RenegadeShroom

I don't think the Vin page is ready yet. I'm the one who wrote the bulk of the article as it is now, and there's a lot that still needs to be added, particularly from the Hero of Ages; that section is pretty bare-bones. Also the existing parts may need to be edited...? Written better? At the moment, it's not complete, and not good enough to be the featured article, IMO. We could try to get it to exemplary status and then feature it, though. I'd be happy to get back into that article and finish it!

SoS spoilers:

While I'm fairly convinced by the rest of the post, I'm pretty sure that you completely failed to account for the unique combo abilities referenced in the SoS Ars Arcanum in the post. Now, given the rest of the evidence, I'm inclined to go with your theory anyway, but that's a little hold you gotta plug up. Cover your bases and all that. Otherwise you might get people heckling you about that.... ...Not that I'd be opposed to you enduring some frustration.

Actually, speaking of that, I'll take the opportunity to drop a link to the raisin analogy. It's not a very long post, but to summarise. You have a bunch of chocolate raisins, put a handful in one bowl, and fill the other bowl to the brim. This is plainly unfair. You give these bowls to two people, and take away five raisins from the person with barely anything in theirs, give them to person with the already full bowl. Now you're just being an chull. If you take a handful from the full bowl and drop them in the other bowl, however, you're evening out the scales. Even if you added the same number of raisins to each bowl, it'd take a hell of a lot of raisins for the numerical difference to even out! The chocolate raisins in the post are an analogy for fictional characters, the bowls are a stand in for race, but you can apply it to any kind of representation, really. Gender, for instance. So, actually making this relevant to the discussion! Like Feather was saying, straight men already have their bowls filled to the brim with chocolate raisins. What does it tell everyone else about you when you react this way to taking a handful of raisins out of your full bowl, and give them to someone who's bowl is practically empty? You'll barely even notice, while it'll mean a hell of a lot more to the other person. Or are straight men protesting this sort of thing so greedy that they'll stomp and cry for their raisins back when you try to make things a little more fair for everyone else? (Feather, you're welcome for me making your post at least 25% objectively better by posting this. YOU'RE WELCOME.)

Sorry folks, I'm just gonna jump in here to respond to the asexuality/aromanticism discussion from the last page. You all keep doing your thing. @maxal: The different subcategories of asexuality and aromanticism, plus the two themselves, are definitely not "teenage things". Even if those labels themselves have been created by teenagers*, it doesn't diminish their validity as labels. The ignorance of the population at large also doesn't invalidate aro and ace people. We exist, regardless of whether or not others believe it. And as a direct counter to the point, many aro and ace people are adults. People like to apply the low estimate of 1% of the population being asexual. Statistically speaking, that may be a small number, but in practise, 1% of the population, globally, is 70 million people. To be quite frank, not understanding why someone might need to come out as ace or aro is pretty expected. I wouldn't expect someone who is, presumably, heterosexual and cisgender, as well as allo**, to understand this without explanation. (I apologise if I've mislabeled you here, but this is definitely how you're coming off.) Those of us who aren't "normal" like the rest of you suffer for it, and many asexuals and aromantic people feel broken, like there's something wrong with them, until they discover the labels and identify themselves as such. Not being queer puts you in a position of never having to confront the problems in our society which alienate those of us who are queer, because it will never affect you personally. You will never be ostracised or discriminated against in any serious manner for being straight, cis or allo. * Though I doubt that that is the case; see autochorissexuality. The meaning of the term isn't relevant to the discussion, but it is yet another subcategory of asexuality, which was coined by a university professor named Anthony Bogaert. ** 'Allo' being someone who is not aro/ace. As in, allosexual or alloromantic. @king of nowhere: The whole point of these labels is for you to do you. The label helps some people, other find it unnecessary. I should say however, that I may certainly be wrong in my explanation of demiromanticism. As someone who has never experienced romantic attraction, I can't tell you what it's like, I have to rely on others' explanations. I may well have misremembered. If you're interested to learn more about the aromantic spectrum, I encourage you to research it. I don't consider any of the labels I've heard of to date too specific. Sure, there's undoubtedly a line, but that line is, in my opinion, still far off. We're still doing broad categories. Demiromanticism, autochorissexual, whatever other 'specific' labels you may hear, are just subcategories on the aromantic and asexual spectra. Broadly, one can identify themselves as asexual, and if they feel the need to, specify that they're autochorissexual. Still, it doesn't matter if someone's personal identity is too specific for other peoples' tastes. It's entirely up to them to define themselves, and these words existing lets us know that there's others out there like us, that we're not alone in these feelings, and most importantly, that we're not broken for being this way. Focusing specifically on this part of your post, I just have to say that specifically in relation to queer issues, identity is incredibly important to us. It's who we are when the rest of the world is telling us that it is wrong to be this way, that we are wrong for believing we are this way. It creates communities which can stand against the enormous social pressure that's brought down on queer people by the majority.

I disagree that you need to know someone to be romantically attracted to them. Granted, I have literally no experience here, but my understanding is that that's exactly what a crush is. You don't have to know them well at all. If that's all it was, then demiromanticism (not a seperate thing, just a subset of aromanticism) wouldn't be a thing. Demiromanticism/demisexuality is when you don't feel any romantic/sexual attraction to someone until you've already formed a strong emotional bond with them. Surely this applies to aromanticism and asexuality, no? If you've never been romantically or sexually attracted to anyone in your life, when you've met plenty of people, that's kind of a big tip off, especially when others around you have been, and they talk about it plenty. It's telling that aromantic people will often feel like we're broken before we find a label for ourselves and realise that there are other people like us. It's easy to realise when others are experiencing things that you are not, especially something that's so pervasive in our society. I know this post was a while ago in the discussion, but it's really not just a teenage thing. And it's not about being ready for a relationship. It's just not having those feelings at all. Sometimes it is just a phase -- though that doesn't mean that you should ever tell someone who comes out as ace/aro to you that, because that's really not a pleasant thing to say to someone, and it's even a big fear for many of us that our identity will turn out to just be a phase -- but I'd encourage you not to treat it that way, and definitely not just as a teenage thing.

I'm fairly certain that he only answers the new questions ever since he started up again several months ago. On Reddit you can see the newest comments by going to the 'sort by' drop down menu above the reply box and selecting 'new'. Most if not all of the unanswered questions are the ones from the very start of the AMA. Assuming he continues to answer AMA questions, if you post yours he should answer it!

Maxal, your ages are somewhat off. It's less egregious than you seem to think; ((character's age) x 1.1) With that in mind, in order; Lift is fourteen, flashback!Shallan is fifteen, flashback!Kaladin is sixteen, Shallan is eighteen, Kaladin and Renarin are twenty-one, and Adolin is twenty-five. I would also point out in your argument for Lift, the "breasts and curves" aspect is entirely dependent on the individual. Personally, I don't think it ruins anything. I don't recall Lift passing for a ten year old, for one thing. I don't really see why Shallan couldn't be naive if she's eighteen -- her circumstances remain the same, after all -- and twenty one is still young. I don't believe Renarin is supposed to look childlike, and I completely fail to understand why Adolin being only two years older would utterly destroy his character. In the flashbacks, they're still teenagers who are roughly the same age.

I would like to point out that trans people do exist, so there are trans men who can give birth if they so choose. Additionally, I'd dispute that the strongest person in the world will always be male. Not just because there are trans women who might decide to pursue that, but since it's entirely a matter of training, I'd think that excepting social pressures -- so while I agree that the strongest person in the world right now is probably more likely to be male, that's because of how society puts pressure on people and shapes them -- one's sex/gender doesn't factor significantly into their strength. - I'm a cis male, but as of the last few days I've been wondering if perhaps I'm simply that way because it's the path of least resistance? I don't feel any particular resonance with being male, it's just sort of how it's always been and I never really questioned it. I don't feel I'm female or demigender or genderfluid or anything, but maybe agender wouldn't be inaccurate? Of course, I do wonder if my introspection leading me to being agender isn't just me subconsciously trying to fit my gender with my sexuality; being asexual and aromantic already, maybe I'm just trying to convince myself that I'm agender so I can "have the whole set" so to speak? Hrm. I think it goes without saying from the rest of my post that I don't exactly feel that the gender binary is something that should be adhered to, nor that I believe it's a biological fact. Personally I believe that sex is also a social construct, or at least, that there's more to it than the binary understanding we as a society currently have, as evidenced by intersex people, among others! As a side note, I wonder if there could also be a thread about sexuality? Or perhaps modify this thread's purpose to encompass all of that? 'Gender, Sexuality, etc' discussion perhaps?

I don't really understand the leap from 'spren have genders' to 'spren gender is indicative of a surgebinder's sexuality'? I don't get why that would be reflected at all, actually? Is the implication that Surgebinders are necessarily attracted to their spren? Because I don't get that either. (Mistborn spoilers) I'm personally holding out for more queer cosmere characters than just the ones we've had confirmed by WoB, and I hope that there'll be more diverse representation than just gay people and a fictional race that is asexual. Eurgh, yeah. It's this really gross kind of heteronormativity too, where two women in a relationship isn't as valid as a straight couple, thanks to this weird fetishisation of "girl on girl is hot." However, I'd disagree that it means that bisexual women aren't in as dire need of representation in media as bisexual men! Every example of objectified lesbians/bisexual women does plenty of harm in the real world, and needs to be addressed with actual decent examples, IMO! I think that this is a good example of how real life contextualises fiction, regardless of authorial intent! Like, the fact is that having a bisexual person end up with someone of the opposite gender has kind of... sketchy and unfortunate implications, despite how that is an actual thing that happens. But it feels sketchy and unfortunate because of stereotypes and ignorance about sexuality, so people who are savvy about this sort of thing might shy away from it -- although personally I'd emotionally shy away from it while rationally working out and encouraging others to see that yes, this is just as legitimate because this character is bisexual, not gay. But this is also the kind of problem that can be completely meaningless if people would just include more bisexual characters in their works so that they can show variety, rather than accidentally portraying stereotypes or accidentally employing bad tropes. ... Er, to get somewhat back on topic though, I personally don't think that any of the Kholin men are bisexual. Brandon's said he's still in the process of learning about this sort of thing -- queer issues that is -- plus has only confirmed two queer characters outright. While I would expect that that number doesn't include every character under that category because he might not want to reveal sexualities of some characters for whatever reason, I think it's safe to say that from a meta standpoint, it's unlikely that any of the Kholin men are queer, sadly. Still holding out for asexual Jasnah though. d: EDIT: Just want to clarify, I'm not offended by anything anyone else has said in the topic so far! If any part of the post comes off as aggressive/angry, that's totally unintentional on my part, sorry.

Can you permaban people for public indecency? Asking for ... a "friend". While she's away. And unable to protest or defend herself. (:

When will you finally cave in to canon Vanalen? If you want to downvote me so bad, why don't you mod-boost me to an amount of rep that you feel comfortable downvoting? Why am I so outrageously cool and smart and better than you?

If all my ice cream melts forever, is it really still ice cream? Why are you obsessed with desserts? They are just stupid and dry places that only garbage people love!

To be honest, nothing will ever dissuade me (or the rest of the tumblr cosmere fandom, apparently) that the Highprince of Dads i mean dalinar is hot dad. It's like, every time Brandon goes out of his way to say that "no one could mistake Dalinar Kholin for being handsome" I'm just all, "guys how hot is dadinar though." Dadinar, Highprince of Dads, hottest dad forever. <3

Which desert is your favourite? Ice cream? Cake? A healthy yoghurt?

I disagree with the idea that reputation is just a number. I do consider it trivial, effectively meaningless, especially on a personal basis, but that's because I've only ever had upvotes anywhere. And I'm certain that I only have upvotes on another forum because they have no downvotes over there -- which makes the already trivial rep system even more pointless, to be honest. The point, though, is that while many people do consider it just a number that goes up or down, for many people it can be hurtful and upsetting! That's totally fine, what I'm saying is that you can't help how you react to this emotionally. It's easy to rationally say, "yeah, okay, it's just a number, whatever", but when negativity is directed at you, people have a tendency to linger on that longer than positivity. It sucks! You can't just... choose not to feel bad, you know? So I think that should be a point of consideration here. Regardless, I do think that downvotes should remain anonymous, for various reasons which have been said here already far better than I could have.

Argent, you got your second quote mixed up a little! You switched the answers for the Honour/Tanavast question and the Tearim question.

It was a very desperate move on their part, which apparently worked, initially. Eshonai's attempts to talk to Dalinar in TWOK and WOR are her trying to sue for peace, and the listeners had initially hoped that drawing the Alethi into a war of attrition on the Shattered Plains would bore them. What they didn't account for was the gemhearts and human greed. Evidence from the first edition hardcover of WOR: Basically, they made a desperate decision which they thought was necessary, and they weren't quite as capable of handling it as well as they thought and it really screwed them over in the end. I'm only wondering why Eshonai had to beat Dalinar into submission at the Battle of the Tower before she tried to talk to him!

Why have a eulogy when you can remove them with the very black magic they sold you? The irony will be so thick you could taste it! There's practically nothing that could go wrong at all with this totally not-bogus black magic they claim to be able to give you. It's just too perfect a deal not to take! :3

Yeah, but come on. Who doesn't want to learn black magic in order to solve their marital problems?

On Odium being female not adding anything to the plot, I don't see that it has to? The point of having female villains isn't really to add things to the plot, it's really about representing people. Odium's gender should really be completely irrelevant to the plot, so of course it doesn't add anything. Mistborn On the whole though, I agree with you, Argent. female!TLR wouldn't take a hell of a lot of tweaking to the plot. I'm curious as to why you guys believe this? I disagree that it would be farcical, nonsensical or come off as a parody to see a matriarchal society in fantasy at all, so I'm wondering about your points of view here. There's far stranger things in fantasy than matriarchy after all, (the idea of which I don't find strange at all) and saying that matriarchy would come off as nonsensical does have some unfortunate implications!

I think what needs to happen more, in general, is to have authors create their characters independent of gender first, and then after that, happen to make them male/female/non-binary, rather than agonising over creating a character to be female. There should be some consideration given to numbers of characters representing typically under-represented people there, but still. Or hell, just make your characters as you like, then switch around their genders! The latter option seems to me like it would certainly help some authors realise a certain gender bias they hold, and ultimately prove to be more interesting with more varied representations of actual people. I'm more iffy on blaming in-universe societies for the inequality in our cast of characters though! The author chooses what kind of society to create, and what kind of characters they create and use. A sexist society doesn't preclude a female cast of characters from being a focus, and if anything, I'd say that creating a sexist society encourages using female characters for the narrative, in order to challenge the status quo and/or examine social roles, especially when we have so many books where corrupt moral authorities that need to be challenged exist.

Oh dang, Survival is that you? o: While ah, 'direct connection' is something of a tricky question here, there is a bigger picture! It's not quite so overt, but you can catch hints here and there in Brandon's related books if you keep an eye out for 'em. Usually I like to let people read a bunch of his books before introducing them to the big picture, but it seems you stumbled across 17S quickly, so it might be hard to avoid! xD Hope you enjoy the forums, at any rate!

The way Eshonai talks about it in the narration doesn't really imply that it's out of the ordinary. She just says that they're close, really. The only point of comparison we have though are Bila and Thude, who are a warpair. But since there's no mention of whether they are once-mates or something to that effect, it's hard to tell.

Yeah, I just wasn't sure, since at the moment there aren't many Parshendi characters, and out of the ones we've seen there's only four I can think of who even have named partners. Thanks, Joe! I'm just gonna use the spouse category as a placeholder until/if you decide to add "once-mate" or something along those lines to the template, then, if that's cool?