Szeth the revolutionary

[Roamer]

So during my re-read I came to the chapter where we see szeth sent to assassinate his master's rival thug in Bavland. I don't have my book in front of me, so I'll just summarize the quotes.

When szeth arrives at the home of his target, he finds that he is already dead and a mysterious soulcaster is waiting for him. This soulcaster says szeth, "nearly toppled on of the greatest kingdoms in Roshar". To which szeth responds that he had, "committed one of the most heinous slaughters in Roshar".

I have always assumed this comment was referring to his assassination of Gavilar, but on further reflection that doesn't make much sense. We never read that the Alethi Kingdom suffered any kind of succession crisis. On the contrary, it seems that Gavilar's murder was a galvanizing event that resulted in the vengeance pact. So how could this comment be referring to Alethkar, which wasn't close to toppling at all by szeth's actions?

Also as far as a heinous slaughter goes, does the killing of Gavilar and a few soldiers qualify? Sure he killed a few people, but it's not like he butchered dozens and dozens like he does later in the story. It just doesn't seem to fit.

This mysterious soulcaster seems to know a lot about szeth personally such as the name of his father. By that can we conclude that he also must know something surrounding the events that led to szeth becoming truthless?

I started to wonder today if the kingdom szeth almost toppled was his own?

Edited July 18, 2012 by Roamer

[.S.A.M.K.M]

He is a surgebinder so a knight radiant, so automatically makes him a warrior without him ever touching a blade. They gave him his shard blade after all when they made him truthless. Shin that could be made into instruments of violence by birth, horror and shock would spread to the people.

[Smidge]

I have always assumed this comment was referring to his assassination of Gavilar, but on further reflection that doesn't make much sense. We never read that the Alethi Kingdom suffered any kind of succession crisis. On the contrary, it seems that Gavilar's murder was a galvanizing event that resulted in the vengeance pact. So how could this comment be referring to Alethkar, which wasn't close to toppling at all by szeth's actions?

Also as far as a heinous slaughter goes, does the killing of Gavilar and a few soldiers qualify? Sure he killed a few people, but it's not like he butchered dozens and dozens like he does later in the story. It just doesn't seem to fit.

Gavilar's assassination could have easily broken the kingdom and Elhokar's vengeance pact was all that saved it. I submit these two quotes for evidence:

"The merchants already provide redundancy," Dalinar said. "Which is one of the reasons I haven’t

chased them off. I wouldn’t mind another, but the Soulcasters are the only hold we have on the

highprinces. They owed Gavilar loyalty, but they feel little of that for his son." Dalinar narrowed his eyes.

"This is a vital point, Teshav. Have you read the histories I suggested?"

"Yes, Brightlord."

"Then you know. The most fragile period in a kingdom’s existence comes during the lifetime of its

founder’s heir. During the reign of a man like Gavilar, men stay loyal because of their respect for him.

During subsequent generations, men begin to see themselves as part of a kingdom, a united force that

holds together because of tradition.

"But the son’s reign...that’s the dangerous point. Gavilar isn’t here to hold everyone together, but

there isn’t yet a tradition of Alethkar being a kingdom. We’ve got to carry on long enough for the

highprinces to begin seeing themselves as part of a greater whole."

Dalinar laid a hand on his nephew’s shoulder. "I’d be a poor brother if I didn’t wish that Gavilar

had lived. I failed him—it was the greatest, most terrible failure of my life." Elhokar turned to him, and

Dalinar held his gaze, raising a finger. "But just because I loved your father does not mean that I think

you are a failure. Nor does it mean I do not love you in your own right. Alethkar itself could have

collapsed upon Gavilar’s death, but you organized and executed our counterattack. You are a fine king."

As for the point about it not being enough of a heinous slaughter, it's the worst Szeth has done up to that point in the book so it doesn't matter in terms of his language that he kills even more innocents in his later slaughters. It's also the act with the biggest implications, singlehandedly starting the war with the parshendi.

[Roamer]

Some good points smidge.

I always assumed the second quote was merely Dalinar overstating the Kings effectiveness in order to bolster his confidence, but I certainly could be wrong. Even his own mother admits he sucks as a king, so I have a hard time seeing him as the kingdom's savior.

Now for the first quote, we know the Dalinar that existed when the vengeance pact was made was not the studious, history reading kind of high prince...more the drunk in his cups when not fighting kind of high prince (like at the treaty signing celebration). I think the danger of the kingdom splitting seems to have increased over time as the high princes have been allowed to operate largely on their own on the shattered plains and that is what has Dalinar so concerned. Or in other words, his concerns feel more recent to me. I think the vengeance pact was not a desperate bid to keep the kingdom unified, but the way I read it, was a natural response of the war-like alethi people.

Regarding your last point, I don't know if I'm convinced. Szeth didn't say he had committed one of the worst slaughters of his life, but that he had committed one of the most heinous slaughters in all of Roshar, so the fact that it was Szeth's worst slaughter do date doesn't seem to matter. He appears to be measuring on a scale that is bigger than the scope of his own actions (as in All of Roshar). Furthermore, Roshar seems to be a place of war and intrigue, especially among the Alethi. They are the type of people that will send hundreds of bridgemen to slaughter without a second thought. With that in mind I find it hard to believe that the killing of a king and a few guards was one of the most heinous slaughters in all of Roshar.

Of course, maybe Szeth was referring to the fact that nobody can slaughter with as much ease as himself. It really is like shooting fish in a barrel for him, so maybe that is what makes it so heinous.

Edited July 19, 2012 by Roamer

[Smidge]

I think the vengeance pact was not a desperate bid to keep the kingdom unified, but the way I read it, was a natural response of the war-like alethi people.

Sure, I agree that's probably what it was. But it still pulled the Alethi together at a time they could have fallen apart, so I think that saying Szeth "nearly toppled one of the greatest kingdoms in Roshar" definitely could apply to Alethkar.

This gives me another theory - maybe that was the intent of the action in the first place? Toppling nations by killing their leaders so that he can unify the remnants seems to be Taravangian's plan, perhaps it was also the Parshendi's plan in killing Gavilar.

Regarding your last point, I don't know if I'm convinced. Szeth didn't say he had committed one of the worst slaughters of his life, but that he had committed one of the most heinous slaughters in all of Roshar, so the fact that it was Szeth's worst slaughter do date doesn't seem to matter. He appears to be measuring on a scale that is bigger than the scope of his own actions (as in All of Roshar). Furthermore, Roshar seems to be a place of war and intrigue, especially among the Alethi. They are the type of people that will send hundreds of bridgemen to slaughter without a second thought. With that in mind I find it hard to believe that the killing of a king and a few guards was one of the most heinous slaughters in all of Roshar.

Well he did start a war with this slaughter, a war in which those very bridgemen are getting slaughtered so he's kind of responsible there. It was also pretty bad since it came just after the parshendi signed a peace treaty with the Alethi, which makes it a bit of a nasty betrayal. And there's the fact that he killed a king, which is typically viewed as a lot worse than killing some other random people.

If you bring it to a real world context and imagine that say in America some assassin from some other country broke into the white house, killed a bunch of staff and guards, and killed the president, on the very day that country signed a peace treaty with America... It'd surely be viewed as 'committing one of the most heinous slaughters in the world'.

Maybe you're right the conversation does refer to some other events, we don't exactly have much in the way of Szeth backstory yet, but I definitely thing that conversation can easily apply to his killing Gavilar.

Edited July 19, 2012 by Smidge

[kari-no-sugata]

So during my re-read I came to the chapter where we see szeth sent to assassinate his master's rival thug in Bavland. I don't have my book in front of me, so I'll just summarize the quotes.

When szeth arrives at the home of his target, he finds that he is already dead and a mysterious soulcaster is waiting for him. This soulcaster says szeth, "nearly toppled on of the greatest kingdoms in Roshar". To which szeth responds that he had, "committed one of the most heinous slaughters in Roshar".

Let's review the actual quote in context (p450 of hardback), after Szeth gives short speech on adding vs taking:

"This from the man who nearly toppled one of the greatest kingdoms in Roshar?"

"This from the man who committed one of the most heinous slaughters in Roshar," Szeth corrected.

1. Szeth is only publicly famous for one event at this point in time.
   
2. These two have never met before.
   
3. I dont think anybody would consider Shinovar to be "one of the greatest kingdoms in Roshar".
   
4. If Szeth thought this guy was referring to something internal to Shinovar dont you think he would be surprised, like in his scene with Taravangian?
   
5. Szeth views any killing very negatively, even if it's something he "had" to do.
   
6. Szeth "corrects" him so they're clearly talking about the same thing.
   

Here's another quote (p716):

When he'd assaulted Alethkar six years before, he's thought that had been a massacre. He hadn't known what a true massacre was.

This second quote strongly suggests that until recently he'd considered his "assault on Alethkar" to be his worst killing.

Conclusion: If the first quote is not referring to Gavilar/Alethkar then I would say it's bad writing. We dont see the immediate aftermath so we dont know just how destabilising it was but there is a hint or two that it could have gone pretty badly (as others have quoted).

[Aethling he/him]

Regardless of how bad a king he is, the country is still unified. It could have easily fell back into the seperate Duchies (I am calling them Duchies here because I can't remember what they are truly called). Each HP going back to fighting his own kind would truly have been terrible, and that much has been avoided by the pact and Dalinar's guidance of the king.

[Vikter]

If you bring it to a real world context and imagine that say in America some assassin from some other country broke into the white house, killed a bunch of staff and guards, and killed the president, on the very day that country signed a peace treaty with America... It'd surely be viewed as 'committing one of the most heinous slaughters in the world'.

Pearl Harbor (sans regicide) would be what you are looking for good sir. I too feel that it was the manner in which Galivar was killed that makes it such a heinous act. Heinous does not automatically mean it had to be a wholesale slaughter, it is really the intent and manner in which the killing takes place that makes it heinous.

**EDIT** For good measure you can also add in his use of Stormlight to murder (while walking on stone) as a reason for him to consider it such a terrible act. While the person who is speaking may not hold to the Shin customs, they know that Szeth does and use it against him. Even though they can command him via his Oathstone they want him to break him down in order to turn him into a truely mindless killing machine. The man who speaks to him degrades what little personal honor he has left by throwing all of Szeth sins in his face. They want to make him feel that even if there were some chance of redemption for whatever crime he committed to gain his Truthless nature everything he has done since makes that impossible.

Edited July 20, 2012 by Vikter

[Roamer]

Good points. Heinous can refer to many things other than the quantity of lives taken. It's probably just my over-active imagination wanting to create Szeth's back story, but I'm sure when we get his real back story it will be awesome.

Edited July 20, 2012 by Roamer

[Shivertongue he/him]

Good points. Heinous can refer to many things other than the quantity of lives taken. It's probably just my over-active imagination wanting to create Szeth's back story, but I'm sure when we get his real back story it will be awesome.

My immediate reaction to that is 'I hope it's boring'.

Honestly, though, that would really turn the archetype on it's head, wouldn't it? Mysterious warrior having a totally dull and un-exciting backstory. I actually do want to see that now.

[Aeshdan he/him]

My immediate reaction to that is 'I hope it's boring'.

Honestly, though, that would really turn the archetype on it's head, wouldn't it? Mysterious warrior having a totally dull and un-exciting backstory. I actually do want to see that now.

And we know how much Brandon likes turning archetypes on their heads... But that would mean that "Brandon turns archetypes on their heads" is now an archetype... So Brandon will have to turn that on its head... Which means he's going to follow the original archetype exactly!

DOUBLE BLUFF!