Yados

is it bad that i haven't finished watching the latest series despite having a legit excuse?

Probably. 9 was the best season since the 2005 revival. 

This is a great series but it's never not going to be about love, betrayal, and heart wrenching sacrifice. Part of that is romance, but it's also the base code of the series. 

Depending on why you don't like the romance, you might not want to continue. It's always going to be the kind of series that is going to be like that even if it's not actively doing that.

It's really great, though. 

Umm... What about Navani/Dalinar and Vin/Elend? Both of these relationships have plenty of physical contact, which is detailed pretty well.

Yeah, but it's not about physical contact. It's about evocative content. A writer can write a sex scene that is supposed to make you go cold with horror and eye contact that gives you butterflies. 

Nokomis has hit it right on the head. Sensuality isn't about titillation. It's about fleshing out your characters' core and relationship while eliciting visceral feelings in the consumer. 

Yeah, Sanderson's prudishness permeates a lot of his characterization in unfortunate ways.  

The problem (as I've come to recognize it, at least) is that BS has decided he doesn't want to write sex in his books. And that in and of itself is fine.

But he's taken a lot of things that aren't sex in his books and decided that they fit under that umbrella. So we don't just not have sexual content in his books, we don't have sensuality either. Without that, the romances in these books tends to be either passionless or adolescent. 

Almost as problematic, along with not wanting to write his characters as overtly sexual beings, BS doesn't seem to want to think of them as sexual beings either. 

It would be one thing if these characters were fully formed and informed by their sexual identity or experience, but it was kept as supplemental to their other traits. But instead, most characters seem to have a hole there or it's been sectioned off as something BS is more comfortable writing about. Dallinar is a (recent?) prude. Jasnah is something approaching asexual. Shallan, Kaladin, and Renarin are sexually inexperienced (which is a weird uniting trait for three characters from three different backgrounds). I don't know if Adolin is supposed to be sleeping with half of the camp or if he just goes on dates and has no sexual interest in girls, but the fact that I don't know that speaks to the problem. He's like a thoroughly sanitized Mat Cauthon... which misses the entire point of Mat Cauthon (whole other discussion). There's been plenty of discussion about Vin and Elend in Mistborn. It's not worth repeating.

So yes, your wife is absolutely right when she notices that something is missing in these books. I like so much about BS's books, but the criticisms I have go down to the core of them.

It's tough to reconcile a writer who puts so much thought into plot and magic and world building and descriptions of violence with one who leaves this kind of stuff, not just off the page, but so undeveloped it seems off of the page. It's like walking into a beautiful mansion, only to find that the floors are just plywood. And you wonder why they would spend so much time on the sconces but none of the floors. It's not like BS didn't think out how the money works in these books. He should worldbuild some sensuality. 

Regrettably, the Cosmere books enjoy the kind of sectioned off fame that Wheel of Time does or Game of Thrones did a five years ago. Ubiquitous within a bubble but nowhere near approaching the mainstream subgenre attention required for a robust and healthy fan fiction community. I also suspect that in particular, there's a lot of crossover with the WoT community, which was characterized by Jordan's own irrational dislike of fan fiction, erotic or otherwise.

But if a Mistborn movie or Stormlight TV show ever gets made, we might see a million teenaged/twenty-somethings write some sexually honest and fulfilling versions of these characters. So give it five years? 

Don't love any of this. Don't like the change itself. Don't like that such an climactic moment of the story could be edited out a whole year after the fact. 

I don't understand how you could be so aware that changing text/works (Star Wars) after the fact can be so weird and problematic, give that lip service, and then just step right over that line. Because this change does alter the emotional state of the characters in very specific and important ways going into the next book. It's a deep edit, probably more radical than anything Lucas ever did in Star Wars. Han shooting first was an establishing sequence, not the climax of the character's story. 

This is just bizarre... bad taste left deep within the mouth. 

I've always assumed that the mechanisms that have allowed Kelsier to hang around as a ghost... assuming that it mostly had to do with solidifying himself as the image of the Survivorist movement... would have worked for Rashek too. 

Sliverism hangs on, after all. And Rashek knew many things. 

I definitely agree with you.

I was talking about Jenny and Vastra as a concept, not passing judgement on Moffat's era of DW as a whole. That's a whole other discussion.

Doctor Who is a big ball of ... stuff. 

Moffat does tend to approach gay characters with flippancy. While I maintain that the childishness of Jenny and Vastra makes them subversive and therefore valuable (and there could even be a certain amount of value in otherwise straight characters making references to having a more fluid sexuality), I really can't say with certainty whether that's by design or coincidence. I'm just quantifying the value and maintaining that it exists. 

The only thing I would mention is that, while none of the few gay relationships have had the importance of the main ones in the series, they've certainly never been shown to be lesser than any of the relationships between other minor characters. The fat and thin married anglican marines haven't saved time and space with their love, but neither have Amy's parents or .... wow, there really aren't a lot of relationships in that show aside from Jenny and Vastra and the main cast. Some of the normals in that Silurian two parter in season 5? It's not like they ever came back... Craig and Sophie?

I really wish that they had gone away after their respective first episodes. Unfortunately, they are still around despite their ridiculous scripts and even worse acting. Add in the unnecessary lesbian relationship agenda and you've got the whole terrible shebang. I don't know if you can tell, but I'm really sick of them.

I don't even care if I get super down voted for this. It really felt good to finally say it all to someone.

I'm for gay rights, but I really hate when people are defined my their right to be gay. When they are people who are gay as opposed to gay people, like Captain Jack, it's fine. In the case of the damnation alien and her stupid maid, those two are defined by their relationship. That's just never healthy. Also, it's stupid. Captain Jack? Awesome. Lizard and human? Dumb.

Yes, that's almost perfect. It's like someone who is in a wheelchair but does amazing things despite their handicap instead of dwelling on it. I know that comparison makes it seem like I view being gay as a handicap. Yep.

Anyhow, you got it.

I really like all of the other companions. Jackie is so freaking funny! I wish Amy and Rory had ended better, but I liked who the Doctor was around them. My favourite is Clara because she is the prettiest. I know it's shallow. I don't care.

I have to disagree with you on this.

Are Jenny and Vastra fully fleshed out characters? Of course not. Neither is Strax. Are they defined by their sexuality? Sure, just as much as they are by being interspecies or monogamous or from the 19th century or detectives. 

But that's because they occupy the "for children" side of the show. They are supposed to be bright, funny, interesting characters primarily for the schoolchildren audience that Doctor Who has. All those dumb gadgets they used in Deep Breath? That was because school children sent in pictures of interesting devices that Jenny, Vastra, and Strax might use and they used the best ones.

Doctor Who is always doing this kind of thing because it's a family program, especially under Moffat. Usually this is achieved in other media by having everything be accessible for both children and adults, but Doctor Who doesn't play by those rules. DW mashes up adult or scary elements with childish ones. Sort of like how season 8 went from Daleks to Robin Hood to Horror to Abortion to School Children Learning About Why Trees are Good to Mortality. Hey, it works better than the season 4 finale. 

That's why it's cool that they're gay. It's definitely an agenda. It's pretty subversive.  They're not just gay. They're gay characters expressly for children. 

Captain Jack is a way more fleshed out character... because he had his own TV show which was written for adults and was full of adult content (consciously excluding children). Going solely by his DW appearances, I don't know if he's much deeper. 

But anyways, Jenny and Strax aren't really for me, but from a representational standpoint these are super valuable characters. The whole point of representational politics in fiction is that we redefine normal and what is acceptable and good by populating our stories, especially broad and mainstream ones like DW with people who have previously been excluded from those narratives.

Children have moldable minds and about 5% of them are gay, just like the rest of the population. Flashy cool gay characters for children are way more important (and rare) than nuanced and fleshed out characters who happen to be gay for adults. 

Angels Take Manhattan is actually one of my favorite episodes of Doctor Who. Which was weird to realize since I didn't remember it fondly before I rewatched Matt Smith's run a few months ago. 

I love the sense of place that New York established... that most episodes don't have the budget for. I love that it was one of the only episodes where we got River and the Doctor on the same "page" of their relationship and that they got to play with that a little bit. I love that the fact that there were actual stakes for the main characters. It even makes internal sense, which was surprising to realize. 

I think what really changed my perspective on it was viewing it as an episode about the Doctor recognizing (fairly early on) that these are a different set of stakes (that only he and not Amy and Rory fully comprehended) and that he really is going to lose Amy and Rory. The episode is about watching him deal with that. He's the emotional through line of the episode.

Viewed as a farewell to Amy and Rory as characters, it's super unsatisfying. Part of that is because, up until the end of the episode, neither Amy or Rory really have reason to see these events as different than stuff like Big Bang or The Girl Who Waited (even though the viewer does). The other part is because it's obvious that Moffat was bored of writing these characters by this point and he'd never made it a goal to make the companions be fully realized characters with stakes like RTD did and like Moffat did with Clara in Season 8. So, contemporarily, heralded as Amy and Rory's exit from the show, it was a bit of a let down.

Watched with more attention to the Doctor (who Moffat is far more interested in turning into a compelling character, even if he's never quite been able to hit the mix between character and "smartest man in the room" he hit in Sherlock) it's way better because we rarely get to see that character struggle with stakes we believe he passionately cares about and because he rarely has to grapple with his own helplessness. 

The whole episode is actually a reversal of the Doctor Who formula. Instead of the Doctor's intelligence/perspective making him the only person able to solve a seemingly hopeless situation, these traits cripple him because he's the only one who can perceive how hopeless the situation is. The day gets saved because of human obtuseness (for about 3 minutes). 

Statue of Liberty Angel makes no sense though. Like, there's no way it could ever move. At least one person is always looking at it. Cool imagery, though. Thankfully, it was never played for more. 

I can see why some people feel that JK's statement was cowardly.  I am not prepared to cast judgement one way or the other because I don't know her motivation for making the statement.  And that is essential to any judgement.  I merely cited the situation as illustrative of how the statements identifying the sexuality of a character, when such statements are irrelevant to the plot, can distract, and even detract, from the story itself.

 

The question is, how does one write a book in our current social climate where the book has a significant character which is LGBT where their sexuality is pertinent to the plot and avoid the social issues from taking over the story?  If an author does this, the book becomes an LGBT book.  I cite such outfits as Netflix for evidence of this.  Consider that Netflix has a category of programming dedicated to gay/lesbian programming.  Some of these programs deal directly with gay/lesbian issues (as one would expect in a category identified as such) while others are stories which simply have LGBT characters in significant roles (i.e., the sexuality is flavor but not subject).  These movies are all pigeonholed together.  The simple truth is, it is difficult to produce a piece of popular media in our current social climate involving LGBT characters without that work being pigeonholed as LGBT media.  Add to that, Brandon Sanderson is LDS (mormon).  By the very fact of Brandon's particular religious affiliation, the effect would very likely be exacerbated.

 

As to Drehy/Jasnah, my basic criteria would be how important the character's relationship and sexual preference is to moving the story forward in a smooth fashion.  Unless Jasnah and Drehy are put in some situation where some conflict about their sexuality is of benefit to the story being told or that their romantic relationship is an important part of the story, i think it would disrupt the flow because then Brandon would have to devote time and space in the book to address how their society views and deals with these relationships.  If such a conflict is beneficial to the story, then go for it.  If it is not, then it is disruptive to the story and I would prefer not to have this.  Personally, I don't go in for much discussion of romantic relationships of any kind in books unless it is germane to the plot.  I shake my head (and sometimes get annoyed) with all the 'shipping' that goes on in fandom.  You will find this reflected in the complete absence of any posts from me in shipping discussions.  I prefer the meat of the story as opposed to the fluff.  However, I do recognize the need to include relationships in books because this is a very real part of the fabric of the world in which these characters live. 

 

I hope that someday our social climate settles down so that we no longer have to dance around race and sexual preference and no longer have to fear a fierce lens of scrutiny for whatever is said or produced.  For example, you have used the term "queer" in your post above.  By all accounts, I as a heterosexual am not allowed to use that term because it is offensive and derisive if I use it (at least to some very vocal individuals).  The same goes for racial terms.  The fact of the matter is, we cannot have equality or even an earnest and genuiine discussion (collectively, not individually) of equality until we are all using the same lexicon and one side is not allowed to use terminology that the other side is allowed to use, until we stop parsing out every word uttered to hunt out bigotry, and to stop being so quick to be offended (again, I am speaking on a societal basis.  You have not done any of these things in your posts).

Look, we disagree on matters of basic premise. 

I don't agree that anything was lost by Rowling making a statement as to Dumbledore's sexuality. How would that detract or distract from the franchise? Were people who didn't like gay people upset because they were tricked into liking a gay character? Is that something that any writer should be concerned about? 

I also disagree with your claim that, by writing a LGBTQ character, Brandon would run the risk of being known as an LBGT writer. Does that mean that Neil Gaiman, Kate Elliott, Richard K Morgan, NK Jemisin, Robert Jackson Bennet, Orson Scott Card, David Farland, Scott Lynch, John Scalzi, Jim Butcher, and Robert Jordan are in their own little genre of fantasy because they've all acknowledged that gay people exist in their books to varying degrees of visibility (and tastefulness)? I'm not going to speak to the quality of some of those representations (because at least two are awful), but no, I doubt that compassionate representations of gay characters who are also interesting and well-drawn would stigmatize Brandon. If he put as much thought into gay people as he put into guns in the Reckoners books, he'll be fine. 

Oh, and also, Netflix has multiple category settings. So those programs you're referring to are probably also in drama or comedy or quirky workplace TV comedies as applicable. Netflix isn't trying to ghettoize gay media; they're trying to make it easier to find for those who want it. 

And look, you may be here for the magic in the world building, but the notion that gay people are something that can't be world-built into Brandon's worlds is pretty insulting. The Stormlight Archive is full of the gender roles and sexual mores of Alethi Culture as well as references to at least a dozen others on Roshar. Are you saying he couldn't figure out how gay people fit into that? That doing so would be somehow counter to the rest of the project of creating rich, immersive settings?

Even if, as you suggest, Brandon's personal beliefs create restraints on what he can write about gay people, Mistborn had a thousand year old culture based on forcible eugenics and sexual slavery (something which appears to be extending on into Wax and Wayne books). So he can obviously think about things he disagrees with and build them into his world. He's also included drinking and premarital sex in his books (not to mention lots and lots of murder), practiced by the heroes of said books. So he also has no problem including things in his books that the Mormon Church would not condone of his heroes. Why would this thing be across the line? Would humane and compelling portrayals of gay people somehow further a deviant agenda more than these other things? 

Also, as I think I've stressed enough in this thread, I disagree that an LBGT character needs to justify their own existence by some sort of romantic plot. First, gay people are not synonymous with romance or shipping any more than straight people are. Second, it's not a standard that the sexuality of any other character is held to. Why did Kelsier need a sexuality? Or Dockson? Or Sebarial? Or Lopen? Or Ham? Or Teft? Were you distracted by all this non-essential sexual coding or is it only one kind of sexuality that needs to justify itself (rather, any apart from one)?

Look, I didn't decide that Brandon should put LGBT characters in his books. He did. I just don't agree with the reasoning put forward in this thread as to whether he should hide the fact that they're there. 

tl;dr we have some serious disagreements about the radicalness of what I'm proposing.

I just hope he doesn't give in to fanbase wishes and declare a pointless sexuality for her just to soothe shippers.

 

Personally, I like the Cosmere because of the meta, and how intricate and crazy it is going to become. Not for romance. But that's obviously my personal opinion.

I don't think he would either but as this is easily my favorite Fantasy series (the entire meta), I'm naturally concerned of what-could-be's and the like.

C'mon, man. No one said anything about shipping or romance. Plenty of characters throughout BS's books have had their sexuality made plain without co-opting the plot or creating a romance subplot. 

Kelsier, Ham, and Dockson in Mistborn each had dead or offscreen significant others that partially informed their characters. If any of those characters had been gay, the only thing that would have changed about them would have been pronouns in certain scenes. 

If you're worried about "pointless sexualities" in Brandon's books, it may already be too late. They've been here all along. They've just all been straight. 

I am going to bravely stick my nose into this conversation.  While I have no problem whatsoever with Jasnah turning out to be homosexual or asexual, I think it would detract from the story if Brandon made a point of expressly identifying this, UNLESS it was pertinent to the plotline of the story.  Here's why I think this: I'm sure that we are all aware that this is a major social and political issue right now which unfortunarely intensly divisive.  If Brandon included direct information about Jasnah's sexuality and it was not important to or germane to the plot of the story, there would likely be harsh feelings and contentious interactions regardless of what particular sexual preference she had.  As evidence of this, I point to J.K. Powling's statement that she always thought of Dumbledore as being gay.  Look at the anger and hurt that was generated in the subsequent exchanges.  I note that not only did she not even identify Dumbledore as gay in the text, she merely said that she thought of him as such. 

 

The result would be that whether Brandon intended it to be such, or not, many of his fans and several in the media would declare that Brandon is making a statement by such an inclusion.  The ultimate result being Jasnah's sexuality superceding and overshadowing the story.  If her sexuality is not pertinent to, or affect, the plotline, then I would hate to see this happen.  Obviously, if her sexuality is important to the story, then I would hope that Brandon would address it wherever her preferences lie.

 

Edit: As a side note, I would point out that Dalinar's relationship with Navani and Shallan's relationship with Adolin and Kaladin by all appearances so far appears to be important to the plot of the story. 

But couldn't you say he's made such a statement by "including" gay characters in the series? He was under no obligation to do so. Whatever "anger and hurt" has surely already been invited at this point. 

What you're saying is a fine argument for every single character on Roshar being straight. But why, if he's going to write a character as queer, should he not acknowledge that on the page? You cite Dumbledore in Harry Potter as inviting criticism from those who did not want gay people in Harry Potter, but many people also view that statement from Rowling to be quite cowardly from a representational standpoint. Dumbledore's sexuality was not very relevant to the plot, sure, but the choice to make the only gay character one with no relevancy to the plot is also a conscious choice, as was the fact for it to have been completely absent from the books.

Dalinar and Navani and Shallan/Adolin/Kaladin are relevant to the plot because they've been a component of that plot. What sort of criteria would you set for a similar relationship that hinged on Jasnah or Drehy's sexuality? 

Look, I don't need gay characters in fiction to represent me. I'm doing fine. There's plenty of great books in fantasy that reflect the fact that gay people exist (I read City of Stairs over the break, great book. Republic of Thieves notably did this in a non-essential way as well) and plenty of great books that pretend as if they don't. However, I don't understand this idea that the author should tell readers that a character is gay and then not include that in the text because it's not relevant. It's hard for me to view that as anything other than mercenary behavior to please a certain audience without actually doing anything. I would like to think that if people paid attention to how many non-essential characters are shown to have a non-essential sexuality in books, they might understand why this justification rings hollow. 

*Disclaimer*

Brandon didn't do that here. He didn't say Jasnah was gay. He didn't say her sexuality wasn't going to be addressed because it wasn't essential to the plot. I'm responding to other peoples' justifications for his paraphrased comment. I don't like these justifications. They are a double standard. 

First, it's "Nymp", no pun, despite the irony that this would create.

Second, being demisexual could mean that she's bi, lesbian, or straight. This could also be a more interesting character arch than the stereotypical justifications that Argent mentioned, but I often get tired of reading about romance in general (I have a low level of romantic-tolerance; probably much lower normal than the norm)...

 

 

She'll get her own book though in the second series, so, we'll probably know by then what's up with her. Remember, she could always be asexual or aromatic, and considering that she hasn't had many pov in general, it's hard to show her sexuality properly...

Sorry, that was either auto-correct or stupid-fingers. 

Sure, her sexuality could be anything. My point was just that if it's something other than straight (sort of implied by the response?), then we have had all these other characters who are straight, who have been shown to be so, who have not been monopolized by romance. It sucks that this justification would get trotted out for the single major (identified?) non-straight character. It doesn't need to be shown via romance. Surely this series has not been one of grand, sweeping romance, something that hasn't stood in the way of showing that many of the characters have a sexual preference. 

Also, Jasnah may get her own book in the second series, but does that mean that she will have a similarly large focus in the book like Kaladin and Shallan did? 

I was expecting to see more characters in the main sequence in WoR, but it was basically the same ones as WoK. I guess we'll have to see if whoever ends up getting the flashbacks in Book 3 has a similarly large role in that book. Unless it's Dalinar, it will be someone who has not had a large role in the previous two books. 

As a female "scholar" myself, I would feel deeply annoyed if someone started to pester me about this topic...probably for similar reasons. I think what he's getting at here is that Jasnah doesn't define herself according to her romantic longings, it annoys her that people want to define her based on this and not on her work (which she is passionate about). She doesn't need to be defined by a romantic partner, she shouldn't have to be. What defines her is the work she does and the discoveries she's made, thus, if she found a partner, that person would have to allow her to continue to be defined by her work first and her partner second...

 

I personally hope she doesn't get into a relationship, it shouldn't matter one way or another if she finds "true love" or romance. That's not what she wants, and that should be enough, I think. Buuuuut, if I was to guess her sexuality, it's probably some kind of demisexual; she'll only like you if she gets to know you and you can fit, she doesn't need romance...a shocking revelation, indeed.

Ehhhhhhh, yeah and that would be one thing were she an actual person who had a right to privacy or self definition. And I would agree that Jasnah, if she was sitting in a room with us, if she was something other than straight, would most likely define herself by the other things. Like being a woman or a "heretic" or a scholar. 

However, she actually is actually a potentially queer fictional character in a series full of straight characters. And it is unsatisfying to claim that it would somehow lessen that character to be upfront with her sexuality when most every other major character is both straight and has been shown to be straight in a way that has not monopolized or otherwise diminished their character. Secondary characters like Lopen and Teft (Teft was the one with the crush on the barmaid in WoR?) have both been shown to be attracted to the opposite sex, something that was neither necessary nor did it diminish anything else about them. 

So no, I think it's silly for Jasnah, if she has some sort of sexuality other than straight to have it kept off stage so it doesn't co-opt her character. Purely arbitrary characters have been shown to also have sexual preference and it has never been a problem. 

I should reiterate that this is my response to Nymph and Argent's justifications for Brandon's (paraphrased) statement. Not the statement itself. 

It's also possible he meant it won't be addressed anytime soon. There are a lot of books to go.

That would be a very reasonable thing to mean. Jasnah, for all that she is a great character, is not one that the reader has spent a lot of time with at this point in the series. It's possibly she may never been a full pov like Dalinar or Shallan. It's possible that, with the ending to the second book, she may never be in a setting where her sexuality is going to be relevant to the plot. Like Szeth in the first two books.  

Still, there are plenty of characters whose sexuality is completely irrelevant to the plot who have been also shown to be attracted to the opposite sex.  

Not really addressing Jasnah's sexuality is probably a very good thing. She is a scholar, and that's all that there is to it. She is (maybe) not a lesbian scholar, or a hetero scholar, or an asexual scholar - her preference or lack of thereof in the kind of bits she likes doesn't, at least at this point, add anything to her character; it only takes a way by boxing her in a little into a stereotype (the cold and logical scholar who secretly longs for a man, or the woman with "unnatural" desires who finds solace in her research, or the woman who was sexualy abused as a child and so now forsakes her own sexuality, or any other stupid archetype men have created to rationalize the idea of a female scholar...). 

Sure, but none of the straight characters are having their sexuality remain unaddressed because it would potentially subtract from the other things they are.

Is Dalinar less of of a Highprince because of his attraction to Navani, or is that merely a part of his character? Is Shallan a stereotype because she finds boys attractive?

Perhaps (hopefully) he meant that the origins of Jasnah's sexuality, whatever it is, will not be addressed. Because being a lesbian or asexual doesn't need an origin story. Because it's natural and there's nothing wrong with it. 

Well that would certainly be more interesting than the obvious interpretation; that the God Beyond serves as a traditional Judeo-Christian God in a fictional world that is way more interesting without one. 

Edit: Lol, "Christion"

Sounds like the real question is whether two individuals could have the same sDNA, either by birth or by burning a hermalurgic spike. 

Poor Michael Whalen. We're so hard to please. I bet he goes back to landscapes with small characters in the distance next book. 

I do hope the third draft makes Kaladin look younger, less awkward, and less white, though. 

 

 

It'd be kind of weird for Brandon to have a POV from a Herald but not make it obvious it's a Herald.  I wouldn't put it past him though.

 

Gaz had a pov. Just saying.

There's no evidence that Gaz is Jezrien. None whatsoever.

I'll be very interested in seeing where Jasnah's beliefs go, given we more or less know she's wrong and the Almighty exists (or did).

Not really, though. Honor might have been called the Almighty, but he was just some guy with lots and lots of magic. It's not like Jasnah disbelieves in the metaphysical. There could be a guy walking around with a bunch of magic, but that wouldn't give him the moral superiority to tell people what to do any more than Sadeas has. For all we know he's a jerk.

Or inept. I mean he's dead, right? Where does he get off telling women how long their sleeves to be? Stupid, ineffective Almighty. Can't even kill the main antagonist of the epic series prior to its start. 

Yes. Assuming you get a new code, of course - if somebody (e.g. me) shares a code with you, it won't count towards the goal. But every new code essentially adds 2% progress towards the next unlockable (at the moment of writing we are sitting at 173, so another 27 until a new piece of content). Also, regarding the total number of unlockables... I think Brandon said 10, but I am neither sure, nor can I find something to support my claim. 

Gee, what else could there be? I guess more Stormlight? He's kind of ticked all the boxes as far as his current projects go. 

Older stuff? Elantris 2?

Is anyone else playing? 

My fc is 2148-9041-4066. If you add me, post below if your fc so I can add you back. 

Pretty fun so far. I think I've put more time into Super Training than the main game, though. 

Just ordered my book from Murder by the Book for the Houston signing. I'm 6th in line. Unfortunately, since the store is all the way across town, I won't be able to read it until I pick it up at the actual signing.

What? I used to live in Houston. Where could you be that was still actually Houston where it wouldn't take 20 minutes tops to drive over? Unless you don't have a car. In that case, everything must be horrible for you. Are you okay?

In other news, probably won't be going to the NY signing. It's all the way up town and ticketed and I don't really care for Polini and Dashner. 

I'm sure there will be something for Words of Radiance.

I don't love the First Law Trilogy, but I adore the three standalone Abercrombie wrote after. Those are a whole different level. 

I think we have a thread somewhere down the list. 

I blame ALL OF YOU (shouting intentional).  I'm so fully invested (or maybe Invested?) in the Cosmere that I actually feel perturbed to find out he's prioritizing non-Cosmere content.    

I mean, I bet there is some crazy money in getting your YA dystopian superhero trilogy turned into a movie after Hunger Games and Avengers. Can't blame the man for prioritizing it if his publishers think he has the next big thing.

It's not like we're going anywhere.