Llarimar

Perhaps I am understating their influence a bit, but what I meant is that their influence is not governmental - it's a cultural influence. They're not a military force like they were during the Heirocracy. If I remember correctly, during Oathrbringer Dalinar does struggle with the church because he needs to be in their good graces in order to be popular with the people, but he doesn't actually worry about them usurping his power. When he breaks their rules, he isn't so much threatening his position as he is creating a scandal which is whispered among the people and annoys the ardents. During the days of the Heirocracy, if a ruler rebelled against the rules of the church, the ardents probably would have forcefully removed him, but they no longer have that power by the time of Oathbringer. So like I said earlier, the Vorin church is more focused on the Devotaries, and is no longer an oppressive, conquering force like they were during the Heirocracy. So in that way they are quite similar to some of Sanderon's other religions that are less influential and more focused on altruism. But the Vorin church does still have a powerful cultural influence and political "clout" among the people, you could say, so that Dalinar has to pacify them in order for everyone to be happy. I hadn't thought this before, but Shu-Dereth is an excellent example of an overbearing, conquering religion. Probably the best example in Sanderson's works. Just comparing Shu-Dereth and Vorinism, you can understand what I mean when I say that Vorinism is "more focused on quiet servitude" and "less influential" (even though it is very culturally influential).

Thanks.

Got it, thanks.

I have always thought (since reading Oathbringer) that Dalinar will become the new Adonalsium, as part of his "Unite Them" calling. I think he will first unite all of Roshar, and then unite all the Rosharan shards (taking up Honor, Cultivation and maybe also Odium), and then will eventually unite all the shards in the cosmere and reform Adonalsium. My problem with Hoid becoming Adonalsium is that he is kind of an anti-hero, and becoming a powerful god doesn't really seem in his nature from what we've seen of him. I am not sure if Hoid wanted to reforge Adonalsium from the beginning, although it's an interesting idea. I have always imagined Hoid trying to talk all the other Shards out of murdering Adonalsium, and then sort of shaking his head shamefully in the background as he watches them ignore his advice. It is difficult for me to imagine Hoid becoming a powerful leader figure and reforging Adonalsium at the end of the cosmere. Whenever we see Hoid, he is surrounded by important people but he himself is not in a position of authority - the King's Wit in Stormlight is the perfect example of this. Hoid is dealing with powerful people and meddling in their affairs to slyly accomplish his goals, but he is not a powerful or authoritative person himself. But then again... the more we learn about Hoid, the more we learn that he really is a serious and concerned person, who is actively trying to shape the events of the future, and not just playing tricks and causing mischief (which is how he seems at first glance). I can see Dalinar or Sazed becoming Adonalsium, but not Hoid so much. But maybe that's just because we don't know his character extremely well yet - perhaps the more we learn about him, the more it will seem natural for him to assume a position of power and authority in the cosmere. I can see Hoid slipping in at the very last minute, and altering the events at the end of the cosmere so that the shards of Adonalsium fall into different hands than they otherwise would have, or subverting the conclusion in some surprising way, but it's difficult to imagine him actually becoming Adonalsium himself.

It's possible, but I really think that Edgli (from what we know about her) has more of a nonintervention policy. So many of the gods are meddlers - Autonomy and Odium are the biggest examples, and there are some gods like Preservation, Honor, Cultivation and Ruin who aren't cosmere-wide meddlers but still seem to be intensely involved with the events of their own world. I think it would be really unique and different if Endowment was much less manipulative than the other gods, and generally unconcerned with the current chaos in the universe. Her "Rayse will be dealt with" comment makes it seem like she is relaxing somewhere, keeping an eye on the problems of the cosmere but not losing sleep over them. Hopefully this doesn't backfire and result in her being murdered by Rayse when she least expects it. It seems like Vasher, Nightblood and Vivenna are sort of "free agents" - I would be surprised it Edgli was involved with them at all. Perhaps it is because of the fact that she is sort of an in-the-background god that they are able to Worldhop so easily. I know Aona and Skai, but is Uli Da... Ambition? I don't remember seeing that name before.

These are my favorites. Non-romantic: Lightsong and Llarimar Romantic: Wax and Steris Llarimar was my favorite character in Warbreaker and one of my favorite characters in the whole cosmere (notice my profile name). He's exactly the type of character that I enjoy reading about - someone quiet, steady and focused, who provides valuable advice and wisdom which can often change the course of the novel. Another character like this is the Shu-Korath priest in Elantris (don't remember his name), or Sazed to some extent. Selfless moral guides are usually not the most important characters, but they often have some of the most emotional conversations with other characters and the best dialogue in the book. Sanderson and other authors write some of their most memorable, quotable and thought-provoking lines from selfless moral guides. And I really enjoy Llarimar's relationship with Lightsong - Lightsong is the perfect foil for a moral guide type of character. And I love Wax and Steris too - someone told me recently that they find their relationship annoying and predictable, but I thought it was one of the best parts of the Era 2 Mistborn books. Can't wait for The Lost Metal!

This is an interesting observation. Many of the religions in Sanderon's just books provide altruistic service - there aren't very many of the corrupted, oppressive religions that you usually see in fantasy. The Vorin church was once a powerful conquering force, but they have since reverted to a state of quiet of service and scholarship, and refer to the whole Hierocracy debacle with shame as the failure of Vorinism. Is this a non-cosmere work? It doesn't sound familiar to me.

This is really interesting - I haven't personally seen it mentioned on the Shard before. I can see how "Strength Before Weakness" could equal Odium, and "Journey Before Destination" could equal Honor, but I am not so sure, however, about "Life Before Death" for Cultivation. Cultivation is about growth, decay and natural processes - she does not necessarily value life over death and she is not a merciful god like Honor might have been. In many ways I see Cultivation as the opposite of mercy. In a different world, under different circumstances, I could see Cultivation being construed as an adversary. Mistborn spoilers: So I am not so sure about "Life Before Death" matching with Cultivation, since Cultivation is more about "Life and death, in balance." And all three of the phrases "Life before death, strength before weakness, journey before destination" could all just be seen as different aspects of Honor. But it's still definitely an interesting idea, there might be something to it.

This is an interesting idea, but I for one am still unsure as to what Cultivation's level of intervention actually is. People often speculate that Cultivation is manipulating Taravangian, Dalinar, Lift, the Aimians and other characters in order to accomplish her designs, but we don't really don't know her motives or if her actions are part of a coordinated scheme. Was the boon given to Lift just random, or was it a crucial part in Cultivation's sprawling plans? Here's a WoB that might help: Brandon basically says here that Lift's boon was a "strange response" to a "strange question." That doesn't sound like the intentional manipulation of Cultivation, but rather a random boon given by the Nightwatcher that doesn't really fit into the larger picture. In the scene you referenced, the Stormfather seems to blame Cultivation for Lift's powers and he is annoyed that Cultivation is overstepping her boundaries. So based on that scene, I think it's possible that Cultivation might be thinking up new ways to form an army of Knights Radiant (Lift being the first) without relying so heavily on Stormlight, but because of the fact that we still know so little about Cultivation, and because of the WoB I posted where Brandon says that Lift's boon was a "strange response," I'm skeptical that it fits into Cultivaton's larger plan at all.

Sanderson did not just grow up in the LDS church, he is a current member of the church. Saying that he "grew up in the church" makes it seem like he's broken away from it or forsaken his early beliefs, which isn't true. And in addition to what @Ammanas said about your statement being factually incorrect, I think it's important to remember that even if there have been members of the LDS church (even high-ranking members) who have held racist views, that doesn't mean Sanderson personally holds or endorses those same views, and would try to represent them in his books. This is something I do agree with - in his books, Brandon is showing patterns that exist in real cultures of discrimination and racism. However, that doesn't have anything to do with the LDS church specifically - you could find racist people in any religion or group.

Yes, I agree with this. Even if the discrimination is founded in legitimate differences between two groups, the reasoning behind the discrimination is still made up. Men are generally stronger than women, but that doesn't mean that it is justified to discriminate against women. All Knights Radiant are lighteyes, but that doesn't mean it is justified to discriminate against darkeyes. There isn't a logical connection between the two thoughts. They're just taking historical or empirical facts out of context (men are stronger, lighteyes are Knights Radiant) and using them to set up a narrow-minded system of discrimination. In modern day Scadrial, I think the reasoning behind the noblemen-skaa discrimination is also fake since there isn't any physiological difference between the two groups. I guess that even at the beginning, when the Balance was still in effect, the reasoning was still faulty - just because skaa were more fertile and less intelligent than noblemen, that didn't mean it was justified to persecute and oppress them.

It definitely seems possible, just because "a birthmark stretching across half his face" is a pretty distinctive marker. Also @Thunderclast, you might want to change the title of this tread to "[OB] [Elantris Spoilers] Telrii in Roshar?" or something like that, just because some people who have read Oathbringer probably haven't read Elantris.

When life gives you lemons scary, corrupted spren, make lemonade a cult that worships them and is obsessed with gluttony. To be, or not to be, that is the question.

One thing that I have noticed in many Alethi names is the digraph "kh" - it pops up a lot. "Kharbranth," "Kholin," the glyph "khakh." Normally when people write "kh," they mean the rasping sound at the back of the throat (the voiceless velar fricative, represented by the IPA symbol [x]). So I have come to assume that this is a sound that is common in the Alethi language. It's difficult to tell a ton about the language though, because people don't really speak in Alethi during the book. All we get are the names.

@Sun Maker I am trying to find this scene in Oathbringer, do you know the page or the chapter number? I do vaguely remember this scene, and I remember at the time thinking that Adolin wanted to be free of the guilt he felt for killing Sadeas - if Adolin could tell everyone that he was the killer, he would feel like more of a complete man, less of a liar. However I would have to reread the scene to be sure. I'm not sure if Renarin can give people glimpses of their future, but that would be very interesting if he could.

Yes, I think this is true. I'm interested by the systems of discrimination that are found in Brandon's books because of the fact that they (like any aspect of his worldbuilding) are so believable and fully realized. The culture and context of his books are depicted in such a way that the racism just seems like another part of society. I remember before I started reading the Stormlight books, someone told me that the people in the book discriminate by eye color, and I remember thinking, "That's really weird, I can't imagine that." But when you read the book it totally makes sense - just like any other aspect of the world, like the spren or the magic systems. I do agree with this.... however, I think it's also important to remember that we shouldn't always impose our worldview and what we consider "morally unjustified" on other cultures. The caste system that exists in Stormlight, for example, in which darkeyes are of a "nahn" caste depending on their societal rank and lighteyes are of a "dahn" caste, is obviously not a great, positive aspect of Alethi society, but it is not necessarily bad either - it is just a part of their society, a social and cultural construction that the people accept without even thinking. Calling the caste system of Alethi society morally wrong would be like calling the havah dresses or the male-female dining rules or the taboo over men writing morally wrong - all of those things are just a part of their society, and we shouldn't look at them through the lens of our society. I think that calling the Alethi caste system morally unjustified would be akin to an Alethi calling it morally wrong to reveal your safehand. I know that's kind a dumb example, but the point I'm trying to make is that certain societal constructions of what is right/wrong or good/bad are not universal, and the lighteyes-darkeyes caste system in Roshar may be one of those examples - we see it as discriminatory and negative, but for them it's just a part of their culture. It reminds me of the caste system in India, which to be fair, has been criticized by many people (Gandhi, for example), but overall is a very culturally significant and integral part of Indian society. I think that the caste system in India, which is founded in tradition and religion and culture, is much less "morally wrong" than say, modern American racism, even though both could be seen as systems of discrimination.

There is a quote from WoR, I think (or maybe WoK) that I'm trying to find - I think it might add something to the discussion. I'm pretty sure it's Wit who basically says "The social structure on Roshar is interesting. I've seen worlds that have more obvious systems than discriminating by eye color, and worlds where the social structure makes less sense. Discriminating by eye color is just another type of social structuring, just as good as any other." Or... perhaps it's Sigzil who says this, talking about other cultures on Roshar.

Yes, this is exactly what I meant. I kind of thought when I first made the thread that "justified" may not be the right word. What I am trying to say is that the systems of discrimination that exist in some of the cosmere worlds may have originally been less "man-made" than racism on earth, which in many ways was intentionally contrived for the purpose of justifying slavery. I think that on earth (and I'm not the biggest expert on this so someone correct me if I'm wrong) the Europeans invented the concept of race and racism in order to justify their own exploitation of African people for the purpose of cheap labor and enslavement. In other words, the reason for the racism - the desire for slavery and cheap labor - came first, and the (erroneous) justification for the racism - "African people are socially and intellectually subservient to Europeans, so we have the right to enslave them!" - came afterwards. In Sanderson's worlds, by contrast, it seems to happen the other way around. The justification for the discrimination came first - skaa were legitimately less intelligent than noblemen, lighteyes were Knights Radiant while darkeyes were not - and social systems of racism and discrimination naturally formed out of those physical traits and conditions. In other words, no one "made up" or "contrived" a perceived barrier or distance between noblemen and skaa for the purpose of exploiting them - originally, a barrier actually did exist between them, and nobody "made up" the fact that all the Knights Radiant were lighteyes - that actually was true. Of course, I don't believe that the systems of racism/discrimination in Sanderson's books are "justified" - they just were not (originally) so egregiously baseless and ridiculous as racism on earth. In modern Scadrial, and modern Roshar, the discrimination is baseless, yes, since there haven't been Knights Radiant for so long (and even darkeyes can become Knights Radiant), and the physiological differences between skaa and noblemen have been erased. Yes, I agree - the systems of discrimination that exist on Sanderson's worlds are just an aspect of his worldbuilding, like the culture of his worlds and the landscapes of his worlds and the magic systems. I don't think that Sanderson is trying to convey that the discrimination on Roshar or Scadrial is moral or justified (again, justified may not have been the right word) - if he is trying to make any sort of statement, it may be that racism on earth is so ridiculous and baseless - by developing worlds in which the systems of discrimination originally had a legitimate historical context, he reminds us that the systems of discrimination on earth do not.

Yes, I agree with this, I think that the noblemen/skaa situation is a much better example of "justified racism" than the lighteye/darkeye situation - there were actually differences in intelligence between the noblemen and skaa, whereas like you say, the lighteye/darkeye discrimination is just a twisted custom that came from a historical trait. And @Fifth of Daybreak, you also bring up a good point that the discrimination on Roshar and Scadrial isn't really "justified" because both are founded in traits that were magically based or arbitrarily chosen by divine powers, and don't inherently say anything about the people involved. Yes, most linguists do specialize in a particular family of languages. My linguistics teacher, for example, is an expert in Navajo, and I want to eventually specialize in Arabic and Semitic languages. When you are first starting to study linguistics, however, like me, (I am currently working towards my undergraduate degree), the classes you take are much more generalized, and do not specialize in any particular language. You don't necessarily "study all languages," but rather how languages work as a science - the sound systems that can be found across languages, the grammar constructions that are common to languages, etc. A lot of what you study in early linguistics classes are "cross-linguistic traits" - things that can be found in all languages. For example, all languages follow a basic word order - it could be subject-verb-object, like in English ("I love bread") or it could be object-subject-verb ("bread I love") or another word order (there are six options). But you don't study all languages necessarily - just the ways in which linguistics as a science generally works and operates. So you could have a linguistics student who is not actually studying any particular language - they are just studying linguistics, which is the general science of all languages. Thanks for the question! @galendo, you say a lot in your post and I'll try to address all of it, even though all this language talk is kind of reaching outside the original scope of this thread (which I guess is fine). There are very real differences between languages, yes - languages are incredibly diverse. However, if one language seems better suited to a particular purpose than another language, that most likely just speaks to the cultural context of that language. The language would not be considered "better," it would just be considered fully adapted to its cultural environment. For example, someone might say that during the Norman invasion, the French language was "better" about expressing ideas related to cooking and food than Middle English was, because English borrowed so many culinary terms from French. However, this was not because French was "better" at discussing food, but because the French language was fully adapted to its cultural environment - a culture that had invented many foods and cooking methods that were not present in Anglo-Saxon culture. The example you give about differences in color recognition for speakers of various languages is a well-known one, and one that has to do with the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis - the idea that your mindset and worldview is shaped by the language you speak. Some people think that if you name a color, it becomes easier for you to see that color, because your cognitive perception of the colors around you are shaped by the colors you have named. The Himba group in Africa, for example, has several different words for the color "green," because they are surrounded by many different shades of green and so they find it valuable to separate them. They can identify different shades of green much more quickly than English speakers, because their language contains multiple words for "green" which has conditioned them to easily recognize the difference. This article talks about Himba color perceptions - there is an image from the article of a bunch of different green squares. English speakers have a hard time distinguishing which one is different (supposedly because we have only one word for green), whereas Himba people can easily identify the outlier. There is actually a lot of debate over this topic - here is a whole Wikipedia article that talks about it. Some languages may have more precise words for different shades of color, but that is likely due to certain conditions in their environment. It's also important to remember that oftentimes, the names of color are very arbitrary and subjective. We can separate blue from green, but this doesn't really give us a communicative edge - it doesn't really matter that blue and green are different colors - and it also can be subjective, since certain shades of color could be labeled as either "blue" or "green," like the color teal. Babies have a very hard time learning color - color has to be taught to them, whereas they can intuitively separate objects by size, weight or texture at a much earlier age. There are some languages that inflect a high amount of information on nouns, pronouns, adjectives and other parts of speech. This is sometimes called agreement - when you say "la chica bonita" ("the beautiful girl") in Spanish, the article "la," the noun "chica" and the adjective "bonita" are all agreeing for feminine gender. I think it's a bit misleading to say that this is information that you have to say, because that makes it seems like agreeing with gender is a burden for speakers of Spanish. The fact that Spanish adheres to gender agreement does not make it "worse" than languages that do not. In many ways, gender agreement can be seen as a benefit - it allows for a high level of specificity and repetition so that the gender of the person being mentioned cannot be mistaken, and it also makes the language phonetically easier to pronounce - every word in "la chica bonita" ends in the letter "a", which creates a harmonized rhythm while you speak. Yes, English is difficult to learn in many respects, but I don't agree that it is "one of the best languages to know." Yes, it is the global lingua franca, and for that reason it's valuable to know English, but English is no "better" than any other language. Every language is fully capable of expressing the human experience and is fully adapted to the cultural environment in which it exists. As will be the case with any language, there are some things that are more simple about English (such as the lack of gender and verbal agreement), and some things that are more difficult (such as the spelling, the huge vocabulary and the large amount of vowels).

I know exactly what you mean! The opposite happens for me, where I tell people that I'm studying linguistics, and they ask, "Oh, so what languages are you studying?" and I will say, "Well, I happen to be studying Arabic, but that doesn't have anything to do with my linguistics classes!" Linguistics is the science of languages, not learning individual languages - it's like the difference between geology and rock climbing, one is the science, the other is the physical application. It's funny because I'm actually not that good at learning to speak other languages, even though I love studying linguistics as a science. And I would love to study Latin and Ancient Greek someday, since so much of English vocabulary comes from them. Some people say it's useless to study dead languages but I find it very interesting - it's like learning the history of your own ancestors.

@Aurora the Rioter, you have a good point, even if there wasn't a legitimate basis for racism originally, people believed that there was (and some people still do sadly). This is actually something that I really like about Sanderson - he shows very realistically how social systems evolve. You have a perceived difference between two groups, and so a system of racism/discrimination forms and is maintained, despite becoming slowly more arbitrary over time as the two groups culturally assimilate. Another good example from his books of social systems evolving is his religious groups - you can see very realistically in his books how one religion begins, and then many religions branch off of it over time, each containing bits and pieces of the original belief system but also being different in some ways and changing things. And thanks by the way, I haven't studied Latin or Ancient Greek but I love linguistics - I'm studying the subject in school right now. Language, by the way, is one area in which people definitely do still maintain discriminatory views - a lot of people still believe that not all languages are equal, that English is somehow better or easier to understand. This is something that I haven't seen as strongly in Sanderson's books - discrimination along linguistic lines - but it would definitely be interesting if he added it more.

Something interesting I've noticed about Brandon's books is that whenever there is a system of racism or discrimination, the bigotry seems to be rooted in justifiable reasons. For example, on Roshar, the dominant group are the lighteyes, whereas the persecuted or lower group are the darkeyes. It is explained that this is because of the fact that the Knights Radiant had light eyes, and so the people began to associate light eyes with prestige and developed a social order around it. When Kaladin first summons his Shardblade in WoR, his eyes lighten, much to his chagrin. On Scadrial, a similar situation exists with the noblemen oppressing the skaa. At one point Ham wonders philosophically if the differences between the skaa and nobility are legitimate grounds for the oppression of the skaa. These two examples are interesting to me because both of these systems of "racism" or discrimination were originally based in legitimate differences - the Knights Radiants were powerful, strong protectors who had light eyes, and the skaa were physiologically different and less intelligent from the noblemen. I'm not saying that these things justify the social stratification in these societies, but it definitely serves as an explanation, and one that could be easily used to maintain and promote such discrimination. I feel like racism on earth (based on skin color) has no foundation other than historical ethnocentrism, because skin color does not separate people physiologically or by intelligence, but in the case of Roshar and Scadrial, it seems that there were much more legitimate reasons originally for the social separation. Has anyone else noticed that the systems of discrimination in the cosmere seem to have legitimate historical foundations, and what do you guys think about this observation?

I like this idea but it makes the assumption that the Diagram is accurate - a true prediction of the future, which Renarin has now changed because he bonded with a corrupted spren. But I have always assumed that the Diagram is the work of Cultivation, and is intentionally misleading - in other words, she made parts of it deliberately false (or perhaps she wasn't totally sure about some things because she doesn't have perfect future-vision...). This suggests that Renarin threw a wrench into not only the Diagram, but into the future that Cultivation specifically predicted - in other words, he would be unintentionally subverting her divine foresight. I am more inclined to believe that Renarin is also a part of Cultivation's plan somehow I agree that some people may give Cultivation too much credit for her ability to master-manipulate all her supposed pawns on Roshar (Taravangian, Dalinar, Lift, etc...) but somehow I don't think that Renarin Kholin is the main player who is throwing a wrench into her plans and predictions. If Renarin's corrupted spren is the reason why the Diagram is false and the future is unclear, then did Cultivation know that his spren would become corrupted and that the future would turn out differently? Or is Renarin altering the future in ways that Cultivation didn't anticipate? I like the idea of Renarin altering the future as proposed by the Diagram, but I think it leaves out Cultivation's part in the equation.

This is one of the (many) things that I really love about Sanderson. I am not the type of person who rereads books, but whenever I have gone back to skim through previous installments of a cosmere series I am stunned by how much I didn't notice before. I thoroughly enjoyed WoK and WoR, but reading Oathbringer, I have to admit that I did share some of the concerns expressed by @Mierinx . More so than the previous two Stormlight books, Oathbringer seemed a bit more scattered, confusing and poorly planned. I even began to doubt while reading Oathbringer that Sanderson really knows where he's going with the series. However, I think it's important to remember a few things. First of all, as @Stormlightning said, there are ten books in the Stormlight series. I personally did not love Oathbringer, and it is probably my least favorite Sanderson book so far, but that is okay. It's okay if some of the books are less-than-excellent, because Sanderson knows where he's going in the end. I remember having similar feelings while I was reading the first Mistborn trilogy - I found them rather cumbersome and uninteresting at times, but when I finished the third book I was totally blown away by the way the plot threads came together. Almost all of the things that bothered me about the earlier installments in the series were completely resolved. I am trusting that the same will be true for Stormlight (and it does require trust, since I'll be faithfully purchasing and reading these books for years to come, and I'm not the type of person who lightly reads volumes of this size). While reading any Sanderson books, and in particular the Stormlight series, I think it's important to remember that first of all, Brandon knows where he is going with the series, and that you will probably be blown away by the end of it, and that second of all, even if you might think that certain chapters or even entire books (like Oathbringer) are less-than-excellent, in general most of the books will be (and have been) very well-written and enjoyable. I think that it's good to remember this too - just relax, and enjoy the books, and speculate about certain plot holes or loose ends but don't become stressed out or annoyed by them. Oathbringer is my least favorite Sanderson book so far and it left with more questions than any of his other books, but that's fine - with so many novels and such an expansive universe, a few of the installments are bound to be more mediocre in the eyes of some readers.

Isabelle Fuhrman as Vin (The Hunger Games - Clove) Laura Carmichael as Shan Elariel (Downton Abbey - Lady Edith) Alden Erenreich as Elend (Solo: A Star Wars Story - Han Solo) Ed Harris as Straff Venture I know that's kind of a random grouping of characters but those are the only people for whom I have clear actors in mind.