Why use "monster" twice for different things?

[Michael Portz]

I'm of course referring to "Red Carpet, once White", Shallans WoR Interlude.

Several contributors already pointed out at least one of the usages of the word "monster" in the interlude. But nobody so far tried to make a connection, if I didn't miss something somewhere (iff so: Sorry!).

The citations in question are, as most of you know

Father gathered her into his arms, and she felt her skin squirming. No. No, this affection wasn’t right. A monster should not be held in love. A monster who killed, who murdered. No.

and 

They passed Father’s strongbox set into the wall. It glowed brightly, light streaming from the cracks around the closed door. A monster was inside.

I really doubt, that an author like Brandon would use the same word for different things in such a confined space. So I think, he used it twice on purpose. Obviously ... well, at least I hope so ... there is no other child put in the safe box. So why does child Shallan think of both things as "monster". Obviously she views both as identical in a way yet to be revealed.

How about the following first attempt of an explanation: The now-put-away monster (NPAM) scared Shallan. Intuitively in self defense she used her light weaving abilities to mimic the NPAM. Noticing the sudden SAMENESS, Shallan now thought herself as of the same kind as the NPAM.

Mind you, this is no explanation for the dead bodies or her crying father, what the NPAM monster is and what it and Shallan contributed to the scene. But thats not important for the explanation of the double usage of "monster".

What do you think?

Edited February 10, 2014 by Atastor

[skaa]

Maybe NPAM is a mirror fabrial with a deadly function (perhaps related to Lightweaving?), and young Shallan accidentally killed those people while looking at her own reflection in that mirror. In a child's mind, her reflection could be seen as the same exact "monster" that she herself thinks she is.

Edited February 10, 2014 by skaa

[Moist_von_Lipwig]

I doubt that light-weaving was involved in this incident, it's unlikely that Shallan had light-weaving abilities that many years ago. But your point about the use of the word monster is very interesting. Perhaps this relates to the fact that there are multiple bodies that have apparently been killed by different means. The NPAM could have been a weapon (shardblade?) used by one of the dead individuals to kill Shallan's mother, an object like that might seem monstrous to a child. Shallan may have then killed the assassin/killer after seeing her mother killed, but the fact that child Shallan killed a person could lead her to view herself as a monster.

 

Edit: Alternative theory, the NPAM was already in the strongbox. Whatever it is it could have been put in there by Shallan's father before this incident. When she asked what was in there, Shallan's father could have told her a monster was inside. Then someone comes along looking to steal it, but things go awry and he ends up killing Shallan's mother and getting killed himself.

Edited February 10, 2014 by Moist_von_Lipwig

[Aleksiel]

Somehow I don't think she referred to herself as monster, because this self-loathing would have shown in her previous chapters. Why not the Shardblade? We know Adolin shows quite affection towards his, so Shallan's father could be holding it gently, though I admit it makes no sense to keep it in a safe. Wasn't there something In the interlude with Shallan's brother about some dangerous animals they used as pets? Though still unlikely to have one in a safe. May be she referred to her father as a monster and to whatever he used to murder those people.

[Michael Portz]

I really don't think, the FIRST of the two quotes can possibly refer to anything else than herself

Father gathered her into his arms, and she felt her skin squirming. 

i.e. she rejects the being held by her father. But "holding" is commonly a loving gesture; why would anybody reject it?

No. No, this affection wasn’t right.

"this affection" can only be the love, her father shows by holding her. Why does she think, it is not right? Right, she thinks so, because

A monster should not be held in love. A monster who killed, who murdered. No

"held in love" must in my opinion refer to her father holding her. That leaves only the ONE POSSIBLE explanation, that she thinks, that she is the monster, or that she is "the same as" or "like" a monster, or the NPAM.

 

And if you followed my train of thought up to here, then: How can there be a sameness between a shard blade in the role of the NPAM and child Shallan?

 

Disclaimer: Of course you can deviate anywhere from this reasoning; I will gladly receive any hints, why that might be so ;-)

Edited February 10, 2014 by Atastor

[Michael Portz]

Maybe NPAM is a mirror fabrial with a deadly function (perhaps related to Lightweaving?), and young Shallan accidentally killed those people while looking at her own reflection in that mirror. In a child's mind, her reflection could be seen as the same exact "monster" that she herself thinks she is.

 

I like this :-)

 

I had thought of a spren with mimicking abilities, but didn't want to overload my posting. Your fabrial idea is better!

[Aleksiel]

Using the very same quotes to support my opinion, I think the said monster is her father. After all, it takes two to hold someone. And of course she thinks she shouldn't feel affection or love towards a monster.

 

If she thought of herself as a monster, this would have shown in her WoK chapters. She'd be like 'just stealing, no biggie, not my usual monster self'.

[skaa]

Somehow I don't think she referred to herself as monster, because this self-loathing would have shown in her previous chapters. Why not the Shardblade? We know Adolin shows quite affection towards his, so Shallan's father could be holding it gently, though I admit it makes no sense to keep it in a safe. Wasn't there something In the interlude with Shallan's brother about some dangerous animals they used as pets? Though still unlikely to have one in a safe. May be she referred to her father as a monster and to whatever he used to murder those people.

 

I think it's pretty clear from the chapter that it was young Shallan, not a Shardblade, who was at that moment being held by her father. I suppose it's possible to interpret it as her father being the "monster", but the very first sentence of the chapter says "Shallan was to blame". I guess by the time of her trip to Kharbranth, she might have blocked that memory from her mind (as some kids do with traumatic experiences).

 

 

I doubt that light-weaving was involved in this incident, it's unlikely that Shallan had light-weaving abilities that many years ago. But your point about the use of the word monster is very interesting. Perhaps this relates to the fact that there are multiple bodies that have apparently been killed by different means. The NPAM could have been a weapon (shardblade?) used by one of the dead individuals to kill Shallan's mother, an object like that might seem monstrous to a child. Shallan may have then killed the assassin/killer after seeing her mother killed, but the fact that child Shallan killed a person could lead her to view herself as a monster.

 

 

I don't think Shardblades can be kept in a box. Nor can they glow (except maybe if an infused Surgebinder is holding one). I think some kind of fabrial weapon is still more likely to be the cause of that bright glow, though I guess the strongbox could also hold a bunch of infused gemstones in addition to the "monster"...

 

As for Shallan accidentally Lightweaving at age 11, I say it's possible. I mean, "Pattern" has known her for quite a while, seeing as his first memory is being with her as she apparently had a traumatic experience (she gets those a lot, it seems) in her father's garden. I'd be willing to bet that Pattern (whether consciously or unconsciously) had something to do with her ability to capture photographs with her mind, which she has apparently been doing for a long time.

 

Edit: I should've submitted my post sooner.

Edited February 10, 2014 by skaa

[Michael Portz]

Using the very same quotes to support my opinion, I think the said monster is her father. After all, it takes two to hold someone. And of course she thinks she shouldn't feel affection or love towards a monster.

 

If she thought of herself as a monster, this would have shown in her WoK chapters. She'd be like 'just stealing, no biggie, not my usual monster self'.

 

You are absolutely right for an embrace between adults! But between a grown man and a child of 11 I can hardly imagine the child holding the father.

[Aleksiel]

I think it's pretty clear from the chapter that it was young Shallan, not a Shardblade, who was at that moment being held by her father. I suppose it's possible to interpret it as her father being the "monster", but the very first sentence of the chapter says "Shallan was to blame". I guess by the time of her trip to Kharbranth, she might have blocked that memory from her mind (as some kids do with traumatic experiences).

 

 

She could feel guilty for what happened. Children usually blame themselves for things they had no fault. Parents get divorced, the child feels guilty, etc. If that was Shallan's mother who got killed, little Shallan would feel guilty for not being able to help her or for thousand different reasons.

 

My strongest argument still stands: if Shallan thought she was a monster as a child, she would have felt the same way as the teen we saw in WoK. But there is no indication of that. Why would a monster feel guilty for stealing?

 

edit: spelling

Edited February 10, 2014 by Aleksiel

[Michael Portz]

My strongest argument still stands: if Shallan thought she was a monster as a child, she would have felt the same way as the teen we saw in WoK. But there is no indication of that. Why would a monster feel guilty for stealing?

 

Of course I can't outright reject your interpretation, and even if I turn out to be right you raise a valid question: Why is there no mentioning of this horrid scene in WoK, not even vague hinting like on her fathers death. The following list might contain explanations:

• Her (loving) father successfully helped her to overcome her terror in the years to come.
• Her memories of her presumed killing of her father were far stronger, because it was more recent and she took an active role. And if even her foremost scaring memory is only fleetingly mentioned, there might just not have been enough space to describe the second most scaring memory. 

[Duskshard]

I used to think that Shallan was referring to herself being a murderer and monster but now that I've reread tWoK I now believe that she didn't kill anyone in that scene. I now think that the murderer and monster she refers to is her father and she was only a witness to whatever happened, and she blames herself for what happened to her mother.

 

If she killed anyone in that scene then I just can't see her reacting to Jasnah the way she does when she kills those four murderers.

 

I think that the only person Shallan has killed is her father. 

 

I like the idea of her using the term monster to describe two different things that are both connected to what happened to all those people. 

[Aleksiel]

Of course I can't outright reject your interpretation, and even if I turn out to be right you raise a valid question: Why is there no mentioning of this horrid scene in WoK, not even vague hinting like on her fathers death. The following list might contain explanations:

• Her (loving) father successfully helped her to overcome her terror in the years to come.
• Her memories of her presumed killing of her father were far stronger, because it was more recent and she took an active role. And if even her foremost scaring memory is only fleetingly mentioned, there might just not have been enough space to describe the second most scaring memory. 

 

Shallan rejects the very thought of her father's death in WoK, so it must have terrified her. She says she has 'a terrible secret hidden ten heartbeats away', which I believe refers to a Shardblade.

 

However, nothing in her inner speech indicates she ever did something even remotely equal to the murder of her father (she confessed about it when she soulcasted infront of Jasnah). But Shallan remembers numerous times her father's ill temper and how rarely it was towards her. Her brother says he used to envy her for not being a target of their father's anger. And how they all suffered from it.

 

This leads me to believe the monster in the scene was Shallan's father or possibly the Shardblade. 

[Duskshard]

Maybe her father's brutal temper isn't natural, maybe he's in possession some invested magical object or fabrial that change's him when he uses it making him lose control. He could've used it to kill all those people and afterward put it away in the safe. Shallan seeing this connects the two thinking of them both as a monster.   

[skaa]

Maybe her father's brutal temper isn't natural, maybe he's in possession some invested magical object or fabrial that change's him when he uses it making him lose control.

 

I bet it's a ring my precious.

[Michael Portz]

Trying to lead ppl back to my main point: How are Shallan and the NPAM related?

 

Some of the comments so far don't agree, that one of the monsters is Shallan (which of course is perfectly ok).

 

Let me ask specifically those, who tend to agree with me, that Shallan sees herself as one of the monsters: Do you have any other suggestions, on what the claimed SAMENESS might be based? Suggestions so far are

1. a fabrial or
2. a spren with mirroring abilities or
3. a sudden burst of light weaving by Shallan mirroring the NPAM

Thanks loads

Michael

[Timemaster11]

Three possibility stand out to me here:

 

1. Shallan used the NPAM to kill, either using it to kill her mother or the others. In this case, the SAMENESS comes from the fact that both she and the NPAM together wrought that destruction and death.

 

2. Shallan was responsible for some of the deaths, while the NPAM (likely used by a dead man, or her father) was responsible for the rest of the deaths. The SAMENESS comes from the fact that she and the NPAM separately wrought that destruction and death.

 

3. (This one is more far-fetched, but yields possibly the strongest SAMENESS.) The NPAM caused Shallan to go berserk/possessed her, leading her to kill. The experience of, say, going berserk due to the NPAM would likely have caused her to consider herself and the NPAM as monsters in much the same way.

 

(This 3rd option connects well with, say, an amplified version of the Thrill or something else Odium-related.)

Edited February 10, 2014 by Timemaster11

[DefiantBurrito]

I posted something similar in the "What's inside the safe?" thread.  I definitely agree that using the word "monster" twice is not an accident.

 

My guess is that the safe contains a malevolent Spren (perhaps trapped in a fabrial of some sort) that possesses people.

 

Shallan is a "monster" because the Spren possessed her and made her kill some people.

At the same time, the Spren is the "monster" inside the safe.  The same monster, in a sense.

 

Granted, we haven't yet seen a Spren that can do something like that, but this appeals to me because it's the most literal way that Shallan and the "monster" in the safe can be the same.

[Pinpoint]

This has an interesting parallel to one of Sanderson's  unpublished works. I think that Shallan doesn't remember what happened. She probably thinks her father was the murderer when in reality it was her that did the killing. It's possible that what happened was so horrible that her mind shut out the details

[Gloom]

Shallan is good at lying to herself, very good. She is good enough at it that she managed to attract a Cryptic.

 

There are three ways one can come into possession of a Shardblade.

 

You can inherit the weapon.

You can kill the owner.

You can win the weapon.

 

We have no reason to believe that Shallan inherited her Shardblade. We have every reason to doubt she won it. We have good reason to believe that, at the very least, she was the first person to pick it up after its previous owner was killed. I would say that there is at least circumstantial evidence to support that Shallan not only claimed the blade from the previous owner, but killed the owner herself, and has used the blade at least once in violence. If she never used the blade she would not fear it like she does.

 

This is a POV written from the memory of an eleven year old. I get that the author who wrote that POV wasn't eleven, but to an eleven year old, a monster is a monster. All monsters are monsters. I think too much is being read into this.

[skaa]

This is a POV written from the memory of an eleven year old. I get that the author who wrote that POV wasn't eleven, but to an eleven year old, a monster is a monster. All monsters are monsters. I think too much is being read into this.

Maybe. Still, a person would normally say "another monster was inside" or "a different monster was inside" instead of repeatedly using "a monster" for two different things.

If you get a call from your secretary, saying "Someone sent you a present, Mr. Gloom," and then she calls back a few minutes later to say, "There's a present for you, Mr. Gloom," you'd assume she was referring to the same present. If it turned out that two people sent you separate presents, that would be odd. You'd wonder why your secretary didn't make that clear earlier.

I know that young kids don't have a full grasp of their own language yet, but my 11-year old self already knew to use variations when talking about two different instances of the same type. That's why I (and presumably Atastor) suspect that Shallan was somehow equating herself with whatever was in that box.

Edited February 11, 2014 by skaa

[Gloom]

Maybe. Still, a person would normally say "another monster was inside" or "a different monster was inside" instead of repeatedly using "a monster" for two different things.

If you get a call from your secretary, saying "Someone sent you a present, Mr. Gloom," and then she calls back a few minutes later to say, "There's a present for you, Mr. Gloom," you'd assume she was referring to the same present. If it turned out that two people sent you separate presents, that would be odd. You'd wonder why your secretary didn't make that clear earlier.

I know that young kids don't have a full grasp of their own language yet, but my 11-year old self already knew to use variations when talking about two different instances of the same type. That's why I (and presumably Atastor) suspect that Shallan was somehow equating herself with whatever was in that box.

 

I'll agree that an eleven year old is capable of a lot. I Will agree that in most cases a secretary would make the delivery of two separate packages clear to her boss. I will say that the very same secretary is not likely to tell me how many times she was shot, but rather that she would just keep repeating that someone shot her. Were not just talking about an eleven year old, were talking about an eleven year old in trauma.

[QuantumHarmonix]

Doesn't Shallan say something in WoK about it being odd to love a monster like her father? I don't have the book to check, but I seem to remember her saying something like that when reflecting on her family.