Shallan's next truth

[Pathfinder]

8 minutes ago, Alderant said:

I didnt say they dont have a clear levelled progression--I did say, however, that not every "truth" she speaks is necessarily a Truth--for example, as of WoK Shallan was third level. She had a Shardblade. This implies to me that either A) what we have taken to be Truths arent, actually, or B ) the truths she spoke all worked toward a singular event, which was culminated at the end of WoR.

So before I begin, to be clear, the following comments are in no way intended to disprove your theory, say your theory is wrong, or it is right. It is not to nitpick what you wrote, nor if this statement disputes this portion of your post, does it intend to imply the rest of your theory is disputed. Just seeking clarity on this part and only this part

Now having said that. I was given the impression that the reason Shallan had a shardblade as of Way of Kings is she blocked out the associated truth, and treated the shardblade in her mind, as a dead shardblade, not pattern/sprenblade. Pattern then forces her to confront that truth at the end of Words of Radiance, that she says she cannot push down anymore, so she shunts it off to Radiant, because she knows its not Pattern's fault. So she doesn't want to kill Pattern, but she also doesn't want to acknowledge him, so "Radiant" acknowledges him, thereby still having the truth, but Shallan "herself" not dealing with it. 

Edited June 11, 2019 by Pathfinder

[Alderant she/her]

2 minutes ago, Pathfinder said:

So before I begin, to be clear, the following comments are in no way intended to disprove your theory, say your theory is wrong, or it is right. It is not to nitpick what you wrote, nor if this statement disputes this portion of your post, does it intend to imply the rest of your theory is disputed. Just seeking clarity on this part and only this part

Now having said that. I was given the impression that the reason Shallan had a shardblade as of Way of Kings is she blocked out the associated truth, and treated the shardblade in her mind, as a dead shardblade, not pattern/sprenblade. Pattern then forces her to confront that truth at the end of Words of Radiance, that she says she cannot push down anymore, so she shunts it off to Radiant, because she knows its not Pattern's fault. So she doesn't want to kill Pattern, but she also doesn't want to acknowledge him, so "Radiant" acknowledges him, thereby still having the truth, but Shallan "herself" not dealing with it. 

The main thing that falls apart here is that that Truth was related to the Shardblade itself--"This was you", combined both the revelation that the Shardblade she killed her mother was Pattern, and that she didnt want revenge. She didnt "hide" a Truth away only to "rediscover" it, because at the event she had hidden away she already had the blade, meaning that shed already reached that level. So the revelatory Truth couldnt have been the third tier Truth. (We also know its fourth, because of the aforementioned WoB stating that Shallan was one level higher than Kaladin at WoR end).

Youre right on some regards, however, especially with Radiants creation being exclusively for being a loophole for dealing with the Shardblade.

That said, however, in treating Pattern as a dead spren, she effectively nullified her abilities, and so was locked away at that third tier of progression until the end of WoR. Does that make any more sense?

[Karger he/him]

This still feels wrong.  What if Shallan had also killed a couple of her brothers for entirely different reasons?  The entire truth progression gets thrown out of wack as now she will effectively be swearing 7 oaths.

[Pathfinder]

9 minutes ago, Alderant said:

The main thing that falls apart here is that that Truth was related to the Shardblade itself--"This was you", combined both the revelation that the Shardblade she killed her mother was Pattern, and that she didnt want revenge. She didnt "hide" a Truth away only to "rediscover" it, because at the event she had hidden away she already had the blade, meaning that shed already reached that level. So the revelatory Truth couldnt have been the third tier Truth. (We also know its fourth, because of the aforementioned WoB stating that Shallan was one level higher than Kaladin at WoR end).

Youre right on some regards, however, especially with Radiants creation being exclusively for being a loophole for dealing with the Shardblade.

That said, however, in treating Pattern as a dead spren, she effectively nullified her abilities, and so was locked away at that third tier of progression until the end of WoR. Does that make any more sense?

I'm sorry, my mind muddled it for a moment, the third truth was with Jasnah to prove she could soulcast she admitted she killed her father. The fourth was the mother at the end of Words of Radiance. I think I understand what you are saying better. I disagree slightly, but it is more a minor nitpick regarding wording/interpretation than any substantive so I do not think it would add anything to the discussion to continue on it. I wish you luck with your theory!

[Alderant she/her]

8 minutes ago, Karger said:

This still feels wrong.  What if Shallan had also killed a couple of her brothers for entirely different reasons?  The entire truth progression gets thrown out of wack as now she will effectively be swearing 7 oaths.

And this is where you and I differ greatly. Her Truth progression isnt necessarily tied to the people she's killed--just to significant points that are critical to understanding who she really is. Killing her father wasnt exactly a revelatory truth--she had full conscious memory of that.

I believe this stems from a fundamental flaw in understanding Truth progression. But thats my opinion

4 minutes ago, Pathfinder said:

I'm sorry, my mind muddled it for a moment, the third truth was with Jasnah to prove she could soulcast she admitted she killed her father. The fourth was the mother at the end of Words of Radiance. I think I understand what you are saying better. I disagree slightly, but it is more a minor nitpick regarding wording/interpretation than any substantive so I do not think it would add anything to the discussion to continue on it. I wish you luck with your theory!

Fair enough. Thanks for participating!

[Karger he/him]

15 minutes ago, Alderant said:

And this is where you and I differ greatly. Her Truth progression isnt necessarily tied to the people she's killed--just to significant points that are critical to understanding who she really is. Killing her father wasnt exactly a revelatory truth--she had full conscious memory of that.

My point was not about the increased number of people it was about the increased number of critical points.  If she had(because killing family members is our baseline) killed another two of her brothers for entirely different reasons and then suppressed those memories for different reasons revealing them would also be a separate truth.  Since similar critical point can happen a great many numbers of times we could be looking at anything between 3 and 15 truths and it would not feel unreasonable.

[Alderant she/her]

1 minute ago, Karger said:

My point was not about the increased number of people it was about the increased number of critical points.  If she had(because killing family members is our baseline) killed another two of her brothers for entirely different reasons and then suppressed those memories for different reasons revealing them would also be a separate truth.  Since similar critical point can happen a great many numbers of times we could be looking at anything between 3 and 15 truths and it would not feel unreasonable.

Mm. The question then becomes what constitutes a critical point with regards to self-awareness? Is it the murders or the underlying reason for those murders? I think you could boil a lot of those "similar critical points" into singular underlying problems that need to be addressed.

[Karger he/him]

44 minutes ago, Alderant said:

Mm. The question then becomes what constitutes a critical point with regards to self-awareness? Is it the murders or the underlying reason for those murders? I think you could boil a lot of those "similar critical points" into singular underlying problems that need to be addressed.

Sure but there is also no limit to the number of underlying problems a capable intelligent and morally upright individual can have.  So we are still working on the same problem.

[Alderant she/her]

39 minutes ago, Karger said:

Sure but there is also no limit to the number of underlying problems a capable intelligent and morally upright individual can have.  So we are still working on the same problem.

But there is still a limit on Truths. Personally, I dont think theres any reason to assert more than the requisite 5, since out of the various "Truths" that are professed, we've only seen 1 have magically binding ramifications. But we are talking in circles at this point, so agree to disagree.

[Karger he/him]

What if her next truth is "my parents did not love me even though I still love them."  Shallan's mother tried to kill her, a fact that she suppressed.  Shallan's father never pushed her.  Shallan acts like this is out of love but in her flashbacks we can see him looking at what he assumes is her shardblade whenever he gets angry at her.  What if her next step is admiting that he could not push her to far because he was afraid rather then because he loves her?