[OB] Oathbringer chapters 28-30

[PunSpren]

Check new posts,

scrolling through new theories and comments

then suddenly

.....

.....

 

[Silverblade5]

I'm now getting a strong Dalinar vibe on the headers. 

[king of nowhere]

2 hours ago, dendrophobe said:

I went back and reread the Prelude, and I think you're remembering it wrong.

Quote

Even after all these centuries, seeing a thunderclast up close made Kalak shiver. The beast's hand was as long as a man was tall. He'd been killed by hands like those before, and it hadn't been pleasant.

Of course, dying rarely was.

 

So it could very easily have been than he only died once by a thunderclast. I don't see anywhere else that makes it seem like he died many times, other than his relief and disbelief that, this time, he actually survived.

Ok, you got me there.

Still, regardless of that detail, the prelude gives the idea of many, many desolations. Enough that the heralds didn't remember anymore specific ones, but they all became a blur. Now, 9 could be possible if we stretched it, but no less than 20 seems more in line with the tone of the chapter.

On the other hand, if we have to fit it all in 500 years, then even 9 become too many. It took "generations" to rebuild, and desolations were near-mithycal. The alethi were tasked with conserving the martial prowess from one to the other, which implies many lifetime between desolations. Not 50 years.

So, something there does not add up.

Edited November 1, 2017 by king of nowhere

[Fifth of Daybreak]

8 minutes ago, PunSpren said:

Check new posts,

scrolling through new theories and comments

then suddenly

.....

.....

 

 have an upvote for your trauma.

[dendrophobe]

1 hour ago, Nymeros said:

What he said. Additionally, if the Sanderson timeline quote is correct, we only have 500 years to fit every Desolation prior to the prelude......which is crazy but hey.

Where did the 500 years bit come from? I must have missed the "Sanderson timeline quote" you mentioned.
I remember Brandon saying that the Cosmere timeline was around 10,000 years, but the Prelude was only 4500 years ago. Assuming we have 1000 years in the future after Stormlight ends (very conservative estimate for development of FTL travel! Probably much less) that would still leave 4500 years for Desolations, assuming they start soon after the Shattering. But we (to my knowledge) don't have a great timeline for those early events, and I don't think that the 10,000 years thing has been made canon.

 

[Blacksmithki]

12 minutes ago, dendrophobe said:

Where did the 500 years bit come from? I must have missed the "Sanderson timeline quote" you mentioned.
I remember Brandon saying that the Cosmere timeline was around 10,000 years, but the Prelude was only 4500 years ago. Assuming we have 1000 years in the future after Stormlight ends (very conservative estimate for development of FTL travel! Probably much less) that would still leave 4500 years for Desolations, assuming they start soon after the Shattering. But we (to my knowledge) don't have a great timeline for those early events, and I don't think that the 10,000 years thing has been made canon.

 

The cosmere timeline is around 10K years by WoB, and I'm 99% sure another said that stormlight is around the middle, so 5000-4500=500

[frozndevl]

1 minute ago, Blacksmithki said:

The cosmere timeline is around 10K years by WoB, and I'm 99% sure another said that stormlight is around the middle, so 5000-4500=500

Yeah, if the last desolation was 4500 years ago, that leaves almost no time for the desolation cycle to have been in place post-Shattering. And the impression is that the cycle had been ongoing for a long time. Not just every 60-70 years, another Apocalypse starts.

[Kingsdaughter613]

SA takes place about midway through the 10000 year time line. So 1500 years maximum, assuming 6000 is still ‘midway.’ I’d guess it’s more like 1000, and SA takes place around the 5500 year mark.

So we have between 500 to 1500 years to work with. My personal thought is that the first few desolations were further apart; the last few close together. 

[dendrophobe]

 

This thread offers a radically different take on the timeline... It puts the Prelude at about 6000 years post-shattering. I'm not sure of its validity, but it does offer another perspective on the 10,000 year WoB.

[The Invested Beard]

43 minutes ago, PunSpren said:

Check new posts,

scrolling through new theories and comments

then suddenly

.....

.....

 

You rang?

[dendrophobe]

I think it's safe to say that we don't only have 500 years to play with.

Quote

LEIFTINSPACE

Can you tell me how long it was from the Sshattering of Adonalsium to the prelude of The Way of Kings when the Heralds abandoned the Oathpact?

BRANDON SANDERSON

Current timeline, which I have NOT canonized, is around 6,000 years... I have not finished with my outline document yet.

LEIFTINSPACE

'Cause I've looked at the current chronology and it's very, very spotty...

BRANDON SANDERSON

Yes it is... the real trick is... making sure that I fit in, for instance, White Sand and things with the proper amount... because I haven't released that book series yet, I have to make sure while we're doing the graphic novel, that it fits the chronology, which is why I can't quite canonize things yet.

LEIFTINSPACE

That one takes place before The Way of Kings doesn't it?

BRANDON SANDERSON

Yes.

LEIFTINSPACE

'Cause I know one of the worldhoppers from there shows up in The Way of Kings...

BRANDON SANDERSON

Yeah, White Sand is one of the very earliest.

 

Edited November 1, 2017 by dendrophobe

[Necessary Eagle]

6 hours ago, Stark said:

Very true point. If I can be finicky about the details to save some face at my error, it was carrying a dead rat in its mouth, which is a rodent.  So I was not entirely wrong.  But I had focused on the mink, which as you point out, is not a rodent.  I was in error.  I don't know much about minks, but I understand they are kinda cute - like ferrets, or otters.  Am I correct in that, or still entirely wrong?

If they call all bird chickens, and lions on a tapestry are "mink-like", it may well be that they call all carnivorous mammals minks. Though the description did sound like a mustalid of some sort.

(And spellcheck thinks "mustalid" should be "Talmudist", which cracks me up. "Two weasels walk into court holding a garment...").

[Dahak]

5 hours ago, Fourth Of The Night said:

Minks are adorable! They're essentially little brown or white ferrets! Most of the small Mustelids are ferret looking, it's when they get bigger that they tend to look awesome like Badgers and Wolverines (Though I also think they're adorable).

I suspect mink is Alethi for any small fur bearing mammal like chicken is their word for bird. So mustelids, rats, hamsters, cats, possibly even Jack Russel terriers are all mink.

[Kered]

46 minutes ago, The Invested Beard said:

You rang?

He was unprepared for a bushy beard, I doubt he'll be ready for an Invested one. 

[WhiteLeeopard]

Honestly, Taln lasting for 4500 doesn't seem impressive. It seems impossible. Which is why I've suspected for a while something was going on in those 4500 years. Either Odium decided to purpusefully not move in, or Taln went so nuts he lost all sense of self. Or something else. But simply lasting 4500 years of torture in those conditions is not possible. The Heralds were all broken by the time they broke the Oathpact, and I doubt Taln was in much better shape.

[dendrophobe]

3 minutes ago, WhiteLeeopard said:

Honestly, Taln lasting for 4500 doesn't seem impressive. It seems impossible. Which is why I've suspected for a while something was going on in those 4500 years. Either Odium decided to purpusefully not move in, or Taln went so nuts he lost all sense of self. Or something else. But simply lasting 4500 years of torture in those conditions is not possible. The Heralds were all broken by the time they broke the Oathpact, and I doubt Taln was in much better shape.

I'd agree. Really, even one year of constant torture seems completely impossible. It depends on whether the torture was constant or episodic, but... Nobody could last that long. Especially if Odium had any figs and mice at his disposal. 

[mariapapadia]

On 31.10.2017 at 6:08 PM, Leyrann said:

You're actually being quite rude yourself. He's by no means my favorite character - actually, he doesn't appear in the rankings, as I'm holding off my judgement of him until we've seen more. But you seem to disqualify him from becoming a Bondsmith because of who he is now. But really, is he worse than the Blackthorn? Who did not even kill out of a desire to save the world, but rather because he liked it? Who almost killed his brother to steal his throne from him?

18 hours ago, maxal said:

Two hours of trick or treating and an insane amount of candies later, I finally have the time for a review. Curse you Brandon to release new chapters on Halloween day  So here were my thoughts, great chapters this week. This was one of my favorite sequence of three so far.

Chapter 28

I know this may not be the expected reaction, but I am personally thrilled to see the "world" refuse to unite itself with Dalinar. It was about time Dalinar is forced to look back at his former self and to acknowledged the Blackthorn may have left much more than a trail of blood. I loved when he muses over his and Gavilar's war, thinking they only did it because "this is what men do". I also loved when he said Gavilar tried to justify it and IMHO failed. You can't justify slaughtering the very people you are supposed to protect just so you could sit on a throne. Not cool, this was not cool at all and now, in a time of great need, the entire world will not trust Dalinar. And I can't blame the world.

Oathbringer was finally found. I had wonder if someone else hadn't stumbled on it being closed doors, but no. It remained where Adolin dropped it, untouched and now Amaram has it within his own hands. Will he bound it? The other interesting aspect of Oathbringer was the fact he didn't scream to Dalinar: it felt as if it were sentient and perhaps able to be revived. I mean, if it had been Adolin's Blade which had the same behavior, I'd be jumping on it, but it was Oathbringer and I can't bring myself to wish for its revival. I am thus left not knowing what to think.

Amaram went up a notch for me this week: he said out loud what I had been thinking about Dalinar. Yes, he is a hypocrite. He insists on trialing Amaram because he killed innocent men, but whom will trial Dalinar for the many more he did kill? Say, how about his own men he slaughtered during his blood lost? Weren't they "innocent" too? So are Amaram's innocent worst than Dalinar's? And yeah, Amaram was right to bring it forward. I thought it'd be Adolin who's say those words to his father, but turns out it was Amaram.

 

I will reply mostly to Maxal's comment, but I feel like a part of it is fitting for both. 

I am by no means a Dalinar fan. I have never been. Most of the time he was just there for me and I didn't care too much about him. I understand his role, but he never intrigued me. I think the most interest he got out of me was with some of the flashback chapters. 

I think you are quite unfair with Dalinar, Maxal. He's by no means perfect, but he is trying. By the way you talk about him, it seems you just want him to fail. Why? He is troubled like everyone else and we don't even know his full story. Why is he a hypocrite? Because he changed ? Because his beliefs changed ? How many of us didn't do stupid stuff in our lifetime that we have a moral highground for now? I am not finding excuses for his youth, but I feel like you are too quick to judge him and be happy for his struggles. He was a horrible man in his youth, but did he know any better. He was brought up to belive that the Alethi power and strengh are everything of value in one man's life and he is trading that now, all the honour and respect that he once had, to look like a lunatic, because he believes in a noble cause. Just because he did some horrible things years ago, doesn't mean he doesn't deserve redemption or the opportunity to do the right thing now. He is not bright and manipulative like others, but he TRIES! Isn't that what matters? That after all the people he killed with Oathbringer, he gave that up for a team of poor bridgemen slaves. 

I have noticed this aversion for Dalinar in other of your comments and I feel like you judge him mostly for his past sins, without giving him credit for the present accomplishments. He is by no means perfect or without guit, I want to make that clear, but I have seen even in the last week's thread a lot of people were against him and I found that to be a little unfair, even if I don't care or like him particulary. 

We haven't seen Dalinar's full past and I think he got to pay for his younger days as Blackthorn. To answer both questions, is what Mr. T or Amaram worse than what Blackthorn did? I think the answer  is somewhere in the middle. Blackthorn was a warrior and a soldier, he fought for his cause ( i am not saying it was noble or good) and in that he killed a lot of people and was cruel. But we already saw that Blackthorn was a product of the Thrill, so it wasn't only his intent in his actions. And most importantly he changed, he became the Dalinar that is fighting  to save people now. Is he stupid in doing that ? Yes, maybe, debateable. But he stuggles and I for one, can't hold anything against someone for trying to be better. Amaram and Mr.T ? It's true we don't have that much information about their thoughts, but I don't see any regret or any intent of fighting for all the people. IMO they are following their interest, whatever that is, without giving a second thought to the ones that die in the process. So yeah, I don't think it's hypocritical of Dalinar (even if he thinks so himself) to have a moral highground now, at this point in his life, when it comes to the actions of these two. 

He might not be the best father or uncle or husband, but as a leader I think his heart is in the right place now. 

Quote

Taravangian is wrong, the Stormfather said. You are not a hypocrite, Son of Honor.

“I am,” Dalinar said softly. “But sometimes a hypocrite is nothing more than a person who is in the process of changing.”

On 31.10.2017 at 6:43 PM, Islington said:

I'm not saying the ends can't justify the means for a Radiant. Look at Dalinar. He bullies Elokhar and breaks his breastplate at the end of TWoK to get him to stop being a baby. Jasnah sets up a sting to catch rapists. Shallan lies CONSTANTLY to infiltrate the Ghostbloods and to hunt the Unmade. Kaladin bullies Gaz to defend his men. 

I'm saying Taravangian is beyond the pale. He's reprehensible. It's like saying that experimenting on defenseless people without consent is worth it because you get good research. He's killed hundreds, and caused chaos to enforce HIS stability. The diagram even says if Dalinar manages to create stability, the diagramsts should kill him. Because the only rule that matters is Mr T's. 

 

He's not working for A greater good, he's working for HIS greater good. Honestly, he probably wouldn't even want to become a Radiant because he would have to work with a spren and accept that his judgement may be flawed in some areas. At least when the Blackthorn went nuts he was confirming to his own society's ideas of masculinity, even if it was gross and wrong. Mr T is cognizant of his moral bankruptcy and continues while weeping to himself so he can pretend to be a moral man "making a hard choice" instead of a disturbed genius holocausting people so he can accumulate power. 

Thank you for this ! It always baffled me when I saw people suggesting Mr.T could become a Radiant as for me there is nothing of that in him. Even the Machiavellic ones, the Skybreakers, at least they have honour, they belive in something, in doing what is right by law. Taravangian lives in his own world, by his own rules. It's not only he doesn't follow the "Journey before destination", but his actions are so malicious, that I can't even comprehend him being put on the same level as some that are supposed to protect and save the world. 

 

[StormingTexan]

I think in regards to Dalinar's past as horrific as some of it was a lot can be contributed to the Thrill in battle. If the Thrill is in fact a product of Nergaoul who in turn is a product of Odium part of his actions are being influenced by a shard. I am not saying that is justification for all his actions as a lot of them are contributed to being Alethi  as well but it is part of it. 

Mistborn Spoilers

Spoiler

Same as Marsh being influenced by Ruin (although this was more extreme). I wouldn't  however say Marsh was bad just not in control.  

 

[Calderis]

8 minutes ago, mariapapadia said:

Thank you for this ! It always baffled me when I saw people suggesting Mr.T could become a Radiant as for me there is nothing of that in him. Even the Machiavellic ones, the Skybreakers, at least they have honour, they belive in something, in doing what is right by law. Taravangian lives in his own world, by his own rules. It's not only he doesn't follow the "Journey before destination", but his actions are so malicious, that I can't even comprehend him being put on the same level as some that are supposed to protect and save the world. 

@Islington this disregards everything we've seen from Taravangian. He hates what he's doing. He believes that he is beyond redemption for the acts he commits. Everything he does, he does because he believes that the alternative means the total death of humanity on Roshar. It is necessary.

I'm not going to claim I'm the first or only one to propose it, but most of the current Taravangian as Bondsmith arguments come from me. 

Taravangian is functioning under a reasoning that is very Machiavellian, but his reasoning fits perfectly for a Bondsmith. He is attempting to unite the world into a single force to oppose the desolation. He's adhering to both the Bondsmiths divine attributes of Pious and Guiding, using the Diagram as his driving force. He reprimands his followers for taking pleasure in their successes because he detests that it is necessary. 

To think that this is a selfish drive for his own gain is to disregard everything we've seen of him. He hates what he's doing. His conversation with Dalinar was honest. He believes he is doing what is necessary to create the best possible outcome. 

[Islington]

@mariapapadia I think it's because modern fiction is very post modern and subversive. A conflicted, brooding anti-villain is "more interesting" than a squeaky clean hero, though Brandon writes his heroes conflicted enough. 

 

"But what if the monsters were the misunderstood good guys" is such a trope now that it's subversive to write a straight protagonist vs antagonist as good vs evil. 

 

@Calderis He doesn't have compassion, though. Compassionate people don't commit genocide. Compassionate people take actions to mitigate the suffering of others. Taravangian uses others for his benefit to amass power and cries afterwards because he's just so sad. If he had compassion on the people he tortured and killed he would stop at some point, which he shows no signs of doing. Being sorry isn't being sorry if you don't change. Repentance requires sacrifice and change, not boohooing because I'll do what's right and make the hard choice because I'm just so right, which is what Taravangian is doing. 

 

Again, Necessary is not Good. If you do a bad thing that MUST be done according to your methodology, then it is Necessary. Taravangian states that his goal is  the survival of humanity. Therefore, he does things he seems necessary towards that goal. Their necessity towards his goal does not make his actions good or evil. They make them necessary or unnecessary. Their virtue is not defined, their utility is. 

 

Something is good when it is a righteous thing, done righteously, for righteous reasons. That's why good is rare. The stars have to align for it to show up. Necessary things are a dime a dozen. Is Taravangian GOOD for doing what he does? No. Is he justified in the necessity? Perhaps, it depends on your opinion on "The Greater Good" which, by the way, only jerks use as a justification. 

No shining paragon of virtue ever commits genocide in fiction and is like "Yeah, I did this hideous and evil thing, but guys it's fine. It's worth it, cause even though I kidnapped, tortured, and murdered people, assassinated all of my rivals, and then intentionally hid knowledge that could have saved people, I became king of the world. And isn't that worth it all, morally?"

 

Edited November 1, 2017 by Islington
Ninja'd

[mariapapadia]

9 minutes ago, Calderis said:

@Islington this disregards everything we've seen from Taravangian. He hates what he's doing. He believes that he is beyond redemption for the acts he commits. Everything he does, he does because he believes that the alternative means the total death of humanity on Roshar. It is necessary.

I'm not going to claim I'm the first or only one to propose it, but most of the current Taravangian as Bondsmith arguments come from me. 

Taravangian is functioning under a reasoning that is very Machiavellian, but his reasoning fits perfectly for a Bondsmith. He is attempting to unite the world into a single force to oppose the desolation. He's adhering to both the Bondsmiths divine attributes of Pious and Guiding, using the Diagram as his driving force. He reprimands his followers for taking pleasure in their successes because he detests that it is necessary. 

To think that this is a selfish drive for his own gain is to disregard everything we've seen of him. He hates what he's doing. His conversation with Dalinar was honest. He believes he is doing what is necessary to create the best possible outcome. 

Ok, I won't argue against this, because I know I haven't pay that much thought to his story, so I feel like I may have a superficial understanding of him. I didn't follow the threads that disscus his character and the ocasional things I have seen about him, were in the main chapter threads. So I will admit, I  have been to quick to judge him. The impression he gave me was that of someone who's knowledge is above everyone else's and I have never been a fan of  "for the greater good". He is an interesting and twisted character though, I always thought that and it's part of the reason why I wanted to have no expectations from him, so I can be surprised. 

[king of nowhere]

2 hours ago, Blacksmithki said:

The cosmere timeline is around 10K years by WoB, and I'm 99% sure another said that stormlight is around the middle, so 5000-4500=500

Are you sure brandon did not mean that stormlight is around the middle among the pubished books, so most books are 10k years after the shattering and that "middle" only refers to a few centuries?

Or maybe  it could be read that the cosmere we've seen so far is 10k years, stormlight current is near the end, and stormlight prelude is 5000 years after shattering. Without the exact quote there is no way to tell, and someone else brought better quotes anyway.

1 hour ago, Necessary Eagle said:

If they call all bird chickens, and lions on a tapestry are "mink-like", it may well be that they call all carnivorous mammals minks. Though the description did sound like a mustalid of some sort.

(And spellcheck thinks "mustalid" should be "Talmudist", which cracks me up. "Two weasels walk into court holding a garment...").

Now I am picturing rosharans watching jurassik park, seeing the tyrannosaurus and calling it "a giant chicken-mink"

1 hour ago, WhiteLeeopard said:

Honestly, Taln lasting for 4500 doesn't seem impressive. It seems impossible. Which is why I've suspected for a while something was going on in those 4500 years. Either Odium decided to purpusefully not move in, or Taln went so nuts he lost all sense of self. Or something else. But simply lasting 4500 years of torture in those conditions is not possible. The Heralds were all broken by the time they broke the Oathpact, and I doubt Taln was in much better shape.

I believe taln got ccrazy and lost congition of time and sense of self. That's the only way I find it plausible, and it's quite in line with what we see of him. Also, the capacity of the human mind to adapt is impressive. I doubt he really felt pain by the end; or anything else, for that matter.

36 minutes ago, mariapapadia said:

Thank you for this ! It always baffled me when I saw people suggesting Mr.T could become a Radiant as for me there is nothing of that in him. Even the Machiavellic ones, the Skybreakers, at least they have honour, they belive in something, in doing what is right by law. Taravangian lives in his own world, by his own rules. It's not only he doesn't follow the "Journey before destination", but his actions are so malicious, that I can't even comprehend him being put on the same level as some that are supposed to protect and save the world.

Now, now, that's not fair to mr T. We've been in his mind for a whole interlude. We know he dislikes what he does, and it brings him pain to do it. We know he does not seek power. I believe he is horribly misguided, but I give to him that he's sincere. And that "I'd hang all four" is very in line with the rest of his actions.

15 minutes ago, Islington said:

@mariapapadia I think it's because modern fiction is very post modern and subversive. A conflicted, brooding anti-villain is "more interesting" than a squeaky clean hero, though Brandon writes his heroes conflicted enough. 

 

"But what if the monsters were the misunderstood good guys" is such a trope now that it's subversive to write a straight protagonist vs antagonist as good vs evil. 

"misunderstood good guys" is a bit exaggerated as depiction, but it is very rare nowadays for a villain to not have some passable motivation. And it is a big progress, considering that in the old times villains were in it for the evulz! A misguided villain is much more believable than one who does what he does... why, exactly?

Also, the stories we tell ourselves are a mirror of our fears and hopes. In the past, we were told that people different from us were evil, and our stories reflected that. We've progressed past that point, and now we see that a lot of times the bad guy is the hero of his own story. And society started to look inward and ask itself, what if I was the villain all along? Modern villains are the result of society warning itself of the dangers of being willing to hurt others for a good cause. Just like all the dystopias that currently fill the bookshelves are the product of society asking itself what happens if we let our technology go out of control or be used ffor repression. Just like there has been a decline in postapocaliptiic worlds once the risk of a nuclear war waned.

[Fifth of Daybreak]

32 minutes ago, Islington said:

No shining paragon of virtue ever commits genocide in fiction and is like "Yeah, I did this hideous and evil thing, but guys it's fine. It's worth it, cause even though I kidnapped, tortured, and murdered people, assassinated all of my rivals, and then intentionally hid knowledge that could have saved people, I became king of the world. And isn't that worth it all, morally?"

Watchmen spoilers

Spoiler

 

 

Edited November 1, 2017 by Fifth of Daybreak

[Calderis]

@Islington when did I ever claim he was a paragon of virtue? I disagree with you about his level of compassion. If stopping means the world dies, stopping is only done to assuage your conscience. 

As I discuss in that thread, I never claim that Taravangian isn't a villain. I just think he will be a Bondsmith. 

He is a well intentioned villain, and a rival to Dalinar. The belief that a Knight Radiant must be good is flawed. 

[Islington]

23 minutes ago, Fifth of Daybreak said:

Watchmen spoilers

  Reveal hidden contents

 

 

I feel like this proves MY point lol. 

 

@Calderis The paragon of virtue is an argument based on hyperbole. What was that movement Shallan hated? Anyway, I'm not saying you're wrong, and I don't think anyone would say he's a hero, I would just say that I think the knights WERE if not outright capital G Good Guys, they were at least heroic. If not, how could they have had the recreance? People that use literal ideas to beat monsters to death don't stop being heroes unless they have a really good reason, and they did. Which implies at least a base of decent morality, but you may be right. We'll see, I guess. 

Edited November 1, 2017 by Islington