Emeralis00 she/her Posted October 13, 2010 Posted October 13, 2010 Does anyone think that the Hireocracy's principles and Dalinar's visions are similar. The visions tell Dalinar to "unite them" and Dalinar originally thought they were sent by the almighty (which they were, but still). The Hireocracy tried to take over because it was claimed that some of there high-priests(?) saw visions that they claimed were sent by the Almighty to unite the world. Dalinar also makes a reference on how what the visions tell him seemed similar to what the Hireocracy claimed, however he doesn't think much of it afterwards. Any thoughts, evidence, or refutations?
Silus - Shard of Flame he/him Posted October 13, 2010 Posted October 13, 2010 It never really said what caused the Hierocracy, and definitely not in that level of detail. Though I might need to reread to confirm that. Which might be a problem since I'm anticipating loaning it out pretty soon. Oh, well, that's what my ARC is for!
lordofsoup Posted October 13, 2010 Posted October 13, 2010 Hierarchy was a lie, they were lying about the visions, Dalinar isnt.
Link Von Kelsier Harvey he/him Posted October 13, 2010 Posted October 13, 2010 Everyone has been told they were lying about the visions. Maybe some of them...weren't?
Emeralis00 she/her Posted October 14, 2010 Author Posted October 14, 2010 The Priests claim that the visions were lies. I don't believe them. If a religious group you were in attempted to take over and failed, wouldn't you say that your leader was insane and lying to save yourself?
Andrew the Great he/him Posted October 14, 2010 Posted October 14, 2010 You know, this is an interesting thought. Just to run with it for a bit, would you say it's more likely that the visions are genuine, and the Hierocracy was just a bad group to make unity a reality, or the visions are essentially a manipulation from Odium or some other similar source?
Emeralis00 she/her Posted October 14, 2010 Author Posted October 14, 2010 You know, this is an interesting thought. Just to run with it for a bit, would you say it's more likely that the visions are genuine, and the Hierocracy was just a bad group to make unity a reality, or the visions are essentially a manipulation from Odium or some other similar source? I don't think Odium would do that sort of tactic. It would be like telling your enemy to prepare himself. I would say its more likely that the Hireocrats were a bad group to see the visions, it would be easier to speculate if I knew how the visions chose who sees them (if thy chose and its not totally random).
Andrew the Great he/him Posted October 15, 2010 Posted October 15, 2010 In defense of the other side of the argument, it could be that Odium would only tell them to do things that make sense at first, then start giving more sinister commands after he's got them believing he's the Almighty. That said, I think it more likely that either the Heirocracy was a bad group to receive the visions, or the Heirocracy is just what all of the characters in the book say it was: a group of priests trying to gain power by claiming they'd had visions from the Almighty.
Munin he/him Posted October 15, 2010 Posted October 15, 2010 Or a group that actually WAS receiving visions from the Almighty, but misreporting what they heard in order to gain power.
Emeralis00 she/her Posted February 18, 2011 Author Posted February 18, 2011 This actually reminds me of a series of books I had read. Essentially, this one priestess realized that her God's Oracle was lying about the visions she received to profit herself. Ultimately it ended with a Coup d'état.
Zas678 he/him Posted February 19, 2011 Posted February 19, 2011 Who says that they were a bad group? What if they saw the corruption of the current government, started having visions from the Almighty, "Unite Them", and so they start taking control the government, because they have been given direction from the Almighty to do so. They may have even been doing a good job. Odium couldn't have that, so he had groups that would be unhappy under a theocracy (aristocrats who think they are too strict, villians, etc,) revolt and subdue the priests. What if the fall of the Heirocracy was a bad thing? 1
happyman he/him Posted February 21, 2011 Posted February 21, 2011 Who says that they were a bad group? What if they saw the corruption of the current government, started having visions from the Almighty, "Unite Them", and so they start taking control the government, because they have been given direction from the Almighty to do so. They may have even been doing a good job. Odium couldn't have that, so he had groups that would be unhappy under a theocracy (aristocrats who think they are too strict, villians, etc,) revolt and subdue the priests. What if the fall of the Heirocracy was a bad thing? Hmmm. These are all good points. We know Brandon isn't radically against a theocracy as long as it functions well, so this is entirely possible.
CrazyRioter she/her Posted February 21, 2011 Posted February 21, 2011 I suppose it's possible that the Hiereocracy was a good thing, it would fit with the going theme of "People don't know anything about what really happened in the past" that we've got going on.
Andrew the Great he/him Posted March 2, 2011 Posted March 2, 2011 Just to be clear, I wasn't originally trying to claim that the Heirocracy was a bad thing by suggesting that the priests were a bad group to receive the visions. I'm not saying anything about the priests personally. I'm just stating that they were a poor choice of people to receive the visions, as evidenced by the fact that the Heirocracy failed. Or, there's also the distinct possibility that the priests did make it all up, in which case they were almost certainly what I would consider a bad group in the other sense of the word. I have to say, though, I really do like the idea that the Heirocracy wasn't inherently an attempt to take over, but just wasn't successful in the reforms it wanted to make.
happyman he/him Posted March 3, 2011 Posted March 3, 2011 Just to be clear, I wasn't originally trying to claim that the Heirocracy was a bad thing by suggesting that the priests were a bad group to receive the visions. I'm not saying anything about the priests personally. I'm just stating that they were a poor choice of people to receive the visions, as evidenced by the fact that the Heirocracy failed. Or, there's also the distinct possibility that the priests did make it all up, in which case they were almost certainly what I would consider a bad group in the other sense of the word. I have to say, though, I really do like the idea that the Heirocracy wasn't inherently an attempt to take over, but just wasn't successful in the reforms it wanted to make. Depends on why they failed. They could just be casualties in the larger battle between Shards. If they were doing the "right" thing, then Honor likely just got outmaneuvered by Odium, possibly posthumously. Either that, or neither shard was active, and they just didn't understand what was needed.
KChan she/her Posted March 8, 2011 Posted March 8, 2011 It's possible that both sides of this theory are also true to some extent. Perhaps there were some individuals who really did see these visions and attempt to follow them, but some corrupt individuals seized the opportunity to lie about having "visions" of their own. The Hierocracy might have been a good thing to start out with but was then corrupted by the impostors, but history only remembers the latter half of the story. 1
Zas678 he/him Posted March 8, 2011 Posted March 8, 2011 I like that idea. It runs with the whole "no matter who's in charge, they're mean" thing that Kaladin has going on.
KChan she/her Posted March 9, 2011 Posted March 9, 2011 It also fits the world element of people not knowing what exactly happened in the past. There is usually some truth in even the wildest corruption of history, so it makes sense to think that the Hierocracy was in some way corrupted at the end, but nobody says it can't have been a good thing when it first started.
Asperity he/him Posted March 14, 2011 Posted March 14, 2011 I wonder.. I don't remember every bit of the book, but unless it specifically mentioned the ten armies as "Unite them", then "Unite them..." could be loosely interpreted into uniting the Shards currently on Roshar. Somehow.
Zas678 he/him Posted March 15, 2011 Posted March 15, 2011 *Cosmere Spoilers* The Almighty actually says in his first/last vision to Dalinar "Return Men to the Shards they once bore." Now, that could mean the Dawnshards, or it could even just mean Shardblades. But. It could mean doing as Sazed has done, and Uniting Shards of Adonalsium. It's unclear whether it means unite Alethkar, or if it means unite Roshar, or if it means unite the Cosmere. I think we'll have to wait and see to find out for certain.
Puck he/him Posted March 15, 2011 Posted March 15, 2011 (edited) The Almighty actually says in his first/last vision to Dalinar "Return Men to the Shards they once bore." Now, that could mean the Dawnshards, or it could even just mean Shardblades. But. It could mean doing as Sazed has done, and Uniting Shards of Adonalsium. My knee-jerk to this is that it's not Shards of Adonalsium. It doesn't make sense grammatically: men never stopped bearing Shards (the un-splintered ones at least); if the Shards are to be united back into a single Adonalsium, then there would only be one thing to return, and to only one man, not many men (man being a gender- neutral noun in this case). You may be right. But, if you are, Honor is the worst advice giver ever. Tyra Banks would have superior sentence-forming skills. Interesting, that it is men that have to return, not the Shards. That does cast it into a more metaphorical light (which can then justify some ambiguity) Edited March 15, 2011 by Puck
Recommended Posts