king of nowhere

No, I don't actually belive this; it would make the whole conflict meaningless. "it was all a simulation", just like "it was all a dream", is not a good plot twist to pull on after a whole book, much less four. But it would just EXPLAIN SO MUCH! In perfect state, real humans have an advantage over the "machineborn". they have something they can do and everyone else in their world cannot. The protagonist could use a certain magic, and he was the only one who could in his world. the woman could see stuff about social patterns, and everyone else in her world could not. Well, in the cytoverse we have the supremacy, treating every "lesser race" like crap, and then they get all aghast when those races react with aggression, or try to steal from them.It's like this whole extremely advanced star-spanning civilization, with scientists, philosophers, and thinkers from thousands of planets, is completely unable to grasp the basic concept that most sapients - heck, even a lot of the smarter animals - will reciprocate the way they are treated. even somebody extremely enlightened like Cuna, who spent her life trying to bridge the gap and is willing to speak to a member of the "human scourge", never makes the connection between human aggression and the way they are treated. What's more likely? That in those thousands of planets, among trillions of sapient beings, nobody - absolutely nobody - stumbled upon this connection? Or that they cannot make the connection because they are not real people and they are artificially blocked from solving the plot for the protagonist? As I said, it's not going to be the case for meta-literary reasons, but it would certainly explain things. On the other hand, Spensa being able to make the connection would point to her being the one "liveborn" in her world, but she had way too much emotional trauma in her youth for this to be her perfect state. This seems a solid rebuke based on in-universe reasons

on the other hand, there is an interesting question underlying this: if a bloody revolution did happen - despite vax best attempts to usher reforms peacefully - and it was not led by the set or other groups that are unquestionably worse than the current establishment what would wax do then? there are enough nuances in this that it could be a great novel by itself. maybe i actually did predict the plot of lost metal

Skyward, page 52: we see the depiction of a Poco fighter, the one used by Skyward flight. The one Hurl was using when she died. The depiction is in the book, so I assume it's official. And we clearly see the cockpit in the back of the craft body. Page 341: Spensa and Jorgen are giving burial rites to Hurl. The crash scenario is described. It said that the ship had broken in three parts, rear, middle and front, and that "a small chunk of the front fuselage - with the cockpit - had broken free". It's unequivocally stating that the cockpit is in the front, as close to the "tip" of the fuselage as possible. this is completely incompatible with the drawing of page 51, where the cockpit is in the rear third. There could be some argument if the cockpit had been stated to have been in the middle section, but no. Look at it, there isn't even enough space to break off two segments behind the cockpit.

yes, i think there's a word of brandon somewhere that equality comes from there being as many mistborn women as men, and the noble houses needed all the metalborn they could get, and could not afford to discriminate

I must also point out that the level of democracy on scadrial is the same that we had on our world when we had the same tech level. Probably it's different from an american perspective, because you've been a democracy since before the industrial age, but in europe, at the beginning of 1900, we still had kings and emperors - and not those we still have in costitutional monarchies, whose practical power ranges from "basically a president" to "basically a figurehead". In 1900 we had already got rid of absolute monarchies, there were voting rights, there were parliaments with actual powers, but kings still were firmly in charge, and nobles still had privileges. most european states became democracies after losing some of the world wars, basically the old ruling class screwed up too badly and was ousted for it. those countries that remained, and still are, parliamentary monarchies, are the ones where the kings were decent and capable, and they never gave the people enough of a reason to kick them out. In that regard, it is much like on scadrial: the nobles houses that still are in charge are those that were not implicated in the worst atrocities of the final empire. The revolution removed the worst elements. Those countries that had peaceful, gradual transition of power from the nobility to the masses now have the same standards of human development as the others, and they avoided violent revolutions and bloodsheds. Wax wants to follow this path, to gradually reform, and I would say history very much vindicates him: where possible, it is the best outcome. Anyway, northern scadrial is late 1800 tech level, and when we had that tech level, we also had nobles and monarchies, so it's realistic. United states were the one exception - though, for all that the constitution stated that all men are equal, slavery still exhisted for 70 more years, and racial segregation remained in the law for one more century. While in backward, "feudal" europe slavery has been abolished much earlier, and aside from the nazi and fascist regimes, nobody would have ever considered istituzionalizing racism. Just to further complicate things, to show that "more democratic" does not necessarily equate to "more progressive" or "fair". Also, both in the democratic usa and in the monarchic european states, the conditions and exploitations of the working classes were fairly similar, and in line with what we see on scadrial. In fact, scadrial having close enough gender equality is incredibly progressive compared to its technological development. Perhaps the lesson to be taken in this is that progress is not linear, and it doesn't work to try and force it into a line; there are many different issues, scadrial is more advanced in some and less advanced in others.

Skyward, page 52: we see the depiction of a Poco fighter, the one used by Skyward flight. The one Hurl was using when she died. The depiction is in the book, so I assume it's official. And we clearly see the cockpit in the back of the craft body. Page 341: Spensa and Jorgen are giving burial rites to Hurl. The crash scenario is described. It said that the ship had broken in three parts, rear, middle and front, and that "a small chunk of the front fuselage - with the cockpit - had broken free". It's unequivocally stating that the cockpit is in the front, as close to the "tip" of the fuselage as possible. this is completely incompatible with the drawing of page 51, where the cockpit is in the rear third. There could be some argument if the cockpit had been stated to have been in the middle section, but no. Look at it, there isn't even enough space to break off two segments behind the cockpit. Is this the kind of thing that they would fix in subsequent prints?

it's a good question. the thing is, while our western hystory and culture gave us the idea that "revolutionary"="good", the revolutionaries that vax fights are even worse than the establishment. none of the people that wax fought ever wanted "progress" in the first place. in fact, even in the real world a lot of revolutionaries have been on the wrong side, replacing something bad with something worse. wax may not be on the right side of the story, but his opponents certainly are not. and wax is at least trying to improve things for all.

do we have some hard numbers on Wayne current age? I always assumed that Wax found him early on, and they are close in age. This would put current era Wayne as close to 40, making the prologue is set 30 years ago. But the coppermind gives his age as closer to 30, so the prologue would be from 20 years ago, and the timeline would fit better. Also,the stuff in the previous prologues was always related to the story. For AoL, of course. But for SoS, it was instrumental for revealing that bleeder was really lassie. And for BoM, Wax sister was introduced as a troublemaker, paving the way for her betrayal later. I wonder, this prologue apparently adds nothing to what we know of the characters. Unless... could it mean that

A lot of shards were lost to the bottom of the ocean, or scattered somewhere and covered in crem. some others were hoarded. but the point stands: there should be more blades than plate, and there is no answer to that. @DougTheRug is the only one that tried to come up with answers, but they are all purely speculative, and not at all convincing.

when you swear the third oath, you get a blade. when you swear the fourth, you get the plate. We know a lot of radiants never swear the fourth.Yet there seem to be an equal number of plates and blades around. before the radiants started to reappear, the alethi and vedens were said to have both some 20 full sets. other nations had less, but always close numbers of plates and blades. why don't we get a predominance of blades from all those radiants that were still at the third oath during the recreance?

i'd point out, though, that allomantic cadmium may not too dangerous anyway. cadmium is most dangerous when small dust is inhaled. this is a major industrial hazard, if you are doing cadmium metalworking you will have cadmium dust all around, but it does not apply to eating the dust. then there are many cadmium compounds that are highly toxic, but the thing is, if it does not dissolve in some way, the body will not absorb it, it will be excreted, and it will not be toxic. toxicity requires that the substance actually enters your body, not that it passes through your guts without being absorbed. now, cadmium is not oxidized too easily, but i'm not sure how it would withstand the stomach. a quick search did not find conclusive data, if the stomach can oxidize cadmium, then yes, eating cadmium dust would get cadmium inside your blood and that would be bad. as for a metalmind, again, there is the whole absorption thing; as long as the metalmind stays solid metal, it should not be dangerous. Still, i would not want to have regular exposure to cadmium without some form of protection

temperature also depends on other factors, like sea and air currents. stockholm and the baffin island are at the same latitude, but the first has a temperate cold climate and supports farming to feed millions, while the second is a frozen tundra with a few thousand inhabitants. from that, i can guess that there could be a circular current around the continent, coming south from the steamwater ocean, warming aimia, then moving westward and getting colder, until it hits aimia as a cold current.

but are they still invested? i may be wrong, but i was under the impression that gemstones would not charge in shinovar. Possibly because of the girl who looked up, that her people lived in the dark

i checked to see if someone else proposed it first, but can't find a reference. the coppermind says that, according to an interview, the misted mountains are an homage to tolkien misty mountains. I do not think brandon would lie to us, but he's used a lesser truth to conceal a deeper truth so, the name tell us those mountains are full of mist. it may be regular weather, what with humid air getting colder as it rises. But it may also be invested. we know from mistborn that mist is one of the forms of investiture. and on the other side of the misted mountains, there are no spren - at least, not visible. highstorms stop there too, and while - again - this is connected to geography and the mountains barring the path to stormwinds, there is also the investiture part; highstorms are invested, and it stops on those mountains. so i'm thinking perhaps the mist on those mountains is a form of investiture, and it is part of what makes shin different from the rest of roshar.

actually, it was this other oneù

@HonorlessYou may appreciate to know that, after our unfortunate... heated argument earlier in this thread, I took an interest in the LGBT condition. I couldn't figure out why "being represented" was so important - after all, i don't care about being represented in any way, nor do I feel like I should discuss my sexuality in public - and I got curious enough to pay more attention to the issue. Thus I learned how, especially in small backwards communities, lgbt kids struggle with their identity. I am straight, as a child I was told growing up I would eventually like girls, and at some point I started liking girls, all ok; but those kids, they grow up thinking they'll like girls, instead they don't, but they don't realize it at first because their culture doesn't even tell them there are other possibilities; or at most represents those possibilities as a very negative stereotype, so that as they gradually come to develop their sexual orientation they are afraid there's something wrong with them, and/or they are afraid of being discriminated... speaking of which, I also paid more attention to homophobicity; I assumed it was, at least in the west, a thing of the past, as I come from a progressive social environment. People may occasionally talk politically incorrect, but I've never seen anyone actually discriminated, isolated, or treated differently. When push comes to shove, nobody in my social circles would deny everyone's right to equality, fairness, and freedom. Simply disliking a group of people is not a crime; i mean, if somebody told me he dislikes italians, i wouldn't be offended and i wouldn't call him a horrible person. Depending on his specific beef, I may even agree with him. but I'm going on a tangent here. Anyway, I also realized that some people, when they tell mean jokes, are not actually joking. And how this also makes for a fertile substrate where actual intolerance can take roots. And how people who are afraid of being discriminated may not be able to tell the difference when they hear an off hand comment. I did not see the problem, I did not even realize there was a problem; I was naive and ignorant. I also did look back at what the media were showing when i was a kid, and it was incredible at how backward some of that stuff was. I've been basically supporting the "don't ask don't tell" attitude not out of a mildly homophobic "you guys are disgusting, but as long as you hide away we'll tolerate you", but simply out of a privacy approach "unless i intend to date you, i prefer not to know about your sexuality. It's a private matter, and it should not be discussed publicly". But even in its positive acception, this phylosophy leaves those confused kids alone at a time when they'd really need to know there are others like them. So, I now understand why it's important for the lgbt community that they come out, that they are known, that they are widely represented across the media. I'm actually pessimistic about this stopping homophobia; after all, black people are visible everywhere, some even occupy important positions in the government, and yet there's still plenty of racism around, don't see why with lgbt it should be different. But it is fair, and it will definitely help those kids. I wanted you to know that with your effort you actually touched and moved someone. And that though we started with the wrong foot, you eventually won a supporter. P.S. I am still ambivalent on inclusion in the media. On one hand, I fully agree that it would be good to have more representation. On the other hand, forcing creators to be more inclusive - even indirectly, by shaming them on social media or by prejudicially rejecting work for not being inclusing enough - is the antechamber of censorship. Even worse, if you try to force people to like you, it never works. Just like I reacted poorly to a forceful attempt, while I reacted well to a slow trickle of information through the internet. So, the trick is to get more lgbt representation in the media, without giving the impression of being forceful. well, good luck with that P.P.S. On "normal" and "different", there's no reason normal should be good, in fact it is often the opposite. In italy, calling someone an "average italian" is a strong insult, as we built this stereotype of the "average italian" who encompasses all the worst attributes associated with italians, and none of the good ones. So, no need to be "normal" EDIT: Huh. I just read this, and I feel like I contributed to it. Also, I had no idea you actually came from some part of the world where you are actually discriminated by law. that sucks. All I can say in my defence is that I've actually had to deal with some people belonging with minorities actually trying to milk their status as specially protected to get away with stuff. The worst case involved my brother's ex wife beating my brother (a very nice men who's always ready to help anyone in need) and trying to frame him as the aggressor by playing the part of the woman victim of violence. it didn't work, but my brother had a hard time going to trial for divorce, even though he never lifted a finger against her and she sent him to the doctor several times. So, I'm probably overly sensitive when i see a minority asking for what looks like "special treatment", but my life experience gave me plenty of reasons to be. Unfortunately, that sensitivity can sometimes be triggered by people who actually had good causes for their requests

I remember seeing a video of Brandon talking about being good vs being successful, about how we like to think that we build our success, but luck also has a part in it, and sometimes people are very good but they still are not recognized. And he advise that people work for themselves, for their self-improvement; this way, even if society does not recognize them, they still got their goal. he talked about writing and publishing, but it could be adapted to pretty much any career. I have a friend who's a researcher in physics, lately his academic career has been going downhill for no fault of his own, and i would like to show him the video, it may cheer him up. But I can't find it. I tried for some keywords, but there are just too many videos with sanderson, about similar topics, and I can't find the one. Can someone please help me help my friend? thanks

quoted from that very article: vax is one of those few individuals. nowhere the article says that level of aiming skill is impossible. it is just impossible to expect your average policeman, even a highly trained one, to have it. especially considering that shooting is not a policeman's first specialization, and most of them never need to use their guns (at least in europe; one hears horror stories about violence in the usa, but not really sure how much is fact and how much it is inflated urban legend).

i don't think it was ever stated. when the singers capture human land, they enslave the humans. when the humans capture singer land, what do they do with the singers? i don't think any of the radiants would stand for enslaving them again. but they can hardly trust them free during a war, when any one of them could become a fuse. perhaps they could relocate them, but it's very impractical for large groups of people over long distances. and the quickly shifting war fronts make the endeavor even worse. so, how are they treated?

why not? we know detecting someone in a coppercloud is only a matter of power. and we can be pretty sure a massive spaceship will have much more power than a bird, no matter how magical

actually, it's more of a sexual innuendo variety. like saying underwear should be banned. how did the teacher react?

when you want to recover silver after an experiment with silver nitrate, out of a vague feeling that silver is important... but when you think of "uses for silver", the first thing that comes to mind is "wards against shades".

well, not exactly. sure, those two arguments were used to justify a lot of evil. but a lot more evil was justified on stuff like "god wants it", "they are a lesser race", "they are enemies", "they started it", "it's us or them". "for the country/clan/family/whatever affiliation" is a personal favourite because it's so often argued like it was right. A lot of arguments in the "lirin hate thread" devolve around "lirin should support his son, even if he disagrees with him". Do we want to talk about how many times prioritizing one's family or clan enabled crimes? heck, it's the whole foundation of the mafia. and yet a lot of people aare arguing it like it was perfectly right to ignore murder (as seen from lirin's perspective) just because it's your son committing it. more to the point, though, the opposite argument "the greater good does not justify evil" has also been used countless times to turn a blind eye on evil. I may point out how the nazis were allowed to grow strong because everybody thought attacking them would be bad? and furthermore, it's not even clear what are the ends and what are the means. you can have the same argument on both sides. Take the contemporary covid lockdowns: proponents of lockdown would say that "protecting personal freedoms (the greater good) does not justify letting more people die of epidemics (the evil means)". On the opposite side, opponents of the lockdown would say that "reducing the death toll (the greater good) does not justify restricting personal freedoms (the evil means)". so which one is the evil done for the greater good? If you analyze it closely enough, the whole motto about not justifying the means loses meaning. ultimately, it's about not compromising your ideals for what seems like an easier gain. Well, szeth was all about not compromising. nale was about not compromising look where it brought them. and if morality was as easy as quoting a few meaningful sentences, it wouldn't be a hot topic. actually, the best argument against taravangian, and the one that also works most for the real world, is the one of ignorance, brought out by dalinar at some point. you don't know that doing this will help. you don't know that we'll fail. you don't know that you'll win, or that you winning would help. and you are undermining everyone else's effort on the long shot that you may be correct. when in doubt, better be safe. it's not an argument of lofty ideals. it's an argument about unforseen consequences. and evil actions are much more likely to have evil unforeseen consequences than good actions. now, back on taravangian, i don't believe him to be right. but i'm still calling him morally grey, for the simple reason that, unlike many proponents of his morality, he actually wants to help, and he is actually self-sacrificing more than many other more heroic character. and this is a hallmark of good. "will sacrifice himself for others". "will put the well being of strangers in front of his own". taravangian fits those completely. having him just be evil would completely undermine the characterization.

To further expand on the point of "brandon would not write a bad book, it would get stopped in the revision process", I point out this is exactly what happened with apocalypse guard. brandon set out to write a book. the book wasn't good. brandon did not publish it. that's all. worst thing to happen would be something like calamity, the end was somewhat unsatisfying but it was still a good book. in any case, one bad book would not impact the quality of every other book brandon has written. they wouldn't magically become bad just because of a bad sequel. At worst we'll see something like the indiana jones trilogy, where the fans insist it's a trilogy despite evidence to the contrary. I can see the meme on the internet "brandon is dead and was substituted by a lookalike".