Ookla
-
Posts
303 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
News
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Events
Posts posted by Ookla
-
-
4 hours ago, AquaRegia said:
Ookla, You did a fine job of being tactful and respectful. All that time invested was worth it LOL
I certainly agree that there are some works in media where attempts at showing diversity have come across as clumsy or heavy-handed... but not all writers/showrunners/directors are equally skilled. A badly implemented story may be a bad implementation, rather than a bad story. Plus, as @Returned correctly points out, frequently the negative reactions people have to those attempts, when carefully examined, really just boil down to "this is different from what I'm accustomed to and I don't like it." Heteronormative romance is NEVER a problem in media, even when it includes abduction/Stockholm Syndrome (Beauty and the Beast), species mixing (The Little Mermaid), an actual literal child in a adult body (Poor Things or Big), or a host of other awful examples from the past, oh, 1,000 years of literature. But two young adult men (malen) in a healthy, respectful, trusting relationship? SICK!
I'm fascinated by this and I'd love to have a discussion about it. Perhaps this forum isn't the place for said discussion; if so, I'd be happy to take it to private messages. Or perhaps there is another topic/subforum where such a discussion (necessarily inclusive of individual religious and cultural beliefs) would be more appropriate.
Or, maybe this topic IS the perfect place for it. I welcome the thoughts of the mod staff.
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.
1 -
1 hour ago, Argenti said:
It's certainly sad that he needs to explain his reasoning behind gay people existing, but alas, it's not surprising that he does feel that he needs to try to explain himself. The LDS church isn't notorious for loving LGBTQIA+ topics, and has done much to prevent rights and protections of the LGBTQIA+ from expanding. I'm gay, but I don't love romance, and representation like that in stormlight, where being gay isn't the sole personality trait, matters.
I'll also say that you probably won't find anyone who takes issue with Renarin and Rlain on the Shard: at least not openly. I don't doubt there are people out there who take issue with it, but reddit or Twitter may have easier finds.
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.
6 -
On 1/9/2025 at 11:12 PM, Wind and Truth apolgist said:
Look, we all have seen it. Everyone from youtube to goodreads to twitter to even here has been saying Wind and Truth is bad, or at least not as good as the previous four books in the series. And most of their arguments are easily dismissed, but you can see where they're coming from.
"Bad pacing"? This book is a literal countdown to destruction where some people are having a nice walk in the countryside with occasional fights, some people are fighting an all-out war against a suicidally aggressive enemy, and some people are having a completely hallucinatory experience.
"Shallan sucks"? She's a cruel, narcissistic, melodramatic, vindictive bully whose definition of accountability for herself is "forgiving and accepting myself". She's liked only by Hoid, who she hugged once, and by Adolin, who managed to offend every single woman in the warcamps despite being the heir to Kholinar which you might think would make girls pretty tolerant of him, and who has such a hard time saying "no" to women that when he had to tell a girl she couldn't fight on the front lines, he all but adopted her.
"Modern prose"? This book is a translation into English. Complain about the puns if you will, and nobody did that before, but if you think the slang and words they're using are too "modern", look at the Pompei graffiti and tell me if you think that, translated to english and rephrased in modern syntax, they wouldn't sound insanely modern.
"I don't like the ending"? This is the Empire Strikes Back, of course it doesn't have a happy ending with roses and flowers. And anyone who thinks Dalinar's death was in any way anticlimactic or lame or not true to his character really needs to rethink life.
But I keep seeing "this is woke" or "the lgbt scenes were shoehorned in" and...I don't get it?? Like sure, the pacing isn't like a standard novel. Shallan is annoying, as she was written to be. Some of the prose is jarring, like when Maya called Adolin a slut, even if the Alethi would naturally have words for that. And the ending isn't nearly as warm and fuzzy as some people wanted. But the point of the scene with Adolin and the transgender-paperwork-filing soldier was Adolin dealing with an unusual person, not some kind of social message. And sure Renarin and Rlain's romance was a little drawn-out and I wanted to get back to the more dangerous and actiony chapters, but what else were they doing in the Spiritual Realm? Of course they'd have a heart-to-heart, that's what the place is for. And I've seen a dozen posts or more, especially on Reddit and twitter, about how the whole "trans radiant" thing is so woke and I just don't get it???? It's literally the opposite, my one gripe with Brandon is how right-wing he is about trans people. Like radiants have mental illnesses, that's how the magic gets into their souls. And Brandon said that the healing that does gender affirmation on trans people would also work on people who are mentally ill and people who are even hypnotized into thinking of themselves in a different way. Like to Brandon, trans people aren't any different from people who are mentally ill. Or even people who are hypnotized. I get that of course if a woman who is hypnotized into thinking she's a man is going to have her body turn male from being a radiant, of course I as a trans man would also have my body change, but it's still gross to think of us being treated the same. And I love the fantasy of becoming radiant and finding that I'm finally physically who I am spiritually, but I don't like how that's no different from someone who got hypnotized. So how is this "woke"??? How????? I don't get it?????????? Do people really see any trans character, no matter how they're treated, and freak out????????????????
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!
8 -
20 hours ago, Mattel said:
A slight theory I have that was prompted by Ookla the Ookla's message, is that maybe one day Honor's Shard will no longer need a vessel because it can think for itself and will have the ability to love, which was removed with the breaking of Adonalsium. I believe the reason that Sanderson is making the story go this way, and made Dalinar renounce his oaths, is so that Honor can grow past being just about oaths, and about what honor actually is. Honor does not currently does not want to live in the hearts of men. But maybe one day...
Well, thank you!
0 -
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.
10 -
2 hours ago, VirtuousTraveller said:
I think the criticism is that the vocabulary, the cliche "therapy speak," and the writing itself distract and lower the quality of "mental health" themes from previous books.
Rather than describing Kaladin as a "therapist" who is "creating treatments/delivering therapy," it would have been more cohesive with the established worldbuliding to use a different word. Helper, healer, giver of counsel - something like that.
Rather than such explicit therapy speak like "how does that make you feel?" or "All you do is listen, then tell me things I already kind of know," it would have sounded more like the Kaladin we got to know for him to frame these concepts from his own experiences working with people in the bridge crew, or as the leader of elite bodyguards for nobility, or as a surgeon, or as the leader of the magical air force of hundreds of people, or even from the men he worked with (for a short time) prior to the tower being invaded, occupied, and liberated in Rhythm of War.
Rather than little cute remarks like "even ruthless assassins need a hug" or blending philosophical quandaries about volition or "making difficult choices so that others can have peace," clarifying the extent of Szeth's mental health challenges (what is psychological vs magical vs cultural values and beliefs etc) and what Kaladin's actual goal is (making Szeth "feel better" vs using Szeth to magically influence Ishar) would help - and those are writing decisions that are either planned and executed well, or not.
That's I think the crux of my criticism - I'm not the one trying to say Kaladin was "doing therapy" on Roshar - the book is. It goes out of its way (and outside the established language, voice, and worldbuilding) to make it clear that Kaladin is "inventing therapy" and that Kaladin is not a spren or god, but a therapist.
Another theme/fumbly writing concept I don't understand are the parallels between Ishar and Kaladin, which would have been really powerful if those parallels had been executed clearer or more intentionally. Ishar and Kaladin of all people should have been able to have some level of understanding of each other. Remember, it was Ishar who said:
Ishar was a man standing up. And has been for thousands of years. He was doing so to help others, and to save the planet(s), and to protect the cosmere from Odium.
Imagine if instead of Kaladin mumbling "Ishar," Kaladin said. "I want to talk about the way you feel. Um...I want to -" he would have said something like:
"Ishar, I cannot pretend to know what the burdens of thousands of years of standing in the face of such darkness is like. But what I do know is a person would not endure that kind of pain without a purpose. Maybe you deserve our worship for the sacrifices you've made. But those sacrifices won't mean anything if we can't turn the tide of this war!"
Ishar could have ignored this plea just like he did in the moment as written in the book.
Then later when Ishar and Kaladin have their (should have been) epic confrontation in Chapter 139, the chapter could have gone exactly like it did, with Ishar shocked that Kaladin was "a man standing up" in the face of the darkness. That seeing Kaladin stand helped give strength to Szeth and Syl.
THEN, instead of following, "How? What are you? His spren? His god?" with "No I'm his therapist"...
...image Kaladin said instead something like:
"No Ishar. I am proof that you are not alone. Proof that your sacrifices mattered. Somebody had to start. Somebody had to step forward and do what was right, even when it was impossibly hard. Because you started, Ishar, I can follow. We stand because they need us - because Roshar needs us. WE STAND BECAUSE IT IS RIGHT"
Ishar can continue to melt down, and Kaladin can make his points about standing being hard, and needing to take care of ourselves when we take on those burdens, and then swear the fifth ideal and continue the story as written.
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.
11 -
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?
0 -
21 minutes ago, Treamayne said:
If you are referencing Dalinar's decision specifically, then I would just like to point out (Day 10 Spoilers):
To me, the situation is the exact opposite. For four books we have seen Hoid appealing to everybody (Frost, Endowment, Harmony, Autonomy, et al.) for help because mortals cannot fight Shards. Frost replied with "non-intervention is the only reasonable policy" - everyone else (except Sazed) replied with "It's our problem, but as long as he's imprisoned, we don't care." (well Harmony was reasonable. . . )
I had been expecting and hoping for something like this since the Letters in Oathbringer - because if one Shard is murdering Shard Vessels and Splintering their Shards - then the other Shards absolutely have a responsibility beyond "Honor trapped him before dying, so we'll ignore the threat."
Well, now they can no longer ignore the threat.
TL;DR - my impression wasn't Dalinar ignores responsibity, so much as Dalinar made the people with the responsibility finally setp-up.
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.
12 -
DUDE! This is incredible! It sounds so good; I rarely get goosebumps from music, but this one's getting me good! Well done!
1 -
3 hours ago, SOM1else said:
Isn't H a wildcard letter in Vorinism? Technically couldn't Nohadon be read as Not-Adon?
Oh, that's clever. I wouldn't put it past Brandon to do something sneaky like that.
1 -
Just now, robardin said:
Yes I did finish the book, but don't remember this passage... Let me go back and read more closely!
...Ah, I see. Her thought to herself about finding a way back to the Physical Realm without an Oathgate, that she might never see Adolin again while putting her hand on her stomach, and that "she could survive. She had to. Not just for herself."
What a yutz I am that I read right past that, LOL
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.
2 -
15 minutes ago, robardin said:
Whoa... I don't think Shallan was pregnant yet...?
Or are you invoking Chekov's Shower Scene as a strong indication that she will find out very soon that she is carrying Adolin's child, while being separated from him for an indefinite time stranded in Shadesmar?
(If she got enough "convertible" Investiture, could she feed the shrunken Oathgate spren to Azimir from Shadesmar to operate it, or is that not ever going to work again?)
But that's going too far into "real" topics, LOL.
Have you finished the book yet?
SpoilerBecause there's a scene near the end of WaT that strongly implies she's pregnant--it's a few months after the Contest of Champions and she's stuck in Shadesmar, so she'd know by that point. So there is Chekov's Shower Scene, but as I see it, that's more just setup for Chekov's "Shallan's Worried About Her Kid" Moment.
7 -
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!
1 -
2 hours ago, robardin said:
Agree with everything you wrote, even the last part, LOL.
It did raise a question in my mind though, which is: if he had this literal backup plan for handling a vaporization at the hands of a Shard ("I'll regenerate from a chunk of myself I left on Scadrial"), then why was he so afraid of being discovered on Roshar by Rayse/Odium earlier when talking to Dalinar in WoR, when he says that "if [Odium] finds me, then I become nothing -- a soul shredded and broken into pieces that cannot be reassembled"?
Or did he only devise this backup with Ulaam since that chat with Dalinar? I don't think so; somehow he feared being "shredded" at a deeper level by Rayse, Splintered if you will, but knowing/hoping that Taravangian/Retribution would "vaporize" him "only physically".
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.)
4 -
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.
0 -
Congratulations, this thread has officially prompted a story idea exploring this topic!
0 -
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.
0 -
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)
4 -
14 hours ago, Drehy said:
Interesting. Do you know what styles it pulled from?
Parkour is useful, but really the only parkour I know is running up walls
.
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!
")
0 -
8 hours ago, Drehy said:
Naming systems are often really different, but is that also Tai Chi Chuan?
That’s impressive! I know a bit of Shotokan, but I’ve never heard of Bushi Kai. Is it stand-up or grappling? And Irish dance and parkour are cool!
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.
0 -
22 minutes ago, Confused said:
I’m a lot Confused. What exactly are you saying?
With that introduction to the Shallan problem, let’s talk.
Some of you think the Ghostbloods play the Keystone Cops. Others think they trick Shallan. I think it depends on the narrative purpose of the Ghostblood scene. Is it to show the Ghostbloods have spren and Investitures they barely know how to use? Is it to show a Radiant can recover from anti-Light? Or will the anti-Light cause some important change in Shallan?
I think it’s all three. I think the Ghostbloods are competent enough. They had one anti-Light bolt prepared and waiting for Shallan: “The Lightweaver is here!” Iyatil cries. It almost sounds like they expect Shallan to have snuck in, like they wanted to experiment on her. To compare the Ghostbloods with Kelsier and his crew is unfair: Kel had to combat the Lord Ruler, his god. The Ghostblood’s nemesis is “only” a 4th Oath Radiant, powerful yes, but not on the Lord Ruler’s level and not nearly as ruthless.
A few of you suggest the anti-Light’s effects will linger. I agree. Shallan’s soul remains highly Invested even when not holding Stormlight. It’s hard to imagine the anti-Light won’t affect her in some way. Will she and her spren be forced to ask Sja-anat to enlighten Pattern and Testament?
Where did that one anti-Light bolt come from? If the Ghostbloods themselves figured out how to make anti-Light, they’d have more than one bolt and ballista on stand-by. Maybe the metal tip limits their manufacture; but maybe someone VERY in-the-know is helping by making anti-Light for them. They wanted to test the bolt’s effectiveness on Shallan and received only one?
Mraize is obviously more than he seems. He continues to groom Shallan. Like the pant leg tucked in his sock, Mraize shooting a normal bolt at Shallan warns her not to block Iyatil’s bolt with her spren. Maybe as that WoB shows, her spren could have blocked it without damage, but neither Mraize nor Shallan might have known that. Maybe he just wanted to test her Radiant reflexes and eye-hand coordination. She’s a Lightweaver, after all, not a trained fighter like Windrunners and Stonewards.
“Obstacle” is the Chapter’s title. Mraize is clearly a goal-focused fellow, whatever those goals are. I don’t think he will allow Shallan to block him from his goals. But he doesn’t want to kill her unless and until he has to. Maybe Mraize wants to preserve Shallan as a worthy opponent until that time comes.
She, however, freaks out whenever she sees him. She reverts to Veil and Radiant. I think Mraize exerts the same sense of authority over her that her father did. Maybe she ends up strangling Mraize while singing him a lullaby...
Has anyone suggested this idea before? Great thought, Teknopathetic! Maybe enlightened spren are “reborn” and free of whatever oaths might have previously bound them. I think Ishar imposed his “order” on spren, not humans. Humans die and new Surgebinders would not be bound. Spren oaths are eternal. Renarin’s, Rlain’s, and Venli’s “reborn” spren choose to be Radiant. Other Nahel spren might choose to bond a non-Radiant and not be oath-bound again.
And finally, my limerick summary of this week’s chapters:
We now know the Shin fear a rock
And anti-Light bolts cause a shock.
But Shallan does not die
(Only Brandon knows why).
And Kal makes Szeth soup from a crock.
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.
1 -
SP3 Spoilers:
Spoiler
YKYASFW you see these and think, "Yes! Now is my chance to become like Yumi!!"2 -
Ask her how she got there.
WWYDIYF a snake in your pocket?
0 -
On 10/22/2024 at 5:48 PM, LIV_SB-DustBringer said:
OHH i hate it when that happens
when someone asks you¨can I ask you a question¨
This, and the evolution of it: "Can I axe you a question?"
No. Just... no. Don't axe me questions, it's not good for their health. But please, please ask me questions, because I love to give answers if I can!
0
On Renarin and Rlain
in Stormlight Archive
Posted
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?