge (2) :  the scoring value of honors held in bridge —usually used in plural

b :  the privilege of playing first from the tee in golf

 

Please note that NONE of the definitions you suggest apply UNTIL YOU GET TO NUMBER 8: “a keen sense of ethical conduct: integrity.” Even “chastity” is used more often as a definition than “integrity.”

 

I further note that my “definition” (which it really isn’t) doesn’t appear at all on this list. Point for you. I, however, concede that the word (not the concept) can be improved. You insist on an 8^th-level definition. That suggests Brandon intends something more than “mere” integrity as Honor’s mandate.

 

As I say elsewhere, mandates should be viewed abstractly. If you tie them down too literally, they will not encompass the broad swathe of human behavior they appear designed to represent.

I think that Honor's aspects are captured by the ten orders of Knights, while combining elements of Cultivation.  It is interesting that you choose a noun to describe Honor's actions, when Brandon chooses a verb: bind. 

While Syl focuses on a particular aspect of Honor, I doubt it is the eighth most significant one.  While the eighth definition most closely approximates good, the fourth and seventh (purity and chastity can be more than sexual abstinence) also overlap.  As others have pointed out, the first ideal points more to these definitions than the more formal and social aspects that predominate in Mirriam-Webster.  So evidence from Brandon's work is integrated with the title of the Shard to understand more clearly what Brandon means. 

Wow! Hosed by Hoser! What an “Honor”!

 

...

Rosharan Bonding

 

“Further, connecting Honor as the enabler of Rosharan bonding seems strange given what we know about the planet.  We know that it was invested by Adonalsium at one time.  It has a wide variety of creatures that are dependent on bonds, including the Parshendi, who are barely sentient without them.  The Parshendi apparently predate the humans, who arrived with Honor and Cultivation.  To me, it is apparent that the bonds predate Honor on Roshar, with Adonalsium possibly involved in the creation of the Parshendi and bonding in general.”

 

Yes, bonding predates the Shards’ arrival on Roshar. Everything a Shard can do Adonalsium could do. I agree with everything you say in this paragraph, except your statement that Parshmen are “barely sentient.” I would say they are clearly sentient, but barely sapient. Not a big deal…

 

I just don’t see your point’s relevance, now that Adonalsium has been Shattered. Are you suggesting that bonds are now impossible on Roshar, that the only bonds we see pre-exist the Shattering? I have to assume that’s not your argument, given Syl’s self-description.

 

Of the three Shards, would you agree that Odium does not bond? I see Rayse as a grizzled, cunning lone wolf who’s not much of a pack animal. You can make a case for Cultivation causing bonds, but I think she’s limited to simple bonds, the kind that enable sentient spren like windpsren, lifespren, and riverspren. (See “Why Spren Are Not Sapient Until They Bond.”) Who else but Honor, creator of the Oathpact, would have the ability to forge bonds? That’s one reason I describe his mandate as “Relationships.”

in this post, you said 'I see Honor’s mandate (intent) as “Relationships,” enabling Rosharan bonding.'  If, as we apparently agree, Rosharan bonding was enabled before Honor arrived and continues to be enabled independently of Honor, then the above quote does not make sense to me.  That was the entirety of my point. 

Wow! Hosed by Hoser! What an “Honor”!

 

...

Vine and Romance

 

“In this thread, I suggested that tying his romantic partner to Odium would not be in line with Honor's interests or intent.  I think the element of romantic partner trumps concerns of race by so much that the comment about anthropomorphic trap is more claptrap.”

 

Well…whether romance trumps race is an interesting question. Fortunately, it’s not presented here.

 

First, I agree that Tanavast’s and nee-Cultivation’s romance would survive their ascension, because “thoughts and personalities” were not originally attached to the powers according to Sazed. (HoA.) The “persons who became Shards” added them. If these two loved each other before, that love would continue in Shardic form (unless it was only physical…)

 

Second, are you suggesting lovers never work together for an important purpose that risks their lives? A lover will never put the other lover into danger to protect the Cosmere from Odium’s rapacity? “Roman[ce] trumps” all, including Armageddon? Your argument assumes that Cultivation was not an equal partner in this decision. It further assumes that Cultivation’s close contact with Odium somehow impairs her power or is undesirable in some way. Our only evidence is to the contrary: Cultivation can do what she wants as the Nightwatcher, but Odium is limited to cognitive curses. And Odium’s Aggression mandate is very compatible with Cultivation’s, leading to natural selection and the evolution of new life forms.

 

Third (and less seriously), I’ve observed that “old married’s” change their relationship over time. The widow of Mao Zedong, herself one of the Gang of Four who fomented China’s Cultural Revolution, once described marriage as (paraphrasing) “after the sex, there is only the power.” Very apt for Shards.

Having one's consciousness tied to a wretched person bound to the spirit of Hatred seems like torture to me.  Not something I would choose for a romantic partner.  If we chose it together, I guess it might be more possible.  If being tied to cultivation bound Odium, then how did he go on to shatter Honor?

Wow! Hosed by Hoser! What an “Honor”!

 

...

Honor Among the Parshendi

 

“Using Kaladin's observation comparing an Odiously-influenced human army to Odium-free warforms long after Honor has been splintered shows that someone has fallen into the trap of assuming that all humans represent Honor long after he is gone.  It also falls into the trap of assuming that all Parshendi are like the warforms.”

 

Thank you, Hoser, for making my point for me. Yes! Humans are “Odiously-influenced” and listeners before stormform are not! (I’m using the word “listeners” rather than “Parshendi” because the latter is a human word – once again I’m highlighting your anthro-centrism (JK).)

 

I’m not saying ALL humans are influenced by Odium. I’ve never said that, and it’s self-evidently not true. But Kaladin observes humans are fighting wars all over Roshar. As Honor tells Dalinar in one of the visions, Odium came to realize that humans could create discord on their own. Odium doesn’t need to nudge them much.

 

I assume that listener warform would be more Odium-influenced, not less, than other forms. Warform is Aggressive, matching (what I believe is) Odium’s mandate. Even earth humans believe war suspends normal notions of decency (to a point – past that point, it’s a war crime). That listeners maintain their “honor” in warform is even MORE impressive.

 

Parshendi Are Not “of Honor”

 

I’ve read this WoB. Brandon implies that Adonalsium created the listeners, and sometime later Cultivation and Odium invested in them as well. Honor did not.

 

What is your point? That because Honor did not invest in listeners, they cannot act “honorably”? We agree that Adonalsium could do everything any Shard can. Doesn’t that suggest listeners were MADE “honorable” by Adonalsium? They clearly acted with “honor” on the battlefield as you define it.

 

Cultivation added her investiture through some of the listener forms. Mateform must involve spren from Cultivation, for example. And we know stormspren and the “God-forms” come from Odium. I think it’s irrelevant that Honor didn’t also invest in them.

My point was this: there is a lot of evidence suggesting that the Desolations were Honor, Cultivation, the Heralds, the Knights (when they existed) most humans and maybe some allies against some odiously aligned humans, Odium, the Unmade, the ten Deaths and the listeners and maybe some allies. 

Any theory that puts Honor as being on the Parshendi side of the Desolations and Odium on the human side has some 'splaining to do, as does any theory that puts Honor on both sides of the Desolations while Odium is not a significant factor. 

Wow! Hosed by Hoser! What an “Honor”!

...

Conclusion

 

Hoser, we obviously disagree on this stuff. That’s what keeps the Forum interesting. But I do urge you to formulate your own theory before saying “this can’t be” or “that’s wrong.” Theory is about fitting pieces together in a predictive way. I look forward to seeing what you come up, and I promise not to yarp at you about it.

 

While I will not be creating theories on the scale of yours (and I consider your expectation thereof to be a defensive trap), I do look forward to your predictions.

It is definitely interesting to debate our shared obsession. 

Edited August 27, 2015 by hoser

[Confused]

Claptrap and deep diving? What’s on your mind?!

 

Thank you for your kind words. And I really didn’t mean to offend you, though I see how that might have happened.

 

The Nature of “Speculation”

 

I think you correctly identified our quarrel: you are an empiricist and I am an idealist. You focus on “minutiae” to build your “foundation” from the ground up. I start with what’s known and then speculate on what might explain it.

 

This is an eternal debate. Each is equally important to progress. Neither of us is “wrong,” since no speculation can be wrong except in the two ways I mention. That is NOT a “defensive trap,” as you put it. That’s just the basic requirements of any theory: no factual errors and internal coherence.

 

I think we both see our disagreement over Shard mandates as interpretive, not factual. Unlike you, I believe interpretation with only the Books 1 and 2 facts before us IS speculation. IOW, I think we’re BOTH speculating. (I accept, however, there is zero chance of my theory being right. That’s what I meant when I said my chances were equal to Schrodinger’s Cat’s chances of being simultaneously alive and dead.)

 

In the sense I’m building my theory on an unproven foundation, your “crack” criticisms are valid. But “unproven” and “wrong” are different things. I do want you (and everyone else) to highlight anything I’m wrong about, based on clearly-stated WoB, clear textual evidence or internal inconsistency. Since you feel your criticism addresses the structure of the theory – its internal consistency – keep your comments coming!

 

I’m really not trying to “bait” you with my “build your own theory” comments. Things follow from our interpretive choices. You’ve chosen an interpretation of Honor’s mandate as much as I have. It’s just a different one. It’s perfectly fair to ask what conclusions naturally follow from your interpretive choices. Maybe you’ll persuade me to your point of view.

 

How can we judge our choices without such questions? You don’t have to build any “grand theory” just to answer them.

 

The Forums are too quiet as it is. Make whatever responsive comments you like; it’s not at all my intention to limit you. I’m just trying to create understanding between us.

 

On to specific substantive points…

 

Honor as “Good Guy”

 

I think Honor has always sided against “Voidbringers,” whoever they are. I think listeners were not originally Voidbringers, but many humans were. At some point, Odium began to influence listeners and they also became Voidbringers. After that, IMO things became more muddled as to who was “mortal” or “voidish.” But Honor’s position never wavered: he’s always been anti-Odium.

 

Definition of “Honor”

 

I’m not focusing on Syl’s definition of Honor. I’m focusing on yours. And I’ll ask the fair and legitimate question again. Assume your characterization of the Orders and Honor’s influence on them is correct. How does Honor’s power express itself consistently with that characterization? What do you think Honor’s power DOES in ways that are different from Odium’s and Cultivation’s power? Or Adonalsium’s?

 

This is not a “trap.” All of us need to think through the logical implications of our positions. It’s reasonable to expect anyone who holds a position on the matter to answer that question.

 

On Bonding

 

I agree with you that “bonding” precedes Honor’s presence on Roshar and therefore originally came from Adonalsium. I do NOT agree that bonding “continues to be enabled independently of Honor.”

 

Adonalsium is long gone. Life evolves. The Shards now influence almost every aspect of Rosharan life regardless of what predicates Adonalsium left. Any bonding that occurs on Roshar NOW does not come from Adonalsium, it comes from the Shards. ONLY HONOR of the three Shards IMO has the capacity to form such bonds.

 

To have an “honorspren” say she “binds things” and then claim that her primary Shard (I’m sure Syl has a little Cultivation in her) DOESN’T bind things seems off to me.

 

On “Torture”

 

“Having one's consciousness tied to a wretched person bound to the spirit of Hatred seems like torture to me.”

 

You’ve obviously never been married…

 

Evidence of the Desolation

 

I addressed this above. It sounds like we agree as to who are Voidbringers. Honor sides against Voidbringers, whoever they are. I’m simply saying that originally, the Voidbringers were the invading humans, and Honor originally sought to protect the native Parshendi.

 

Conclusion

 

Obsessed? OBSESSED? WHO’S OBSESSED???!!!

 

Just tryin’ to use my summer time productively. Soon enough I will be slipping into the shadows, leaving you all Confusion-free once again…

 

As always, thanks for the discussion!

[hoser]

To avoidminimize wall o' text, I will just address a few points here.

Claptrap and deep diving? What’s on your mind?!

 

Thank you for your kind words. And I really didn’t mean to offend you, though I see how that might have happened.

I assume the word "kind" is good-natured sarcasm.  I also apologize for the sharpness of my word choices.  I fear insignificance.  It causes me to be shriller than necessary when I perceive that I am not being listened to. 

 

Claptrap and deep diving? What’s on your mind?!

...

Honor as “Good Guy”

 

I think Honor has always sided against “Voidbringers,” whoever they are. I think listeners were not originally Voidbringers, but many humans were. At some point, Odium began to influence listeners and they also became Voidbringers. After that, IMO things became more muddled as to who was “mortal” or “voidish.” But Honor’s position never wavered: he’s always been anti-Odium.

I do not agree.  I think H+C brought humans to the planet and things were generally OK until Odium came.  Possession seems to be one of Odium's powers and he had influence over a (possibly small) minority of humans.  By and large, humans opposed the forces of Odium.  Before he recruited the Parshendi (I use this term because I believe the Listeners were the Parshendi that renounced Odium.  Rlain didn't seem to consider them listeners after they adopted stormform.).  Odious forces in the desolation would have been: Unmade, Thunderclasts and the (rest of the?) ten deaths, some few possessed or influenced humans, some few possessed monsters like the Chasmfiends.  H (or H+C) would have opposed them with Heralds, the bulk of the humans and any allies, possibly including Parshendi.  I have no idea where the Aimians stood. 

While he may have made agreements about conditions affecting the Desolations, I do not believe that Honor initiated them or used them to winnow the humans. 

 

Claptrap and deep diving? What’s on your mind?!

...

Definition of “Honor”

 

I’m not focusing on Syl’s definition of Honor. I’m focusing on yours. And I’ll ask the fair and legitimate question again. Assume your characterization of the Orders and Honor’s influence on them is correct. How does Honor’s power express itself consistently with that characterization? What do you think Honor’s power DOES in ways that are different from Odium’s and Cultivation’s power? Or Adonalsium’s?

 

This is not a “trap.” All of us need to think through the logical implications of our positions. It’s reasonable to expect anyone who holds a position on the matter to answer that question.

I think the ten heralds and related orders encompass almost all the aspects of Honor along with Cultivation.  The top of the chart (orders 9, 10, 1) are largely Honor and the remaining male Herald-led orders (8, 2) are mostly Honor, with the remaining orders less so.  Syl provides much definition for one of the strongest aspects.  We see more with the Bondsmith's second ideal (uniting, not dividing).  Shallan and Pattern are mostly of Cultivation, but they also encompass an aspect of Honor, as does Jasnah and Ivory.  Clearly Honor binds, judges, empowers conditionally, creates agreements, inspires, makes sacrifices, protects, leads and much more that we have yet to discover. 

Cultivation seems to provide gifts, but she heals, plans (hence seeing the future better) and guides and must have some pruning or weeding effect (perhaps Jasnah's thief episode gives us some sense of this).

Odium seems to use possession, corruption, planning.  His gifts have high cost (the unmaking of the Unmade) and does not protect his agents well (see Davar senior and Sadeas). 

 

Claptrap and deep diving? What’s on your mind?!

...

On Bonding

 

I agree with you that “bonding” precedes Honor’s presence on Roshar and therefore originally came from Adonalsium. I do NOT agree that bonding “continues to be enabled independently of Honor.”

 

Adonalsium is long gone. Life evolves. The Shards now influence almost every aspect of Rosharan life regardless of what predicates Adonalsium left. Any bonding that occurs on Roshar NOW does not come from Adonalsium, it comes from the Shards. ONLY HONOR of the three Shards IMO has the capacity to form such bonds.

 

To have an “honorspren” say she “binds things” and then claim that her primary Shard (I’m sure Syl has a little Cultivation in her) DOESN’T bind things seems off to me.

Adonalsium invested in Roshar.  That investment persists.  There are still spren that are splinters of Adonalsium on Roshar.  After Honor was splintered, the listeners are still able to bind spren.  The apparent largest splinter of Honor claimed not to have the power to prevent Eshonai adopting stormform.  The Everstorm can apparently bind the parshmen. 

If Honor enabled bonding then without Honor, it would be disabled.  This is clearly not the case.  Bonding has existed before during and after (intact) Honor's presence on Roshar. 

Does Honor work with and build on the already enabled bonding? Sure.  So are we just arguing about the definition of enabling?

 

Claptrap and deep diving? What’s on your mind?!

...

As always, thanks for the discussion!

You're welcome. And thank you!

 

Edit:

P.S. To repeat the question: If being tied to Cultivation bound Odium, then how did he go on to shatter Honor?

Edited August 29, 2015 by hoser

[Grey Knight]

....

 

You people are fanatics.