Greywatch

I definitely agree that Vorin culture in Stormlight Archive is a really interesting field to see queerness in. Given how strictly binary Vorinism is, the inherent "in-between" nature of queerness is something that just grabs my imagination in a way that the other cosmere worlds don't quite reach. Vorinism only makes the weakest allowances for people in between - ardents being legally agender in their society, how they don't know what to do with the mixed children of lighteyes and darkeyes... Since the Vorin social structures of men and women go so deep down, that they divide what tasks and clothes and food and even way of talking is appropriate for each gender, it's the world I'm most excited to see queer people exist in. As for the scene where Kaladin puts his foot in it a bit, if I have to choose a Watsonian/in-world read, I saw that as Kaladin being a village kid - he's never really seen tenners, he's maybe never met a gay person before, he's not familiar with all the things that exist in his own culture just for lack of exposure. So I saw that as Kaladin being well-meaning and genuinely chill with gayness, but speaking clumsily, out of lack of experience. And I am just so excited for the day when Brandon feels confident and assured in writing a gay protagonist.

This is all a lot of conjecture; they're theories, but guesses shouldn't be used to make claims about the text. There isn't any indication that Jasnah's secret ulterior purpose is to turn Shallan into a killer; in fact, she's determined to have Shallan develop her own moral code. Jasnah doesn't want Shallan to be a follower, she wants Shallan to think for herself, even if that means she disagrees with Jasnah. She doesn't need Shallan to be certain in her convictions, she's already convicted. That aspect of how she teaches Shallan is made very clear during Way of Kings. I don't see any evidence of Jasnah's churning stomach; either killing these four men, or in suggesting to kill the listeners. I feel that Jasnah being secretly torn up about it makes it more palatable for you, but that's not in the text. This seems like a reach to me. Confidence is not enjoyment, and she dresses and acts the way she always acts up until the killing. She is not putting anything "on" for this. On the contrary: Jasnah never says she's there to make a better Kharbranth. Her example she gave was small-scale - not eradicating poverty and crime in Kharbranth, but saving the next barmaid who took a wrong turn. She never claims to want to make Kharbranth a better place. In fact, she's also very clear in WoK that she can't stay for very long in Kharbranth and regrets the lack of time she has for longer, bigger projects. It's why she limits herself to short-term actions. One of those short-term actions is killing the murderers directly instead of trying to systemically root out crime. Jasnah never tries to exonerate herself. She is direct and straightforward. She wanted those specific men dead, and she went to go do that without any fuss at all. We don't know what Jasnah's past is, and even Shallan is making leaps, trying to guess at it based solely on Jasnah's emotion in this scene. Pain, yes, but also anger. Those words from Hoid were for Shallan; Jasnah is in an entirely different life scenario, and as far as we know, those words don't apply to Jasnah's situation.

Who watches the watchmen... who watch the watchmen?

I find myself silently, frequently comparing The Lesson to Adolin's murder of Sadeas. In terms of why I’m okay with it, it comes down to the fact that Sadeas and these men were not going to stop. They were not going to be convinced to change their minds. So though I don’t necessarily think what Jasnah did was ethical, I have to disagree with Shallan here because I do find Jasnah’s actions moral. Others may disagree, but it’s the reason I put them in the same category. Murder is wrong, but given the options available, what they did was the most moral thing to do. The system that Jasnah (and Adolin) exist in failed them by leaving them no other reasonable choice. As Jasnah says, murder is a legal definition. What they did was kill unethically. When the current fight is over, legal and social reform will be the best bet to prevent this sort of thing from happening again. Their societies, or at least Kharbranth, is not set up for a carceral or rehabilitative justice system. Even if Jasnah had spared them, we are explicitly told that hanging is a certainty for them. The reader is given every indication that if Jasnah hadn’t killed them, the city’s justice system couldn’t have or wouldn’t have stopped them, leaving them free to continue murdering. We know that this group of men murdered every time they accosted someone. “On three separate occasions during the last two months, theatergoers who chose this route to the main road were accosted by footpads. In each case, the people were murdered.” So there isn’t confusion about whether these were thieves who left people alive at the end. Does this count as self-defense? Yes. The fact that Jasnah is more powerful than these men is immaterial to the definition. They attacked first, without provocation. The fact that Jasnah had the power to do to them what they were going to do to the women doesn’t change the facts that they attacked first, and Jasnah defended. Did Jasnah go out there with the intention to kill them? Yes, she said so straightforwardly. It was still self-defense, and Jasnah’s motive was to protect people. Jasnah’s belief is that they would have continued murdering; with the facts that the reader is given, I agree with her. I think she saved lives. And this is a not part of my argument, but even Shallan is less bothered by the act than by the way Jasnah acts. “But it wasn’t the act itself so much as the cold callousness of it that bothered her.” This is something I have no problem with. Shallan frequently can’t read Jasnah, but that doesn’t mean an outwardly calm appearance means that she literally feels nothing about it. On the contrary, we’re shown afterwards that Jasnah feels very strongly about what she did.

Depends; significant others are not off the table. Relationships with men are not cut off.

Sapphic is interest in women. Aro is aromantic, ie. not feeling romantic attraction. Ace is asexual, ie. not feeling sexual attraction.

I don't know if I would say she should have, but I'm perfectly okay with the decision and don't find it immoral.

This is not true of asexual people; we can care about our appearances very much. I, like most other people, dress for me. It doesn't have anything to do with being sexually appealing.

Just in case you didn't know, you're responding to the Reddit post of someone not on the forums here.

I still do just disagree with this, it's just my strong feelings that marriage shouldn't be treated like a different beast. Marriage is an outward commitment to reflect the inward reality of the relationship, but it shouldn't change the relationship. If my partner started treating me differently after the wedding, that would be an extremely unpleasant shock. When in a serious relationship, people deserve the same respect and love and commitment before marriage as they do when they say their vows in public. If my partner said that they took the relationship more seriously after the vows, I'd be... offended.

For sure, that makes sense. I'm still giving him credit though: the moment when he looks into her eyes and is able to tell the difference, though, is still him being able to tell. And Shallan does certainly treat the other versions as costumes, made up of untrue parts. Though she may put aspects of herself into the personas, the entire reason she has a breakdown and hits bottom in Kholinar is because the personas are in part fake, and not her. I understand you have your wish to see this be the breaking point for their relationship, but everything we're shown about them is that Adolin has the right idea. And since he does know about the personas and is able to tell the difference between who's in charge at a given moment, I am not able to agree that this would be something Adolin would be upset at Shallan for. He already knows everything, we've already seen him be compassionate, we've seen Shallan tell him things that she's told nobody else. Nothing points to her personas being the point where Adolin will freak out. EDIT: Just to throw into this, I agree with Aminar - marriage doesn't change how they relate to each other. They were making the point that you don't stop working on the relationship when you get married. In the most practical sense, if you stop trying the second the wedding happens, it's going to be a bad relationship. Marriage certainly changes things legally, but in terms of, "hey, do we still have to work on our relationship or have we 'made it'?", the wedding doesn't change the people involved in the marriage. And to be fair, plenty of people don't get married. Marriage is actually extremely rare, in say, Quebec. Lifelong partners just don't do it. It's cultural.

Yep, her realization comes very late, she barely has any scenes after it happens. I think Adolin sees the reality; we can't admit that Veil and Radiant are partially fake and then say that Adolin is wrong to see their fakeness. When Adolin goes and does his whole moment of looking into her eyes and realizes that there's more than one person listed under "Shallan", that is a real insight. Adolin does know, and he's the one we see in the books who is the only one who figures some of it out without Shallan having to tell him.

Well, I kind of think that's not something we can say in the present tense. We ended Oathbringer on Shallan's realization but we have no idea what it's actually going to look like yet. She was papering over things in Oathbringer, but it was leading up the moment at the very end of the book when Shallan admits that she's not okay. Since we don't know what happens after that moment, I don't think we can say what resulted. I don't think I agree with the bolded; we don't see enough of exactly what Adolin thinks. And also, Veil and Radiant are definitely partially fake! Though Shallan does use them to shunt off some of the things she can't admit about herself, they are also built up of personality traits and experience that are not real. They are not 100% fake or real.

I think any guess, no matter how positive or negative, about what Brandon is thinking, is an assumption. I feel prettyyyyy confident that Brandon is aware of the situation, and I guess I'm a bit incredulous that "he doesn't know" would be why he hasn't said anything. And no matter what assumptions are going on, I don't think it's wrong to be disappointed, or to say, I'm disappointed. I understand the urge to defend him, but he doesn't need defending, and no matter what other people can think of to say, "this could be the reason!", it's still not from him.

Then there's no misunderstanding, just a disagreement, and my first post goes without caveat. What I see happening is, say, keeping it on the level of someone asking Brandon to confirm a theory, and then a bunch of other fans jump in commenting on how rude and inappropriate and entitled it is to ask Brandon that. In a fandom where fans ask Brandon theory questions all the time and get RAFOs, you are right that it's different.

I see; I'm just talking about this conversation here in this thread. Then according to your definition, I also don't think "calling someone out" is a bad thing, and is something I don't find inappropriate. So I suppose that can be added to my bucket of frustration. Like I said above, Brandon is free to not say anything, but I don't think the people asking are doing anything wrong.

I think in the same way that people say that it's wrong to express disappointment in any way that could make an assumption about what he really believes, people saying that are making assumptions about the beliefs and desires of the people who are asking. I personally don't find it unacceptable to ask - and it's frustrating to see it being labeled as "calling him out" or "ripping Brandon apart". That's the exact kind of mischaracterization we're all trying to avoid here, isn't it?

Not with my mod hat on for this one. I'm personally much more bothered with other fans' reaction to it than Brandon's silence itself. I'm with Windrunner myself, I am personally disappointed that he's not saying anything, but more than that, I'm frustrated in the response that expressing that disappointment or asking Brandon what he thinks is treated as being bad or encroaching or inappropriate. It isn't. Asking isn't in any way saying that he's a bad person. Brandon can refuse to respond, he absolutely has that right, but people also have the right to ask.

Ha, thank you, I deeply appreciate hearing it. <3

I believe it was designed that way from the beginning, before Odium even arrived. The highstorms are a natural part of the world, and in the water are the bits that rebuild what is worn away, so the continent doesn't disappear. As far as we know, it's quite by design.

The one that comes to mind is Lyn. I appreciate her role, and really want to see the gender parity of the Orders even out.

You are not! I adore the idea, myself.

He doesn't mistreat them. He's stiff and distant and has a generally angry energy he aims at everybody. It's his anger that people keep saying he should stop, even though he hasn't acted on it inappropriately. Even his biggest moment of hatred in WoR wasn't misaimed at some random lighteyes, but Elhokar, who had caused him and his family direct harm - and he still chose in the end to help Elhokar. The way that he's expressed his anger has been perfectly fine. The only conclusion I can draw from this is that people are upset that he's angry at all. But feeling anger is not a moral action and it shouldn't be put in the same category as being racist.

Does Kaladin go and best up lighteyes just because? Nope. As I've said many, many times in this thread, the impact of what Kaladin actually does about his anger is negligible. He says words, and some people get offended and angry that he would dare. That's about it.

Anger is not morally incorrect, and when you run into situation after situation where lighteyes mistreated them, Kaladin and others traumatized like him are not obligated to perform their anger in a way that's palatable. They have a right to their anger, and to keep it without being considered morally reprehensible for it. What happened to him was evil, evil facilitated by his own society. Tack on "now don't forget not to hate ALL lighteyes, or you're just as bad!" to a guy who had to do something like bridge runs, and that encapsulates why I find the demand that Kaladin let go of all of his anger completely to be an unfair and indefensible position.