So, There's No Hope. (Unhinged And Unwarranted Speculation)

[Born of Mist He/Him]

6 hours ago, Aliroz-The-Confused said:

 This is disturbingly beievable, given Hoid's canon disregard, if not utter loathing, for all things Scadrian.

 

As in no herdazians involved?

 

[Aliroz-The-Confused]

27 minutes ago, Born of Mist said:

As in no herdazians involved?

 

Yep.  Mistborn era 3 might actually be about Scadrians.  I know I ought not to, but I'm hoping.

[Frustration]

9 minutes ago, Aliroz-The-Confused said:

Yep.  Mistborn era 3 might actually be about Scadrians.  I know I ought not to, but I'm hoping.

Preview chapters

Spoiler

The main character is Terris

 

[therunner he/him]

13 hours ago, Qianweilian said:

It's a real shame we never got those outrigger novels. It's hard to portray advancement when the entire series is only like a year.

Indeed. 
Which is why I have high hopes for Sanderson, since he will be denoting multiple books to such advancement.

10 hours ago, Aliroz-The-Confused said:

I vehemently disagree.  And if you're going to present your views as incontrovertible truth, then so shall I.  It is tedious for me to always have to defend my views, put qualifiers on what I say, and constantly point out that my opinions are opinions, while others are allowed to express subjective appraisals without requiring such qualifiers (at least, not as often).

You might notice that vast majority of what  I say does have qualifiers : "often", "most", "I think", "IMO". 
Hell, the one thing you just quoted starts with "I hesitate", to signify I am not sure in it.

So no, I don't present things as incontrovertible truths.

Quote

What you see as the norm in history is the worst nightmares of short transitional periods, well-recorded because they were exceptions.  It is like how every plane crash ever is remembered, photographed, and publicized, leading people to think that air travel is unsafe when such things are the exception.

• Death rate of 30% below age 15 was the norm.
• Healthcare was abysmal
  • Serious illness regularly ravaging countries.
  • Broken bones being quite serious problem (especially for peasantry)
• Semi-constants wars between states was the norm.
• Slavery was the norm
• Religious pogroms were the norm.

None of these are fault of transitional periods, they are just what life was like in pre-modern times. 
Some were eliminated, others were lessened.

Quote

The transition to modernity is uniquely awful, violent, and traumatic because it represents the time when after all the guardrails were removed and before the new ones were installed.  It was so terrible that modernity had to invent the Progress Narrative to justify itself, and had to demonize and regard as worthless the entirety of human history before itself by presenting the horrors of modernity's transitonal birthing period as the norm for the human condition.  It more or less constructed the progress narrative so it could say "you don't want to go back to those bad old days, do you?  Do you?  Because that's what would happen without modernity.".

What was uniquely awful about it? 
Wars? Been there done that. Genocides? Ditto.

Proportionally, Genghis Khan killed more people than WW2 did. And quite possibly, in absolute numbers as well.

Some of the horrors were magnified by technology (WW1 being IMO the best example), but at the same time the frequency of those horrors somewhat lessened (fewer and shorter wars). And some horrors were eradicated in parts of the world (slavery being outlawed in most countries, women's rights in the west, modern medical practices, etc.)

The progress narrative is not artificial construct, when massive positive progress was made. You yourself literally just said that you wouldn't want to live in pre-modern period

Quote

I'd think it might be more accurate to say that as problems are solved, new problems are created (often lesser, more manageable problems, but sometimes horrors as bad as any in history).  I'll grant that the tradeoffs are worth it (I certainly wouldn't choose to go back all those centuries) if you'll grant that there were tradeoffs, but if you're going to be black-and-white with a progress narrative then I will happily be black-and-white with the opposite.

 

Quote

The only point where the Kholins could get away with their atrocities and maintain reader sympathy is in this transitional period where there are no rules and no guardrails, where the ancient taboos are gone and honor is dead, but the new rules and new guardrails don't exist yet.  It's the only point where we could go "Oh, the Kholins aren't doing anything unusually evil".

But both in real life and in the cosmere, the invasion of the Shattered Plains would be outside the bounds in any other time period or setting.  Heck, Hallandren and the Fjordell Empire are much, much less evil, and are innocent of atrocities which are evidently normative for at least the Alethi if we judge by their invasion of the Shattered Plains and Unclaimed Hills.

The only thing Kholins (Dalinar specifically) did that was uniquely awful was burning of Rathalas. 

Invasion of Shattered Plains is completely normal occurrence, it is a punitive war for extremely valid cause. Listeners assassinated a head of foreign state, refused to do any diplomacy (other than leave a few people there to admit to it), and so they got invaded. 

If some nation today just assassinated head of another state, you can bet there would be retribution for it. 
In history, such retribution would often be simply war until the offending nation yielded or was wiped out.

And as established previously, wiping out other nations was not particularly unique in history.

Quote

Mister Sanderson might disagree, but that is because he does not understand his own work, and if he dislikes how Fantasy stays in the medieval stasis, it is because he fundamentally does not get (or rather, has forgotten) what Fantasy is or why it's good.

Or maybe, your opinion on what constitutes a good fantasy is not the only valid viewpoint? 
And Sanderson understands his work perfectly well, you just don't like what he does with it.

E.g.

Quote

The  genres of Fantasy, Western and Science Fiction are escapes from modernity, and they speak to a desire to see a world not yet stained with such sin.

Heck, a lot of the appeal of fantasy is the notion of preventing the transition to modernity inasmuch as such is possible, and preserving what was before.  That's more or less what The Lord Of The Rings is.

I don't like fantasy or science fiction because they are escapes from modernity, I like them because they are new and different and semi-easily digestible. And preventing transition to modernity is not appealing to me at all.

IMO, LOTR is less about preventing transition to modernity, and more about inevitability of such transition and mourning for what once was.

( Also, how the hell is science fiction not stained by modernity??? )
 

Quote

No, wonder is about appreciating that which is not understood (or at least not fully understood).  That's why they call it wonder.
...
Often, increased understanding leads to increased wonder, with each answer revealing more questions.  Telescopes and microscopes to see more of what the Creator has made.  But the wonder, I think, does not come from the understanding, but from that which is not (yet) understood.

Going by dictionary, it is just being awed by something

Quote

1. The emotion aroused by something awe-inspiring, astounding, or surprising.
   "gazed with wonder at the northern lights."
2. The quality that arouses such emotion.
3. One that arouses awe, astonishment, surprise, or admiration; a marvel.
   "Given all his unhealthy habits, it's a wonder he's lived this long. She was a wonder in that movie."

So understanding seems to be orthogonal to it. 

Which yeah, it seems that for you, understanding lessens wonder, for me it magnifies it. Both are valid.
 

Edited February 9 by therunner

[Aliroz-The-Confused]

On 2/8/2026 at 10:47 PM, therunner said:

Indeed. 
Which is why I have high hopes for Sanderson, since he will be denoting multiple books to such advancement.

You might notice that vast majority of what  I say does have qualifiers : "often", "most", "I think", "IMO". 
Hell, the one thing you just quoted starts with "I hesitate", to signify I am not sure in it.

So no, I don't present things as incontrovertible truths.

• Death rate of 30% below age 15 was the norm.
• Healthcare was abysmal
  • Serious illness regularly ravaging countries.
  • Broken bones being quite serious problem (especially for peasantry)
• Semi-constants wars between states was the norm.
• Slavery was the norm
• Religious pogroms were the norm.

None of these are fault of transitional periods, they are just what life was like in pre-modern times. 
Some were eliminated, others were lessened.

What was uniquely awful about it? 
Wars? Been there done that. Genocides? Ditto.

Proportionally, Genghis Khan killed more people than WW2 did. And quite possibly, in absolute numbers as well.

Some of the horrors were magnified by technology (WW1 being IMO the best example), but at the same time the frequency of those horrors somewhat lessened (fewer and shorter wars). And some horrors were eradicated in parts of the world (slavery being outlawed in most countries, women's rights in the west, modern medical practices, etc.)

The progress narrative is not artificial construct, when massive positive progress was made. You yourself literally just said that you wouldn't want to live in pre-modern period

 

The only thing Kholins (Dalinar specifically) did that was uniquely awful was burning of Rathalas. 

Invasion of Shattered Plains is completely normal occurrence, it is a punitive war for extremely valid cause. Listeners assassinated a head of foreign state, refused to do any diplomacy (other than leave a few people there to admit to it), and so they got invaded. 

If some nation today just assassinated head of another state, you can bet there would be retribution for it. 
In history, such retribution would often be simply war until the offending nation yielded or was wiped out.

And as established previously, wiping out other nations was not particularly unique in history.

Or maybe, your opinion on what constitutes a good fantasy is not the only valid viewpoint? 
And Sanderson understands his work perfectly well, you just don't like what he does with it.

E.g.

I don't like fantasy or science fiction because they are escapes from modernity, I like them because they are new and different and semi-easily digestible. And preventing transition to modernity is not appealing to me at all.

IMO, LOTR is less about preventing transition to modernity, and more about inevitability of such transition and mourning for what once was.

( Also, how the hell is science fiction not stained by modernity??? )
 

Going by dictionary, it is just being awed by something

So understanding seems to be orthogonal to it. 

Which yeah, it seems that for you, understanding lessens wonder, for me it magnifies it. Both are valid.
 

Quoting this for posterity, as it may be useful later.

 

On 2/8/2026 at 10:47 PM, therunner said:

You might notice that vast majority of what  I say does have qualifiers : "often", "most", "I think", "IMO". 
Hell, the one thing you just quoted starts with "I hesitate", to signify I am not sure in it.

And yet you say things like "Death rate of 30% below age 15 was the norm.", "Semi-constants wars between states was the norm.", "Slavery was the norm", "Religious pogroms were the norm.", as though such were incontrovertible truths rather than your interpretation of the historical record, an interpretation which is the opposite of incontrovertible among historians.

I don't have the patience or energy to argue with you on these things, especially when you have no interest in engaging in any way other than being reasonable despite repeated reminders that this is a thread for being unreasonable and not for having reasonable discussion.

It's either just going to be an endless cavalcade of "nuh-uh", "yuh-huh", "nuh-uh", "yuh-huh", or it's going to be an incredibly tedious and unfruitful cavalcade of us both citing various datasets and statistical/historical sources at each other until the mods lock the thread for having nothing to do with discussing the Cosmere.

Getting back to the actual subject of this thread (me being as salty as the Great Salt Lake about the various doings of the Children of Ashyn):

When Venli, in chapter 55 of Wind and Truth, looks over the surviving Listeners.  Quoted from Wind And Truth, chapter 55, page 534.

Quote

 

Venli had brought the Reachers, the lightspren, to her kind.  Starting with Jaxlim, Venli's mother, a full two dozen listeners had bonded spren.  A brilliant outpouring of power, far faster than any of the other orders had been refounded.  The lightspren had been so eager.

And yet... this sort of thing drew attention.  Lately she'd been hearing distant thunder, that of the Everstorm approaching, though no one else seemed to be able to hear it.  That sound terrified her; she knew him all too well.  With her hands on the ground of her small chamber, her flesh shivered--and her stomach twisted, her carapace feeling cold--as she remembered days serving him.  Singing his songs, his rhythms.  Watching as he destroyed the listeners--or so he'd thought-- in order to create false martyrs to pin on the humans.

A remnant had survived somehow, despite it all.  And she'd come to them.  She had to help.

Please, she said to the stones.  Give me a way.

They merely continued to sing with her, joyous.  We're happy you're here.  We brought you to this place, where the songs were once the loudest, and now you sing with us again.

The stones didn't think about tomorrow.  Let the wind worry about that.  The stones could enjoy the past.

Finally, she let go, but she contniued humming softly to Joy.  Although she hadn't gotten her answers, when speaking with the stones she couldn't help but find a sense of place.  She hadn't realized, until a quiet day at Urithiru, how much the songs meant to her.  How much her heritage meant to her.  She'd squanderd these wonders all ehr life, her own eyes on the future--and only the future.

Unfortunately, having been Odium's mouthpiece, she knew him all too well.  He would come for them onec he'd dealt with the humans.  She rose, and left her cave to gaze out at her people.  Seventeen hundred listeners, including many children.  The elderly, the infirm, the young, and a stalwart group of soldiers, Eshonai's closest friends--who ha refused the forms of power Venli had brought.

 

1700.  Only 1700 Listeners, unless I'm reading this wrong.

(I know not all Singers are Listeners, that's not the point).

Outside of these 1700, every single singer has either been killed by or because of the Children of Ashyn, or has at some point been enslaved by the Children of Ashyn.

If we had thousands and thousands of pages about them, we would not regard the humans on Roshar the way we do.

On 2/8/2026 at 10:47 PM, therunner said:

Invasion of Shattered Plains is completely normal occurrence, it is a punitive war for extremely valid cause.

This is, as far as I can tell, the moral reasoning of The Stormlight Archive, and it terrifies me.

Edited February 12 by Aliroz-The-Confused

[Frustration]

15 minutes ago, Aliroz-The-Confused said:

Getting back to the actual subject of this thread (me being as salty as the Great Salt Lake about the various doings of the Children of Ashyn):

When Venli, in chapter 55 of Wind and Truth, looks over the surviving Listeners.  Quoted from Wind And Truth, chapter 55, page 534.

1700.  Only 1700 Listeners, unless I'm reading this wrong.

(I know not all Singers are Listeners, that's not the point).

Outside of these 1700, every single singer has either been killed by or because of the Children of Ashyn, or has at some point been enslaved by the Children of Ashyn.

If we had thousands and thousands of pages about them, we would not regard the humans on Roshar the way we do.

I'd note that Venli blames not the Humans, but Odium for this destruction.

Yolish, not Ashynite.

[Aliroz-The-Confused]

1 hour ago, Frustration said:

I'd note that Venli blames not the Humans, but Odium for this destruction.

Yolish, not Ashynite.

I'd say that Odium is to the Children of Ashyn as Autonomy is to the Set.  

Autonomy being the bigger bad doesn't mean the lesser villains aren't culpable, especially because free will is a thing.

But, well, that doesn't mean that everyone agrees.  Especially, as you pointed out, Venli herself, who has as good a place to speak on such matters as anybody.

I'll also note that Odium is now Taravangian, who is Ashynite, and he's worse than Rayse.  I'll also note that Taravangian is also Honor now.  Ashynites bearing Shards has made the situation worse than what the Yolish shardbearers had it as.

So, the Yolish have the lead, and a massive head start, but the children of Ashyn are trying to make up the distance and surpass them in the race to scumbagland.

I admit I overestimate the culpability of the Ashynites and underestimate the culpability of Rayse in this situation.  It's probably an overcorrection for how I feel like the former gets preferential treatment by the fanbase and the author.

Edited February 12 by Aliroz-The-Confused

[therunner he/him]

3 hours ago, Aliroz-The-Confused said:

And yet you say things like "Death rate of 30% below age 15 was the norm.", "Semi-constants wars between states was the norm.", "Slavery was the norm", "Religious pogroms were the norm.", as though such were incontrovertible truths rather than your interpretation of the historical record, an interpretation which is the opposite of incontrovertible among historians.

I am happy to be proven wrong on any of the above statements.  

But what I said above is in fact taken quite seriously by historians

• Death rate of 30% below age 15 was the norm. (https://ourworldindata.org/child-mortality ) (actually even worse than what I said

Quote

These have all declined substantially in many, but not all, parts of the world – child deaths were a grim constant in the past. For most of human history, around 1 in 2 newborns died before reaching the age of 15. By 1950, that figure had declined to around one-quarter globally. By 2020, it had fallen to 4%

• Semi-constant wars being the norm
  • Here it was difficult to find a good source, but e.g. it seems that at least since ~1800s the conflict first grew a bit and then lessened again (https://ourworldindata.org/war-and-peace?insight=relationships-between-countries-have-become-more-peaceful#key-insights )
  • So it seems that during trasnition to modernity the frequency did increase for some period of time. 
    Though it is open question if that was causation, or just correlation.
     
• Slavery being the norm (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_slavery )

Quote

Slavery was institutionalized by the time the first civilizations emerged (such as Sumer in Mesopotamia,^[5] which dates back as far as 4000 BC). Slavery features in the Mesopotamian Code of Hammurabi (c. 1750 BC), which refers to it as an established institution.^[6] Slavery was widespread in the ancient world in Europe, Asia, the Middle East, Africa,^[7][8][4] and the Americas.^[9]

• Pogroms being semi-constant danger to Jewish communities ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pogrom )

Quote

I don't have the patience or energy to argue with you on these things, especially when you have no interest in engaging in any way other than being reasonable despite repeated reminders that this is a thread for being unreasonable and not for having reasonable discussion.

There is a difference between just being unreasonable, and outright lying about facts of history (or written words in book).

Quote

1700.  Only 1700 Listeners, unless I'm reading this wrong.

(I know not all Singers are Listeners, that's not the point).

Outside of these 1700, every single singer has either been killed by or because of the Children of Ashyn, or has at some point been enslaved by the Children of Ashyn.

If we had thousands and thousands of pages about them, we would not regard the humans on Roshar the way we do.

Yes, and most Listeners were killed during summoning of Everstorm, after having their personality taken over by Stormspren. 
Roughly 35 thousand of them died there, and most were killed by the clashing of Everstorm and Highstorm, as the forces of Alethkar lost the battle and had to retreat to survive.
That was the key event, summoning of what turned out to be a seed for Night of Sorrows.

Prior to it, both Eshonai and Dalinar were willing to start peace talks. Not exactly and act t of monsters you are trying to portray humans of Roshar as.

Also, why are you not angry at those spren for brainwashing the Listeners? Because that is what they explicitly did, based on PoV chapters of Eshonai?

Not to mention that the whole conflict was intentionally provoked by Ulim, agent of Odium. (the assassination of Gavilar being his idea, as is the summoning of storm spren and of Everstorm).

3 hours ago, Aliroz-The-Confused said:

This is, as far as I can tell, the moral reasoning of The Stormlight Archive, and it terrifies me.

It terrifies you that assassinating leader of foreign nation, during singing of agreement, has consequences? 
 

Edited February 12 by therunner

[Immortal Platypus]

8 hours ago, therunner said:

It terrifies you that assassinating leader of foreign nation, during singing of agreement, has consequences? 

That seems an unfair framing to me. It seems to me that Aliroz's complaint is that the mentality in Stormlight is more on the side of "The ends justify the means" and "If someone wrongs me, I'm going to wrong them back, really hard, even if I wronged them first" (side note, I don't think that is the mentality in Stormlight, but that is the basis of many of his arguments IMO) as opposed to his interpretation of Mistborn which I'm not sure I understand, so I'm not going to put it here. @Aliroz-The-Confused, if I'm wrong about this, feel free to correct me.

[Kansas Stormcursed he/him]

12 hours ago, Aliroz-The-Confused said:

Getting back to the actual subject of this thread (me being as salty as the Great Salt Lake about the various doings of the Children of Ashyn):

Hi

Just a suggestion

If this is what you're looking for, you might want to add [support] to the topic title, because "speculation" suggests the same kind of topic tag as [theory], where this kind of back-and-forth reasonable debate is expected

[therunner he/him]

1 hour ago, Immortal Platypus said:

That seems an unfair framing to me. It seems to me that Aliroz's complaint is that the mentality in Stormlight is more on the side of "The ends justify the means" and "If someone wrongs me, I'm going to wrong them back, really hard, even if I wronged them first" (side note, I don't think that is the mentality in Stormlight, but that is the basis of many of his arguments IMO)

Unfair framing is like half of this thread, if not its fundamental basis. 

I mean that one situation (Vengeance Pact) is clearly not the basis of moral reasoning of Stormlight, series where:

• Protagonist seeks peace with killers of bis brother (Dalinar with Listeners and with Szeth)
  • In the process Dalinar is also trying to end the War of Reckoning, and the failure of peace talks is considered tragic by them. Which is where narrative clearly frames War of Reckoning in its current version as morally wrong (as if it was not clear beforehand).
• Another protagonist protects another who is arguably responsible for death of his brother (Kaladin, once with Elhokar, once with Roshone)
• Men decide to try and save others, who (as far as he knows) victimized him and others like him (Kaladin and Bridge Four deciding to try and save Dalinar and his army at the Tower)
• The main antagonist espouses ends before means and the one among protagonists who does the same end the arc at her lowest (Taravangian and Jasnah)

If after reading all that you come away thinking the moral reasoning of the series is "Ends justify the means" or "wronging people back is okay", there is likely something wrong with your reading comprehension.

Edited February 12 by therunner

[Immortal Platypus]

4 hours ago, therunner said:

Unfair framing is like half of this thread, if not its fundamental basis. 

I agree with the first half, it's been common, but I still feel it's important to point it out. I don't think that's the fundamental basis, but Aliroz could likely say the same about our position -- that the fundamental basis is an unfair framing from Brandon. 

4 hours ago, therunner said:

I mean that one situation (Vengeance Pact) is clearly not the basis of moral reasoning of Stormlight, series where:

• Protagonist seeks peace with killers of bis brother (Dalinar with Listeners and with Szeth)
  • In the process Dalinar is also trying to end the War of Reckoning, and the failure of peace talks is considered tragic by them. Which is where narrative clearly frames War of Reckoning in its current version as morally wrong (as if it was not clear beforehand).
• Another protagonist protects another who is arguably responsible for death of his brother (Kaladin, once with Elhokar, once with Roshone)
• Men decide to try and save others, who (as far as he knows) victimized him and others like him (Kaladin and Bridge Four deciding to try and save Dalinar and his army at the Tower)
• The main antagonist espouses ends before means and the one among protagonists who does the same end the arc at her lowest (Taravangian and Jasnah)

If after reading all that you come away thinking the moral reasoning of the series is "Ends justify the means" or "wronging people back is okay", there is likely something wrong with your reading comprehension.

I disagree with Aliroz's interpretation, but I'm sure he could cherry-pick examples, just like those to prove his point. In that case, he could say the same thing that you say at the end. And I don't think he's wrong that the protagonists are morally inconsistent, but I would say that normal people are morally inconsistent and that while it is bad, it's to be expected. 

[Aliroz-The-Confused]

5 hours ago, therunner said:

Unfair framing is like half of this thread, if not its fundamental basis.

Yeah, it is.  This is because I feel that The Stormlight Archive is built around unfair framings of its characters, events, and setting.  It's also because I'm not capable of a fair framing.

As for the mentality of Stormlight, it's less "ends justify means" I see and more "people are inherently flawed, this is how they are, this is all they are, all they can ever be, this is the best they can do, they're trying their best, love them anyway despite their flaws.  To expect anything better than this behavior is to expect too much of humanity.  There are no consequences in the end, no punishment for oathbreakers, no eternal pattern of rightness to which all things resolve in the next life.  The ideal is impossible, give up on it.  Perfection doesn't exist."
 

18 minutes ago, Immortal Platypus said:

And I don't think he's wrong that the protagonists are morally inconsistent, but I would say that normal people are morally inconsistent and that while it is bad, it's to be expected. 

I don't understand why characters must be realistic if the setting is fantastical.  Is it easier to suspend disbelief for magic swords and shadows that face towards light than it is to suspend disbelief for moral consistency?

Edited February 12 by Aliroz-The-Confused

[Immortal Platypus]

1 hour ago, Aliroz-The-Confused said:

I don't understand why characters must be realistic if the setting is fantastical.  Is it easier to suspend disbelief for magic swords and shadows that face towards light than it is to suspend disbelief for moral consistency?

I don't think they necessarily need to be realistic, but in this case they are and I don't think that's a bad thing. I do think that it is good to have a character with flaws (as we've discussed before), and in this case, moral flaws work well. After all, even Kelsier had moral improvement within TFE.

And I would say that it actually is easier to suspend disbelief for magic swords than moral consistency. When you sign up for fantasy, you know you're signing up for magic systems, whereas you don't realize that you're signing up for perfect morals. In addition, being morally right is really hard, especially in situations like the ones our protagonists find themselves in (extra so if you consider the variety of moral codes the characters, and readers, have). 

[Aliroz-The-Confused]

1 hour ago, Immortal Platypus said:

I don't think they necessarily need to be realistic, but in this case they are and I don't think that's a bad thing. I do think that it is good to have a character with flaws (as we've discussed before), and in this case, moral flaws work well. After all, even Kelsier had moral improvement within TFE.

I'd very much prefer it if the protagonists' flaws weren't things like "genocide", "slavery", "war crimes", and "has desecrated the dead".

1 hour ago, Immortal Platypus said:

And I would say that it actually is easier to suspend disbelief for magic swords than moral consistency. When you sign up for fantasy, you know you're signing up for magic systems, whereas you don't realize that you're signing up for perfect morals. In addition, being morally right is really hard, especially in situations like the ones our protagonists find themselves in (extra so if you consider the variety of moral codes the characters, and readers, have). 

Huh.  When I sign up for fantasy, I'm pretty sure I sign up for non-ambiguous notions of good and evil most of the time.

Edited February 13 by Aliroz-The-Confused

[Aliroz-The-Confused]

I thought about this a little bit more, and here's what I came up with.

And I think it's easier to write characters to be morally right than you think, but doing so often messes up the story's pacing, deflates dramatic tension, closes off story-paths that would be more compelling, telegraphs the ending of subplots, or requires contrived plot beats to spark conflict and establish stakes. 

If stories are about tension, conflict, drama, and all that jazz, then having the characters consistently/always/nearly-always make the right choices is like speedrunning a game:  Impressive, hard to do, not necessarily a lot of fun compared to the sheer effort that goes into it, often done by taking paths that feel awkward/unnatural/unintuitive, and lacking much of the exploration and content.  A different way to play the game, for sure (one could argue that speedrunning Super Metroid almost counts as a different game than Super Metroid), and one that can be a lot of fun for those who like to do such or watch others do such but is at best niche compared to the less-restricted ways to play it.

With The Stormlight Archive being ten books, each one massive, it makes sense for the characters to have long journeys towards becoming their better selves.  It sets up interactions, situations, and allows for worldbuilding (which is why I'm reading the books in the first place).  With only five of the ten out, it's probably too soon to say for certain what the overall work will be like, morally.

Edited February 13 by Aliroz-The-Confused

[Frustration]

50 minutes ago, Aliroz-The-Confused said:

Huh.  When I sign up for fantasy, I'm pretty sure I sign up for non-ambiguous notions of good and evil most of the time.

Me too, it's a shame that Fantasy has walked away from that recently. I do believe that it is on the return however.

51 minutes ago, Aliroz-The-Confused said:

I'd very much prefer it if the protagonists' flaws weren't things like "genocide", "slavery", "war crimes", and "has desecrated the dead".

Well this is certainly an opinion of mine, but I don't see desecration of the dead as an inherently bad thing. The body is just sitting there, and they certainly aren't using it.

[therunner he/him]

8 hours ago, Aliroz-The-Confused said:

As for the mentality of Stormlight, it's less "ends justify means" I see and more "people are inherently flawed, this is how they are, this is all they are, all they can ever be, this is the best they can do, they're trying their best, love them anyway despite their flaws.  To expect anything better than this behavior is to expect too much of humanity.  There are no consequences in the end, no punishment for oathbreakers, no eternal pattern of rightness to which all things resolve in the next life.  The ideal is impossible, give up on it.  Perfection doesn't exist."

I agree with basically all of this except the last two sentences.

I think Stormlight is more about "The ideal is impossible, but try anyway.", with the caveat that it should not come at the cost of your own health (physical and/or mental). 

Dalinar and his 3rd Oath (Rising each time you fail), 1st Oath in general (Journey before Destination = it being the process that matters).  Kaladin just keeps trying to help people around him, even if he thinks it is impossible to save them (that was literally his mentality in TWoK, that Bridge 4 will die anyway so why should he try? And Syl convinces him it is worth trying it).

That is why I don't see Navani as a monster, in the first days of being bonded to Sibling, she immediately pivoted Fabrial research to try and make it less objectionable to Sibling, and to ideally have spren enjoy the process. Something which seems to have at least partial success. That is her trying to do better.

So long as they earnestly try to improve, that is good. Taravangian doesn't want to improve or change, he thinks he has all the answers, and it is just others who have to change, not him. Jasnah suffers from similar flaw, if not to the same extent (at least yet, who knows what her arc will bring).

8 hours ago, Immortal Platypus said:

I disagree with Aliroz's interpretation, but I'm sure he could cherry-pick examples, just like those to prove his point. In that case, he could say the same thing that you say at the end. And I don't think he's wrong that the protagonists are morally inconsistent, but I would say that normal people are morally inconsistent and that while it is bad, it's to be expected. 

The points I mentioned are culminations of arcs at least within individual books. That is usually where you look for what the end message is. 

People being morally inconsistent is I don't think any surprise, you won't find any person in all Cosmere books who is morally consistent. 

[Immortal Platypus]

18 hours ago, Aliroz-The-Confused said:

I'd very much prefer it if the protagonists' flaws weren't things like "genocide", "slavery", "war crimes", and "has desecrated the dead".

to each their own. It doesn't bother me as much as it does you, as I find many characters in many genres have similar, if not the same, flaws.

17 hours ago, Aliroz-The-Confused said:

I thought about this a little bit more, and here's what I came up with.

And I think it's easier to write characters to be morally right than you think, but doing so often messes up the story's pacing, deflates dramatic tension, closes off story-paths that would be more compelling, telegraphs the ending of subplots, or requires contrived plot beats to spark conflict and establish stakes. 

If stories are about tension, conflict, drama, and all that jazz, then having the characters consistently/always/nearly-always make the right choices is like speedrunning a game:  Impressive, hard to do, not necessarily a lot of fun compared to the sheer effort that goes into it, often done by taking paths that feel awkward/unnatural/unintuitive, and lacking much of the exploration and content.  A different way to play the game, for sure (one could argue that speedrunning Super Metroid almost counts as a different game than Super Metroid), and one that can be a lot of fun for those who like to do such or watch others do such but is at best niche compared to the less-restricted ways to play it.

With The Stormlight Archive being ten books, each one massive, it makes sense for the characters to have long journeys towards becoming their better selves.  It sets up interactions, situations, and allows for worldbuilding (which is why I'm reading the books in the first place).  With only five of the ten out, it's probably too soon to say for certain what the overall work will be like, morally.

Interesting. I think that's a good way to look at it, one that I wouldn't have thought to put into words. I'll have to think about that some more.

17 hours ago, Frustration said:

Quote

Huh.  When I sign up for fantasy, I'm pretty sure I sign up for non-ambiguous notions of good and evil most of the time.

Me too, it's a shame that Fantasy has walked away from that recently. I do believe that it is on the return however.

Interesting, I've never really really thought that way. I believe in objective good in reality, but in fiction I rarely find it believable. 

[Aliroz-The-Confused]

14 hours ago, therunner said:

I agree with basically all of this except the last two sentences.

I think Stormlight is more about "The ideal is impossible, but try anyway.", with the caveat that it should not come at the cost of your own health (physical and/or mental). 

That caveat is a lot of my problem with The Stormlight Archive.  That caveat means that your own physical and/or mental health is more important than the ideal, and thus more important than right or wrong.  It means that your own physical and/or mental well-being is more important than than your soul or the eternal afterlife consequences of your doings.

The rest of the Cosmere does not seem to have this caveat (or at least not to the same extent), and Mistborn, particularly in the first trilogy, (in my opinion) very much does not have this caveat. 

(Not trying to open a conversation about that, so I'll put my interpretation in a spoiler box and acknowledge that my interpretations are both unique to me and wrong.  I'm not trying to persuade anyone, just trying to head off "what do you mean by that" questions)

Spoiler

Spoilered for being wrong, repetitive (most of it has is stuff I've said before), and boring:

Dockson's last thoughts, after cursing Kelsier's name for giving them all hope, are on how he and everyone he cares about is about to die, and maybe this could have been avoided if they'd had Vin just assassinate everyone else's leadership, but doing that would have made them no better than beasts.  Kelsier talks in The Final Empire about how he knows his way of thinking/being isn't rational or sane (he does not prioritize his own mental health) but he'd choose it every time over despair or healthy resignation to reality.  Mennis talks in The Final Empire about how choosing to try the impossible, failing, and dying, while knowing that it's impossible and you're going to die, is itself a victory and something worth celebrating (and worth mourning at the same time) when the only alternative is a slow spiritual death in slavery.  He doesn't say it's obligatory, he says it's a choice, one with consequences, but one that is as valid as prioritizing physical survival.  Mistborn condemns neither the slave who chooses physical survival (preserving life but sacrificing something that might be caleld hope) and endures until his or her body can endure no more, nor the slave whose doomed revolt rages against the dying of the light (preserving something that might be called hope but sacrificing life), but acknowledges that the former is not without some secret measure of dignity even in its abasement and the latter is not without some secret possibility of success even in its futility.

Mistborn shows the good and the bad in irrational hope, in belief, in black-and-white-thinking, and in fanaticism.  It puts its own moral positions to the test, and shows the consequences (the death of pretty much all of the crew, the death of 7000 of Yeden's army, the apocalypse and near-depopulation of the world, the end of slavery, the saving of the world, the preservation of the copperminds, the restoration of Scadrial to its original glory).  Kelsier's afterlife is hard on him, forcing him to confront the consequences of his actions, and he is told that he served Ruin more than Preservation.

On the other hand, Wind and Truth ends with Szeth, the last holdout, learning to prioritize himself and his mental health.  Wind and Truth ends with Dalinar escaping all eternal consequence, invalidating all spiritual and moral concerns that had previously existed in mister Sanderson's writing.  Dalinar, on the other hand, begs the power of Honor to change its priorities and have nuance, going out with one last attempt at instilling his views on everyone else.  He gets no judgement, no condemnation, nothing but a free pass and an escape from Retribution.

Like I said, I think The Stormlight Archive does morality on easy mode, Mistborn does morality on hard mode, and the rest of the cosmere does morality on normal mode.  I feel that it's a double or possibly triple standard.

This especially irks me because in the later Wax and Wayne books we see this "nothing is more important than your well-being" caveat start to appear, with Wax especially demonstrating it in his grudging, half-hearted, okay-but-only-because-nobody-else-can-if-this-is-the-last-time-ever service to Harmony, wherein he starts to treat his trauma and mental well-being as though it was a comparable concern to finding human trafficking victims, preventing the deaths of millions, opposing an evil goddess's conquest of Scadrial, and stopping the Set from escalating intercontinental tensions into a world war.

Luckily for me, this is a character point rather than the story's perspective, and The Lost Metal (in my opinion) manages to keep itself morally and tonally consistent enough with the original Mistborn trilogy to avoid being Stormlight On Scadrial, but it's a worrying sign for me that The Stormlight Archive's narrative/moral priorities might be starting to bleed into the rest of the Cosmere.  Narrative Black Hole indeed.

14 hours ago, therunner said:

That is why I don't see Navani as a monster, in the first days of being bonded to Sibling, she immediately pivoted Fabrial research to try and make it less objectionable to Sibling, and to ideally have spren enjoy the process. Something which seems to have at least partial success. That is her trying to do better.

So long as they earnestly try to improve, that is good. Taravangian doesn't want to improve or change, he thinks he has all the answers, and it is just others who have to change, not him. Jasnah suffers from similar flaw, if not to the same extent (at least yet, who knows what her arc will bring).

This is why I see Navani as a monster.  I don't see her attempts to improve as earnest or sincere.

Sincerity, to me, would be stopping all fabrial research and banning it.  An actual attempt to do better would be outright outlawing the creation of fabrials, at bare minimum.  Following through on this attempt by destroying as many as possible of the fabrials that exist so the spren can be free is what it would take for me to consider Navani as having had a change of heart.  Otherwise, she stays in her place as the fictional character I hate fifth-most.

What I see is Navani trying to soothe the concerns of her own conscience, of The Sibling, and of the reader, while having no change of heart, only slight changes of method specifically to avoid confronting things that might lead to a change of heart.

I see the apparent "enjoyment" of the fabrial spren as eerily similar to the apparent "volition" of Enlightened spren and the apparent "contentment" of the abducted in Wayfarer, and it reminds me of Ulim's interactions with the Listeners (manufacturing consent for your own purposes).

14 hours ago, therunner said:

People being morally inconsistent is I don't think any surprise, you won't find any person in all Cosmere books who is morally consistent. 

Do minor characters count?  Because I think moral inconsistency is much more of a main character thing.  If not, then I'd say that Szeth was morally consistent.  I'd also call Sarene and Raoden morally consistent. 

1 hour ago, Immortal Platypus said:

to each their own. It doesn't bother me as much as it does you, as I find many characters in many genres have similar, if not the same, flaws.

This is part of why I have problems with many characters in many genres.

Edited February 13 by Aliroz-The-Confused

[Aliroz-The-Confused]

I mean, that bit where Wax thinks "you don't understand what this feels like" at Sazed and then gets an impression of Sazed at the siege of Luthadel is exactly what I'm talking about.

 

 

Wax:  Attempts to lecture his god, expects the story to prioritize his trauma over everything else

Harmony:  No.

Wax:  But I'm the protagonist, and this is a Brandon Sanderson novel!

Harmony:  Yes, both are true. 

Wax:  So can I have some slack?

Harmony:  You are the protagonist.  This is a Mistborn novel.

Wax:  #\$%!

Harmony:  Indeed.  You are, unfortunately, the hero of the age.  I am so sorry.

Wax:  Well, at least the people I love will be oka-%&*#!

Harmony:  -tearfully nodding in commiseration-

Me:  -curled up in a ball with the book, sobbing-

[Immortal Platypus]

3 hours ago, Aliroz-The-Confused said:

This is part of why I have problems with many characters in many genres.

For the record, I think that Kel has similar problems. It's been discussed at length, but I see his hatred and killing of nobles as genocidal. Many have done wrongs, but some haven't done so willingly (Elend being a main example. He bedded a skaa woman at 13 and she was killed afterward. Obviously not his fault, so I don't hold him responsible). However, in Kel's mind, Elend is as bad as the others, simply because he's a noble (in other words, simply because of who his parents are). The only reason he saves him is because Vin loves him, not because he recognizes him as moral.

Quote

"genocide", "slavery", "war crimes", and "has desecrated the dead".

as for what you describe as "has desecrated the dead", it seems to me that you object to it because it violates the Singer culture/region. (If not so, please correct me.) This seems to me that you are more opposed to the blasphemy part than the actual corpse desecration, but that could be wrong. If I'm right, Kel could easily be described as blaspheming (in setting himself up as a god for the skaa). 

For "war crimes", you could argue that they technically aren't as there was no convention against them, but I think that's a stupid argument, so I'll ignore it. The argument I would make is that several things Kel did would classify as war crimes. (I choose Kel for all these examples because it seems to me that you set him up as a paragon of virtue, and I disagree. If that's not an accurate depiction of your views, I apologize.) For example, assassination of nobles seems to me to be in violation of the prohibition on attacking civilians and/or the prohibition on "willful killing"; he repeatedly sends people off buildings/balconies to fall to their deaths, that might qualify as "willfully causing great suffering", but that one is a little looser; "declaring no quarter to be given" seems to me to have been done, Kel was for killing all nobles, regardless of who they were (before Vin, he grew as a person); "pillaging a town or place" which was done post-mortem by his command to the atium stores (another stretch, but still); etc, etc. 

For "Slavery", I believe it's been mentioned, but I believe he basically (if not literally) sold Lift to someone (but that might have been the Rosharan Ghostblood branch acting on their own, so I'll cut him some slack there). 

[Aliroz-The-Confused]

I regard The Final Empire in the same way I regard The Set, and the same way I regard Odium's attempted invasion of Roshar.

As far as I'm concerned, the protections of taboo are not inalienable and it is possible to place oneself in the category of Hostis Humani Generis, as outside the protections of consideration and convention.  I consider The Final Empire to have done so.

I understand that mine is an isolate position, and it is one I will not endeavor to defend or justify.  I will not be persuaded from it, and I will not attempt to persuade others to it.

I do not consider it to be an exception to my sense of "rules", I consider it to be a context in which my "rules" do not apply the prohibitions they normally would.  I'd compare it to how things like the Hague and Geneva conventions apply to wars between nation-states but do not offer protections to terrorists, pirates, or extraterrestrials.As for blasphemy (spoilered for being boring and wrong),

Spoiler

 

Kelsier, because of his divine mandate to SURVIVE and his function as Ruin's instrument to bring about the end of The Final Empire, counts in my interpretation as belonging to the same "instrument of god(s)" category as Venli (for Odium), Dalinar (for Honor), or whoever was the prophet for the original version of the Terris Prophecies.

 

While Kelsier blasphemes against Rashek (and it ends about as well for him as you'd expect--he dies from THE SLAPPENING), I don't consider him to have actually blasphemed against Ati and Leras during his mortal life. 

Heck, in becoming Preservation, Kelsier counts as a god, same as Vin and Sazed.  Same as Dalinar, Taravangian, Rashek, and the original sixteen.  Are the skaa being manipulated in Mistborn: The Final Empire, or are they, on some level, recognizing godhood from across time?

I feel like mister Sanderson gave Kelsier sufficient consequence for his doings, but I don't feel like Kaladin has been given any real consequences for the atrocity he did.

As far as corpse-desecration... (spoilered for being boring and wrong)

Spoiler

And it's not so much blasphemy as the fact that Kaladin specifically did it to force the Listeners into such unbearable emotional pain that they would have no choice but to break and strike back, luring them into their own destruction by their inability to not care about their loved ones.  I said before in this thread, it's more or less the same thing that Taravangian was going to do to force the humans to break the contract (as described by Frustration earlier in the thread), something that is arguably the evilest thing Taravangian came up with.

It's also that corpses are defenseless and helpless.  And it's also... well, there's something just so wrong about treating dead bodies that way.  And it's just so cruel of mister Sanderson to have his hero attack the Listeners right in their culture/religion like that, to exploit the fact that the reader doesn't know the name of a single listener, has no connection to the singers' religion or culture, to exploit the fact that the modern reader has been, to some extent, trained not to have (or trained to lack most of) the normal human aversion to corpse-desecration that 99.99% of humanity has.

I think of the viewings and funerals of my grandparents, and how I felt seeing the body of a loved one, seeing the hands that once held mine, the arms that once carried me, the legs that went on walks with me.  I think of what it would be like if it was my spouse, or how my siblings or cousins would feel if it was my viewing or funeral.

And that's a situation of honor and remembrance, of devotion and respect-ritual.  I can't imagine how I'd react to seeing a real human corpse torn apart.

 

Edited February 14 by Aliroz-The-Confused

[buzzbuzz she/her]

10 hours ago, Aliroz-The-Confused said:

It's also that corpses are defenseless and helpless.  And it's also... well, there's something just so wrong about treating dead bodies that way.  And it's just so cruel of mister Sanderson to have his hero attack the Listeners right in their culture/religion like that, to exploit the fact that the reader doesn't know the name of a single listener, has no connection to the singers' religion or culture, to exploit the fact that the modern reader has been, to some extent, trained not to have (or trained to lack most of) the normal human aversion to corpse-desecration that 99.99% of humanity has.

i think that's why the apology was done after we know about the listeners, about the singers, after we know more about them. the way i saw it, it was wrong, but the bridgemen were themselves in a death trap, and kaladin saw preserving the lives of people more important than the sensibilities of the dead. yeah, it was a difficult decision, but that was the point of it- that in war, there is no right or wrong side, that both sides lose common people, that both sides have their own story which needs to be told. the common soldier may not know why he is fighting, but he knows that he's fighting to defend his home. it's this realization kal feels when he meets the newly freed singers in OB, that these are also people he must protect. at that point of time, maybe desecrating the corpses was the only way he could protect people (which he did, iirc he diverted fire from ALL the brides to himself). like yeah, no decision is perfect, but that's the point of stormlight archive i feel. mistborn has been more black and white wrt morals, but even there you see quellion taking what kelsier preached and putting that into action, and we see why that results in a messed up society. elend too had to become a dictator in order to do good, a philosophical problem he was forced to go through in WoA. that hasn't been seen as an atrocity in the text because it wasn't- it was the right thing to do in-world, as was kal's decision to use the corpses of the listeners.

[Nitpicking]

I get the feeling that certain people are expected to be instantly perfect, e. g. Navani.

That is the opposite of the message of the Stormlight Archive, which is (First Ideal) about the journey. The story isn't that Dalinar or Kaladin or Jasnah has become an ideal person. It's that they're sincerely trying to do better.

Heck, the Sibling and Tanavast's Shadow are shown trying to be better than they were. 

The villains are people like Moash and Taravangian, who cling to their flaws.