Would Jasnah be okay with Hemalurgy?

[Trusk'our he/him]

Jasnah Kholin is a very intelligent, very driven, and very practical person. When, and yes I believe that for someone like her it is only a matter of when, she discovers Hemalurgy, will she be okay with using it to accomplish her own ends?

To me, I would think 'yes', but what do you think?

[Honorless he/him]

She'd be... not okay with it exactly but willing to use it for the greater good. Kinda like the forum discussions on the possibilities of ethical usage of Hemalurgy, I think.

[+Oltux72 he/him]

She would immediately research whether spiked Fused still return and in turn build an army of enhanced Surgebinders.

[cometaryorbit]

I am not sure, because I don't exactly understand how her utilitarian side - e.g. her immediate suggestion to go kill the Heralds to send them back to Braize, as soon as the Oathpact is explained to her in Oathbringer - fits with the whole "life before death, journey before destination" thing.

It must work -- since she is a high ideal KR how she approaches the world must fit Ivory's take on what the First Ideal means -- but I don't think we've seen enough of *how* to extrapolate confidently.

It is possible that by spren rules, that doesn't "count" as a "life before death, journey before destination" issue since by the terms of the Oathpact the Heralds "should" be in Braize though.

Given her killing those criminals by Soulcasting, I think she'd be totally OK with using Hemalurgy to execute genuinely dangerous criminals so the power isn't lost. She'd just see that as sensible, and I don't think the risk of that becoming a slippery slope would mean as much to her as it would to most people.

I'd also expect her to be OK with "weaponized" Hemalurgy (like @Oltux72s suggestion of spiking Fused so they don't come back).

[Pathfinder]

If it can be shown that hemalurgy causes irreparable harm, and it is not necessary to prevent significant loss of life, then I do not believe Jasnah would employ hemalurgy. Utilitarianism is not being a robot. It is doing the most good and the least amount of harm. Based on my reading of the character, she continually examines ALL possibilities, but always pursues the avenue that does the most good with the least amount of harm. I have a thread with an extensive list of quotes taken as it is written that I believe supports that

 

 

[HSuperLee]

I think Jasnah would love hemalurgy. I think she'd see it as a way to take the inevitable meaninglessness that is most peoples' deaths and turn them into something self-sacrificial and meaningful. She'd probably phrase it in some way similar to giving people the ability to spit in the eye of death, even it doesn't let them actually defeat death.

[cometaryorbit]

6 minutes ago, Pathfinder said:

If it can be shown that hemalurgy causes irreparable harm, and it is not necessary to prevent significant loss of life, then I do not believe Jasnah would employ hemalurgy. Utilitarianism is not being a robot. It is doing the most good and the least amount of harm.

 

I agree with this, I'm just not sure Jasnah would see executing a genuinely dangerous criminal with powers using Hemalurgy as a problem.  She'd probably say they're going to be executed anyway, so no additional harm is happening, and their power is being saved, so it's actually less loss to society than a conventional execution.

I would be against this because of slippery slope issues, but I'm not sure Jasnah would be. And the issue of possible afterlife implications of Hemalurgy soul damage would probably be less convincing to her as well.

[Pathfinder]

10 minutes ago, cometaryorbit said:

I agree with this, I'm just not sure Jasnah would see executing a genuinely dangerous criminal with powers using Hemalurgy as a problem.  She'd probably say they're going to be executed anyway, so no additional harm is happening, and their power is being saved, so it's actually less loss to society than a conventional execution.

I would be against this because of slippery slope issues, but I'm not sure Jasnah would be. And the issue of possible afterlife implications of Hemalurgy soul damage would probably be less convincing to her as well.

That is why I qualified my statement with the first part "causes irreparable harm". I have had this discussion before on threads discussing hemalurgy. Basically if we approach this as there is no "afterlife" or soul (which Jasnah as an atheist would), then we can look at the process as pure function. There is numerous WoB that state it irreparably harms both the donor and the recipient. That harm is largely unable to be seen by those on Scadrial because they cannot see into the cognitive normally. On Roshar however, Jasnah has an ability that makes studying the cognitive practically effortless. So she would be able to see the damage done. Which is why I state she would need a very convincing reason to consider employing such a practice.

An example is even when we execute criminals, we do our best to prevent cruel and unusual punishment. Which is why so much effort is made to ensure the death of the criminal is as painless as possible. If that could not be prevented with hemalurgy, and all signs and WoB point to it cant' be, then unless there is an extremely compelling reason to do so, I do not think Jasnah would. 

Edited December 23, 2021 by Pathfinder

[cometaryorbit]

14 minutes ago, Pathfinder said:

That is why I qualified my statement with the first part "causes irreparable harm". I have had this discussion before on threads discussing hemalurgy. Basically if we approach this as there is no "afterlife" or soul (which Jasnah as an atheist would), then we can look at the process as pure function. There is numerous WoB that state it irreparably harms both the donor and the recipient. That harm is largely unable to be seen by those on Scadrial because they cannot see into the cognitive normally. On Roshar however, Jasnah has an ability that makes studying the cognitive practically effortless. So she would be able to see the damage done. Which is why I state she would need a very convincing reason to consider employing such a practice.

Soulcadting changes the Cognitive too, and we've seen Jasnah kill with that. So unless turning somebody's cognitive aspect to the cognitive aspect of smoke or crystal doesn't count as "damage", I don't think she'd see it that way.

The question of pain and suffering would be relevant, but she'd want to balance that against the gains achieved (she was willing to put the Heralds back on Braize). So it would depend on what you'd gain.

Spiking Surgebinding probably wouldn't work anyway since the spren would break the bond, and deadeye issues mean it could cause way more suffering than spiking a human could (spike through the heart would be fatal rather quickly, and non-Shadow dead humans go Beyond really quickly, but a deadeye might suffer forever). So she probably wouldn't do that.

 But in a situation where Jasnah's in contact with non-Rosharan System magics (which bringing in Hemalurgy already implies) I think she'd be in favor of spiking, say, Miles or Push/Pull from Era 2 Mistborn.  Same for a murderer with an useful Nightwatcher Boon, or something like that.

Same for someone terminally ill with powers agreeing voluntarily to be spiked.

At least in the current apocalyptic war situation. In peacetime,  perhaps not, since receiving a spike also has potentially bad effects on the recipient. But not losing potential useful powers would probably seem really important right now.

[Pathfinder]

So first before responding to cometaryorbit, I just wanted to clarify something. I respect your opinion, and I was just stating my own. i am not trying to change your mind, or make you see things my way. I am just responding to the points you made on my own opinion. 

 

47 minutes ago, cometaryorbit said:

Soulcadting changes the Cognitive too, and we've seen Jasnah kill with that. So unless turning somebody's cognitive aspect to the cognitive aspect of smoke or crystal doesn't count as "damage", I don't think she'd see it that way.

So all things are made of investiture right? And the entity that is transformed is not destroyed because it still is of investiture, just takes a different form. The entity can also maintain its sense of self in a different form, and still have memories. We have seen this in the Kaza interlude. The giant pillars of rock that was once air, remember they were once air, and enjoy being rock. The rock is then convinced to turn to smoke because the rock remembers the freedom of air, and willingly changes to smoke. That is all for an inanimate object. We do not know what happens to a sapient being. I would imagine the spiritual aspect returns to the spiritual realm like what normally happens at death. But got nothing to prove one way or the other. 

So what does this mean for soulcasting versus hemalurgy? Hemalurgy is the tearing of the spirit web off one one being, and stapling it to another. There are numerous WoB that this is very very bad for both parties. So whereas one leaves the spiritual aspect whole and theoretically allows it to continue on with its natural cycle, the other horribly distorts and disfigures it, causing pain. That is why I believe it would be termed cruel and unusual punishment.

Quote

The question of pain and suffering would be relevant, but she'd want to balance that against the gains achieved (she was willing to put the Heralds back on Braize). So it would depend on what you'd gain.

if the heralds are sent back to braize, and it accomplishes nothing. They can give in, and are returned to roshar. Something they have done countless times before. Team Honor then continues brain storming. If returning the heralds to braize works even for a week, then that is a week worth giving Team Honor a leg up against Team Odium. Again a function that the heralds have done countless times before. And voluntarily to boot. Hemalurgy in most cases that we have seen, baring a shardic intervention, is permanent and damaging beyond physical death. 

Quote

Spiking Surgebinding probably wouldn't work anyway since the spren would break the bond, and deadeye issues mean it could cause way more suffering than spiking a human could (spike through the heart would be fatal rather quickly, and non-Shadow dead humans go Beyond really quickly, but a deadeye might suffer forever). So she probably wouldn't do that.

So since we are asking how Jasnah would see the issue, then the Beyond is immaterial as she does not believe it exists. That is why I was breaking it down as purely a function. 

Quote

 But in a situation where Jasnah's in contact with non-Rosharan System magics (which bringing in Hemalurgy already implies) I think she'd be in favor of spiking, say, Miles or Push/Pull from Era 2 Mistborn.  Same for a murderer with an useful Nightwatcher Boon, or something like that.

If (and the WoB has gotten murky on this), using a gold compounder would allow someone to spike out the ability, and then heal it back, then I could concede Jasnah might see that as viable. However there is still the issue that as per Brandon, stapling onto someone does damage too. And being able to peer into the cognitive, visit it in person, and even speak with spren to better understand the effects, would result in Jasnah saying no. 

Quote

Same for someone terminally ill with powers agreeing voluntarily to be spiked.

For the reason I brought up before, the spiking of terminally ill would still be problematic. because it would still be doing harm to the person before they passed. A harm that could not be negated with anesthesia. And given that Jasnah could observe the cognitive, she would be aware of that fact. 

Quote

At least in the current apocalyptic war situation. In peacetime,  perhaps not, since receiving a spike also has potentially bad effects on the recipient. But not losing potential useful powers would probably seem really important right now.

I said there is would need to be an extremely compelling reason to do so. Like for instance team Honor is losing, and that is the only avenue for salvation. I know many people feel Jasnah is the type to jump right to the kill option, and their opinion/view is perfectly valid for them, and I respect that. But i completely disagree with it. Every single situation, and I mean every single one that we have seen with Jasnah, involves her take great amounts of time deliberating and looking for a number of solutions. And even when all facts point towards a particular solution, still she will struggle with it. So I personally do not believe she would cavalierly employ the practice of hemalurgy on people. Lock away the fused temporarily till a better accord could be reached? Maybe. Arguably it is already being employed by team Odium (jezerien). But I think a very compeling reason would be required to conduct hemalurgy in the way some people are positing. 

Edited December 23, 2021 by Pathfinder

[Szeth Pancakes he/they]

Holy scud it’s another Jasnah morality thread

when will they end

[cometaryorbit]

I agree she wouldn't do it "cavalierly" or often. She thinks pretty much all actions through heavily. And she'd only use it in limited circumstances- she'd definitely be against creating koloss or Inquisitors, which involves a ton of death and pain.

But doing something like what was done to Jezrien in reverse- using Hemalurgy to keep Fused from reincarnating - or preserving Invested abilities* from dangerous criminals would probably seem worth it.

*besides Surgebinding, because that probably wouldn't work

--

Would her Cognitive Realm view show Hemalurgic damage that others can't see? I'm not sure - the Cognitive aspect of a koloss after death is that of a normal, cognizant human.

 

[Frustration]

4 minutes ago, Szeth_Pancakes said:

Holy scud it’s another Jasnah morality thread

when will they end

there have been an abnormal amount of jasnah threads haven't there

[Trusk'our he/him]

 

13 minutes ago, Frustration said:

there have been an abnormal amount of jasnah threads haven't there

It's probably because for such a popular character, her morality is extremely questionable to some. (Plus, having an excuse for another Hemalurgy topic is always welcome by me )

[cometaryorbit]

Some people view Jasnah as a near "perfect" character, even unrealistically so.

Others see her as a very dark/flawed even possibly evil character who happens to be on the heroes' side, like Kelsier in the first Mistborn book.

(I am somewhere in between. I think Jasnah is well intentioned but dangerously ready to harm others for an apparent greater good. She thinks things through thoroughly enough as a habit that I don't think she will end up going the dark way that path generally leads to, ending up harming others for less and less reason -- but her being a queen is *really* dangerous because other people trying to emulate her probably would.)

[Pathfinder]

2 hours ago, Szeth_Pancakes said:

Holy scud it’s another Jasnah morality thread

when will they end

They won't and honestly it will probably get worse(worse as in number, not saying it is bad for people to create such topics). The primary reason for more is because Jasnah is going to be a focus/main character in the back five. So we are going to see A LOT more of her. The secondary reason is a large population of Brandon's readership is of the Church of Latter Day Saints, or hold to some religious affiliation. Jasnah is an atheist, so they are going to disagree on topics lol. That is not to say I am reducing anyone's arguments to that dichotomy. Just I think it is a big reason it comes up so often. 

2 hours ago, cometaryorbit said:

I agree she wouldn't do it "cavalierly" or often. She thinks pretty much all actions through heavily. And she'd only use it in limited circumstances- she'd definitely be against creating koloss or Inquisitors, which involves a ton of death and pain.

I am going to post two WoB at the end that support the issue with hemalurgy on donor and recipient. They are two of many, some outright saying hemalurgy is evil (on two occasions). I do not have the time to pull them all up. 

Quote

But doing something like what was done to Jezrien in reverse- using Hemalurgy to keep Fused from reincarnating - or preserving Invested abilities* from dangerous criminals would probably seem worth it.

One of the WoB clarifies that hemalurgy and fabrials though are analogous, they are different, and hemalurgy is definitely bad. 

Quote

*besides Surgebinding, because that probably wouldn't work

--

Would her Cognitive Realm view show Hemalurgic damage that others can't see? I'm not sure - the Cognitive aspect of a koloss after death is that of a normal, cognizant human.

 

Those koloss were the recipients, and had freshly been killed. We do not see on screen individuals who are currently koloss, nor do we see how the process of donating and receiving looks from the cognitive realm. We do however have numerous WoB that say it is very damaging, and very very bad

1 hour ago, Trusk'our said:

 

It's probably because for such a popular character, her morality is extremely questionable to some. (Plus, having an excuse for another Hemalurgy topic is always welcome by me )

So the post you put forward really asks two separate questions. 

1. is it ethical to use hemalurgy? yes or no

2. depending on the answer to number 1, would Jasnah use it?

 

Which would result in numerous possible outcomes. Some saying it was ethical, and Jasnah would do it. Some saying it is unethical and Jasnah would do it. Some saying It is ethical and Jasnah wouldn't do it. Some saying it is unethical and Jasnah wouldn't do it. 

1 hour ago, cometaryorbit said:

Some people view Jasnah as a near "perfect" character, even unrealistically so.

Others see her as a very dark/flawed even possibly evil character who happens to be on the heroes' side, like Kelsier in the first Mistborn book.

(I am somewhere in between. I think Jasnah is well intentioned but dangerously ready to harm others for an apparent greater good. She thinks things through thoroughly enough as a habit that I don't think she will end up going the dark way that path generally leads to, ending up harming others for less and less reason -- but her being a queen is *really* dangerous because other people trying to emulate her probably would.)

Personally I see Jasnah as a human being. She does the best she can with what she got. It is why I did the thread "Jasnah more than meets the eye". She continually questions herself and second guesses herself. Even when all the evidence points to a solution, she still holds back, or doesn't go through with it. 

People can feel however they wish about Jasnah. Some characters just rub people the wrong way. Some people disagree with characters. And that is ok. My personal concern is I feel utilitarianism is being misrepresented as a purely numbers game, which is not the case. And that is certainly not how Jasnah employs it. If utilitarianism was purely by the numbers, then the trolly problem would be pointless. The utilitarian would always choose to save the larger number of individuals over the single one. But that is not how it plays out. That is why there are so many permutations (criminal, pregnant woman, child, elderly, stranger, lover, etc). It is to demonstrate that morality is not clear cut, and requires nuance. Here are just five examples of where if Jasnah worked by pure numbers, she would have taken a different actions

 

1. Aesudean - Jasnah did not assassinate her. She had all the evidence in the world that said she should, and in the end proven she should had, but she didn't

2. Amaram - Same deal. If anything she scolded herself by reacting the way she did to him

3. Heralds - if she was so gun ho to kill them, then why didn't she? (I am sure some would argue Kaladin or Dalinar talked her out of it, but again, if she was so gun ho to do it, it would have happened)

4. Shallan - by all rights Jasnah should have executed Shallan twice. Once when it was revealed she stole the soulcaster, and again when Shallan revealed she knew Jasnah's secret. instead she took her on as an apprentice and is genuinely worried for her well being

5. Renarin - all evidence pointed to killing him being the right thing to do. Again she didn't

 

So five actions just off the top of my head that if she was ruled purely by numerical logic, she should have killed the above listed people. But she didn't. Because for myself at least, there is more nuance there. I readily acknowledge others disagree. Totally respect that. I am not writing this to change your mind. Feel however you wish about Jasnah all you want. No sweat off my back. Storms there is a thread specifically written for people who dislike the character to vent! I have known at least 10 people on this site who cannot stand Jasnah, and I am incredibly surprised that they have not taken that opportunity to post on it. 

 

So back to the point of this thread and my post. I just stated I believe it is unethical to commit hemalurgy because it causes irreparable harm. I believe that is harm that Jasnah could research and prove, and thereby would not employ it only unless under extreme duress. Hence my choice. I have included the two WoB I mentioned below

 

Questioner

How does rewriting the Spiritual aspect work?

Brandon Sanderson

...So, it has ramifications through the other two Realms. It can happen. You've seen it happen.

Questioner

That's what happens with kandra, right?

Brandon Sanderson

Yes, to an extent, yes.

Questioner

With the koloss?

Brandon Sanderson

Yeah, both of them. Hemalurgy is, like, sticking a piece of someone's spirit to another person's spirit and creating a Frankenstein's monster of spirits.

Oathbringer release party (Nov. 13, 2017)

 

 

Questioner

Are Hemalurgic spikes fabrials? Is a body that has been spiked a fabrial? Are koloss and kandra also something similar?

Brandon Sanderson

No, actually.

Fabrial means specifically a bit of Investiture that has been trapped by a gemstone and then modified to do something else. Hemalurgy is its own thing--though there is a slight similarity. In most Hemalurgy, Investiture keyed to the Identity of someone (a bit of a soul) is ripped off, and then magically grafted onto someone else's soul. Not the same, though I can see the confusion.

Koloss and kandra are similar, though in this case, the soul is mostly just being distorted by using an Invested spike. In the cosmere, the body will attempt to match the soul, and so a twisted soul (Spiritual aspect of a person) can have profound effects on both mind and body.

FAQFriday 2017 (March 10, 2017)

 

Tehdren

For instance, a person's spiritual component knows how old they are.

Wow. Has this been talked about before? This kind of seems like a big tidbit. Now we have some idea of how Hoid changes his age?

Brandon Sanderson

I haven't said if this is a method Hoid uses or not, but it's part of the reason the Lord Ruler turned to dust when he lost his metalminds. (His body tried to match the age his spirit said he was.)

Phantine

If they somehow killed the Lord Ruler in a conventional manner, would he still have turned to dust?

Brandon Sanderson

Yes. The metalminds would have stopped being tapped, and the spirit of the matter would probably still have had this strange effect. Not it didn't happen to the bodies of the shard vessels who died.

Phantine

Would koloss spikes turn off when they die too, so dead ones shrivel up like raisins?

Brandon Sanderson

Hemalurgy changes the spirit. So not necessarily.

Stormlight Three Update #5 (Nov. 21, 2016)

 

 

Another WoB, this one saying hemalurgy always hurts. Also pointing that spren would be against it. So theoretically if Jasnah did it, Ivory would disagree and want to end the bond with her. Which I couldn't see her doing. It would also prevent the recipients from getting a spren bond which would defeat the purpose of an army of super surgebinders. The spren would reject it. 

 

Djarskublar (paraphrased)

So I could be wrong, but a Hemalurgic spike, when you use it and become a savant it does damage to your Spiritweb, right?

Brandon Sanderson (paraphrased)

Yes Hemalurgy always hurts you.

Djarskublar (paraphrased)

So say you go to Roshar and you give somebody a Hemalurgic spike for some Allomantic power, don't care what, and you use it to become a savant. Does that qualify them as 'broken' enough to become a Radiant? As long as they are also following the Ideals to attract a spren.

Brandon Sanderson (paraphrased)

So becoming a Radiant is a spectrum of terminologies. It... probably, but you would have to find a Radiant who would, or a spren who would be willing to touch that, okay? It's going to drive them back.

Djarskublar (paraphrased)

So would it also affect your probability of becoming an Elantrian?

Brandon Sanderson (paraphrased)

Yeah it would affect your ability to become anything else, yes.

Djarskublar (paraphrased)

Okay, so would it be a positive effect, negative effect...? Because I was like, it gives you cracks in your Spiritweb.

Brandon Sanderson (paraphrased)

It does give you cracks in your Spiritweb.

Djarskublar (paraphrased)

So it's easier for Investiture to get in. Does it make it easier for other Investitures to get in?

Brandon Sanderson (paraphrased)

It would make it... yes. It's going to drive spren away. So what it's really going to make easier for, there, is spren and Investiture that doesn't care.

Djarskublar (paraphrased)

Okay, so Investiture doesn't care but spren do.

Brandon Sanderson (paraphrased)

Investiture might care depending on if it's part of a Shard-- if it has intent and things like this.

Djarskublar (paraphrased)

So it might let Stormlight in easier than a Breath, type thing.

Brandon Sanderson (paraphrased)

I'm saying it might let Odium in easier than Syl. Because Syl would care, and Odium would not care.

Djarskublar (paraphrased)

Okay cool.

Brandon Sanderson (paraphrased)

Alright, so it could be a really bad thing, is what I'm trying to say to you.

Djarskublar (paraphrased)

Yeah that's cool. I just want to know more about gold too. Gold Allomancy too. Because Miles was doing some funky stuff.

Brandon Sanderson (paraphrased)

Miles was doing some funky stuff.

Dark Talent release party (Sept. 6, 2016)

Edited December 23, 2021 by Pathfinder

[Sp00ks]

1 hour ago, Pathfinder said:

They won't and honestly it will probably get worse(worse as in number, not saying it is bad for people to create such topics). The primary reason for more is because Jasnah is going to be a focus/main character in the back five. So we are going to see A LOT more of her. The secondary reason is a large population of Brandon's readership is of the Church of Latter Day Saints, or hold to some religious affiliation. Jasnah is an atheist, so they are going to disagree on topics lol. That is not to say I am reducing anyone's arguments to that dichotomy. Just I think it is a big reason it comes up so often. 

I really REALLY doubt that some percentage of Brandon's readerbase being Mormon significantly affects a large enough portion of the fanbase to create a meaningful shift in the fandom's opinion on Jasnah. I think she's just a divisive character, religious affiliation or not. I'm atheist, and I still don't really like her. Don't blame these things on religious affiliation

Edited December 24, 2021 by Sp00ks
Spelling

[Pathfinder]

16 minutes ago, Sp00ks said:

I really REALLY doubt that some percentage of Brandon's readerbase being Mormon significantly affects a large enough portion of the fanbase to create a meaningful shift in the fandom's opinion on Jasnah. I think she's just a divisive character, religious affiliation or not. I'm atheist, and I still don't really like her. Don't blame these things on religious affiliation

I am not blaming anything on anything. I was saying I believe it to be a contributing factor considering there are three recent threads regarding her atheism, and there are far more that are older. As I said, I am not reducing anyone's argument to "because you are religious you are against Jasnah". What I am saying is considering she is an atheist, and a large portion of the reader base is religious, then that subject matter would come up more often. Amaram came up a whole lot while he was still alive, and he was a proponent of religion. Further just to clarify, I am not saying religion is why she is divisive. Adolin, Shallan, Kaladin, and Dalinar are also divisive. Just about every character in the stormlight is divisive. Actually every character across every sanderson book is divisive. 

Hmm maybe this would work. Jasnah is going to come up more often in the books, which means she will have more prevalence. Jasnah is an atheist and it is a large part of her character. Thereby religion is bound to be a main topic or concern regarding discussions with her. Given a large concentration of readership holds religion to be an important factor in their lives (which they are totally entitled to and I respect), I would imagine that would be a prevalent topic of discussion. I am not blaming anyone of anything. I don't think there is anything to be blamed

Edited December 24, 2021 by Pathfinder

[Sp00ks]

3 minutes ago, Pathfinder said:

I am not blaming anything on anything. I was saying I believe it to be a contributing factor considering there are three recent threads regarding her atheism, and there are far more that are older. As I said, I am not reducing anyone's argument to "because you are religious you are against Jasnah". What I am saying is considering she is an atheist, and a large portion of the reader base is religious, then that subject matter would come up more often. Amaram came up a whole lot while he was still alive, and he was a proponent of religion. Further just to clarify, I am not saying religion is why she is divisive. Adolin, Shallan, Kaladin, and Dalinar are also divisive. Just about every character in the stormlight is divisive. Actually every character across every sanderson book is divisive. 

I think a lot of people's issue with her Atheism stems much more from her existing in a world that very clearly has gods, and not from religious readers thinking she shouldn't be an atheist because they themselves are religious. Yes, I know she accepts the idea of there being a god and so forth, but most of the threads I've seen come from this angle. 

[Pathfinder]

13 minutes ago, Sp00ks said:

 not from religious readers thinking she shouldn't be an atheist because they themselves are religious. 

I feel you are putting words in my mouth. I never said that.

[Sp00ks]

1 hour ago, Pathfinder said:

I feel you are putting words in my mouth. I never said that.

I'm baffled at how else you expected "Mormons would bring up the topic of her Atheism more" to be interpreted?

[Pathfinder]

8 minutes ago, Sp00ks said:

I'm baffled at how else you expected "Mormons would bring up the topic of her Atheism more" to be interpreted?

Yet again, not what i said.

[KaladinWorldsinger]

9 hours ago, Pathfinder said:

What I am saying is considering she is an atheist, and a large portion of the reader base is religious, then that subject matter would come up more often.

Is Brandon's fanbase any more religious than other fanbases? Because that was not what I felt. Maybe a bit more but not a lot.

 

Infact Brandon's works are a very comfortable reads for atheists because the the 'gods' turn out to be very human people. Even rayse is an ordinary psychopath

Edited December 24, 2021 by KaladinWorldsinger

[Pathfinder]

2 hours ago, KaladinWorldsinger said:

In fact Brandon's works are a very comfortable reads for atheists because the the 'gods' turn out to be very human people. Even rayse is an ordinary psychopath

I never said that either. I never stated anything negative regarding any religious group posting anything. I never said anything was uncomfortable for anyone. I never said anyone had a problem reading anything. I really and genuinely do not see how what i wrote said any of that. None of those words were even contained in my posts.

 

How about this. Could you point out to me and explain where i wrote that posting about jasnah is a bad thing? Point out where i wrote that posting about jasnah means they are uncomfortable about their beliefs? Or even where i wrote that other people feel they cannot post about it? Because I really don't see where i wrote any of that, which is why i really don't see why what i wrote is being presented in that way.

Edited December 24, 2021 by Pathfinder

[KaladinWorldsinger]

12 hours ago, Pathfinder said:

What I am saying is considering she is an atheist, and a large portion of the reader base is religious, then that subject matter would come up more often

 

1 hour ago, Pathfinder said:

I never said that either. I never stated anything negative regarding any religious group posting anything. I never said anything was uncomfortable for anyone. I never said anyone had a problem reading anything. I really and genuinely do not see how what i wrote said any of that. None of those words were even contained in my posts.

 

How about this. Could you point out to me and explain where i wrote that posting about jasnah is a bad thing? Point out where i wrote that posting about jasnah means they are uncomfortable about their beliefs? Or even where i wrote that other people feel they cannot post about it? Because I really don't see where i wrote any of that, which is why i really don't see why what i wrote is being presented in that way.

I just popped into the discussion because I did not think Brandon's fanbase was any more religious than others. Then I went on an Ill-considered tangent about how people can still be comfortable with the core motifs. I wasn't trying to put words in your mouth. Sorry if I was rude