The True Enemy - OATHBRINGER SPOILERS

[Cole]

I'm making my way through my first read-through of stormlight and I am currently about halfway through Oathbringer. I've made an observation that I think is meant to be there. 

It seems like in most fantasy series it is easy to hate the evil enemy (WoT for example: You despise the forsaken and the Shadowspawn forces because they are ruining the Main characters' lives) but in Stormlight I find myself loathing the Alethi and kind of rooting for the Parshendi. Obviously, the Alethi Culture is messed up and totally inefficient, but after reading a Moash point of View chapter with the normal Parshendi, I feel that they could run a better civilization than the Alethi ever could. Now I know this probably won't work out due to the control of the Fused, but I still like the Parshendi better than the Alethi. 

It is made clear that the Alethi suck, but I haven't really gotten a sense of hatred for the Parshendi. The only thing they have done is try to prevent desolations, which kinda makes them the protagonist right? So I just wanted to make this post to get input about this and see how others feel. 

[Aspiring Writer]

11 hours ago, Cole said:

The only thing they have done is try to prevent

What do you mean by this?

[AquaRegia]

6 minutes ago, Aspiring Writer said:

What do you mean by this?

I think @Cole is referring to the Listeners resisting the call of their old gods, forswearing the old forms of power, and trying to prevent the return of the Desolation.  They are the ones named "Parshendi" by the Alethi.

I agree that Brandon has done a terrific job of showing both races as "people", with varied goals and ideals... and yes, the Alethi certainly do come off looking like the jerks of the story in many ways.  One of the overarching themes of all his Cosmere works is the lack of a simple black-and-white good/evil dichotomy.  Everyone, protagonists and antagonists alike, always has valid reasons for doing what they are doing.

[Aspiring Writer]

1 hour ago, AquaRegia said:

I think @Cole is referring to the Listeners resisting the call of their old gods, forswearing the old forms of power, and trying to prevent the return of the Desolation.  They are the ones named "Parshendi" by the Alethi.

I agree that Brandon has done a terrific job of showing both races as "people", with varied goals and ideals... and yes, the Alethi certainly do come off looking like the jerks of the story in many ways.  One of the overarching themes of all his Cosmere works is the lack of a simple black-and-white good/evil dichotomy.  Everyone, protagonists and antagonists alike, always has valid reasons for doing what they are doing.

If that what he means, remember there is a difference between the Listeners and Singers. This is like saying the Thaylens are the same as the Alethi.

[ScadrianTank]

I'm not sure how to put this without spoilers for the rest of Oathbringer, but the Alethi seem to be on the boring side of the nations of Roshar. Vedens have the same problem because they and the Alethi are so alike, but we get a lot less of them. That said, while Singers are better at organizing, it's only because of the Fused and the Voidspren.  They started enough Desolations to learn the entire organizing your species for war thing by heart.  How they would manage society if they won is a different matter and not at all obvious.

[Frustration]

13 hours ago, AquaRegia said:

Everyone, protagonists and antagonists alike, always has valid reasons for doing what they are doing.

Uhm, hard disagree.

Everyone has reasons, Valid is a whole different matter.

[Cole]

13 hours ago, AquaRegia said:

  One of the overarching themes of all his Cosmere works is the lack of a simple black-and-white good/evil dichotomy.  

This is exactly what I'm saying and it is one of the things that makes the Cosmere sooooo intriguing.

Also,

12 hours ago, Aspiring Writer said:

If that what he means, remember there is a difference between the Listeners and Singers. This is like saying the Thaylens are the same as the Alethi.

I meant the listeners. However, I don't think I've read enough to really compare the two yet so I could be making judgements that don't really make any sense.

[AquaRegia]

51 minutes ago, Frustration said:

Uhm, hard disagree.

Everyone has reasons, Valid is a whole different matter.

I suppose it might be a semantic argument, but I'll defend the position that the "validity" of the motivation for a behavior is determined by the person experiencing the motivation.  I'll add that if the motivation is emotional in nature, there is no such thing as an "invalid" emotion - we feel what we feel, and that's it.  I don't think anybody decides "I'll do this thing, which is difficult and painful, even though I have no valid reason for doing so".  I certainly don't see any Sanderson characters doing this.  Do you have examples of "invalid reasons"?

We are free to disagree with a character's reason for doing x, but TO THAT CHARACTER, based on what they know, believe, and feel, it's a valid reason.

15 minutes ago, Cole said:

I meant the listeners. However, I don't think I've read enough to really compare the two yet so I could be making judgements that don't really make any sense.

I think what you typed makes perfect sense.  You didn't say "humans suck", you said "Alethi suck".  You didn't say "I'm rooting for the Singers", you said "I'm rooting for the Parshendi", which I understood to mean "the Listeners".  If we take the term Singers to mean, as it usually does, the species as a whole, the Listeners are a small, culturally unique group of Singers - the only ones we have seen who haven't spent generations trapped in Slaveform - and I agree they are absolutely worth rooting for.

[Frustration]

6 minutes ago, AquaRegia said:

I suppose it might be a semantic argument, but I'll defend the position that the "validity" of the motivation for a behavior is determined by the person experiencing the motivation.  I'll add that if the motivation is emotional in nature, there is no such thing as an "invalid" emotion - we feel what we feel, and that's it.  I don't think anybody decides "I'll do this thing, which is difficult and painful, even though I have no valid reason for doing so".  I certainly don't see any Sanderson characters doing this.  Do you have examples of "invalid reasons"?

Why does Odium want to splinter all the shards?

Killing Jezrien

basically anything Taravangian has done

etc etc

[Cole]

6 minutes ago, Frustration said:

Why does Odium want to splinter all the shards?

Killing Jezrien

basically anything Taravangian has done

etc etc

These are invalid in that they are morally wrong, however, the motivations to do these things are as explained "valid." I think the term "valid" is making things a little confusing. These things are in no way just. But when looking at it from Taravangian's perspective it is just to save the human race. So whether or not it is valid or invalid is up to interpretation. It is valid to Taravangian because he is insane and is motivated by his insane views. But invalid from a moral standpoint. 

[AquaRegia]

I don't think we can talk about Odium's motivation or what happened to Jezrien here without getting too spoilery... although I think it's easy to defend those as valid actions, again, based on what the characters know and believe to be true.  The first definition of valid I found seems fine:

Valid: having a sound basis in logic or fact; reasonable or cogent.

Note - nothing about good/evil, right/wrong, moral/immoral.  Simply "is it logical?" or "does it make sense?"

Taravangian is an excellent example.  He KNOWS the Final Desolation is coming, he BELIEVES that humanity will be wiped out if he does not act, and he absolutely has been given power beyond any mortal man, in the form of brilliance and foresight.  He sees it as his HIGHEST DUTY to do whatever is necessary to save some part of humanity from total destruction.  Every choice he makes is in service of that goal.  We can agree some of his choices are objectively evil, and wish he had made different ones... but I don't see how anyone can argue that they somehow don't MAKE SENSE. 

Spoiler tag for anyone who has not yet finished Oathbringer:

Spoiler

I mean, he succeeds, right?  His planning and tough choices ultimately allow him to win a deal with Odium that guarantees Kharbranth, at least, will survive.  He tried for more, but he took what he thought he could get.  Rational.  Logical.  Valid reasoning.

I apologize if this is too pedantic.  I am a pedant, and I see that as a valid reason for behaving the way I do.  ;-)

[Frustration]

6 minutes ago, AquaRegia said:

I don't think we can talk about Odium's motivation or what happened to Jezrien here without getting too spoilery... although I think it's easy to defend those as valid actions, again, based on what the characters know and believe to be true.  The first definition of valid I found seems fine:

Valid: having a sound basis in logic or fact; reasonable or cogent.

Note - nothing about good/evil, right/wrong, moral/immoral.  Simply "is it logical?" or "does it make sense?"

Taravangian is an excellent example.  He KNOWS the Final Desolation is coming, he BELIEVES that humanity will be wiped out if he does not act, and he absolutely has been given power beyond any mortal man, in the form of brilliance and foresight.  He sees it as his HIGHEST DUTY to do whatever is necessary to save some part of humanity from total destruction.  Every choice he makes is in service of that goal.  We can agree some of his choices are objectively evil, and wish he had made different ones... but I don't see how anyone can argue that they somehow don't MAKE SENSE. 

Spoiler tag for anyone who has not yet finished Oathbringer:

  Reveal hidden contents

I mean, he succeeds, right?  His planning and tough choices ultimately allow him to win a deal with Odium that guarantees Kharbranth, at least, will survive.  He tried for more, but he took what he thought he could get.  Rational.  Logical.  Valid reasoning.

I apologize if this is too pedantic.  I am a pedant, and I see that as a valid reason for behaving the way I do.  ;-)

And I can't see any decision without a moral lens.

I suppose you are right that they are at least somewhat logical

[RAFOmancer]

On 2/21/2021 at 5:42 PM, Cole said:

It seems like in most fantasy series it is easy to hate the evil enemy (WoT for example: You despise the forsaken and the Shadowspawn forces because they are ruining the Main characters' lives) but in Stormlight I find myself loathing the Alethi and kind of rooting for the Parshendi.

Like,that is sooo weird,I also,kind of hope that the Singers win.I don't really know why,but maybe because I want them to reclaim their homeland. They were refugees at first ,but the humans turned out to be  invaders actually. I just like the Singers.

Edited September 2, 2022 by RAFOmancer

[SpinningSky]

I agree, in general I find Stormlight in particular to have "good" and "bad" characters, rather than races. 
I think it's part of Brandon being a very modern author not having "the evil dark people" and "the divine blonde people" (*cough cough Tolkien cough*). (just a joke to exagerate, definitly don't want this become a conversation about that topic)

 

On 22/2/2021 at 4:10 AM, AquaRegia said:

One of the overarching themes of all his Cosmere works is the lack of a simple black-and-white good/evil dichotomy.  Everyone, protagonists and antagonists alike, always has valid reasons for doing what they are doing.

I think you're so spot on on this (overall cosmere spoilers do not read if you're not up to date)

Spoiler

I mean the whole of the Cosmere seems to building up to Kelsier VS Hoid right? And Kelsier starts off as one of everybody's favorite characters, and I can't say I can easily root for Hoid, and the fact that his motivations and plans are hidden hightens that fact. It's probably what makes the Cosmere feel so real

 

Edited September 2, 2022 by SpinningSky