Moral of the story

[clowncarcrash]

One thing I loved about the book is..... Brandon does this good job at playing against my own bias. Like, even though Taravangian proved he could do these clutch plays when he "weak", I still saw him as weak whenever he was dumb, and that really made the end of Book 4 really surprising.

But Brandon went in a way different direction that I anticipated, and the gist I got from it is "word of the law is stupid, honor matters more". But the ending of book 5 seem to suggest "Hey.... honor can be just as stupid as word-of-the-law."

I think I'm still conditioned by the other four books that honor matters more because it safeguards you to becoming something you don't want to become. I expected our heroes to lose by adhering to honor because they don't want to win dishonorably.....so to have our heroes lose....not dishonorably but not with honor. It's wrinkling my brain.

Really interesting conclusion because I thought this ending was going to be about the breaking point of “Protecting ten innocents is not worth killing one.” Cool ideal but is that true when we're talking about millions? So yeah, I wanted to gauge the room and ask what everyone else got from it because I'm very conflicted as to what I think Brandon was going for.

[Subvisual Haze]

"You, the reader, go to therapy"

[boonboon]

My main takeaway from the series is that if you have messy hair you can do whatever you want and everything will work out. 

[Returned he/him]

"Strong conclusions about morality and ethics are unwise because they are nearly guaranteed to be incomplete and imperfect".

That was Jasnah's realization, and Dalinar's, and Nale's, and Ishar's, and the Stormfather's, and Tanavast's, and Kaladin's, and Szeth's, and more.

Possibly it's true of Taravangian as well, who was unable to force Dalinar to agree that brutal utilitarianism is correct. But I think that his viewpoint is undermined by his arguments against Jasnah (essentially that her understanding of utility was too limited to actually achieve good outcomes because she wasn't sufficiently informed and/or she wasn't smart enough). I find that interesting, juxtaposed against Taravangian of the Diagram and, now, Taravangian of Retribution. Are his definitions and knowledge of context good enough to achieve the ethical result, or is he still too limited despite divinity? It's awfully convenient for him to discover that the most right thing to do is also exactly what he already wanted to do, and had already committed to doing.

Hoid maybe has the knowledge but is circumspect about saying what the right thing is, save for hating the Passions. Nohadon seems like he is the guy with the answers, but he speaks in parables and questions rather than actually giving those answers.

[RedBlue]

On 12/15/2024 at 11:27 PM, clowncarcrash said:

Really interesting conclusion because I thought this ending was going to be about the breaking point of “Protecting ten innocents is not worth killing one.” Cool ideal but is that true when we're talking about millions? So yeah, I wanted to gauge the room and ask what everyone else got from it because I'm very conflicted as to what I think Brandon was going for.

I think Brandon was never trying to give a didactic moral ‘lesson’ in any of his books. Like most good stories, it’s about exploring themes, not about making a specific point about right and wrong.

Utilitarianism is a strong theme in WaT, alongside the series’ usual themes of mental illness and personal growth. We see characters with different viewpoints — Jasnah, Fen, Taravangian, Dalinar, Szeth — grapple with difficult moral quandaries and come to their own conclusions.

In the end, Dalinar doesn’t have to make the choice Taravangian tries to force on him, because he manages to find a third option that allows him to have his cake and eat it. This allows the story to sidestep the question of whether sacrificing Gavinor would be the ‘correct’ choice, because it’s not the story’s job to tell the reader where to draw the line on sacrificing innocents to save other innocents. It’s the story’s job to ask the question.

[superstormstressed]

Spirit of the law vs the letter of the law? Promise va oaths, the vessel vs the shard, and how szeth says "i am the law." Sanderson sees the value of oaths, the ideals, and the law, but shows how these can be corrupted and end up working against their original purpose.

I think it aligns with Sanderson's liberal Mormonism. The book is infused with his religious outlook, just like how Tolkein's Catholicism does in his novels.

[BridgeBoi]

Be aggresively mediocre at therapy and you will solve everyone's lifelong struggles in ten days.

[TwinStorm He/Him]

30 minutes ago, BridgeBoi said:

Be aggresively mediocre at therapy and you will solve everyone's lifelong struggles in ten days.

HE GETS GOOD LATER.

The Nale scene was great

[BridgeBoi]

Still it strains credulity that a single person can solve around 6 characters lifelong struggles in 10 day. 

[TwinStorm He/Him]

12 minutes ago, BridgeBoi said:

Still it strains credulity that a single person can solve around 6 characters lifelong struggles in 10 day. 

Maybe not Ishar, but Nale’s is believable (and Nightblood’s)

[+Child of Hodor]

Nothing beats a good flute solo.

[The Sovereign]

"If you can't win, don't play."

[clowncarcrash]

18 hours ago, RedBlue said:

I think Brandon was never trying to give a didactic moral ‘lesson’ in any of his books. Like most good stories, it’s about exploring themes, not about making a specific point about right and wrong.

Utilitarianism is a strong theme in WaT, alongside the series’ usual themes of mental illness and personal growth. We see characters with different viewpoints — Jasnah, Fen, Taravangian, Dalinar, Szeth — grapple with difficult moral quandaries and come to their own conclusions.

In the end, Dalinar doesn’t have to make the choice Taravangian tries to force on him, because he manages to find a third option that allows him to have his cake and eat it. This allows the story to sidestep the question of whether sacrificing Gavinor would be the ‘correct’ choice, because it’s not the story’s job to tell the reader where to draw the line on sacrificing innocents to save other innocents. It’s the story’s job to ask the question.

I like your take but I disagree with your last sentence. It's not the story' job to tell the reader where to draw the line, but I'd love to have the character make the choice, and we as readers ask ourselves, as well as fellow readers if that was the right choice. Like I said in my original post, I think it would be really interesting if we had a victory in the bag, and we purposefully fumbled it and gave Taravangian the win because it was "the right thing to do". 

 

16 hours ago, superstormstressed said:

Spirit of the law vs the letter of the law? Promise va oaths, the vessel vs the shard, and how szeth says "i am the law." Sanderson sees the value of oaths, the ideals, and the law, but shows how these can be corrupted and end up working against their original purpose.

I think it aligns with Sanderson's liberal Mormonism. The book is infused with his religious outlook, just like how Tolkein's Catholicism does in his novels.

I like this idea. I'm reminded of the lyrics to a song I really like "rules without exceptions last eternally". When I was younger I interpreted that line to mean, Really good rules don't have exceptions. Or that exceptions lead to the death of rules and enforcement. Now I'm thinking.... maybe thats the point. Rules shouldn't last eternally. 

[Aeshdan he/him]

Yeah, this has been one of my biggest disappointments with Wind And Truth. One of the things that I really liked about the first few Stormlight books (particularly Words of Radiance and Oathbringer, but also Way of Kings to a lesser degree) was that they were books where morality was a major part of the plot, that characters drew power from their Honor and we got to see moral lessons played out in a practical fashion. Words of Radiance helped me really understand the importance of protecting even those you don't like, Oathbringer showed me what repentance looks like and helped me to understand what I already believed about how it works. But the last two books, it feels like Sanderson has shifted his focus from morality to therapy, lost a lot of the book's original focus on Honor and virtue to instead focus on mental health. If there was supposed to be a moral in Rhythm of War I missed it, and I don't understand what lessons Sanderson was trying to teach in Wind and Truth.

[clowncarcrash]

On 1/4/2025 at 4:40 PM, Aeshdan said:

Yeah, this has been one of my biggest disappointments with Wind And Truth. One of the things that I really liked about the first few Stormlight books (particularly Words of Radiance and Oathbringer, but also Way of Kings to a lesser degree) was that they were books where morality was a major part of the plot, that characters drew power from their Honor and we got to see moral lessons played out in a practical fashion. Words of Radiance helped me really understand the importance of protecting even those you don't like, Oathbringer showed me what repentance looks like and helped me to understand what I already believed about how it works. But the last two books, it feels like Sanderson has shifted his focus from morality to therapy, lost a lot of the book's original focus on Honor and virtue to instead focus on mental health. If there was supposed to be a moral in Rhythm of War I missed it, and I don't understand what lessons Sanderson was trying to teach in Wind and Truth.

Eh, I think the therapy stuff was always there. Like, in all the books Kaladin struggles with depression and obviously Shallan has her Dissociative identity disorder. Like, the entire premise of Knights Radiants are people with broken spiritwebs. I don't think you can form a nahel bond if you're a well adjusted person. While your opinion is valid, I don't think thats applicable to what I was saying. Like Dalinar didn't do reach his decision over a breakthrough session at therapy. His decision is more about questioning honor and being done with honor when its not useful. 

[Nitpicking]

6 hours ago, clowncarcrash said:

I don't think you can form a nahel bond if you're a well adjusted person.

Just as an exercise, can you name any well adjusted people in the books? Or real life?

[Mage of Lirigon he/him]

On 1/4/2025 at 7:40 PM, Aeshdan said:

Yeah, this has been one of my biggest disappointments with Wind And Truth. One of the things that I really liked about the first few Stormlight books (particularly Words of Radiance and Oathbringer, but also Way of Kings to a lesser degree) was that they were books where morality was a major part of the plot, that characters drew power from their Honor and we got to see moral lessons played out in a practical fashion. Words of Radiance helped me really understand the importance of protecting even those you don't like, Oathbringer showed me what repentance looks like and helped me to understand what I already believed about how it works. But the last two books, it feels like Sanderson has shifted his focus from morality to therapy, lost a lot of the book's original focus on Honor and virtue to instead focus on mental health. If there was supposed to be a moral in Rhythm of War I missed it, and I don't understand what lessons Sanderson was trying to teach in Wind and Truth.

The moral of the story is to think critically about your morals.

Any moral system you use without thinking about the context behind it is like a house with a bad foundation. When a disaster happens it's going to collapse and you might get hurt with it.

Being a moral person isn't about following a set of rules someone gave you, it's about asking questions about how those rules came about in the first place and how they relate to your life. That's the most practical fashion in which morality can impact people. That's what Sanderson was trying to teach in this novel.

Edited January 6, 2025 by Mage of Lirigon

[Argenti he/him]

55 minutes ago, Nitpicking said:

Just as an exercise, can you name any well adjusted people in the books? Or real life?

8 hours ago, clowncarcrash said:

Eh, I think the therapy stuff was always there. Like, in all the books Kaladin struggles with depression and obviously Shallan has her Dissociative identity disorder. Like, the entire premise of Knights Radiants are people with broken spiritwebs. I don't think you can form a nahel bond if you're a well adjusted person. While your opinion is valid, I don't think thats applicable to what I was saying. Like Dalinar didn't do reach his decision over a breakthrough session at therapy. His decision is more about questioning honor and being done with honor when its not useful. 

Lopen.

[Nitpicking]

5 minutes ago, Argenti said:

Lopen.

He himself disagreed with you, in Dawnshard.

[Argenti he/him]

3 minutes ago, Nitpicking said:

He himself disagreed with you, in Dawnshard.

He says he's not broken.

Spoiler

Spencer Walther

Lopen clearly states he doesn't consider himself a broken character, like all the other Knights. Do you consider him a broken character?

Brandon Sanderson

I do not. And, again, "broken" is a term with a lot of baggage, let's point that out. I would rather use the terminology that a given person is comfortable with, and let them put definitions on that themselves. Because the way I view it, I don't really view most people as "broken," even if they may use that terminology. What they might have is, they might have certain mental health issues that they haven't yet figured out how to work with that are integral to who they are. But not broken, just still practicing. And that's how I would define a lot of people, but I don't get to define it for those people, if that makes sense.

And one of the things I like to do is to have a variety of viewpoints in my stories, to make sure I'm kind of running the gamut on this, and I think some of the characters in my stories would say, "Yeah. Something in me's broken. You can talk about all the funny business you want, Brandon, about just needing to practice. Something in me's broken, and I need to learn to deal with that. Either fix it, or learn to not let it ruin me." And there are people that I've talked to, that that's how they've described it.

I've talked to other people who say, "No, I'm not broken. 'Broken' implies I'm a less valuable person, because of that phrasing." That is something that I never want to imply. And so it is a dangerous word to use. I let people in fiction use it, because people in real life use it. But just wanted you to be aware of that.

So, the idea that a person needs to be "broken" to be a Knight Radiant is a part of the world that a lot of people talk about. I actually intend Lopen to be a counterargument to that. But people in-world would disagree with me. They'd say, "No no no, he's got some of these things." But if Lopen has them, we all have them. So there are no not-broken people, which also makes the word "broken" just completely wrong phrase to use, if that makes sense.

So, that is how I view it. But I admit that some of my characters would disagree with me.

YouTube Livestream 7 (May 7, 2020)

 

[Soccorro]

On 1/5/2025 at 10:40 AM, Aeshdan said:

I don't understand what lessons Sanderson was trying to teach in Wind and Truth.

Betray those who trust you like Dalinar betrayed Honour

Avoid responsibility, next generations and mighty Shards will clear your mess in the future. Maybe

You are useless and can’t fight Gods. Only other Gods can beat God, so go away and pray that all mighty deus ex machina from space will fly and solve your problems. You are worthless anyway

6 hours ago, Mage of Lirigon said:

The moral of the story is to think critically about your morals.

Any moral system you use without thinking about the context behind it is like a house with a bad foundation. When a disaster happens it's going to collapse and you might get hurt with it.

Being a moral person isn't about following a set of rules someone gave you, it's about asking questions about how those rules came about in the first place and how they relate to your life. That's the most practical fashion in which morality can impact people. That's what Sanderson was trying to teach in this novel.

That’s why Dalinar wasn’t be able to overcome his rigid morality and failed to kill one dude, ruined the planet, ruined knight radiants, ruined spren and failed everyone because he didn’t want to lose useless moral debate with old fart

The funniest thing: Dalinar won’t deal with consequences. He won’t live on this doomed planet. He’s chilling somewhere in Beyond with Evi after giving up responsibility while everyone else who trusted him will suffer the consequences

But hey! Don’t complain that you are living on dead planet now. Old fart was proven to be morally wrong! Great success!

Edited January 7, 2025 by Soccorro

[Sedside she/her]

14 hours ago, Mage of Lirigon said:

Being a moral person isn't about following a set of rules someone gave you, it's about asking questions about how those rules came about in the first place and how they relate to your life. That's the most practical fashion in which morality can impact people. That's what Sanderson was trying to teach in this novel.

Yeah, that's what I don't like about this book, because it was not like that in WoK and WoR. In WoK and WoR (and OB) morale was represented like it is - a set of rules driven by some divine / transcendent meanings, that also helps people live together in society. And now all of it is thrown out the window, screw morale and external rules, rules suck, mind your own business and desires, do what you want, only your desires matter, only your feelings matter. You don't want to win a contest by killing someone dear to you? Don't, we will come up with some deus ex machina stupid decision, but then Wit will come and explain why it is brilliant and the only right thing to do. You don't want to keep the oaths you've sworn on the exact same page? Don't, renounce them, you deserve it. Noone will get hurt, your spren will find another Radiant to bond, it's fine. You don't like oaths? No problems, join our Unoathed squad and you will have your superpowers anyway for free.

[therunner he/him]

1 hour ago, Sedside said:

Yeah, that's what I don't like about this book, because it was not like that in WoK and WoR. In WoK and WoR (and OB) morale was represented like it is - a set of rules driven by some divine / transcendent meanings, that also helps people live together in society.

Books often setup a theme to subvert it later, to explore it more in full.
This is exactly what happened here.

And even in first few books Oaths are not presented as unequivocally good, there is a reason Skybreakers and Dustbringers are opponents, Oaths alone don't guarantee anything about goodness or divinity.

This book just drives that home, Oaths alone, divorced from context of human reality, are rarely if ever good. And sometimes, renouncing an Oath and trying something else is the good thing to do.

1 hour ago, Sedside said:

 And now all of it is thrown out the window, screw morale and external rules, rules suck, mind your own business and desires, do what you want, only your desires matter, only your feelings matter.

If you took that away from WaT, I don't know what to tell you.

1 hour ago, Sedside said:

 You don't want to win a contest by killing someone dear to you? Don't, we will come up with some deus ex machina stupid decision, but then Wit will come and explain why it is brilliant and the only right thing to do.

It's less that, and more:
"Realize that the contest wouldn't actually resolve and change anything, and in fact plays into TOdium's hands."

Sticking to a plan when situation changed would be stupid.

And it being Gavinor was not necessary, any innocent would achieve the same effect on Dalinar, as the book explains. Gavinor was just a twist of the knife. It was the discussion between Dalinar and Taravangian from Oathbringer played out, does the end justify the means? Of course Dalinar couldn't kill an innocent.

Quote

No problems, join our Unoathed squad and you will have your superpowers anyway for free.

What superpowers? The same ones that any Shardbearer could get (with minor upgrades)?

Edited January 7, 2025 by therunner

[Sedside she/her]

1 hour ago, therunner said:

Books often setup a theme to subvert it later, to explore it more in full.
This is exactly what happened here.

That is exactly what I said I don't like about this book. Taking something good and subverting it into something bad, pretending that it's good. And also pretending that not following oaths is something hard. Everyone always keeps oaths, you know, it's how it works. Everyone cares about everyone else but not about themselves. But it's not good, you have to think about yourselves and not about the others, you should not follow oaths if they don't suit you, it's hard, I know, it's very hard not to keep an oath or, say, refuse to be a king if you don't want to, or refuse to kill a man you hate, it's very hard, noone ever does it, but here we go, you have to take effort and start thinking about yourselves, guys. Protect yourselves first, don't stick to stupid oaths, follow your own wishes.

You can pull the wool over people's eyes as much as you can, it won't work with me, sorry. I have my own head on my shoulders and I see what this "subversion" really is.

Edited January 7, 2025 by Sedside

[therunner he/him]

1 hour ago, Sedside said:

That is exactly what I said I don't like about this book.

Not liking something is fine...pretending it is objectively bad is not.

1 hour ago, Sedside said:

 Taking something good and subverting it into something bad, pretending that it's good

Citation needed that Oaths are always good.

There is a reason honor cultures are...not good.

You might have also noticed that some characters do keep to their Oaths, and that is portrayed as good (Kaladin), so the moral is clearly not: "Oaths bad" as you so reductively say.

Quote

And also pretending that not following oaths is something hard. Everyone always keeps oaths, you know, it's how it works.

Social context matters. If you are conditioned to believe that following Oaths is the most important thing to do, and you believe those Oaths deep down, it is difficult to abandon them.

1 hour ago, Sedside said:

You can pull the wool over people's eyes as much as you can, it won't work with me, sorry.
I have my own head on my shoulders and I see what this "subversion" really is.

You have a head and your opinion, sure. No one is stopping you.
What is the 'subversion' really then?

Just because you thought theme of a story is something based on first 40% of it, does not mean you were correct.

Edited January 7, 2025 by therunner