Elegy

Yes, it's confirmed to be Awakening:

Probably a slip of the tongue/finger, and I don't want to come across as nit-picky... But there's 13 planets (10 of them being gas giants, so they're not habitable anyway). In that specific WOB, the questioner uses the phrasing "on Roshar", which wouldn't make much sense referring to the system. (I also believe he would say Rosharan System rather than Roshar if he meant it that way, but I realize that this isn't necessarily the case.) There is, however, this WOB that confirms that Cultivation and Honor were both already there at the time Odium "came long with them" (the humans), which has to refer to the planet since he brought the humans from within the system: But I do like how you tackle the known information about the Shards from a different perspective with this theory.

Ok, good to know. Thanks!

Well, it's clearly a hyperbole as a literary device. There's no way he wanted to say that literally noone cares about it. Of course some users care. So I don't think the title should be classified as questionable. On the topic: Is there any additional content like maps or an Arcanum in the package? Or just the usual Dayside map and the story? The release would be way more appealing to me with stuff like that.

The kindle edition seems to be out today. Didn't know that. Anyway, the title still rings true, sadly. One question I care for though: Is there an Ars Arcanum included?

And it's now officially a hybrid! According to his Facebook page!

We could probably make a whole thread about unpopular Star Wars opinions. Everyone has at the very least one of them. I didn't really mean that they don't have any depth (they have some in character and themes), but rather that I don't enjoy them because of the depth. They don't depend on being deep art movies like, say, films by Krzyisztof Kieslowski or Paul Thomas Anderson. It's a bonus, not the thing itself. Regarding the question you asked after that, escapist art is meant to take you on a journey, and if it does a good job at that, it leaves you at least a little bit different than before. So yes. Also, high fantasy is, in a way, espacism by definition, but it can have depth and it can lack depth and can still be worthwhile experiencing and enjoying. That said, as much as I love some discussion about art, I'll refrain from continuing this one since this is not a "art philosophy" thread and I don't want to derail it too much.

I don't think we disagree quite as much as you make it sound: If something makes you laugh a couple of hours (even without having a huge impact on your life), then that's an outstanding quality in itself. In my opinion, Edgar Wright's Cornetto trilogy for instance is amazing - not because the films are deep, but because they, as I see it, are extremely good at being funny. In that way, they're outstanding to me. The standards I meant are by no means the difference between "deep and impactful" and "not deep and impactful", but between "it was really good at something" (for example being funny) and "it was kiiinda good enough to make me keep watching it". To make people laugh for several hours is a huge achievement in my opinion, and comedy and entertainment is an art that's often underrated. So good entertainment definitely fulfills the standards that I meant. Film, music, literature (which is my field of study), visual arts (photography, painting and drawing, but the former less than the latter), comics (mostly manga, but not exclusively), and theatre (mostly stage musicals). I play video games regularly, but I'm not deep enough in the scene to add it as no. 7. Of these, I make music and write books myself (nothing released though), and I'd love to make short films, but the logistics are too demanding, sadly. Since we're here, I'm pretty sure we agree about Sanderson being an amazing writer, so there's that at the very least.

I see what you mean, but at the same time I believe you're making two different statements at once, one that I agree with and one that I don't. The one I agree with being the one about comedies: I didn't mean that the aforementioned standard should be "comedies are not deep" or stuff like that. I agree that writing off stuff that way is ill-advised. Yet that's a different thing than hanging onto a story one doesn't actually care for. Of course, I'm solely explaining my own experience right here and I'm not trying to make anyone change their viewing habits. I personally don't have time for mediocrity, perhaps because I'm kinda deep into 6 different art forms at once and therefore can only really bother with the best quarter of each. Edit: To clarify, I initially replied because you phrased it as an imperative ... being more content with stuff you don't actually like is not something I'd ever advise, so that's why I replied - not to give instructions (in case I come across that way).

I'm at Dark Crystal as well - on episode 3 now. It's great! The faces of the characters in particular have so much expression, it's wonderful. There's a few minor gripes I have with it (like the sun in the outdoors scenes being far too bright/having that digital lens-flare look that I can't stand), but I'm very pleased so far! I've also been re-watching individual scenes from another recent (but very different) fantasy puppet animation series, Thunderbolt Fantasy. It's one of the most fun things I've seen, completely over the top and extremely well-done. In the mood for this insane, fast-paced action puppet stuff. Season 3 won't happen until next year, sadly.

Gotta disagree with this big time. It's not elitist to have standards, and there's way too much stuff out there and not enough time to go through every piece of media just because there's things that are mildly likable. I've gotten used to not bothering with mediocrity anymore and it's made my life better. That said, of course the story is not the only thing that determines the quality of, say, a series or a movie. But I don't see why I should waste my time with works that don't have any truly outstanding aspects to them (be it cinematography, art design, things like that. Like I said, it doesn't have to be a story, I'd even say that I've grown out of story-based movies, although I still enjoy those if they're well-done). And I don't see that as elitism. Moreover, it's the acceptance of mediocrity in art that has brought us to the oversaturation of mediocrity that's, in my opinion, happening in pretty much all art forms - then again, I guess that might be listed as a "controversial opinion" of mine, since disliking something that's mainstream is controversial by definition.

I didn't write that. What I wrote about "less than a half" refered to Khriss' statement, not to Edgli's.

Yes, but First of the Sun counts as a minor shardworld (akin to Ashyn and Threnody), so those wouldn't be among the 10. Major shardworlds are only those with a full Shard. As for minor shardworlds, yeah, I could definitely imagine there's like a dozen of those left!

Not necessarily. As far as we know, Ambition for instance never settled on a shardworld, so there might be similar cases of Shards splintered before they Invested. It's also confirmed that one of the Shards we don't know floats around without a planet (can't find the WOB right now, only the ones that reference it). There are 10 major shardworlds (at least that's what Brandon said ages ago) and we know 6, maybe 5 if Braize doesn't count (but it should) ... I think it adds up quite nicely. I'm just wondering where he's going to find the place to discuss all of the Shards in-depth. I fear that he won't be able to in a lot of cases, except for general classifications in Dragonsteel and possibly a Cosmere encyclopedia.

She uses the expression "interfer with each", not "settle together". It doesn't necessarily mean that the Shards settled on the same world, just that they still interacted, in opposition to their pact. Actually, the three dishardic worlds we know are presumably the only ones; Khriss stated that they are unusual, but if there was even one more world with two Shards, half of the Shards would have settled on dishardic worlds, and mulitiple Shards settling on the same world wouldn't be really unusual if half of them did it.

Even a "working" dictatorship is not good, since it can never ensure that it will "work" tomorrow. A benevolent dictator might be replaced by a terrible one. It technically paves the way to despotism, so whether or not this potential is made use of, a dictatorship can never be "great" by defition. A working political system is not defined by what's done with it but by what can theoretically be done with it. Also: Brandon has repeatedly stated that his character's views do not stand in any relation to his own, so, while I understand why that question would be raised, that debate is kinda out of place in that context. He just makes characters discuss a topic, not to make us think what he thinks, but to express how the characters feel about these topics.

In an attempt to fill the void after the Stormlight reread, I started Naoki Urasawa's manga Billy Bat. Urasawa is a big one for me, my favorite story-teller ever along with Brandon (not fantasy though, his specialities are grim thrillers), and this was one of the few series that I hadn't read yet. At volume 6 now (of 20) and, despite a somewhat disoriented beginning, it's already amazing.

As was already mentioned, it would have been a bad decision in terms of dramaturgy. WOK's last part is also the shortest of them all and works primarily as a transition to WOR. That's most probably the case because, compared to WOR and OB, that book ends pretty open-ended. The fifth part is basically Brandon saying "yep, this is only the beginning". Adding interludes just for that doesn't feel right.

Courage is something associated with change/the willingness to inspire change in my book, so I'd rather associate it with Ruin and/or Cultivation. I guess Dependability would make sense for Preservation and Honor - Stoneward style. But Protection also works!

You're all right, of course. I mentioned the Heralds in allusion to the quote in the original post: Wasn't the best idea though, obviously.

Duralumin is an alloy of aluminium and copper and has a very different effect, so I guess no.

It's actually both: That said, to respond to the original post, the numbers don't seem to be tied to the Shards necessarily, but the planets: Although that's technically a RAFO, the last answer definitely points in a direction.

A spren is a Cognitive Shadows of sorts and therefore stuck to its respective part of Shadesmar. So it's not the Knight but the spren that's the reason for that. In the first WOB, Brandon merely clarifies that there is indeed a way around that - one that the Heralds for instance, as Cognitive Shadows travelling between Roshar and Braize, have figured out. Although we don't know whether or not Hoid knows how it works by the time of Oathbringer, it's safe to say he's figured it out by Mistborn Era 2, which is set after SA's front five and shows Hoid casually making cameos as usual. That said, it's still completely unclear how it works, or what would happen to a Cognitive Shadow if they tried to leave their planet, for that matter.

The Ghostbloods' emblem has been described as three diamonds overlapping, which makes it feel likely that they'd like the three Shards on Roshar to become one. No other evidence for that, just a thought.

But in that sentence, she's referring to Scadrial as a planet, not to the Scadrian system. In this case, the planet is the place. So that's the scale she's using at that point. If she'd said "The Scadrian System is one of only two places", I would agree, but she means the planet as a place, so it's safe to say that, by the measures she's using with this statement, Roshar as a planet would be one place and Ashyn as a planet would be another place.