Gavilar was trying to become the new Honor

[Solomonster]

Crazy Theory: Gavilar was trying to take up the pieces of Honor and become a shard.  Here's my reasoning:

1) We know that Gavilar had been receiving the same visions Dalinar received from the StormFather, so he knew Honor was dead.

2) He was on a first name basis with the Heralds and they worked together, so he could possibly have had more knowledge of the cosmere and shards.

3) What he says to Navani:

Quote

I will outlive your accusations, and my legacy will persist. I have discovered the entrance to the realm of gods and legends, and once I join them, my kingdom will never end. I will never end.”

What has he discovered the entrance to? Maybe Braize, maybe Shadesmar, who knows? But he may believe Honor's power is kept there and he himself can take up the mantle. 

Or... he just was on firemoss and is now obsessed with a palace storage room.

[Jenet]

I find it totally logical if Gavilar has such ambitions. And I think that it is possible to collect shards and splinters of Honor and unite them to become Honor's vessel. I only think that Gavilar's way is the wrong one. You should not begin with wanting the power. It's difficult to unite all the pieces of Honor without a hint of honorable intent.

For a while now I have thought a lot about what we actually know about Gavilar. I did not have a very good impression of him, but after Navani's prologue, it becomes much clearer.

Gavilar did not unite Alethkar. Dalinar did. And the latter got all the bad stuff, the PTSD, the bully reputation, the dead wife, The cast out status. Gavilar took the crown, the glory and the power. And Navani.

Gavilar was a little more brave than Sadeas, but when I study the battle scenes where Dalinar fights together with Gavilar or Sadeas, the two latter always send Dalinar in first. And afterwards they collect most of the honor and the "stuff" for the victory. Gavilar actually is using his little brother as you use a trained dog to attack intruders. And you give the dog a bone and a pat afterwards. And shoot him if he cannot guard you any longer.

When Dalinar succumbed to his PTSD, drowning himself i alcohol, there is little understanding from his big brother. He once told Adolin that his father would pull through, as he was a soldier and able to fight his problems, but he also tried to prevent Dalinar from getting more alcohol, and made fun of his brother. It really strikes me that Gavilar never actually cares about his brother's situation, just about how others will think about the brother of the king being a drunkard. The only one that really understands, is ironically Jezrien, or Ahu, the former greatest human on earth. Also broken.

We now know that Gavilar was a bully towards his wife, the queen. Petty, jealous, and afraid for his reputation. He did not so much care if Navani possibly had been unfaithful, only what the court was saying about it behind his back.

It is obvious that Gavilar is a less admirable person than Dalinar. Even though Dalinar did most of the murdering. There is something very honorable in Dalinar, and honor can be used by others. Gavilar can exploit Dalinar's honorable intent because Dalinar realizes that he would never take his brother's place,because it is not the right thing to do.. Even though he knows that he would have been a better king than his big brother.

Then Dalinar quenches his conscience with overwhelming help from the thrill, because he must not set his will up against the King. The King decides what to do and whom to kill. Dalinar just obeys. Dalinar does not want to participate in the war planning meetings. Why? Because he is no good at or not interested in war tactics and strategy? We know that to be untrue. 

So, I think that Dalinar unconsciously was not all that keen to conquer and kill just to win glory and power for his brother. But Gavilar does not care, as long as he gets what he wants. 

So, where do I go with this? I think that everything I know about Gavilar tells me he is a person who does everything to get to the top. He wants more power. If there is someone above him, he wants to take their position. You are the mightiest person on Roshar? Oh yes, but there are Gods. A little like Jafar in the Disney Aladdin movie. But I also think that is where Gavilar miscalculated. Because I think you cannot collect all the splinters of Honor without honorable intent. And I think that Dalinar has been sort of honorable all his life. Despite the fact that he has been posessed by the Thrill. 

It seems that Dalinar has come a long way in his Honor collection. Without the greed for a powerful position, but with the ambition to save the world and make peace.

Edited August 3, 2020 by Jenet

[+Oltux72]

55 minutes ago, Jenet said:

Gavilar did not unite Alethkar. Dalinar did.

But Gavilar kept it together. The Blackthorn would have kept them together with fear only. It would last one generation. Gavilar gave them something common to look up to.

55 minutes ago, Jenet said:

So, where do I go with this? I think that everything I know about Gavilar tells me he is a person who does everything to get to the top. He wants more power.

Is a Shard power? Or do you make yourself a servant to a gigantic inhuman metaphysic entity? It is not clear how Gavilar would see that.
 Or Dalinar for that matter.

 

[Jenet]

22 minutes ago, Oltux72 said:

But Gavilar kept it together. The Blackthorn would have kept them together with fear only. It would last one generation. Gavilar gave them something common to look up to.

Is a Shard power? Or do you make yourself a servant to a gigantic inhuman metaphysic entity? It is not clear how Gavilar would see that.
 Or Dalinar for that matter.

 

Yes, Gavilar kept Alethkar together with politics. And thus it was important for him to keep an image of a strong and wise king. Which most of the people in Roshar believed in. But as we see daily in the news, it is not necessary to be honorable to be seen as fit to rule. What I am saying is that Gavilar might not be as honorable as people believed he was.

And that the pieces of the Honor Shard perhaps would see behind the politician's facade.

I find that my reference to Jafar was quite fitting. For Jafar thought that becoming an all powerful magical entity would give him the ultimate, almighty power. But it also gave him the bond to serve whomever rubbed his lamp. Just like we saw with Harmony, the shards have intents that give the vessel little room for their own ambitions. What I was referring to is that I am not sure if Gavilar was aware of that.

Edited August 3, 2020 by Jenet
typo

[+Child of Hodor]

It's most likely that he was referring to becoming a Shard vessel. He was bonding the Stormfather like Dalinar has been.  https://wob.coppermind.net/events/35/#e2509

I've seen it suggested he wanted to be a Herald, but he's met some of them and presumably knows they were tortured for thousands of years. I don't think he wants to be like them. 

My guess is he wants become the vessel for Honor and lead exodus of the humans out of the Roshar system. He tells the Heralds "the journey must begin somewhere". That could be referring to only Kalak and Nale wanting to get out of the system, but maybe it's more than that. 

[Asrael]

I think this is a plausible theory. I'm not yet convinced that Gavilar is as awful as everyone seems to think he is. (Not saying it's not possible, hes clearly not squeaky-clean, I'm just not convinced yet). 

We know that Gavilar starts out pretty murderous, and is at least complicit in all the pillaging/raping/looting. At some point (I believe it coincides somewhat with the birth of his children) he decides that a stable future is most important, and thinks its not desirable to keep expanding Alethkar on and on. We don't know what his motives here are. They are portrayed as noble. True this is Dalinar's perspective, but if we can't trust the spoken words in flashbacks, we can't trust anything in them. In Eshonai's prologue we know that Gavilar at least seems to have some amount of "greater good" motivation to bring back the Knight's Radiant (which we cannot attribute to simple Son's of Honor motivations related to bringing back the Heralds, as we know that Gavilar is fully aware of the Herald's presence in Roshar already). 

So Gavilar is a jerk before he dies. Thats true. He almost certainly has a touch of megalomania as well. ....but Navani makes a point of telling us that he wasn't always like that. We could surmise that he has always been like that, but he used to be better at hiding it, but I don't think there's a strong case for that. If we take Navani at face value, he used to be better and has only in recent years become so dark and obsessed. If we don't take Navani at face value, that cuts both ways, and we have to be open to the possibility that Navani is also an unreliable narrator; better than Dalinar, but not totally accurate.

[Greywatch]

I'm a little surprised at the reactions calling Gavilar a jerk or a bully. What he's doing qualifies as abuse. This isn't me being hyperbolic - this is the behaviour to look out for. To have it reduced to "he was mean to his wife" don't even come close to what his behaviour actually is, no matter what reasons he has for it. Every defense of "there may have been a reason" implies that there could possibly be a reason that it's defensible - it's abuse apologia.

[Asrael]

5 minutes ago, Greywatch said:

I'm a little surprised at the reactions calling Gavilar a jerk or a bully. What he's doing qualifies as abuse. This isn't me being hyperbolic - this is the behaviour to look out for. To have it reduced to "he was mean to his wife" don't even come close to what his behaviour actually is, no matter what reasons he has for it. Every defense of "there may have been a reason" implies that there could possibly be a reason that it's defensible - it's abuse apologia.

The why is still important. Not because it vindicates his actions, but because we can't form a complete picture of his character without it. Gavilar speaks in a way that is calculated to hurt Navani's feelings. Navani alludes to the fact that she has done the same to some to degree to him. So is he retaliating, or is he pure aggressor from the outset? Whats more, the way Gavilar talks to Navani is I think quite common between between breaking couples. Intimacy and healthy relationships are in part founded on the power to hurt one another, but the restraint to not use it. What I see with Gavilar is that the relationship has fractured to the point that hes now abusing that power. But what if Navani is wrong that he doesn't care about her fidelity? Hurt people hurt people. And what if she's not wrong, but she has spoken with the intent to hurt him before as well? There

So we have new evidence that Gavilar is not as good as previously portrayed, but my point is we don't yet have proof. I'm just withholding my final judgement until we learn more

[Greywatch]

Just now, Asrael said:

The why is still important. Not because it vindicates his actions, but because we can't form a complete picture of his character without it. Gavilar speaks in a way that is calculated to hurt Navani's feelings. Navani alludes to the fact that she has done the same to some to degree to him. So is he retaliating, or is he pure aggressor from the outset? Whats more, the way Gavilar talks to Navani is I think quite common between between breaking couples. Intimacy and healthy relationships are in part founded on the power to hurt one another, but the restraint to not use it. What I see with Gavilar is that the relationship has fractured to the point that hes now abusing that power. But what if Navani is wrong that he doesn't care about her fidelity? Hurt people hurt people. And what if she's not wrong, but she has spoken with the intent to hurt him before as well? There

So we have new evidence that Gavilar is not as good as previously portrayed, but my point is we don't yet have proof. I'm just withholding my final judgement until we learn more

The point of it being abusive is that there is no "why" good enough. Nothing will exonerate his character.

[Asrael]

Just now, Greywatch said:

The point of it being abusive is that there is no "why" good enough. Nothing will exonerate his character.

I agree that he can't be held up as an unqualified "good-guy". But I disagree if what you mean is "there can be no good part of him". Lately I've been seeing him characterized as a full on monster, and I think thats swinging way too hard in the other direction.

[GudThymes]

On 8/2/2020 at 1:20 PM, Solomonster said:

What has he discovered the entrance to? Maybe Braize, maybe Shadesmar, who knows? But he may believe Honor's power is kept there and he himself can take up the mantle. 

I'm not fully convinced that Gavilar had that ambition. I'm going to talk quickly about Scadrial and the Shards there, so spoiler text:

Spoiler

On Scadrial the people who held the Shard's power and had the potential to ascend TLR, Vin, Kelsier, and Sazed were not very Realmatically aware at the time, however, they were able to gain the power because it was accessible to them -- right in front of their faces essentially.

Those circumstances are not the case for Honor, his power is splintered and must be recollected (maybe? we still don't know how to recombine a shard) and then something has to happen to create the Shard again.

Now for an aside into the religion of Roshar. Gavilar and Alethkar is Vorin, they believe that the Almighty is God (Save Jasnah). The way we explore religion with Jasnah makes it clear that they believe this to be Omniscient, Omnipresent kind. To believe this for your whole life, then to be told that God is dead, that does not lend itself to the conclusion that you could then become God.

Vorinism also reveres the Heralds as almost gods. In the original quote Gavilar says "I have discovered the entrance to the realm of gods and legends, and once I join them, my kingdom will never end. I will never end." With our Realmatic knowledge I think this is enough evidence to suggest that Gavilar believed this to be Shadesmar/Braize (combine this with the Connection box).

 

I think it's a stretch to interpret Gavilar's statement to be about becoming Honor given all of this. I find it much more likely that his statement was in reference to gaining access immortality of some kind. Oh, right he knows Herald's personally and is aware that they want to get out of the thing that made them immortal. I think the simpler answer may be the right one here. But I hope the books show us a definite answer to this.

[Greywatch]

Just now, Asrael said:

I agree that he can't be held up as an unqualified "good-guy". But I disagree if what you mean is "there can be no good part of him". Lately I've been seeing him characterized as a full on monster, and I think thats swinging way too hard in the other direction.

I am extremely comfortable in saying things like that about an abuser, yeah.

[GudThymes]

1 minute ago, Greywatch said:

I am extremely comfortable in saying things like that about an abuser, yeah.

I don't think there's anything wrong with saying that. He may not always have been abusive, sure. But clearly the evidence in the book as shown in this thread is enough to say that he was abusive at the time of his death (and possibly for decades before then). He was not a kind and loving person, he was obsessed with power and would manipulate anything in his path to get what he wanted.

Some of that may be subjective, but we've got a damnation good narrative showing a history of Gavilar's actions. What's the point to defending him? 

[Asrael]

1 minute ago, GudThymes said:

Some of that may be subjective, but we've got a damnation good narrative showing a history of Gavilar's actions. What's the point to defending him? 

What's the point of defending the Singers if they're running around murdering Rosharans? Murder is worse than abuse right? Can't we sympathize with the Fused who are doing what they're doing out of anger? What they're doing is clearly wrong. I think many would still consider them justified. And they're murdering people.

I think declaring Gavilar full stop evil because he does a bad thing is irrational. He could be soooo much worse. And we don't know enough about him to know if he was redeemable. Dalinar did much worse things than Gavilar if we're adding up net bad, but Dalinar felt guilt and lived long enough to do something about it. We are given evidence that Gavilar felt guilt too, but we aren't given the benefit of seeing what might have happened next.

Quote

How had it come to this? Their arguments grew worse and worse. She knew he was not this man, the one he showed her lately. He wasn’t like this when he spoke to Dalinar, or to Sadeas, or even—usually—to Jasnah.

Gavilar was better than this. She suspected he knew it too. Tomorrow she would receive flowers. No apology to accompany them, but a gift, usually a bracelet.

Yes, he knew he should be something more. But… somehow she brought out the monster in him. And he somehow brought out the weakness in her. She slammed her safehand palm against the table, rubbing her forehead with her other hand.

...

Now they barely spoke without reaching for their sharpest knives—stabbing them right into the most painful spots with an accuracy gained only through longtime familiarity.

The point of these books is to prompt us to have these discussions. These are treatises on philosophy, ethics, and morality. If we determine that Gavilar is an evil monster no questions asked, I think we are rejecting the intent of the author, and rejecting the nuance of the questions.

[+Child of Hodor]

47 minutes ago, Asrael said:

I think this is a plausible theory. I'm not yet convinced that Gavilar is as awful as everyone seems to think he is. (Not saying it's not possible, hes clearly not squeaky-clean, I'm just not convinced yet). 
 

Yeah, I suspect we'll view Gavilar more positively after we get his POV in book 5. The first two books show him as competent, secretive and wise. The next two show him as arrogant, dangerous and cruel. The final one will show what he really thought and was doing. 

He was cruel to Navani, I think those resentments are real, but he was lashing out to distract her because she saw him with the Heralds and saw the voidlight gems. He may be keeping his immediate family out of his secret dealing to "protect" them, however misguided that may be. 

He seems to like Jasnah and respects her as a scholar. They spent a lot of time together discussing scholarly things during the year before his death. Yet he keeps her out of the secret "I'm going to be a god" stuff. 

[GudThymes]

3 minutes ago, Asrael said:

What's the point of defending the Singers if they're running around murdering Rosharans? Murder is worse than abuse right? Can't we sympathize with the Fused who are doing what they're doing out of anger? What they're doing is clearly wrong. I think many would still consider them justified. And they're murdering people.

I don't think delving into the morality of the Fused/Singers is worth diving into this thread. Happy to dive into that somewhere else. But I don't actually think the Singers defending their land is a bad thing. But Odium's involved (which we know about) so yeah, it's really complex.

 

4 minutes ago, Asrael said:

I think declaring Gavilar full stop evil because he does a bad thing is irrational.

I never said he's evil, and I don't think anyone else did on this specific thread. 

4 minutes ago, Asrael said:

He could be soooo much worse.

I feel like this is a logical fallacy. Anyone in this world could be worse than what they were, but that doesn't excuse any wrongs.

5 minutes ago, Asrael said:

Dalinar did much worse things than Gavilar if we're adding up net bad, but Dalinar felt guilt and lived long enough to do something about it.

We've seen firsthand that most of what Dalinar was doing was under the Unmade influence of the Thrill. I think that's why most people are able to go along with Dalinar and root for him. It was troubling to me to read about his storied past. All that said, we are also introduced to WoK Dalinar, and The Blackthorn is his past and people can change. We've been shown the opposite about Gavilar. Throughout the books we have slowly been shown that Gavilar was not this paragon of virtue we thought he was in the first book, he was conniving and was greedy for power. 

 

7 minutes ago, Asrael said:

If we determine that Gavilar is an evil monster no questions asked, I think we are rejecting the intent of the author, and rejecting the nuance of the questions.

Again, this hasn't been said. However, I will add something new to this conversation since we're having it here. My main focus is on the Amaram Jasnah dynamic. It's clear that his presence makes Jasnah very very uncomfortable. Now we don't know exactly why yet and there have been many threads speculating on it, but Jasnah's unwillingness is much greater than her being a perceived "spinster" something happened there and she doesn't want to beholden to any man (from WoK when she proposes the Casual to Shallan) let alone Amaram (literally anytime they come up in context of eachother). Now how does this relate to Gavilar? We see him in this prologue once again try to get Jasnah together with Amaram (we don't know exactly why Amaram but still), but he won't talk to his own daughter about his wishes. No. He tries to force Navani to do it, so that he doesn't sully his own relationship with her. I don't think this is directly abusive, however, it surely is manipulative and given all of this context definitely isn't ok.

[Asrael]

44 minutes ago, Child of Hodor said:

Yeah, I suspect we'll view Gavilar more positively after we get his POV in book 5. The first two books show him as competent, secretive and wise. The next two show him as arrogant, dangerous and cruel. The final one will show what he really thought and was doing. 

He was cruel to Navani, I think those resentments are real, but he was lashing out to distract her because she saw him with the Heralds and saw the voidlight gems. He may be keeping his immediate family out of his secret dealing to "protect" them, however misguided that may be. 

He seems to like Jasnah and respects her as a scholar. They spent a lot of time together discussing scholarly things during the year before his death. Yet he keeps her out of the secret "I'm going to be a god" stuff. 

This is what I'm talking about. This is still a plausible possibility on the table, but I see a lot of people being quite decisive before we have all the pieces. He may very well turn out to just be awful. I'm perfectly ok with that possibility, but I'm not ok with jumping to conclusions 

43 minutes ago, GudThymes said:

I never said he's evil, and I don't think anyone else did on this specific thread. 

Would you reject the notion that one could get that impression whether or not those specific words were used?  Take this for example:

1 hour ago, Greywatch said:

Quote

 Lately I've been seeing him characterized as a full on monster, and I think thats swinging way too hard in the other direction.

I am extremely comfortable in saying things like that about an abuser, yeah.

This is functionally equivalent. Given that words are merely windows to meaning, we need not use the same specific words to be reasonably perceived as pointing at the same meaning
 

43 minutes ago, GudThymes said:

I feel like this is a logical fallacy. Anyone in this world could be worse than what they were, but that doesn't excuse any wrongs.

But it does leave room for mercy. I'm not trying to excuse wrongs, I'm trying to spare the human. Are people their actions? If Gavilar does something evil, is he evil? If you do something evil, are you evil? (And if the victim is the judge of what constitutes evil, could you ever make the argument with certainty that you aren't evil? And Navani herself wasn't even willing to summarize him as all bad.)

 

43 minutes ago, GudThymes said:

We've seen firsthand that most of what Dalinar was doing was under the Unmade influence of the Thrill. I think that's why most people are able to go along with Dalinar and root for him. It was troubling to me to read about his storied past. All that said, we are also introduced to WoK Dalinar, and The Blackthorn is his past and people can change. We've been shown the opposite about Gavilar. Throughout the books we have slowly been shown that Gavilar was not this paragon of virtue we thought he was in the first book, he was conniving and was greedy for power. 

And we haven't seen first hand that Gavilar wasn't being influenced. We do know that Gavilar was influenced by the Thrill as well. We also know that Sadeas was a bad influence on him, persuading him to be more brutal. That suggests that he needed persuading. We also know he became less brutal over time, and more interested in peace and stability. 
We have indeed been shown that Gavilar is not the paragon of virtue Dalinar seemed to think he was, but that was a pretty high standard, and in my eyes he has much farther that he needs to drop before he compares to the likes of Sadeas or Amaram.


I'm going to give my last word on this, and then I'm not going to discuss it on this thread any more (it has been rightly pointed out that this isn't the place for it):

I'm a Christian, of the same variety as Brandon Sanderson. Thats my disclaimer, so you can write off my biases if you see it that way.

It really matters to me to be able to look at a character like Gavilar and regret and condemn his actions without sacrificing the human behind them. I need to give grace to Gavilar because I desperately need grace myself. And I'm terrified at drawing a line without knowing exactly who will be condemned by it, including future me. Bad actions are bad, we all agree on that, but we seem to apply fuzzy lines to how much bad means the person is bad and how much bad is "allowable". Rioters recently went out of their way to destroy local local businesses in protest. Thats definitely bad, maybe even deplorable. But are those people bad? They're certainly angry. I see a lot of defense of those people and their actions. I won't make a judgement call on them, I don't believe I'm qualified. A fictional character says things intended to hurt and belittle someone who needed their protection. Thats definitely bad. But its also par for the course for a great number of people who have been through messy divorces, some I'd even wager that some here might be personally acquainted with, and otherwise think well of. Furthermore, many would be quick even to defend someones hurtful words because they have chosen a side in the argument and they perceive the other person to have "shot first". (In this case Navani, and yet we don't even know what sort of "sharpest knives" shes pulled out on Gavilar, and we don't know for certain that she hasn't done so first on occasion). So where do we draw the line between not-bad-enough and bad-enough-actions? I won't say. I don't know; I'm fairly uncomfortable with the whole idea.

I condemn hurtful words. I condemn abuse. I will shelter the abused from abusers whenever called upon to do so. But I won't finally condemn a person for using hurtful words when I don't know what hurtful words or actions were used against him, I don't know how much the actions of the other party may have hurt the person, I don't know if or what ulterior motives might exist, I don't know what sort of evil influences might be present in a world full of evil spren and angry gods, and where at least some pov's even on that same night offer contradictory evidence that weighs into the mix. I'm railing against certainty and finality, not against the evaluation that what he did was bad.

Edited August 3, 2020 by Asrael

[Greywatch]

@Asrael If you want to move to PMs, that's acceptable as well. I'm a Christian, too, and my reaction comes from a long history of my religion being used to shelter and protect abusers instead of the abused. That's a part of its past that I have to reckon with. I also have worked in fields where contact with abused people was the main focus. What Gavilar did wasn't a red flag or an indication that he wasn't as good as people thought; the way he treated Navani was the proof of bad behaviour. It was in itself part of the abuse. There may be context yet to come, but my point is that context is never going to make it not as bad. Asking for delayed judgment because context might redeem him is apologia.

[GudThymes]

1 minute ago, Asrael said:

But it does leave room for mercy. I'm not trying to excuse wrongs, I'm trying to spare the human. Are people their actions? If Gavilar does something evil, is he evil? If you do something evil, are you evil? (And if the victim is the judge of what constitutes evil, could you ever make the argument with certainty that you aren't evil? And Navani herself wasn't even willing to summarize him as all bad.)

 

2 minutes ago, Asrael said:

And we haven't seen first hand that Gavilar wasn't being influenced.

Honestly I think this boils down to our own morality and opinions and I think you summarized a lot of your views in the rest of your comment. Your beliefs are yours and I can accept them as long as we are working with the same base "facts" so to speak.

I don't see it the same way as you. Hate, abuse, and misdeeds must be judged for what they are outside of context first. In my opinion it is only after we have first judged the deeds that we can then take the context of the circumstances for their actions. Given that we don't have the context for Gavilar but we do know the actions (since I think we both are ok with saying that unmade influence "excuses" some extent of wrongdoing) I am ok with writing him off as a human being. However, if I am given context for his actions then I may change my opinion.

Given that you dove into some real world context examples I feel like I should provide some of my background.

7 minutes ago, Asrael said:

I'm a Christian, of the same variety as Brandon Sanderson. Thats my disclaimer, so you can write off my biases if you see it that way.

Nice to learn more of your story Asrael; I was raised Jewish and am now an Athiest. Take that as you wish.

 

8 minutes ago, Asrael said:

Rioters recently went out of their way to destroy local local businesses in protest. Thats definitely bad, maybe even deplorable. But are those people bad? They're certainly angry.

I don't know where you live or what your experience was with the protesters but I'll speak from my experience and beliefs. I was there, businesses around my home were looted and broken into. You're right that the actions were bad. But it wasn't the protest or the protesters that led to destruction of local businesses. Everywhere I have been firsthand I heard the same stories. Protesters were trying to prevent the looting. Period. There is a subset of people that are ok with watching the world burn so to speak, and they know that under certain conditions they can get away with doing immoral deeds, those are people who traveled from other cities or out of state to try an co-opt the narrative being established.

[itinerantmarshmallow]

I would find it shortsighted to view Gavilar so definitely this soon and that doing so ignores large chunks of Dalinar's story in Oathbringer and the lessons of that book.
 

I don't think he wasn't unredeemable while also think his actions as depicted are awful.

 

If Dalinar can be redeemed and a nderstood in the context of outside influences, depression, addiction etc. we might see something similar for Gavilar.

It also comes down to if a recent and disturbing character change including verbal abuse (unsure if Navami alludes to physical abuse or not...) and it impacting the person permanently as a whole. Are they only made up of a oration of their lives?

It's something we see even in our own world when someone does something out of character but awful.
 

 

Edited August 4, 2020 by itinerantmarshmallow

[GudThymes]

1 hour ago, itinerantmarshmallow said:

I would find it shortsighted to view Gavilar so definitely this soon and that doing so ignores large chunks of Dalinar's story in Oathbringer and the lessons of that book.

I won't speak for everyone but I personally don't view Gavilar as a monster or think he's unredeemable. But the reaction I'm seeing is ridiculous. It's not that difficult to call and abuser and abuser. Since we keep going down this path let's pull some quotes from the prologue:

 

Quote

Why? Why do you continue to shut me out? Please, just tell me.”

“I deal in secrets you could not handle, Navani. If you knew the scope of what I’ve begun…”

This is representative of a pattern here. This isn't new to them, he has been keeping secrets from her. Gaslighting her.

Quote

He took her hand, forced apart her fingers, and removed the sphere. She didn’t fight him; he would not react well. He had never used his strength against her, not in that way, but there had been words. Comments. Threats.

This speaks for itself. C'mon now. 

Quote

He didn’t respond with shouts or rage, but the cold void in his eyes could have consumed continents and left only blackness. He raised his hand to her chin and gently cupped it, a mockery of a once-passionate gesture.

more threats of violence and use of power to control her.

Quote

No. Don’t let his lies become your truth. Fight it

more gaslighting.

 

I skipped over how he refers to his children and the verbal abuse to Navani since you could argue that "couples fight" -- I hate this argument personally, abuse can go both ways. But it sure looks like it is mainly coming from Gavilar.

 

I hear what you're saying about not judging him without more context but we might not get that. So until then we should judge his actions. Stop trying to defend an abuser because you think he may have been justified (if that's even possible). 

[+Oltux72]

10 hours ago, Greywatch said:

I am extremely comfortable in saying things like that about an abuser, yeah.

We are talking about a man how had a country conquered. Who had thousands slaughtered in his name, under whose banner a city was burned. A man who was ready to risk triggering an arcane catastrophe by mean he did not understand. May I suggest that we judge characters a bit more by their actions and less by their personal relations?

[FollowYourMuse]

13 hours ago, GudThymes said:

 

I don't see it the same way as you. Hate, abuse, and misdeeds must be judged for what they are outside of context first. In my opinion it is only after we have first judged the deeds that we can then take the context of the circumstances for their actions. Given that we don't have the context for Gavilar but we do know the actions (since I think we both are ok with saying that unmade influence "excuses" some extent of wrongdoing) I am ok with writing him off as a human being. However, if I am given context for his actions then I may change my opinion.

Given that you dove into some real world context examples I feel like I should provide some of my background.

Nice to learn more of your story Asrael; I was raised Jewish and am now an Athiest. Take that as you wish.

 

I don't know where you live or what your experience was with the protesters but I'll speak from my experience and beliefs. I was there, businesses around my home were looted and broken into. You're right that the actions were bad. But it wasn't the protest or the protesters that led to destruction of local businesses. Everywhere I have been firsthand I heard the same stories. Protesters were trying to prevent the looting. Period. There is a subset of people that are ok with watching the world burn so to speak, and they know that under certain conditions they can get away with doing immoral deeds, those are people who traveled from other cities or out of state to try an co-opt the narrative being established.

This has been my experience also, the rioters, looters and those destroying property were taking advantage of the situation or purposefully there to insight violence, and not actual protesters. 

There is also a real difference in mob mentality rioting and intentional abuse, Gavilar was not saying a something thoughtless in the heat of an argument he was being intentionally mean and and belittling.  
Abuse is abuse, there is no context that makes abuse excusable. 
 

Too often we excuse bad behavior, because the "person" is essentially good.  

 

Edited August 4, 2020 by FollowYourMuse

[Greywatch]

8 hours ago, Oltux72 said:

We are talking about a man how had a country conquered. Who had thousands slaughtered in his name, under whose banner a city was burned. A man who was ready to risk triggering an arcane catastrophe by mean he did not understand. May I suggest that we judge characters a bit more by their actions and less by their personal relations?

Abuse is an action.

[Knight Oblivion]

18 hours ago, GudThymes said:

I won't speak for everyone but I personally don't view Gavilar as a monster or think he's unredeemable. But the reaction I'm seeing is ridiculous. It's not that difficult to call and abuser and abuser. Since we keep going down this path let's pull some quotes from the prologue:

 

This is representative of a pattern here. This isn't new to them, he has been keeping secrets from her. Gaslighting her.

This speaks for itself. C'mon now. 

more threats of violence and use of power to control her.

more gaslighting.

 

I skipped over how he refers to his children and the verbal abuse to Navani since you could argue that "couples fight" -- I hate this argument personally, abuse can go both ways. But it sure looks like it is mainly coming from Gavilar.

 

I hear what you're saying about not judging him without more context but we might not get that. So until then we should judge his actions. Stop trying to defend an abuser because you think he may have been justified (if that's even possible). 

Yeah, reading Gavilar's abuse of Navani shook me to the core and brought back feelings I thought I'd dealt with. Incredibly uncomfortable how similar it was to my experience, especially her thoughts. The main difference was that he apparently never beat her unlike my ex-fiancé.

 

This prologue has definitely, severely darkened my opinion of Gavilar. It's more than a bit unsettling, especially seeing the apologists here. I experienced some of that too in my life as some people would try to play off or excuse my ex when she beat me with the same techniques I taught her to protect herself.