Marethyu316

I don't consider it a Deus ex Machina (as I understand it), because there are clearly defined rules about why healing works, when it works and when it doesn't. We don't always know all the rules, such as when Kaladin suffers the shardblade injury (we'd previously been told that was impossible), but that makes sense to me in a limited POV novel. Brandon hides rules at times, but he doesn't make them up, without tying them into the larger system or solely for the purpose of saving a character. The ability to heal is connected to the wider cosmology of the cosmere and isn't something introduced just to help Kaladin in this fight. That's good storytelling to me, not Deus ex Machina.

I've become addicted over the last year or so by the immersion reading options offered by having a Kindle e-book that is Audible Narration ready. If you're not familiar with it, the audible and kindle sync together and the text is highlighted while Kate Reading and Michael Kramer read the book. I enjoy having both the text and the audio, but it is frustrating to have to flip the pages myself once you've gotten used to it doing it yourself. (Yes, I'm lazy, but it is also helpful for the moments when your mind wanders or you look away from the screen for a minute, because it tracks where you are.) The feature is enabled for Way of Kings and Words of Radiance, but for the moment at least it isn't listed as feature for Oathbringer. Does anyone know if they had that feature ready for the Words of Radiance when it came out? Arcanum Unbounded and Bands of Mourning were both released with the feature, so I was expecting it. I've already preordered the Hardcover (for the Chicago signing, so I won't have it for a week) and the Audible file, so I'd rather not spend the extra money on the Kindle book, if this feature won't be ready.

I think Brandon said that he spread out the storyline of one of the characters over 5 parts, which meant they would have less chapters per part. That would seem to be the case with Kaladin so far, so I'm guessing it will be Shallan who isn't in Part 2.

I'm planning to be there. I'm glad it is at the church, which is huge, because the Calamity event was packed. I ended up sitting on the floor among the stacks and I got there at least an hour before it started. I can't imagine how packed it would have been, if they'd tried to do Oathbringer there.

That makes sense; I was wondering what Random House must have been thinking about it.

It's interesting that the grass appears to be the kind that you would only find in Shinovar.

This is where my mind went when I read "Certainly, some who saw further than I did thought I had fallen." That seemed to strike me as a possible reference to Mr. T's knowledge via the Diagram. Plus, he's already tried to kill Dalinar once, and Dalinar certainly seems to be pursuing the course which the Diagram said would require his elimination...it would be interesting if the whole point of the Diagram suggesting attempting to assassinate him was to lead to the experience that he has in Shadesmar, rather than to actually kill him. Taravangian doesn't know the "why" behind most of the things on the Diagram anymore, if he even did on that day.

If it isn't the Dark One, then perhaps it's Rithmatist 2. I'm guessing that there is enough anticipation for that one that he wouldn't want to announce it, if there was a chance that he wasn't going to finish. Then again, I think I'd heard that he'd actually been doing research on it for a while, so that might not fit the 3 day outline...

I was struck by the way that Lift thinks about the third ideal. Aloud she only said, "I will listen to those who are ignored", but she was able to summon Wyndle before saying those words, which makes me think that "thinking" them had been enough. It's hard to be sure in Lift's POV, because she can be unreliable, but if the full ideal has the ending "Even people..., whom I'd rather never have heard", then it is strikingly similar to the Windrunner's third ideal I don’t suppose it necessarily has to be something special about the third ideal, but the two we’ve seen (Shallan’s being an exception, since there are no set ideals after the first) both have something about acting against your own natural inclination. The problem is that I can’t tel if that’s just Lift’s commentary or if it is meant to be part of the true meaning of the ideal. Thoughts anyone?

I'm re-reading Well of Ascension and Tindwyl says some interesting things about what makes a good king that I think bears on the story about the four accused men, and the responsibilities faced by Taravangian and Dalinar as leaders. This really resonates with me. It's why the dilemma posed in chapter 28 is so powerful, because even though there is no way that the landlord can figure out which person is innocent, it is nevertheless his fault for not being able to figure it out. He has the responsibility to ensure justice and that means punishing the guilty and protecting the innocent. When he can't do that, it is his fault, even if it is objectively caused by the actions of others. He can't claim that he is innocent of the man's blood if he executes all four, or of allowing the guilty to escape punishment, if he doesn't. Yet, he also can't wallow in that guilt, he has to act for the best, and when he fails, try to do better next time. To me that's what sets Dalinar apart. While Taravangian does seem to take responsibility for his actions in his POV, he is so sure of himself, that I think he is blinded to the times that he fails. Dalinar realizes that he's made mistakes, will continue to do so, but nevertheless is trying to make things better.

I think you might be slightly overstating the case, but I take your point that it would be wrong to presume Christian doctrine in a world specifically created to not have such a doctrine. However, I don't think anyone was specifically arguing that the characters needed to be following Biblical principles or arguing about applying Biblical morality directly, though. I think people were trying to connect the dilemmas brought up in the text and faced by the characters to their own lives and philosophies. Edit: I actually felt some initial unease making some of my arguments for the exact reasons you bring up, but as I said I think the discussion was intentionally expanding beyond a pure discussion of the in-world actions and was exploring the reasons for our own reactions to Nohadon's dilemma and the responses of Dalinar and Taravangian.

It's hard for people to not approach a philosophical discussion like this from their own perspective, at least initially. A few of the participants felt that their Christian faith informed their understanding of morality in the books; I think that makes sense, but I think everyone also was willing to see that others wouldn't necessarily approach the question in the same way. By the way, Kant's theories are pretty well rooted in Christian theology, if I remember correctly from philosophy class 20 years. I think it makes more sense to be honest about where we're all coming from when discussing the book, while not trying to impose our beliefs on the characters or fellow readers; at least that's how I intended to approach the discussion.

I have no expertise in DID or clinical psychology, but is it possible to exhibit symptoms of the disorder without it rising to the level of being a serious problem that cannot be reversed easily? In other words, it is clear that she is using these other aspects to shield herself from dealing with her past, and that she is often doing it subconsciously, to the point that she is wondering why she's doing it. However, does that mean that she has full-blown DID, or just that the causes of the disorder are starting to manifest, but if she deals with those causes, she might be able to turn it around? It isn't like anyone is 100% honest with themselves or always acts the same in every situation, so I doubt she will ever drop Veil and Radiant completely, but I would hope that she can put them in the right perspective eventually.

I actually agree with most of what you said regarding morality, but I actually think that there is something important in the part of what you said. I think we too easily like to give ourselves excuses for trying our best. We're still responsible for our actions, even if we had good intentions, tried to avoid unintended consequences, and tried our best. Especially with regard to people in positions of power, like Dalinar and Taravangian, making excuses for failures results in being a worse leader, not a better one. That is actually one of the things I like about Mr. T, because he seems to take seriously the consequences of his actions, and his own culpability. Whether God will forgive us is a matter of faith, and I should have charity for others who see the world differently and be willing to forgive when people acknowledge that they have hurt me. However, I think it is too easy to make excuses for my own actions that hurt others, just because I was ignorant of those consequences or because I had a good reason. Even when I make the best possible decision, especially when I am in a position of power over other people, my actions will inevitably have some negative effect and I should be very aware of it and not abdicate my responsibility for those effects. It's why Dalinar is a good leader, because unlike Amaram, who makes excuses and justifications for his actions, Dalinar accepts the responsibility for his actions, hypocrisy and all, and tries to do better, even knowing that he'll still fail.

This is how I feel about him as well. I hope that there might be some chance that he'll come around, but I doubt it.

As a Christian, I think this is actually a strong argument that there is an absolute standard of morality and God who gave it (though probably an argument that seems more convincing once you've actually come to faith, since there could be other explanations for that phenomenon), but that doesn't mean that I can know that standard or how it applies in every situation. In those situations, appealing to absolute morality is unhelpful, and can actually lead to even worse actions, because we think we are acting with the impunity of knowing exactly what is moral, when in fact we don't.

Right, but that means we've shortcut the morality discussion of what constitutes murder. I realize you weren't necessarily arguing for application of absolute morality. Actually, the commandment Thou shall not kill, sounds very absolute, but then the Bible spends a long time making that absolute statement, context specific, justifying some killing, identifying other types as what we would probably call manslaughter and providing for checks and balances against the right of family members to take vengeance against those who killed their kin. In other words, once you bring an absolute moral standard into a real world situation and ask human beings to apply it, it is no longer absolute in any meaningful way. That may not mean we can use our ignorance and subjectivity as a defense against the consequences of the absolute standard, but it is disingenuous to act like we have any ability to even know how the standard, never mind to follow it. For human beings, morality is always subjective, because we can't stop being ourselves and we can't see inside the head of other people. We should try to be as fair and objective and gather as many facts as possible, but that doesn't mean that there aren't going to be times that we can't figure out what is moral, or that two moral standards, which are equally valid, come into conflict in a way that can't be avoided. If we tell ourselves that an absolute moral standard justifies our actions or inactions in that situation, we are only trying to assuage our own guilt, not actually being moral. It's why I return to what Nohadon said after wrestling with the story for a long time, because at least he is being honest with himself about the fact that he isn't always going to get it right, but he also isn't going to abdicate his responsibility to act to someone else.

Isn't that an issue of word choice, or do you mean any killing in any situation? Calling something a murder presumes that the killing is unjustifiable and therefore morally wrong. This is an actual situation where discussions of absolute morality makes sense to me as a Christian. God created life and he can take it away, especially from creatures that have transgressed against him. Yet as a Christian, I also believe that He provided a way out for those who accept it, and that way included an act of self-sacrifice for humanity that was under sentence of death, because He loves us even though we live in rebellion against him and are deserving of death. However, I don't think we as individuals can resort to arguments of absolute morality to guide or defend our actions or the actions of others. We aren't God. We aren't omniscient; we don't even really know ourselves that well (like Shallan), so how can we claim to make absolute moral judgments about others. Also, the ultimate consequences of our actions are impossible to know fully, so even if we were capable of living by some absolute moral standard, we wouldn't be guaranteed to know how that standard applies in every situation. However, that doesn't mean that we should (edit:) not make judgments, just that they are inevitably going to be wrong at times, so we should be charitable and give other people the room to have a different perspective and to possibly even change our mind. I keep going back to the dilemma in Chapter 28, because it fits this so well. It makes no sense to appeal to absolute morality in that situation, because it is an example of how it is sometimes impossible to know what the "moral" choice is. In other places, I've seen a lot of people try to get around this by being a better investigator or trying to manipulate the people into confessing, but that misses the point. We are constantly acting without the full knowledge of the situation, but in this scenario it becomes a matter of life and death and so the landlord can't (morally?) abdicate the responsibility of dealing with the situation, but also knows that he is very likely to make the wrong choice that hurts the innocent and or lets the guilty go free.

Thanks!

Kaladin could fly into battle. Are we sure those weren't windrunners that we saw?

I agree! I appreciate all of you who were part of this discussion. It's been enjoyable for me, so much so that I actually slightly burned my dinner, because I was too focused on reading all of your responses and writing my own.

In a society of people with different religions, no religion, and especially in a fantasy world, I think it is important to draw more charitably the "acceptable" morality, because none of us are omniscient or without our own hypocrisies. I guess that's why I have a little more empathy for what Taravangian is doing, though I think he is wrong and his efforts will end up failing, unless he adjust his course.

I don't think that I disagree with you. From a sociological perspective, that is a good description of how morality shifts and is culturally situated. When I said "someone", I guess I was thinking of the person or people who have to take up the active enforcement of that morality, but you're right that each person plays a role in that enforcement as a part of the culture, even if they do so by not acting or just by tacit agreement. That doesn't mean that I don't believe that there is a standard beyond the ones that are culturally prescripted, but it is impossible for me (edit: by my own strength and understanding) to interact with those outside of the culture that I live in and that frames my way of thinking.

Of course, a socially constructed morality also requires someone to decide what is right and wrong. Someone will stand in the place of God or the State or whatever and decide what is moral and what is not, and whether you're an Athiest or a Christian that person will at some point do so without all the necessary knowledge to abide by that moral standard. Actually, that will be the case almost all the time. Re: absolute vs relative morality As a guide for our actions, neither of these terms is very helpful. There maybe a God whose moral requirements we are responsible to follow (I believe so), but we have no chance of meeting those standards all the time, if we can even agree on what those are. Relative morality is sometimes used to say that each person's individual moral code is equally valid and beyond reproach, but no one actually operates that way in real life. We make judgments all the time and if we didn't we'd be taken advantage of by unscrupulous people and apparently have to be okay with that. I don't think most people actually believe in moral relativism in that sense. However, morality is subjective, meaning it is context specific and people dependent. This doesn't mean that there is no truth, only that we can't know truth apart from being ourselves and we can't act morally apart from interacting with another person who sees the world from a different perspective than us. I don't think this means that there are no standards of right and wrong, but it does mean that there isn't some simple formula to solve the complex moral problems and dilemmas. My fellow Christians, if appealing to absolute morality was effective, then the law would have been enough. In one sense it was enough to condemn us, but not enough to save. That took the incarnation, which is the ultimate example of the absolute and eternal, coming subjectively as a human being and seeking out relationship with individuals.

I'm a Christian, but I find the resort to an "absolute morality" to be unhelpful when it comes to the things we're discussing. The absolute standards of God condemn everyone, hence "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" and "There is no one righteous, not even one." That leads to a need for the atoning sacrifice of Christ for all, but it doesn't mean that there is a clear answer to every moral question we face. How would you answer the dilemma from chapter 28? It is all well and good to say that God knows who the innocent one is, but the landlord in the dilemma isn't omniscient, but nevertheless has the responsibility of administering justice. Appealing to "absolute morality" in that context only serves to make us feel better, not to actually make our actions more moral.