Aspiring Writer

I will admit I did not tear up when he died. My reaction was more, "Oh, you're going to kill him for real? Wow." and then the shock carried through as I read that Teft was gone and I literally said farewell Teft at the end of the chapter. Also @Honorless I cried for Eshoni's part, too. That was a beautiful moment. Very fitting.

So you don't like him doing a reference that is indirect. If your god actually has and uses the title 'one who was born unto himself' or some other significance to your religion, then take what I say with a grain of salt. But referencing something indirectly should not immediately be considered offensive. It's a real-world comparison that he may have been inspired by and based on when writing the origin of his new God of the Cosmere. A lot of people take inspiration from concepts already established and built upon. And while I can see the name of God being sacred, the concept of God's origins less so. Otherwise, the concept of gods birthing other gods would be a sacred concept people can never use, or gods having multiple aspects or personalities. if that's how you believe a God is created, someone having that in their story would seem to more indicate agreement to this being the origin of God. As you said, the LORD's name is sacred, but if he isn't using the LORD's name, this should not be an issue.

I technically didn't. He's a public figure that you can do a lot of research on, so he is a good example when compared to someone named John Carton that you'd be lucky to find the Linkedin account of. Okay, so we agree on that. So what exactly are you afraid Brandon will do and think he shouldn't, and why shouldn't he?

Depends on the references and how they are executed. However, God is more of a concept than a person. If someone references Trump in their story, that is a person with a history you can look up and try to figure out, a person with clear beliefs, behaviors, etc.. When someone says God, you don't know which God they are referring to, or likely using the word as more of a title and descriptor, like someone naming themselves Ruler or Creator or the Almighty, or they may just end up making up a new God for their purposes, which has been done in literature in many ways over many centuries, even when those religions were being worshipped. So I don't think it's an exact correlation. But saying that using God is offensive is somewhat like a nation that had several Emporers say you can no longer use the word Emporer because of the significance they have to their culture. They had several Emporers, and just because they gave a character the title of Emporer doesn't mean it's a commentary on any of their Emporers. If they had an Emporer named Emporer Liu and then you name a character Emporer Liu, then I would say there is reason to be concerned, as that can be seen as a commentary to an Emporer they may hold in very high regard and don't want you touching. And so I would say the same in this situation, where you are gatekeeping a term that is very non-specific and doesn't refer to anything too particular. If Sanderson started having a character call themselves the High and Exalted One, then that I would agree would be cause for concern as that is more specific, or El Shaddai. Those are not general and can be interpreted as a commentary on their god. You see my point?

Do you think authors should not have the freedom to have characters call themselves Gods or God?

What was the box made of? Because what if it was made of aluminum?

You have to watch it to understand. Words are not an efficient enough way to communicate the reasonings. Edit: Also, in case anyways says this is off-topic, Shad is a common guest on EFAP, appearing in 17 videos and totaling a time of 3D-15H-18M-30S. https://www.efap.me/guests You can now have your minds blown.

They did a thrity hour podcast for their 100th, and the average is 10. Here's a site that shows their total EFAP time and a graph at the bottom showing the time of every podcast episode. https://www.efap.me/

What's the bruh referring to? there's a lot in that statement to bruh. XD

they range from a half hour to 2 hours depending on the episode, and you can skip a lot as part of it is responding to comments. Also, 5 hours is short for them.XD

How are you choosing the opposites, exactly?

What do you need thsi for? is to for that rewritten physics thing?

@Hentient I suggest convert yourself this round.

Watch one EFAP Mini covering a Mandalorian episode and will you get the gist. There is a lot of sequel quality writing. the difference is just that the sequels were a lot more insulting to their audience while the Mandalorian is trying to please them, which is a step in the right direction, but they have a LONG way to go.

Hmm, interesting. Radiant Order- Writers (Yes, so creative of me) First Ideal- Life before death, strength before weakness, journey before destination. Second Ideal- I will write, even when I don't want to Third Ideal- I will put the story before the spectacle. Fourth Ideal- I will learn how to separate objectivity and subjectivity Fifth Ideal- I am a writer 1. Keep an open mind and consider new ideas 2. Be aware of who you are, and accept that 3. Have standards, and hold to them 4. Know what you want, and strive for them 5. I am me

I would like to point out that if they found out about bendalloy's use before cadmium and found that was allomantically viable, they would then know that one of Bendalloy's alloys would be allomantically viable and then find out it was cadmium.

They aren't often and happen in a particular part of the year (Look up Seasonal Associative Disorder), and I do have a therapist, and I take precautions to make sure I don't do anything that could make my mental health worse. Thank you for the concern, it is greatly appreciated.

Jasnah is asexual. That little scene we get of the two of them confirms that.

You're correct, but I'm focusing on fantasy and sci-fi. Um, first off, everyone is better written and cohesive than Danerys after that season 8 screw up, and two, no idea who Azula or Ozai are. XD I don't know if my voice would be considered high pitched, but I am trying to make it sound better in recordings. Edit, also, let me be clear, you're voice probably doesn't sound that great either by your own standards most likely. I'm not trying to be insulting, but seriously, go and record yourself and see how you sound, because it sounds SO different to what you think you sound like. I wanted to storming kill myself when I heard my voice (In the "Holy rust, I sound annoying and infuriating' type of way, not the depressed way) It is a seriously strange experience everyone should do at least once. if you end up liking your own voice, good for you. I definitely didn't and tried very hard to control my pitch. I'm not insecure about it by any means, but it's like someone wearing formal clothes to work. You want to present yourself well when doing something you want people to see.

Well, now T has control of Odium, and he might end up deciding to invest more. A lot of the Shards we fear are ones who have been investing a lot into their worlds. Not investing might actually be really close-minded. Having an army is better tactically than one incredibly powerful shard. (Same reason why the death star was incredibly stupid tactically.)

now I do. Thx. What does this stand for? Um, first the Mistborn one, I believe the sun is red because of the atmosphere and ash, not because it's actually a Red Sun. Does that change your analysis, or does the problem still exist? I'm curious, I love this stuff. But on to the main point, this is actually something I hear a lot, and similarly to you, it is said responding to someone trying to be critical about some media. When someone points out an error in one thing, some like to point out, in defense of that media, that some media they like has similar errors, or just errors in general. First, this is whataboutism, and is not normally used to advocate discussion. Not to say it shouldn't be used in discussion, it can be. However, this does not defend the piece of media, but instead tries to find the person's bias, in the best-case scenario, and tries to diminish people's ability to critically analyze media at it's worst. Example of the first when justified is if someone is okay with unlimited bullets in one movie, but then isn't okay in the next, showing a double standard. This shows they don't have a consistent standard when analyzing media. However, this does not remove the flaw from the movie. This does not make your position better, you're simply making your opponent's position worse. In the end, your film will still have a flaw. However, a less justified example is when someone says this scene in a movie is bad and then someone else brings up a similar scene from another movie (One that person probably likes or considers in high regard). First off, similar scenes have different contexts. You cannot say someone burning enemy soldiers in a war with fire magic is the same as taking your dragon and burning a city full of civilians to the ground and say they are the same because they both burn people. The context surrounding a scene will dictate if it is well written. So this comparison logic doesn't really work, especially for character motivation which can vary very drastically between characters that might seem similar at first glance and may not make sense when copy-pasted into a different scenario. And furthermore, a bad example is when someone is poking holes into something you like and you try and poke holes in something they like, trying to basically say "See? This thing you like also has problems. They are both bad, so you can't call mine bad without saying yours is bad." First off, this is an incredibly weak position to put yourself in, as this means you cannot counter or argue against any of the points made against you and you have to try and bring something else down to bring your thing up, which already says something about the quality of what you are trying to defend, and not in a good way. But now comes to the real meat of what we're talking about and why your point is incomplete. Yes, every story has its flaws. It is an unfortunate thing. However, saying everything has flaws does not make them equally bad. The severity and the amount of those flaws in a piece of media will determine how well written it is. A good piece of media will have lots of working elements with a few minor and maybe the occasional major error. A bad piece of media will have constant errors and plotholes that break the story and plot, or reduce the quality of it at the least, like making characters seem incredibly dumb. Infinity War, for instance, is a great example of a good film with flaws. The characters bounce of each other incredibly and their motivations and how they go about them are solid. However, a flaw you can point out is that the Infinity Stones abilities make no sense. We have seen Thanos turn people into string and never use that ability again. They are incredibly powerful, and yet it is still possible for the Avengers to fight him and even come close to beating him. In the end, Thanos wins, so the flaw does not break the story, because even if he did do those things, the conclusion would be he wins. Nothing is lost. However, it is still a flaw, and at its worse, it makes Thanos seem less bright, though still effective and dangerous. But it's not story breaking, and Thanos' character remains intact motivational and competence wise while giving us spectacle. Mandalorian, however, is an example of a poorly written series with at least one major flaw every episode and some of which consist for the entirety of the show. I mentioned how he seems to neglect his full arsenal and not use the best equipment for the task, sacrificing his intelligence and competence. Other examples would be him not having his jetpack despite having an autopilot function on it so he can press a button and call it back to him, creating a pothole that would've drastically changed the story. And a plothole that consists through all of the Mandalorian is that a vast majority of blaster bolts hit his armor despite there being several large gaps between plates and the chances of him not getting shot even when charging an enemy and getting shot in the armor 24 times exactly and 0 times on his body are minuscule. So yes, they both have flaws, but they are not equal in quality. You can find errors in all media and complain about them, but simply having flaws doesn't make a piece of media bad, there is context that you have to take into account. Everything is not bad, there are varying degrees of qualities, and if it is impossible to avoid at least one flaw, then we simply shift the scale of peak quality to include at least one flaw and keep striving to only have one flaw. Sorry for taking what you said and expanding on it this much, but it's something I've heard a lot and had plenty of time to think about. This isn't really targeted toward you and more to anyone who would make that argument, which is why a lot of it probably isn't relevant to what you were exactly trying to convey. On another note, I have seen and heard why you have problems with SA, and while I'm not going to argue against those, I would like to say they, like you said, are more subjective and not objective flaws, and can go both ways. I like the prequels. I find them enjoyable. I will wholeheartedly admit they are poorly crafted. A lot of poorly crafted things can end up being enjoyable, and a lot of well-crafted things can end up being unenjoyable. But it is necessary to be able to distinguish the two from each other. Again, not really pointed at you, just wanted to give a short paragraph about it. You seem to have a good handle of it. Maybe you got it from Shad. He is pretty good at distinguishing the two. Also, sorry if the long responses are annoying, I'm passionate about the topics and have a lot to say. Not sure if this will come to a surprise, but this is part of why I am trying to start a youtube channel as a little side project.

I'm not sure if he can take it back, at least easily. Otherwise I don't see why he would be so concerned about doing it. Just invest on whatever a planet a shard is on an take it back once you've killed them.

@Whysper You took away an extra coin from Chasm.

From what I know, it was messy for Ambition, as she was wounded and then killed later somewhere else. i don't remember any WoB saying it was messy for Odium.

I steal from @Shard of Reading Sorry for condemning you to death. Coins-10 Cards-2