Schizoposting

14 minutes ago, Frustration said:

That might work on 99.99% of people, I have a sufficiently obsessive knowledge about history to know that no less than Plato was one of Homer's biggest critics.

If you actually understood Plato, then you'd know that he believed in the objective from of the beautiful. And Plato was never opposed to poetry—that's a blatant misreading. I say this with confidence, because I have read every single one of his dialogues, including the boring and nigh incomprehensible ones.

20 minutes ago, Frustration said:

One of my friends is obsessive about iPhone's cameras and how great they are. To me that means nothing, any camera available on the market is sufficient for me. Pixels have unlockable bootloaders allowing you to change the OS, which is a big draw for me. To the vast majority of the population those words mean nothing and the feature is irrelevant. What about that has to do with advertising?

And why is camera quality more or less valid than OS preferences?

What does camera preference have to do with art?

25 minutes ago, Frustration said:

That would mean that there are over 8 Billion human conditions, of which any particular person is familiar with less than 0.1% of them.

No, because there's a difference between the particular and the universal; it's a basic concept in philosophy.

28 minutes ago, Frustration said:

And on top of that you would have to say that a person just recording a video their life would be a better artist than Shakespeare or Homer combined.

That would be vulgar empiricism—subjects do not have immediate access to "noumena"—the very act of perception gives us a warped view of the object being perceived.  I already made this distinction in a previous comment.

23 hours ago, Frustration said:

And how on earth was it common sense? I would call neither even good, but let's accept the idea that they are. Tolkien quite famously took issue with a lot of Shakespeare's work and set out to do better. He certainly disliked postmodernism and had a quite rigid morality. If Shakespeare is some pinnacle of quality, why did undoubtedly the most influential author in the genre take issue with him?

https://talesoftimesforgotten.com/2019/08/10/the-importance-of-the-homeric-poems-in-ancient-greek-culture/

This is just one example. The fact that people believed in the objectivity of art in the past, is indisputable. 

23 hours ago, Frustration said:

Why do people buy the phones they do? The vast majority of us have the same needs that any particular phone will suffice, and we all have nearly if not completely the same options. So why do some people pick Samsung or Pixels, while others take iPhone?

Advertising. 

23 hours ago, Frustration said:

It's not because one is good and the others are bad. It's not even because people don't know what they want. It's because people have different wants and desires. They value different things, and thus view one or the other as better or worse for them.

Not all wants and desires are equally valid. 

23 hours ago, Frustration said:

Define the human condition.

The condition under which humans exist.

23 hours ago, Frustration said:

That doesn't answer why judging solely based on reflection of the human condition is good.

I already answered that question: it's the only way to objectively determine the quality of art.

23 hours ago, Frustration said:

That you dismiss both other people's opinion and the metrics they used to judge a book simply because you disagree with them, and then proceed to say that their methods of judgment are invalid because they don't hold up to your standards.

I don't dismiss people's opinions because they disagree with me—I am just as willing to dismiss the opinions of people who like WaT, if said opinions are superficial; I already said this in my reply to @Returned. 

On 6/16/2026 at 5:01 PM, Frustration said:

I despise postmodernism with all of my heart. Truth is an absolute. However, value is subjective, that's not philosophical. It's observable reality. People make different decisions based on the same circumstance because they value different things. This is why two people can read the same book and come to two completely different conclusions about it. Not because the book is relative to them, but because they have different values that the book either did or did not appeal to.

For the vast majority if human history, it was common sense that Homer, Shakespeare, or whoever, was the pinnacle of art—it was only with the rise of postmodernism that it was accepted that bad fan fiction was just as good as the great works of yesteryear.    

It's certainly true that people may have various values, but not all values are equal; despite pretensions to the contrary, everyone implicitly accepts this—"tolerant" liberal multiculturalism is famously rather intolerant of "intolerant" values that don't align with its own. So, good art is art that represents values that are good and is opposed to those that are bad. 

But what determines whether or not a value is correct or not? Quite simply: a value is valid to the extent that it's a truthful reflection of the human condition—otherwise, it would be false, and misleading.

On 6/16/2026 at 5:01 PM, Frustration said:

I'm afraid that isn't any clearer. You haven't explained any benefit of judging a book exclusively on how it appeals to the human condition other than stating that it's objective. However all definitions I've found for the human condition are themselves not objective. And even if there is an objective definition out there that I have been unable to find that still doesn't explain why it is the only measure of quality for a book.

The trick is, all art already reflects the (human) conditions under which it was made. The difference between good and bad art, is that the latter only superficially represents these conditions, whilst the former reflects the human condition as it really is. So, one way of determining the human condition would be through literary analysis. (To be clear, some aspects of the human condition are universal, whilst others are particular to a certain time period and certain social conditions.) 

On 6/16/2026 at 5:01 PM, Frustration said:

You didn't respond at all to what @Returned was saying.

I'm not sure what you want me to respond to.

In Yumi, like in other Romantasy, I think that there's a tension between the romance and the fantasy: it's not obvious to me, what the romance has to do with the themes about art, and the struggle against the Father Machine. In regular fantasy, romance is usually just a sub plot to show character growth, or something of that sort—but when both are equally prominent, the story can feel disjointed. 

But it has been a while since I last read Yumi, so if anyone has different opinion on this matter, I'd be curious to hear it.

21 hours ago, Frustration said:

As an opinion, thus with each individual allowed to value whichever part they so desire

The great irony of postmodernism is that saying truth is relative is in itself an objective truth—your assertion that art is subjective is just as exclusionary of other perspectives, as saying that it's not. 

21 hours ago, Frustration said:

That doesn't change the fact that you still claim that those with an opinion different from yours don't understand the reasons for their own feelings. Whether a particular individual or in the aggregate, that's what you claimed.

I don't think that people understand their feelings in general, beyond the superficial. It has nothing to do with their opinion on WaT. 

21 hours ago, Frustration said:

You didn't answer the question.

Why is the reflection of the human condition an objective quality of a given work? Why is literary analysis the only way to determine this?

Because it's the only criterion that can objectively determine the quality of art—conversely, if we judge a given work by how aesthetically pleasing it is, then it degenerates into subjectivism, since different people may find different things to be aesthetically pleasing. Quality can only be determined by literary analysis, because said analysis is defined as understanding how a given work relates to the human condition.  

21 hours ago, Frustration said:

Superior based on what exactly?

Based on the criterion described above. 

13 hours ago, Returned said:

I have a difficult time seeing it as a sign of respect to immediately reject someone's stated reason for why they disliked something, and then assert a totally different reason they never expressed as the reason that is unquestionably correct. Rejecting a view out of hand is the opposite of taking it seriously. It doesn't seem like you're engaging in any inquiry about people's opinions (in this thread at least, which obviously isn't the only one and isn't necessarily representative), instead saying that a variety of expressed opinions can only be wrong both as descriptions of the book and also as description of their own preferences.

What critiques, exactly, have I dismissed out of hand? I have repeatedly stated that there are valid critiques of WaT; however, said critiques are nowhere near enough to explain why there is such vitriol towards this book compared to others, especially when the aforementioned critiques apply just as much, if not more so, to earlier entries in the series. 

13 hours ago, Returned said:

And it's not like you're raising those points when people say they liked the book because the fight scenes were great or Kaladin is soo coooool or subverting structure necessarily produces great works or whatever. It's only the people who feel differently than you about the book that are told to justify their feelings and rationales to you, or else have them dismissed as false and irrelevant.

I would say the exact same thing to those people. Nor do I think that subversion is good for its own sake: it's only good insofar as the ideal being subverted is false.

13 hours ago, Returned said:

As I read your posts in this thread I come away with the impression that you think people who disliked WaT mainly felt that way because they are addicted to the narrative structure used in the first three SA books, are incapable of appreciating or enduring that structural change, are incapable of expressing (or even knowing) that that change is what they disliked, and so blindly grasp at an arbitrary (and invalid) detail and wrongly identify it as the explanation, then utterly commit to it anyways in some sort of fumbling, belligerent ignorance. It's a description of someone foolish and shallow.

This is a very dishonest framing—I never said that people were "addicted", "stupid", "belligerent", or anything of that sort; perhaps you think that people are stupid for lacking self-knowledge, but I don't.

14 hours ago, Returned said:

Comments like "most people are very bad at understanding why like certain things over others beyond the purely superficial: if people find the plot boring, or are disappointed by the ending, the real question is why they feel these things" and "Naturally, this is going to upset the people, who feel attached to ideals being deconstructed, which happens to be a substantial part of the fandom. But since these people are not truly capable of the literary analysis to articulate why WaT discomforts them, they randomly latch on to superficial details that they did not like and fetishize them as being the reason why they feel this way" really radiate contempt and denigration, especially when dismissing those people's opinions (both their evaluation of the book as well as why they evaluated it that way).

Saying that refusing to accept people's self-perception to be unconditionally true, makes you contemptuous and denigrating, is a bizarre claim to make. By that reasoning, every great philosopher and thinker of the last 200 years "radiated contempt and denigration", by doing the former.

On 6/13/2026 at 10:40 PM, Frustration said:

Just because you prefer one to the other doesn't mean that your way of viewing things is correct.

Which way should it be viewed then? 

On 6/13/2026 at 10:40 PM, Frustration said:

I don't think it's a good faith argument to say that anyone who dislikes WaT is incapable of articulating their own feelings and opinions.

Doubly so to assume you know why they actually feel a certain way better than they do.

I never said that "anyone who dislikes WaT is incapable of articulating their own feelings and opinions"; nor do I find the question of why this or that person liked or disliked something to be particularly interesting—I am considering individuals in the aggregate. 

On 6/13/2026 at 11:39 PM, Grubfriend said:

This feels like a huge assumption. A “feeling” that the book doesn’t sit well with you does not send every person incapable of literary analysis to randomly latch onto random details. Many people like specific sections and dislike others. Any reader can do this much without writing a complex analysis. Why is literally analysis required to determine someone’s opinion of a piece of media? Can I not say that the Shattered Plains arch felt like a copy of Azimir, and then conclude that it feels like padding and makes me dislike that part of the book?

The problem is that the immediate, unmediated, experience of consciousness is an illusion: what we think, and how we feel, is determined by unconscious forces beyond our direct control. That's why an individual's account why they feel, think, or act, in a certain way, is not to be trusted. That's not to say that understanding people's reactions to a certain piece of media is impossible, but it takes a deeper investigation than simply taking their word at face value.  

On 6/13/2026 at 11:39 PM, Grubfriend said:

Why is literary critique the “end all be all”, especially when the prose is included in a critique, but you say the content is more important. The popularity is the collective reaction of all readers’ opinions, regardless of how they word their opinions. Most complaints I have seen have said “Jasnah’s debate with Odium is simplistic and makes Jasnah seem stupid for not considering his responses” or “the Shattered Plains arc is a copy of Azimir that doesn’t stand out from its other and also poorly sets up Sigzil’s failure and makes his ending come out of nowhere and feel forced.”

The objective quality of a given work of art is determined by how well it reflects the human condition. The only way to determine this, is through literary analysis.

Regarding the debate, the reason why Jasnah "seems stupid", is because she's not quite the genius that she thinks she is—people were offended by that scene, because they bought into her delusions of invincibility. 

On 6/13/2026 at 11:39 PM, Grubfriend said:

Content judgement is not the problem. The problem is that certain parts ring hollow for certain individuals or groups, which is completely okay. Nothing Brandon has written is objectively perfect and is the absolute perfection of writing that all writers aim for, so we can safely say that he will mess up something, and with a book as large as WaT those sorts of mistakes pile up. The book is seen as flawed not because the masses tunnel vision on superficial details, but because they raise genuine issues with the writing.

Being popular does not give a certain perspective any epistemological privilege over others—far from it. Besides, WaT is hardly despised by the vast majority of readers: just look at the poll results. 

8 hours ago, Returned said:

I'm sure that some people really did dislike WaT for reasons like you suggest. But it's an error to say that that's the only way people could dislike it. Comparing WaT to earlier SA entries, I found the writing to be less polished and more formulaic, the plotting and pacing less natural, the characterization far weaker, the dialogue worse (though not particularly due to being too modern), the development and presentation of themes and ideas far more crude and less intriguing, and the worldbuilding details less imaginative and less smoothly integrated into the narrative and prose. None of that makes the things the book does well any less good. But I think that the book could have accomplished everything you claim about it while also being better written than it was-- my issues are not about what the book was supposedly trying to do but rather about the execution of the attempt.

Obviously, no book is perfect, and one can certainly have valid criticisms of how WaT was executed. The problem is that the backlash in the fandom is completely disproportional to how well the book was actually received by the average reader, not to mention its actual quality. So why is this? Why does a substantial minority of the fandom passionately despise this book? Simply saying that people disliked it because they thought it was bad is tautological.

20 hours ago, Returned said:

People may disagree with any or all of those opinions I hold, and even for those who do agree these items may not have detracted from their experience as much as they did mine. But others may feel similarly, or have other complaints that negatively impacted their enjoyment of the book. I'm glad that you liked it. It's really disrespectful and arrogant to tell others that they're too foolish and incompetent to appreciate the book or even know their own thoughts about it, based primarily on their not liking it so much. There is absolutely room for real critique, and disagreeing with your enthusiasm is not an impressive heuristic for dismissing that.

I don't think that it's at all "arrogant" to treat people's perspectives as the object of critique—if anything, it's the highest form of respect to take these views seriously, instead of dismissing them by saying that all perspectives are equally valid. 

Nor do I think that people are "stupid" for disliking WaT—people like or dislike things for myriads of reasons, which may or may have anything to do with its actual quality. If you read for pleasure and think that Shakespeare is boring, while enjoying Red Rising, that's perfectly fine. But it does not change the fact that the former is far superior to the latter. (Obviously, the Stormlight Archive is nowhere near as good as Shakespeare, but the point still stands.)  

9 hours ago, Returned said:

It's interesting that you give Sanderson a pass on explaining that he intentionally changed the structure in a way that would disappoint without expressing what he intended to accomplish by doing so ("my artistic instincts say this is what's right"), but brush aside readers' comments about what they disliked as wrong unless they explain why to some unspecified degree (people are bad at understanding what they like, so my response by default is to reject their complaints). It seems easier to me to accept that WaT might be a weaker book than other SA volumes in ways that many readers value, and therefore many don't like it as much as those other volumes, than it is to accept that readers can't understand what they like and so being disappointed by a book that was written specifically to not give them what they want is evidence that it's great because if they knew what they liked they wouldn't have been so disappointed with the book that was written to disappoint them. Those are some rough convolutions. There is even room for both of those, especially with such a large fan base, but I think concluding that most of the dislike of the book is shallow and wrongheaded is too dismissive.

Quite frankly, the popularity (or lack of thereof) of a given work has very little to do with its artistic merit—the only way to determine whether a book is good or bad is through literary critique. The problem with the main complaints about WaT, is that they one-sidedly criticize the form (e.g. the prose), while disregarding the content; any serious critique has to consider the interrelation between the two, with the latter being the more important aspect. (Incidentally, that's why a lot of literary fiction is bad—a fetishism of form over content.)

The reason why I like WaT, is because of the way it challenges the assumptions and biases of the earlier books: at the beginning the series starts with a rather naive conception of a struggle between a benevolent Honor and an evil Odium; of course, this is complicated by the fact that the Almighty is dead, the Alethi are terrible, Humans are the real aggressors, and so forth (which is why the earlier books are good)—but broadly, the point still stands. But in WaT, this notion is completely overturned: Honor is just as bad as Odium, Dalinar is a tyrant, and the coalition abandons him as soon as they get a better deal; the entire contest turns out to be a farce, etc. 

Naturally, this is going to upset the people, who feel attached to ideals being deconstructed, which happens to be a substantial part of the fandom. But since these people are not truly capable of the literary analysis to articulate why WaT discomforts them, they randomly latch on to superficial details that they did not like and fetishize them as being the reason why they feel this way. Combine this with the dynamics of fandom, and internet "hyperreality", and you get the sort of backlash that WaT got.

2 hours ago, Frustration said:

I'd argue that literally nothing happened until the last 20 something pages of WaT. If I had to say what changed from the start to the end of OB I'd have to talk about a lot, RoW would have less, but it would still have some. On the other hand, with the exception of Moash, Kharbranth, the Listeners and Theylenah, each of which occurred in a single chapter or Interlude and were relatively minor, I honestly can't think of anything in WaT until the contest of Champions.

I think that it's indisputable that far more happens in WaT, per page, than in the other entries of the series. But if you don't think so, then I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. 

2 hours ago, Frustration said:

You've said this a lot and I have to disagree. While dialogue has never been Brandon's strong suite("Stretch forth thine hand" and Kaladin and Shallan arguing in WoR come to mind), WaT was particularly bad. I honestly don't think bloat became an issue until OB, and it has gotten worse since then. The change in formula might have had a part to play but other than yourself I've never seen anyone complain about it.

To be clear, I am not opposed to the change in formula—actually, it's one of the best parts of the book. However, I am well aware that defending WaT is a rather unpopular opinion, to say the least. So, there has to be some reason why so many people disliked it. While there were many different (sometimes contradictory) complaints about the book, most people are very bad at understanding why like certain things over others beyond the purely superficial: if people find the plot boring, or are disappointed by the ending, the real question is why they feel these things. That's why any serious critique has go deeper than simply complaining about the "modern language".

And to be honest, I can't really take credit for this specific critique, since I more or less got it from Brandon himself:

It's certainly possible that he's wrong, but we should still give his opinion some weight, given that he's the author and likely understands the series more than pretty much anybody. But even if we embrace the death of the author, and completely disregard his opinion, I still think that this explanation works far better than any other at explaining why so many people took issue with WaT. (The effect of fandom on "the Discourse" is an entirely different matter.)

1 hour ago, Frustration said:

While two people can disagree as to what is bloat and what isn't I have to ask how WaT is low on bloat compared to the other entries?

The page space is used a lot more efficiently compared to the other Stomlight books: in WaT there are ten different plotlines going on simultaneously, while in something like RoW or OB literally nothing happens for the first half of the book. 

1 hour ago, Returned said:

There is a lot to like about WaT, and I suspect I will enjoy it more on re-reads than I did during my first pass. I don't think that anyone who loves it is wrong to do so, but I don't think that it should be that shocking that others feel differently. There's quit a bit of rough around the gems, though the gems are as valuable as they ever were.

Some of these criticisms are fair, but most of them are not particularly unique to WaT—the Stormlight archive has always been bloated, and dialogue has never been Brandon's strong suite. While some of the backlash has undoubtedly been amplified by the dynamics of fandom, for many people there's something fundamental that didn't work in WaT. And the reason, I think, is quite simply that Brandon abandoned the classic Stormlight formula used in the first three books of the series. Which is why he (correctly) anticipated that the book would be very controversial. 

Thematically, it's likely to be an inversion of a Desolation, i.e., the Heralds will return and the humans will attack the Singers. Perhaps this will be the result of Taravangian baiting them, but he is incapable of attacking on his own, due to the contract.

I think that the reason why people hate Wind and Truth, is because it's a deconstruction of the Stormlight Archive as whole—for instance, instead of having epic fights, Kaladin spends his time healing others. And instead of having a grand triumphant victory, the ending concludes with an ignoble defeat, with it turning out, that Honor is no better than Odium.

While no book is perfect, I think that it's overall, a very strong book. Primary, for its themes, but I also liked its pacing, prose, the lack of bloat compared to previous books, and it had some excellent moments, like the prologue, the debate, Honor's flashbacks, Kaladin's duel with Nale, the contest of champions etc. The biggest weakness however, in my opinion, would be the Adolin plot line, which was extremely predictable, and generic, although it was by no means bad. 

Overall, I'd say that Wind and Truth is the third best book in the series, only behind The Way of Kings, and Words of Radiance.

1 hour ago, Treamayne said:

The center of the storm is when Spheres typically recharge, a Windrunner flying the Stormwall is able to gain some Stormlight from leakage that far forward. It is possible (but not confirmed) that Windrunners have an edge in this due to their Order's affility with Wind Spren and the Storms. Afterall, we see Szeth do it, but only with the Windrunner Honorblade, and we have not yet seen a Skybreaker do it at all (that I can recall - i'll search in case I have forgotten). Either way, in the heart of the blockage in the Tower, it's unlikely Kaladin could have picked up leakage from the Stormwall.

Hope that helps 

From what I remember, when Kaladin was strung up before the Highstorm, his spheres were only charged during the centerbeat.

Presumably they are flying in and out of the ceneterbeat as needed.

Why do you care about reputation anyways? Its only purpose is to show which posts are popular, and which are not. I understand that getting likes can be addictive but tying them to anything other than popularity, will only lead to further perverse incentives. 

Magic in the Cosmere is just another form of matter, so saying that investiture is the source of consciousness is philosophically no different from saying that it's the result of neural synapses—as such, it has nothing to do with the philosophy of mind, and questions like the nature of Cognitive Shadows, are left to the reader.

I think that it's pretty clear that the Evil is not composed of anti-Ambition, but of anti-investiture as such. So, its intent is the opposition towards regular investiture, which is why individual Nephilim seek to destroy as much of it as possible.

2 hours ago, Frustration said:

It was still a draft, and honestly I love Sword and Sorcery, and while I agree that Fires of December is better, I can still wish for this.

I'll second this, though I don't feel the negatives were that present

Well, Brandon only has a finite amount of time and must therefore prioritize certain things over others. It's a sad fact of life, but he won't be able to get around to writing everything.

4 hours ago, Frustration said:

I'm really sad Brandon probably won't ever finish this.

While the lore may have been interesting, the actual writing was pretty boring, and it felt like generic Sword and Sorcery—The Fires of December is far superior. But maybe you think differently.

1 hour ago, dstokes7 said:

For example, we have no mention or evidence of him targeting any Iriali leaders, despite that country being a regional power and a potential roadblock for Taravangian's desired overlordship of all Roshar (as was indeed demonstrated when Iri proceeded to conquer their portion of the world at the start of the war rather than joining the coalition).

Actually, Kaladin saw Szeth kill people in Iri, in his visions. So Taravangian did target them, at least somewhat. 

As for your question, the Diagram is too convoluted for mortal minds to understand, and we don't have access to all the information regarding the political situation in Roshar, so we don't know for sure. If I had to guess, I'd say that he killed the Prime to weaken Azir, so he could dominate it as part of his coalition, without triggering a full collapse. But obviously, this is all speculative.

4 hours ago, Frustration said:

That's what Tanavast thinks, but Odium did target Devotion and Dominion because they were on the same world

  Reveal hidden contents

Paladin Brewer

Out of all the Shards, why does Odium go for Devotion and Dominion?

Brandon Sanderson

He targets people with two kinds of ideas. Number one, he can argue they're breaking the rules they set out. And two, people he thinks are a good match for him, or a challenge, or a danger.

https://wob.coppermind.net/events/175/#e8358

 

 

 

Both can be true. While Tanavast is not infallible, we should take his views seriously, given that he has Shardic powers and knowledge.

4 hours ago, PanLin said:

Did he? Or did he prioritise Sel and Roshar as multi-Shard systems (and therefore a greater potential threat to him), as implied by these WoBs:

I'm sorry, but this is just wrong:

In western culture, at least, love and hatred are widely considered to be opposites. Maybe you disagree, but the way the Cosmere is written, it's a perfectly valid interpretation.

It's hard to say, because I have read a lot of good books so far in 2026, but I'd say that the Otherland tetralogy was one of the favorite things that I've read this year. It's one of those series that you appreciate the more you think about it. 

I think the main problem with your list is that you assume that there are only two powers, and everyone must be under the dominion of one or the other. This is unrealistic—even at the height of the Cold War, there were still major independent powers, that pursued their own interests. Today this is even more the case. So, we should expect something similar in the Cosmere: Sel, Nalathis, Threnody, Dhatri, Taldian, Yolen, etc., all probably constitute their own poles. They may be closer aligned to Roshar, or to Scadrial, but they aren't dominated by them and are capable of independent action.

Unlikely, the evidence provided is very weak—if this was really the case, you'd expect to see more foreshadowing than a random newspaper ad, that is only vaguely connected to a WoB about Cultivation.

1 hour ago, AnthonyC4 said:

I don't feel this runs counter to anything. The return of Mistborn doesn't erase that technological progress. In fact, it appears that Awakened metalminds are how they go about creating computers and likely a form of general artificial intelligence. That will still remain an entirely viable source of advancement. This also isn't accounting for the use case of using both Mistborn and medallions as a sort of double amplifier, kinda like another duralumin boost. I don't expect it to be something like every soldier being a Mistborn, but I can see them being a specialized class of generalists.

Mistborn represent the mythological ideal of the hero. The point is, even if they're resurrected, they'll be just another soldier/assassin, a powerful one, to be sure, but nothing particularly extraordinary. So, it won't mean a glorious return to a legendary past, but rather a banal continuation of modernity.