Llarimar

The weird thing is, we've already seen three Truthwatchers - Renarin, Ym and Stump. And all of those have bonded spren independently, without being a squire first. I think the only other example so far of multiple Radiants independently bonding spren from the same Order would be Shallan and Elhokar (although Elhokar didn't even bond the spren so that doesn't really count). So since we've seen three of them, it would surprise me if Truthwatchers were one of the less common Orders, even though that does make sense if they're at the center of the diagram with the Bondsmith symbol. Because so many Kholins have become Radiants already, I feel like you're supposed to assume that Navani will become the Sibling Bondsmith. She is the obvious choice. But I get the impression for some reason that Brandon will surprise us, by distracting us with Navani and then picking someone totally unexpected to bond the Sibling - I suggested on a different thread recently that it could be Ialai Sadeas, which is an idea I really like.

You say Kal-uh-deen? I'm pretty sure that's how Brandon says it, which is why I'm surprised only one person voted for that pronunciation so far.

I had to look this up. It's kind of similar to the Kholin example, yes. I have always read "Kholin" as KHO-lin (with the raspy "kh" sound), because I have read that Alethi is supposed to be based on Semitic languages, and that sound (the raspy "kh") is quite common in those languages. And usually, when people transcribe Semitic languages (like Arabic), they use the digraph "kh" to represent that sound. Brandon probably pronounces it with a hard "k" though. I haven't actually met anyone else who pronounces it with a raspy "kh" (but I just noticed somebody else voted for that option, so clearly I'm not alone!).

Yes, I'm pretty sure that Brandon does pronounce her name with a "y" sound. Which confuses me a little, because he could have just spelled her name with a "y" - Yasnah. That would remove a lot of ambiguity for sure. I've always pronounced it JASS-nuh, which if you're right about Brandon pronouncing her name with "z" - YAZZ-nuh - then it would make me removed from Brandon's pronunciation by two consonants. Which is fine, of course, since there's no "right way" to say these names, as Brandon has said. But I do feel kind of vindicated in my pronunciation because, welll... JASS-nuh is a much more phonetic reading of the word "Jasnah" than YAZZ-nuh is. At least in English spelling.

This pronunciation hadn't occurred to me when I made the poll, but I wondered right away when I saw that someone voted they pronounce Jasnah differently if some people pronounce her name with a "z" sound. I find it so interesting that people can read the same names and hear them so differently!

The Final Empire is probably my second favorite. I'm glad to see that other people like Shadows of Self! I thought that would be a minority opinion. I agree, I loved all the noble balls in The Final Empire, it was something I missed about the later installments. There were some formal balls in the later books, such as when Vin and Elend dance together in Fadrex City, or when Wax and Steris go to a party in The Bands of Mourning, but the element of innocence and awe that Vin feels when she first attends the balls in The Final Empire is definitely missing from the other books. I am not sure which Era I like better. Probably Era 1 even though Shadows of Self is my favorite Mistborn book. I just didn't really like the Alloy of Law that much, so for that reason alone Era 2 is a little lower in my mind.

I wanted to see how people pronounce Stormlight names, because I've noticed that I say them differently from some of my friends! I've put together some of the most controversial names, to see what the consensus is. Remember, there are no right answers and Brandon himself has said that you can pronounce the names any way you want! That being said I've made this poll anonymous, just because some people are sensitive about the way that they pronounce the names. Also, feel free to pick "Neither" and add another suggestion in your post if you say them differently! I also posted a Part 1 with other names, so make sure to vote on those as well!

I wanted to see how people pronounce Stormlight names, because I've noticed that I say them differently from some of my friends! I've put together some of the most controversial names, to see what the consensus is. Remember, there are no right answers and Brandon himself has said that you can pronounce the names any way you want! That being said I've made this poll anonymous, just because some people are sensitive about the way that they pronounce the names. Also, feel free to pick "Neither" and add another suggestion in your post if you say them differently! I'm also going to post a Part 2 so make sure to vote on that one too!

Got it! I've wondered before how you always seem to have the perfect WoB available to respond to any post, so that makes a lot of sense. Thanks!

Brandon is also less thorough in creating his artificial languages than say, Tolkien is, and so his languages are bound to be less "water-tight" and realistic. Maybe the similarities between proper names in different cosmere books are intentional, and maybe it's just a coincidence. There are some aspects of his worldbuilding, such as the religions, in which Brandon goes above and beyond most fantasy authors and creates extremely complex and believable systems, but his languages are a little less fully realized - at least from what we've seen so far.

I have noticed that for some members, they have special titles or group names above their reputation level. Chaos has "Head Admin" and Argent has "Moderators" for example - those make sense to me, I'm assuming that just means that they're the people who run the website. Some members, though, have different titles - I'm thinking specifically of @RShara and @Calderis, who have the purple text "Arcanists" above their reputation level. I've also noticed the title "Global Moderators." Are all of these different titles for people with administrative roles on the Shard, or are they something different? Can you be invited into one of these groups? Because I've noticed that even some people with thousands of posts don't have a special title above their reputation level, so I'm guessing it's a pretty exclusive thing.

I'm sure threads like this have been created in the past, but what is your guys's favorite Mistborn book? I feel like I may have a unique opinion on this, which is that Shadows of Self is my favorite - it is actually my favorite single Sanderson book (followed closely by Elantris - EDIT: Or maybe The Way of Kings). The best thing about the novel is the pacing - it's very thrilling and a fast read, and I find myself continually excited and intrigued while reading the book, whereas I have a tendency to get a little bored with some of the other Mistborn novels. I also love the character development in SoS (...is that the acronym for it?) - the entire Bleeder storyline and Wayne's character development are both really great, and I really enjoy everything that we learn about Harmony. Do you guys agree with me, and if not, which is your favorite Mistborn book and why?

I know people commonly say this, but I still think it's valuable to bring up, that I don't think Adolin will ever become a Knight Radiant. I think part of the idea behind Adolin is to have a main viewpoint character who is just a normal person - not particularly secretive or duplicitous (like Shallan), not particularly intelligent (like Jasnah) and not endowed with magical powers (like all the Knights Radiant). The only way for him to become a Knight Radiant, I think, would be through his story arc with Maya. The hard thing about saying who will and who will not become a Radiant is that all of the different Orders cater to very different people, and all of the spren have very different motivations. Shallan has done things, for example, that would probably be considered morally wrong and antithetical to the ideals of the honorspren. The honorspren are so straightforward and idealistic, whereas Cryptics deal with lies, and relative truth, and compromise, which in many ways are opposite of the ideals of the honorspren. There are also some Orders that we still know very little about - such as Dustbringers and Stonewards - and for all we know, their ideals and motivations may attract very different types of people from the Radiants we've seen already. Some people think that Malata (the only Dustbringer we've met), is possibly a bad guy and that she is aligned with Odium, through Taravangian - and if Radiant spren can bond with Odium supporters, they can surely bond with anyone. When people say that Ialai Sadeas, for example, will never become a Radiant, I agree that she is definitely an unlikely candidate, but who knows - maybe the Dustbringer spren would find her to be just perfect for them. Or how about this as a crazy idea - perhaps Ialai will bond the Sibling, creating a major shift in the power dynamic, and forcing Dalinar and Navani to work with her. I'm just saying it's possible - we know very little about the Sibling's motivations and what type of person they would look for in a Bondsmith. I mean, we've already seen that spren often choose less-than-perfect people. Dalinar did horrible things in his past, and yet he was still bonded by the Stormfather, and Shallan is another example (although she really didn't have a choice...).

I agree, but I thought that the way in which Sadeas was killed was very disturbing, violent and foreboding, and definitely not honorable or dignified. At least, that's how I read it. Maybe I'm wrong, but I still feel like it was some sort of foreboding for Adolin's later character arc. Sadly I agree with this - even though I like the idea of Adolin becoming an antagonist there isn't a ton of evidence for it. The only basis for thinking Adolin will turn dark is the Sadeas murder, and that whole thing kind of fizzled out and didn't leave Adolin with any guilt or regret. I still want him to turn dark, though, maybe just because I've fixated my mind on it at this point.

Thanks for coming back to this, I love talking about languages! There are many languages that have what we call a "free word order," which means that many or all possible word orders (subject-verb-object, object-verb-subject, etc.) are permissible in the language. Old Icelandic was like this, yes (as is modern Icelandic), and Japanese as well has a relatively free word order, I believe (I haven't specifically studied Japanese). However, even in languages that have free word order, they do indeed tend to favor one word order over all the others. The idea of "basic word order," is that if you were to ask a native speaker of a language to strip down their dialogue and produce a very basic, simple sentence, they will choose a specific word order, which would then be considered the most basic to their language. Icelandic and Japanese are both SOV (subject-object-verb) languages ("I to the store went") - or perhaps a better way to phrase this is that they are primarily SOV languages, because other word orders are permissible. What you have to say about French being better than English at expressing culinary terms during the Middle Ages is exactly what I meant - you understood correctly. And like you say, if the word "cat" is "blern" in one language and "smeth" in another, than neither language could be called "better" at discussing cats. However, if a language does not have a word for "cat," that does not mean the language is bad at discussing cats. It probably just means that there are no cats in that specific region where the language is spoken. If there were cats in that region, the people would come up with a word for them. All languages are perfectly capable of expressing the environment in which they exist - under this criteria, no language is better than another. Yes, color perception is valuable information when you are describing something, but the point is that color is still very subjective, and color perception can be very different from language to language. This is not true - babies do not have to be taught everything. There are some things that babies do naturally. Language acquisition, for one thing, is a natural occurrence - babies are hardwired at birth to acquire language. No one teaches them how to learn language. In the same way, there are certain perceptions and understandings (such as big versus small) that do not have to be taught, and are very universal. Color is not one of those - a child needs to be taught to recognize and identify different colors in the way that their specific culture perceives color. It is much easier for babies to separate objects by size or texture, whereas color needs to be shown to them. I remember some of my younger siblings really struggling with this - we would sit down with them and help them to memorize different colors. As far as your example, I'm not sure how old your niece was - that probably played a factor, since some kids learn color faster than others. And also, if she were separating very different colors like red and green, it would probably be easy, but more similar colors like blue and green would be more of a challenge (they are sometimes a challenge even for adults). Another good example is purple and pink - people are constantly confusing these colors. As far as the Spanish example, I suppose that the grammatical gender in the language does remove your freedom to withhold information to some extent, but I'm not sure how common circumstances would be in which you would not want to disclose the gender of your child. This could alternatively be seen as a benefit - the gender of your child is plainly obvious, rather than leaving room for ambiguity when you just say "my child." In addition, I have studied Spanish for awhile and I am not a native speaker so I may be wrong, but I'm pretty sure it would not be incorrect if you were to say "mi niño" ("my boy") to just refer to a nonspecific child, because masculine gender in Spanish can stand for both masculine and neutral gender (male or female). The only time gender is really specific in Spanish is when it is feminine. Linguists genuinely believe that no language better than another - this is very foundational to the science of linguistics. It's not just trying to be politically correct. Consider linguistics like a science and compare it to other sciences - a geologist would never say that one mountain is "better" than another mountain. Saying "all languages are created equal," however, is misleading, because languages are not "created," they form, and they form to perfectly fit the environment in which their speakers live. There is drastic variety between languages and so in that sense they are sometimes difficult to compare, but no language can be responsibly called better than another language from a scientific perspective. It would be slightly more acceptable to argue that one aspect of a language is better (although I still feel uncomfortable even using the word "better") - you could say, for example, that the phonology of Spanish is "better" than the phonology of English (although an argument could be made for the opposite). But saying that the Spanish language as a whole is certifiably better than English (or vice versa) is just misleading and linguistically incorrect because it's a gross oversimplification and is very subjective and biased. Why would one group invent a language that is horrible, while another group invents a language that is great? People are equally intelligent, and the languages they speak will be equally intelligent as well. Yes, English is better than Pig Latin, because Pig Latin is not really a language. No culture or group of people would actually develop a language like Pig Latin. Pig Latin is just a parody - it is contrived and made up for the purpose of being ridiculous. In addition, no people would take something as simple as a cat and call it "isselmanjorborakseminisselhorneth" - that just wouldn't take place in a real language. For such an ordinary, common noun, people would come up with an ordinary, common word. And yes, a language with ten nouns and two verbs and only one adjective would be terrible - because it wouldn't really be a language. For a language to be productive, it must be spoken, and no one could speak a language with only ten nouns, two verbs and one adjective. Oh, and by the way, adjectives are not a requirement for a language. There are plenty of languages without them. I have not read the book 1984, but I would be interested to look at the language from the book that you mention. I would just point out, however, not having read the book, that George Orwell was not a linguist, and we can't expect his fictional language to make perfect sense linguistically. It is possible that the fact that we have so many business-starting risk-takers is because there is a word for it in English - entrepreneur - but you could say this about any highly specific word. If I were to invent the world "fizzler," and say that it refers to a person that drinks soda when they finish hiking to the top of a mountain, then maybe people will start drinking sodas at the tops of mountains and calling themselves "fizzlers." But that doesn't mean that English has "improved" - it has just added new vocabulary. An entrepreneur is a rather abstract and highly specific concept, and so I don't think we can condemn other languages if they don't have a word that means exactly the same thing. I am sure you could find other languages in which there are words that express a complex thought that we would take much longer to explain in English - that does not make those languages "better" than English. I would not use the phrase "All languages are equally good" because the word "good" is too vague and broad. All languages are, however, equally functional within the environment in which they exist, and in that way, none of them are better than another. And again, like the example I gave before with Spanish versus English phonology, you could say that a certain aspect of one language is more useful than another language - I find Spanish direct object pronouns, for example, to be more useful and convenient than direct object pronouns in English - but to say that an entire language is better or more useful than another entire language is almost certainly going to overly simplistic and misleading. When you start studying linguistics, this becomes clear - even though languages can be very different, they are all equally functional and useful within the environment in which they exist. There are concepts you could express in Mandarin, for example, which would be difficult to express in English, and vice versa. This does not make either language better or worse, or more or less useful. It just makes them different.

This is a good idea, I haven't thought of this before! For some reason I can easily see the Shallan-Adolin relationship ending in violence, and Shallan has already killed her mother and father so she clearly would be capable of it under extreme duress.

I have wondered a lot about this - what Brandon's plans are for Adolin. Adolin has been given a significant amount of screen time and viewpoint chapters so far, and yet he is a pretty... bland character. There isn't a lot of depth to him. Because of this, when Adolin killed Sadeas, I thought it was the start of something new - a new story arc for him, because up until that point he had been mostly the same. I thought it was a foreshadowing that he would become dark and evil, perhaps lying and killing other people in an attempt to cover up the murder. So I was disappointed in Oathbringer when not a lot of attention was paid to the murder of Sadeas, and Adolin didn't seem greatly changed by it. I think that it is possible that something significant lies in Adolin's future, and I still have a hunch (since the murder of Sadeas) that he will go downhill and become a bad guy, but I'm not sure about him becoming Odium's champion - I've always envisioned Moash filling that role. Perhaps Brandon wants you to think that Moash will become Odium's champion, and then he will surprise us and choose Adolin instead. Adolin's downwards story arc is in line with what I think will happen with Shallan, which is that she will crash and burn and basically lose her mind. I can see Adolin's collapse and Shallan's collapse happening at the same time (along with the collapse of their marriage). Or on the flip side... maybe just Adolin will fall to pieces, and Shallan will pull herself together (perhaps getting together with Kaladin in the aftermath?)... who knows.

I respect what you had to say in your last post, @ROSHtaFARian2.0, and I think I understand where you’re coming from a lot better now. Sorry if I did take some of your comments personally if you didn’t intend them to across that way – and I also acknowledge, that I, of course, don’t know you any better than you know me. And I also recognize there is a lot of severe oppression and suffering in the world, much of which I am not personally aware of through my own experiences, and I apologize if I downplayed that reality in my comments. I think we should let it lie there, and hopefully just understand that we have different opinions in some regards – thank you for the discussion, and I hope there aren’t any hard feelings!

I've been assuming that your example of a person "on fire" is metaphorical. If it is not metaphorical than I think that it overstates the urgency and desperation of most types of racism/discrimination. If you're talking about some sort of horrific, violent, genocide, then yes, the example of a person whose body is literally on fire is relevant. But most types of societal hatred are much more... mundane, I guess? In Stormlight, for example, the darkeyes are oppressed, but they are not being literally set on fire. I think that both the oppressors and the oppressed should be held to a higher standard - that is the only way for hatred to mutually end. Perhaps I am overly focusing on what is required of the oppressed because it is more intuitive to assume that only the oppressors have a responsibility, and I've been arguing that both have a responsibility. And if it seems like I'm treating "of course the oppressive group should stop hating and oppressing people" as an offhand footnote, that may be because, well... it's obvious. Of course the oppressors need to stop hating in order for the hatred to end. But slightly less obvious (and therefore more worth discussing) is the fact that the oppressed people need to mend their hatred as well, if they have begun ideologically hating the oppressors. Compassion is required from both sides. This is especially true for long term healing. Once again... I think the example of someone who is on fire is kind of ridiculous, and it greatly overstates the reality of day-to-day societal hatred. Most societal hatred/discrimination is not that dire or immediate. Of course, if someone was ACTUALLY on fire, then everyone around them should obviously rush forward and put out the flames, regardless of what the person on fire is yelling at them. But the way I originally read your description of somebody on fire was metaphorically - the person who set the fire is the oppressor, the person on fire is the oppressed. Saying that people who receive societal hatred are lying on the ground, literally burning with flames is a very extreme and graphic image which kind of makes it impossible to logically discuss anything. ...You're getting a little to passionate about this, I think, I'm honestly starting to feel personally attacked. When you start castigating people so personally on a fanbase discussion board it kind of crosses the line. "The oppressors might someday end up oppressed and that scares you" ... "That hypothetical future is a bigger priority to you than the reality of the present" ... "You've managed to convince yourself that you're not part of the problem.." These types of comments stray from a civil discussion to just plain vitriol - it honestly reminds me of a YouTube comments section where everyone just starts yelling at each other and calling each other names. I think I've actually annoyed you and made you angry, which was not my intention at all and should obviously never happen on a friendly discussion board. All I've been doing is responding to your comments and disagreeing with you where I genuinely disagree. You have no idea what type of societal group or demographic I'm from, so saying that I'm afraid the oppressors will become oppressed, or that I've "managed to convince myself I'm not part of the problem" is just really uncalled for and rude.

Also on a side note, not to distract from the intense discussions we're having, but I'm quite surprised this thread has lasted so long and has racked up so many posts - it didn't seem to me like the type of thread that would fill three pages when I started it. Thank you to everyone who has participated, and I'm so thankful we've been able to courteously express our thoughts and opinions here. And I hope nobody has been offended, since a lot of this thread has dealt with touchy subjects like racism and religion. Hopefully we can keep the conversation civil and stimulating, and I hope everyone's enjoying these discussions!

Okay, @ROSHtaFARian2.0, a couple of thoughts. No. It's not a justified cause for hatred. Talking about a "justifiable" cause for hatred is just kind of weird and antithetical to basic decency and humanitarian kindness (yes, I realize the title of this thread is "Justified Racism on Roshar," but I have since decided that I should have used a different word than "justified"). Especially in the example that you give, in which the person who is standing nearby is not doing anything to actively fuel the hatred, it is of course not justified to hate them - perhaps you can be annoyed or frustrated with them, but hatred is too strong of a word and is unwarranted. And if the person who is on fire does begin feeling blanket hatred towards them and all other members of the oppressing group of people, that is when reasonable discourse and progress stops towards healing the hatred, because everyone just ideologically hates each other and no one is willing to work together. Members of the oppressing group have a responsibility to put out the fire. However, that doesn't mean there is no responsibility for the oppressed group to not only assist the oppressing group with mending the hatred, but also to mend their own hatred as well towards the oppressed group. If the person who is on fire ideologically hates the people who set them on fire, they are not going to stop ideologically hating them just because a few members of the oppressing group stoop over to try and smother the flames. Once the flames are put out, what do you think will happen then? The person who was burning on the ground will just stand up and say, "Oh, I'm all better now, thanks for your help, guys!" No, of course not - there will still be intense hatred simmering between the two groups - in order for the hatred to truly heal in the long term, both the oppressed and the oppressors need to show mutual compassion and understanding. They both have a responsibility. If someone is trying to eliminate hatred, and the hated group is yelling at them and spewing vitriol, then of course that is going to put them off and discourage them from wanting to help - especially if they themselves did not directly start the hatred in the first place. Compassion, empathy and logical discourse on both sides are required at every step of the healing process in order for hatred to be mended. Meeting blind hatred with blind anger does nothing to solve the situation, and will undoubtedly discourage and put off people from the oppressing group who are trying to help. This is very nice and idealistic, but in the real world, very few people are like this. If you are trying to help someone, and that person is actively yelling at you, and accusing you of things that aren't directly your fault, then of course you are going to be put off, even if you genuinely want to end their suffering. Because in order for hatred to be mended, the oppressed group must want to end the hatred, and if they are spewing vitriol at the people who are trying to help them, I think that's evidence that they don't want to end the hatred at all. Because the truth is, people like tribalism and social groups, and if the oppressed group is determined to hate the oppressing group, then nothing is going to change, even if members of the oppressing group are trying to make a difference. In Stormlight, which is what got us started on all of this, it's not just that Kaladin has been directly hurt by lighteyes. He is at a point where, regardless of his past experiences, he ideologically wants to hate them, and he wants to believe that they are selfish and cruel. He is very loyal and tribal with his support of the darkeyes, to the point where all of his logic has been reduced to an "us versus them" mentality. So even though he has less of a responsibility than the lighteyes do to put out the fire (because he didn't start it in the first place), he still has a responsibility, and the hatred will not end unless he does his part.

...What? I'm honestly a little confused by this back-and-forth, it doesn't seem to be going anywhere. I just want to review what's been said so far... Yes, you were talking about guilt because you said that there are people who unkowingly and "innocently" perpetrate racism. You did put the word in quotations, so you may have been implying that "innocent" perpetrators of racism are not really innocent at all. But just using the word innocent does imply guilt on the other side - if you are not innocent in a situation, you are guilty. So what it seemed like you were saying was "There are people who innocently perpetrate racism," and so it makes perfect sense for Calderis to respond by saying that "No one is innocent. Just ignorant. ... I honestly believe that if someone truly believes that they are guilt free in this matter [a synonym for innocent, which is the word you used], then they aren't looking at themselves hard enough." Then for you to say "I wasn't talking about guilt" is just kind of circular and contradictory because you were referring to guilt indirectly when you said that sometimes people are "innocent" (or "guilt-free") perpetrators of racism.

I remember reading somewhere that he says his favorite character is Hoid, but that "he won't tell us why." I'll try to find that WoB if it exists. EDIT: All right, here it is. In the Coppermind under Hoid's page, it says, "Brandon has stated that Hoid is his favorite character, but he couldn't say why without giving away spoilers," and it gives a LINK to the following WoB: So he doesn't really say here that "Hoid is his favorite but he can't say why," but it says that on the Coppermind, which is where I got it.

The first Sanderson book I ever read was Mistborn, because I had the book incessantly recommended to me by tons of my friends and so I finally gave it a try. I remember that when I first read Mistborn, throughout most of the novel I was pretty underwhelmed - I remember thinking, "This is what everyone's been talking about?" My main problem with Mistborn when I first read it was the fact that I thought the book had a very tedious pace, and the writing style was not very pretty. There was nothing wrong with the writing, I just didn't like it. I never found myself stopping and rereading a phrase because I loved the way that it was worded. And I thought that the worldbuilding aspects - the magic system, the ash, the Inquisitors - were very random and unorganized. When I finished Mistborn, however, my view completely changed. I was blown away by the way that the plot threads came together, and suddenly I found myself wanting to reread the book because of everything I had learned. I think that is why people sometimes struggle with Sanderson when they first encounter him. To fully appreciate his writing and recognize what he does so well, you need to put a lot of work into reading his books, and you have to push through a lot of narrative to see the way that it all connects. Yes, his books are entertaining on a surface level, but if you are only looking at books at their surface value, there are much better books to choose from. The true beauty and value of Sanderson's books lies on a much deeper level, which I believe is that of his incredible foresight and his immense control as an author, which is what I find so impressive and enjoyable about his writing. He always has a plan, and he always brings the plot threads together in a way that is not only immensely satisfying but also clearly premeditated. This is what gives me immense respect for Sanderson as a writer - you can see the level of work he invests into each book. Now, I am at the point where I have so much faith in Sanderson as an author that even if I find a particular book to be boring or unenjoyable in the middle, even extremely long books like the Stormlight Archive, I push forward and keep reading because I know that in the end, I will be amazed and satisfied by his foresight and planning. Once you recognize Sanderson's incredible foresight, other things about his books become much better as well. You become much more invested in the worldbuilding and the magic systems, you start looking for Worldhoppers, you develop theories about the larger cosmere and you look for Hoid in each story, just to name a few examples. Just realizing that his books are all connected is extremely electrifying and exciting, because it's not very easy to notice if you just read a few of his books here and there. Once I realized that his books were connected, I felt like I had uncovered a great secret and I became almost addicted to cosmere works - I had to get my hands on all the cosmere literature available, even things like White Sand and the Arcanum Unbounded collection, because I wanted to keep looking for the ways in which the worlds were connected. All of these things which I consider the best parts of his writing - his foresight and planning regarding the cosmere, the three Realms, the magic systems, the shards of Adonalsium - are not things you can fully appreciate just by reading the first few chapters of one of his books. You have to put in a lot of work, and mentally invest yourself into his writing, and that is what I think puts a lot of people off. As expressed earlier... For this reason alone, I think Sanderson's books are not for everyone, because not everyone reads books thoroughly and contemplatively. They want books to provide shallow, immediate entertainment - which Sanderson's books do, but much less satisfactorily than many other books out there. Like I said before, what truly makes Sanderson's books remarkable and unique lies at a deeper level.

This is possible, but I am inclined to think that the God King and Siri will not be very involved with the continuing events on Nalthis. Their conclusion in WB seemed kind of like a "happily ever after" moment for me, whereas many roads and plot threads remained open for Vivenna and Vasher. I would be honestly surprise if Siri and the God King were ever relevant to the cosmere again, just because their arc in Warbreaker seemed like a happy little self-contained love story.