Texside

Yeah, that makes sense. Hopefully they'll expand it. It'll be nice to see the full picture.

Oh, that's amazing. I love it. Really good use of mechanics there, too, and great opportunity for the scholar. How have you liked character customization and advancement?

Oh, that sounds fantastic. I like when noncombatants get to have their big moments too. I'm excited to try it. Haven't had a chance yet but I'm gonna keep an eye out for a group or try to run Stonewalkers when it's out.

And then he became an Elantrian to boot!

It's definitely worth asking Brandon, I think.

Yeah, definitely -- me and @eriwancoselyn swapped to DM's and I realized I was looking at the story and not the prose. I'm inclined to agree that there was a change there.

Oh heck. Didn't the last Adolin chapter indicate he was learning to read, even? Or am I imagining that?

I'm wondering how much of this is Sigzil trying to justify a desperate, spur of the moment decision after the fact. Like, it seemed like -- in Wind and Truth -- he just jumped to that conclusion out of absolute terror of Vienta being killed by Moash, after she was grievously injured. At the time, he probably thought about it for half a second. But then he had decades to think about it: to add meaning to his decision, to reinterpret it, to ask why he made that choice. And contending with the guilt after, with Vienta never wanting to see him again and the terrible knowledge he could have condemned her to be a Deadeye forever. So, I'm not sure how much his later reflections show what he was thinking at the time, rather than how he processed it later (or failed to).

That's my understanding. I think it would be like Taravangian loaded Dalinar from an earlier save with different choices.

Sorry, I was attempting to respond to your arguments. I think I didn't understand them clearly. I evaluate prose by judging whether it accomplished the four points I raised in my previous post; I'm looking at whether prose clearly and concisely communicates the plot and characterization, and with a turn of phrase that I find entertaining (with an acknowledgment that "entertaining" is absolutely subjective).

Likewise, I loved it! I thought it showed an incredible amount of inconsistency on Taravangian's part. And this may be absurd to say about a person who is a Shard, butI thought it helped humanize him. And showed the dangers of a Shard being humanized. It's a promise of good future drama, and I liked it.

Hey, whoa, before we keep going: if you think I'm attacking you or trying to argue with you for sport, I apologize. I'm getting a sense you're angry. I may not be swayed by your arguments, but I respect we like the same thing and we're both having fun with Brandon's works. I realize text is imperfect for communicating tone, though, and I may be picking up something that's not there. I'm going to avoid block quoting your reply piece-by-piece since I agree, I think it was leading to going around in circles. I'll try to offer a more thorough idea of what I saw. I don't agree with your principle argument that "modern language breaks a scene because it's not consistent with the world we were shown in the early books." I don't think it was inconsistent with that world; I was never taken out of the story, and found the extreme cases made sense (e.g., Kaladin calling himself a therapist after talking to Wit, Lift using Zahel's swearing). Now, I admit, had I not had those examples... I'd have been like "why on earth did Lift drop the s-bomb?" and probably had something taken away from the story as a result. Since I think I didn't explain it well, let me try again to say what I think objective methods of evaluating a story are: That the plot is internally consistent. That one event logically leads to another; that what happened has a clear reason why it did. That the plot and setting are clearly explained and easily understood. I think a good story is one I don't need to re-read a dozen times to get what happened, that I can trace the events that occurred, and that what happens feels consistent with the details of the setting. That characterization and character development is logical and consistent. I want to see that what a character did in Chapter 1 leads to what the character did in Chapter 50, and I can understand how they got there. That the story is engaging and evokes an emotional response. By this, I mean that the events of the narrative are ones I find interesting. I admit this is more subjective, but I do think it's important, so I'm including it. In Wind and Truth, I didn't find the use of modern language to impact those. It didn't bother me -- it didn't render the plot less consistent, make me misunderstand the plot and setting, did not hurt characterization or character development, and didn't result in my disengaging from the story. I understand there was a shift from earlier books, and I apologize if I said there wasn't; I just don't think that shift is significant to my personal enjoyment of the book or my understanding of its quality. I respect your opinion on the matter! Seriously, I appreciate your perspective -- if I understand correctly, you feel that the use of more modern language compared to the earlier books resulted in you feeling Wind and Truth was inconsistent and lower quality -- and it's good food for thought for me! I didn't have my opinion changed, but I don't feel our time was wasted having this talk. I think it's worth considering, because what doesn't bother me will bother some (and vice versa!).

El the Fused, in the middle of the climactic battle in Book 10, turning into the Elend Basin and smacking Kaladin upside the head with several hectares of fertile agricultural ground would be pretty memorable.

Hello!! Welcome aboard! How've you liked the Cosmere RPG?

Yes, but I disagree that what you're describing is an objective marker of quality -- I don't feel it is. I would rate the consistency of the plot movements, evoking emotion through events and actions, the ability to surprise and impress to be what makes it good. I don't think use of modern language would make or break a scene; I don't think trying to pick examples is going to matter because we'll be judging it differently. Yes, I believe the professional author knew or cared about what he was writing and did a deliberate choice to use more modern language. I certainly think about what language I use in a professional capacity. Ah, no, I was disagreeing with you -- I think Dalinar, Navani, and Fen talk differently than Shallan, Adolin, and Kaladin. I realize you may disagree, but this is what I felt was the case after my analysis. It's fine if you disagree, but that would be a matter of analysis and interpretation, which is ultimately a matter of opinion. It's fine if we disagree -- but we do disagree, and it's not something you can "prove" to me. Yeah, but I expect modern language out of Brandon's writing. Heck, it's something I like about Brandon's writing -- it's direct, it's modern, and it's often (to me, which, again, is subjective) pretty funny and consistently moving when it should be. It's not Lord of the Rings, and I don't want it to be. I'll read Tolkien for that; the man was a linguist and a master of that craft. I don't expect that from Brandon, because it's not what he's going for, nor what I go to him for.