Thoughts on Wind and Truth. SPOILERS

[Schizoposting]

On 6/13/2026 at 10:40 PM, Frustration said:

Just because you prefer one to the other doesn't mean that your way of viewing things is correct.

Which way should it be viewed then? 

On 6/13/2026 at 10:40 PM, Frustration said:

I don't think it's a good faith argument to say that anyone who dislikes WaT is incapable of articulating their own feelings and opinions.

Doubly so to assume you know why they actually feel a certain way better than they do.

I never said that "anyone who dislikes WaT is incapable of articulating their own feelings and opinions"; nor do I find the question of why this or that person liked or disliked something to be particularly interesting—I am considering individuals in the aggregate. 

On 6/13/2026 at 11:39 PM, Grubfriend said:

This feels like a huge assumption. A “feeling” that the book doesn’t sit well with you does not send every person incapable of literary analysis to randomly latch onto random details. Many people like specific sections and dislike others. Any reader can do this much without writing a complex analysis. Why is literally analysis required to determine someone’s opinion of a piece of media? Can I not say that the Shattered Plains arch felt like a copy of Azimir, and then conclude that it feels like padding and makes me dislike that part of the book?

The problem is that the immediate, unmediated, experience of consciousness is an illusion: what we think, and how we feel, is determined by unconscious forces beyond our direct control. That's why an individual's account why they feel, think, or act, in a certain way, is not to be trusted. That's not to say that understanding people's reactions to a certain piece of media is impossible, but it takes a deeper investigation than simply taking their word at face value.  

On 6/13/2026 at 11:39 PM, Grubfriend said:

Why is literary critique the “end all be all”, especially when the prose is included in a critique, but you say the content is more important. The popularity is the collective reaction of all readers’ opinions, regardless of how they word their opinions. Most complaints I have seen have said “Jasnah’s debate with Odium is simplistic and makes Jasnah seem stupid for not considering his responses” or “the Shattered Plains arc is a copy of Azimir that doesn’t stand out from its other and also poorly sets up Sigzil’s failure and makes his ending come out of nowhere and feel forced.”

The objective quality of a given work of art is determined by how well it reflects the human condition. The only way to determine this, is through literary analysis.

Regarding the debate, the reason why Jasnah "seems stupid", is because she's not quite the genius that she thinks she is—people were offended by that scene, because they bought into her delusions of invincibility. 

On 6/13/2026 at 11:39 PM, Grubfriend said:

Content judgement is not the problem. The problem is that certain parts ring hollow for certain individuals or groups, which is completely okay. Nothing Brandon has written is objectively perfect and is the absolute perfection of writing that all writers aim for, so we can safely say that he will mess up something, and with a book as large as WaT those sorts of mistakes pile up. The book is seen as flawed not because the masses tunnel vision on superficial details, but because they raise genuine issues with the writing.

Being popular does not give a certain perspective any epistemological privilege over others—far from it. Besides, WaT is hardly despised by the vast majority of readers: just look at the poll results. 

8 hours ago, Returned said:

I'm sure that some people really did dislike WaT for reasons like you suggest. But it's an error to say that that's the only way people could dislike it. Comparing WaT to earlier SA entries, I found the writing to be less polished and more formulaic, the plotting and pacing less natural, the characterization far weaker, the dialogue worse (though not particularly due to being too modern), the development and presentation of themes and ideas far more crude and less intriguing, and the worldbuilding details less imaginative and less smoothly integrated into the narrative and prose. None of that makes the things the book does well any less good. But I think that the book could have accomplished everything you claim about it while also being better written than it was-- my issues are not about what the book was supposedly trying to do but rather about the execution of the attempt.

Obviously, no book is perfect, and one can certainly have valid criticisms of how WaT was executed. The problem is that the backlash in the fandom is completely disproportional to how well the book was actually received by the average reader, not to mention its actual quality. So why is this? Why does a substantial minority of the fandom passionately despise this book? Simply saying that people disliked it because they thought it was bad is tautological.

20 hours ago, Returned said:

People may disagree with any or all of those opinions I hold, and even for those who do agree these items may not have detracted from their experience as much as they did mine. But others may feel similarly, or have other complaints that negatively impacted their enjoyment of the book. I'm glad that you liked it. It's really disrespectful and arrogant to tell others that they're too foolish and incompetent to appreciate the book or even know their own thoughts about it, based primarily on their not liking it so much. There is absolutely room for real critique, and disagreeing with your enthusiasm is not an impressive heuristic for dismissing that.

I don't think that it's at all "arrogant" to treat people's perspectives as the object of critique—if anything, it's the highest form of respect to take these views seriously, instead of dismissing them by saying that all perspectives are equally valid. 

Nor do I think that people are "stupid" for disliking WaT—people like or dislike things for myriads of reasons, which may or may have anything to do with its actual quality. If you read for pleasure and think that Shakespeare is boring, while enjoying Red Rising, that's perfectly fine. But it does not change the fact that the former is far superior to the latter. (Obviously, the Stormlight Archive is nowhere near as good as Shakespeare, but the point still stands.)  

[Frustration]

19 minutes ago, Schizoposting said:

Which way should it be viewed then? 

As an opinion, thus with each individual allowed to value whichever part they so desire

20 minutes ago, Schizoposting said:

I never said that "anyone who dislikes WaT is incapable of articulating their own feelings and opinions"; nor do I find the question of why this or that person liked or disliked something to be particularly interesting—I am considering individuals in the aggregate. 

That doesn't change the fact that you still claim that those with an opinion different from yours don't understand the reasons for their own feelings. Whether a particular individual or in the aggregate, that's what you claimed.

23 minutes ago, Schizoposting said:

The objective quality of a given work of art is determined by how well it reflects the human condition. The only way to determine this, is through literary analysis.

You didn't answer the question.

Why is the reflection of the human condition an objective quality of a given work? Why is literary analysis the only way to determine this?

28 minutes ago, Schizoposting said:

If you read for pleasure and think that Shakespeare is boring, while enjoying Red Rising, that's perfectly fine. But it does not change the fact that the former is far superior to the latter.

Superior based on what exactly?

[Returned he/him]

21 hours ago, Schizoposting said:

Why does a substantial minority of the fandom passionately despise this book? Simply saying that people disliked it because they thought it was bad is tautological.

Not at all. There are plenty of works that I think are not very good but still enjoy. There are works that I think are well done, meticulously crafted and just what the creator wished, but that I don't enjoy. The group that disliked the book has been pretty vocal about why, and the sum of their complaints (voiced or not) is what leads to the assessment of the book's quality.

21 hours ago, Schizoposting said:

I don't think that it's at all "arrogant" to treat people's perspectives as the object of critique—if anything, it's the highest form of respect to take these views seriously, instead of dismissing them by saying that all perspectives are equally valid. 

I have a difficult time seeing it as a sign of respect to immediately reject someone's stated reason for why they disliked something, and then assert a totally different reason they never expressed as the reason that is unquestionably correct. Rejecting a view out of hand is the opposite of taking it seriously. It doesn't seem like you're engaging in any inquiry about people's opinions (in this thread at least, which obviously isn't the only one and isn't necessarily representative), instead saying that a variety of expressed opinions can only be wrong both as descriptions of the book and also as description of their own preferences.

And it's not like you're raising those points when people say they liked the book because the fight scenes were great or Kaladin is soo coooool or subverting structure necessarily produces great works or whatever. It's only the people who feel differently than you about the book that are told to justify their feelings and rationales to you, or else have them dismissed as false and irrelevant.

21 hours ago, Schizoposting said:

Nor do I think that people are "stupid" for disliking WaT—people like or dislike things for myriads of reasons, which may or may have anything to do with its actual quality.

As I read your posts in this thread I come away with the impression that you think people who disliked WaT mainly felt that way because they are addicted to the narrative structure used in the first three SA books, are incapable of appreciating or enduring that structural change, are incapable of expressing (or even knowing) that that change is what they disliked, and so blindly grasp at an arbitrary (and invalid) detail and wrongly identify it as the explanation, then utterly commit to it anyways in some sort of fumbling, belligerent ignorance. It's a description of someone foolish and shallow.

Comments like "most people are very bad at understanding why like certain things over others beyond the purely superficial: if people find the plot boring, or are disappointed by the ending, the real question is why they feel these things" and "Naturally, this is going to upset the people, who feel attached to ideals being deconstructed, which happens to be a substantial part of the fandom. But since these people are not truly capable of the literary analysis to articulate why WaT discomforts them, they randomly latch on to superficial details that they did not like and fetishize them as being the reason why they feel this way" really radiate contempt and denigration, especially when dismissing those people's opinions (both their evaluation of the book as well as why they evaluated it that way).

Maybe that's not your actual sentiment and we're dealing with forum-induced lack of clarity or poor articulation. I don't want to assert the contents of your own mind to you, but I suspect most people will read what was written as an intentional, proudly-delivered insult rather than a gambit in an open, good-faith discussion.

Edited 11 hours ago by Returned

[+Child of Hodor]

Book too big. Make book smaller. It's hard to review because it's so big and has so many different storylines. 

I enjoyed the lore dumps of the new visions and Tanavast POVs. 

Kaladin's mission felt too videogamey go defeat the guardians of the temple to unlock the triforce type of thing. I felt like we didn't get enough of where people lived in Shinovar. 

The big loophole in the contract being capturing the capitals was a little disappointing. It was confusing how Taravangian can kind of fudge things in that regard, but Hoid is like "we can't change the laws that would be cheating". 

El didn't do much after a big buildup. 

BAM literally didn't do anything after a big build up. Rhlain and Renarin freeing her was a nice touch calling back to when she was trapped. 

I thought the ending worked well. 

Having Shallan playing Hide and Seek in the Visions felt a little redundant. We see the visions through Dalinar and then we see them through Shallan. 

I was definitely poisoned by Brandon saying the book would wrap up the front 5 arc and it didn't except for Dalinar. Looking forward to the Voidlight archives (Warlight whatever). Dismayed that it might be another 6.5 years before the new release. 

[Schizoposting]

21 hours ago, Frustration said:

As an opinion, thus with each individual allowed to value whichever part they so desire

The great irony of postmodernism is that saying truth is relative is in itself an objective truth—your assertion that art is subjective is just as exclusionary of other perspectives, as saying that it's not. 

21 hours ago, Frustration said:

That doesn't change the fact that you still claim that those with an opinion different from yours don't understand the reasons for their own feelings. Whether a particular individual or in the aggregate, that's what you claimed.

I don't think that people understand their feelings in general, beyond the superficial. It has nothing to do with their opinion on WaT. 

21 hours ago, Frustration said:

You didn't answer the question.

Why is the reflection of the human condition an objective quality of a given work? Why is literary analysis the only way to determine this?

Because it's the only criterion that can objectively determine the quality of art—conversely, if we judge a given work by how aesthetically pleasing it is, then it degenerates into subjectivism, since different people may find different things to be aesthetically pleasing. Quality can only be determined by literary analysis, because said analysis is defined as understanding how a given work relates to the human condition.  

21 hours ago, Frustration said:

Superior based on what exactly?

Based on the criterion described above. 

13 hours ago, Returned said:

I have a difficult time seeing it as a sign of respect to immediately reject someone's stated reason for why they disliked something, and then assert a totally different reason they never expressed as the reason that is unquestionably correct. Rejecting a view out of hand is the opposite of taking it seriously. It doesn't seem like you're engaging in any inquiry about people's opinions (in this thread at least, which obviously isn't the only one and isn't necessarily representative), instead saying that a variety of expressed opinions can only be wrong both as descriptions of the book and also as description of their own preferences.

What critiques, exactly, have I dismissed out of hand? I have repeatedly stated that there are valid critiques of WaT; however, said critiques are nowhere near enough to explain why there is such vitriol towards this book compared to others, especially when the aforementioned critiques apply just as much, if not more so, to earlier entries in the series. 

13 hours ago, Returned said:

And it's not like you're raising those points when people say they liked the book because the fight scenes were great or Kaladin is soo coooool or subverting structure necessarily produces great works or whatever. It's only the people who feel differently than you about the book that are told to justify their feelings and rationales to you, or else have them dismissed as false and irrelevant.

I would say the exact same thing to those people. Nor do I think that subversion is good for its own sake: it's only good insofar as the ideal being subverted is false.

13 hours ago, Returned said:

As I read your posts in this thread I come away with the impression that you think people who disliked WaT mainly felt that way because they are addicted to the narrative structure used in the first three SA books, are incapable of appreciating or enduring that structural change, are incapable of expressing (or even knowing) that that change is what they disliked, and so blindly grasp at an arbitrary (and invalid) detail and wrongly identify it as the explanation, then utterly commit to it anyways in some sort of fumbling, belligerent ignorance. It's a description of someone foolish and shallow.

This is a very dishonest framing—I never said that people were "addicted", "stupid", "belligerent", or anything of that sort; perhaps you think that people are stupid for lacking self-knowledge, but I don't.

14 hours ago, Returned said:

Comments like "most people are very bad at understanding why like certain things over others beyond the purely superficial: if people find the plot boring, or are disappointed by the ending, the real question is why they feel these things" and "Naturally, this is going to upset the people, who feel attached to ideals being deconstructed, which happens to be a substantial part of the fandom. But since these people are not truly capable of the literary analysis to articulate why WaT discomforts them, they randomly latch on to superficial details that they did not like and fetishize them as being the reason why they feel this way" really radiate contempt and denigration, especially when dismissing those people's opinions (both their evaluation of the book as well as why they evaluated it that way).

Saying that refusing to accept people's self-perception to be unconditionally true, makes you contemptuous and denigrating, is a bizarre claim to make. By that reasoning, every great philosopher and thinker of the last 200 years "radiated contempt and denigration", by doing the former.

[Frustration]

1 hour ago, Schizoposting said:

The great irony of postmodernism is that saying truth is relative is in itself an objective truth—your assertion that art is subjective is just as exclusionary of other perspectives, as saying that it's not. 

I despise postmodernism with all of my heart. Truth is an absolute. However, value is subjective, that's not philosophical. It's observable reality. People make different decisions based on the same circumstance because the value different things. This is why two people can read the same book and come to two completely different conclusions about it. Not because the book is relative to them, but because they have different values that the book either did or did not appeal to.

1 hour ago, Schizoposting said:

Because it's the only criterion that can objectively determine the quality of art—conversely, if we judge a given work by how aesthetically pleasing it is, then it degenerates into subjectivism, since different people may find different things to be aesthetically pleasing. Quality can only be determined by literary analysis, because said analysis is defined as understanding how a given work relates to the human condition.  

I'm afraid that isn't any clearer. You haven't explained any benefit of judging a book exclusively on how it appeals to the human condition other than stating that it's objective. However all definitions I've found for the human condition are themselves not objective. And even if there is an objective definition out there that I have been unable to find that still doesn't explain why it is the only measure of quality for a book.

As stated above value is subjective, while you might hold relation to the human condition as the most valuable thing a book can do that is not universal.

1 hour ago, Schizoposting said:

Saying that refusing to accept people's self-perception to be unconditionally true, makes you contemptuous and denigrating, is a bizarre claim to make. By that reasoning, every great philosopher and thinker of the last 200 years "radiated contempt and denigration", by doing the former.

You didn't respond at all to what @Returned was saying.