Islington

I like Adamat from The Powder Mage series. I usually don't like the depowered character in a book, but his story was the most personal, I think. 

Monzcarro Murcatto is a good one from Abercrombie's universe. A tough lady out for vengeance is very Kill Bill. 

Little known series, but Matthew Swift from A Madness of Angels. Self described as having two modes: apocalyptically powerful and regular guy who doesn't want to go volcanic on anyone. 

I hate Malazan. Tried to read past book 1 a dozen times. I think if I read your entire first book and still don't know hardly anything about what's happening, you goofed up. 

Jasnah is my favorite character that I completely disagree with on nearly everything. 

Finally, the only thread that matters. I want to know what her "madness" was and whether the sexual assault/molestation theory is right. 

3 hours ago, Leyrann said:

Not sure wheter you're saying @FeatherWriter isn't human or Renarin isn't fictional.

My intro to the shard was reading Feather's essay about Renarin. After that, I'm not sure which one is true. 

38 minutes ago, Steeldancer said:

I love Taln that much 

weve formed a deep bond

One chapter and you faint for the guy. We're going to have to watch the hospitals when he gets his book on the back 5

Just everything involving Queen J the Elscalling Slayer was tight. She was my favorite when the coolest thing she did was survive getting stabbed, let alone the Calvinball nonsense she gets up to in this. Weaponized Soulcasting makes her a tiny god. If she would've been in Shadesmar with Team Teen Angst and Azure, that chapter would've been three pages long. At times I feel like I love Jasnah as much as Feather loves Renarin, but then I remember that no human loves anyone or anything fictional that much. 

1 hour ago, IndigoAjah said:

How is that any different to, say, Jasnah? Szeth? Mraize? The only reason she seems out of place is because you KNOW she's from Warbreaker (or more accurately, Warbreaker is her character prequel to give backstory for when she turns up here). Ignoring that cross- world interactions is meant to be a major point in SA anyway, none of those things are any more enigmatic than the first time we hear about any of the new concepts in this book (as in, new to the characters). You are biased simply because you know the origins of her mysteries 

You're saying she's as engaging as two viewpoint characters and a possible major villain. I'm not saying she's bad or that it's bad she's in the book. I'm saying she's distractingly out of place. She states outright that she's from another land. It's almost like, she shows up and the Dawnchant gets translated and you're like "Wait, she's maybe from the same  place as the original humans? Are there aliens in this? Where is she from?Why aren't we following this chick? She's obviously the main character!" It's not good or bad, just a statement. If it increases the world and mystery for you, cool. It took me out of the story. 

1 hour ago, IndigoAjah said:

YMMV. I think she fits perfectly, and how does she defy in world explanation? The key plot twist in this novel was all about migration from a different world. 

Her strange "Shardblade", her insistence that she's been in Shadesmar before to travel, her preparation for Awakening, and her speaking about Nightblood all stood out to me as things that if you haven't read Warbreaker, would lend Azure "I'm a protagonist" syndrome. 

Azure raises SO MANY questions to the reader of just the Stormlight Archive that she could eclipse some of the main characters in terms of Protagonist-ness. She feels like the protagonist of a separate work dropping by to say hello, which she is, but it makes you want to see more of her than perhaps some of the actual main characters. She basically says "I'm from another planet with different magic and I have a special lightsaber and know other mysterious characters in the plot. Anyway, good luck saving the world or whatever, I'm going to go reminisce about Warbreaker 2: Vengeance over here" and it kinda pulled me out of the story for a bit. 

Just now, Blacksmithki said:

The difference here is mostly that Brandon had always intended those characters to be a part of stormlight archives and mostly made warbreaker as a way to introduce them. Even if you look back at WoK Prime, Zahel is more or less the same character he is here, minus a few colour metaphors. I don't mind if characters he has always intended to be a big part of the series have larger parts, you really don't need to have read warbreaker to understand them, it just is nice i find.

I disagree. She defies all in world explanation and sticks out like a sore thumb. It's like when Doctor Strange shows up in Thor. Hes against the...aesthetic so much he opens a million questions when he shows up. 

Like I said, I trust Brandon. It didn't sour the book for me or anything, but it did stick out. 

6 hours ago, Seonid said:

Which Cosmere stuff in particular bothered you?

Mostly Vivenna and her Ginsu. Kaladin investigating her and her being like "Yeah I'm from Nalthis and have a magic color eating sword" was just a shade too front and center for me. Zahel had the perfect amount of screen time and references for me. 

Finally people will stop saying "Love triangle". Unless Adolin and Kaladin are having private spear lessons, it's a love angle not triangle. 

Also, I don't like all the Cosmere stuff here. I trust Brandon enough to suspend my dislike, so to speak, but I felt there was a little too much "Heh, get it?" in this one. 

First question when Dalinar used Adhesion to stick the realms together: Can he make new Honorblades? That'd be useful. 

Jasnah was an absolute beast during the final confrontation. I always knew Elsecallers would be buckwild in a fight. Especially when they're Super Saiyan. And queen? Hell ya. 

Overall, I liked it. A lot of revelations I didn't expect to see till the back 5, given traditional fantasy book pacing. 

I am a little ashamed to admit I requested PTO. I haven't done something that silly since Bloodborne came out but needs must, you know?

On 11/7/2017 at 1:56 AM, Calderis said:

Cultivation is definitely active. 

Emphasis mine. 

Add in that the Diagram screams of Cultivation's intent (strengthen the whole through aggressive pruning and directed growth) and yeah, she involved. 

Cultivation's intent lends itself to subterfuge. She's a planner. A web weaver. If you see Cultivation acting outright, it will be because she's backed into a corner and doesn't have a subtle option. 

I think this. Cultivation strikes me as the archetypal web weaver. She is playing the long game, trying to get SOMEONE into position to bully Rayse out of her star system without getting ganked like Tanavast. 

3 hours ago, Calderis said:

Shallan was speculating as to what it could have been. I do not believe that the unmade were "almost certainly people." I just think they were something before being corrupted. 

I still stand by that something being the Dawnsingers. 

Oooh, I love this theory. 

I actually buy all his stuff that way too. A physical copy to devour on the day I always schedule off work following release, a Kindle to read on the sly or when it's not convenient to lug a 2k page book around, and an audiobook to listen to for subsequent re-reads. 

And I dont have it yet. I'm so jealous people have it now. 

5 minutes ago, Marethyu316 said:

Of course, a socially constructed morality also requires someone to decide what is right and wrong. Someone will stand in the place of God or the State or whatever and decide what is moral and what is not, and whether you're an Athiest or a Christian that person will at some point do so without all the necessary knowledge to abide by that moral standard. Actually, that will be the case almost all the time.

 

Re: absolute vs relative morality

As a guide for our actions, neither of these terms is very helpful. There maybe a God whose moral requirements we are responsible to follow (I believe so), but we have no chance of meeting those standards all the time, if we can even agree on what those are. Relative morality is sometimes used to say that each person's individual moral code is equally valid and beyond reproach, but no one actually operates that way in real life. We make judgments all the time and if we didn't we'd be taken advantage of by unscrupulous people and apparently have to be okay with that. I don't think most people actually believe in moral relativism in that sense.

However, morality is subjective, meaning it is context specific and people dependent. This doesn't mean that there is no truth, only that we can't know truth apart from being ourselves and we can't act morally apart from interacting with another person who sees the world from a different perspective than us. I don't think this means that there are no standards of right and wrong, but it does mean that there isn't some simple formula to solve the complex moral problems and dilemmas. 

My fellow Christians, if appealing to absolute morality was effective, then the law would have been enough. In one sense it was enough to condemn us, but not enough to save. That took the incarnation, which is the ultimate example of the absolute and eternal, coming subjectively as a human being and seeking out relationship with individuals. 

I actually agree with this. I believe in an absolute morality, but I think people goof up all the time, myself included. We need subjectivity in a way to make the best of the mess. 

On the topic of the...thread? before we derailed it a bit, I apply a starker judgement of fictional characters than I ever would in real life because we see all their thoughts through their eyes. And also, they're fictional, so it's not a real circumstance and it's not a real situation. Like, no one can or did get actually hurt, no one's feelings are involved, etc. 

Just now, Blightsong said:

I love that this forum is a place where discussions rooted in belief don't immediately turn to crap-slinging matches . This is actually an interesting discussion!

@Steeldancer and @Islington, if you can imagine yourself without your belief, does that version of you still believe in absolute morality? Why?

And I have the opposite questions for you, @Calderis.

No. I struggled with Conduct Disorder as a kid and teenager before becoming saved by grace. Church and counseling have shaped who I am in ways I really don't think I'll ever know. I imagine I would be a very different person. 

8 minutes ago, Steeldancer said:

Hey Scriptorian. 

Let's just take note that our friend Calderis over here is an Atheist. So... the whole God thing won't totally work. 

That being said, i totally agree with you. Morality does exist. Not from an arbitrary Shard, but an actual true God. 

However, i do find this divide absolutely fascinating. That atheists seem to immediately no longer believe in an absolute morality... idk. Its just really interesting. I also love that Brandon's Books can inspire such a discussion, despite him being very much religious!

Well, to be fair, if you're an atheist, morality is a human invention. So it wouldn't be absolute, it would be mutable by its very nature. That makes perfect sense to me. It's the only logical conclusion I think you can come to, honestly. 

19 minutes ago, Marethyu316 said:

 Snip

 

This is sort of what I'm saying. His actions may be necessary. Even compelling. I may even do the exact same thing, given the situation. The utility of his actions do not lend them morality, though. Just because he saves people in the long run, which I'm not convinced he will/that is his actual goal, does not mean he's right in his actions. 

@Scriptorian On the subject of the diagram, I asked Brandon if Taravangian was actually more intelligent or if he were just less connected/more connected to the spiritual realm on his slider, and he said I was on the right track. It just seemed weird to me because usually in the real world if you get smarter you further see the consequences of your actions and are better able to help others. Despite what Hollywood shows, being smart doesn't make you a jerk usually. 

@Marethyu316 I don't think his goal is what he thinks it is. Allowing another to take power would fit his goal just as well, but the Diagram says to kill Dalinar if he is able to unify Alethkar/the Vorin Kingdoms. He seems to instead be amassing his own power, because Taravangian Knows Best. 

@Calderis I would completely disagree with your view of morality, then. Moral relativism in general I find questionable. I think it seeks to undermine and degrade morality in general as a concept by implying that if your argument or situation is bad enough, any action is excusable, which...nah. I'd just disagree. Which is fine, everyone can think whatever about morality. I won't yuck your yum, not my job. 

Mr T, to extend the analogy, isn't strangling someone in self defense, he's strangling someone so that he can take over his house, because he needs to be in control; someone's going to blow it up next week. But honestly, I think we're going to have to accept that we won't agree here, since we're coming from pretty much opposite corners. 

@Toaster Retribution I won't pretend to know God's mind, but while I'd say that intentions are important when your actions have unforseen consequences, Taravangian is saying, at his bottom line, that morality is not important, results are. I believe that Jesus would disagree, but that's something taken in faith (though I could drum up some scripture and context that would support that), so I don't really know how to "argue" it or even what the goal of that argument would be. To convince you? I'm not out to convert anyone to my way of thinking beyond the idea that I think Taravangian is a capital B Bad Dude, though understandable. I get his reason, I just disagree. 

34 minutes ago, Fifth of Daybreak said:

I feel like it fits all of your criteria. A character who has lived as a paragon of good for his whole life and is regarded as such commits a terrible terrible act and argues that he did the correct thing and had a moral position for stopping a worse thing. Am I misunderstanding the scenario you put forth? Watchmen spoilers

  Reveal hidden contents

 

 

I don't know if Mr T is moral. I would say no, but that's because I have a strong belief in God and that colors my view of morality pretty heavily. For instance, I would say that nothing but supernatural assistance can elevate man from a fallen creature. I admit that, and it makes me judge Taravangian much more harshly than most, because of his feigned sadness. I'm not saying he's failing; he probably believes he's compassionate. I would say his compassion is a sallow, pallid thing though, starved of actions to feed it. But. 

I would insist that Taravangian actions, when viewed away from intentions, which most agree don't matter as much when the rubber hits the road, are evil. Mass murder, kidnapping, abuse...you can't really say "But I did it for a good reason" and make the families of those victims believe you're morally righteous. I believe when morality enters the conversation, the victim is the judge. 

Just imagine if it came out today that the Queen of England strangled a man to death. Or anyone in power, honestly. They'd go to jail (hopefully, though that's another issue). At the very least public outcry would be tremendous. Even if they were a wonderful, previously moral ruler. That one act perverts their entire legacy. That's just the way humans think. (And personally it is the way I believe sin works. Your intentions and past are obliterated when sin enters. It taints your morality). 

Honestly, I used to be all about the Windrunners, but having this intensely stimulating conversation is really making me think I'd wanna hang with (sane) Nalan in the Skybreaker clubhouse. 

23 minutes ago, Fifth of Daybreak said:

Watchmen spoilers

  Reveal hidden contents

 

 

I feel like this proves MY point lol. 

@Calderis The paragon of virtue is an argument based on hyperbole. What was that movement Shallan hated? Anyway, I'm not saying you're wrong, and I don't think anyone would say he's a hero, I would just say that I think the knights WERE if not outright capital G Good Guys, they were at least heroic. If not, how could they have had the recreance? People that use literal ideas to beat monsters to death don't stop being heroes unless they have a really good reason, and they did. Which implies at least a base of decent morality, but you may be right. We'll see, I guess. 

@mariapapadia I think it's because modern fiction is very post modern and subversive. A conflicted, brooding anti-villain is "more interesting" than a squeaky clean hero, though Brandon writes his heroes conflicted enough. 

"But what if the monsters were the misunderstood good guys" is such a trope now that it's subversive to write a straight protagonist vs antagonist as good vs evil. 

@Calderis He doesn't have compassion, though. Compassionate people don't commit genocide. Compassionate people take actions to mitigate the suffering of others. Taravangian uses others for his benefit to amass power and cries afterwards because he's just so sad. If he had compassion on the people he tortured and killed he would stop at some point, which he shows no signs of doing. Being sorry isn't being sorry if you don't change. Repentance requires sacrifice and change, not boohooing because I'll do what's right and make the hard choice because I'm just so right, which is what Taravangian is doing. 

Again, Necessary is not Good. If you do a bad thing that MUST be done according to your methodology, then it is Necessary. Taravangian states that his goal is  the survival of humanity. Therefore, he does things he seems necessary towards that goal. Their necessity towards his goal does not make his actions good or evil. They make them necessary or unnecessary. Their virtue is not defined, their utility is. 

Something is good when it is a righteous thing, done righteously, for righteous reasons. That's why good is rare. The stars have to align for it to show up. Necessary things are a dime a dozen. Is Taravangian GOOD for doing what he does? No. Is he justified in the necessity? Perhaps, it depends on your opinion on "The Greater Good" which, by the way, only jerks use as a justification. 

No shining paragon of virtue ever commits genocide in fiction and is like "Yeah, I did this hideous and evil thing, but guys it's fine. It's worth it, cause even though I kidnapped, tortured, and murdered people, assassinated all of my rivals, and then intentionally hid knowledge that could have saved people, I became king of the world. And isn't that worth it all, morally?"

Quote

 

I think it has to do with the philosophical implications of the Radiants. 

Shallan uses Illumination and Transformation. So she Illuminates what one could be, and inspires transformation of that person. I've always gotten the vibe that Shallan's order will have a lot to do with hope. She brought hope to her brothers, to her slavers, etc. The greatest "lie" is hope. 

Kaladin uses Gravitation and Adhesion. He draws men to him and keeps them together as his squires, elevating them beyond what they would normally be.  

Renarin we haven't seen much of, but so far from his healing of Adolin, he seems to Illuminate truth, or the Ideal truth of what someone could be, and cause Progression through that. The truth setting free and such. 

From what we've heard of Elsecallers, they seem to do a lot with the spren. So maybe Transformation through travel, like the Worldsingers. Helping humans and spren understand each other by being a go between. 

Skybreakers are said to be able to tell when someone's guilty. So perhaps they Gravitate others together and Divide into guilty and innocent? 

Anyway, it's just a theory I've had for a while and kind of thought about from time to time.