A bit of character analysis from the flipside of the fandom...

[Fistsofrage]

I'm not responsible for any of the downvoting, but I would assume that it's because this post comes across as pretty homophobic. It's one thing (a perfectly reasonable thing!) to read Kaladin as straight, but saying that revealing Kaladin as not straight would feel like a betrayal and would prevent people from being able to enjoy the story as much--when from everything we've seen romance is not a major part of the story at all--really makes it sound like he thinks non-straight characters are lesser/not worth his time even when their orientation doesn't affect the story at all. 

 

And saying that, were Kaladin not straight, his brotherly love for Tien would have to be reinterpreted, really has some unfortunate implications. It... really comes across like he's saying that gay people can't love their siblings without it being some incestuous pedophilic thing. I really doubt that's what Fistsofrage meant to imply, but you can see why people would find that insulting and offensive!

 

 

Nobody has a problem with gay characters. If they do, they can find books that don't have them. What I was saying is that when people decide to follow a series, the main character plays a huge role in the decision process. Changing the dynamic of the main character later on when people have a firm model of the main character in their minds can cause confusion and can cause a lot of people to decide that the series was not what they thought it was and decide to find something more easier to swallow. If you want to introduce a gay character into the story later on fine, but it's not very smart to make such a change to a main character and expect nothing to happen to the fan base. There will obviously be fans who are disappointed because their image of the character has been turned around.

 

It's simply super main character love and main characters should be dealt with very carefully.

[Natans]

Natans

Oh, did I drive you speechless? so fast? I'm improving.

 

Zizoz,

I think Gavilar was just womanizer and probably bullied his brother, knowing that he loved Navani. the joke just went too far. Then again Sadeas is just as bad as Gavilar in bulling and courting matters. But go ahead and draw some fiction on the matter.

 

 

Don't fancy yourself to much I'm easy target, because of my almost complete innabilty to elaborate in words what I think in this language

 

But take this upvote with my cumpriments anyway because I liked your snarkyness

 

There is already a "gay" person ( I don't like this word very much) in the book in the brigde 4 crew.

 

 

How do you feel about the lack of prominent gay characters within the epic fantasy as a genre and do you ever include (or will ever include) gay or lesbian characters in your own work?

BRANDON SANDERSON ()

That's an issue that I feel I should speak about delicately, because it's one of those charged issues that can create a lot of division. But my basic feeling is that a character should not be any more or less sympathetic, or more or less evil, or anything like that, because of sexual orientation or because of basic beliefs or philosophy on things like religion. So there are gay characters in my books, though so far they have been side characters. I don't make a big deal of it, because I tend not to make a big deal of the sexuality of side characters in general. For instance, in The Way of Kings, Drehy, a member of Bridge Four, is gay. He's based on a good friend of mine who is gay. There is a lesbian character in Alloy of Law; again I don't make a big deal of it though it's a little more obvious.

Basically, I just try to write characters and try to have different makeups of characters. I feel gay characters should be included, and I'm annoyed that sometimes there seems to be an association between including gay characters and using that as a means of making them seem like a reprehensible character. You may know what I'm talking about; I've seen it in books before and it bugs me. Just like it bugs me if an author makes a character religious and the tone of the book implies, "Well, obviously, religious people are all idiots, so I'm not going to make this character actively an idiot, I'm just going to represent them as being religious," which by the tone of the book indicates that they're an idiot. That's not to say that there can't be social structures like religions that will push people toward doing things that are questionable or morally reprehensible—there can, of course, and it will happen—but I'm talking about the individuals. I don't know that I have strong feelings on the subject other than that I think people should be represented as people.

I wrote a bit more about the subject in my essay on Dumbledore.

 

 

 

 

I know that to some people think that gay character are "unusual", but I agree with this interview of Mr.Sanderson, the sexuality of a person/character don't change almost anything in the plot, so no big here

Edited November 7, 2013 by Natans

[Guest Alaxel]

I'm not responsible for any of the downvoting, but I would assume that it's because this post comes across as pretty homophobic. It's one thing (a perfectly reasonable thing!) to read Kaladin as straight, but saying that revealing Kaladin as not straight would feel like a betrayal and would prevent people from being able to enjoy the story as much--when from everything we've seen romance is not a major part of the story at all--really makes it sound like he thinks non-straight characters are lesser/not worth his time even when their orientation doesn't affect the story at all. 

 

And saying that, were Kaladin not straight, his brotherly love for Tien would have to be reinterpreted, really has some unfortunate implications. It... really comes across like he's saying that gay people can't love their siblings without it being some incestuous pedophilic thing. I really doubt that's what Fistsofrage meant to imply, but you can see why people would find that insulting and offensive!

 

I think the problem here is that people are interpreting his words incorrectly.  They should respond to what he explicitly said, not what meaning might be implied between the lines.  At least hold him accountable for what he actually said, not what he could have meant.  Honestly, the vast majority of his post was in regards to his own feelings on the matter which he did state in a considerate manner.  There was no insults or disparaging remarks - he simply stated that it would not be to his preference.  And there's nothing wrong with that.

 

As far as his comments regarding Tien, I'm not sure which post he was responding to, so I'll just leave that alone.  However, I'm almost entirely sure it was not his intention to imply that homosexual people can't love their siblings without it being incestuous and pedophilic.  That would run entirely counter to the tone of the rest of his post.

 

As far as the ''thinking homosexual characters are worth less'' aspect, I don't think that's what he meant, either.  It's like you said - sexual orientation doesn't really matter much in this book, since it isn't a romance novel. With that in mind, I believe he's saying that all characters are assumed to be straight unless it is shown to be otherwise and that if such a revelation were to come, he would prefer it to happen near the beginning of the story where it will have the most relevancy (since we're still learning pretty much everything about each character any) rather than thrown in as an afterthought a few books later where it will likely contradict some of the fundamental assumptions we have about that character.  It would be like if Kaladin was never actually mentioned to be Alethi, but we all assumed he was, and then in book 6 it becomes apparent that he's actually from the Purelake and his parents simply moved before he was born.  It would force you to redefine how you think of the character and without a good reason for that redefinition to happen.

 

Lastly, I object to the term homophobic.  It is not listed in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, which makes it purely a derogatory term.  It implies that Fistsofrage has a mental disorder because he prefers straight characters over homosexual ones.  In fact, it's original definition was used to describe the ignorance of people who, back when homosexuality started become a more open thing in society, thought that homosexuality was ''contagious'' and they didn't want their children to catch it.  It's an archaic word and it has no place in a civilized forum like this one.  However, I also understand that you likely didn't use it with all of those meanings in mind, the same way it's common for people to fire off complaints like, "Man, that's gay." without really thinking about what they're saying.  So I don't hold it against you.  Nonetheless, I would appreciate it if it wasn't used anymore.

 

Lastly (this time I mean it), I think that we might be touching on the root of the problem as far as these disagreements go.  Mind you, this is purely speculation, but I think there is some truth in it.  The Shippers think the 17th Sharder's objections to the homosexual ships comes from an objection to homosexuality in general.  In reality, most of our objections come from the opinion that most of those homosexual ships aren't plausible within the context of the book because of in-book social barriers or because it seems like it would contradict what we know about the character.  The Shippers make no attempt to make plausible ships - they're looking for good relationships based on how two people would help each other develop positively as characters.  Us 17th Sharder's, even though we intellectually know this, cannot overcome our habits of making our theories canon and plausible based purely off what we've found in the text.

I doubt there will ever be a true meeting of the minds on this particular subject - not due to feelings about homosexuality - but because half of us want to make plausible predictions and the other half want to make good pairings regardless of plausibility.  

[Ete'ni]

Natans

 

well... I came along an interesting theory about sexuality, and it's been discussed pretty widely, so... I'm not  surprised that there are gay people. And I guess as much about AoL, basicly it was said pretty blantly.

 

Though I still can't decide whether you complemented me or insulted... but I'll dwell on it

[Natans]

Natans

 

well... I came along an interesting theory about sexuality, and it's been discussed pretty widely, so... I'm not  surprised that there are gay people. And I guess as much about AoL, basicly it was said pretty blantly.

 

Though I still can't decide whether you complemented me or insulted... but I'll dwell on it

 

Lol 

 

I tried compliment you, See why I'm a easy target =)

[Fistsofrage]

There are a lot of AMAZING homosexual characters in other stories. Off the top of my head I can bring up the One Piece manga that has homosexual characters I really enjoy (don't know if anyone here reads One Piece). Mr. 2 Bon Clay is a true bro.

 

What I don't like is forming a rapport with a main character and choosing to follow a series because of that emotional connection and then suddenly having my world turned upside down with this kind of revelation. If he's homosexual they need to do it right, lead into it properly and make it so that its not a random surprise.

 

But I understand the "shipping" now and realize that my reaction might have been a bit excessive. I had a bad experience once where something like that happened in a series and I didn't wish to repeat it with this one.

Edited November 7, 2013 by Fistsofrage

[Ete'ni]

Fistsofrage

I do... But... seriously... Bon Clay? Please, he's a drag queen character.

[Fistsofrage]

Fistsofrage

I do... But... seriously... Bon Clay? Please, he's a drag queen character.

 

Lol, like I said, it's off the top of my head and I just read the one piece chapter. Okama Way ftw.

[Ete'ni]

yeah... it's so horrid... but you haven't seen newkama probably... No, no more spoilers...

 

But no, I don't think that it should happen here. I still can't get over that Luffy is shipped with everyone while the most cannon shipping is Luffy/meat

[Zizoz]

I think the problem here is that people are interpreting his words incorrectly.  They should respond to what he explicitly said, not what meaning might be implied between the lines.  At least hold him accountable for what he actually said, not what he could have meant.  Honestly, the vast majority of his post was in regards to his own feelings on the matter which he did state in a considerate manner.  There was no insults or disparaging remarks - he simply stated that it would not be to his preference.  And there's nothing wrong with that.

 

As far as his comments regarding Tien, I'm not sure which post he was responding to, so I'll just leave that alone.  However, I'm almost entirely sure it was not his intention to imply that homosexual people can't love their siblings without it being incestuous and pedophilic.  That would run entirely counter to the tone of the rest of his post.

 

As far as the ''thinking homosexual characters are worth less'' aspect, I don't think that's what he meant, either.  It's like you said - sexual orientation doesn't really matter much in this book, since it isn't a romance novel. With that in mind, I believe he's saying that all characters are assumed to be straight unless it is shown to be otherwise and that if such a revelation were to come, he would prefer it to happen near the beginning of the story where it will have the most relevancy (since we're still learning pretty much everything about each character any) rather than thrown in as an afterthought a few books later where it will likely contradict some of the fundamental assumptions we have about that character.  It would be like if Kaladin was never actually mentioned to be Alethi, but we all assumed he was, and then in book 6 it becomes apparent that he's actually from the Purelake and his parents simply moved before he was born.  It would force you to redefine how you think of the character and without a good reason for that redefinition to happen.

 

Lastly, I object to the term homophobic.  It is not listed in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, which makes it purely a derogatory term.  It implies that Fistsofrage has a mental disorder because he prefers straight characters over homosexual ones.  In fact, it's original definition was used to describe the ignorance of people who, back when homosexuality started become a more open thing in society, thought that homosexuality was ''contagious'' and they didn't want their children to catch it.  It's an archaic word and it has no place in a civilized forum like this one.  However, I also understand that you likely didn't use it with all of those meanings in mind, the same way it's common for people to fire off complaints like, "Man, that's gay." without really thinking about what they're saying.  So I don't hold it against you.  Nonetheless, I would appreciate it if it wasn't used anymore.

 

Lastly (this time I mean it), I think that we might be touching on the root of the problem as far as these disagreements go.  Mind you, this is purely speculation, but I think there is some truth in it.  The Shippers think the 17th Sharder's objections to the homosexual ships comes from an objection to homosexuality in general.  In reality, most of our objections come from the opinion that most of those homosexual ships aren't plausible within the context of the book because of in-book social barriers or because it seems like it would contradict what we know about the character.  The Shippers make no attempt to make plausible ships - they're looking for good relationships based on how two people would help each other develop positively as characters.  Us 17th Sharder's, even though we intellectually know this, cannot overcome our habits of making our theories canon and plausible based purely off what we've found in the text.

I doubt there will ever be a true meeting of the minds on this particular subject - not due to feelings about homosexuality - but because half of us want to make plausible predictions and the other half want to make good pairings regardless of plausibility.  

 

Well, I spent hours on this, and I see Fistsofrage has clarified some things now. But I still disagree with a lot of stuff in this post. First of all, I think that restricting debate to literal meanings is ridiculous, especially since E. Hyde clearly distinguished between implications and literal statements in her post. Hardly anything we say has only literal meaning; there are implications everywhere, and they aren't entirely made up by the reader. 

 

Second, characters shouldn't be assumed to be straight automatically, because not all people are straight. To assume so erases the existence of homo-, bi-, asexual etc. people. Certainly if a character whose sexuality has so far not been revealed turns out to be gay it should not come as a huge surprise. And I can imagine how it might not make sense to reveal this early if, say, the person isn't attracted to the people they are around early in the story; rather, the point where it has the most relevancy might in fact be when they meet someone they are attracted to.

 

Note that none of the above is directly about Kaladin since I believe he is straight based on e.g. his attraction to Laral.

 

Also, are you saying the word "homophobia" is offensive to mentally ill people or to homophobes? If the former, then I suppose I can understand, though I don't really agree -- the word does not, to me, have a strong connection to mental illness. If the latter, then I don't much care: homophobia is bad, and I think this the reason the word has negative connotations. Removing it then seems like an attempt to obscure that fact.

[Ete'ni]

Okey guys, chill out. The posts start to be at such length that a normal girl gets tired of reading they even half way

[Guest Alaxel]

Zizoz,

I agree that there is always a small amount of implication that comes with every literal interpretation - it's an unavoidable byproduct of the language. (Fun fact, if I remember correctly, some linguists and psychologists teamed up and created an entirely literal language. All the rules of grammar and syntax are very rational and there are no exceptions to the rules. I believe it was called loglan or something similar. It would be interesting having a conversation in that language where there is no room for misinterpretation.) But as far as interpreting implications goes, I belive that it's common courtesy to assume that someone is being respectful and any percieved insults are unintentional until they explicitly state or explicitly imply otherwise.

Obviously we don't have any census reports from Roshar, or any other worlds in the Cosmere, but here in America, as of 2011 I believe, 3.5% of the population are some form of LBGT. That's a pretty small minority, so I don't think it's unreasonable to assume a character is straight until we discover otherwise, nor do I think it lessens the worth of LBGT people to make that assumption. It's a statistics thing, not a biased thing. Also, I know not everyone on this forum is American, but I'm reasonably sure most other countries have a similar demographic +/- 1%.

As far as the term homophobic goes, maybe I was unclear. A phobia is a fear, often extremely irrational, and they are clinical terms. Homophobia, is not. It isn't in the most recent addition, or in any outdated edition, of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual for Mental Disorders. But other phobia's are. To call someone homophobic is to esssntially diagnose them with an imaginary mental disorder. The term also comes from a time when homosexuality was only just beginning to be understood by society as a whole. Back then, the term was used to describe heterosexual men who were afriad that they would be percieved as homosexual, and to describe people who misunderstood homosexuality and thought it was somehow contagious (a notion that I find absurd and laughable, but hey, people weren't informed 40 years ago like they are today, and were afraid that their children would become 'infected.' Now, can you see why such a term is inappropriate and offensive?

Ultimately, I feel like we're on the same page for the vast majority of these issues, we're just splitting hairs at this point. Our biggest contention is this: assuming someone is heterosexual until they're shown to be otherwise is not 'homophobia', plain and simple.

[FeatherWriter]

Okay, I was hoping this thread might die and we could all just stop talking about this, but that's apparently not the case. I created this thread so I feel somewhat responsible for its conduct and content.This will most likely be a long post. I am going to hope that maybe this can be the last post in this thread. This will probably be an uncomfortable post for some to read, but as the OP, I'm gonna buckle down and say it.
 
@all those who don't understand why this thread's comments are under contention:
 
DIsclaimer: I'm going to use "you" as a collective in this post; please know that I am not addressing any one person.There are quite a few people in this thread to whom this is directed and I hope that you can read this with an open mind and realize that I am attempting to be open and explain what really happened.

 

Here's the deal. I haven't the slightest doubt that none of you meant to hurt anyone. I see your comments such as: 
 

In my experience, discussing any view about sexuality is extremely shaky ground.  It's so easy to offend someone, no matter how much care you take to be polite, respectful, and informed.  

[...]

Understand that I in no way discriminate against anyone of any sexual orientation. 

Nobody has a problem with gay characters. If they do, they can find books that don't have them. 

 

Perhaps the reason I've waited so long to respond is because the things that you're saying sound a lot like things that I, myself, would have said even just a year ago. I'm coming to you to try to help explain what went wrong here in a way that you can understand, because I've been there, and were our places switched, this is the kind of explanation I would have wanted to receive.

 

One of the first lessons I had to learn to understand what was wrong with the ways that I spoke was: What we intend is less important than what was understood. 

 

You did not mean for your words to be hurtful. In fact, I think that perhaps most of the people in this thread were trying very hard not to be offensive. That really is admirable and I would only hope that the members of the Cosmere fandom were not intentionally trying to hurt each other. We're a family, we're still the best fandom, and we should be able to talk about issues like this kindly. I really do believe that this is what the responders of this thread were trying to do and I applaud your intent.

 

Unfortunately, what must be understood is that: Regardless of intent, people were hurt. Badly. It didn't come across here, because that isn't the tumblr fandom's way. They don't want to become something bad and they don't want to start flame wars. Even at a point like this, they're not going to come here and tell you what they're feeling. They talk amongst themselves about how hurt they were and then decide that they're going to try to stay away from this so that they don't get hurt again. I applaud them, really and truly, for their maturity and discretion. It takes strength to realize that you are too emotionally involved in a topic to respond constructively and to hold yourself back for the sake of the fandom. 

 

I'm not going to link to their reactions here, because they specifically made them in a way that they wouldn't be found by others. They didn't want to yell at you all and fight. Even in the midst of deep hurt, their conduct has been incredible and I am very, very proud of them. Suffice it to say, many, many members of the other fandom have—because of the views expressed in this thread—decided that 17th Shard is not a safe or welcoming place for them and their lives will be better if they never see or hear of this forum again.

 

That leaves the diplomacy to someone like me. Someone who isn't emotionally involved. Someone who sees things from both sides of the issue. Someone with interest in seeing reconcilliation. I am the child of both worlds, the member of both fandoms. I will do my best to use my position to bring about understanding and a peaceful termination to this incident.

 

You say that "you didn't mean to upset anyone" and that "that wasn't what you intended," but please hear me when I say that that really doesn't matter. What determines whether or not your words or views are hurtful is not whether you were trying to hurt someone, but whether or not someone was hurt by them. And they were. You all did not try to hurt anyone, but the views and opinions that you were expressing drove people to emotional excess, pain, and upset.

 

When you have hurt someone, even unintentionally, there is one correct response: apologize, attempt to convey that the hurt was entirely unintentional, and what you can do to not hurt people in the future.

 

Don't try to defend that "you weren't trying to be offensive." Whether or not you were trying to be, you were offensive. People were offended. That's a fact that's not disputable. The person who is offended is the one who decides what's offensive, not the one who said it, okay? What you need to do now is accept that and try to learn from it. If we continue to fight here about what is and isn't offensive, you're just going to convey to those who have been hurt that you don't care about the fact that you hurt them and you don't have any intentions to change that. At which point, those who have been hurt realize "I cannot trust this person. They are hurtful and they don't care that they're hurtful. So, I'm going to try to stay away from them because I cannot trust that they will not attack me, whether they mean to or not."

 

I am not upset by what has happened here and I'm not mad. But I don't want it to happen again. Both of these groups are my friends and I love both sides. The fact that one side would feel so strongly about the other is painful for me to go through, and as someone who understands both of the sides, I want to be the mediator and make that everyone understands what went wrong so that we can avoid something like this in the future.

 

If you disagree with what I'm saying here or you still don't understand what I mean, please send me a PM and I will be more than willing to try to explain further. I will not be mad at you. I am not mad at anyone here. I am not mad at anyone on tumblr. Heck, I don't really ever get mad at anyone. If you message me, I am going to try to explain with the utmost kindness and care, because I believe that disagreements are borne out of misunderstanding and that openness and kindness can go a long way to helping people understand.

 

TL;DR: Here's what I'm going to ask. Please don't argue with this post. Like I said above, if you feel you must respond, please do so to me privately. It is the wish of those who were hurt in this that this discussion simply die and that this conversation stop. My advice to those involved here: if you must post, write a small apology, whether you understand or not, and leave it at that. Whether or not you think what you did was wrong, you can at least express that you were sorry that people were hurt by what you said.  After that, let this thread die, please.

 

I don't want to have to ask that this thread be locked and closed down, but it's a very real possibility at this point. I hope that we can all be mature enough here to stop before that becomes necessary. 

 

Thank you.

 

Edited November 7, 2013 by FeatherWriter

[Gloom]

Also, are you saying the word "homophobia" is offensive to mentally ill people or to homophobes? If the former, then I suppose I can understand, though I don't really agree -- the word does not, to me, have a strong connection to mental illness. If the latter, then I don't much care: homophobia is bad, and I think this the reason the word has negative connotations. Removing it then seems like an attempt to obscure that fact.

 

I think we can let the discussion on sexual orientation rest. What I see here isn't really an attempt by Zizoz to do anything further than promote his agenda. I personally believe that people have a right to feel however they feel. If you are gay, then you are part of a minority, and as such, some people will be uncomfortable with you because you are different. It doesn't mean they should be belittled or that you have the right to try to attack them for feeling uncomfortable with a sexual orientation that is different from their own. If I don't want to read a book where the lead character is gay, I don't feel that I have anything to be ashamed of. That's my preference, and if you expect me to accept your preferences, then I expect you to accept mine without attacking me over it. From what was said above, the author is intentionally using the word Homophobe as a form of attack against those who would think differently from him. I think this would be a better reason to downvote someone than a poorly crafted sentence. I personally don't care if your gay, and I don't care if you find this offensive. It wasn't meant to be offensive, but I'm sure it can be taken that way. It was meant to point out exactly what I see is going on here, and that I am not okay with it.

[EHyde]

I was going to respond to some of the posts here, but Feather said pretty much what I was going to say and more.

[Mailliw73]

Back to the whole purpose of this thread, shipping, what about two Heralds? Which two do you think could be romantically involved?

[hoser]

I have really learned a lot and enjoyed this thread.  The little I know about shipping, I learned in this thread.

As a white male middle-class heterosexual, I probably define insensitivity.

I like this thread partly because it is different.  I want people who enjoy discussing these concerns to feel safe to do it here.

This is a 17th Shard thread.  This is a shipping thread.  The shipping community has controversies, but apparently there are acceptable ways to disagree and ways that people find hurtful, possibly particularly around gender identity and orientation.

In my ideal world, this thread and other shipping threads would have a special understanding.  To post in these threads, one would implicitly agree to follow shipping-community guidelines.  These guidelines would also be communicated or referenced so as many people as possible could learn by reading, rather than hurting.

[Guest Alaxel]

Back to the whole purpose of this thread, shipping, what about two Heralds? Which two do you think could be romantically involved?

I think we can rule out Jezrien and Taln. Or Nalan and Taln. Or pretty much every one of them and Taln.

That's actually really difficult with Taln. I've been thinking a lot about him these past few days. The thing I think that is most important to understand about him is that it is absolutely, fundamentally impossible for any of us to comprehend the extent of his suffering. Not only does information in the prologue suggest that they experience tortures so severe that it would mean death for a mortal, but he experiences them constantly and can't look forward to the release of death. To make it truly brutal, he has been tortured in the manner for nearly five thousand years.

Have any of you been forced, for one reason or another, to go 48 hours without eating? It's distressing, uncomfortable sensation - and far from lethal. Or who among you have burned yourselves on a hot stove? It's a nearly inconsequential injury yet one that is fairly painful. Has anyone in this forum been dumped by their significant other? It's heartbreaking. These are all things that we can all relate to.

We cannot relate to having the flesh burned off our arms to the bone.

Or knowing you've been abandoned to that fate by the people you trusted the most.

So. With all of that in mind. Even if Taln had been OTP with one of the other Heralds, could Taln possibly have anything left but resentment and possibly hatred for any of them?

Remember...nearly FIVE THOUSAND YEARS.

[Mailliw73]

And probably rule out Jezrien and Shalash as he is her father. Yeah, Taln would be difficult to place now. I for one, would be unimaginably angry with all the other Heralds for leaving me to burn in Hell, as it is.

[FeatherWriter]

This actually might be a good time to move this discussion over to the "Your Cosmere OTP" thread, since that one was meant to be the "shipping" discussion, and it's probably best to let this thread die for now, if that's okay. 

[Mailliw73]

Yep good point, wrongs thread sorry. I'll continue the discussion there.

[Ete'ni]

Sooo... what about spren? what kind of relationship can be between sprens? Obviously we'll see some interacting since Kaladin has Syl and Renarin has something and then Shallah coming with a spren.

 

Pleasse don't kill nice threads with stupid fights

[Fistsofrage]

To be honest, I have read a few stories (manga/manhwa/novels) where relationships like Kaladin and Syl's end up with happy endings. The mc finds a way to make his partner into a human and they live together til she dies.

[Ete'ni]

Fistsofrage

lets not involve Kaladin, he has enough of headache. But is there any interaction between sprens, I wonder. Usually they're in flocks but don't seem to be bonded. How spren bonded with humans act, since they regained some memories and character.

[Chaos]

I agree with Feather and will be closing the thread at her request. Please continue shipping discussion in the Your Cosmere OTP thread.