Ookla

Thank you! That's good to know. I still figure I'd better stick with what my church has said, but having the actual Biblical sources and interpretations is pretty interesting to be sure. Overall, I just want to say thank you to everyone for being so patient with me and being willing to have this discussion; from my standpoint it's been really good to have a chance to actually get to know what you all think about these things a bit better. I have a lot to think about, so thank you for that.

You're right. I was trying to look at things from a secular perspective, because to any atheist, religion seems optional. But it's my opinion that, if you really, truly believe in a religion, you've got to accept everything that religion says unless you want to start your own that fits your beliefs better. You can't pick and choose what parts of a person you like in a relationship, and I think religion is the same. It's a difficult discussion to have, and I'm still trying to work out what I actually think and what the right answer is. Really, what I've landed on is that I'm not sure. I actually chose the word conclusion intentionally, because using the word belief indicates to me that I've decided what I think. Conclusion, to me, says that, based on the available information and evidence I have, and the discussions we've had, here's what I've tried to combine together. Maybe not the absolute best choice of words, but it was the best option I could think of at the time. Ultimately, the only thing I've reached is that I can make decisions for myself, but others' decisions are their own, so I can't condemn them for that. What the middle ground should be, I don't know. I'm not sure where other Christian religions get their no-homosexuality rule from; in my religion, the biggest piece of evidence I use in creating that distinction for myself is "The Family: A Proclamation to the World." Now, there are probably people who would look at that document and say, "That's a problem, because it's pushing traditional gender norms, oh no!" I look at it and say, "This is the way God has asked me to live, so this is the way I'm going to live." But I'm probably biased, because I don't mind the traditional gender norms and actively want to be a stay-at-home mom one day. So, yeah. I guess my real conclusion so far is just that I don't know. I know what I believe, and I hear and understand what you guys are saying. I haven't figured out how those two things fit together.

WHERE I'M AT: You make a lot of good points, and while I can't say I'm 100% convinced to change my voting strategy (to be totally honest and authentic to where I'm at), I'm definitely going to have to stop and consider. You're absolutely right; a society that claims to be just and free should respect people's agency, while maintaining reasonable limits on what a person can and can't do (such as infringing on another person's rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (which was, as I recall, a phrasing placed into the US Constitution as a compromise between the slave states, who would have said "property" to continue slavery, and the non-slave states, who would also have said "property," except that they didn't want slavery to continue indefinitely). So you can't kill someone, you can't kidnap someone or restrict their ability to make choices, and you can't break into their house and steal their stuff, which I feel like covers a pretty good majority of crimes. From a secular standpoint, you're totally right. People should be free to marry whomever they'd like. (I'll get to the religious standpoint, which is where I really disagree with Sanderson, later.) When it comes to the tactfulness point, I really am trying to express the way I honestly feel and be totally authentic to who I am and where I'm at, but I want to do so kindly (to avoid the "couched behind excuses and justifications" issue @Ewery1 mentioned). Being rude, even if the rudeness is accidental, is a great way to stop discussion and start an argument, so I want to avoid that. I legitimately want (or legitimately want to legitimately want, I'm not sure how close I am yet) to get a better understanding of y'all's perspective, and I can't do that if I'm shutting you down before we even get started. MY THOUGHTS ON THE DIFFERENT PERCEPTIONS OF VIOLENT AND SEXUAL CONTENT: When it comes to the difference between the way violent content and sexual content are perceived in books (and media in general), @Returned makes some good points, but I think there's another side to it as well; Returned mentioned that there's a lot of justification that goes on, and I think they're exactly right. In general, violence is easier to justify. "The Germans are slaughtering Jews! This is a big deal!" or "Pearl Harbor just got attacked! This is the last straw; we need to go to war!" That's the sort of propaganda that happened in America around World War 2, and a lot of men from my church enlisted in the army to serve their country. Now, looking back, there are some people who question if America entering the world wars was really necessary--if we hadn't joined the first, the war probably would have petered out because each side was at a stalemate--soldiers were fighting and dying, but neither Allies nor Axis were really making any progress. Through the use of propaganda, America found excuses to join the war and utterly demolished the Axis (Source: "World War One" and "World War Two" by Richard J. Maybury--great history books, easy to read because they're written for teens, and well-researched information.). Had we not joined WWI, then we wouldn't have set a precedent that would encourage us to join WWII, and we may have been able to stay out of it all. For America, was war really necessary at that point? No; we weren't in danger. But we justified the violence and joined in anyway. When it comes to sexual content, I think the issue a lot of people of my religion run into is that, even with the "condoned situations" in my church (heterosexually, within the bounds of marriage), sexual topics in general are pretty taboo. When we run into violence in books, it's easy to justify because we so often justify it in real life: "Oh, the bad guys are a problem, we need to fight them off." When we run into sexual content in books (that is more extensive than hand-holding and kissing, basically), we're not used to sexual topics being discussed in that way, and our first instinct is something to the effect of, "Ooh, icky!" Even though, objectively, violence is indeed much worse when you really think about it, because in killing another person, you cut off their opportunity to continue learning and growing here on Earth. In fact, in my church, murder is considered one of the worst sins a person can commit for that very reason, with sexual sin falling a short distance behind (which is probably where the taboo comes from). MY CONCLUSION: When it comes to LGBTQIA+ issues in general, I stand with my church for the way I will live and the way I will teach and encourage my children to live, even if I agree that government should allow people their agency and freedom to choose who they want to marry (I can imagine how frustrated I would be if there was a law preventing me from legally marrying my fiancé). No matter what you believe about the state of someone's soul, in all objectivity and practicality for everyday life, religion is inherently optional--living the laws the government has set forth is not. Government has a responsibility to enforce its laws, while churches only have the ability to enforce their tenets to the point of excommunicating someone--and if you're leaving a church or being excommunicated from it, chances are you know exactly why that is and were already somewhat prepared for the consequences. But all this is on an organizational level. On an individual basis, I think every person has a responsibility to care about and have compassion towards others, no matter their belief, and I don't think we have a right to interfere with each others' lives (except for our own children, but that's a different discussion entirely). So, on an individual basis, I don't think any of us have a right to judge anyone else, and that, really, is what I think the main issue here is. One side looks at the other and sees something alien, and judges, and doesn't want to get any closer, and the other side looks at the first and feels excluded and misunderstood. I agree that that is an issue, and that needs to change. Again, I'd love feedback. Does my perspective make sense? Do you notice any errors in my logic and reasoning? Does my conclusion seem like a fair middle ground between the two sides of this debate? And, most importantly, have I continued to succeed in expressing myself kindly?

Well, thank you. It's been a long journey of growth for me (I used to be far more intolerant, before I learned that things that don't directly affect my life are none of my business, really), so I'm glad it's paid off. As for a discussion (whether here or in a DM), I'm totally open to that. I'd love to hear your perspective and try to understand your way of thinking better, and I'd love to be able to share mine.

You are correct, you probably won't find anyone who openly takes issue with Rlainarin here--I am one who takes mild issue with it because I'm a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints who takes a more traditional view on things than Brandon does, but in the spirit of kindness and keeping the 17th Shard a positive place, I try not to bring it up. I'm terrible at being tactful about such things, and the overall spirit of positivity here as compared to Reddit or other social media sites is what convinced me to get an account in the first place. I want to contribute to the spirit of positivity on the 17th Shard, and in most cases, getting involved in a discussion of controversial topics will undermine my efforts in that direction because when I get excited about something (whether that's positive excitement or negative excitement), I lose my ability to speak kindly/tactfully for the duration of the excitement. I may not interpret the teachings of my church the same way Brandon does, but that doesn't give me an excuse to be rude or disrespectful toward others, and I know myself well enough to guess that I would eventually fall to that point if caught in an extended, controversial debate, so I try to stay out of it. Furthermore, I rather like y'all, whether I agree with your opinions all the time or not (and not just on this topic), and I don't want to cause any hurt, so if at any point I don't feel confident that I can state my opinion clearly and kindly, standing up for myself while allowing others to have their own opinions, I usually write up a post to get my thoughts off my chest, then delete it all and sit back to observe how the discussion goes without me. I actually considered replying to this topic earlier today, and I wrote a post up with my opinions, but it didn't feel like it fit with the flow of the conversation, so I deleted it. I really appreciate @Argenti giving me a small opening to insert my opinion, because I think it's allowed me to be a bit more levelheaded and kind than I would have been if I'd just butted into the conversation. (Also, I'll have you know that I've spent nearly an hour on this post, writing things out, editing them down again, and adding bits and thoughts here and there to try and round things out properly. That's how challenging tact is for me. When communicating with people like this, I usually have all the finesse of a T-Rex in a small glassware shop when it comes to controversial discussions; I'm hoping this post will come across as the equivalent of a draft horse in a small glassware shop.) Ultimately, I'm here to nerd out about books, not get into long, involved political debates or pointless arguments about whose opinion is correct when we don't actually know each other and it really doesn't matter that much. For my full opinion on the Rlainarin relationship: As someone who takes mild issue with Rlainarin, what actually made their romance readable for me is that Brandon didn't try to shoehorn it in to check some kind of "representation check-box." He crafted those characters thoughtfully from the start, so when the romance came it didn't feel out-of-the-blue "This character is gay now" like I've felt reading other books (it's a strange phenomenon; usually a pre-established side character turns out to be gay suddenly in Book 2 of a series, and you read it and get mental whiplash because you'd flagged a totally different romance for that character based on the dynamics in Book 1. That's my indicator for "this is a check-box book; figuratively throw it across the room.") Rather, Rlainarin felt like it was meant to be from the start, even though I hadn't noticed it coming in the previous four books (mainly due to a lack of POV chapters from those two characters). Did I agree with it morally/relligiously? No. Could I set that aside and enjoy the story anyway? Yes, indeed, and I think it speaks a lot to Brandon's skill as an author that I was able to do that in this case. All right, I'm basically done chatting. I would like some feedback, though; since I'm practicing this tactfulness thing, I'd love to know if you all think I've succeeded or not, or if I should keep myself out of any further discussions of controversial political issues.

I think the issue we're running into here is that it's impossible to please everyone--Brandon's fanbase is so large at this point that there's going to be some subset of people somewhere who will take issue with some part of the way he's written the book. Personally, I loved Wind and Truth--and once she grew a bit after the Way of Kings, Shallan has been one of my top three favorite characters ever since. You find Brandon a little right-wing for your taste; I find him a little left-wing for mine. That's not a bad thing; that's just how people are--we've all got different preferences and interests, and as a result, no matter what Brandon does, someone is going to leave disappointed. It goes right back to the fable by Aesop about the old man, his son, and the donkey--no matter how you take the donkey to market (whether the old man is on its back, the son is on its back, both are on its back, or they carry the donkey), someone will think it's a bad way to do it. Personally, I think it's better to focus on the parts one does like rather than harping on to no end about the parts one doesn't. The Renarin/Rlain relationship wasn't my favorite for various reasons, but I've made my peace with it and moved on. I love the books for other reasons, but if you love the books because you feel represented by the characters in them, great! That means the writing is doing its job. And if we both have different quibbles about the books, that's okay too. It's a book, not the end of the world. Plus, as I mentioned in another post recently, sure, maybe Wind and Truth isn't quite as polished as it could have been if it had more time. I, for one, appreciate that Brandon wanted to follow through on the deadline he set himself and get the story to us when he said he would. Plus, I've heard he's just changed editorial teams--that's going to make a difference. And if this book ends up being a learning experience for him, great! That means we'll get even higher quality writing from him later on. Whatever the case, it was good enough for me!

Well, thank you!

Just gonna throw something out there, because I actually thought that the way things turned out was really clever, for this reason: We saw in Mistborn that something that seems good (Preservation) becomes bad when taken too far (stagnation), and something that seems bad (Ruin) becomes good when taken just far enough (change forcing growth). I think that may have been Brandon's goal here, too. We've been conditioned all series long to automatically think, "Honor good, Odium bad," just as the characters do. The thing is, I think that to have an accurate view of all the Shards, we need to look at them from an Adonalsium perspective. No Shard is complete and balanced without the others. Pure Honor is a problem--it leads to a blind devotion, either to the law or to oaths. But blind devotion is dangerous; how many people in real life are so blindly devoted to a relationship (such as a marriage bond) that they don't recognize the harm that is being done to them by that person? Likewise, you need a little Odium to recognize that This Is Not Okay and use that as impetus to leave and get some help. But Odium taken too far is just as bad or worse. I have a feeling that this is a pattern we're going to keep seeing throughout the Cosmere. The Shards are incomplete. Used a little, all of them are or can be good things. Used too much, without the balancing influence of the other Shards, there will be problems. Now, could it have been written better? Sure. But that's going to be the case with any writer in any book. As someone who does some writing herself, I can understand why the writing quality could have dropped in this book. Sanderson is taking on some massive challenges, both in writing therapy (which, I would argue, was not the reason for anyone's healing except for Nightblood, and Nightblood is basically a six-year-old in terms of maturity), trying to describe the relatively undescribable Spiritual Realm, wrapping up a giant book with a conclusion that will lead into a giant second arc, moving his editing and such in-house, and so on. Could the book have done with another year and another round or two of revisions? Absolutely; most books can, even if this one needed it a bit more than most. But in this, Sanderson held to his own oaths to all of us to have the book out on time. Basically, I think there's more going into this than we talk about, and a lot of it may be Sanderson stretching and trying to improve. I mean, look at his early attempts at writing neurodiversity. His earliest published attempt in Elantris was laughable. But look at how far he's come. Finally, to round off my soapbox, I think that we as fans have a responsibility not to make Sanderson or his writing a god in our own minds. Every writer is going to have a project they fail on from time to time; it's a natural part of our growth and learning as writers. There's an adage in the writing community that says, "You don't ever learn how to write a book; you only ever learn how to write THIS book." Every book comes with unique challenges, and sometimes we're not yet prepared to overcome them the way we'd like. If we expect godlike writing levels from an author time and time again, at some point we will be disappointed--just as Roshar's heroes were when they learned that the Almighty they believed in was no God, only a god. Is Sanderson a really good writer? Absolutely, yes. But let's not assume that there aren't still areas where he's going to need further practice and improvement to achieve the standards he's set for himself--and I think that's okay. So give feedback--that's how writers learn--but don't immediately jump to "not going to read book 6," or "may not read Sanderson anymore." Don't buy new books from him right away, if you must, but borrow them from your local library and read them and see if this drop in quality you see becomes a pattern, or if this is a once-in-a-while learning experience for him. Anyhow, I'm done talking now. Do with that what you will; it's basically all my opinion so you have absolutely no requirement to agree with me. I just think that a lot of people are jumping to extreme conclusions rather quickly, or else are not succeeding at providing a wholly balanced view of what they think.

Having just watched The Two Towers over again tonight, I kind of wonder if the "I'm his therapist" line was unconsciously inspired by a line from Sam when he and Frodo are captured by Faramir. Faramir is talking to Frodo and asks about Sam, "Who are you? And him--is he your bodyguard?" And Sam replies, "His gardener." In LotR, it's kinda epic. But I think it didn't translate well to the WaT, if LotR was indeed an inspiring source for it.

Dia duit and welcome to the Shard! I'm not Irish, but I did try and learn the language at one point. Who is your favorite Cosmere character, and why?

I agree. I don't think it's so much that Dalinar is responsible for stopping Odium and doesn't want to be as it is that he's learned more about the Shards and now has a better understanding that they are the only ones who can really stop him--they just need the impetus to actually buckle down and get the job done, and quit ignoring the problem and letting Roshar suffer. In that way, Dalinar's not escaping responsibility, he's fulfilling his responsibility to do the best thing he can for everyone involved, especially his own people on Roshar. And as I recall, he made an oath to the whole Coalition that he'd do his best to do what's right for Roshar as a whole, so in that way he's also doing the most Honorable thing he can. (But I might be remembering wrong, not sure.) Whatever the case, I certainly didn't feel like there was any major theme of rejecting responsibility in this book--but I'd love to hear some more specific examples and how you interpret them, just to get another perspective.

DUDE! This is incredible! It sounds so good; I rarely get goosebumps from music, but this one's getting me good! Well done!

Oh, that's clever. I wouldn't put it past Brandon to do something sneaky like that.

To be fair, I wouldn't have noticed the first time 'round either, if it weren't for the fact that I compulsively spoil these sorts of things for myself before I ever get there.

Have you finished the book yet?

I'm mostly just excited to see Shallan exploring Shadesmar and the Cosmere with a kid (or two) in tow! Though... given what I've learned in my early childhood education classes this semester, there may be some developmental oddities if you have a child growing up with two Cryptics for godparents/aunt and uncle and a dad who can only talk to them via seon. That will be an interesting plot arc to watch!

I think part of it was that he carried a Dawnshard? Maybe the powers would have interacted weird and that's what would have gotten him, which is why he had to give it to Sigzil. But I don't know, I'm no Cosmere expert. I just like reading the books. My full-book reaction: I like this book! There were quite a few jump-up-and-down moments for me, but mostly I'm just happy that the ending was satisfying--Dalinar made the best choice possible in the end, Kaladin swore his 5th Ideal and is finally becoming emotionally healthy, Szeth is on a path to growth, Adolin gets to keep working with the not-so-deadeye spren, Shallan is stuck in Shadesmar, but has access to the resources she needs to keep in contact with Adolin and explore the Cosmere, plus she's most probably pregnant, which means we get to see cool stuff with her kid later on! (Can you tell that's the part I'm most excited about?) Wind and Truth ended such that I think I'll be okay waiting however many years for the second arc to begin, and were something crazy to happen and Brandon never got a chance to write the second arc, I still think I'd be okay--there's enough tied off that there's no cliffhangers or loose ends I'm stressed about, but enough left open that I could imagine the rest of the Cosmere's story on my own if I wanted/needed to. Also, I'm not one for nitpicking, and when I am it's usually typos (there are a few of those). I'm just happy to have the story! Are there things that could probably have been done better? Of course, that's how life works. But in my opinion, Wind and Truth was done very well indeed, and now sits about on a level with Rhythm of War in my mind. (I'm not one to place RoW at the bottom of the SA tier-list; that would be Oathbringer for me.)

Exist could fit well with Preservation, Invention, Cultivation, and Virtuosity. But I don't know the names of the other Dawnshards besides Change, so I don't know if there's a better grouping. If there's a Dawnshard called Creation, then at least 2 of those4 would fit better there.

Congratulations, this thread has officially prompted a story idea exploring this topic!

When it comes to phoenixes, I usually put in the caveat that if they don't burn, they don't die. So if you drown a phoenix, or kill it above an ocean, it's not coming back. Though tossing a bucket of water over the burning remains of a phoenix won't be enough, because their fire is hot enough to evaporate it before it gets there (this could cause some narrative issues of its own; if phoenix-fire is that hot, does the ocean explode a bit when a phoenix dies at the bottom of the coral reef?). As for the genetic disease, I'd say that yeah, it's reborn with the genetic disease every time, because each time the phoenix is reborn it's using the same genetic material. Though as @Silver Phantom said, there's no reason why a mutation during cell reproduction couldn't undo the genetic fault. However, I do like @Just a Silvereye's point that if phoenixes aren't exactly born from parents, then where would they get the genetic disease from? A mutation during the incarnation process makes the most sense to me. My main question with phoenixes is, if a phoenix had a human avatar form and had a child with a real human, what abilities would be passed down from each parent? Would you end up with a person who dies and reincarnates eternally but has no bird form, or a mortal human who just happens to have fiery wings/fire immunity, or something else entirely? Would it change from one child to another? If you do have a person who dies and reincarnates eternally, are they reborn in an egg? Could they stay in the egg until they reach adulthood, and then hatch with all their abilities or faculties, or do they have to go through the entire childhood process all over again (I know which one I would find more annoying...)? If you can't tell, these are questions I've thought about a wee bit.

Too bad many movie companies don't seem to recognize animation as a totally valid form of storytelling in its own right. (cough cough *Universal's new "How to Train Your Dragon" adaptation* cough cough)

Not really. They did a little jiu-jitsu, a few tae-kwon-do techniques, a whole lot of kickboxing and some Shotokan-style katas. But that's about all I know. If you can run up walls, that's more advanced parkour than I have under my belt. (Unless you're being slightly facetious, in which case, "Yep, running up walls is the first technique I learned! ")

It's actually not too surprising you've never heard of Bushi Kai; it's a conglomerate style that used to be taught in a tiny school in my hometown. They shut down a few years back, though. I mostly learned kickboxing and some grappling from it, but I never got good at either. Irish dance and parkour are awesome! Parkour is also arguably more useful than martial arts, because it means you have more ways to run away. That's good for me; I'd never survive a street fight.

I like your theory. Some combo of the three parts of the debate seems the most likely to me, now that you elucidate it like that. It seems very Brand-on (see what I did there? ) to do multiple things with the group, and to hide their true competence under a few layers of what appears to be extreme incompetence. We've seen twists like that before in Brandon's books.