Could Shallan have a fourth, hidden personality?

[Aminar]

13 minutes ago, agrabes said:

While you seem to be someone with much more knowledge of this topic than me and much more capability to understand what is "right" and "wrong" about portraying someone with a mental illness, I will say that I feel like this is also part of the issue for me.  Even from someone with no real knowledge on the topic, it feels like it's not being done quite right.  Sanderson himself has said he wasn't sure if he was going to go this route and only decided to do it for OB.  I think we are supposed to take it that Shallan has had DID since her childhood trauma.  But her behavior changed significantly in OB, when Sanderson decided he was going to take her the DID route.  So it feels like she only developed the condition in OB, even if that's not supposed to be the case.  Maybe a professional or someone who actually has experience with the condition would say this is totally normal, but it doesn't feel right to me.

I think if he had decided and committed on day one that she always had DID and wrote her consistently that way, even if it wasn't completely accurate to the medical diagnosis of the condition, it would feel a lot more right to us.  At least, it would to me.

Honestly that part's pretty accurate or at least believable for Childhood Trauma. Traumatic memories will start to resurface years or decades later as the mind matures. It's one of many reasons sexual abuse of minors can be hard to prosecute/doesn't get pursued. Some people won't remember until long after all evidence is gone, their abuser is an entirely different person, and depending on region, the statute of limitations is up. 

[GudThymes]

2 hours ago, agrabes said:

It's natural to be upset if someone you care about develops a serious illness

I'm sorry, but what? Is upset really the right word to use here? If my friend was in a car accident I wouldn't say that I am "upset" I would be concerned for their safety. If that's what you meant, I agree. Otherwise I find this representative of the incredibly vast stigma we have around mental health.

 

2 hours ago, agrabes said:

It's not morally wrong to dislike reading from the POV of a character who has DID or any mental illness of any type

I agree that it is not morally wrong, and I'm sorry if I implied this. What I said earlier is that it is damaging and disrespectful to people with mental health issues -- I still stand by this. Would you be comfortable saying that statement about other marginalized groups? It's ok to feel this way, but if you do you need to reflect internally on why you feel this way and address it. 

 

1 hour ago, Aminar said:

The first reason is because there's a great deal of discussion about the existence of DID in the mental health world. It's existence is constantly debated, which means no amount of research is going to give reliable answers as to what the condition looks like.

I'm sorry, but you are factually wrong. There's a great deal of discussion about DID and how it is characterized, diagnostic tools, treatment goals, etc. But it's existence is not "constantly debated". Prior to the 1990's DID was diagnosed as "multiple personality disorder in the DSM" Since DSM-V it has been internationally recognized as Dissociate Identity Disorder. It's existence is not up for debate, clinical diagnoses have been confirmed by other "traditional" scientific tools such as Cat-scans and MRIs. Now if you don't know what the DSM is, it's THE handbook for clinical psychologists for diagnosing and treating mental disorders. I'm not even going to go into how disrespectful this comment is as well, it's just plain wrong.

 

1 hour ago, Aminar said:

he second is that what Shallan has is nothing like the diagnostic criteria of DID. 

1. Two or more distinct identities or personality states are present, each with its own relatively enduring pattern of perceiving, relating to, and thinking about the environment and self.
2. Amnesia must occur, defined as gaps in the recall of everyday events, important personal information, and/or traumatic events.
3. The person must be distressed by the disorder or have trouble functioning in one or more major life areas because of the disorder.
4. The disturbance is not part of normal cultural or religious practices.
5. The symptoms cannot be due to the direct physiological effects of a substance (such as blackouts or chaotic behavior during alcohol intoxication) or a general medical condition (such as complex partial seizures).

1. Shallan, Radiant, and Veil are all distinct personalities that think about their environment and selves distinctly and differently.

2. We have seen amnesic episodes within so many chapters of this book. 

3. HAHAHA, yeah. Shallan fits this glove handily.

4. It's not part of religion.

5. We don't know why her symptoms presented, although we can assume that since Brandon has done extensive research on the topic including first hand interviews that it is likely due to childhood trauma before the age of 7-9.

 

1 hour ago, Aminar said:

Shallan's burying of her memories is a function of PTSD but in DID the gaps in memory have to be an ongoing thing. She has to be losing time to her other identities, not swapping between them like a person playing D&D getting into character. 

This is not actually true, the gaps in memory do not "have to be an ongoing thing", reintegration actually requires the PTSD memories to be shared by all "personalities". Also, many people with DID experience what is referred to as co-con or co-consciousness where 2 or more alters* or "personalities" are conscious simultaneously and in the body together.

While I agree that this isn't the perfect representation of DID, it is better than many others in modern media. It's important that we as a community allow these topics to be discussed so that we can de-stigmatize the disorders and people who suffer from them. And allow them to live healthier and more normal lives without us adding to their discomfort.

Edited August 6, 2020 by GudThymes
The correct term for other "personalities" is Alters

[Aminar]

46 minutes ago, GudThymes said:

I'm sorry, but what? Is upset really the right word to use here? If my friend was in a car accident I wouldn't say that I am "upset" I would be concerned for their safety. If that's what you meant, I agree. Otherwise I find this representative of the incredibly vast stigma we have around mental health.

 

I agree that it is not morally wrong, and I'm sorry if I implied this. What I said earlier is that it is damaging and disrespectful to people with mental health issues -- I still stand by this. Would you be comfortable saying that statement about other marginalized groups? It's ok to feel this way, but if you do you need to reflect internally on why you feel this way and address it. 

 

I'm sorry, but you are factually wrong. There's a great deal of discussion about DID and how it is characterized, diagnostic tools, treatment goals, etc. But it's existence is not "constantly debated". Prior to the 1990's DID was diagnosed as "multiple personality disorder in the DSM" Since DSM-V it has been internationally recognized as Dissociate Identity Disorder. It's existence is not up for debate, clinical diagnoses have been confirmed by other "traditional" scientific tools such as Cat-scans and MRIs. Now if you don't know what the DSM is, it's THE handbook for clinical psychologists for diagnosing and treating mental disorders. I'm not even going to go into how disrespectful this comment is as well, it's just plain wrong.

 

1. Shallan, Radiant, and Veil are all distinct personalities that think about their environment and selves distinctly and differently.

2. We have seen amnesic episodes within so many chapters of this book. 

3. HAHAHA, yeah. Shallan fits this glove handily.

4. It's not part of religion.

5. We don't know why her symptoms presented, although we can assume that since Brandon has done extensive research on the topic including first hand interviews that it is likely due to childhood trauma before the age of 7-9.

 

This is not actually true, the gaps in memory do not "have to be an ongoing thing", reintegration actually requires the PTSD memories to be shared by all "personalities". Also, many people with DID experience what is referred to as co-con or co-consciousness where 2 or more agents or "personalities" are conscious simultaneously and in the body together.

While I agree that this isn't the perfect representation of DID, it is better than many others in modern media. It's important that we as a community allow these topics to be discussed so that we can de-stigmatize the disorders and people who suffer from them. And allow them to live healthier and more normal lives without us adding to their discomfort.

The DSM is one of the most controversial documents in existence. There will always be debate about what's inside it. DID is one of the most controversial points within that book. I'm not denying its existence, I'm saying using something so controversial(and rare) is a great way to end up wildly inaccurate no matter how much research you do. It's safer for the series integrity, Brandon's career, and people with DID to not use it given how often it has been misused and misrepresented. It would be more beneficial to use her as a case of childhood trauma and PTSD where the diagnostics are more agreed upon and there are vastly more sufferers who could use their experience represented in a healthy way. 

The rest of it is up for debate, but Shallan's passing of personalities is too controlled and too artificial to be DID. We shouldn't have seen her controlling their creation on screen and she should have been suffering losses of time in the early parts of her symptomatic period at minimum. It's a subconscious s process from every description I've read. Amnesia and multiple personalities as separate entities do not comprise DID. She has trauma induced amnesia. She consciously made some personalities to help her think through situations. It's badly done and won't be representational of anybodies experience and will actively mislead people into thinking they do understand. It's violating the harm principle. 

 

Edited August 6, 2020 by Aminar

[GudThymes]

1 minute ago, Aminar said:

The DSM is one of the most controversial documents in existence. There will always be debate about what's inside it. DID is one of the most controversial points within that book. I'm not denying its existence, I'm saying using something so controversial is a great way to end up wildly inaccurate no matter how much research you do. It's safer for the series integrity, Brandon's career, and people with DID to not use it given how often it has been misused and misrepresented. It would be more beneficial to use her as a case of childhood trauma and PTSD where the diagnostics are more agreed upon and there are vastly more sufferers who could use their experience represented in a healthy way. 

I'm sorry but I wholeheartedly disagree with your sentiment here. "safer for the series integrity, etc." You're not wrong. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't talk about it. It's ok to get things wrong, humanity has been getting things wrong forever. But taking the "safer" route doesn't allow for change. Right now people with DID and many other mental disorders face very real stigma that makes it harder for them to navigate life, not even taking into account that they have to navigate their mental health concerns. We have to have this conversations and discussions. We have to bring representation for these people into the media. Have you seen "In the Dark" or "Atypical"? They're about people with different disabilities. While they're not perfect representations of these disabilities or the collection of people who deal with them in their daily lives they have enabled the rest of us to better understand the challenges they face and the realities of their lives. This is a good thing. We can simultaneously praise the representation while acknowledging their shortcoming. But you don't want to do that, you would rather us not talk about it "Because it's safer".

 

7 minutes ago, Aminar said:

The DSM is one of the most controversial documents in existence.  There will always be debate about what's inside it. DID is one of the most controversial points within that book.

People say Climate Change is controversial, people say that The Earth is flat. People are entitled to their opinions but science is not an opinion. I think you are grossly misrepresenting the debate around the DSM. The debate on it's contents is so that we can better identify and care for the people who fit the criteria within. We as society categorize things however nature doesn't fit perfectly in our boxes. Psychology is still an evolving field there are still discoveries to be made, just like all of science. We have a great foundation but there's still more to be learned (hence the 5th edition of the DSM), and that will mean we have to make changes along the way. It's ok to make mistakes as long as we recognize them in the future. 

[Greywatch]

I really like what Brandon said about how he started to treat it differently recently:

 

[agrabes]

1 hour ago, GudThymes said:

I'm sorry, but what? Is upset really the right word to use here? If my friend was in a car accident I wouldn't say that I am "upset" I would be concerned for their safety. If that's what you meant, I agree. Otherwise I find this representative of the incredibly vast stigma we have around mental health.

 

I agree that it is not morally wrong, and I'm sorry if I implied this. What I said earlier is that it is damaging and disrespectful to people with mental health issues -- I still stand by this. Would you be comfortable saying that statement about other marginalized groups? It's ok to feel this way, but if you do you need to reflect internally on why you feel this way and address it. 

In terms of the use of the word upset, I think it doesn't mean just one thing.  If a person I cared about were in a car crash I would be upset in a lot of ways.  First, yes concerned for their safety.  Second, sad for the negative impact the car crash has on them.  Third, experiencing my own emotional distress because a serious negative event has happened to someone close to me.  And yes, if I found out that a friend had developed a serious mental illness, I would feel very similarly for them.  I'm in favor of removing stigma (i.e. false negative views) about things like mental illness.  I'm not in favor of removing factually accurate negative views (i.e. those backed by mainstream mental health professionals) of mental illness.  

By saying that an action is damaging and disrespectful, you are saying that it is immoral.  Unless you feel that it is not morally wrong to be damaging and disrespectful to someone else.  Saying that anyone who feels the way that I do must reflect internally on their opinions and address them is also indicating that you believe our opinions are morally wrong and we must change ourselves to comply with what is right.  You seem like an intelligent and well intentioned person.  But I don't agree with you on this.  

I would indeed be comfortable with saying that it is not morally wrong to dislike reading a novel that is written from the perspective of any marginalized group or any group at all, so long as that dislike is not motivated by racism, bigotry, or other similar reasons.  I don't believe that a lack of desire to read a book written from the perspective of a marginalized group is by definition a sign of hatred for or bias against that group.  I think as society we understand this easily when we think about it in reverse.  It's easy to understand that a person of color may not like to read a book that's all about white people because it's hard for them to see themselves in the story, it's hard for them to relate to something that they don't feel a cultural tie with.  Some will like it, others won't.  And that's totally fine.  And it's also totally appropriate that we as society are trying to develop media for everyone so that everyone can read a book and find someone like themselves in it that they can relate to.  But, it's also totally appropriate that the reverse is true - someone who represents that majority, the non-marginalized, may not be able to relate to those who aren't part of their cultural group and may not want to consume that media because they can't relate to it.  And that's also OK, or it should be.  

I don't want to sidetrack this into a discussion about what is right or wrong about how society views mental illness or other controversial topics.  I'm asking, please don't tell people they are bad people for being sad that a favorite character has been inflicted with a serious mental illness which has changed their personality and has caused them to lose the ability to know their own identity.  In return, we shouldn't judge Shallan beyond acknowledging what is written in the books about her condition.

3 hours ago, Aminar said:

Honestly that part's pretty accurate or at least believable for Childhood Trauma. Traumatic memories will start to resurface years or decades later as the mind matures. It's one of many reasons sexual abuse of minors can be hard to prosecute/doesn't get pursued. Some people won't remember until long after all evidence is gone, their abuser is an entirely different person, and depending on region, the statute of limitations is up. 

Interesting to know that.  I'll try to keep that in mind as I read further and as I reread the rest of the series before RoW.  I think it might make things feel "better" to me if I read the whole book starting with the idea that she already has this condition.

[GudThymes]

@agrabes it seems we fundamentally disagree on some basic things that are making it difficult to have a productive conversation with how it is extrapolated out. That's ok, and I'm happy to have a discussion on morality via pm's or someplace else, but I agree it isn't worthwhile detracting from the original thread.

I will say that I do not find the original statement that started this diversion made by Cortez to be morally wrong or that their opinion invalid. I think there is a lot of context and background that comes into forming that opinion that neither of us know.

I agree with your opinion on reversing the situation. The problem is that in most cases a white person isn't living life with the same amount of prejudices and institutionalized biases as other minority groups do. While it isn't morally wrong for a person to not read about about experiences of other minorities or groups. I believe that in doing so we can gain compassion and empathy for those who have been marginalized and help to break down the systemic barriers that exist in our society.

[agrabes]

1 minute ago, GudThymes said:

@agrabes it seems we fundamentally disagree on some basic things that are making it difficult to have a productive conversation with how it is extrapolated out. That's ok, and I'm happy to have a discussion on morality via pm's or someplace else, but I agree it isn't worthwhile detracting from the original thread.

I will say that I do not find the original statement that started this diversion made by Cortez to be morally wrong or that their opinion invalid. I think there is a lot of context and background that comes into forming that opinion that neither of us know.

I agree with your opinion on reversing the situation. The problem is that in most cases a white person isn't living life with the same amount of prejudices and institutionalized biases as other minority groups do. While it isn't morally wrong for a person to not read about about experiences of other minorities or groups. I believe that in doing so we can gain compassion and empathy for those who have been marginalized and help to break down the systemic barriers that exist in our society.

Yeah, appreciate the discussion but I think it's best we drop it there.  I was trying to think of something else to say, but couldn't think of something that wouldn't end up launching into more discussion.  So, uh, I guess for lack of a better closer best of luck and I hope we each gave each other something to think about.

[Aminar]

3 hours ago, GudThymes said:

I'm sorry but I wholeheartedly disagree with your sentiment here. "safer for the series integrity, etc." You're not wrong. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't talk about it. It's ok to get things wrong, humanity has been getting things wrong forever. But taking the "safer" route doesn't allow for change. Right now people with DID and many other mental disorders face very real stigma that makes it harder for them to navigate life, not even taking into account that they have to navigate their mental health concerns. We have to have this conversations and discussions. We have to bring representation for these people into the media. Have you seen "In the Dark" or "Atypical"? They're about people with different disabilities. While they're not perfect representations of these disabilities or the collection of people who deal with them in their daily lives they have enabled the rest of us to better understand the challenges they face and the realities of their lives. This is a good thing. We can simultaneously praise the representation while acknowledging their shortcoming. But you don't want to do that, you would rather us not talk about it "Because it's safer".

 

People say Climate Change is controversial, people say that The Earth is flat. People are entitled to their opinions but science is not an opinion. I think you are grossly misrepresenting the debate around the DSM. The debate on it's contents is so that we can better identify and care for the people who fit the criteria within. We as society categorize things however nature doesn't fit perfectly in our boxes. Psychology is still an evolving field there are still discoveries to be made, just like all of science. We have a great foundation but there's still more to be learned (hence the 5th edition of the DSM), and that will mean we have to make changes along the way. It's ok to make mistakes as long as we recognize them in the future. 

I'm not saying we shouldn't talk about them. I'm saying they shouldn't be used for entertainment if its not going to be executed perfectly. It's important to have discussions. It's not ok to use mental illness to entertain others of it cannot be portrayed accurately. The bigger problem is DID has been used badly in hundreds of places. For entertainment. And it's wildly misrepresented. It's why I brought up a writer with DID who wrote from their experience. Because he's using his experience he cannot be wrong. His experience can be different from others but its personal. It's a case study and that background gives it context. Brandon writing about something he doesn't have, that is amorphous and largely unexplained, while real, is not going to benefit him or people with DID. He didn't treat it with enough care going in, so he'd be better of writing out of the skid rather than steering in, much like he did with Legion. He made it clear the condition wasn't real and that let him run with his creativity. Here his creativity is misrepresenting reality in people who've been misrepresented enough. And it's an easy steer out. DID is rare. Childhood trauma, which is related to DID is not. I've worked with hundreds of kids with Trauma over the last 12 years. I've met zero with DID or who've developed it since. 

Like I said. I'm disappointed. It leaves a bad taste in my mouth. I get that the subject matter is interesting and needs to be spoken about. I think if Brandon started the story now fresh he could do it justice. But I'm disappointed because he's already flubbed it to the point it's irrecoverably wrong. 

 

[Karger]

29 minutes ago, Aminar said:

Brandon writing about something he doesn't have, that is amorphous and largely unexplained, while real, is not going to benefit him or people with DID

It might help people like me be aware that DID exists, is real, and is not what it is generally portrayed as in media(Jekyll and Hyde).  Before reading this I did not know that DID existed.

[Subvisual Haze]

The revelation that Brandon is basing his portrayal of Shallan on beta readers' self-reported symptoms of DID is...interesting.  It certainly does an effective job of shielding from criticism, as now criticizing the character of Shallan is by extension questioning the life experiences of the beta readers she is based on.

[Rainier]

15 hours ago, Subvisual Haze said:

It certainly does an effective job of shielding from criticism, as now criticizing the character of Shallan is by extension questioning the life experiences of the beta readers she is based on.

I can criticize Brandon for making a bad choice about what aspects of a character to emphasize (or include at all) without saying anything about the real people those characters are based on. This is a book, a story, and it needs to first be entertaining. If it's a convoluted mess that doesn't go anywhere and doesn't pay off, but includes a true description of someone's real life struggles, then you're writing misery porn, and I get to say so and criticize accordingly.

[Hessi's Ward]

On 8/7/2020 at 7:36 AM, Subvisual Haze said:

The revelation that Brandon is basing his portrayal of Shallan on beta readers' self-reported symptoms of DID is...interesting.  It certainly does an effective job of shielding from criticism, as now criticizing the character of Shallan is by extension questioning the life experiences of the beta readers she is based on.

I think that beta would be more of a sensitivity reader (which is good practice when writing a character outside of one's own demographic) so he'd do his own research, write Shallan's parts, and ask the reader to make sure he didn't mess up which is different from tuckerizations he'd done before.

[Honorless]

Congrats on your correct theory, @scm288!

[Elena]

This has been a very interesting discussion to backread, and definitely insightful. I never expected that we should interpret Shallan's personalities as a parallel to RL mental illness because, as @Aminar said upthread, whatever is going on with Shallan feels too controlled and artificial - I can buy it as the "fantasy version of DID" but not as an actual take on it. I think the fact that Shallan's powers are closely tied to her denial, repressed memories and by extension her powers is what makes her personalities to... fantastic to be a direct parallel to me, and I can't deny I would find it upsetting if it came out this was supposed to be the expression of an actual mental disorder when it serves the role of plot device in the story just as much as it serves that of character development if not more. I think of the thoughtful, sensitive portrayal of Kaladin's depression and its parallels to RL seasonal affective disorder, and the way it impacts his character arc in a way that adds to his character without sensationalising his struggles. Whatever is going on with Shallan is not that.

I really hope there's going to be an actual payback to Shallan's arc beyond "yeah she has personalities and they all come out to play". Her OB arc dealing with her personalities made Shallan's chapters interesting but was (IMO) a disservice overall to Shallan as a character compared to WOR, and I'm ready for it to come to a resolution. I hope we'll reach a turning point soon.

[Harbour]

Like i said in another thread, in case of Shallan mental problems ARE basically her character and that sucks. In WoK and WoR she was more or less complete and fine enough, but in OB he became  so fractured that i lost her and lost interesting in reading about her. She doesnt feel like a real person or even fiction character. More like android with very different personalities and constant shifts in views. Probably very realistic depiction of person with such diagnosis but not a good book character.

I will add now, that i hope Brandon will be able to twist her character in a way that will make her satisfying character (for me) to read about.

 

In chapter 9 he did it successfully. In previous 8 not so much, honestly.

[+Bliev]

22 hours ago, Harbour said:

Like i said in another thread, in case of Shallan mental problems ARE basically her character and that sucks. In WoK and WoR she was more or less complete and fine enough, but in OB he became  so fractured that i lost her and lost interesting in reading about her. She doesnt feel like a real person or even fiction character. More like android with very different personalities and constant shifts in views. Probably very realistic depiction of person with such diagnosis but not a good book character.

I will add now, that i hope Brandon will be able to twist her character in a way that will make her satisfying character (for me) to read about.

 

In chapter 9 he did it successfully. In previous 8 not so much, honestly.

It's interesting how differently people can read a character! I never read Shallan as "fine enough" or "complete" in WoK or WoR, but rather as traumatized, insecure, and dissociative even then. She never faced her past, never acknowledged it. She lied and faked and pretended all was fine (which was, ironically, what Kaladin found so attractive about her, demonstrating just how little he could really understand the depths of her trauma). The dissociation, for me, is fascinating. I have loved reading how she pretends and stuffs her insecurities down deeply to caretake for her brothers, to impress Jasnah...just to survive. There's also tons of moments she doesn't remember from her youth, but it seems like Veil and Radiant do. 

Anyhow, I felt the DID approach fit her dissociation from the beginning of the series--where we see that her generalized insecurity and pretending is not just "normal" but a very big problem. And that her magical/fantastical abilities are both separate from and intertwined with her psychology, such that her specific method of dealing with her childhood trauma is DiD and this manifests itself differently because of her bond with Pattern, much like Kal's depression would be there with or without Syl, but Syl allows him to address it differently. 

ETA: I guess I just wanted to note that her dissociation was apparent to me even before she created Veil to do a task, which, to my mind, became a different "personality" as Shallan's disorder worsened and her magical abilities made it easier to pretend. In this way, being a Lightweaver makes it MORE difficult to function and heal because creating new alters seems so easy to do.

Edited September 2, 2020 by Bliev

[agrabes]

2 hours ago, Bliev said:

It's interesting how differently people can read a character! I never read Shallan as "fine enough" or "complete" in WoK or WoR, but rather as traumatized, insecure, and dissociative even then. She never faced her past, never acknowledged it. She lied and faked and pretended all was fine (which was, ironically, what Kaladin found so attractive about her, demonstrating just how little he could really understand the depths of her trauma). The dissociation, for me, is fascinating. I have loved reading how she pretends and stuffs her insecurities down deeply to caretake for her brothers, to impress Jasnah...just to survive. There's also tons of moments she doesn't remember from her youth, but it seems like Veil and Radiant do. 

Anyhow, I felt the DID approach fit her dissociation from the beginning of the series--where we see that her generalized insecurity and pretending is not just "normal" but a very big problem. And that her magical/fantastical abilities are both separate from and intertwined with her psychology, such that her specific method of dealing with her childhood trauma is DiD and this manifests itself differently because of her bond with Pattern, much like Kal's depression would be there with or without Syl, but Syl allows him to address it differently. 

ETA: I guess I just wanted to note that her dissociation was apparent to me even before she created Veil to do a task, which, to my mind, became a different "personality" as Shallan's disorder worsened and her magical abilities made it easier to pretend. In this way, being a Lightweaver makes it MORE difficult to function and heal because creating new alters seems so easy to do.

I think it comes down to how people view personality and sense of self.  People have a wide range of opinions on what it means to be "fake" or "real" when it comes to your personality and how you act.  For me, I consider things like acting different in front of an important business guest compared to how you act with friends compared to how you act with family as all being true to yourself.  I consider occasionally letting go of your problems to have fun even if you're experiencing serious trauma as being yourself and healthy so long as you aren't losing touch with reality.  I consider the idea that you can have a "true" self which you don't actually ever show to anyone a problem.  But other people consider my outlook as being fake and keep a distinct internal sense of self even if they never outwardly show it.  It probably has a lot to do with a person's own self image.  I consider the happy, put together self the true self, and the sad, struggling self as a hurt or damaged part which isn't who you really are, even if you do struggle sometimes.  Necessary to acknowledge and work through the problems to get better (or you'll end up like Shallan), but not the truest representation of who I am.  Others feel the opposite - the only way to truly be yourself is to openly display the depths of your pain.  I don't know that there's necessarily an objective right answer.

For me personally, I wouldn't call Shallan "fine" in WoK or WoR, but I would call her "complete" in the sense that she had not yet begun to manifest multiple personalities.  Yes, she did have repressed memories and had experienced serious trauma.  She had led a tough life, but was able to manage it by the skin of her teeth.  That was what made her such a great and interesting character.  And the fact that despite all the extreme misery she had experienced in her life, that she was able to find true joy and wonder in spite of it all was an amazing thing.  What Kaladin failed to understand was not the depths of her trauma, but that her coping mechanism was unhealthy.  He fully understood the depths of her trauma, that was directly stated in WoR.  He just thought it was so amazing that she could let go of her pain that he never thought about how she did it, he never considered that she was becoming increasingly aware that the way she dealt with her pain was making her worse.

Prior to about midway through OB, I considered Shallan a traumatized young woman with serious repressed memories and issues dealing with life's challenges, but I don't feel there were hints that she had DID up until Oathbringer.  I didn't pick up on it until probably early-mid-OB but I think it was there all throughout the book if you go back and reread.  I don't think that Sanderson even chose to start writing her as DID until OB.  So really, anything prior to that would only be retconned as DID.

[Rainier]

4 hours ago, Bliev said:

In this way, being a Lightweaver makes it MORE difficult to function and heal because creating new alters seems so easy to do.

I've been mulling this part over, myself. It seems like yes, she wouldn't be as bad if she was just a regular person. Her lightweaving can exacerbate her delusions by making them more real than they actually are. Something like, the reason she's a fake is because she believes she is a fake, and has therefore made herself into a fake.

I haven't really tied it all together, or tied it to anything else, but the idea that she brought this on herself because of unintended consequences of her powers is a compelling one, to me.

[Kingsdaughter613]

On 7/29/2020 at 11:49 AM, scm288 said:

In Chapter 2, we see Shallan have a tussle with her other selves.

The thing is, her other selves don't think of Shallan as, well, Shallan. Or Shallan Prime, or anything like that. The Shallan from the first couple of books--the artist, the quiet girl of House Davar, Jasnah's ward, Adolin's betrothed--is treated by them as just another personality, as insubstantial as Veil or Radiant. Just another face to wear.

So that gets me thinking: is it possible that the Shallan we know is just another face to wear?

As evidenced by Chapter 2, there are deeper truths that Shallan still hasn't admitted to herself. There's something dangerous lurking there, deep beneath the surface. Is it possible that there really is another Shallan--a Shallan Prime, as it were, the original Shallan--a fourth personality who developed artistic Shallan as a defense mechanism?

How do we know that we don't have a Typhoid Mary on our hands here?

There is a fourth, from the initial split that created ‘Shallan.’ (Split equals two at a minimum.) All four contain aspects of her identity, which has been disassociated.

[Solant]

I'm no student of psychology, so i can't speak to the realism of his portrayal here. I know he does his research, and he wouldn't include it if it wasn't important to her arc. With the SA being an epic fantasy series, I chose to just trust Brandon to find a middle ground somewhere between DID getting the representation it deserves, and a story for Shallan that ultimately serves the greater narrative.

Instead, I'd like to share my pet theory. With Shallan being the unreliable narrator that she is, i can't be sure if my count is right, but to me it feels like we are getting a new alter for every radiant level she achieves, or perhaps just for every truth offered up. Now we know that Veil was modeled after Tyn, and suspect that Radiant was crafted with Jasnah in mind. 

Potential RoW preview chapter spoilers

Spoiler

My suspicion is that  the "Formless" alter isn't some ominous shapeless killer that chapter 8? 9? (Sorry, can't remember) is hinting towards, but could actually be the quiet, shy, timid girl she actually is, and the Shallan personality that we consider to be herself is actually the first one she created during the months following her mother's death when she refused or was unable to speak. I think this is the truth Veil is pushing her to face, and that Pattern's dialogue with Shallan in OB subtly hints toward this. The reason she views this as formless Is either because she outright refuses to face it, or even because since its her true self, she's never made a sketch of it, and she has difficulty imagining our illuminating people she's never sketched.

1,2,3, shoot it down! 

[Singer]

I really look forward to the mystery of who the 4th personality is. It looks like we'll get some Ghostblood intrigue as well, so Shallan is shaping up to have some interesting storyline throughout this book.

Early on in the series, I took Shallan's condition for being a disassociative fugue, but I don't feel like she really felt they were separate people until Kholinar and the death of the little boy she felt she caused. It was probably happening, but that was one more trauma to have to hide from and acted as a tipping point.