The Problem with Sanderson's writings

[Young Bard]

Please note: I consider Sanderson to be one of my favourite authors. What I'm about to say here I consider a minor irk, in the same way that I've seen complaints about people 'raising an eyebrow' too often. I'll still be waiting eagerly for Brandon's next book.

 

Also, please note that there are spoilers for Mistborn, the Stormlight Archives, the Reckoners, and most Sanderson novels in this post.

 

One thing I've been thinking about recently is this: If there were one thing I disliked about Sanderson's writings, what would it be? In the end, I've settled on one slight theme that I politically disagree with. Some of you might actually disagree with me and my political views, which is perfectly OK. Some of you might have a different take on how I see things, which is also OK.

 

But, if I were to point at one thing about Sanderson's writings, and say "I disagree with that.", I would talk about the theme of redemption.

 

Throughout Sandersons novels, there are many examples of the theme of "Once a villain, always a villain." And, usually, the resolution of the story ends with murdering the 'bad guy'. The only exception to the rule that I can see is when you have an Unreliable Narrator, and we don't see the full picture, or else there are external influences in causing the character to be evil, while deep down, they're pure of heart after all.

 

But, in real life, people can and do change. If you do something wrong, that doesn't automatically make you a horrible person, irredeemably, for the rest of your life. In fact, it is partly through are mistakes that we learn, develop and adapt to become better.

 

This is one of the reasons I personally strongly oppose the death penalty. I genuinely believe that virtually anyone can change, to become better people than whoever they were before when they committed the crime.

 

But, I don't see this in Sanderson's works. You almost never get a genuinely remorseful villain who wishes that they hadn't done something horrible. For example, the Lord Ruler and Sadeas, when confronted about the horrible things they'd done, respond in a similar way. "I did what I had to do", or else actually provoke the people confronting them. Shortly afterwards, both of them get murdered.

 

Now, imagine how we, the readers, would have reacted differently if The Lord Ruler had been remorseful. If The Lord Ruler, quietly, had turned back to look out the window, silently thinking of all those he'd murdered, all those who were now dead because of him. Then, he looks back at Vin, with deep, haunted eyes, and talked of how he'd tried to do the best thing, the only thing, he thought possible. Would you, the reader, still have sympathized with Vin when she tore Alendi's bracers off and stabbed him through with a spear?

 

But, Sanderson didn't do this. And, so, we cheer Vin on as she throws off the yolk of oppression that the Lord Ruler has kept the skaa under for the past 1000 years.

 

The same story goes for most 'villain' deaths in Sanderson's canon. Whether or not it's intentional, this enforces the message that nobody who has done something for a purely selfish reason in the past can ever work past their flaw in their nature, or become a better person in the future.

 

A few of you may ask me about the Reckoners, in which Prof, after briefly becoming and Epic, overcomes his evil side to join David and the Reckoners once again. However, in this case, his evil side never actually belonged to him, but instead was forced upon him by Larcener. If it hadn't been for that, he would never have become evil.

 

So, if I were asked what issue I had with Sanderson's works, that is what I'd say. I, personally, believe that no matter what one's done in the past, one can move beyond that. Alfred Nobel created the Nobel Peace Prize because he was so horrified at the damage and carnage he'd created by inventing dynamite. Oppenheimer, too, helped to create the Atomic Bomb, and only later did he regret what he'd done after seeing the carnage of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, quoting from a Hindu text: "Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds." In this way, people learn from their mistakes and regrets, to become their better selves, something I feel is lacking in Sanderson's works.

[Edgedancer]

I can see where you are coming from. It's one of the things that lead to a couple of people to really be disapointed with Amaram and in a recently released book that I won't name here because spoilers, Brandon actually did somewhat of a step backwards in regard to a certain character. I guess that leaves us with hope that Szeth manges to get a grip on himself?

Although, I guess Wayne is at least somewhat struggling with redemption.

Edited May 22, 2016 by Edgedancer

[Haelbarde]

"Once a villain, always a villain."  I really think that's a matter of perspective. Should they be repentant of what they've done if the honestly believe that was the best they could do? TLR problem was he was influenced by both Ruin and Preservation directly. He was the hero of his own story, not evil for the sake of being evil. Sadeas is a horrible person, true. But he believes that the end justifies the means. Well, more he is only concerned about the end result. Should he be repentant of believing that Dalinar seemed to weakening the nation, when it needed it's strength the most? Sadeas doesn't know that Brandon has it set out that Dalinar's path is basically the right one. What about Mr T. He's a villain, but should he be repentant for doing what he believes is necessary for survival? He might actually shed a tear over what he's done, but would he change what he'd done? I dare say he wouldn't. 

 

So I don't see Sanderson villains necessarily be villains for the sake of it. They are trying to make the most of a bad situation, or doing what they think is necessary. 

[Edgedancer]

"Once a villain, always a villain."  I really think that's a matter of perspective. Should they be repentant of what they've done if the honestly believe that was the best they could do? TLR problem was he was influenced by both Ruin and Preservation directly. He was the hero of his own story, not evil for the sake of being evil. Sadeas is a horrible person, true. But he believes that the end justifies the means. Well, more he is only concerned about the end result. Should he be repentant of believing that Dalinar seemed to weakening the nation, when it needed it's strength the most? Sadeas doesn't know that Brandon has it set out that Dalinar's path is basically the right one. What about Mr T. He's a villain, but should he be repentant for doing what he believes is necessary for survival? He might actually shed a tear over what he's done, but would he change what he'd done? I dare say he wouldn't. 

 

So I don't see Sanderson villains necessarily be villains for the sake of it. They are trying to make the most of a bad situation, or doing what they think is necessary.

The thing with that pharse is that "Hero" can very easily be replaced with selfish chull, arrogant hypocryte or murderous lunatic. Sure, Sadeas may have talked about how he's acting the way he is but when the Desolation was actually proven to be true did he reconsider his actions? No he stayed the same chull he was before and still has it out for Dalinar. The Lord Ruler too may have had a lot in the books that wanted to make him look like he's not absolutely evil but over time it became clear that at his core he's nothing more than an arrogant racist that wouldn't give a rusted speck of copper to save the world, if he's not in a position to rule it. So yeah, they may act like they have fancy Motivations but when it comes down to it can you recall one that was confronted with the errors of his ways and took the blame on themselves?

[Vissy]

Kelsier? He's, basically, a villain.

 

Aside from that, when you've lived as long as the Lord Ruler, a certain strand of cynicism tends to develop quite involuntarily. He was a hateful man even before Ascension, of course, but a man with good and bad intentions, and he genuinely did his best to save his planet. 

 

Does a villain need to repent, though? What would it mean if a villain just ends up believing he was wrong in the end, all the time? I get that it's something Sanderson could do - it's different. But, not necessarily better, and I'm not sure I like the connotations that brings with itself

Edited May 22, 2016 by Varangian

[Oversleep]

What do you think about Elend beheading Jastes?

[Vissy]

Not the way I'd do it, but pretty clean & practical in that harsh world...

[Glamdring804]

Not sure how much it counts, but he has redeemed a couple of very minor villains, namely, Bluth and Gaz, in WoR. I do see where you're coming from, though, you make an excellent point.

[Green Hoodie Mistborn]

It is an interesting question/discussion. Each side has a point of view as has been pointed out before. Ultimately Odium is the villain of the SA, as Ruin was for Mistborn Era 1, and Autonomy for Era 2.

 

Elantris and Warbreaker are the only ones where a Shard isn't the main villain of the story and Warbreaker is the hardest one for me. 

 

To me, many of the people in Sanderson's stories who drive conflict, are those who I wouldn't necessarily define as "villain", but more as antagonists. They oppose the heroes, they are catalyst for plot and narrative action, but do they truly fit the definition of "evil"? I don't know... Villain and Antagonist while sometimes the same characters are not the same word, they are not interchangeable. 

• The one I can most easily define as a true evil villain was Dilaf from Elantris.
• TLR was probably evil, but by his actions millions or billions of people were alive that would not otherwise have been... 
• Bluefingers? You call him villain, he calls himself freedom fighter for his people, to the victors go the labels I suppose. 
• Sadaes? He is the epitome of his culture. They have reprehensible practices, but is he any more or less evil than a standard Feudal lord in pre-modern times, really?  I'm not sure, were they evil or encultured to indifference and assured by the religious authorities of their time that they were in the right in their attitudes and actions? 
• Mr. T/Amaram, all believe that they are doing what is necessary to save humanity, whatever the cost. If all of humanity was at risk, what would you be willing to do to save it if you had information you thought would help, but that may cost some of those lives to save the rest, the remnant? Are they evil to do so? 
• Paalm?
  Corrupted and controlled by an outside Shardic force... not sure how much of her actions are her responsiblity

• The Set - they are probably true villains as they are all about their own power, prestige and rule.
  but they also kind of fall under the Mr. T/Amaram line as they are faced with an opposing force who is going to wipe out Scadrian humanity, and they want to save some... their own in this case, so they are not at all altruistic about it

 

All in all, I find very few who I consider true villains. Evil in a fictional world is very relative and perspective based. Do Sadaes, Mr. T, Amaram, Bluefingers consider themselves evil villains? I doubt it. Opposing force? Sure, but I don't think any of them thinks of themselves or their actions as evil. 

 

Hrathen is someone who causes great evil in Dulakel and is redeemed by the end of that book. Was he a villain or just an antagonist? 

Edited May 22, 2016 by Green Hoodie Mistborn

[Stormgate]

Sanderson occasionally grapples with the concept of redemption, but he seems to prefer dealing with the different aspects of villain motivation, being the hero of your own story, having the ends justify the means, etc.

Although Sanderson doesn't often cover the topic of redemption, it's more because many of his more villianous characters are sure enough in their own motivations to be "incorruptible" by inferior philosophies.

In fact, Sanderson's first published book, Elantris, has a villain redemption as a plot of the story.

[amulligan99]

I personally don't have a problem with this. What I will say is there is no such thing as a villain, yes there is an antagonist and a protagonist but either one of them could be doing the worse things.

What I'm trying to say is the Lord ruler is more of a hero than people give him credit for he saved an entire planet full of life and he took on immortality to make sure it stays safe. The only reason he did the things he did was because he literally had to for the greater good. He died because of someone's blind perspective on the whole situation.

Edited May 24, 2016 by amulligan99

[jaimeleecee]

Its so much a matter of perspective, I think someone like TLR cannot be remorseful because it would mean he has regrets, when he feels he did the best he could knowing what he was saving the world from in his opinion.

 

It makes me think of the end of Wheel of Time

How Demandred was a forsaken and a super mega bad guy to the people on Rand's side.  But he was also the savior to the Sharan's who fought with him, and even appeared to care about the fate of his people towards the end.. perspective is everything

Edited May 24, 2016 by jaimeleecee

[Edgedancer]

In fact, Sanderson's first published book, Elantris, has a villain redemption as a plot of the story.

I don't consider it enough of a problem to consider the finer points of the whole hero of their own story topic but if I remember Elantris right, and it's been a while since I last read it, so feel free to point it out if I'm wrong, Hrathen doesn't really count for the context of redemption talked about here. Yes he switches sides but he doesn't do it because he thinks he needs to reconsider his life choices or anything but simply because there happens to be a bigger problem around, without which he would gladly have continued his ways.

 

I personally don't have a problem with this. What I will say is there is no such thing as a villain, yes there is an antagonist and a protagonist but either one of them could be doing the worse things.

What I'm trying to say is the Lord ruler is more of a hero than people give him credit for he saved an entire planet full of life and he took on immortality to make sure it stays safe. The only reason he did the things he did was because he literally had to for the greater good. He died because of someone's blind perspective on the whole situation.

I'm sorry but no, just because there happened to be something worse around doesn't mean Rashek is suddenly a hero. When he took the power of the Well he did it because he was a resentful racist that didn't believe that an outsider could be the hero, fully unaware of Ruin's role in all of this. When he build the Empire, all the cruelty and preprogramed racism in it were entirely unnecessary and by now we have a pretty good idea how that it wouldn't have been much better without Ruin.

Killing him wasn't bad because he was some kind of hero, it was because the good people didn't know what to do. If they knew how to deal with the power of the Well and Ruin properly they still would and should have killed him, because yes Ruin needs to be delt with and the fact that they beat him is a miracle no body should ever bet on but Rashek and the hateful agorance that paints every single one of his actions was not.

Did he want the world to end? No but that is a very low bar for heroism you have there.

[Stormgate]

Everyone is a hero in the right circumstances. Vice versa, everyone is a villian in a different circumstance. Denth's plan to overthrow the government is not unlike Kelsier's plot to overthrow the government. However, one was a villain and one was a hero. Hrathen is, in his mind, a hero, with the goal of preventing the destruction of Arelon and sorrow over the destruction of Duladel. Sanderson enjoys playing with this theme, making a psychopathic criminal the leader of a revolution to overthrow a corrupt government, for example.

The redemption of characters for their actions, then, can really only be told from the point of view of the person as they're trying to clean up their own messes. Take Dalinar, for instance. In his youth, he was a warmonger and at one time wanted to kill his brother for the throne, the details of which I'm sure we will see in Oathbringer. Yet in the books, he has seen how wrong he was, and tries to unify Alethkar in truth as well as name.

In Mistborn: Secret History,

Kelsier spends the whole book trying to prevent the end of the world, trying to halt the sequence of events he unwittingly began.

While my posts on this subject are probably contradictory on some points, it's mainly because I am becoming more familiar with the topic. If what you want is a character that is the villain until maybe the middle of the book, who then attempts to pull apart whatever structure he has built in order to prevent the outcome he initially wanted. If you want a character like that, you actually probably just have to wait until Sanderson gets around to dealing with that.

[Erunion]

The issue here, OP, is that Sanderson's villains are very rarely 'in the wrong' in their own eyes. They are, in fact, too well realized; their motivations too well developed. 

For a character to be redeemed, that character must first repent. Repentance requires the character to see that their actions are wrong, realize that there is a better way, and then act on that. Once a character has repented, they can be redeemed. 

 

Sanderson's villains typically believe that they have no reason to repent. They believe that their actions are just, well thought out, the very best that can be done. Sanderson's villains don't see themselves as villains. 

 

Curiously, we have two exceptions. First is Denth: Denth knew he was a villain. It bothered him, deeply. He could have been redeemed, but he was too angry (and Vasher lacked the eloquence/ability to convince Denth to turn to the light, as it were). 
 

Hrathen, on the other hand, is a classic exception to this. He was a villain. His actions brought bloody revolution on the duladen republic. Throughout the book, we see him slowly repenting of his actions, until in the end he decides to do the right thing at his own expense, and he IS redeemed. 

[Stormgate]

You can hide your own posts, it doesn't need to be a mod.

[Glamdring804]

Why do you want to delete the moderators?

[Ward]

Hrathen is my all-time favorite sympathetic "villain"

 

One of the most touching moments of the Stormlight archives is when the deserters are given a chance by Shallan to wipe the slate and start clean as heros. Including Gaz

[Erunion]

You can hide your own posts, it doesn't need to be a mod.

thanks, and done.

[soulcastJam]

For the villain to repent there would need to be a catalyst, and by definition, the hero would be the one to bring about that change (otherwise they aren't really the hero...).  But Sanderson doesn't really make preachy heroes.  They don't go to the villains and teach them the right way of living, possibly because the villain would try to behead them before the second sentence.  

[Fedcomic]

I think there's a lot of redemption in Brandon's books.  For example, the Reckoners series is all about how people who look like Uber Evil Villains are actually capable of positive change-- even though not all of them are willing to embrace that change. You might also want to look at his protagonists, who are almost always people with some pretty bad choices in their pasts.  

 

I don't know what other books you've been reading, but I can't think of many in which the Ultimate Big Bad is genuinely remorseful and decides upon reflection to work together with the good guys.  Even when bad guys switch sides (Darth Vader), someone still has to be the antagonist (the Emperor) or there's no conflict.  Hard to struggle against impossible odds when everyone in the story is agreeing and cooperating and being their best selves.