[Secret History Spoilers] Personal Ruination

[spencer12347]

Original Title: This ruined part of the original trilogy for me.

 

First, don't get me wrong I still love the original trilogy, the Wax and Wayne quadrilogy, and the novella, but the novella did squander parts of the original trilogy for me. There were three events from the trilogy that were hurt by this novella and most likely ruined those moments for me. The first thing to be really changed my thoughts on the trilogy in a bad way was Kelsier's death. The scene is not ruined for me but the impact it had to the story has lessened. The moment was important to me because this was the first time I actually felt a true sadness for a fictional character's death. This was the same time that  I feel in love with Mistborn and started citing to other people that this is a unique series. The way Bands of Mourning ended implied, to me, that Kelsier was resurrected in some way and was going to become a bad guy, this novella changed my thoughts on that occurring. Bands of Mourning left me satisfied with Kelsier's return but SH changed it for me that this going to be the same Kelsier only with bigger goals. To me Kelsier's death was a purely unique moment that impacted the story in a great way and would have rather let his return be left a bit more ambiguous.

 

The next two events both take place in Hero of Ages and this is when Kelsier takes up Preservation. In the third book, we see Marsh struggle for hundreds of pages and multiple chapters against Ruin and his control over him. This internal conflict was one of my favorite parts of the third book that led to him gaining enough will, enough for one second, to rip out Vin's earring. We know that this led to the saving of the entire world. The novella shows us that Kelsier used his power to give Marsh the ability to rip out the earring. To me this ruins Marsh's arc through the third book and in reality he was just the vessel for Kelsier to save the day. Honestly I don't like that and I wished that stayed the same, for it feels that Marsh really does nothing through the third novel. 

 

This one really impacted me the most and it happens in the Epilogue of SH. Spook was one of my favorite characters in Hero of Ages; I loved the side character's quests more than the actual main story. In the third book we see Spook overcome Kelsier's shadow over him and he becomes his own man. The Epilogue ruined this completely for me. He overcame Kelsier's shadow only for Kelsier's literal shadow to come back to him. Spook even states, "He was his own man now! He didn't need to just do whatever Kelsier said." This quote hit me really hard, probably because of how I felt so connected to Spook. In Hero of Ages, we did not just Spook become his own man but he became his own character. 

 

I would have liked Kelsier's return to be left to the unknown and while I thought Secret History was an interesting read but when I reread the trilogy I'm going to leave this novella out when it comes to these events in the story. 

 

I know this is kinda long and if you got this far thank you for reading this. 

 

 

 

Edited January 31, 2016 by Kurkistan
Spoilery titles aren't good

[drakesparda]

On the bit with Marsh.  I disagree that Kelsier used his power to give Marsh the ability to rip out the earring.  He just made sure he had the information he needed to know what to do.  Without Kelsier he wouldn't have known to pull the earring out.  However, Marsh still needed the willpower to overcome Ruin enough to actually do it.  Kesier did not do that, just gave Marsh knowledge needed to accomplish it.

 

I cannot comment on the other two as I did not have a strong feeling for them.  As a whole I personally really loved the novella.  The whole background cosmere stuff I find interesting.  I also like the idea that Kelsier's whole thing of "surviving" even permeated through death.  Even death could not kill Kelsier.

[spencer12347]

With Marsh it seemed that Kelsier caused a small opening for him to rip off Vin's earring not his actual willpower overcoming ruin. 

 

I also loved the new info we learned of the Cognitive Realm and the Cosmere. Also, Kelsier sure does deserve the name Survivor.

[VoltCruelerz]

While I can understand wanting a dead character to stay dead, what gave you the impression that he'd be anything but a good character?  Yeah, Sazed doesn't like Hemalurgy, but the Wax and Wayne books makes it clear that Spook didn't mind.  Combine that with the fact that after resurrecting, Kelsier went and used his power to rebuild a civilization that Sazed had inadvertently crushed, I don't think you could ever justifiably call him a bad guy.

 

With the Marsh stuff, I think you're misunderstanding.  Kelsier could never touch Marsh.  Ati got in his way every time he tried so the only thing Kelsier ever did was accidentally tell his brother how to save Vin.  It was up to Marsh to actually do the saving.  If Marsh hadn't been playing "good little Inquisitor" the whole time, Ruin would have focused more on him and would have maintained control when Kelsier surprise attacked him.  Kelsier knew his brother was trying to resist Ruin and thanks to reading the plate, he knew how to save Vin.  All Kelsier did was give his brother a single moment of total freedom.  If Marsh hadn't been resisting and keeping his sanity all that time, he wouldn't have yanked out the earring.  Honestly, I feel like this side of things added a lot to the story for me because I always wondered why Ruin wouldn't take full control in such a critical moment.

 

As for the epilogue, I can see that, but I think what we saw was that Spook had crawled out from under Kelsier's shadow to discover that he was now on-par with Kelsier.  That's how I took it at least.  Spook had gone from understudy to equal and friend.  I'd call that more powerful, but I admit that's a personal preference.

[emailanimal]

While I can understand wanting a dead character to stay dead, what gave you the impression that he'd be anything but a good character? 

 

 My thoughts exactly. Bands of Mourning ends with, essentially, Kelsier coming to a dying people on the brink of extinction, and whispering "Survive" to them. From the testament of the South Poler pilot, we know that it ended with them surviving.  Where is all of this did you decide that Kelsier became a bad guy?

[natc]

Could've sworn a lot of us expected Kelsier's return ever since we learned that he's still going around doing things in HoA. Which was figured out and confirmed quite a while ago.

Then his not dying after being killed apparently made it into the Words of Founding and technically became Pathian and Survivorist doctrine and he was just begging to be made important in the story again.

[SmurfAquamarineBodies]

I still think he is gonna be a bad guy. But only because Hoid is gonna be a main character in the third ( fourth? ) mistborn era and Kelsier hates Hoid for reasons. To be clear I don't think he will be a bad guy to Scadrians but to whoever they encounter.

[Blightsong]

I still think he is gonna be a bad guy. But only because Hoid is gonna be a main character in the third ( fourth? ) mistborn era and Kelsier hates Hoid for reasons. To be clear I don't think he will be a bad guy to Scadrians but to whoever they encounter.

Two people disliking eachother doesn't make either a villain. Two of the nicest people I know hate eachother.

[Ari]

I feel like you're overplaying Kelsier's influence in those last two events. All he really did was give the people involved enough space to really be themselves. He didn't even influence Marsh directly at all.

 

I can't argue with your feelings about Kelsier's ghost still being around though. That's a very personal reason to dislike the book existing and it's perfectly valid. I'd just say that even if there's an afterlife in a fantasy book, it doesn't undermine people who died sacrificing themselves not knowing what's going on. Their sacrifice is still noble. And there are some really appropriate themes for Kelsier in this book. But I understand that "undoing" that moment to any degree could feel like undermining your feeling about that moment.

[SmurfAquamarineBodies]

Two people disliking eachother doesn't make either a villain. Two of the nicest people I know hate eachother.

Kelsier is not a nice person. He is a psychopath.

[DreamEternal]

Kelsier is not a nice person. He is a psychopath.

And Hoid was happy to attack him and kick him while he was down instead of actualy trying for once to talk or lie his way around him. Doens't sound nice at all.

Edited February 1, 2016 by DreamEternal

[king of nowhere]

I still think he is gonna be a bad guy. But only because Hoid is gonna be a main character in the third ( fourth? ) mistborn era and Kelsier hates Hoid for reasons. To be clear I don't think he will be a bad guy to Scadrians but to whoever they encounter.

this villain who had freed his people. Who has helped defeat ruin. Who saved an entire continent. Well, I think the world would be better off with a few more villains like him.

Also, just because he had a bad first impression of hoid the first time, it doesn't mean they must keep hating each other. Now kelsier knows much more, and he can appreciate what hoid does.  on the other hand, I don't see them getting along. both have plans, and they probably interfere with each other.

 

Kelsier is not a nice person. He is a psychopath.

again, we would be better off with more psycopaths like him. Also, look at his interactions with the crew, and his real grief at losing dox and clubs, or even at the fact that skaa lives haven't changed much. kelsier is definitely a nice guy.

And also a psycopath. He is a nice guy and a psycopath at the same time. Just as he helps people to fuel his ego and out of real selflessness at the same time. That's kelsier.

[DreamEternal]

He is a nice guy and a psycopath at the same time. Just as he helps people to fuel his ego and out of real selflessness at the same time. That's kelsier.

He is not a psychopath. He is at worst a partial sociopath.

[WeiryWriter]

He is not a psychopath. He is at worst a partial sociopath.

 

Brandon has explicitly stated that Kelsier is a psychopath.

[DreamEternal]

Brandon has explicitly stated that Kelsier is a psychopath.

Then either he should do more research, or I should. As far as I am aware, a full psychopath wouldn't be able to form relationships with other people not based on personal gain and would be incapable of caring as much as he did about the suffering of others.

His slightly sadistic streak and how he doens't care at all about the lifes of nobles do fit, but so much of his personality, like his fixation on hope and continuing Mare's dreams point it against he being a psychopath, as much as being almost a psychopath.

[lDanielHolm]

Then either he should do more research, or I should. As far as I am aware, a full psychopath wouldn't be able to form relationships with other people not based on personal gain and would be incapable of caring as much as he did about the suffering of others.

His slightly sadistic streak and how he doens't care at all about the lifes of nobles do fit, but so much of his personality, like his fixation on hope and continuing Mare's dreams point it against he being a psychopath, as much as being almost a psychopath.

 

"Psychopathy" isn't an actual clinical disorder in the first place, and how precisely you define it matters a great deal. If you define it as the complete inability to form real connections with people, then no, Kelsier was not a psychopath -- he obviously did form connections, with his crew, with his wife, even with Leras.

 

But if you define it as the ability to see some people as less than people -- then clearly Kelsier was a psychopath. He was fully capable of writing off an entire group of people -- i.e. the nobles -- as being, well, not people.

 

It seems to me that Brandon's definition must be closer to the second than the first. 

 

That being said, "sociopath" is just a different term for more or less the same thing. They are used interchangeably. 

[DreamEternal]

But if you define it as the ability to see some people as less than people -- then clearly Kelsier was a psychopath. He was fully capable of writing off an entire group of people -- i.e. the nobles -- as being, well, not people.

It seems to me that Brandon's definition must be closer to the second than the first.

Well, the second fits most people, in the right(meaning terribly wrong) conditions. I mean, it happened so much times in our world giving particular exemples is pointless. Kelsier just happens to do it much more naturaly than others.

But I would define the "condition", if that is even a good term, as lacking the ability to feel compassion.

Edited February 1, 2016 by DreamEternal

[Asperity]

"Psychopathy" isn't an actual clinical disorder in the first place, and how precisely you define it matters a great deal. If you define it as the complete inability to form real connections with people, then no, Kelsier was not a psychopath -- he obviously did form connections, with his crew, with his wife, even with Leras.

 

But if you define it as the ability to see some people as less than people -- then clearly Kelsier was a psychopath. He was fully capable of writing off an entire group of people -- i.e. the nobles -- as being, well, not people.

 

It seems to me that Brandon's definition must be closer to the second than the first. 

 

That being said, "sociopath" is just a different term for more or less the same thing. They are used interchangeably. 

"Psychopathy" is used to describe someone who has Anti-Social Personality Disorder (ASPD), which is an actual clinical disorder.

 

As far as terminology, I believe that there are studies which show a difference between a psychopath and a sociopath. However, in the DSM-V, the only term specifically used is sociopath so I personally only use that term, myself, when talking about ASPD.

 

Also, as a psychologist, I have to agree with Dream. Kelsier's ability to show empathy (caring for Mare/Vin/other friends) disqualifies him from being sociopathic. Lack of empathy is the primary criterion that ASPD is known by. Therefore, to possess empathy means you do not possess sociopathy.

 

To make a long-story short, Kelsier can have Cosmeric fictional sociopathy, but Kelsier does not have actual real-life Anti-Social Personality Disorder.

[lDanielHolm]

 

"Psychopathy" is used to describe someone who has Anti-Social Personality Disorder (ASPD), which is an actual clinical disorder.

 

As far as terminology, I believe that there are studies which show a difference between a psychopath and a sociopath. However, in the DSM-V, the only term specifically used is sociopath so I personally only use that term, myself, when talking about ASPD.

 

Also, as a psychologist, I have to agree with Dream. Kelsier's ability to show empathy (caring for Mare/Vin/other friends) disqualifies him from being sociopathic. Lack of empathy is the primary criterion that ASPD is known by. Therefore, to possess empathy means you do not possess sociopathy.

 

To make a long-story short, Kelsier can have Cosmeric fictional sociopathy, but Kelsier does not have actual real-life Anti-Social Personality Disorder.

 

As far as I am aware, it is actually possible to be diagnosed as having ASPD while still possessing empathy.

 

Here is the DSM-IV's definition (I don't know whether it changed in DSM-5):

 

A.) A pervasive pattern of disregard for and violation of the rights of others, occurring since age 15 years, as indicated by three or more of the following:

1. failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviors as indicated by repeatedly performing acts that are grounds for arrest;
2. deception, as indicated by repeatedly lying, use of aliases, or conning others for personal profit or pleasure;
3. impulsivity or failure to plan ahead;
4. irritability and aggressiveness, as indicated by repeated physical fights or assaults;
5. reckless disregard for safety of self or others;
6. consistent irresponsibility, as indicated by repeated failure to sustain consistent work behavior or honor financial obligations;
7. lack of remorse, as indicated by being indifferent to or rationalizing having hurt, mistreated, or stolen from another.

B.) The individual is at least age 18 years. 

C.) There is evidence of conduct disorder with onset before age 15 years. 

D.) The occurrence of antisocial behavior is not exclusively during the course of schizophrenia or a manic episode.

 

 

 

Seems to me that Kelsier does actually fit (at least for a layman).

Edited February 2, 2016 by lDanielHolm

[Pechvarry]

To the original post and title of the thread - I find it amazing how those are probably my exact 3 points of contention.  The difference is that, while reading, I hesitated on all 3 of them and came to peace with them.

 

1) The impact of Kelsier's death.  I've come to the conclusion that this was the right way to do it.  First off, he is dead.  We've known for a decade that he lingered in the afterlife, but that doesn't make him any less dead.  More importantly, perhaps, is that decade I mentioned.  If Kelsier's Secret History chapters were added into the original trilogy, it would've cheapened the impact dramatically.  But as its standalone thing, a decade and 300 years later looking back, I'm totally happy to see his side of things.

 

Side note: now that I've read everything and there are no surprises, this idea of weaving Kell's chapters into the original trilogy is actually really appealing.

 

2) Marsh's struggle. The thing is, the more we see of Ruin, of the power of shards in general, and particularly Kelsier's vision of this thing as vast and undefeatable -- the more unrealistic it is for Marsh to overcome Ruin, even a little bit.  Particularly in THAT moment, with all of Ruin's attention upon him.  Kelsier's distraction - and to be clear, I classify all of Kelsier's work here as just a distraction to Ruin - thus provides the slightest boon necessary.  Essentially, I'm ok with Marsh overcoming Ruin's power for a brief second.  It becomes hard to justify overcoming his power and his attention.

 

3) Spook overcoming Kelsier's shadow.  The very line you quote about how Spook's now his own man is the one thing I like about this scene.  Spook is his own man at this point.  It makes me think he'll proceed intelligently, instead of letting Kelsier jerk him around or make him feel like he owes Kel his help or something.

Edited February 2, 2016 by Pechvarry

[DreamEternal]

3) Spook overcoming Kelsier's shadow. The very line you quote about how Spook's now his own man is the one thing I like about this scene. Spook is his own man at this point. It makes me think he'll proceed intelligently, instead of letting Kelsier jerk him around or make him feel like he owes Kel his help or something.

While I agree with the previous points, I felt Kelsier was a bit trying to jerk him around. However, the way things are set for now, I think Spook managed to be more like a partner in crime than a servant, even if Kelsier holds more power in their relationship by virtue of being Kelsier.

[Asperity]

Hmm. The diagnostic criteria hasn't changed with the updated version. There is nothing that says that someone with ASPD can't have empathy, but in its section, it does state that "individuals with ASPD frequently lack empathy" and "lack of empathy [...] are features that have been commonly included in traditional conceptions of psychopathy that may be particularly distinguishing of the disorder".

 

So who knows. Personally, it feels very off to label someone with empathy as having ASPD. I wouldn't consider Kelsier to be a sociopath myself and undoubtedly, there is a far better fitting disorder that he may have. Also, DSM-V seems to use psychopath and sociopath interchangeably. Huh. My professor missed that too so I don't feel too terribly bad for missing it.

[lDanielHolm]

I also wouldn't label him a sociopath myself, but I don't think it's wrong of Brandon to have called him one if he did so on the basis of that criteria. 

[Pathfinder]

This is entirely a personal opinion, but I feel Brandon saying Kelsier is a psychopath is more for the fact that Kelsier has no problem just killing anyone associated with nobles. They cease to be seen as a person, but a means to an end. Does that necessarily hold to the classical definition? No idea. I think it is more from just an ordinary person outside looking in, would think anyone that can callously end a persons life is a psycho.

[Landis963]

This is entirely a personal opinion, but I feel Brandon saying Kelsier is a psychopath is more for the fact that Kelsier has no problem just killing anyone associated with nobles. They cease to be seen as a person, but a means to an end. Does that necessarily hold to the classical definition? No idea. I think it is more from just an ordinary person outside looking in, would think anyone that can callously end a persons life is a psycho.

 

When it comes to Kell and anyone associated with the nobility of the Final Empire?  He enjoys it (or at least he did when he was alive).  He loves the rush that killing them causes.  It fuels his sense of justice, and confirming to himself that he can still take out a gang of trained bodyguards with nothing but a brick doesn't hurt the "job well done" feeling.