Moral of the story

[MagicMaggot]

I'm still not sure I understand the criticism at all.

Is it that Brandon created a world with its own moral universe, where oaths are always good, and putting that into question is destroying the pleasant illusion?

Or is it that oaths are actually always morally good outside of the books, and Brandon is undermining objective morality by questioning that now, after drawing in the righteous by pretending he understood them?

I mean, both sounds kinda strange to me, to be honest but... different kinds of strange, I guess?

Edited January 7, 2025 by MagicMaggot

[Ookla she/her]

Just gonna throw something out there, because I actually thought that the way things turned out was really clever, for this reason: We saw in Mistborn that something that seems good (Preservation) becomes bad when taken too far (stagnation), and something that seems bad (Ruin) becomes good when taken just far enough (change forcing growth). I think that may have been Brandon's goal here, too. We've been conditioned all series long to automatically think, "Honor good, Odium bad," just as the characters do.

The thing is, I think that to have an accurate view of all the Shards, we need to look at them from an Adonalsium perspective. No Shard is complete and balanced without the others. Pure Honor is a problem--it leads to a blind devotion, either to the law or to oaths. But blind devotion is dangerous; how many people in real life are so blindly devoted to a relationship (such as a marriage bond) that they don't recognize the harm that is being done to them by that person? Likewise, you need a little Odium to recognize that This Is Not Okay and use that as impetus to leave and get some help. But Odium taken too far is just as bad or worse.

I have a feeling that this is a pattern we're going to keep seeing throughout the Cosmere. The Shards are incomplete. Used a little, all of them are or can be good things. Used too much, without the balancing influence of the other Shards, there will be problems.

Now, could it have been written better? Sure. But that's going to be the case with any writer in any book. As someone who does some writing herself, I can understand why the writing quality could have dropped in this book. Sanderson is taking on some massive challenges, both in writing therapy (which, I would argue, was not the reason for anyone's healing except for Nightblood, and Nightblood is basically a six-year-old in terms of maturity), trying to describe the relatively undescribable Spiritual Realm, wrapping up a giant book with a conclusion that will lead into a giant second arc, moving his editing and such in-house, and so on. Could the book have done with another year and another round or two of revisions? Absolutely; most books can, even if this one needed it a bit more than most. But in this, Sanderson held to his own oaths to all of us to have the book out on time. Basically, I think there's more going into this than we talk about, and a lot of it may be Sanderson stretching and trying to improve. I mean, look at his early attempts at writing neurodiversity. His earliest published attempt in Elantris was laughable. But look at how far he's come.

Finally, to round off my soapbox, I think that we as fans have a responsibility not to make Sanderson or his writing a god in our own minds. Every writer is going to have a project they fail on from time to time; it's a natural part of our growth and learning as writers. There's an adage in the writing community that says, "You don't ever learn how to write a book; you only ever learn how to write THIS book." Every book comes with unique challenges, and sometimes we're not yet prepared to overcome them the way we'd like. If we expect godlike writing levels from an author time and time again, at some point we will be disappointed--just as Roshar's heroes were when they learned that the Almighty they believed in was no God, only a god. Is Sanderson a really good writer? Absolutely, yes. But let's not assume that there aren't still areas where he's going to need further practice and improvement to achieve the standards he's set for himself--and I think that's okay. So give feedback--that's how writers learn--but don't immediately jump to "not going to read book 6," or "may not read Sanderson anymore." Don't buy new books from him right away, if you must, but borrow them from your local library and read them and see if this drop in quality you see becomes a pattern, or if this is a once-in-a-while learning experience for him.

Anyhow, I'm done talking now. Do with that what you will; it's basically all my opinion so you have absolutely no requirement to agree with me. I just think that a lot of people are jumping to extreme conclusions rather quickly, or else are not succeeding at providing a wholly balanced view of what they think. 

[Mage of Lirigon he/him]

6 hours 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. 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.

It was like this in those books too, or did you forget about the Heralds and the original Knights Radiant? The story has simply reached a place where it's focusing on things like this.

If you really thought this was a story about how simply following rules without thinking about them, you've seriously misread the whole story.

Not once did the story say that morality is bad or that you should only do what you want, it's saying you need to really think about your behaviour if you want to be a good and moral behaviour.

 

3 hours ago, Sedside said:

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.

Again, if you think that dogmatically following any rule is good and examining how the rules were created and how they apply to you is bad, you've really missed the plot. We see in the story how blindly following rules only leads to suffering being perpetuated throughout the generations.

[agrabes]

12 hours ago, Mage of Lirigon said:

It was like this in those books too, or did you forget about the Heralds and the original Knights Radiant? The story has simply reached a place where it's focusing on things like this.

If you really thought this was a story about how simply following rules without thinking about them, you've seriously misread the whole story.

Not once did the story say that morality is bad or that you should only do what you want, it's saying you need to really think about your behaviour if you want to be a good and moral behaviour.

 

Again, if you think that dogmatically following any rule is good and examining how the rules were created and how they apply to you is bad, you've really missed the plot. We see in the story how blindly following rules only leads to suffering being perpetuated throughout the generations.

I agree with you that it was always a theme of the books that the idea of keeping oaths dogmatically was bad.  I think by RoW we all suspected something was not right with the Oathpact.  We also knew that Nale was keeping his Skybreaker oaths while doing bad things.  I think the message of the earlier books was - Oaths are good but they aren't "enough."  Someone who keeps the oaths of the knights radiant isn't automatically a good person and a person who doesn't swear oaths can be just as good as someone who does.  I think it also shows that good people who are trying their best can fail and there can even be morally good reasons (in rare circumstances) to break oaths.

Where I disagree with you is that I feel WaT breaks from the moral theme of the previous books.  It changes from "taking oaths is good most of the time, but there are exceptions and you have to do it the right way" to "taking oaths probably isn't a good idea at all, but in rare exceptions a few people can do it"  I felt like every major protagonist who interacted with the idea of oaths came to that conclusion.  I get where he's coming from here - people can really mess with their own mental health by holding themselves to impossible standards and we really need to be able to let go of those things when they're unhealthy.  And I think that's Sanderson's intended message with the book.

As someone else mentioned - early books in the series dealt with the idea of building up personal character and virtues (while still understanding that we need to be kind to ourselves and that society's expectations aren't always a good guide for what is right).  Later books in the series reversed the order - prioritize your own mental well being even (or perhaps especially) if it means discarding your previous moral convictions, but still try to have personal character and virtue as well.  The first message resonates better with me (and the overall culture at least in the US of 2010 when WoK was released) while the second message resonates better with the culture of the US of 2025.  IMO - both have their merits but one fits me better than the other.

Edited January 8, 2025 by agrabes

[Sedside she/her]

50 minutes ago, agrabes said:

the second message resonates better with the culture of the US of 2025

Absolutely my thoughts on the matter. This is a huge problem of this book for me, it looks like filled with a lot of modern messages. And maybe the overall idea of the cosmere was "something is wrong with the Shards", but then there should be other external standard to follow, if gods are not gods. And this book to me screams something like "no external moral compass is good enough, the only correct moral compass is inside you", which is (in my opinion) absolutely wrong and is actually a very modern (liberal?) idea.

[Mage of Lirigon he/him]

2 hours ago, agrabes said:

I agree with you that it was always a theme of the books that the idea of keeping oaths dogmatically was bad.  I think by RoW we all suspected something was not right with the Oathpact.  We also knew that Nale was keeping his Skybreaker oaths while doing bad things.  I think the message of the earlier books was - Oaths are good but they aren't "enough."  Someone who keeps the oaths of the knights radiant isn't automatically a good person and a person who doesn't swear oaths can be just as good as someone who does.  I think it also shows that good people who are trying their best can fail and there can even be morally good reasons (in rare circumstances) to break oaths.

 

As someone else mentioned - early books in the series dealt with the idea of building up personal character and virtues (while still understanding that we need to be kind to ourselves and that society's expectations aren't always a good guide for what is right).  Later books in the series reversed the order - prioritize your own mental well being even (or perhaps especially) if it means discarding your previous moral convictions, but still try to have personal character and virtue as well.  The first message resonates better with me (and the overall culture at least in the US of 2010 when WoK was released) while the second message resonates better with the culture of the US of 2025.  IMO - both have their merits but one fits me better than the other.

This book still has that message, in fact I'd say it handles that message even more than earlier books because it asks these questions in a more systemic manner rather than just a personal one. 

 

Quote

Where I disagree with you is that I feel WaT breaks from the moral theme of the previous books.  It changes from "taking oaths is good most of the time, but there are exceptions and you have to do it the right way" to "taking oaths probably isn't a good idea at all, but in rare exceptions a few people can do it"  I felt like every major protagonist who interacted with the idea of oaths came to that conclusion.  I get where he's coming from here - people can really mess with their own mental health by holding themselves to impossible standards and we really need to be able to let go of those things when they're unhealthy.  And I think that's Sanderson's intended message with the book.

Nowhere in this book does it say that taking oaths probably isn't a good idea, just that doing so blindly and without thinking isn't, which is an important qualifier. 

The major characters we see renounce oaths did so in line with their own characterization, like Szeth's lifelong inability to make his own decisions, Dalinar's bad habit of authoritarianism, or Sigzil growing into the Knight Radiant he always wanted to be. 

 

1 hour ago, Sedside said:

Absolutely my thoughts on the matter. This is a huge problem of this book for me, it looks like filled with a lot of modern messages.

This is a book written in modern times, so yes, it had modern messages. That didn't start with this book. 

 

Quote

And maybe the overall idea of the cosmere was "something is wrong with the Shards", but then there should be other external standard to follow, if gods are not gods.

Dalinar literally came up with a whole new religion more or less for that same purpose. 

 

Quote

And this book to me screams something like "no external moral compass is good enough, the only correct moral compass is inside you", which is (in my opinion) absolutely wrong and is actually a very modern (liberal?) idea.

The idea that critical thinking about religion is a modern or liberal idea is quite a take. People have doing this IRL for thousands of years, there's a whole field of study about this, which is practised to some degree by regular believers everyday. 

Edited January 8, 2025 by Mage of Lirigon

[MagicMaggot]

I'm not sure if Sanderson's perspective on oaths changed noticably in this book, but in general I don't think noticing an ideological shift would be a viable criticism for the quality of the book. I guess the idea is that especially Szeth being asked to question even directly divinely approved law hit a bit too close to home, even with the knowledge that the Shards most definitely aren't supposed to be capital g God in the cosmere? And considering that is isn't exactly a new criticism to be leveled at religion, and a religious person might like to get away from that in their escapist literature, I do think I can understand why that would affect one's enjoyment here. There certainly were scenes in the book where I felt it touched too blatantly on discussions I don't particularly like to see transfered to Roshar. 

That very much falls under "tough luck", though, as far as I'm concerned. We're reading thousands of pages of Sanderson's thoughts, it's neither reasonable to expect him to be able to keep all of his believes out, nor to expect them to be unchanging over time, nor to expect him to fake them to align with our own. There is certainly room for criticism where it gets preachy, but I don't think we can say that about the oath-situation. If it's a dealbreaker, it's a dealbreaker. But as a criticism it goes nowhere. 

[clowncarcrash]

On 1/7/2025 at 1:52 AM, 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. 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.

I think there's a lot more nuance to that. And I think that's why we had three characters struggling with the same idea: What is right and wrong? with Nale, Nightblood, and Szeth. I think there's more nuance. If laws can't dictate moralities, maybe there's also problems with honor codes as well. 

I don't think it's a deus ex machina decision. Brandon commited a lot of pagespace in Wor and Oathbringer with Wit trying to solicit help from the Shards and the Shards totally being fine of letting Odium be as long as he was contained on Roshar. 

And I don't get your objection to Dalinar not wanting to win the contest by killing someone dear. Because there are still consequences to Dalinar's actions and he got himself killed. 

And I think the two instances of renouncement, we had an instance of not-so-bad consequences with a windrunner and no consequnces with a skybreaker. I felt the logic of why there's a disparity made sense in the story. 

Edited January 8, 2025 by clowncarcrash

[nehalem]

On 1/7/2025 at 4:54 AM, therunner said:

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.

I mean the same basic thing was stated about Odium in a prior book

"He bears the weight of God's own divine hatred, separated from the virtues that gave it context. He is what we made him to be, old friend. And that is what he, unfortunately, wished to become."

Why would Honor without context be good either?

You can see the same thing with Preservation as well.  Preservation without context is basically stasis.

Probably all the shards if you look hard enough.

 

 

[Mattel]

So it sounds to me like the two largest problems people have with the story is that A.) Dalinar decided that the best thing to do was to renounce his oaths and decided that that was the right decision, and B.) that we weren't given the answer of what So it sounds to me like the two largest problems people have with the story is that A.) Dalinar decided that the best thing to do was to renounce his oaths and decided that that was the right decision, and B.) that we weren't given the answer of what is "right" or what is "morally correct." 

To the first issue: I think that this was a very smart writing method. As readers we were presented with only the two options, kill Gavinor, or refuse and join Taravangian and admit that he was right. But both of these work against what Sanderson has been trying to build up through this massive five book series. He created the secret option C, that of just stopping it entirely. While I do agree that it is a shame that Dalinar got to do something that seems so cowardly, and hand the problem off to other people, I agree that it was the correct choice. As someone previously mentioned, both option A and B would just serve Odium's purpose. If Dalinar killed Gavinor, then Alethkar and Herdaz would be free. But Odium wouldn't let the peace lay still. He would find a way to create war between the singers and humans of those countries and the ones around it. If Dalinar gave in to Taravangian and refused to kill Gavinor, then Dalinar would then be Taravangians and he would win. Sanderson had already set up the idea of maybe oaths shouldn't be followed, both in previous books and in this book. Particularly with the thought process that Adolin goes into, that of oaths not being as important as promises. Oaths tend to be specifics, whereas promises more are about an idea of doing good. So then why does it seem to bother people when Dalinar decides the right thing to do is abandon his oaths? Sanderson had just primed us for the idea that oaths aren't what's important, doing what is best is important, but then when Dalinar throws oaths out the window people don't like that?

To the second issue: As Wit once brilliantly said: "Storytellers shouldn't tell you what to think, but instead teach you how to think." If you were seriously expecting to receive an answer about how to decide what is "morally right," Then firstly, you entered with unreasonable expectations, and secondly, you missed a pivotal part of the story. Szeth's entire story arc is about deciding what is right, and eventually just realizes that nobody knows so we should try our hardest to find it ourselves. Sometimes this will mean receiving wisdom and guidance, but ultimately nobody knows what is "right." If Sanderson had slapped an explanation into the book of what is "right" it would have ruined it. And there are only two characters I can think of who might actually have an explanation they could say that could be trusted, Kaladin and Wit, but I just don't that Sanderson would choose to put it in. And perhaps if you are seeking the definition of what is right badly enough that when it isn't in an amazing book like WaT it lowers your opinion of the book, perhaps you should seek a counselor about that. (joke)

A slight theory I have that was prompted by Ookla the Ookla's message, is that maybe one day Honor's Shard will no longer need a vessel because it can think for itself and will have the ability to love, which was removed with the breaking of Adonalsium. I believe the reason that Sanderson is making the story go this way, and made Dalinar renounce his oaths, is so that Honor can grow past being just about oaths, and about what honor actually is. Honor does not currently does not want to live in the hearts of men. But maybe one day...

[clowncarcrash]

Yeah, I agree Matel. I still kinda wish there was an ending where the choice was played straight. I think I wrote this before, but I really wish we had examples of Radiants walking away from easy wins because it was "right". Maybe that's how Brandon can explore whether being strict with contracts is good or bad. 

I think I like the ending more and more, but I really wish we had more of that before we had the subversion of dismantling the oath. 

[Lacy]

On 12/17/2024 at 3:57 PM, BridgeBoi said:

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

Lol this shouldn't be so funny to me, but it is! I do wish Szeth and Kaladin had more time together or that Kaladin had more experience with therapy. I really liked what Sanderson was trying to do, but it felt a bit forced and rushed. Changing someone's entire outlook on life can't be that quick and easy. 

[agrabes]

16 hours ago, MagicMaggot said:

I'm not sure if Sanderson's perspective on oaths changed noticably in this book, but in general I don't think noticing an ideological shift would be a viable criticism for the quality of the book. I guess the idea is that especially Szeth being asked to question even directly divinely approved law hit a bit too close to home, even with the knowledge that the Shards most definitely aren't supposed to be capital g God in the cosmere? And considering that is isn't exactly a new criticism to be leveled at religion, and a religious person might like to get away from that in their escapist literature, I do think I can understand why that would affect one's enjoyment here. There certainly were scenes in the book where I felt it touched too blatantly on discussions I don't particularly like to see transfered to Roshar. 

That very much falls under "tough luck", though, as far as I'm concerned. We're reading thousands of pages of Sanderson's thoughts, it's neither reasonable to expect him to be able to keep all of his believes out, nor to expect them to be unchanging over time, nor to expect him to fake them to align with our own. There is certainly room for criticism where it gets preachy, but I don't think we can say that about the oath-situation. If it's a dealbreaker, it's a dealbreaker. But as a criticism it goes nowhere. 

I agree that an ideological shift in the message of the book is not a criticism of the quality of the book, though you could argue it's a valid criticism of the Stormlight Archive as a series.  I think there are a lot of fans (but probably not a majority) who really resonated with the Sanderson of 2010 who just don't resonate quite so much with the Sanderson of 2024/2025.  Really, it was RoW and Edgedancer when I realized that I'm no longer the target demographic for these books, but I don't need to be and that's neither here nor there.  After spending some time thinking about it, I think I would rate WaT above RoW for 4th best Stormlight book.  The moralistic preaching got worse in this book, but there were at least a few self aware moments when it came to those topics.  I think the overall plot and story for this book was significantly better than RoW.

[TypicalShard]

On 1/7/2025 at 6:12 AM, 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.

This is the most dramatic things I've ever read on these forums. 

Edited January 9, 2025 by TypicalShard
grammer

[Sedside she/her]

11 minutes ago, TypicalShard said:

This is the most dramatic thing I've ever read on these forums. 

I'm glad.

[therunner he/him]

10 hours ago, nehalem said:

I mean the same basic thing was stated about Odium in a prior book

"He bears the weight of God's own divine hatred, separated from the virtues that gave it context. He is what we made him to be, old friend. And that is what he, unfortunately, wished to become."

Why would Honor without context be good either?

You can see the same thing with Preservation as well.  Preservation without context is basically stasis.

Probably all the shards if you look hard enough.

Yep, exactly.

Characters in world were conditioned to see Honor as good, and Odium as bad, and in this book make concrete steps to move past that false dichotomy.

[Asininity]

I guess the reverberating message is something along the lines of the greatest act of strength often lies in surrender. Knowing when to let go of power fosters growth, freedom and paves the way for a brighter future.

The Contest of Champions is pretty blunt about it. Dalinar could take the power and defeat Odium by himself, instead he chooses sacrifice for greater good. In contrast Taravangian embraces it for personal ambition, which presumably leads toward his downfall.
Kaladin prioritizes his well-being, stepping down as leader of the Windrunners. In doing so, he empowers others to rise and take responsibility, allowing growth where once there was dependency.
Adolin refuses the command over Azir’s forces and place among the Radian Knights. By trusting those around him, he strengthens bonds and inspires others to step into their own potential.
Renarin an Rlain hold a potent weapon against Odium in Ba-Ado-Mishram but choose to release it, restoring balance and righting the wrongs of the past
In their own ways all characters arcs are echoing the same theme.

[Ookla she/her]

20 hours ago, Mattel said:

A slight theory I have that was prompted by Ookla the Ookla's message, is that maybe one day Honor's Shard will no longer need a vessel because it can think for itself and will have the ability to love, which was removed with the breaking of Adonalsium. I believe the reason that Sanderson is making the story go this way, and made Dalinar renounce his oaths, is so that Honor can grow past being just about oaths, and about what honor actually is. Honor does not currently does not want to live in the hearts of men. But maybe one day...

Well, thank you!

[Darvys]

Yes, yes, following foolish rules is foolish, swearing oaths frivolously is dumb, none of us expected or wanted a 10 book series revolving around something so basic.

None of us expected that a shard of Adonalsium gaining sentience would start as a 5 year old honest to god retard of a shard, and it does so because that's the only way the "moral" of this book could even be relevant. When I read about Tanavast's failure, I assumed it was because no vessel could live up to the Shard of Honor, that it's intent was larger than life and unforgiving, it never occurred to me that both shard and vessel would turn out to be drooling morons made for each other.

I was hoping for something inspiring or at the very least thought provoking, what we got was "don't be a drone", O.K.

The Shards of Adonalsium are supposed to be all-encompassing, if the only good that Honor recognizes is keeping oaths, then that means that every other good that Dalinar listed falls under the purview of other shards, it doesn't make sense to me that Honor should be able to grow to the point of encroaching on their intents.

And what the hell was that about Honor caring about being right ? Shouldn't it be elementary that Honor cares instead about being IN the right ? It just feels that Brandon by insisting on this idea that Honor learns and grows, had to first cripple the shard in ways that baffle explanation. It's so disappointing.

I won't even get into that whole promise vs oath nonsense again, don't want to lose my few braincells.

Meh, the more I think about this book, the less I like it.

[agrabes]

8 hours ago, Asininity said:

I guess the reverberating message is something along the lines of the greatest act of strength often lies in surrender. Knowing when to let go of power fosters growth, freedom and paves the way for a brighter future.

The Contest of Champions is pretty blunt about it. Dalinar could take the power and defeat Odium by himself, instead he chooses sacrifice for greater good. In contrast Taravangian embraces it for personal ambition, which presumably leads toward his downfall.
Kaladin prioritizes his well-being, stepping down as leader of the Windrunners. In doing so, he empowers others to rise and take responsibility, allowing growth where once there was dependency.
Adolin refuses the command over Azir’s forces and place among the Radian Knights. By trusting those around him, he strengthens bonds and inspires others to step into their own potential.
Renarin an Rlain hold a potent weapon against Odium in Ba-Ado-Mishram but choose to release it, restoring balance and righting the wrongs of the past
In their own ways all characters arcs are echoing the same theme.

I do agree with that message and fully support it and I think all the things you listed were genuinely good.  Rather than "surrender" I might put it as "accepting defeat" or "knowing when to move on" but it's the same thing.  I think it was one message of the book, for sure. And maybe, my brain went to the things that bothered me about the book first and I underemphasized the positives.  At some point I will reread this book and when I think those themes will come out more strongly.

The second major message of the book (the one I dislike), in keeping with the increased prominence of mental health advocacy, was essentially "Reject your moral values and tear down societal values if it will make you happier."  Having been to therapy myself, I accept that this is a real question we should be asking ourselves - is it better to uphold your personal ethics and feel like you are doing the right thing, or modify or reject your values in order to live a life that might be more fulfilling in other areas.  I think my issue boils down to the fact that I believe that a major message of the book is that if societal norms don't work for a small number of people, then we must completely tear down those norms.  For example - Adolin's declaration about oaths.  They work for the vast majority of Knights Radiant and did so for a long time, but they did not work for some others.  Adolin's solution (and the book implies we should think this is the right solution) is to reject all oaths.  I think the WoR-era message for the same situation would have been "we need to fix the oaths to better address edge cases, and respect those who choose not to adopt them or those who try their best but struggle to live up to them.  but most people should take them, because they really do work well the vast majority of the time."

I would also say because a few people did bring it up in this thread - I have absolutely zero issue with any of the individuals who rejected their oaths.  I agree that all of them (Dalinar, Szeth, Sigzil) did so in ways that made sense with their character and for valid reasons.  Showing people rejecting their oaths is not a problem.  A message that taking oaths just for the sake of taking oaths is not good is also not a problem.  Taking the oaths represents following time tested values and social norms.  What is a problem for me is that through Adolin, the book is giving us the message that the right thing to do is completely reject the idea of taking oaths because they don't work for some people or some situations.  Or, metaphorically, that we should reject mainstream societal values and norms and live in a society where everyone just does what they want.  I disagree with that message.  We as humans do better when there are norms (most of us anyway).  No matter what we do, we can't help everyone all the time.  We can only do the best we can for the most people.  Instead of walking away from thousands of years of lessons about what works to create a good society, we should keep those lessons but adapt them gradually to better fit our time and our circumstances.  Anyway, that's my own moralistic sermon 

[MagicMaggot]

6 hours ago, agrabes said:

Adolin's solution (and the book implies we should think this is the right solution) is to reject all oaths.

I don't actually think Adolin is supposed to be offering any solutions here. As I understood it, he mostly points out the problems with oaths that are part of what made him personally reluctant to swear some of them. Some of them, not all of them, mind you, considering he recently married. The one time Adolin throws his ideas out as a criticism at a system of strict rules, is when Gezamal is demoted for doing "the right thing". He is thoroughly rebuffed:

Quote

“There should obviously be a threshold for being hurt. We haven’t reached mine. The laws say that a man who did what I did needs to be punished. Maybe the law should change, but I accept what has happened. Because Adolin, I guarantee that every other soldier in our military—even those who think I was a monster for putting the emperor in danger—understands. Accepting your punishment with decorum is a mark of respect for the thing we all love.”

-Wat Chapter 95

He has no reply to that. Adolin tries to make a distinction between two kinds of oaths, but hasn't really managed to clearly define it to himself, yet, much less convinced anyone of it. Me as a reader included. I am curious to see where this goes, and I like it as a direction for Adolin, but I never saw Adolin as giving us a new "series philosophy" here. Just a vibe. 

Could you elaborate on where you think Adolin's ideas are supposed to be taken up as true by other characters or at least the reader in this book? The ones that aren't just the critiques of misplaced oath-keeping that you seemed to have granted as reasonable, I mean. 

[Asininity]

@agrabes

Trying to convey a message is one thing; doing it well is another. In my opinion, Sanderson failed at the latter.

Dalinar’s betrayal was a gamble - one that hinged entirely on Taravangian being an idiot. He essentially wagered the entire universe just to prove a point. If TOdium had even a single functioning brain cell, he would’ve grasped why Rayse never took the Shards, won the contest, and then easily conquered the Cosmere within a couple of centuries.

On top of that, the current resolution is downright terrible. Instead of being forced to choose sides in a war between two Shards, the people of Roshar are now enslaved by Retribution and dragged into a war involving all sixteen. But hey, Dalinar won the debate, right?

It’s no secret that Hoid often serves as a mouthpiece for the author to explain things he couldn’t properly show on the page. In this case, we got heavy-handed exposition about how brilliant this gambit supposedly was - because even Brandon must’ve realized how badly it looked. The motivations of other characters struck me as equally naive, but they pale in comparison to Adolin and his promises.

Whether you call it an oath or a promise, it’s the intention behind the words that truly matters. The meaning is shaped not by the act of saying them, but by the conviction and purpose driving them. Conversely, breaking such vows can sometimes be the righteous choice, and I doubt many would argue otherwise when morality and circumstance demand it. Ironically, finding the most important words was never about speaking them aloud. It was about understanding what they represent, the weight they carry, and the willingness to stand by - or abandon - them when faced with reality. 

Somehow this theme was lost and everyone suddenly became fixated on definitions and semantics, as if the precise phrasing is what hold the true value. It feels disingenuous, a shallow distraction from more meaningful dilemmas that we got used to in previous books.

[Mattel]

7 hours ago, Asininity said:

Dalinar’s betrayal was a gamble - one that hinged entirely on Taravangian being an idiot. He essentially wagered the entire universe just to prove a point. If TOdium had even a single functioning brain cell, he would’ve grasped why Rayse never took the Shards, won the contest, and then easily conquered the Cosmere within a couple of centuries.

But Sanderson actually did handle this well. For four books now, he has shown that Taravangian wants to be the hero. Almost his entire philosophy is: The world is broken and requires broken answers to broken problems, and I am in the position of power to fix those and take the blame upon myself, and so I will be the one to do it so that someone else doesn't have to. Taravangian wanted to be the one to save Karbranth from Rayse, he wants power. Even at the end of the book, when Dalinar renounces Honor and it goes to Taravangian, it says something about because he wanted power so strongly, he took up a second Shard.

 

7 hours ago, Asininity said:

It’s no secret that Hoid often serves as a mouthpiece for the author to explain things he couldn’t properly show on the page. In this case, we got heavy-handed exposition about how brilliant this gambit supposedly was - because even Brandon must’ve realized how badly it looked. The motivations of other characters struck me as equally naive, but they pale in comparison to Adolin and his promises.

I actually did not like the ending until I started reading what other people had said. Neither choice would have served Dalinar and the free peoples of Roshar. Peace or war were both what TOdium wanted. If there was peace, then Odium could egg both Singers and humans into war, which would mean one of them breaking the peace and meaning he could draw his retribution (no pun intended) onto that side. Dalinar choosing to become TOdium's served him because he wouldn't have to slowly edge the people into war, instead he could just start training an army to send to other worlds. And war served him because that meant both sides became more battle hardened and ready. I think that Sanderson knew that it would infuriate so many people the choice that Dalinar took, so maybe he added the parts of Wit explaining that it is brilliant to try and help the reader understand what he did. Of course that is me just spit balling as to another author's choice in a book.

 

7 hours ago, Asininity said:

Whether you call it an oath or a promise, it’s the intention behind the words that truly matters. The meaning is shaped not by the act of saying them, but by the conviction and purpose driving them. Conversely, breaking such vows can sometimes be the righteous choice, and I doubt many would argue otherwise when morality and circumstance demand it. Ironically, finding the most important words was never about speaking them aloud. It was about understanding what they represent, the weight they carry, and the willingness to stand by - or abandon - them when faced with reality. 

Somehow this theme was lost and everyone suddenly became fixated on definitions and semantics, as if the precise phrasing is what hold the true value. It feels disingenuous, a shallow distraction from more meaningful dilemmas that we got used to in previous books.

I think Sanderson was potentially showing an allegory to the real world through Honor's Shard and the Highspren that it is wrong to just follow the letter of the law. And this isn't anything new, actually. Ever since we learned more about the Skybreakers, we started questioning and critiquing the way they choose to follow honor. And this is also a theme that Sanderson has explored through Dalinar's bond with the Stormfather. The Stormfather believed at first (just like Honor's Shard) that the words are what were important, that keeping an oath that you make is what is important, not the oath itself.

 

10 hours ago, MagicMaggot said:

I don't actually think Adolin is supposed to be offering any solutions here. As I understood it, he mostly points out the problems with oaths that are part of what made him personally reluctant to swear some of them. Some of them, not all of them, mind you, considering he recently married. The one time Adolin throws his ideas out as a criticism at a system of strict rules, is when Gezamal is demoted for doing "the right thing". He is thoroughly rebuffed:

I agree, I don't think that he is trying to show a new way, merely trying to express his own ideas. This is something we ourselves do in real life. We have complex feelings that sometimes we don't even realize until they are being triggered or violated. Sanderson rather accurately expressed and put on paper the feeling of working through your own emotions and beliefs, which are sometimes contrary to the rest of the world, and eventually coming to a realization that you can't explain fully to someone else. But it makes sense to you and that is what is important. I believe the book itself even says something along the lines of: Adolin had no desire to push his beliefs on others, merely to explain himself to others. And I think that's all that he did. All that Sanderson did.

[Asininity]

3 hours ago, Mattel said:

Even at the end of the book, when Dalinar renounces Honor and it goes to Taravangian, it says something about because he wanted power so strongly, he took up a second Shard

I believe Taravangian’s main reasoning was the realization that Dalinar-as-Honor would utterly crush him in a direct clash, forcing him to seek more power. I can also accept that his megalomania and his obsessive desire to be the one to save Kharbranth, Roshar, and ultimately the Cosmere, played a significant role. Both are valid motivations and fit his character, but they don’t exempt him from making an utterly foolish decision.
 

3 hours ago, Mattel said:

I think Sanderson was potentially showing an allegory to the real world through Honor's Shard and the Highspren that it is wrong to just follow the letter of the law. And this isn't anything new, actually. Ever since we learned more about the Skybreakers, we started questioning and critiquing the way they choose to follow honor. And this is also a theme that Sanderson has explored through Dalinar's bond with the Stormfather. The Stormfather believed at first (just like Honor's Shard) that the words are what were important, that keeping an oath that you make is what is important, not the oath itself.

"These words are not accepted." - The Stormfather respects all oaths, but only when the person swearing them truly means and believes in them. Perception and Intent have always been the cornerstone of magic in the Cosmere—a concept hammered into us in every book. And let’s cut the Stormfather some slack here: breaking one’s word in this context meant the lobotomy of his child so of course words were important to him 
That said, my issue lies with how the neo-Skybreakers were established under Nale. Their rules of progression are vastly different from those of other orders and were likely shaped by Nale’s own insanity. This theory is further supported by the existence of dissenter Skybreakers who discovered the “old words” - something Nale believed to be impossible.
Regardless, this theme was explored far more effectively in Oathbringer. Both Kaladin and Szeth, Venli, wrestled with this exact dilemma, and it was conveyed it in a much more natural and cohesive way. Recycling it now, as the resolution to a conflict that has been building for 15 years, feels kinda cheap. Personally, I lean toward the idea that Sanderson intended this betrayal to feel personal—that we, as readers, were meant to experience the sting of betrayal ourselves. Might be just cope though.
 

2 hours ago, Mattel said:

I actually did not like the ending until I started reading what other people had said. Neither choice would have served Dalinar and the free peoples of Roshar. Peace or war were both what TOdium wanted. If there was peace, then Odium could egg both Singers and humans into war, which would mean one of them breaking the peace and meaning he could draw his retribution (no pun intended) onto that side. Dalinar choosing to become TOdium's served him because he wouldn't have to slowly edge the people into war, instead he could just start training an army to send to other worlds. And war served him because that meant both sides became more battle hardened and ready. I think that Sanderson knew that it would infuriate so many people the choice that Dalinar took, so maybe he added the parts of Wit explaining that it is brilliant to try and help the reader understand what he did. Of course that is me just spit balling as to another author's choice in a book.

Yet somehow, Dalinar's decision guarantees even worse outcome for Roshar, in exchange for a hope that it might benefit the Cosmere in the long run.
I struggle to see how this situation actually favors Taravangian. The moment Dalinar ascends, balance of power on Roshar changes dramatically and I cannot see Odium winning this.
Even if we take at face value the claim that this war is as dire as it seems, can you honestly say you’d prefer being enslaved by Retribution over having the freedom to choose between Honor and Odium?

[Fractalfire]

12 hours ago, Asininity said:

@agrabes

Trying to convey a message is one thing; doing it well is another. In my opinion, Sanderson failed at the latter.

Dalinar’s betrayal was a gamble - one that hinged entirely on Taravangian being an idiot. He essentially wagered the entire universe just to prove a point. If TOdium had even a single functioning brain cell, he would’ve grasped why Rayse never took the Shards, won the contest, and then easily conquered the Cosmere within a couple of centuries.

On top of that, the current resolution is downright terrible. Instead of being forced to choose sides in a war between two Shards, the people of Roshar are now enslaved by Retribution and dragged into a war involving all sixteen. But hey, Dalinar won the debate, right?

 

Speaking of which, now that Odium bit the bullet and picked up two shards, what's to stop him from trying to pick up previously shattered ones too? He seems very Ambitious and has Dominion over Roshar and he is Devoted in a twisted way. Plus, Odium shattered those Shards, so perhaps Taravangian knows how to undo that and claim them.

So he isn't necessarily limited to two shards as Dalinar believes. Now that he can leave he can work on grabbing others -- perhaps up to five total.