Lyn: Welcome back, intrepid re-readers, and an extra special welcome back to Alice! It was fun trading puns with Ross while you were gone, but no one’s better than you at reminding me of all the things I’ve forgotten about these books! (Let’s face it, I get way too caught up in character motivations to spend much time on Cosmere theorycrafting…)
Alice: I’m ba-ack! Thanks to you and Ross for doing a fantastic job while I was gone! But it’s also good to be back, and the end of this chapter was one of my fist-pump moments, so it’s a good time to be back. Dalinar has multiple frustrations, a couple of difficult conversations, and one shining light-bulb moment.
Reminder: we’ll potentially be discussing spoilers for the ENTIRE NOVEL in each reread. There are speculations regarding Adonalsium in the Cosmere Connections section this week; if you haven’t read anything outside The Stormlight Archive, you might either be confused or find it to be spoilerish, so feel free to skip that section. But if you haven’t read ALL of Oathbringer, best to wait to join us until you’re done, because we do talk about some further events a little.
Chapter Recap
WHO: Dalinar
WHERE: Urithiru
WHEN: 1174.1.4.5 (Two days after Chapters 24, 25, and 27)
Buy the Book
Oathbringer
Dalinar receives answers from the Azish and from Queen Fen in Thaylenah, both of which can be summed up as “no, you may not march an army through our Oathgates, now kindly bugger off.” He’s summoned away to where Bridge 4 has made an interesting discovery—Oathbringer (the sword, not the book) has been discovered. Dalinar gives the Shardblade to Ialai and has a brief but troubling conversation with Amaram, then heads back to his own rooms where he has a longer but no less troubling conversation with Taravangian about the morality of innocent casualties in war. The chapter ends with the Stormfather revealing that, while a Highstorm is sweeping over a distant land, he can pull people in that land into the visions that were left by Honor for Dalinar.
Threshold of the storm
Title: Another Option
“What he did was, nevertheless, another option.”
This was Dalinar’s evaluation of the landlord’s choice in Nohadon’s story: rather than the false binary of either killing all four men or letting them all go, the landlord chose to imprison them all. But talk about double meanings! Dalinar now has another option for meeting with monarchs and convincing them to join him.
Heralds
Nalan and Jezrien: Judge and King, Skybreakers and Windrunners, Herald of Justice and Herald of Kings, Just & Confident and Protecting & Leading.
A: I rather think that both of them are here for the Nohadon story, in which a king considers matters of justice.
Icon: The Kholin Shield designates Dalinar’s POV for the chapter.
Epigraph
Finally, I will confess my humanity. I have been named a monster, and do not deny those claims. I am the monster that I fear we all can become.
–From Oathbringer, preface
A: Aside from fitting in with the sequence of “things Dalinar must confess,” this statement fits frighteningly well into the context of this chapter—especially so, the more we know about Dalinar’s past. As Lyn mentioned above, both Azir and Thaylenah are (ahem!) reluctant to let Dalinar bring an army into their capital cities. He has indeed been named a monster, rightly so in some cases, and the whole world knows his reputation. Also valid, however, Dalinar makes the point that humans all too readily do behave like monsters.
Stories & Songs
He was a good man, the Stormfather said.
“Nohadon?” Dalinar said.
Yes.
L: I wonder if Nohadon was a Bondsmith, and had bonded the Stormfather previously. Was it ever said whether or not Way of Kings was written before or after the Recreance?
A: It’s not stated in so many words, but there’s a pretty strong indication that Nohadon was around before the Knights Radiant were founded. In the vision where Dalinar first meets him (TWoK Chapter 60), he talks about Surgebinders quite a bit, and wonders how to constrain their behavior—but he noticeably does not mention Knights Radiant. In retrospect, I think it’s quite possible that not only was Nohadon a Bondsmith, he may have been the first Bondsmith. It may have been in the aftermath of that Desolation that Ishar set up the Ideals and made the agreements with the spren that resulted in the Radiant orders. This does raise questions about the presence of Urithiru, however… Who built it, and when, in order for Nohadon to make his pilgrimage to “the holy city”?
(Also, I’d like to take this moment to point out that I WAS RIGHT. Back during the TWoK discussions, I kept claiming that Surgebinders and Knights Radiant, historically, might not have been exactly the same thing. People got mad at me for that. But I was right. Just sayin’.)
Places & Peoples
A: The chapter opens with the final responses—well, they intended them to be final!—from Azir and Thaylenah regarding Dalinar’s request for them to open their Oathgates and become allies. The Azish are much more round-about than Queen Fen, but she summed them both up pretty well:
“No.”
Well, okay then! They both have much the same rationale, and it’s valid based on what they know so far. “The Alethi warmongers, led by Dalinar Blackthorn Kholin, would like you to kindly allow their armies free access to the center of your ruling city, thankyouverymuch, and they promise not to do anything untoward. Really. They only want to be your friend.” Can’t say as I blame them for being reluctant!
L: Neither can I, especially after all of these flashbacks we’ve been getting of Dalinar’s past. I wouldn’t trust him as far as I could throw him if were them, either.
On a completely different note:
It was three feet wide, and about one foot tall. It seemed endless, and he could feel a faint breeze coming out of it.
A: So Dalinar climbs up on a chair he stuck to the wall (!!) to peer into the hole in the wall in his chambers. Aside from mink and rats, there is air circulating. I was bummed not to be able to comment on this (very limited internet connectivity!) when Ross and Lyn talked about this a couple of weeks ago, but I’m pretty well convinced that these really, truly are ventilation shafts. Sure, we can think of a hundred or so nefarious purposes for them, but this place is enormous. These lower levels are probably at least half a mile in diameter, and without some kind of forced air movement, the inner regions would be uninhabitable.
That’s my two cents, anyway.
L: It almost seems too simple to be the only explanation. Whenever I come across a “too-simple” explanation in one of Sanderson’s books I start giving it the side-eye. I’ve been fooled by him too many times.
A: I know, it does seem like it’s too simple for Sanderson. At the same time, you’ve got to move air around that place, or anyone in the inner rooms will suffocate on carbon dioxide. So I do think it’s possible that he’s subverting his own trope and making it something really simple… but I’ll admit it’s not probable. (I suppose, inevitably, we’ll find out that it’s both ventilation AND something we never even imagined.)
Tight Butts and Coconuts
Your garnet-lit tongue and pleasant words make it seem like you really assume this will work.
A: Aside from making me giggle, I thought it was worth noting that garnet is associated with Lightweavers. Is this phrase a carry-over from the times of the Knights Radiant, and the ability of Lightweavers to influence people to do things that were, perhaps, not in their own best interests? I’m thinking of that epigraph in Words of Radiance, Chapter 47:
Yet, were the orders not disheartened by so great a defeat, for the Lightweavers provided spiritual sustenance; they were enticed by those glorious creations to venture on a second assault.
L: I think you’re definitely right on this one.
Mature Motivations
L: Heeeeeere we go. Hope you’re all ready for some deep philosophizing on the nature of war, because Sanderson sure laid all the cards on the table in this chapter.
“I stand by what I was forced to do, Brightlord,” Amaram said, stepping forward. “The arrival of the Voidbringers only proves that I was in the right. We need practiced Shardbearers. The stories of darkeyes gaining Blades are charming, but do you really think we have time for nursery tales now, instead of practical reality?”
“You murdered defenseless men,” Dalinar said through gritted teeth. “Men who had saved your life.”
Amaram stopped, lifting Oathbringer. “And what of the hundreds, even thousands, your wars killed?”
L: I hate Amaram. This is no secret. I wear that hatred openly and honestly on my sleeve. That’s why is makes me ill to have to say that I can see his side here, especially considering the rest of the conversation in this chapter (which we’ll get into below). Say one thing for Sanderson–he makes his villains have believable and even, dare I say, human motivations. No Dark Lord Saurons here… just regular men and women, making choices based on their (in this case, wrong) beliefs.
A: There is, however, a huge difference (IMO) between killing soldiers on the other side in battle, and killing your own men, in your own headquarters, because you’re going to take something that doesn’t belong to you and you don’t want to risk them outing you. Which is not to diminish the fact that a lot of innocent civilians die during wars—and especially in some of the in-city battles Dalinar led—but Amaram’s actions were premeditated murder.
L: Yes. This, for certain. But the fact that HE can justify his actions to himself at least makes him a three-dimensional hate-able villain and not a two-dimensional one.
A: Agreed. It’s the old principle of “everyone is the hero of his own story” and it rings very true to human nature. Sometimes it’s a bit frustrating of Sanderson to write such human villains; I can usually see their point (even if I don’t agree), and that makes it both easier and harder to hate them.
“Morality is not a thing you can simply doff to put on the helm of battle, then put it back on when you’re done with the slaughter.”
L: AMARAM. Stop making good points and JUST LET ME HATE YOU for f***ing over Kaladin.
A: Hey, if you have no morality to doff, you can just be an evil git all the time. Right, Amaram?
“Is it not our duty, as kings, to ask questions that make the minds and souls of other men cringe?”
L: As our friendly neighborhood Spider-Man is wont to say, “With great power comes great responsibility.” And sometimes that responsibility means making hard choices.
“Three of those men were violent threats, guilty of premeditated murder. One was innocent. What do you do?”
“Hang all four,” Taravangian whispered. “One innocent dead, but three murderers stopped. Is it not the best good that can be done, and the best way to protect your people?”
“If you can’t prove who is guilty–if you can’t be sure–I think you should let them go.”
“You say that,” Taravangian said. “Many men do. But our laws will claim innocent men–for all judges are flawed, as is our knowledge. Eventually, you will execute someone who does not deserve it. This is the burden society must carry in exchange for order. … it’s not a matter of morality, is it? It’s a matter of thresholds. How many guilty may be punished before you’d accept one innocent casualty? A thousand? Ten thousand? A hundred? When you consider, all calculations are meaningless except one. Has more good been done than evil?”
L: This… this is a really heavy conversation, and one which has been echoed time and again both in the book itself and in this reread. It’s nice to think that another choice can always be found. It’s nice to think that there’s always a remedy, somewhere, that will please everyone and satisfy justice. But in real life, such choices are rarely easy or even possible. Sometimes I want to sink into a book, into an alternate reality, and know without a doubt who is evil and who is not. But I usually prefer books like this, books that hold a mirror up to our own reality and, as Wit says, “give us questions to think upon.”
A: It is a heavy conversation. One thing I found very interesting was Taravangian’s pejorative evaluation of both the landlord’s and Nohadon’s responses: “He refused to commit.” Is this Taravangian justifying his own deeds, insisting that you have to commit to the binary choice presented? We know that he’s caught in a bit of an artificial binary himself—he cannot be both highly intelligent and greatly compassionate at the same time. Perhaps he finds himself wishing that he could commit to one or the other, instead of the awkward situation where every day, whether he’s intelligent or compassionate, he has to regret the decisions made when he was the other way.
Cosmere Connections
“I have felt warmth,” Dalinar said, “coming from a place beyond. A light I can almost see. If there is a God, it was not the Almighty, the one who called himself Honor. He was a creature. Powerful, but still merely a creature.”
L: Alice, we talked a little about this concept while you were away, but maybe you’d like to give your two cents here? Do you think this is the God behind the entirety of the Cosmere, or what?
A: Well… this is just me spitballing, you understand, right? Because we don’t have solid proof of what’s going on with that warmth and light gig. That said, I currently believe this to be “the God Beyond,” and a glimpse into the Spiritual Realm.
I also think this ties into the Iriali belief in “the One” who is experiencing the universe as Many. If you’ll permit me a little loony-theory moment, I suspect that “the Shattering of Adonalsium” may not have been what that crew thought it was when they did it. I have sneaking suspicions that Adonalsium, or the God whose physical aspect formed what they knew as Adonalsium, set the whole thing up and let them “shatter” a being far beyond their comprehension. That being still holds firm in the Spiritual realm, and is the true God beyond all that they can see or comprehend. /End loony theory
A Scrupulous Study of Spren
He seized the sword, bracing himself for the screams. The cries of a dead spren. They weren’t the shrill, painful shrieks he’d heard when touching other Blades, but more of a whimper. The sound of a man backed into a corner, thoroughly beaten and facing something terrible, but too tired to keep screaming.
“This one doesn’t scream as loudly as others. Why?”
It remembers your oath, the Stormfather sent. It remembers the day you won it, and better the day you gave it up. It hates you—but less than it hates others.
“Could it be rescued?” Dalinar whispered as they entered the tower and climbed a stairway. “Could we save the spren who made this Blade?”
I know of no way, the Stormfather said. It is dead, as is the man who broke his oath to kill it.
A: I’ll admit that I was surprised by this conversation. I’ve been hard over on the revival of Adolin’s Blade ever since half-way through the beta on Words of Radiance, (so, coming up on five years now!) but it caught me off-guard that the first actual mention of such a concept in-book was about Oathbringer. It’s fascinating that the Stormfather specifically mentions Dalinar’s oath, remembered by a Blade named Oathbringer. I really wonder if this is just a plot bunny, or if it’s going somewhere?
L: “I’ve got a theory… It could be bunnies.” And now that I’ve got that stuck in your head, I’ll say that I think this is simply setup for Adolin’s awakening of his own Blade. Sanderson’s laying the seeds for the eventual reveal that, yes… this can happen. I don’t think there’s any more to it in this case than that.
“I should like to rewatch the vision where I met Nohadon,” Dalinar said. “Though let me go fetch Navani before you begin. I want her to record what I say.”
Would you rather I show the vision to her as well? the Stormfather asked. She could record it herself that way. Dalinar froze. “You can show the visions to others?”
A: This is one of my favorite mind-blown-moments in the book, especially coming in Part 1, where I (foolishly—this is Sanderson!) don’t really expect to find such shocks. The storming Stormfather can storming show the visions to anyone he wants? As long as they’re either with Dalinar, or in the middle of a highstorm? I practically howled with glee over the concept.
Quality Quotations
Sometimes a hypocrite is nothing more than a person who is in the process of changing.
This is one of my favorite ever quotes from a Sanderson novel.
Well, that’s about enough out of us for this week. Your turn! Be sure to tune in next week for a pair of Shallan’s chapters (29 and 30), as her investigations lead to a series of astounding discoveries.
Alice is glad to be back home and rereading again. She would like to express her gratitude to Lyndsey and Ross for making it so easy to take off the time needed, without worrying about breaking up the reread. If you haven’t already seen it, be sure to check out Deana “Braid_Tug” Whitney’s first article on Cosmere Cuisine, and watch for more to come. One suspects that crustaceans and chickens might feature prominently in at least one episode. Just sayin’…
Lyndsey is too tired to come up with a new byline thing. If you’re an aspiring author, a cosplayer, or just like geeky content, follow her work on Facebook or her website.
Oh yes. The pulling other people into visions opens up some really great chapters. I’m looking forward to those.
I agree with Alice that Nohadon definitely predates the recreance because he predates the knights themselves. If he was a bondsmith, that would make a lot of sense.
I personally thought Dalinar/Stormfather conversation about whether or not Oathbringer can be saved was foreshadowing for Oathbringer… to be revived and not Maya like everyone has been assuming. We have to bear in mind Maya is an arc revolving around Adolin and, as such, it most likely is a Red Herring or, at the very least, not an arc which will get a lot of focus, a lot of depth nor play out as we think it will.
I also felt how Dalinar puts Oathbringer safely away, at the end of OB, carrying for it was heavy foreshadowing for him reviving his old Blade.
@2 Ah come on Gepeto – I know he hasn’t done what you want with Aldolin the past but he may be about to go into character depth with him! We can hope!
It’s nice to think that another choice can always be found.
Not related to the Cosmere, but this did reminded me of this blooper scene:
https://youtu.be/As2aqFHEgvg?t=284
(the scene starting at 4:44)
For the ones who haven’t seen Supernatural season 11 it might be a blah, but if I judge correctly, it should put a smile at least on Lyn’s face :)
I really appreciated the scene between Dalinar and Taravangian. I think it did a great job showing the burden that being a ruler is to some, and that it should be a burden to those that rule. Life is not black and white, and there are very rarely easy answers. I felt it was a very thoughtful scene very well presented.
No Dark Lord Saurons here…
Weelll, there is that Odium guy…
“Garnet-tongued” reminds me of “zinc-tongued raven” from Mistborn: Secret Histories.
This scene did make me understand Amaram more, but also hate him more : “The stories of darkeyes gaining Blades are charming, but do you really think we have time for nursery tales now, instead of practical reality”
DIE. You know that it isn’t a nursery tale because real Kaladin saved your real life and won a real blade, you real crembag. Kaladin’s branding really gets my blood boiling, and honestly I’m struggling to find words for Amaram that don’t violate Tor’s moderation policy. I hate Amaram and Sadeas more than Moash, and it’s not close.
@6 I can just see Sanderson typing “silver-tongued” and then thinking “well wait it wouldn’t be silver-tongued on Scadrial” and then thinking “ooooooh”. This is how I imagine the creative process works.
@6: I think that sooner or later we’re going to see more of Odium and his motives (I’m thinking of Dragonsteel here). Then he won’t appear a simple Sauronesque Dark Lord anymore.
Just curious: am I really the first person to realize that Oathbringer is the Sibling?
OK, obviously I can’t prove it now, but it seems like a good bet.
1-The name.
2-Bothered least by touching the only living Bondsmith.
3-There was a Bondsmith alive at the Recreance. And spren bonded to a recreant Bondsmith would be a deadeyes. Since neither Stormfather nor Nighwatcher is a deadeyes, it has to be the Sibling.
4-Metatextually, Oathbringer has to be super-important.
Let me go further: later in the story when Dalinar handles Oathbringer, Sanderson makes a point of his insulating himself with a cloth. We’ll eventually discover this is because as of the end of this novel, the spren would not scream or even whimper when touched by Dalinar. Like Mayalaran, Oathbringer is recovering as the Recreance is reversed.
@1 Agreed on sounding plausible/likely that Nohadon was a Bondsmith. Definitely a surgebinder at least, though it hasn’t sounded like he actually founded the Radiants directly. He wrote Way of Kings late in his life, and every mention has been along the lines of saying that the book inspired the orders/oaths, not that he was directly involved. Not that ancient history like that is known for reliability in-world though, so who knows for sure.
Speaking of, there were definitely some epigraphs in WoK from Jasnah’s research that linked Urithiru and its creation to the Dawnshards and Heralds pretty strongly, so it’s not too surprising to have the city predating the Radiants.
Remember, the Shin have a tradition that Urithiru is the one place where walking on stone is permitted. I suspect that means that Urithiru was built by the listeners before humanity ever arrived on Roshar, and that, whatever else it was for, it was the one place where humans and listeners could interact.
@10 Carl
Personally your theory does not sit well with me. I feel like if the Sibling was Oathbringer and thereby a deadeyes, the Stormfather would have just referred to it as dead, instead of as sleeping and hurt. Finally given that Dalinar knows of Oathbringer, I could not see how Amaram having it would have been safe and ok with the Stormfather. Having said that, there is still much we do not know so your theory could very well be the case. So though I myself do not prescribe to your theory, I wish you luck with it!
@10 I never post, but I’ve been thinking the same thing. The sword has to be something more than an ordinary shardblade. The Sibling “sleeping” may be like what Syl was doing when Kaladin was weakening their bond through his actions. I think it’s possible that the Bondsmith spren are so powerful that only part of them is brought to the physical world to make a sword, so the rest of its aspect is safe somewhere, but not entirely “there”.
@10
Sanderson said that Bondsmiths didn’t have blades, Dalinar isn’t an exception.
If Adolin can bring Maya back like the foreshadowing implies, does that mean all the dead spren can be brought back? That feels like a eucastastrophe Sanderson would include in one in a late book avalanches. It seems like being able to redeem/repair a sin committed out of fear or despair or ignorance also fits in with how Sanderson rolls.
If it does happen, maybe even if it’s just Maya, there will be ugly sobbing..
@16 Z
Saw a post elsewhere that made me remember a WoB that says exactly that. I have posted for reference. Great minds think alike!
https://wob.coppermind.net/events/122-leipzig-book-fair/#e3311
#16, Z, good point.
@10, others
I also recall vaguely seeing a WoB saying that a powerful enough spren, such as Stormfather, could have survived the recreance despite being bonded to someone.
“If you can’t prove who is guilty–if you can’t be sure–I think you should let them go.”
“You say that,” Taravangian said. “Many men do. But our laws will claim innocent men–for all judges are flawed, as is our knowledge. Eventually, you will execute someone who does not deserve it. This is the burden society must carry in exchange for order. … it’s not a matter of morality, is it? It’s a matter of thresholds. How many guilty may be punished before you’d accept one innocent casualty? A thousand? Ten thousand? A hundred? When you consider, all calculations are meaningless except one. Has more good been done than evil?”
The sentence in red is the eternal cry of the one choosing to do the killing. If his own attitude were turned back on himself, and someone else made the decision to kill him, he might not be so willing. It is not about a scale of good versus evil, because who can reliably be the judge of that? It is about protecting the innocent, as Dalinar says, and allowing people to BECOME. This is what makes Taravangian frightening.
I hope, when Brandon had Dalinar write “…I am the monster that I fear we can all become” in the epigraph, that he didn’t have the 1971 “Stanford Prison Experiment” in mind, seeing as that has turned out to be a hoax: https://nypost.com/2018/06/14/famed-stanford-prison-experiment-was-a-fraud-scientist-says/
My theory – posting it here for the first time – is that Urithuru is Soulcast wind. I haven’t thought it entirely through, and I’m probably wrong, but every time its structure was described that was what kept occurring to me.
Also, has anyone asked whether “mink” are actually cats? Because that would be cool! (Sorry if this is common knowledge — I can’t keep up with everything. :-)
@21 In the Vorkosigan books (Memory, I think) Miles comments that it’s easy to be hypnotized by the hard choices. It seems like there’s also an ego thing (at least in fiction) since most of those types seem to take a fair amount of pride in being “the one who can make the hard choices.”
Reviving “dead” spren is certainly possible–Maya is proof of that, kinda.
But Maya is only partway revived and that’s only after years of Adolin bonding and reaching out to the spren. Much like the listeners got lobotomized by having some Connection broken (until the Everstorm fixed them), the shardblade spren are damaged. Their cognitive abilities are stunted and they’re more or less creatures of base reflex.
Given the nature of ‘bonding’ a shardblade it would make meta-sense that you partially graft it to your spirit web. That connection is likely what allows any outreach at all. The screaming Surgebinders feel when holding a dead blade could be the spren recognizing a bonded person and recoiling out of fear and pain from the Recreance…that Dalinar gave up OB for noble intent meant that while it still sees him in the same light as an abuser that hurt it, it recognizes that he’s not as bad as some of the others.
All that being said, it’s eminently likely that a Bondsmith could heal dead spren much faster than Adolin’s gradual resuscitation…if he knew how to get the Connection working right.
“I suspect that “the Shattering of Adonalsium” may not have been what that crew thought it was when they did it. I have sneaking suspicions that Adonalsium, or the God whose physical aspect formed what they knew as Adonalsium, set the whole thing up and let them “shatter” a being far beyond their comprehension.”
What she said. Since some of the shards of Adonalsium can see into the future, that means the Big A could see into the future. They only did what he allowed them to do. And I think Hoid is involved up to his ears.
Or, maybe I’m looney too!
@21 jfarish102
I respect your interpretation of that scene. I feel the point was that in any system, there are going to be human errors, because humans are involved. The bigger the system, the greater the number of human errors. So does that mean we dismantle the system? What can we use to replace it when anything we come up with are also victim of the same human errors? So if human errors are to be accepted, then Taravangian’s point is what is the threshold? At what point is the human errors acceptable for the system to exist? His conclusion is no matter how many calculations are made, in the end it is immaterial as long as more good is done than harm. To me it is demonstrating this is not an easy situation with any easy solution.
@22 aggie1
I theorize due to the strata that Urithiru was made using cohesion and tension manipulating the existing rock into shape.
I believe mink is used generally, like all birds are chickens, though not as ubiquitous as they do call rats by the rat name. So far we have seen I believe ferrets, and lions referred to as minks or mink-like
@24 hammerlock
Personally I still feel more is needed external to what Adolin has been doing so far. To be clear I am not saying it will not happen. I am not saying what Adolin is doing is not working towards that goal. I am only saying I think there needs to be additional things happening for it to come to fruition. The reason I think that is because of the way Brandon has described what has happened to the deadeyes. The wetwear literally torn out of their skulls. If a jack is ripped out of the wall, unless you repair the hole or start jury rigging, you are not going to be able to take a normal plug to plug it in. I do think a bondsmith or some other entity will need to assist or do something to enable it to progress further.
edit: I thought of another example to illustrate what I said regarding Maya. it is a bit gruesome so I apologize in advance. Picture two people entwining their fingers, interlocking them together. That is the mutual spren bond. When the radiant breaks the oath, he or she isn’t just releasing the hand, he or she is tearing the fingers off, or the whole hand off leaving a stump. The dead shardblade bond is someone coming along and holding the stump in their hand. The stump needs to be regrown, or restored in some ways so that the bond may entwine fingers once more. At least that is my view on it.
Welcome back Alice! Hope your vacation was nice and relaxing.
Amaram in this chapter is so obnoxious. I wish I could just chuck him out a window in Urithiru and see if he can bounce. I mean, he’s not wrong but that doesn’t make him right.
In the same vein, Taravangian is super scary. 3/4 of the world is bad, so let’s just kill everyone becomes acceptable by his rationalizations. And judging by the end of the book-he’s okay with that as long as the people of Kharbranth are in that 25%. He fits in really well with the Young!Dalinar more so than the current one. It helps to highlight how far Dalinar has come on his journey.
As for the reawakening of Oathbringer, I hope it happens. And not just for Maya and whoever OB is, but for all the swords. They’re gonna need all the help they can by the end of this
@3: But honestly were my thoughts when I read this chapter… well, I didn’t know about Maya, but I did feel it was foreshadowing for Dalinar reviving Oathbringer. Of course, maybe it won’t be, but since Alice and Lyn were mentioning they felt it was foreshadowing for Adolin reviving Maya, I had to mention I didn’t think it was.
I also cannot ignore the fact each time an arc was introduced using Adolin’s character, it eventually ended up being about someone else. The dueling spree turned out to be about Kaladin. The murder of Sadeas was about Shallan, Dalinar and Amaram. Hence, each time the narrative made me believe the upcoming arc would revolve around Adolin, Brandon found a new way to twist it in a way where it is no longer relevant to his character.
Hope leads to false expectations and it leads to under-appreciation of sequels.
@10: I agree with your assessment of Oathbringer. I can’t say I like it as a narrative twist, but it does seem like you are on the right track here. This being said, I don’t think Oathbringer is the Sibling though.
@17: I can only speak for myself, but I always felt the interest within the Blade revival story arc was it was meant to be a “once in a lifetime” event. If all Blades end up being revived, then I feel the significance, the meaning and the reach of this arc would be greatly depleted, but YMMV.
@26: I agree with you “more needs to happen than what has already happened” to revive Maya. I have no idea what more could be though. I can only hope, if Brandon does go there (which isn’t certain), it will feel genuine, natural and not contrived.
On Amaram: I need to highlight the fact Amaram was present at the Rift, was included within the close knitted counsel and, as such, is aware of Dalinar’s involvement in the subsequent denouement. Hence, when he accuses Dalinar of being a hypocrite for daring prosecute him for a few slaughtered man when his death toll is much greater, I do think there is a chance he is referring to Rathalas, at least in part.
Going into OB, I expected Dalinar’s brutal pass to be weighted against his present day claims to the higher moral ground, I expected Dalinar to be forced to consider the hypocrisy of his stand, but I did not expect this to happen with Amaram. I felt and I still feel the greater occasion for a stronger narrative was missed here: a Dalinar/Adolin confrontation on the matter, when Dalinar decides his son needs punishment for his actions would have been emotionally more powerful than having the same narrative play out with unsympathetic Amaram. We can’t excuse Amaram for his actions. The fact Dalinar killed more people doesn’t make Amaram an innocent, but Adolin being Dalinar’s son would have added a more personal dimension and would have steered a very internal conflict towards a more active external one.
I for one did not appreciate how everyone just forgives Dalinar. I just read the Part 4 Navani chapter where she is momentarily mad at Dalinar for making his “grief” more important than hers by locking himself drunk for three days, leaving her to deal with the coalition (finally! it made me love Navani even if her anger was short-lived). Unfortunately, she then rationalizes this is fine, he needs her support and so on.
Why can’t anyone be legitimately angry at Dalinar and want to shove it back into his face? It would be such a natural behavior, I am unable to believe all characters revolving around Dalinar are so in awe of him they won’t hang it over his head. If it were real-life, there would be those to speak against him, to be mad at him. I am missing this dose of realism within those scenes.
I just read the chapter in the wheel of time where Nynaeve does her Healing thing (trying to be as unspoilery as possible) which I think draws a nice parallel to the blade issue.
The discussion about reawakening Shardblades has me thinking about Siuan Sanche’s Law of Unintended Consequences. Let’s imagine if all deadeyes were revived. Would they come back like the Fused, insane and ever vengeful? Would they try to shape the organization into what they knew before? Maya seems like a good sort but she’s bonded to someone that respects her. Maya’s situation is ideal and probably not typical. On the other hand, a revival might bring the Releasers back into the fold, heal the rift and so forth.
Amaram is the type to use good arguments to justify whatever d-baggery he wants to engage in. Love Blackthorn or hate him, can you imagine Dalinar ever in life murdering a darkeyed soldier for a Shardblade? Remember he comes at a similar crossroads when he acquires Oathbringer. Amaram would have killed that kid and his mother without the slightest hesitation. Dalinar, full of the Thrill, heat of combat, did not. And that, for all of Amaram’s justifications, is what it comes down to. Not just what you’re willing to do to acquire power, but when you decide the price is too high.
@30 Young!Dalinar might have dueled a darkeyes if the soldier in question killed a shardbearer Dalinar was already gunning for. It depends on how entitled he felt to the shard ahead of time. In a situation like Amaram faced? Young!Dalinar would have geeked out and offered Kal a job.
@30 EvilMonkey
That is a good point. There would be a whole host of possible outcomes that can arise from that. It would be ironic if that caused Malata and Spark to rejoin, only for the other blades with less admirable wielders to switch to Odium’s side in resentment. This would further blur the lines between sides. Can’t really blame the deadeyes for being vengeful, but at the same time it isn’t the current human’s fault.
What I find interesting about the whole Amaram/Dalinar dichotomy is ultimately for myself where I find myself landing. Personally I find myself abhorring Amaram more than Dalinar. When I ask myself why, I realize it is deep down for an odd reason. Honesty. Dalinar in his fullness back then never pretended to be anything he wasn’t. In some ways he exulted in it. He was a monster, he admitted it and did not expect any other treatment in return. As he changed and grew he still accepted he had been a monster and required a lot of work to move past that. Amaram conversely despite claiming acceptance of his actions, he still (in my opinion) pushed off responsibility because he was working for a “higher power”. He felt he was doing horrible things, but that it was for the best so that left him clean. Conversely Taravangian feels he is doing horrible things, but even if it is for the best, he still sees himself as a monster and accepts that. I think that is why Amaram ultimately switched sides and joined up with Odium. Once he realized the religion as he believed it to be was a sham, he could not hide behind it anymore. He would have to take responsibility for his actions. The same taking of responsibility that Dalinar and Taravangian do. Amaram however chose to retreat to Odium, letting Odium take the blame. So I do find it interesting that I would regardless the body count involved, think worst of those I feel are self deluded (Amaram) than those that accept those parts of themselves (Dalinar and Taravangian). They did/do horrible things, but at least they own up to it.
edit: to add, as i thought on it, Szeth and Amaram have very parallel stories to me. They both did horrible things that they blamed some higher power on the necessity (Amaram religion, Szeth his culture’s rules) which absolved them of the responsibility. In Szeth’s case when he was confronted with irrefutable proof that his culture that enforced the stone failed him and was wrong, he accepted that it was him all along and accepted the consequences from Kaladin which ultimately lead to his “death”. Amaram however when faced with the irrefutable proof that how he viewed his religion was a sham (the heralds abandoned them, while he was working to bring them back), resulted in him seeking some other power to take responsibility away from him. He ran from the consequences.
You reap the fear you sowed, Dalinar.
Haha, there seems to be a Dark Lord Sauron Ruler in Mistborn Era 1, the story that basically starts in Mordor and then gets apocalyptic…
@22, 26: I suspect so, too. But this particular “mink” was a “small tubular animal,” so I’m guessing it was some kind of mustelid at least.
@@@@@ Gepeto
“Why can’t anyone be legitimately angry at Dalinar and want to shove it back into his face? It would be such a natural behavior, I am unable to believe all characters revolving around Dalinar are so in awe of him they won’t hang it over his head. If it were real-life, there would be those to speak against him, to be mad at him. I am missing this dose of realism within those scenes”
In our own cultural context, Dalinar comes off as more than a bit contemptible. But to the Alethi and their particular cultural context he is seen in a much different light. In any other culture in Roshar his treatment may look unrealistic but it rings true in this Alethi centric narrative.
I’d like to explore Dalinar a little further. Scath writes about his honesty and I think that’s part of why Dalinar is compelling. Feared or loved, Dalinar is above all consistent in word and deed. See, I believe Galivar isn’t the only Kholin boy with the gift of leadership. Dalinar doesn’t have the garnet tongue. He has gravity and an air of inevitably. He speaks and things go his way, to the point that he is genuinely surprised when things don’t follow the script. Like Shallan’s arrival at the warcamps. People find it difficult to defy him, at least face-to-face. Another factor in his appeal is victory. I don’t think Dalinar has ever lost a battle other than the one where Sadeas betrayed him. For the Alethi where victory by any means is almost a cultural mandate, hitching one’s self to that type of wagon is desirable. And though he is brutal to his enemies he has no problem sharing glory with his allies.
A lot of these posts are reminding me of Thanos. Taravangian and the Mad Titan would have a lot to talk about.
Scath @32 – Your analysis re Dalinar, Amaram and Taravangian is right on the mark. I totally agree. :-)
Alice and Lyndsey. The last sentence of the epigraph has a further meaning. The sentence reads “I am the monster I fear we all can become.” Dalinar came very close to giving Odium his pain. Had he done so, he would have become Odium’s champion, the dark monster that Dalinar saw in the vision at the beginning of OB and that Renarin thought was certain that Dalinar would become. Instead, Dalinar embraced his own pain (much the same way the Aiel do in WoT – the only difference being that Aiel embrace the pain of the moment (the physical harm) whereas Dalinar embraced the pain of the past (his memories)). Nevertheless, the pain is still within him. It is possible (although unlikely give what happened after Dalinar embraced the pain of his memories) that at some point in the future, Dalinar could beg Odium (or somebody or something else) to take away the pain of the memories if they come to the forefront of Dalinar’s mind again. If this pain was taken away, then (presumably) Dalinar would have it in him to be the monster that Renarin foresaw Dalinar becoming originally. Thus, Dalinar could have been speaking about himself in OB (the in-novel story he is writing). He is the monster. He just has it always under control. It is if Dr. Banner has permanently found a way to prevent the Hulk from ever forming. Or, for those more in tune with their literature history, Dr. Jekyll and his evil persona, Mr. Hyde.
Alice: I do not think your theory about the spiritual core that was Adonalsium post shattering is lurking in the Spiritual One is looney. For some reason Adonalsium needed to be shattered so the “One” could better experience the Cosmere as the “many” (or perhaps in this scenario the many is only 16). I think of myself as a SA geek (as probably most of the constant posters on this re-read would think of themselves). Out of all us SA geeks, I may be the only one who, not only has not read any non-SA novel, but steadfastly refuses to read them. (That said, I do have a basic understanding of what goes on in the greater Cosmere: between coppermind and the SA re-reads.). From my perspective, your theory makes perfect sense. Although depending upon what you think of some of my previous musings, that may not be the endorsement you wanted.
(An aside for those of you who are not familiar with my humor – or lack thereof – / the previous sentence was meant to be a sarcastic dig at me. I have come to the conclusion that I cannot type sarcasm very well. For me it is best expressed verbally).
Alice. I will now propose a true looney theory. That Hoid has somehow become the champion of what is left of Adonalsium (what, under your theory, is lurking in the Spiritual Realm). Hoid had knowledge that somehow Adonalsium would shatter (or let him/her be shattered) and had an inkling as what would happen if Hoid picked up one the Shards. This would explain why although he was present at the shattering, Hoid did not pick up a shard.
FWIIW, I do not believe my looney theory is correct.
Jfarish102 @21. In RL, I think leaders have had to address the question “When you consider, all calculations are meaningless except one. Has more good been done than evil.” To add a further complication to that question, what is good and what is evil may depend upon one’s perspective. I believe that Truman had to make this choice when he ordered the nuclear bombs dropped on Japan. The reports he received from those on the Manhattan Project may not have known of the long term radiation consequences, but they knew the destructive power of the initial impact. It would kill lots of civilians. However, Truman had to judge that against what he understood (based on what his military advisers told him) to be the results of an invasion of Japan by US troops. Truman was told that the Japanese would fight to the last man (as evidenced by their refusal to surrender in the battles on the Pacific Islands and their use of the kamikaze in war). Also, the invasion of Japan would strengthen the nationalistic pride of its citizens, making it that much harder to defeat Japan. Truman needed such a decisive knock out blow. That is why he opted to drop the bomb. As a direct descendant of a US soldier who was in the Japanese POW camps, I think Truman made the right call. My grandfather would not have survived the conditions that US prisoners were kept in Japanese POW camps. For the descendants of other POWs in Japan or US soldiers who would have had to participate in a landing much worse than D-Day, Truman’s decision was good. For those people who were incinerated or died as a result of radiation poisoning, cancer or some other direct effect of the bombs, then Truman’s decision was evil.
Thanks for reading my musings.
AndrewHB
aka the musespren
WoT spoilers: //Nyneave Healed gentling, which RJ described as a clean cut. A broken bond is more like burning out, it destroys the whole socket. I don’t think anyone managed to Heal burning out in WoT.//
“When you consider, all calculations are meaningless except one. Has more good been done than evil?” Note that this is literally the opposite of the last sentence of the First Oath of the Knights Radiant. It could be simplified to “Destination Before Journey.”
This doesn’t make it wrong–I don’t think the Radiants are some sort of perfect moral ideal. I just find it interesting.
@35: I agree with everything you say, but I still struggle as to why no one within Dalinar’s close entourage is trying to rightfully be angry at his behavior. In the scene I just re-read, Navani is right to be angry at Dalinar for making his “grief”, his “mourning”, his “problems” matter more than her own, for leaving her alone to manage the coalition but it was short-lived.
As a reader, it felt me with the impression the Radiant’s inner problems take precedence over anyone else’s problems. The only reason Dalinar can drink himself to oblivion without any consequences is because there is a Navani willing to put her grief on-hold for his benefit. It goes farther than this. Kaladin is allowed to freeze, to mourn and to become a wreck because Adolin is not allowing his own grief to take over. Kaladin is even allowed to make Adolin dying to be his moment of crumbling down. The narrative is making “falling to protect someone” matter more than “nearly dying for the fourth time in a row”.
Hence, it makes me want to have someone, who is not evil nor bad, to react negatively to the Radiants, especially Dalinar. Maybe no one else share the sentient, but it has grown stronger as I re-read OB.
On Dalinar/Amaram: I think part of the reason readers hate Amaram (and also Roshone for similar reasons) is because he killed Kaladin’s squad. Since Kaladin is the protagonist, we are angry at the outcome. On the reverse, we don’t react half as badly at Dalinar killing thousand of people to get his revenge. Why? Because we did not know the name of the victims: they weren’t tied to any of the protagonists.
Has anyone ever thought of how the story would have unfolded had Tanalan been a protagonist? His war would have felt rightful. He was opposing a monarchy built in blood. He would have been trying to get his heirloom back. His snaring of Dalinar would have been seen as brilliant and not a betrayal as Dalinar would have been a monster. His death would have been heart-breaking and we would HATE Dalinar for what he did.
And to me this remains the problem. Dalinar is the bad guy here, but the narrative treats him like the good guy. I love how his redemption ultimately plays out, with him accepting his actions were his, by taking responsibility, but I still wish for one person, someone who is not evil nor playing with the bad guys, to react negatively.
On Bondsmith and Blade Revival: I read a theory saying a Bondsmith would be needed to create the connection a dead-Blade needs to come back to life. I have also read a theory saying the only reason Adolin is able to hear Maya is not because he is reviving her, but because Dalinar has built his perpendicularity which has brought the three realms closer.
My personal wishes are, if Adolin is to revive his Blade, then I want him to do it by himself. I do not want this to become Dalinar’s narrative as I fear it would. In other words, I want Adolin to get his own narrative for his own character development, not one which would, once again, revolve around someone else. But this is a wish, not an expectation.
@33 AeronaGreenjoy
Yeah, I have a feeling what Dalinar saw was a ferret
@37 sheiglagh
Thank you! :)
@38 AndrewHB
Another example for the Taravangian scene and the one you gave that I keep coming back to is the trolley problem. For those unfamiliar, it places the listener in a scenario where there is an out of control trolley barreling down the track. This track splits two ways. The one the trolley is currently on leads to 5 people tied to the track, while the other leads to 1 person tied to the track. The listener stands at the switch lever that will switch between the two tracks. There isn’t enough time to call for help, or untie any of the people on the track. Do you do nothing and turn away in the thought you absolve yourself of any direct decision making but thereby doom those 5 people by proxy? Do you flip the switch, saving the 5, but actively doom and by some definitions murder the 1 person on the other track? That example could be broken down just for numbers. That it is better to let 1 die and 5 live, than 1 live and 5 die. But then there are a plethora of other permutations for this thought experiment. What if the 1 person is a teenager with their whole life ahead of them, while the 5 are all elderly who have lived their lives fully? Should age matter? What if the 1 person is a humanitarian while the other 5 are all murderers? Should the immediate morality of the person matter over what the individuals could potentially do (i.e. the murderers could potentially reform, while the humanitarian could one day become corrupted and far worse)? What if the 1 person is a completely average individual, while 4 of the 5 on the other track are horrible murders, but 1 of the 5 is a pregnant mother. Does the evil of the 4, outweigh the innocence of the pregnant mother when compared to the average person? Finally what if a personal loved one of the listener was on one track, while 5 strangers were on the other? Should the relation to the individual at the switch matter more than the number of lives saved? Much like the current conflict in Oathbringer, there are no easy answers, no black and white, only shades of gray.
@40 Carl
There has been a theory going around that even the first oath is a lot more open ended than Teft has led us to believe. Sanderson has admitted a Machiavellian would be able to find a home among the Skybreakers and Elscallers.
https://wob.coppermind.net/events/35-arcanum-unbounded-hoboken-signing/#e2525
That for the Elsecallers for instance, they view the journey as the whole human race.
https://wob.coppermind.net/events/35-arcanum-unbounded-hoboken-signing/#e4163
So what Taravangian said is not quite as opposite to the first ideal as we were first shown in Way of Kings, and supports your thinking that Radiants are not some perfect moral ideal. It is very subjective.
For those who compare Tarvignian to Lelouch from Code Geass I want to point something out. Lelouch from Code Geass was living in a world much like Kelsier from The first Mistborn book was living in. And as Brandon himself said. In any other time Keliser would have been the villain but in this time and place he’s the man they need. In short these are different situations
EDIT: I hadn’t read the whole thread when I posted it. Now that I have I want to add some stuff. I will add that while Lelouch lies to the public a lot he is ALWAYS HONEST WITH HIMSELF about the fact that he is a monster and a hypocrite and compares himself to a devil And the fact that we can see himself alone means he is always crying over those he hurts. If that series had an allusion to Amaram
(well more like the other way around since Code Geas came first) it would be Suzaku. Those who have seen that series know who I mean. Heck Lelouch even has a line mid series where he looks at Suzaku and thinks “I don’t have time to argue over which of us is the bigger hypocrite.” Suzaku and Lelouch are both hypocrites the difference is that Lelouch at least acknowledges his hypocrisy (inwardly at least) whereas Suzaku is in denial.
@42 How much do you want to bet there WILL BE some fall out from Dalinar’s publication of his book and confession in Roshar. I bet the first half of the book is going to deal with the fallout of his decision to publish his book as the general public reallizes that he was even MORE of a monster then they realized. What’s more even some of his close family and friends have to be taken aback by his realization as they struggle to deal with it. Adolin for exapmle has been pointed out has likely thought Sadeas killed his mother, and he will know know his father did it. On the other hand it might brings other radiant closer to him Shallan killed her own parents and repressed the memory of it, even if she did this out of self-defense and not odium induced rage she still blames herself for it. So I can see that being something bringing her together with him, maybe acting as a support, this might ALSO be what gets her to open up to Adolin about her past as she also had a parent go mad under the influence of Odium, but unlike her his parent at least got better. (I will come back to Adolin in a bit) Also the way Teft struggled with addiction, makes me think hes set up to be a support for Dalinar in the next book. As Dalinar has been shown to struggle with addiction in the past, whether the addiction of the thrill of the addiction of alcohol. they can help sport each other. Finally I wonder if just like it’s hinted that the fourth Ideal of Windrunners might have to be with something along the lines of accepting that you can’t protect everyone or not protecting people from their own choice. If the fourth ideal of the Bondsmiths might be something along the lines, of not bonding the unwilling or learning to accept that some bonds will not hold. After all there was that whole discussion a hew chapters ago on “how come no conqueror is ever happy with what they have” maybe that was foreshadowing about learning to accpet limits? In any case my THERE won’t just be personal fallout from the book, there will BE political FALLOUT from the book, but it will SOMEHOW get wrapped up by the book’s end. Probably combining it with the fourth ideal.
Also I mentioned Adolin. We talked about how Adolin hasn’t done enough or been broken enough to fully revive an Edgedancer blade/Maya. That’s true but I think the groundwork has been laid that he could BOTH be broken, AND revive her in the book. We already talked about the publishing of Dalinar’s book/confession. But here’s a crazy idea. R Remember how Adolin hasn’t confessed to Ilai yet? What if the book’s revelations give him the motive to confess. Besides the fact that he was wrong about the fact about Sadeas being behind his Mother’s murder. Which might make Adolin have to reexamine his own motives for murder. (eventually. I don’t think he would be in a mood to deal with them at first.) There are two more things in Dalinar’s confession that might grab Adolin’s attention at some point. One there’s the way that his father’s and his mother’s relationship was. For as awful as his father used to be his Mom truly cared about him. (love is debatable, but there is no doubt he cared about her. (I also want to Care about Dalinar as a PERSON (not just a character) again, I trust Brandon to be capable of making me do it. But he’s got his work cut out for him.) Kind of like how Ilai cared for Sadeas and truely mourns him. The other thing is (and I will get more into this when we get to the relevant chapter) but I fell like an offhand comment that Dalinar made at one point, something about “making the tough decisions so the king doesn’t have to” affect Sadeas mindset. It was unintentional on Dalinar’s part. And it doesn’t excuses Sadea choice, but he unwittingly set in motion Sadeas path. Giving him the idea that set him down the path from huge jerk, to irredeemable sludgebag. Learning these things together is what might bring Adolin to confess his deads to Ilai. She is someone who as been unintenially hurt by the sins of his family, like his mom had been, and now has been forgoten and ignored. If ANYYTHING could let Maya be revived it would be THIS.
Combined with the revelation of the truth about his mom’s death potentially breaking him of course.
@43 BenW
Sorry, I got a bit confused. Who were you responding to regarding Code Geass? Is your point that Taravangian is like Lelouch? Or that he is not? Or is it that you feel Taravangian is like Lelouch, but the scenarios they are dealing with are different, so Lelouch would not be a villain in his scenario (dealing with an immortal foe), but Taravangian would be? Just want to understand what you are saying better. I apologize on any confusion.
@45 Some of the thread creators compared the two to each other
EDIT: By some of the thread creators I mean either Alice, Lyndsey or both.
EDIT 2: Also I had orignally the thought that the situation was differnt In that Lelouch was dealing with an all oppressive entity that pretty much controlled the bulk of the world in his case his Father, in Kelsiers case the Lord ruler, but I hadn’t yet read the posts about honesty (at least honest to one’s self) being the difference between Dalinar and Big T (I can NOT spell that name to save my life) vs Amaram. And I took another look at things and realized that MAYBE my initial assumption was wrong.
@46 BenW
Ah, because I did a word search on this page for Lelouch, Code, and Geass and nothing came up except your own post so I got confused.
Ah gotcha. Well I would also say Odium could be considered the analogue to Lelouch’s father and the Lord Ruler. Just we have not overtly felt his presence yet till Oathbringer. As to the honesty, it is something that I find surprising about myself. That that would be where I instinctively draw my own line. I do feel Lelouch and Taravangian would be similar in how the view themselves. I think another example would be in the movie “Serenity”. The government assassin knows the type of person he is could never exist in the world he thinks he is working to build. He knows he is a monster, and could not belong. Yet he feels it is worth it for the goal he works for. We can hate him for the actions he takes, but in a perverse way we can respect him for the reasons of his actions. Then when ultimately it is revealed to be a lie, he switches sides. This redeems him, not only by switching sides, but also proves his convictions genuine. For had they not been genuine, he would have still pursued the serenity’s crew’s deaths, just like how Amaram still claimed his actions were ok despite his convictions regarding his religion turning out false. I think that is why at this point in time, whether Taravangian will be redeemed or not is in question. The Diagram has shown itself to be in error, yet he provides self sustaining logic as to why it still works. Is he still deluding himself like Amaram? Or is it that he feels he needs to be shown a clearer and better option to save the world before he discards it? And that is not even accounting for my belief that as many have colloquially referred to him as “cultivation’s plant”. That he is actually working towards saving the world, though not in the way he thinks.
Suffice it to say, I really enjoyed this thought provoking chapter lol.
I’m with SCATH on the Amaram/Dalinar comparison. Amaram is self-rightgious in his claims while Dalinar knows he has made terrible choices. If you don’t even acknowlege that you are as failible as everyone else you can condone great evil under the guise of being a necessary evil.
Until the end of OB there isn’t any mention of Amaram being influenced by the Thrill or Odium that I remember. Dalinar was hounded by evil when he was young.
Adolin doesn’t necessarily need to be broken; WOB’s mention that being broken is what the people in world think has to happen to achieve a bond. I guess it makes sense. Surgebinding originates on Ashyn where one had to be actively sick to access powers. On Roshar with a spren to mediate, being sick mentally replaced being sick physically. However we’ve been told by the creator that the soul must be open, that’s all. Adolin therefore can likely achieve awakening because his soul is already open to Maya. His bond to his blade is remarkably stronger than any Shardbearer we’ve seen in the narrative, cultivated over many years. I agree that more needs to be done; the bond ain’t typical. But at this point it seems inevitable.
On why Dalinar isn’t more hated by the good guys:
I’m not naive enough to deny that a large part of the reason Amaram is so reprehensible to the fandom is that he bullied our favorite bridgeboy. But he’d be hated at least in my eyes even if he did it to an unnamed character. The difference is had it happened to someone we didn’t know then it’s likely no one would have ever found out. It makes me wonder how many times he’s done something horrible that nobody knows about. Sadeas knew of some horrid things in Amaram’s past that he didn’t share with the rest of the class.
Now Dalinar killed a bunch of people and calls himself a monster, yet he was acting honorably as his culture understood honor. It kinda reminds me of Ender’s Game and Speaker for the Dead. In the first, Ender is honored for an act of genocide. His culture venerated him for his genius and ruthlessness. After the events of the first novel he writes a book, and when we get to Speaker his actions are condemned. Dalinar is in a similar situation. His book is going to detail his horrors and there will be a backlash. But I believe that writing the book will change the world’s understanding of what is honorable so that no one will ever be able to perform the acts he did and call it by any other name than reprehensible slaughter. Will he lose allies? Debatable. Most of his coalition already knew he was a monster. In a perverse way, he might gain a few allies; the person in the book committing those atrocities could have never written Oathbringer. It would show the world that he’s a changed man. We will see.
@48: Thrill or not I refuse to view Dalinar as a victim. He had the capacity to not indulge into mass murder. Dalinar himself refuses to see himself as a victim, so why should I? This, IMHO forms his one real redeemable quality: the fact he doesn’t try to pity himself.
@49: I have made my views on Adolin previously known. While it is true Brandon has said a soul needed not be cracked nor broken for a Nahel Bond to take place, I personally believe it would lessen this given narrative shall he use this ploy to make it happen. Adolin comes across too much like a Gary Stu in OB, a perfect character who can never do no wrong, who always succeeds, who’s unable to even have a reaction at dying: have him earn a Nahel Bond without the struggles would, IMHO, suspend the general disbelief. It is one thing to do it with Lopen, but Adolin? I can see the ranting posts from a mile away: “So…. Adolin is sooooooo perfect he revives his Blade just out of being just soooooooo perfect. It was supposed to be impossible, but Adolin is soooooooo perfect, he nails it.”.
I swear, if the narrative does this. readers will rant against it. I currently read posts referring to Adolin as a Gary Stu on a regular basis. Not a good choice, still IMHO.
If we look at their actions and just their actions, Dalinar did worst than Amaram. The only reason we pity Dalinar is because Tanalan’s nameless family isn’t tied to a well-loved protagonist. How about if it were Tien, Lirin and Hesina whom Dalinar had burned to death in his seeking of retribution? We would hate Dalinar just as we hate Roshone. Why do we hate Roshone? Ah, he sent Tien to the war, but how does this weight against Dalinar killing thousand of innocent nameless children? Because Dalinar realizes he did a mistake it makes it better? If those were your children, would it make you feel better the criminal is being repentant?
That’s my problem with the narrative trying to shoe-horn pity in me, when it comes to Dalinar, trying to make him a victim while making Amaram and Roshone the most despicable human beings which ever walked Roshar. In my book, Dalinar is not better than them. He just happened to be on the “right side” of the conflict. He won. So he gets a second chance. Dalinar, at the very least, is aware of this fact.
Just because I think something is inevitable does not mean it will be easy. I did say more needed to be done for Addie to get his blade.
We hate Roshone because he’s petty. What he did to Kaladin’s family was the act of a child being denied toys. We hate Amaram because he betrayed his men with malice forethought. Whatever Dalinar’s faults he is not petty and he doesn’t betray allies, not even young!Dalinar. He’s a monster and he calls himself out. He called himself out for acts that his people revere him for. His fame in Alethkar is far and wide, and his enemies both fear and respect him. He is universally seen as a lighteyes worth fighting for; he builds this reputation by being absolutely genuine. What slips past some of us is that Dalinar did not have to call himself out. He did not have to lay his soul bear for the world to see and criticise. He could’ve hid his misdeeds or simply not mentioned them and nobody would have truly condemned him for it. Instead he does the right thing and in so doing has an opportunity to prevent future atrocities.
One last thing. Soldiering is a profession where people die. It’s a risk inherent anytime one puts on a uniform. For a soldier, victory and supporting your battle buddies become more important than life. Dalinar instills confidence in his men. He shows them time and time again that if they must die, their lives would not be wasted in futility. So he gets less criticism because he’s on the winning side. Well he’s the guy that makes winning possible. Those are part and parcel his spoils of war. But say also that he’s never killed a person outside a military engagement or assassination attempt. He’s never sent another into a danger he was unwilling to face himself. And he has never once betrayed anyone.
@50 Gepeto
I cannot speak for others….well maybe the ones that specifically say they agreed with me I could speak for them, but at least for myself I never said Dalinar was a victim. For me personally, it is because Amaram plays the victim while Dalinar does not which makes me thing one is worse than the other. Dalinar accepts what he did is wrong. Amaram still claims what he did was ok. Hmmmm, I have an example, but I am concerned it will be construed to being linked to something else. So hopefully me saying that this example is purely and only in reference to what I am writing right here, right now, and absolutely nothing else, no veiled attack or anything, will help. So if Person A harmed Person B. Person B asks for an apology. Person A says sorry but they hit Person B because they were annoying. That is not an apology. That is justifying an action hidden in an apology. An apology would be simply stating what Person A did was wrong, and that person is sorry.
Dalinar is admitting what he did was wrong, and is genuinely sorry. Full stop.
Amaram says what happened is wrong, buuuuuuuttttttt hey Dalinar did it too, and Amaram was doing it to protect people during the ending of the world,(which he actively tried to bring about, which sucks buuuuuuuuuuttttttt hey he was doing it to bring back the heralds who will make everyone honorable and better again! So its ok!). Oh wait, turns out the heralds abandoned everyone. They were dishonorable. So killing Kaladin’s men so Amaram would have shards to help him bring about the end of the world to return the heralds to make everyone happy again……didn’t actually work. Sooooooo instead of admitting that he royally messed up and needs to work to fix what he screwed up, he instead still blames everyone else but himself. To top it off, he hops on the Odium train. That is why I feel Amaram is worse than Dalinar. Neither is a saint, and Dalinar is certainly not a victim, but he recognizes that, and seeks to do better, while Amaram does not.
I would also like to point out that Roshone fully and completely every step of the way blamed everyone but himself for every misfortune both real and imagined that he experienced. It wasn’t his fault the opposing silversmiths died in jail, they shouldn’t have gotten in his way. He shouldn’t have been punished for some darkeyes. He is a lighteyes, hes above that! It’s everyone in hearthstone’s fault that he has to be miserable there. Its especially the surgeon for letting Wistilow die. Because if Wistilow hadn’t died, then Roshone wouldn’t have been cast to that backwater crem hole. That surgeon dares stand up to him? Well that is his fault, he deserves to be punished. Even when Kaladin showed up as a radiant, Roshone wasn’t apologetic once. He just got put in his place by someone higher than him. So based on how I rate people, I would say Roshone is worse than Amaram, because he doesn’t even see other people as living beings worthy of respect. They are just vehicles for him to blame or use.
Also @EvilMonkey, good point, just because we know about Kaladin, doesn’t mean Amaram hasn’t done other stuff that may be even more detestable. The fact that he so effectively hid everything with Kaladin speaks to practice to me.
Lol I keep on thinking of new things and more to write. There is a fictional show on Netflix called Black Mirror. There is an episode about a woman who is getting chased by people, and basically tormented by feeling hunted and constantly scared. She doesn’t know why and is terrified. Long story short, it is revealed that she was actually the gf and accessory to a horrible murder of a little child. The bf who did most of it hung himself so to the people on the show he “escaped” justice. So using future technology, they wiped her memories and had her live the traumatic experiences that little child experienced before she died at the man and woman’s hands. Then after tormenting her, they wipe her memory and do it all over again. This doesn’t feel to me like they accomplish what they think they do. They wipe her memory. Are they really punishing the actual person that did it, if she doesn’t remember who she is? Some people view the death penalty as a “too easy” way out for the criminal. That they should have to live with what they did, and be punished for it. Dalinar was punished. The never ending screaming. The torment of being surrounded by the wails of those he killed constantly. Now he tries to do better. Now he has reformed. I think some victims, maybe not all, would think that is better. Evi certainly did as she forgave Dalinar.
@51: I was mostly reacting to the idea of Adolin reviving his Blade without being broken down. I agree more needs to be done and I do not want to infer you assumed more didn’t need to be done. I however do not feel strongly about Adolin reviving his Blade without going through personal trials first, no matter what else he needs to do especially since we have clues what else needs to be done…. does not involve Adolin at all. Hence, this arc is likely to be a Red Herring. It will be about Dalinar figuring it out, not Adolin growing into a Radiant through proper hardships and character growth. Him, he’ll just be the cheery side-kick who gets the butter and the money to buy the butter, so a real Gary Stu. Of course, YMMV, but this is how I currently feel about it.
@52: I should have been more precise. I meant to say the narrative is making me feel like I should view Dalinar as a victim. Of course, each reader may feel differently about it. It could be I misunderstood the narrative, but so are my current thoughts.
Dalinar doesn’t think of himself as a victim, Dalinar believes what he did was wrong and he does take ownership for his actions. The narrative however, I feel it is telling me Amaram and Roshone are evil people while Dalinar is a great man. Being who I am, I ask myself, but why should I find Dalinar the better man? Because he won important battles? Because he is repentant? Should I feel pity for this guy who murdered his children through 46 knife hits (real life story) because he says he is sorry for what he did? Then why should I feel sorry for Dalinar? Why should I judge more harshly Amaram or Roshone? Because they were petty, because they refused to admit their wrongs?
Yes, Dalinar is admitting his wrongs whereas Amaram and Roshone aren’t, but his admissions aren’t going to erase his deeds which, both by scope and by intentions, were far worst than anything we’ve seen Amaram or Roshone do. My whole point remains, has Dalinar actually harmed anyone we are sympathetic to, how would we feel about his redemption? Let’s imagine for a second, among the dead, were Kaladin’s family, would we find Dalinar’s excuses enough? I say we probably won’t, but because Dalinar killed strangers, we feel better about him…
I guess it is just my nature to pick this mantel, I do not hate Dalinar nor anything, but I wonder. I wonder why I should feel positive about him considering all the evil he has done? Yes, he tries to do better now but, in my mind, he was not punished enough for his actions. Luckily, Dalinar does agree with this.
In my mind, the few years Dalinar had to endure the screaming in his head wasn’t enough to be called a punishment. First degree murder is being punished by 25 years of prison per murder within my country. Dalinar deserved a life sentence in prison, not a mere 5 years being drunk. Oh but Dalinar was at war, so it makes it alright? I cannot be alright. Destroying a town full of civilians is never alright.
I would point out Dalinar himself thinks he was not nearly punished enough for his actions. This is an odd feeling, the character, Dalinar, tells me I should be hating him, I should not be trusting him, but the narrative it written in a way which makes me feel it wants me to feel sorry for him.
I am not convinced the “Evi voice” he hears is really her. I tend to think he is hallucinating, but YMMV.
At this point I don’t think people want to throw stones at glass houses. Just because Dalinar is better at the Art of War than anyone living on Roshar we should be critical. But it takes two to have a fight. And in Alethkar, everyone fights. Hell, the country is in the midst of a massive war at the Shattered Plains yet there are still minor skirmishes being fought back at home between fellow countrymen. That’s like if the US fighting in WW2 but back home the state of Indiana is trying to take territory from Ohio. Keep in mind that at this point Alethkar is technically unified. Can you imagine the type of rampant chaos that was going on during the Kholin rise? And if Sadeas is any indication, there were commanders much less scrupulous than Dalinar ever was. Dalinar was super effective as a commander, but I would not be so quick to assume that he’s the only guilty party. War leaves everyone with bloody hands.
@Gepeto, “Adolin comes across too much like a Gary Stu in OB, a perfect character who can never do no wrong, who always succeeds, who’s unable to even have a reaction at dying …”
The thing is, that’s a very idiosyncratic reaction. Most of us don’t feel that way about Adolin. There’s a difference between “admirable” and “perfect”.
On the matter of Fourth Oaths, people’s speculations (including mine until this thread) have been about broad, general principles like the first three, e. g. “defend” and “listen”. However, the Fourth Oath of the Skybreakers is the opposite–it’s to undertake a very specific quest. In the case of Szeth it’s to remove the current leaders of the Shin. What if the Windrunners/Bondsmiths/etc. also get particular, rather than general, Fourth Oaths? Say, “I will free the human slaves of Kholinar from the Singers” for Kaladin? I doubt it, actually, but the text does not rule it out.
Also maybe worth mentioning: Szeth’s oath specifically requires him to defy the law of Shin, and Nale just accepts it?
@Gepeto for what it’s worth I don’t really feel sorry for Dalinar at this point, however I do relate to his struggle to be a better man. And would aspire to help him even, as I am am disgusted by him. That being said. He has a LONG way to go before he can earn back my trust. I am the type of person who while they may forgive easily, does NOT forget easily. If that makes sense. Basically while I belive every who shows genuine remorse and a desire to change SHOULD be given a chance, at the end of the day that redemption MUST be earned. To be honest one of my LEAST FAVORITE tropes in the world is Redemption equals death. Where after doing horrible things you can brush it off by giving your life. To me that’s taking the easy way out. (Not saying it can’t ever be done right, see Dinobot in Beast Wars). For me the truly courageous thing is to acknowledge your sins and to strive to make things better. To live with the guilt of all you have done. And maybe, just maybe, someday you can even forgive yourself. It’s a hard story to do right and let’s be honest Dalinar is NOT there yet either in my eyes OR his. But I can see that MIGHT be where the story is heading. EVENTUALLY. Brandon has said that Dalinar is the heart of the Stormlight Archive. To me this indicates this is an redemption story.
Also I want to know what you think about my Adolin speculation @44
@55: Well, since the fifth oath for Skybreakers is supposed to be something like “I am the law”, I think that defying a law Szeth and Nale think (with good cause) to be wrong isn’t strange at all.
@55 and 57 The fourth oath for bondsmiths might be something along the lines of accepting that you can’t hold everyone against their will. Given that there is BOUND to be political fallout from the next book I can see that oath being VERY Important.
Nale and Szeth probably don’t see it as breaking the law. The Shin shamans broke their own laws by wrongly exiling Szeth and must be punished for it. Szeth is enforcing the law, not breaking it.
@55: Have you browse on Reddit since the release of OB? Adolin being referred to as a Gary Stu does happen on a frequent basis over there. While I find the appellation perhaps too far-fetched, there is truth in how some readers are reacting to the character. If enough readers feel Adolin reads too much like a Gary Stu out of being given a narrative where he is never seen making a mistake nor having a reaction to event, then what does it say about his narrative? If I recall properly, some readers said the same about Shallan in WoR. I cannot help but thinking her failures in OB were written in part in response to those critics. I never felt Shallan was a Mary Sue, I never read the character as such, but other readers felt her successes came too easily.
The same readers now feel this way about Adolin. The fact other readers do not doesn’t change the fact this is one of the thoughts being carried when it comes to the character. Perhaps not here, but Tor.com is not the only place where OB is being discussed and, as a rule of thumb, Adolin related discussions happening elsewhere have their fair number of readers feeling the character is too perfect, too one-dimensional. I do not think Adolin is one-dimensional, but I do think the author has not done as good of a job with Adolin as he did with most of his other characters. Something is missing when it comes to Adolin’s character. He is not.. growing within the narrative.
@56: Ah sorry, I missed the @42 commentary. On the matter of Dalinar, I do agree redemption should not equal death. I do agree Dalinar is acknowledging his wrongs. What bothers me is how everyone in-world seem ready to ignore what he has done (except Fen). I also questioned myself on how the narrative is making Dalinar be the good guy while making Amaram/Roshone be the bad guys. By all means, they all are bad guys. Logically, Dalinar is the only one who is trying to be better, and I applaud here, but should I, as a reader, pity him? There is a lot of reflection to be had on the matter, this is certain.
On Adolin: I honestly believe we could come up with a rational where he is broken just as we could come up with a rational where he isn’t. I think both rational currently co-exist, I think both have valid arguments and both could be canon, given the information we currently have. Unfortunately, since arguments on both sides are, I believe, really good ones, I find it impossible to decide where I stand on it. There are days where I think Adolin is broken, but refuses to admit it, refuses to see it because he is too centered on being perfect for everyone else. That strain, I keep waiting for it to be too much, for Adolin to genuinely crack, but the narrative doesn’t seem to imply it will happen anytime soon. There are other days where I think Adolin is not broken, nothing can get to him and Brandon means for him to be a “Gary Stu” inspiration kind of character to contrast with the main cast.
I also agree there are existing narrative elements which could cause hardships for Adolin’s character. Stuff like knowing the truth about his mother, about Sadeas not really being involved in the torching of the Rift (at least, it wasn’t his orders nor his idea), about Dalinar being responsible for it, about his mother not having been killed by rebels, but by his father’s actions, about Dalinar never really loving her as much as he ought to which could really harmed Adolin. Except, he has weathered everything so perfectly, how can we realistically think this will be different? How can we expect Adolin to react any differently than to forgive his father? Can we really expect Adolin to NOT be strong at all times?
As for Ialai, at the end of OB, Dalinar said they ought to make a statement for Sadeas, so I expect a statement to be made. I thus think Ialai will learn the truth, not through Adolin’s confessions, but through the statement Dalinar will make. What will she do then? Well, options are the following: 1) nothing as she is now irrelevant so we won’t see her again, 2) try to get vengeance on Adolin, 3) making an alliance with the Fused/Iriali/Skybreakers and thus obtain the means to get her revenge on Adolin, 4) do her own stuff and ignore Adolin. It really depends where Brandon wants to go there.
I however must say your suggestion of Adolin thinking of Ialai as one of the forgotten is actually… well innovative. I never thought of it in such terms, but it could work as a narrative. My thoughts however remains, if Adolin revives Maya, then I do feel he needs a stronger narrative, one where we feel his hardships, not one where we are still trying to guess if they exist or not.
@60 I wasn’t trying to say that Adolin WAS broken I was trying to say that this could be the setup that LEADS to him GETTING broken. Basically having his entire world view shattered. That being said I agree with you that we thought it would happen before and we were wrong. I also agree with you that IF it DOES happen we need to FEEL it.
On the whole pity thing. Personally I’m just not good at hating or being angry. I tried staying angry at someone, I found it to exhausting. And I mean that literately.That being said I AM good at being skeptical of someone’s intent. I don’t have to be angry or hate someone to be EXTREMELY WARY of them or suspicious of their motives, and I can keep that up for a long time without loosing energy if necessary. It doesn’t drain me the same way being angry does.
Ironically I think that someone like Amaram would probably prefer being hated to being pitied. He probably thinks he can stand being hated as there is something raw and visceral about it that he can gain strength from, but pitying him while attempting to STOP him (perhaps because you think he won’t stop). It’s simultaneously accepting that he doesn’t deserve the pain he wen’t through, (he would rather be seen as a monster) while denying him as wrong to use his pain as an excuse to lash out against others. Hmm. Wouldn’t it be ironic if this is how the confrontation against Odium goes as well. Given the way that Odium sucks up emotion and pain I wouldn’t be surprised.
@61: Neither was I. I was trying to say there is an argument which wants Adolin to be broken and there is an argument which wants him not to be broken. Both sides have good arguments. I think both rationals are sound even if contradictory.
As for Adolin becoming broken as his entire view of the word becomes shattered, well, we have been there. We thought it would happen in OB but it didn’t. What’s left to shatter within Adolin’s views of the world? Dalinar inadvertently killing Evi and the Rift, but I do not know if this will be enough. If Adolin is able to power through being the only unworthy of a Nahel Bond Kholin, if he is able to accept his new irrelevance within the world, if he now stands up to Dalinar to be his own man, then how can something as small as how his mother really died shatter him? It is not like Dalinar did it on purpose and he wrote a book where he reads like a repentant victim even if he does not believe he is one.
Why should Adolin react badly and break down for this? He hasn’t really broken down before, so why would this be enough? Adolin worships Dalinar, I do not see this changing anytime soon even with the revelation surrounding the Rift. Dalinar is admitting his guilt, why would Adolin be angry?
So while yes, the setup could lead there, as you also acknowledge, we have been there. It didn’t happen. Now Adolin has not much left on his plate which could break him. If Sadeas and the Radiants were not enough, then I fear nothing will be enough. Granted, if it does happen, we should feel it, but see, I am not even sure it will happen.
How do you break a guy like Adolin who is genuinely devoid of any negative emotions nor visible flaws? I have been scratching my head on this one and each time I find an idea, I go: “Oh no, Adolin won’t fall for this. He is too resilient. He’ll just accept it and move on.”.
My current thoughts are thus, can Adolin be broken? Is it even possible to break him?
I agree Amaram would probably prefer being hated to being pitied. I don’t pity him, I certainly hate him, but I find the narrative could have make us feel differently.
@62 I wasn’t trying to convince you to pity him. It stated out as me trying to come to terms with weather or not I DID pity Dalinar and such and sort of went of on a tangent, that turned into a theory. Basically I started talking about how I PERSONALLY find it PHYSICALLY DIFFICULT to stay angry for long periods of time.
I guess if my mind were to be made up of two shards it would be Logic and Empathy. I can care for the pain of other people, all the while realizing that they have to be stopped. Basically I guess I can see in myself someone who (COULD potentially stand up to someone, pity them and point out their bullshit, at the same time.) (Though of course sometimes I MISS the signs that they were in pain and then instantly berate myself for how stupid I was.) (Or sometimes it’s the other way around. I honestly feel like I always apologize when I shouldn’t and fail to apologize when I should. Though I am getting better at it.) After that I wondered if Odium might be the same. The way he sucks in emotion. Maybe he want’s people to hate him, and will be defeated by a warrior who faces him with pity in his heart. Brandon DID say this would be his should out to epic fantasy after all. (Tolkein perhaps? (He wrote a lot about pity)) It’s only speculation.
Given the density of comments, I’ll just address topics in progression without comment references or targeted replies.
1 – Dalinar v. Amaram
Dalinar, for all his brutality, neither deliberately killed allied troops nor executed people after battles were concluded. Amaram did both. Gavilar’s war may or may not have been a just one, depending on why he launched it (for instance, did the Kholin line have a better claim on the old kingship than the other princes?), but in general conduct it does not seem to have been outside the expectations of normal Alethi warfare in any way but scale (the Rift being an exceptional atrocity akin to the Firebombing of Dresden, and provoked in part by an unusual degree of treachery and underhandedness on the part of the enemy). What Amaram did is equivalent to a general taking aside a potential medal of honor nominee and his unit and having them all shot in the head so that he could claim the feats of heroism for himself. It’s an apples to oranges comparison: a bushel of apples is still qualitatively different than a single orange, the quantitative difference is irrelevant to the discussion.
2 – The morality of rulers
There was an idea held by emperors from Constantine I to Theodosius I that an emperor could not be a baptized Christian because they would necessarily have to do sinful things in the name of the state. They held off baptism until their death beds so that they could do what was necessary, no matter how evil, and then be washed free of it before dying. It fell apart when Theodosius I fell horribly ill and was baptized, only to get better suddenly. He was the first truly Christian emperor and he tried very hard to moderate his rule and act both as a person and as the embodiment of the state in a Christian manner. His most notable failure was the massacre of Thessalonica, in which thousands of civilians wound up dead after Theodosius was enraged upon hearing that they were in revolt against their military governor. He immediately regretted the order, but it was too late and his soldiers sacked the city and murdered thousands of civilians. Ambrose of Milan denied Theodosius access to the Eucharist until he made public penance, wearing sackcloth and ashes and approaching the cathedral as a penitent rather than as an emperor.
In fact, I see a great many parallels between Theodosius and Dalinar. Both were highly respected generals who unified a country. Both committed a horrifying atrocity in a fit of rage. Both became penitent and went on to be excellent rulers.
Later emperors found a way to rule effectively while still trying (and largely failing, but trying is the important part) to live up to a Christian ideal. To the problem of the four suspects, three of whom are guilty, the solution would likely have been to blind them all. The guilty parties would be unable to commit more such crimes, it would save the trouble of imprisoning people, and it would avoid executing anyone (which in turn would give the guilty a chance to repent and prevent an innocent man from being put to death, while also avoiding staining the hands of any executions or order-givers who would be responsible for the deaths). Alternatively, they might torture all suspects until they could determine who was truly guilty, and then pay the innocent one for his troubles. And of course there would be the opportunity for clerics or monks to intervene in some way, perhaps to beg clemency or to claim divine revelation.
In a specifically Alethi context, there should still be any number of alternatives to mass pardon or mass execution. I don’t know what the Alethi think of mutilation, though I suspect that they would disapprove, but they could probably brand and enslave all parties. They may have provision for trial by combat, too, though I don’t know that we have seen anything at all resembling that aside from honor duels.
Taravangian’s strict utilitarian philosophy is abhorrent. The greatest good for the greatest number at the cost of great evil to a few is the same sort of nonsense as Spock’s “needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.” It devalues the individual and treats him as nothing more than a part of a greater whole, dehumanized and made trivial. It is much the same justification as that used by socialists to strip individuals of freedom, property, and even lives in the name of society, and is the common excuse of despots and dictators who kill more of their own people in peace than foreign enemies manage in time of war.
3 – Adolin and Maya
Common understanding is that a nahel bond requires that one party have a fractured spirit so that the other party can fill the gaps and generate the bond, yes? Is there anything that requires that the “broken” party be the human/physical realm entity? Maya is clearly broken, so what is to stop Adolin’s cognitive or spiritual self (whichever realm it is that the bond is forged in) from filling in the cracks in Maya and establishing a bond that way? If that is possible, then Adolin has no need to become “broken” at all, even setting aside that as far as I am aware having one of the parties be “broken” is only a way to facilitate and ease the formation of a bond rather than an absolute requirement. Please correct me if I am in error on any point related to bonds.
@64 That’s on interesting thought on the potential of a Nahel bond working in reverse. What’s interesting is that there IS precedent with the way the Parsh were restored by the everstorm.
@63: I do not generally stay angry long with people, but I find Dalinar’s actions are hard to forgive. I care at seeing such actions not being properly punished, so maybe this is the Skybreaker in me who finds Dalinar got a deal he probably never deserved. It could be he is what the world needs and my qualms over his actions are unjustified. It could be, but I definitely will not pity Dalinar nor think of him as a victim. I do believe, even with the Thrill’s influence, he chose to give way to it, he chose to indulge in it. Luckily, Dalinar does agree with this, but his repentance is not going to erase the people he killed for vengeance.
I don’t know if Dalinar defeated Odium. My thoughts are he merely refused to be his Champion, but I have read many theories on what might have happened.
@64: I personally wish I was able to discard Dalinar’s actions as they were “provoked by treachery”. The killing of innocent civilians in such a horrific manner is never justified by no amount of treachery. Yes, Tanalan duped Dalinar, but his people did not deserve to die for his actions. No children deserve to die because their Highprince lost a gamble and no amount of vengeance should be paid by children’s life. So while I will certainly not excuse Amaram’s actions, I consider Dalinar’s to have been far worst just by the scope of it and the sub-adjacent reason being them: vengeance. Amaram, at least, believed there was a “higher reason” which “justified” his actions which granted is totally wrong, but at least he didn’t lock the families of those men into stone houses and then put them to the torch. At least, he didn’t kill children.
Hence, I wish I was able to accept Dalinar’s actions are forgivable. To my eyes, they are beyond forgiveness, they are a stain he will have to carry and not one he can hope redeeming himself from. He can only try to be a better man. His one redeeming quality being accepting he is a bad person and admitting his wrongs which is more than Amaram/Roshone ever did.
I do not condone Taravnagian’s actions either. In fact, I find Roshar is quite lacking in terms of real inspiring leaders deserving to be lead it. Perhaps it is as Dalinar said: “All the good ones were dead so you’re stuck with me.”. I can buy this, I just do not have to like it.
On Adolin/Maya: This is a popular theory but I am afraid it relies on little factual. There is no WoB nor textual evidence which suggests it can happen in a reverse manner nor is there any indications sprens can be “broken” in the same way as human minds are broken. So while certainly a popular theory, one which allows Adolin to remain very static and centers the revival arc on Maya and not him (highly likely Brandon will go there), it wouldn’t solve the growing problem of Adolin being… too good.
Adolin has everything, like everything. There is nothing he ever wanted which he never got without needing to pull out much effort. Even his dueling skills, he admits they are what they are mostly because of his father’s wealth and his good genes. He got to marry the woman he loves. He is the Highprince. He got away with murdering a Highprince without even one reprimand. And now he would get a Nahel Bond because he’s just that nice, perfect and things just magically align for him?
So while a possibility, though not one we can confirm is possible given what we do know, I am not convinced it yields… well an interesting narrative. Would readers really get behind this? Do readers want to read about a character who gets everything without ever struggling for any of it? I guess it makes an interesting narrative where Maya is the protagonist and Adolin, once again, is the side-character. While a possibility, it is not one I like nor I wish to read.
I understand that Dalinar’s past rubs people the wrong way. I cringe every time I’ve read the Rift scene, like watching an avalanche approaching a town. I’m not here to excuse his actions there exactly, just put his actions into context. Dalinar is truly a man of his times. This is a world without a Geneva Convention. He’s a product of a culture where the phrase “win at all costs” is a religious mandate. Dalinar committed atrocities, but are we for one second to believe he was the only highprince or military commander to give the order to sack a town or violate civilians? And there are indications in Dalinar’s first flashback that he tried to keep such actions to a minimum. The Rift was horrible but probably common business practice for Alethi. Instead of calling Dalinar a single monstrous entity, say instead that Alethi are all horrendous. Porphyrogenitus @64 makes good points regarding the morality of rulers.
For Amaram on the other hand, there are no mitigating circumstances in my eyes. My perspective as a soldier may make me somewhat biased in that respect. Although it’s no where near to the extent that it used to be, military action inevitably involves doing terrible things to people, organized savagery. In order to do so effectively, it requires one to be able to trust that the commander knows what they are doing and will not waste your sacrifices. Betraying the people you are leading into mayhem is bad enough; to do so to steal? And the fuck of it is that it was totally unnecessary. Condemn Dalinar for the bodycount. That’s totally justified. But to say Amaram wasn’t as bad because his body count wasn’t as high is fallacious. Someone who would do what Amaram did will stoop to anything. No atrocity is out of the question for him. He could easily order 10 Rifts to get a Shardblade. Just because we aren’t versed in his misdeeds doesn’t mean he did not commit them. He just did it conveniently off screen, hiding behind a sterling reputation. After all, absence of evidence doesn’t necessarily mean evidence of absence. Were I Alethi, I would much rather have Dalinar for a commander, feeling safe in the knowledge that he would never try to steal my honor. I might die, but at least I wouldn’t have been betrayed.
@BenW: I hear you. For me, anger is a fire that takes energy to start and rapidly burns up the rest of my energy. It can morph into bitterness, resentment, apathy, despair, or disgust, which are easier to sustain, but I don’t feel it as energizing force the wqy some people do. I feel disgust and sadness toward Dalinar, but anger only in the moment when reading the things which merit it.
I also had a thought. What was life like in Alkethar BEFORE the Unification Wars? Is it POSSIBLE that as horrible as the unification wars are they were a response to even WORSE conditions? I know it sounds it crazy but here me out we kept hereing about all these squabbling princlings. That the raping and pillaging wasn’t considered unsual. What if before there was unification the people of Alekathar had to suffer this from the Princlings fighting each other ALL the time. Now to the people of the outside world, who already have peace. What’s going on with the unification wars is STILL barbarity. But for the Alethi, it’s a step forward. It’s not enough obviously. But it’s hard to jump straight from warring princedoms to the type of government the other kingdoms have. Because their people haven’t laid the groundwork for it. That kind of stuff takes time. Possibly generations
@60, I have never participated in Reddit. I can only judge by discussions I have seen.
We know that Adolin was very close to his mother and she died when he was still relatively young, without his father really there to provide comfort. Is there a reason this is not sufficiently traumatizing for him to have “broken”?
@69
Yes Ben. That exactly. Men like the Kholin boys do not come along in a vacuum.
Roger@71
The problem with trauma is that being broken is such a subjective term. The threshold is different for everyone and observers tend to look like asses for even attempting to judge someone else’s pain. Similarly, people diagnosed with PTSD have to deal with this.
@67: I cannot judge the other Highprinces on hypothetical deeds. I can only judge by what I know and, so far, I only know about Dalinar torching the Rift. So while it may be others were far worst, my impressions while reading the narrative was the Rift was considered awful even by Alethi’s standards.
I agree one innocent life is too much, but when this innocent life happens to be a child, I judge more harshly. Somehow, the fact Dalinar killed thousand of unknown civilians is somewhat worst than Amaram killing five men so he would get his own Shards. I will however state the narrative doesn’t tell us Amaram would have torched 10 Rifts to get one set of Shards: we have no idea if he’d go as far as this. I however find greed and beliefs Shards should go to the more competent soldier (a belief Dalinar also shares) somewhat easier to swallow than mere vengeance.
Dalinar… He unleashed a horror. Those poor people burned alive. They suffered. They died in horrible circumstances. I mean, they were literally tortured by the flames before they finally died. It’s… I just find it worst than what Amaram did. Amaram, at least, it was quick. And there were no children involved.
@69: I will never condone war and mass murders are necessary for the greater good. Had Gavilar tried for another way and realized this was the only option, then fine, maybe I’d believe him, but this never happened. See. in my mind, Tanalan’s cause was just. Gavilar was the enemy and the conqueror.
@70: Fair enough. I tend to be everywhere at once. I read a lot of discussion and there are those where Adolin is being referred to as a Gary Stu. My take, as always, is if others are saying it, whether I agree with it or not is irrelevant, then it may mean something.
@71: Theoretically, it is sufficient. When Evi was killed, Adolin was in cart somewhere in between Jah Keved and Kohlinar: when and how he learned the truth, the story doesn’t say, but it was either alone in a cart surrounded by guards and Ardents or back in Kholinar weeks after everyone else dealt with it. Not an ideal situation in any case. Therefore, if Adolin were traumatized by it, no one would argue it isn’t realistic. He however doesn’t read like if he were traumatized by it, hence, him being broken or not remains a matter of debate.
@72: And the problem remains Adolin isn’t written as a character having trauma. Maybe he does, but if we compare to basically anyone else, how can we say Adolin has trauma? He barely reacts to events.
Gepeto we are probably gonna have to agree to disagree on this one. I perfer the guy with genuine character to the one with just a good rep.
Dalinar and others killed civilians in their wars all the time. Is what happened at the Rift really that much worse than what he did elsewhere or does it only seem different because Evi happened to be caught in it? If she hadn’t been there, wouldn’t many see the Rift as just another of Dalinar’s many war crimes? In an earlier flashback he also attacked through fire he set that probably killed people. We just do not read the details about how many children he burned there (and at many other battles we never directly hear about). Dalinar only cares about the victims at the Rift because of Evi. Elsewhere he just kills without caring why. He doesn’t spare the city where he found the archer because he wanted to protect the people living there but only because he wanted the archer’s cooperation.
I hate to repeat myself yet again, but the Stormlight Archive is about redemption. You have to be bad to need redemption.
How many protagonists do we have that are not murdering betrayers? Answer: Kaladin and potentially Lift. (We don’t know her background.) Every other protagonist!
The entire point of Shallan, or Szeth, or Dalinar-as-protagonist is precisely that they have done hideous things, and yet Sanderson makes them sympathetic and makes (most of) the readers pull for them.
Dalinar, at least in quantity, did worse than most of the others. (Venli is in his league.) He might be the most challenging for some. I still think that’s Sanderson’s goal.
The reason I wonder if it was worse is because after watching a Ted-Ed video called history vs Ginghas Kahn I can’t help but Compare the Alethi to the Mongols. I’d link to the video but I don’t know if it’s allowed. the interesting thing about that video was it how it recontextualized the Mongals for me. That while they WERE brutal they weren’t more so than others of there time. What’s more they also typical preserved the culture EDIT(inserting stuff left out by accident: of the place the conquered, as opposed the other major conquers of the time) which sought enforce their own culture and religion over the conquered place. (Edit: to insert stuff left out again: As a result the Mongols) wereconsidered RELATIVELY positive by CONTRAST. I am NOT saying this to DEGRADE the violence and brutality of it, just put it in context. Also the most EXCESSIVE thing of the MONGOLS was the sacking of Baghdad, which bears ALOT of similarities to the burning of the rift when you look at both events. Finally the irony of the mongol conquests is that SURPRISINGLY given Genghis reputation, afterwards women were allowed to divorce their husbands, and they say that a woman could walk from one end of the silk road to the other in peace. When you consider Brandon spent time in Korea one of many places influenced by the Mongols he PROBABLY knows BOTH sides of the story. I do NOT think he is would ever try to justify the horrors that these type of men create, but he would have read about the situations that lead to such men. Apperantly (again I am refering to the Ted-Ed video the fates of the previous men who had try to unify the squabbling warlords were NOT pretty. It didn’t help that help that internal division had been fostered among them by outside sources.
Again basically what I am saying is that I see a LOT of influence from Genghis Khan and the Mongolians and I would NOT be surprised if more show up in later books. But as was pointed out in the flashbacks and in Oathbringer. the problem with ANY conquering empire. No matter WHAT situations led to it, is that it can NOT keep conquering. That’s ultimatley unsustainable. The Mongols ultimately shattered into seperate khanates upon Genghis death. Though because of how they assimilated with the local cultures a lot of their legacy still remained. Upon Galivar’s death the Alethi princes started to bicker, and were ultimately held together by the vengeance pack for so long. Also even if the finding of Urithu DOES bind them as a NATION, and the jury is still out on that one. Their legacy as blood thirsty warriors threatens with other nations threatens to rip them apart anyways, because no one believes they are capable of changing.
@74: I do not prefer the guy with the better reputation. I do not know where I stated this. I will however not judge Amaram more harshly than Dalinar nor will I consider his actions were worst.
@75: This is very true and it makes Dalinar even worst, to my eyes as he failed to care for everyone he wronged, just the ones which caused him PTSD. Granted, other lighteyed officers also most likely did awful things too, but the narrative isn’t showing them: it is showing Dalinar.
@76: Redemption is one of the themes within SA, but I disagree you need to have an awful monster to earn a redemption. Adolin murdering Sadeas, being rightly punished for his actions could have had a “redemption arc” without ever becoming a mindless monster. Venli is getting a redemption and her crimes are trying to seek her people’s old Gods without really knowing what it would mean. Szeth gets a redemption for having been wrongly named a Truthless and for having been brainwashed into thinking he needed to obey the owner of his stone.
Dalinar is by far the worst because he genuinely killed people and he enjoyed it. Perhaps he wasn’t as bad as men such as Sadeas as it is said Dalinar always found ways to stop the rape and the brutality after a win, so he wasn’t without any redeeming qualities, but he is still responsible for the worst slaughter we have read in book. An event which is so horrifying Gavilar hid the truth. An event which is so awful, one decade later, no one came back to live there. A ghost burned city.
Nothing any other character has done, within the books, is equally worst to what Dalinar did. So while yeah, he is getting his redemption, so yeah, he does not believe he was punished enough, he still torched the Rift. He still deserves at least one person from his close entourage to hate him for this. He still does not deserve the over-whelming respect, love, admiration and awe he is receiving from his sons. My two cents anyway.
I do not find Shallan’s arc is about redemption. She needs no redemption, she did nothing wrong. She defended herself and her brothers.
I agree Szeth, Dalinar, Venli and company are protagonists because they did bad things. I however wouldn’t want the redemption theme to become… over-used. Repeat the same story with 4 or 5 different characters and, well, it becomes repetitive.
@77: Brandon has inspired himself from Genghis Khan: he mentioned it at some point. I personally have no love for conquerors. If Brandon wants to give a redemption to Dalinar, fine, but I’d appreciate a more nuanced narrative where not everyone, in-world, is actually buying it nor thinking he actually deserves it.
@78 You Do rember the Azish don’t you? They don’t buy it? (Probably with the exception of lift’s friend) It’s really only an EVEN BIGGER THREAT that convinces people live Fen and them to give him a chance
Also I remember somewhere a saying I heard, that “there are no know great men who are also good men.” Or as Lift would say “No one lives a long time without messing up a lot of other people along the way.” Wether you believe it or not, I think I think it speaks to the difficulty of trying to have an impact on other people’s life without messing things up either by action or inaction. We often speak of the damage done through war and this is
@@@@@ Gepeto
This is your direct quote:
“So while I will certainly not excuse Amaram’s actions, I consider Dalinar’s to have been far worst just by the scope of it and the sub-adjacent reason being them: vengeance. Amaram, at least, believed there was a “higher reason” which “justified” his actions which granted is totally wrong, but at least he didn’t lock the families of those men into stone houses and then put them to the torch. At least, he didn’t kill children.”
That is what I was referring to when I said you perfer Amaram over Dalinar based on bodycount. I disagree vehemently. Amaram can lie to himself and say his actions were for a greater good but actions speak louder than justifcations. It’s true that we can only judge the acts we’ve seen in the narrative, but from what we observe we can extrapolate likely outcomes based on character study. Knowing what we know of Amaram, do you believe he wouldn’t have killed that kid to gain Oathbringer the sword? He would have murdered that kid and murdered his mother too. Crazy thing is had he killed Tanalan then, the Rift likely doesn’t happen. Knowing what we know of Amaram, do you believe he’d have given up his Shardblade because it was the right thing to do? To save a bunch of slaves? Of course he would not have. He wouldn’t even help a fellow lighteyes in the 4 vs 1 duel. Someone postulated that Amaram is so unlikable because he betrayed Kaladin; I won’t deny that’s part of it. It’s more than that for me. Every Time that dirtbag shows up on screen he is doing something that shows his reputation is a lie, that he’s a snake and a betrayer. By contrast Dalinar is genuine, even when he’s a genuine bastard, even when he was being monstrous.
Now one may not feel comfortable extrapolating a characters behavior based off what we’ve seen on screen. But let’s just ask this. Does the belief in working towards the greater good make a monstrous action easier to stomach? If so, then if Dalinar had given some excuse that the Rift was for a higher purpose then that should give him a bit of a pass right? Not to me. Not even if Dalinar believed that excuse wholeheartedly. We don’t excuse Conquistadors for raping South America, even the ones who truly thought they were glorifying God with their actions. By that token, Amaram shouldn’t be given even a shred of clemency for stealing from and murdering his men just because he may have at one time thought he was doing the right thing for the world.
Anyway, I think I will be in the minority when I say I find Dalinar’s actions easier to forgive than Amaram’s. To me, a person that does a terrible thing and not only owns up to it but takes steps to prevent future horrors is preferable to a person who does terrible things and hides behind beliefs to avoid responsibility. As an aside Taravanginan does terrible things and hides behind his belief that he’s doing what’s best for the world, but he’s better than Amaram because at least he knows he’s a monster. He does not lie to himself. He’s driven by the fact that he thinks the world is lost already and seeks to save a remnant of a remnant, i.e. the Aiel in WOT.
Re the previous state of Alethi politics. In world we learn about the “father ” of all the Alethi princes. He lead a brutal unification war against already warring states. Then, when he died his sons broke up the kingdom warring with each other. The Thrill took up residence here most likely because these people were already predisposed to violence.
I’m not clear if Gavilar started his unification wars before or after he started having the “bring them together visions” but he was just as involved in the battlefield as Dalinar at first. He had to be convinced that he not be leading the charge along with Dalinar. In world, everyone views the Alethi as brutal war mongers. Dalinar is just the current face of a long line of Alethi conquers.
His atrocities stand out because OB tells us about them. He is both feared and revered in his own culture but not to the point that the other high princes don’t scheme and plot against him. None of the others complained about how Sadeas treated his bridge crews, that alone tells us about the culture. That Dalinar actually turned to a nobler direction and tries to live it tells us he is seeking redemption.
Amaram covers himself with all the outside trappings of the new path that Dalinar is following. He cares only that others believe he is good and the shinning example that all should follow. He believes that any action is valid to maintain his reputation and reach his goal, which was the same goal Gavilar worked towards.
So overall I will attempt to catch up and reply to as many points as I can but I wanted to begin with this. Gepeto, you feel the narrative is asking you to pity Dalinar. I respect your opinion but I feel what Sanderson is trying to show us is that everyone has the potential to be redeemed, regardless how egregious the actions taken as long as that individual genuinely and truly admits fault to themselves and seeks to better themselves. I think if Sanderson had intended for us to pity Dalinar, then he would not have chosen to show such a scene as the Rift. Of course there will be people in the novels and in the real world who would feel Dalinar did not suffer enough for what he did. But if that was the focus, then I feel the message of redemption would be lost. YMMV
@53 Gepeto
I feel the narrative is not telling the audience Dalinar is a great man. I feel the narrative is showing us two individuals that have sterling reputations, Dalinar and Amaram. I feel the narrative then shows us that Dalinar did not start as this individual with this sterling reputation. He had to work for it. Earn it. Conversely Amaram is shown by the narrative to be this sterling individual since the “beginning” and only in appearances. Even Sadeas comments how dirty the real Amaram is. So if we the readers then feel Dalinar is portrayed as a “great man”, then I think that is showing us what makes us think an individual is great vs bad. That is why I said my rationale surprised me when I looked at myself and found it true. I find myself more likely to forgive past transgressions despite the severity if I feel the transgressor is truly penitent than an individual that still tries to rationalize and excuse his actions as permissible. I don’t think the narrative is trying to force you to judge one more harshly than another. That is up to your own interpretation. Numbers and content seem to be your line in the sand. I would be interested to know based on this, what are your thoughts on the trolley dilemma that I posted earlier? Is a child’s death more egregious than an elderly individual’s? Is it the number of individuals? Would if we find out in the next book Amaram quietly wiped 100 innocent babies in sacrifice, thinking the ritual would summon back the heralds, would he then now be worse than Dalinar in your eyes? Or because the number is not as high as the Rift, the babies do not count? I find this passage interesting because it forces us to ask where do we draw the line and why.
I would personally say choosing the punishment of locking someone up in a prison where they get regular meals, recreation, socialization with other individuals of the same inclination, peaceful sleep and a secure roof over there head for 25 years vs 3 years of constant, every second of every day never ending chorus of screaming souls in agony so loud you cannot hear yourself think nonetheless potentially anyone else, preventing sleep, enjoyment of prior activities, or any break from torment except in the oblivion of utter black out drunkness as the lesser of two punishments. Now that is not to say 25 year jail time is not punitive enough for crimes in our real world. Just personally if an individual harmed me, or someone I loved in a severe manner, and I was asked which would I feel would be the more severe punishment I would say the constant mental torment and anguish that destroys a person’s ability to function on a basic level in their life as the more severe one. Now would I ultimately tell them to put that individual through that? That I do not know. But I do feel that whereas a person could be completely unapologetic, fully glorifying in their horrible actions, and all they get is to hang out in a paid apartment with all the amenities, compared to a person who is genuinely in pain for the actions they took every single moment of their life till such a time that they are forgiven feels like the the more severe punishment. There was an outerlimits episode that portrays this pretty well. That due to overcrowding in prisons, a scientist invented a device that makes the person experience a horrendous mental and emotional torment in all of five minutes. To prove it is safe, the scientist undergoes it. The twist is it is so real, he did not realize he was in the simulation till he was released, and he was so utterly traumatized by the experience he thought about destroying the device. So I guess this is where we ask ourselves, what do we call punishment, what amount of punishment is enough, and how much is too much? As to Evi, that is just a disagreement neither of us can definitively prove. We cannot prove the golden light Dalinar has been seeing is real, nor can we prove that is truly Evi’s voice, but I chose to think so, and I do not think Dalinar who does not think he is worthy of forgiveness would hallucinate that.
@EvilMonkey
I would add in support that Dalinar did comment to Gavilar about how the whole reason they started the unification war was because of how corrupted and horrible the prior system was.
@55 Carl
I am with Birgit when she says the Shin Shamanate broke their own laws by naming Szeth truthless when he was right about the return of the radiants and voidbringers. So like the prison warden at the Skybreaker test, they are subject to punishment.
@61 BenW
There is a quote that what you wrote calls to mind that you might like. Holding onto to anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else. You are the one who gets burned.
@64 Porphyrogenitus (wow that’s a mouth full lol)
I feel that is an oversimplification of what Taravangian is doing. He is faced with information that confirms to him that humanity will be wiped out. As in utter extinction. In fact of that global extinction of the human race, he has a chance of taking actions that though he will be directly responsible for deaths, he would still be able to save people who otherwise would not have survived the coming apocalypse. Now could this confirmation that any other way leads to total death be wrong? For us as readers sure. But for Taravangian as the character, there is no doubt to him. It is either he stands by and sees humanity wiped from existence, or he does evil things but in doing so preserves some life. I would be interested to see your thoughts on the trolley dilemma I posted earlier in that light.
@73 Gepeto
I do have a follow up question. If person A tries to turn off a bomb, while person B holds person A back, is person B responsible for the deaths the bomb causes even though they did not create the bomb? If person A set the bomb, but then changed their mind and wanted to turn it off, if it goes off before person A can stop it, is person A still responsible for those deaths? Finally if person A sets the bomb, but changes their mind and tries to turn it off, but person B prevents them, is person A still responsible for those deaths? I am curious of your answers to each of these questions.
Regarding the nahel bond potentially working in reverse, considering listeners never bonded radiant spren before but we have Venli, considering a radiant never bonded a corrupted spren before but we have Renarin, and the Everstorm never existed before but we definitely have one, I don’t think we have enough information to say whether or not the nahel bond could work in reverse. So it is a possibility.
@EvilMonkey
I agree
@75 birgit
I slightly disagree here. Dalinar attempted to stop the wiping out of the Rift prior to finding out about Evi. Sadeas is the one that made sure it was carried through its conclusion. So he did care about how many he killed before Evi died, and it would not have just been another battle to him if Evi was not there. I do not think it would have hit him as hard, but at that point he was beginning to show some hesitancy in wanton slaughter. Not much, but it was there as in my opinion it was beginning.
@77 BenW
very interesting :)
@78 Gepeto
I thought you said on numerous occasions that Adolin killing Sadeas was justified and that even Brandon was ok with it, so what would Adolin be being redeemed from? Do you define redemption as purely physical incarceration with no requirement of emotional or mental atonement? Just want to understand better. Actually I feel Szeth gets redemption from killing rulers at the command of the culture he placed above human life. I would also point out he suffered at the punishment of never ending screaming voices. Is the voices Szeth had to deal with enough of a punishment for him to be redeemed while the voices Dalinar heard was not?
@79 BenW
I agree. Just about every culture we meet is wary of Dalinar. It is the prime point of the novel that Dalinar struggles to overcome the appearance his past actions have hung over him.
@81 EvilMonkey 82 Goddessimho
I agree with you both.
There was some discussion earlier about whether if the shardblades came back would they be resentful. Also the general feeling in world seems to be that the knights radiant betrayed their spren. The question I have is, Are the spren compelled to become blades on command? It’s not like The Recreansce happened spur of the moment. It seems like the spren would have to know what was about to happen. I just wonder what their options were regarding becoming blades and whether or not they may have even been willing participants for some as yet unrevealed reason.
@81: I do not prefer Amaram over Dalinar: I find both individuals have done their share of evil deeds. My questioning however was initially linked to my impressions wanting Dalinar’s actions to be generally viewed in a more positive manner than Amaram’s.
If I should forgive Dalinar for deeds I personally consider worst than whatever we have seen Amaram done, on-screen (I cannot evaluate a character based on speculative actions or thoughts saying “if he did this, then what else did he do” because honestly we have no idea.), then why should I hate Amaram? Should I hate him because he failed to be repentant? Because he did not go far enough, in his actions, to earn himself PTSD and then reflects on how awful his own actions were? Should I point out here the Rift wasn’t Dalinar’s only despicable deed, but it is the one he broke down over, it is the one he seeks an apology for, it is the one he develops PTSD for and then starts hallucinating while sinking into alcoholism.
But what of the other “bad things” Dalinar did? The ones for which he isn’t asking for forgiveness, the ones which do not prevent him from sleeping? The ones he does not really care about?
How about those men he crippled in a tavern while being in yet another blood-lust, in Kholinar, a short while before Adolin was born? Or how about his own men he killed on the battlefield while being, once again, locked in a blood frenzy? Dalinar never thinks back on those events, only the Rift which was, by far, worst but if I should hate Amaram for not apologizing for his actions against Kaladin’s squad, for finding reasons to justify his actions, then why shouldn’t I hate Dalinar for the exact same reasons?
Yes, Dalinar spared Tanalan Jr. On that day, he controlled his blood fury, but we know there were other days where he didn’t. Hence, on another day, Dalinar would have certainly killed the boy. After all, he did torch the Rift, so nothing really was beyond him, but this never happened, so we can’t judge him for this. Just as we can’t judge Amaram on speculative actions we never read anything of. We only know his reputation might not have been what he claimed it was. We do not really know what this entails apart from the killing of Kaladin’s squad.
Hence, while I do hate Amaram, I do not see why I should hate him more than Dalinar. Nor why did he deserve Dalinar’s hate. I found it terribly hypocrite, coming from Dalinar, to hate Amaram for wha the did to Kaladin knowing he remembers what he did at the Rift. When you torch the Rift on your own free volition, you lose the right to pass judgment on other people, IMHO.
And I am not trying to give Amaram any clemency for his actions: I am trying not to give it to Dalinar for his own deeds. You say we cannot excuse the Conquistators for what they did in South America: I agree. We can’t. Then why can we excuse Dalinar? Ah… He had PTSD and then, well, since he was so high ranked, he had the means, the opportunity and the capacity to become a better man.
But it does not change the fact he torched the Rift just as no matter how you re-write history, the Conquistators killed their way into America. Dalinar does not deserve clemency for his actions no matter how bad he feels about them.
@83: You ask an interesting question. Which is worst? Killing an innocent child or an innocent elderly? Should we weight evil done by the number of victims, by their age? How do I evaluate it, as an individual?
I do not believe there is an easy and universal answer to those questions. Technically, killing a child will generally be seen as worst because a child is starting his life whereas an elderly is finishing it. Morally, one innocent is one innocent too many, so how do we partitionate? I think the scope of the actions, the killing method employed and the motives are relevant here.
Dalinar burned an entire town. Those people died suffering, screaming while being locked in a real nightmare. I have a hard time picturing a worst way of dying than being trapped by the flames. His motive was revenge.
Amaram killed 5 (I think it was 5 but my memory could be wrong) men because he didn’t want any witnesses as he took Shards for himself. Those people died quickly. His motives were greed and potentially a belief he was serving a higher cause. To justify his actions to Dalinar, he says Shards should go to the better man which is exactly what Dalinar tried to enforce back in WoK (though not by killing but he wanted Shards to go to the best possible man, not necessarily the one who wins them on the battlefield).
So what is worst? Revenge or greed? Well, none. Had Dalinar carry his revenge to Tanalan and just Tanalan, then well, there wouldn’t be much to discuss. He however saw fit to extend it to a town filled with innocent people and he had them die in an awful manner.
Hence, both by scope, by motive and by mean, in this case, I find Dalinar’s actions worst which isn’t to say Amaram does not deserve punishment nor imprisonment. This does not mean he deserves clemency. It only means Dalinar doesn’t deserve it more than him.
I however find your description of jail, quite… unsettling. Jail is no fun. It is a not a place for socialization. It is actually quite dangerous. People die in jail. It’s… a lot worst than the cozy Kholinar palace drinking yourself to oblivion. So do I consider having hallucinations for a few years then going back to being the near-King of Alethkar is equivalent to 25 years in dirty prison fraternizing with aggressive gang members which ends in disgrace as no one will employ you ever again afterwards? Sorry but to me the answer is clear. It isn’t equivalent. One is a lot, considerably lot easier. Dalinar lost nothing for his actions. He loses no status, he loses no family member, he does not even lose the love and blind admiration of his sons! Even the woman he loves doesn’t stop loving him for all he has done.
Needless to say, had Dalinar burned a town with one of my kids in it for no valid reason but revenge, I know where I would want him to be for the rest of his life and it isn’t leading a coalition after he made his mea culpa following a few rough years. It would be in jail. For life. Because I would never believe a man capable of what he did can truly repent himself, no matter what he says nor does, but this is just me. YMMV. I would never want him to be happy ever again. I would want him to lose (not by death, just by the normal reaction where family members shut him down) people he does love to understand how it hurts. This is how I would want him to pay. So again, YMMV.
So no, I do not consider Dalinar’s hallucinations to be the worst punishment. I consider it… mild. It wasn’t constant. He had good days and he still lived in luxury. His sons still blindly loved him. He was still thought very highly of by everyone close to him. To be a punishment, there would have needed to have real consequences: lost of status, lost of wealth, lost of children.
Again, YMMV, but this is mine. Dalinar did not lose enough to call it a punishment. My feelings are he got out… easy and he still gets to have a “happily ever after”. I wish those kids he burned had the same opportunity.
However, none of this means Amaram deserved more leniency. It however was an exploration of why the narrative is implying Dalinar deserves it more than Amaram for actions which aren’t less reprehensible and might be worst even. Some are arguing it is because Dalinar feels sorry, which is not a bad reason. What I am adding is Dalinar being sorry is not enough for me, he would need to have paid a valid price for his deeds which I do not feel he did.
So no matter what the narrative wants me to believe or how it wants me to interpret it, I have grown annoyed at how easy it has been for Dalinar to torch the Rift and essentially more up the ladder to become a near-God. Only Fen, it seems has the ability to question it. Good thing we have her.
On Evi, well, we can’t prove it either way. So I would leave it as is and have each reader believe what works best for them.
You conclude by asking, what would be too much? For burning the Rift? Hard to say. Death wouldn’t be too much, IMHO. But what could make it “enough”, still for me as a reader, given the existing context of SA would be if Dalinar were to lose the support, the admiration and the blind love of one of his sons. That would be a good start to even out things a bit, but others may disagree.
You have other questions. I will get back to you later. This post is getting long, but do not think I did not read them nor do not intend to response. It is just…. a bit long to do.
Re. trolley problem:
A strict utilitarian will take the basic form of the problem and always choose to kill one to save five.
The problem of 4 murderers and a pregnant woman is interesting to me in part because it becomes 4 condemned men and 2 innocents (so kill six or kill one). It remains a difficult question, of course, but given a binary choice I will pretty much always choose to save as many innocents (in the sense of infants and the unborn) as is possible.
One of the principles that I like to espouse in these moral quandary problems is that of hope and trying. If a trolley is coming, try to derail it by jamming the lever at the halfway point. Even if it doesn’t work, at least you tried. If a warlord hands you a gun and asks you to execute a single old man or else he will wipe out the entire village, then at least try to save everyone by eliminating the warlord (of course, check the ammo load first to make sure it’s not a bluff). Always look for a third option, even if you have to break the rules of the game.
@85 Gepeto
I understand you are in the process of answering my other questions, but I do have some follow up points/questions for your upcoming response.
I don’t think anyone here was saying for you to forgive Dalinar. That is not for you or us to do. It is for those he has harmed in the novel to forgive him. I also don’t think anyone is saying not to hate Dalinar. I think the point I am making, and possibly others is that we can think Amaram is worse than Dalinar without utterly absolving, or pitying Dalinar’s actions.
I am going to write this out of order of what you posted because in my mind this leads to my next question. Personally, for me, if I lost someone I loved dearly, how in any shape or form would the person who hurt my loved ones having their own children not like them anymore be punishment? If my loved one was killed, then having that person’s loved ones die I could see as extreme retribution (I am not advocating this, just illustrating my point), but just losing their children’s respect? If the offender lost their rank, I guess I would feel they couldn’t do what they did to me to others, but it would still feel like a cop out. That is what has happened in our modern day military, in the church, and in other situations. The organization quietly pulls the offender out of the spotlight, demotes them, and shoves them off someplace else to pretend it never happened. Hmmm, basically that is exactly what happened with Roshone. Moash did not seem to happy with the way that was handled and he lost his loved ones in that case. I am sorry but I just don’t see that as punitive at all, nonetheless being more punishing than constant mental torture or physical incarceration.
Not sure if this is one of the questions you will answer later, but if Amaram sacrificed 100 babies on an alter thinking as per his religion it would return the heralds, is that worse or not as bad as what Dalinar did at the Rift?
Regarding jail, consider how Adolin was treated when he insisted on being locked up. The room was much nicer. He had better food, and visitors. He didn’t seem dirty or unkempt so one assumes he was allowed baths. He would have access to books to read to pass the time. Dalinar is a highprince connected to the king. His incarceration would look very much like that. But how about we take Dalinar and put him in a modern prison? Let us say he does not have the constant screaming voices in his head, and lets say he is not apologetic. That he thinks what he did at the Rift was fine. Also let us take away his shardblade theoretically as he could just cut his way out. What would happen to him? Well the biggest person would try to intimidate him. Dalinar would promptly break the guys hand, maybe his face too, and hopefully for the guy leave him in some manner that he could still exist without being completely crippled. Dalinar would then be at the top of the prison hierarchy. He would be deferred to, and largely get to act as he wishes as no one would want to “mess” with him. So what lesson is Dalinar learning? Prison would be like on the battlefield. Be the biggest, meanest, toughest guy and you get what you want. That is why I feel even 25 years in prison would not be punitive to Dalinar. Meanwhile with the neverending screams, there is no one he can hit to stop them, no where he can go to stop them, and nothing he can do to stop them. The closest is getting black out drunk and that only makes them a little quieter. I see something you have no means of escaping, even in your dreams as harsher than a change of scenery.
You said “I would never believe a man capable of what he did can truly repent himself, no matter what he says nor does”. So is it you do not want redemption for Dalinar at all? That is rather a different question/subject. That would completely alter the narrative and over all plot of the stormlight archive. Without Dalinar the whole series would fall apart. None of the three books could have taken place had Dalinar not had a chance at redemption.
Dalinar never went a moment without the voices. Sometimes they were quieter due to either drinking, or him staying away, but they never ended. They were a constant burden, and continual guilt he was reminded of 24/7. Every moment, of every day.
I understand that is your opinion, and you totally have a right to feel the way you do about Dalinar. I just find this chapter and book very interesting as it delves into the nature of forgiveness and punishment which is a truly individualistic experience.
I agree regarding Evi. We each have our own belief on whether or not she is real that cannot be definitively proven in either direction.
For how I feel about Dalinar losing support of his family, or losing his rank, I elaborated earlier in this post
I look forward to your responses to my other questions, such as the if Amaram sacrified 100 babies, or why Adolin killing Sadeas needs redemption when you have said that action was justified, or the bomb scenario.
@86 Porphyrogenitus
Here is a follow up question. If by trying to find a third option and employ it you result in all involved dying, are you responsible for that loss of life? So for instance with the trolley, if by trying to jam the track you make the trolley flip and roll across crushing all on both tracks, does that make the increase in death toll acceptable because you absolved your own moral qualms? Same with the dictator making you chose who to shoot. Is the chance of eliminating the dictator even though any of his lieutenants can take his place worth the death of every innocent person currently present? Or let us say you miss the shot. The dictator is now still in power, more cautious and still kills all involved and maybe even more to make a point. True you didn’t pull the trigger, but does that absolve you of those deaths? If Taravangian is at that switch, and he sees an option where everyone dies if he tries anything but saves a certain number if he does only one action, should he absolve his own morality and try anything else anyway even as he dooms the world? Is that not being selfish? He can now proudly look himself in the mirror as everyone on the planet dies and Odium wins.
@83 I love your quote on holding on to anger. On a related note, but opposite note that (as well as the way the thrill and Odium works, come to think of it) actually reminds of a good bit of internal monologue from book 10 of Animorphs, as narrated by Marco. (Perhaps coincidentally Tor mentioned Animorphs a month or two back) In any case I wanted to give you a little back ground info on Marco before I give you the monologue, so you have the minimum amount of context to understand him. Marco is the clown of the group, the one who’s always making jokes and they ARE funny. But his trademark humor is MORE then that it’s also a philosophy about looking at the world, (thought to him by his mother) as well as a coping mechanism for the dark places the series puts him through even BEFORE the series (and the war in it) begins that only contine to get rougher as the series progresses. Basically the idea behind the humor he uses is that if you can take back a step away from all the details of something you can see it not as tragic but as funny. To give one example, he talks about war being funny, by describing how people are willing to fight over barren patches of desert to being like fighting over an empty soda can. The problem with his approach Marco realizes, is that stepping away from the details becomes harder to do when the issue is on a personal level. And the war (at the point in the series I am quoting) has hit Marco at an increasingly personal level. (Also if it isn’t clear what the philosophy is it’s “you can either cry and rage at the world or you can choose to laugh at it.” (I could go on about Marco’s character, but I don’t want to go off on a tangent.)
As to how this relates to both that quote you gave me (in an opposite way and the thrill, and Odium) well remember how I said the war had gotten personal around this time in the story? This quote is at a time when it’s threatening to strike PARTICULARLY close to home ( well technically someone clise to him rather then Marco himself in both cases which is threatened, but the point remains) which makes Marco angry, and in order to not blow his cover (long story) he has to hold his anger in. Though he can only do so for so long. He vents at a situation he KNOWS has a good chance of being POTENTIALLY compromised (it wasn’t luckily) and that’s why they normally use code talk in such a situation. Heck using code talk in such a situation was Marco’s own IDEA. But he has had such emotions brewing under the surface for awhile now and this latest event brought them to the surface. What’s really telling is his eternal monologue as he blows his top, quoted for you. I may capitalize any parts I find relavent.
“I could feel the rage flowing through me, the blind, violent rage that became little films, in my head-little head-movies of head and destruction. I pictured the things I would do to Tom… to Chapman…someday even to Visser Three. I would do terrible things to them. Terrible, violent things.
It was a SICK FEELING. It was sick, and I knew it and yet I ran those images over and over in my head.
RAGE IS ADDICTIVE, you know. I guess it’s sorta like a drug. Anger and hatred grt you high. They get you high, but like any addiction, THEY HOLLOW YOU OUT AND TEAR YOU DOWN AND EAT YOU ALIVE.
I guess I knew all that but all I could think was that they were not getting my father.”
If it isn’t clear why I brought this up I hope it is now. This fact that Anger can be addictive to people helps me understand why some people can hold on to it so long DESPITE how it burns them.* Also I only just made the connection today otherwise I would have mentioned it sooner, but the way Marco describes the way that anger, like any addiction, hollowing you out inside. Reminds me not just of the thrill, but of how Odium leaves his victims.
*(When I said I generally have trouble staying angry, for example. The person I fought with is someone I usually get along with well. I am in touch with them every day. But that ALSO means more opportunities for an argument to occur. I forget WHY I tried to hold on to my anger in that one case. But in the end DESPITE reminding myself WHY I was upset over and aovergain, my anger with them couldn’t event through the day. While they in the were still upset with me the next day and needed more time to cool down. (Maybe it comes having Asperger’s/being on the Autistic scale I can loose my temper easily enough but I never stay mad. I like to compare my anger to a summer storm it goes away as quickly as it comes. Again that’s why that Marco example from the book was helpful in explaining thhe way that other kind of mindset to me. Using a simile helped me to translate an otherwise not understandable emotion into an understable form. And this is from someone who has never been addicted but who understood how it worked chemically.))
@87 I like you follow-up to the third option question. Coming from someone who WOULD try to take to the third option WHEN POSSIBLE. I am going to get a bit metaphysical and say BOTH answers are true. What I mean by this is I have to live with the guilt of knowing that if I took another option I might have saved lifes that those lives were lost is a DIRECT RESULT of BOTH the actions I took and the actions I didn’t take so in that respect I would take responsibility. I would try and reassure myself with the knowledge that I did the best I could (I am hoping that is the case under your scenario) with the knowledge I had at the time. And to also learn from my failures for the future. Yes. It IS a contradiction. But I think life, and nature itself is kind of contradictictary and people can be defined (in part) by how they look at (or in some cases choose to) perceive this contradiction. Take history for example you can look at it and see all of the violence and destruction and corruption and think of the history of mankind as an inherently negative thing. Or you can look at the same history and think the history of mankind is positive because DESPITE all of that, mankind has continued to move forward and make improvements. It’s been slow, and there is often cases where mankind regress in places, but the progress DOES exist. And you know what? Neither of those ways of looking at history is wrong. It’s all about how you choose to view it. (
@88 BenW
I am glad you enjoyed it :)
I will probably be dating myself here, but I remember reading Animorphs ages ago. I do recall the basic premise, and some of the characters but a lot of the specifics are hazy. I do agree to a lot of the parallels you made linking it to Animorphs and the addictive nature of anger, how the Thrill amplifies that addiction, and how Odium preys on it. Well said.
@89 BenW
Interesting. So you would attempt a third option on the chance, however unlikely or confirmed will not work depending on the scenario, that you could save everyone somehow rather than save those you are sure you can. That you would bear the guilt, but would feel at least trying despite the odds is better than accepting the choices as they stand. Very interesting. I hope I did not write that summation in a way to sound derogatory to your choice. I just find it interesting different people’s rationale and choices. So taking this another step further. Let us say in the trolley case, it flipped and killed everyone as I posited. You said you would learn from your failure. How would that scenario resulting in that manner affect your choices going forward? For instance if you were supremely unlucky and after the trolley incident you found yourself in the dictator scenario?
@83:
1) Person A tried to turn-off a bomb while person B hold A back, who’s responsible?
Person B and person C, the creator of the bomb. Person B did not create the bomb, but person B prevented person A from stopping the bomb. So equal responsibility from person C and B.
2) Person A creates the bomb, changes his mind, wants to turn it off, but can’t?
Person A is responsible. Person A created the bomb: without person A, there would be no bomb. Had person A stop the bomb, person A would still be guilty of having made a bomb with the intend to kill.
3) Person A creates the bomb, changes his mind, tries to turn it off, but person B stops him?
As with 1), the guilt is shared. Without person A, there would be no bomb, but person B stopped an effort to prevent the bomb from going. Both persons are responsible. Person B becomes the accomplice.
But the real question you are trying to ask is the following:
1) Dalinar sets the trap at the Rift. He gives order to Sadeas to prevent anyone from escaping. The trap goes off. People start dying. Dalinar thinks this is enough and wants to stop the trap from killing more people. He can’t because Sadeas obeyed his orders, went farther and removed all possibilities of escape. Who’s responsible?
Dalinar. He set the trap. He ordered no one was to escape. He changes his mind halfway, after many already died, but can’t because his orders were followed in ways which cannot be changed.
Sadeas is however guilty of allowing the trap to take form, of following inhuman orders. It is like the Nazi all over again: guilt cannot be excused because you were following orders. So Sadeas is guilty too, but his guilt does not erase Dalinar’s nor does it change the fact without Dalinar, there would be no trap.
So both are guilty, Dalinar as the initiator, Sadeas as the accomplice. Only Alethi innocent here is Evi.
On the Nahel Bond: We knew before Venli it was possible for a Listener to become a Radiant, not because the narrative told us so, but because Brandon said so in interview. So we knew, while this never happened before, it was a possibility. Everyone theorized years ago Eshonai was a Willshaper despite being a Listerner, so Venli is not particularly special nor outside the expectations.
Correct me if I am wrong, but I do not think we know if Radiant never bonded corrupted sprens before. When asking about Renarin, someone on the 17th Shard, a few years ago, got a reference to this page which shows the Radiant orders, but kind of different? Do you know what I am referring to? I would need to check it out because I haven’t followed the right terminology, but it showed the “corrupted orders”, which does indicate it has kind of potentially happened before. As far as know, Renarin’s case isn’t going outside rules we know of: humans bond sprens, nothing was ever said about them being corrupted or not. We never saw it before, but it doesn’t go against the rules we know of.
The reverse Nahel Bond however is something new entirely which, as of today, is not supported by our knowledge of Roshar’s magic. We know sprens need cracks in the soul to gain awareness of the physical realm: nothing based on what we know can explain how the reverse would work nor if it can even work. Maya can only gain her conscience back if she moves into Adolin’s spirit, being able to have him replace her former knight. Not being a spren, Adolin doesn’t have the capacity to move into Maya’s cracks providing sprens even have those. Adolin is not able to provide Maya her awareness back unless he cracks down, he allows her to move in and well also does “something more” which is still undefined and may not even involve Adolin. In fact, it probably does not involve Adolin at all.
So for me, while not a complete impossibility, I do not consider this, well, a real possibility. It just does not work with the rules we know. If the rules can somewhat be bend to make it work, then we have no facts to use to argument for it. I need also to state this theory ONLY exists because readers have a hard time believing Adolin is broken and also as a backlash against Adolin becoming a Radiant. We always knew dead-Blades would be kind of “broken”, but no one made such theory prior to OB and well, Blade revival was abundantly discussed before. I fear it is just the lack of compelling arguments for him being broken, the lack of in-depth narrative arc and the lightness of Adolin’s viewpoint, when compared to everyone else, which caused this theory to emerge, not real factual which could lead to it.
Independently of his feasibility, as I stated above, I find this to be the less interesting narrative arc. It would give Adolin everything without the struggles. This can’t be an interesting arc unless Maya becomes the protagonist, hence my also above statement, this is just… a Red Herring. Readers should know better than to expect “more” out of Adolin’s character.
On Adolin and punishment: Adolin did something illegal for morally right reasons he executed in a bad manner. His motives were saving and protecting his family. His mean was brawl with a knife, brutal, but he had no intention to have Sadeas suffer nor to torture him. He however did kill a man he shouldn’t have killed, according to the law. So while he has justifications, while many people do feel he was right to act as he did, he still did kill someone in a dark tunnel.
Does he deserve punishment? Of course. But unlike Dalinar/Amaram, Adolin’s motives were more… noble? Death or exile seem like it would have been too much though I could have seen exile being enforced.
I view punishment differently than atonement. Punishment is the penance you should pay for having broken the law, for having been immoral, for having done actions which cannot be acceptable. Atonement is what we hope the guilty will be able to reach, but it doesn’t remove the need for punishment.
So what is punishment?
You have to lose something: your freedom, your status, your rank, your money, your family, your inheritance, the trust others have in you, something. Of course, law cannot control how others are going to view you, so it will enforce physical punishment such as imprisonment, removal of status, lost of rank and potentially money. So for each crime, there is a punishment. And a crime needs to be judged: other people need to believe a punishment was given. Just being told this poor fellow is hearing voices in his head is not really enough: the crimes need to be answered by the law. Hypothetical sufferance is not enough: a punishment has to meet some criteria.
Adolin, well, he got nothing. So his actions were literally ignored within the narrative. So whether or not Adolin, as a person, deserves a punishment is not really what is at stakes here, his actions deserve one. Adolin is not someone who should be punished harshly, but he did something which demands punishment, so he should grit his teeth and suffer through it.
What he should have lost though was his father’s approval, trust and potentially his position as “heir”. His redemption would have been to win it back. This would have been a satisfying denouement: action and consequence.
Szeth has not gone through his redemption yet. Hearing voices is not a redemption nor is it a punishment. What could it be then? A life spent in servitude protecting the family he initially slighted which is equivalent to giving up his freedom hoping it will eventually be enough to buy his redemption.
Dalinar, in our above example, gave out nothing. Worst, he raised in status. I find there are many cases where characters actions are not met with consequences. Adolin, at the very least, should have had consequences.
@85: OK, so a 100 babies. Well, this is plain awful to begin with. You cannot potentially have a quarrel with those babies, they cannot have harmed you, you cannot have any good/valid reason to act this way other than you are mentally deranged. If I had to pick a side, I would say worst than Dalinar because Dalinar, at least, was trying to put down a “rebellion” so he had a tangible motive even if not one I agree with. I tend to side with Tanalan here: Dalinar/Gavilar were the aggressors. So while nothing makes, to my eyes, the Rift “right”, killing a 100 babies for the glory of some unseen God, well, it is worst because it actually lacks a motive.
And I mean… tiny innocent defenseless babies? So no that’s plain despicable.
In terms of punishment, well mere lost of status would not be enough of a punishment for murder. What makes Roshone’s case complicated is he did not technically killed Moash’s grand-parents, he has them incarcerated. So huh his guilt is not the same as if he had stabbed them with his own hands, but I agree he should not have been put in a position where he can rule over other people. This was not the right punishment.
In a case like Dalinar, I fear nothing less but jail would be sufficient for me: put him in a place where he will no longer have the opportunity to take actions against anyone. Of course, I wouldn’t want anyone’s loved ones to die for a crime, this isn’t what I implied, but losing this loved one emotionally is a punishment which would help the pill go down more smoothly.
Adolin in jail is, IMHO, no example. He was not a convict, hence he was given all the luxuries he asked for. He also knew he was not a convict and he could walk out anytime he wanted. This really is not the same as “really” being in jail. Perhaps I have watched too much television or listened to the news too often, but life in prison hardly looks like a calm paradise. It however has the advantage to keep criminals out from the streets up until we grew moderately convinced they won’t be a danger anymore. I mean, theoretically of course.
I’ll admit you make a convincing argument with Dalinar probably becoming the top dog in his prison: this is entirely true. I will however counter-argue, whatever happens to him in prison or not, at least, as the victim, I’ll be satisfied he is no longer in a position to harm more innocents. At least he would not be leading a coalition (even if we do know Dalinar reformed, the potential victim would not know). And, more importantly, I would have felt like justice was made, like his crimes were paid for, like there was a real tangible punishment not an hypothetical one I would unable to view nor see nor evaluate.
What bothers me with Dalinar is the fact no one wants to have him be accountable for his past. Except himself. This whole arc, it is too… inward. It should have had bigger consequences.
About redemption, my statement was made within the hypothetical scenario where Dalinar killed one of my kids. Would I believe, without the support of a book and his inner viewpoint, this man can redeem himself? Nope. Never. So why would people in-world believe him which has been part of the crux? Everyone buys it, his family adore him. It is baffling! The fact Brandon can make me believe he really has become a better person is one thing, I am reading the book, but the in-world characters?
Hence, given what I have read, I can believe Dalinar is redeeming himself, though I do feel he got out of it easily. I do not feel he was punished, really, for his actions, but I can believe he genuinely wants to be a better person, now. This however does not excuse what he did. So for narrative purposes, Dalinar has to redeem himself, this is true, but I do not see why he has to do so with everyone bathing in his glorious light (well, OK, this was Adolin who thinks this way, but you get the point).
I picked a bad week to have family in town; there is a lot of discussion! Many things have been talked about extensively, but I have to say that I am really hoping Adolin does revive Maya, and I also believe Oathbringer (the sword) will have some more significance in the future books. I am not sure what it was and don’t think it is the Sibling, but that was a cool theory and speaks to the fact that it really does feel important, especially the way it is currently displayed at the end of the book.
@@@@@ Gepeto – I know you are frustrated with Adolin’s story, and I don’t want to harp on it since I am sure there are other readers upset by him on Reddit (I personally have never gone to Reddit). I however still find him believable. Just because he seems so admirable does not mean he is a Gary Stu. People like him really exist. I personally feel he adds something valuable to the narrative just being himself. We need to see that not every man in Alethkar is horribly broken like Kaladin, cold-blooded like Amaram, or so absorbed in the Alethi culture that they cannot value humanity properly (Sadeas and young!Dalinar).
@86
A note: I am approaching these questions from a (Eastern Orthodox) Christian perspective, so take that into consideration when you read this post.
Intentions matter. Ultimately, they matter more than results when it comes to moral weight. The thing is, man is finite. Our minds are incapable of knowing all variables and therefore we cannot hope to calculate the exact results of any action. Moral weight comes from trying to make the best of the limited information that we can process, according to the absolute moral guide that is the Will of God (according to my understanding of how morality really works). If you try to save all the trolley victims and instead they all die, then you are still more righteous than the man who deliberately killed the one to save the others, or who chose to kill the guilty to save the not-guilty (not innocent here, since no man is truly innocent, with the closest being those who are still in the womb).
In the warlord problem, even if you and all the villagers still get killed, if your intention was to give them a chance to live by eliminating the one who had ordered their murder, then even if they fail to take that chance, or try to take it and lose, you still had the best possible intention. If you deliberately murder the old man, then who is to say that the warlord won’t kill the villagers (or even you) regardless? Similarly, if you succeed in killing the warlord and his men still massacre everyone, then you at least have given others a chance to use the ensuing power struggle (which would be far more likely than a smooth transition of power) to gain their own freedom from oppression. And if you fail to kill the warlord, then at least you tried, and you would not be responsible for his actions thereafter (certainly less so than any of the people who continue to follow his orders, or who likewise have a chance at removing him from power and fail to take it). Operation Valkyrie (the bomb plot that nearly killed Hitler) was morally good even though it failed and it resulted in hundreds of deaths.
Treating people like math problems dehumanizes them and leads to the same moral calculus that results in all manner of state-sponsored evils (especially once certain lives are deemed more valuable than others). The value of every single human life is beyond estimation, and so no moral calculus can be possible. Even the life of a murderer is precious, for every moment that he continues to live offers him a chance to repent and throw himself on the mercy of the Cross.
Which brings me to my response to the problem of Dalinar and Amaram:
Amaram has no regrets and offers no repentance. He is utterly unwilling to recognize his sin and to attempt to rectify it. Dalinar, though himself a great sinner, sees that sin and is sorrowful, seeking repentance even though he doubts that he can find it. The act of repentance, true repentance that sees an actual change in behavior, is the most powerful moral act that one can perform, with the sole exception of forgiveness. The opportunity for repentance is a large part of why the Roman Empire, after its Christianization, began to replace executions with alternatives like mutilation and exile (following the teachings of the Church, which had significant influence over the behavior of the emperors and the government, though it was often ignored or influenced in turn). Even if the criminal never repents, at least he was given the opportunity to do so, in a way that would prevent him from committing the same acts again (it’s hard to kill someone if you are blinded, or to rape someone if you are both blinded and castrated). Naturally, being a human government, they were anything but consistent and often took the opportunity to be deliberately brutal in their punishments, but there are a great many examples where contemporary powers would have simply executed people (even as many as thousands) but the Romans chose to do something else that proved just as effective but also far more merciful (Basil II Bulgaroctonus gets a bad rap for blinding 15,000 Bulgar warriors, but the alternatives were mass execution, enslavement, or release; in that context, rendering them incapable of continuing to wage war against the empire without killing them or taking their freedom was a remarkably merciful act).
One final thought on all the philosophical moral problems: if it is possible to find a solution that saves everyone else but kills you, then, absent any better option, the sacrificial one is always the morally correct response. If you can throw yourself into the trolley’s wheels and jam its functions, and by so doing save everyone else, then that is the right choice. I don’t think it is a reasonable one, as it seems highly unlikely that it would work (certainly less so than attempting to derail it by manipulating the lever), but if you absolutely knew that it would work and there was doubt with all other courses of action then the morally correct response is the sacrificial one. Besides, there is always hope that something will happen to save you, too, even if it is only the vaguest of hopes. Guns have been known to jam, vehicles to break down, power to run out, and so on. Sometimes delay is the best option, leaving as much room for the operation of chance or of Providence as is possible. When all else fails, though, if you can assume as much danger as possible from as many others as possible, then you should.
One final thought on the warlord problem, in light of the above:
While in the absolute it is true that a solution that avoids killing even evil men is best, since that would maximize the opportunity for repentance and the operation of Grace, in certain contexts, especially given our limited capacity for understanding and calculation, it is morally correct to kill. Not in your own defense, and not out of retribution or vengeance (or even “justice”). Rather, if somebody has made it clear that he will do great evil to another, no matter what, and without regret or compunction, then that person must be stopped. If it is impossible to stop him by non-violent means, then violence is morally right. If it is impossible to stop him by non-lethal violence, then lethal violence is morally right. Sadeas is a prime example of this: he would not stop, he was unrepentant and sure in his course of evil, and even crippling him would not stop him. Killing was the only moral solution, regrettable though it still would be.
@91 Gepeto
Actually that wasn’t the question I was asking. I wanted to understand where you feel responsibility lies. So for instance when Adolin kills countless parshendi, it is not because he is following Dalinar’s orders, nor that he was forced to become a soldier over a duelist, nor because it is war. It is Adolin, and he is the one slaughtering the parshendi in shardplate, and he is responsible as per your answer for every life he took. Gotcha. That helps me understand your perspective better and my later replies to the rest of your comment.
Regarding the Nahel Bond, what Brandon actually said was it never happened before. It isn’t impossible, but it never happened before.
https://wob.coppermind.net/events/222-words-of-radiance-houston-signing/#e5638
A nahel bond never happened in reverse before. We do not have any WoB or definitive quote in book saying it never could. As to Renarin, Sja-anat said she never corrupted a radiant spren before in Oathbringer. That is what led to the confusion on whether she was referring to Glys or the oathgate spren. So again, was never done before, turned out to be possible. What you are referring to is after it was theorized that Renarin’s spren is of odium due to the future sight, Argent asked Brandon for a hint. Brandon pointed to what is theorized as the voidbinding chart. Here is the relevant WoB
https://wob.coppermind.net/events/176-oathbringer-chicago-signing/#e8461
As I stated in my prior post, Maya is the one missing stuff. To me the giant gaping hole in her needs to be fixed before she can bond anyone. Some theorize that the bond will fill her hole (no double entendre intended). I think we know too little to say the bond working in reverse is impossible. I respect that you feel it is damaging to Adolin as a narrative choice, but I feel that doesn’t change that it is possible based on what little we know.
So regarding Adolin you feel because he murdered someone, he deserves life in prison. From what I understand of the law and our society, the goal of incarceration and punishment is to reform the individual. The ultimate result is for the person to learn their lesson, not repeat the action and become a productive member of society. If you are speaking of Dalinar’s punishment from a sociological and cultural standpoint, then the mental screaming was sufficient enough punishment for he did reform his ways and become a productive member of society. If however you are viewing it as personal revenge, then as I said that is a very individualistic experience. What is revenge to one, is not enough or too much revenge to another.
Roshone lost his freedom to be in Kholinar. He lost his status in the kings court, and his rank. He lost the money he was making in the city for they were seized. Yet to Moash, he got off scott free. Roshone had no guilt over what he did. Darkeyes aren’t people to him. So because Roshone did not personally run through Moash’s grandparents, then Moash should be ok with it? Also by proxy why would the same punishment be more severe to Dalinar, than what we see happen to Roshone?
So at this point you aren’t talking about why feeling guilty about Dalinar, or pity him, or his redemption. You are talking about punishment pure and simple. Completely separate from redemption. Separate from reformation. To which we return to me feeling mental and emotional anguish every moment of every day is worse than reading a book in a cell.
So where you draw the line is at “quality” over “quantity”. Though the 100 babies number less than those in the Rift, it is worse because they are babies.
Actually Adolin in jail is a prime example. Adolin is nobility. Dalinar is a highprince. In many cultures, England for instance just off the top of my head, they had separate prisons for nobility to fit their station. So they still got all their creature comforts. Dalinar is royalty. To me if the person who killed my family got to languish in a royal suite, and the only limitation was he couldn’t go off hunting whenever he felt like it, I wouldn’t feel justice was served. I would feel he found a way to escape justice.
In my opinion the only forgiveness that matters is the people Dalinar hurt/killed. Given what we know of the cosmere, I feel the screaming voices manifested that and the forgiveness he received from Evi and by extension the rest of the voices was them deciding it was enough. You feel it is all a hallucination. To each their own. Though I will point out it is cosmere significant as per WoB
https://wob.coppermind.net/events/93-odysseycon-2016/#e2671
Thing is, if Dalinar received the punishment you posit, he would not have been around the shattered plains having visions. He would be a guy who “went insane” behind bars. Adolin would be highprince leading his troops capturing gemhearts. Kaladin would not have joined Dalinar’s honorguard. The stormform would not have been confronted on the shattered plains. Urithiru would not have been found, and finally Thayla would have been conquered. So Dalinar in jail would have put a minor speed bump in the books.
@92 Evelina
I agree with all your wrote
Gepeto is the Skybreaker of this little group. Not saying this to be insulting, just an observation. Point of view is coloring our arguments. I look at Amaram vs Dalinar as a soldier who in an unlikely event gets to choose my commander. In that light I would rather have Dalinar and his culturally biased bloodthirsty past over Amaram of the shiny reputation and sneaky, disloyal, backstabbing deeds. I’m judging character based off of what I know of the men involved.
Others point to the past deeds of the men and put themselves in the shoes of the victims. Were I negatively affected by the actions of these men, how would I feel? What do I think should be an appropriate punishment? That these people should be punished according to modern sensibilities is unquestionably true. In the world they live in, only Amaram’s actions are really punishable by law, and that’s only if found out. Just like there is danger in judging what we haven’t observed, it’s dangerous to judge a person’s past without taking into account the culture that gives their past actions context. That being said, if my son was one of the civilian victims at the Rift I suppose I would feel that no punishment would be too great.
The trolley problem is a hard one because there’s no right answer. Whatever you do you will bear the weight of the decision. I would probably go for the Vasher option, whichever decision that lets me sleep at night.
Has Dalinar suffered enough from an outsider point of view? For our modern sensibilities, probably not. But the Alethi don’t really think he did anything wrong, well at least everyone not at the Rift. Kadash was there and he thinks they did something wrong, but likely only because Evi was killed. He never spoke up or reacted to Dalinar’s savagery before then. Those of us that think Dalinar got off light are really damning Alethi cultural mores. Only Dalinar truly thinks his actions were unforgivable, thus he writes a book that not only will condemn him, but with luck will change Alethi culture, make them respect life more. But as for punishment, the law isn’t equipped to deal with one such as Dalinar Kholin. Maybe now that he’s in charge it will be.
@93 Porphyrogenitus
No problem. I myself are atheist/agnostic and I hope through our discussion you know anything I say is meant to be respectful to your religion, and appreciate respect of my own views as well. Now that that is established, to your response.
So follow up question. You state that intention is a big piece when it comes to morality, and that being limited in our scope as humans, we must do the best we can with the information we have. Lets say the trolley problem finds you in a glass cube, with the only thing available to you is the switch. Now in this scenario, you have absolutely to your knowledge no action at your disposal other than leave the trolley on its route to kill 5 people, or pull the lever changing the track to kill the 1 person. As the lever switches the tracks and it is an off on switch, so there is no way to move the track partially, as well as jamming would accomplish nothing, what then would be the morally right decision to make for you?
Regarding the warlord. What if a grandchild of the old man is among the people to be shot, and he begs you to shoot him to save the child. Do you still attempt to save everyone confident in the redemption your intention affords you? You later mention about the nobility of the sacrifice to preserve others. The old man has chosen this path. Do you allow him to take that path, resulting in him being morally pure, but take his murder onto yours? Or do you follow through with your intention, keeping you morally pure, but rob him of his sacrifice?
I agree with what you said regarding Amaram and Dalinar as is obvious from my prior posts, though my reasoning is devoid of religion, while yours is largely based on it. I think it is very interesting and enlightening that we came to the same conclusion in such manners.
@95 EvilMonkey
That is an excellent point. That Dalinar having gone through it, could be a force of positive change so hopefully there are no further “Dalinars” in the future
@Scáth.
Short version. You have to take everything case by case. And while I honestly do try to look for the most optimistic version possible. I don’t COMPLETELY disregard the utilitarian viewpoint, as I am a logical person. It’s just for me a BIG half of my logic tends to include “how do you think people are going to react when you treated them like that!”
Long version: Perhaps I wasn’t clear enough. In regards to the third option wether or not I try it is predicted at least in Part on how likely it is to work. (I did POINT out the part of weighing available data before hand and doing the best I can with the knowledge I have) The situation I was assuming (and I thought I had explained this but I guess I didn’t) is that in each of your examples, say I have a decent chance of pulling off the third option and I know it. The chance factor comes into how in ANY unknown situation there are several unknown factors that constantly proceed to change the future and has a chance of changing the outcome in ways I did not forsee. (Speaking of changing the future, the further in the future the more time there is for something to go wrong. With so little time between the situation described and the event I thought we were dealing with one of those situations where it data provided makes it looks like the third option should work but the data you had has insufficient.)
If we don’t have data that assumes the third option is likely to work) and are just going of the question as is, it’s a different beast as wether or not I would take the third option (in theory anyways, don’t know what to do practically until I have been tested) in each beast. As one of them is dealing with a problem of pure physics where as the other deals with people. (I know theoretically both do but work with me here) In the case of the trolley physics would determine wether a third option would be workable or not. If it tells me a third option frim the perspective of phycics fine, but honestly think trying to make the choice on which way to go based on which has the greater value is flawed. This is basically because among other reasons the “values” that things have are always changing. More importantly they cannot, be completely given value relative to each other, but only when you look at it as a complex system that has patterns in the way things interact. (Basically the short version of this is that can’t predict or control every single situation. The most you can hope for as individuals humans is small scale control over aspects of our lifes. As for governments they can try to affect the pattern in certain ways for good or ill, but trying to micromanage is foolish because it lies on a level of control that is humanly impossible. The scintific version of this is Chaos Theory. Ohh more thoughts on this later) How I’d apply it to the trolley scenario? Well if third option seems likely to work, do it. If it doesn’t, I let my guy decide which way to go and live with the guilt of killing the other party.
Still as mentioned before, while there is an element of ethics and humanity in the trolley problem the situation that surrounds it is one of physics. While ethics (and the way people relate with it) is central to the WHY of both problems, the problems are different in the HOW. For the trolly problem physics can tell you How the problem came about but it cannot tell you how to solve it, if the third option fails, relatedy Engeineering can tell you How to build a trolley but ethics is the field (admidtly when combined with engineering and other fields) that can tell you wether of not building A trolley (singular, as in a specific trolley) is a good idea or not. (Ok, poor example, I just didn’t drag up a new one).
Since the dictator example, involves people the thing is ethics doesn’t just involve how considerations for how we get out of it, but often deals with how we got into it as well. First off I wanted to point out that you didn’t mention any guards surrounding the dictator you made it sound like it was the two of us and I got unlucky. (you left out a lot of details and the devil is in the details) In any case this is one thing that makes a difference when facing a person, I am more likely to go screw logic, and face something I might or even certainly loose. Here’s the thing, you mentioned the dictator becoming more paranoid, that’s one aspect of it. Here’s another thing at while there is emotion to it there’s a logic to it as well. A big part (though not the only part of how dictator’s get that way is that noone stands up to them. It wasn’t always that way of course, but everyone who stood up to them got shot down. And eventually people became to afraid to do anything back. Nothing changes until people start standing up. Please understand I am NOT saying I would DEFINITELY do that, the sad fact is ALL options are on the table. (And you have to take into account the people and situation surrounding you) I am just saying this kind of fuck logic approach is something that I would consider regarding the third option in the case with dictator. However that same approach with the trolley would be foolish because you can’t defeat physics with a mindset.
I will address the potential implications that Chaos Theory has for BigT’s diagram (figood AND ill) in my next post)
@Scáth. Perhaps I wasn’t clear enough. In regards to the third option wether or not I try it is predicted at least in Part on how likely it is to work. (I did POINT out the part of weighing available data before hand and doing the best I can with the knowledge I have) The situation I was assuming (and I thought I had explained this but I guess I didn’t) is that in each of your examples, say I have a decent chance of pulling off the third option and I know it. The chance factor comes into how in ANY unknown situation there are several unknown factors that constantly proceed to change the future and has a chance of changing the outcome in ways I did not forsee. (Speaking of changing the future, the further in the future the more time there is for something to go wrong. With so little time between the situation described and the event I thought we were dealing with one of those situations where it data provided makes it looks like the third option should work but the data you had has insufficient.)
If we don’t have data that assumes the third option is likely to work) and are just going of the question as is, it’s a different beast as wether or not I would take the third option (in theory anyways, don’t know what to do practically until I have been tested) in each beast. As one of them is dealing with a problem of pure physics where as the other deals with people. (I know theoretically both do but work with me here) In the case of the trolley physics would determine wether a third option would be workable or not. If it tells me a third option frim the perspective of phycics fine, but honestly think trying to make the choice on which way to go based on which has the greater value is flawed. This is basically because among other reasons the “values” that things have are always changing. More importantly they cannot, be completely given value relative to each other, but only when you look at it as a complex system that has patterns in the way things interact. (Basically the short version of this is that can’t predict or control every single situation. The most you can hope for as individuals humans is small scale control over aspects of our lifes. As for governments they can try to affect the pattern in certain ways for good or ill, but trying to micromanage is foolish because it lies on a level of control that is humanly impossible. The scintific version of this is Chaos Theory. Ohh more thoughts on this later) How I’d apply it to the trolley scenario? Well if third option seems likely to work, do it. If it doesn’t, I let my guy decide which way to go and live with the guilt of killing the other party.
Still as mentioned before, while there is an element of ethics and humanity in the trolley problem the situation that surrounds it is one of physics. While ethics (and the way people relate with it) is central to the WHY of both problems, the problems are different in the HOW. For the trolly problem physics can tell you How the problem came about but it cannot tell you how to solve it, if the third option fails, relatedy Engeineering can tell you How to build a trolley but ethics the feil
@92: What are readers elsewhere saying on Adolin? Honestly, it is hard to evaluate. I have seen negative commentaries just as I seen have good ones, but as a rule of thumb, I haven’t read a lot of praise. In other words, my impressions (please bear in mind these are my impressions, this is not based on a rigorous survey, so they are to be taken for what they are), readers who didn’t care much about Adolin’s character are fine with his character arc in OB. Readers who didn’t care about Sadeas’s murder or who didn’t find this narrative arc an interesting twist have little critics. Reader who really liked Adolin are usually disappointed in how it turned out in OB. Most are interested in Maya, but some feel it is way too easy for Adolin. I do not recall reading any reader praising the author for how he has decided to wrap up the Sadeas arc. The most positive comment I have read came from readers who were pleased it didn’t take up a lot of page time because they didn’t like the arc to begin with. On average, I saw a lot of readers being dissatisfied with this one up to various levels which isn’t to say none liked it, this isn’t true, but as I said, no post on Oathbringer started nor included: “I am so pleased at how Sadeas’s murder turned out, what a subversion, this was amazing, it riveted me to my coach”. Usually, if readers commented on it, it was to say they thought it was under-whelming. But then you have those who said nothing, so huh…. not a very scientific way of compiling impressions.
The Gary Stu comments, these usually come from readers who had an average appreciation of the character before OB. They didn’t like how he progressed or how he didn’t progressed in OB. They were bothered by the lack of response the character got from the various events within the narrative and they felt his successes, mostly with Shallan, came out of no struggles. It just works because it works and for some, it weakens the narrative. It also made the resolution of the love triangle most unsatisfying for those readers.
You will also hear some Gary Stu comments from big Adolin fans who are just disappointed the character didn’t really get an arc in OB. Now, I don’t really personally believe Adolin is a Gary Stu, even if I love to bring this forward, but I do believe those comments exist because there is an imbalance within the narrative. The focus is very strong on Dalinar/Shallan/Kaladin’s inner issues, it is very light on Adolin’s despite being a very active and central character. This clashes and by comparison, it makes Adolin appear a Gary Stu. In other words, the Gary Stu critics, I believe, exist mostly as a backlash from readers feeling Adolin is too ingrained within the narrative to still rely on foil arcs. It makes him appear one-dimensional next to Dalinar/Shallan/Kaladin. Hence, I feel it is this contrast, the very same contrast other readers are enjoying and Brandon is pushing forward which creates those critics.
My personal opinion is this contrast was perhaps needed in OB, but it harmed Adolin’s character. It denied him of much needed growth and exposition. It made issues he may have appear lesser or being treated in a lesser manner. Of course, Brandon has no reasons to further develop Adolin nor to give him a stronger narrative arc, but as a reader, I will admit I sometimes find it difficult the one character I feel I can relate to the most gets constantly shafted into the background. It is especially difficult in light of the many praises Brandon receives for how he has created characters other readers relate to. So it’s kind of a bizarre situation where, as a reader, I want to join the bandwagon, but I can’t.
So of course, maybe there people who are just like Adolin within the real-world, but I tend to think being stoic and always strong hides something. Perhaps because I have often been this person, but I do not really believe in people being able to swallow everything as well as Adolin. Admirable people only are so when you glance at them from the outside, but what is on the inside? I don’t believe there is nothing, but if the author doesn’t wish to write it, then it will stay… nothing which again, I feel clashes with the rest of the series where even the most minor characters have, well, a narrative.
@94: I’ll admit I am confused: when did Adolin kill countless of Parshendis outside the context of a war? I also disagree Adolin had the choice not to be a soldier, we had this discussion before and it doesn’t appear he had much of a choice. Mind, there is confusion as to how much he wanted it, OB being in direct contradiction with WoK/WoR on the matter but even if it were his first choice, he still did not kill Parshendis for the pleasure of doing it. He always done it during an official encounter. They were at war and while we are all going to agree this particular war seemed senseless, as far as all soldiers were concerned, they were avenging their king.
What I reproach Dalinar is not the killing of his “opponents” during official battles, more the slaughtering of his own men and the killing of civilians. Adolin never done any of those things, but yes he is responsible for killing Parsehendis during official warfare just as Kaladin is responsible for killing human beings during an even more meaningless war. As a rule of thumb, killing of an enemy during an official battle does not count as “murder”. Hence, I do not consider Kaladin murdered Helaran.
About Maya, what Brandon did say was the dead-Blade had their conscience being ripped of. All theories on the matter of Blade revival usually revolve around finding a way to reconnect the spren with the physical realm. The dead-sprens, it seems, are stuck in between realm, unable to exist neither within Shadesmar nor within the physical realm. They are only partially aware of what happens within the realms. Brandon did say they do retained “some” conscience, something I believe Oathbringer’s reaction to Dalinar confirms, but it seems they are unable to interact with both. Maya saving Adolin would be, as far as we know, the first time a dead-spren manages to effectively interact with any one of the realm, just like her being able to say her name to Adolin and, later, to brush his mind, sending him her “emotions” implies a growing ability to sense the physical realm. Was it all Adolin’s doing or was it the result of Dalinar’s perpendicularity? Opinions are various, but one of the event happened before Dalinar did his thing, so I tend to believe Maya has connected herself enough to Adolin to increase her awareness of the realms.
So can the reverse be possible? I honestly do not think it is possible. Adolin is not a spren, his conscience cannot “move into hypothetical cracks within Maya”. Maya also isn’t “broken”, she lost her connection to the realms (my theory or my interpretation). The problem hence would be connection, not brokenness. Adolin’s lack of a broken spirit (another hypothetical theory as I do not find we have enough arguments to conclude either way) wouldn’t do anything to restore connection as to restore connection Adolin needs to reform a Nahel Bond with Maya. And this, it only works one way. I also felt Kaladin reviving Syl did highlight how it works, though with Maya, it is more complicated because Adolin is not her original knight.
How to restore this connection however, I have no idea. Some theories are you would need a Bondsmith, hence my thought the arc will turn out to be a Red Herring for Adolin’s character development. It won’t be about him reviving Maya, it will be about Dalinar reviving all dead-Blades. Of course, this is not something I wish for but I do think, given the first three books, this may be where Brandon is going.
On the matter of the murder, I did not say Adolin deserves to be incarcerated for life for his murder of Sadeas. I do however believe he deserves to be punished. This punishment could take many forms, but the “nothing” we got doesn’t satisfy me. Given the context of Alethkar, a process is not going to happen, but there are other consequences he could suffer. Bottom line is, I honestly do start to feel the character is getting too much money and too much butter. It just defies reason his life would be so perfect: even when he does something negative, there are no consequences.
Well, in the hypothetical case where Dalinar would have killed my children, I sincerely do not believe I would be a great enough human being to forgive him and not to want revenge. YMMV, but agree the purpose of a punishment ultimately is to pay penance and to reform yourself. I however feel reforming without punishment kind of trumps the process.
I did not say Moash should be OK with Roshone’s punishment, but I do feel he would not have been OK with nothing less then death. Did Roshone deserve death for his actions? I find his case hard to judge. So while the punishment was strong, it did put him in a position of power which is where I dislike it. He shouldn’t have been made a city lord.
I do think crimes should be met with punishment. I mean… That’s the whole point of laws.
The babies are worst because the motives are lesser. And the act itself of singling out babies surpasses, at least for myself, the blind murder of random people. I mean, he would have selected babies on purpose…. for no valid motives.
Obviously, I am not saying for the narrative purposes Dalinar should have gotten punishment or else we wouldn’t be reading this story. I however, as a reader, do feel he got away from it easily. I also felt the narrative wanted me to feel sorry for him and/or to pity him because of the Thrill. My current take is since it was not possible for Dalinar to get punishment because else we wouldn’t be reading a story, then I would enjoy more if, at the very least, not everyone would think him the greatest man in the universe. Luckily, there is Fen, so there is this.
OK here’s the potential (and note I could be wrong) problem with BigT’s diagram. First off, it’s highly sensitive to prexisting conditions on which the smallest variable being wrong can doom it. (And I’ll make a BIG argument for this being the case) and it requires an inhumanly measure of control. The fact that there are few people to oversee corrections of it. And BigT is rarely intelligent enough to work properly doesn’t help.
I will also argue that the diagram is flawed to begin with. We are told that BigT made it on his most intelligent day. And while we haven’t had any insights of what that day is like let’s look at what he’s like on some of his more intelligent days. “He tried to create an order where stupid people should be executed”. Here’s what’s important about BigT during his intelligent phase. It’s not that he doesn’t care about people, it’s that he doesn’t UNDERSTAND people and how they react. (Seriously even Michavelli said you should take care not to engender so much fear, that you become hated.) Basically my point is that the diagram that was created by BigT was created by someone who for all his brilliance, do to his lack of empathy, cannot understand people on a emotional level (and therfore would be able to porly predict people’s emotional reaction to things).
In short the diagram is doomed to failure.
This begs two questions,
1: Why hasn’t it collapsed already?
and 2: Then what purpose if any does the diagram serve?
And the answers are tied into each other. I will answer question two first.
In short, the Diagram and BigT are a trap, a distraction, for Odium created by Cultivation to keep him away from the bigger threat, whatever that is. This would probably gamble of Cultivation’s
As to why it hasn’t failed yet the answer is two fold. First off, I suspect that flawed as he was in predicting people’s emotional reactions, and the more that lead to cracks in the diagram as time went on, he was very intelligent in other areas this probably mention he was good at predicting other areas. Second and most importantly Cultivation made plans to patch up the cracks so to speak, in order to hide the flaws and make them less obvious. The fact that BigT has times where he is compassionate as well as the dumbing at times sadly, both help with the image problems Smart but cruel T would create and to reign him in somewhat (both in the way, dumb gets sympathy and the genuine compassion from kind) the way it’s not an either/or dichotomy means there are times between the too. Finally the fact that noone COMPLETLY understands it so much as parts of it means no one understands how uncaring it it is as result a lot of it doesn’t get used.
O
@96
It’s always fun and interesting (and morally valuable, I’d say) to discuss this kind of thing with people who do not share one’s own belief system (though admittedly one of the goals of my particular belief system is to try to persuade everyone that it is not only correct but exclusively so; from our perspective, it kind of has to be if it is true, and if it isn’t then nothing matters anyway).
Assuming a locked box with a button (a button is more mechanically certain than an on-off switch, at least in my imagination), there are now questions like “how did I get into the box” and “who set all this up in the first place” which might inform action. Supposing that I simply awoke one morning to find myself in this situation (5 unknown people on one track, 1 on the other, trolley bearing down, myself with a button in a clear impervious locked box), I cannot honestly say how I would actually act. I can guess that I would be frozen into inaction. The morally correct thing might well be to pray and leave it in God’s hands, since I cannot intervene without committing murder and all things are possible with Him.
As for the old man volunteering to die that his village might live, there is a degree of respect that I ought to hold toward his moral decision. It would not (and should never be) easy to pull the trigger, but if he is insistent then it would absolve me. He is choosing martyrdom, and the involuntary tool of the despot is in no way guilty (note, the voluntary tool of the despot is every bit as guilty as the warlord who gives the order). If the warlord has it in his power to kill the old man either personally or by proxy regardless of my participation, and if the old man is insistent upon martyring himself for his people, and if the consequences of my refusing to pull the trigger are the deaths of the entire village, then because the old man is insistent upon taking that sacrifice upon himself then I ought to shoot him. However, leaving room for hope matters. I should stall as long as possible, I should do as much as I am able to council the old man and offer him the Gospel (if he hasn’t already pledged himself to Christ) if the warlord permits enough time and proximity to do it, and when all else is said and done I should hope that the bullet misfires, the gun jams, rebels attack, or the warlord simply dies (it is not unheard of; Krum, Attila, and others died very suddenly with no warning). In the end, though, when the warlord is out of patience and the village is on the verge of annihilation, if the old man remains firm in his resolve, then I should pull the trigger. It would not be my preference, but I think in that particular context it would be right.
Now for some more blatantly religious thoughts on a portion of the discussion above related to Dalinar and Amaram:
There is a common fallacy that without evil there can be no good. I think that a corollary to that idea is that without sin or failure there can be no redemption. The reality is that good is, regardless of evil. Redemption is not a good in itself, such that without it the world is worse, but rather it is a response of good to evil. Without evil, redemption is unnecessary. It is not a good in itself, rather it is a means by which that which is evil can become good. However, when evil exists, without redemption all is futile. For all men are evil, even if only to the smallest degree. It is always a matter of degree, not of kind. Evil separates man from God, for God is good, and that which is good is holy and always comes from Him. A single evil act of even the smallest quantity still separates us from good, and thus from God, and only He can bring us back to a right relationship with Him. That is redemption. It is not revenge. It is not punishment. It is not karma. Redemption is healing, a restoration of the natural relationship between Creator and creature. If God were Just alone, we would all stand condemned. It is His mercy and love for us that led Him to the ultimate act of redemptive sacrifice: the Incarnation, Life, Death, and Resurrection of His Son. We as His creatures ought to emulate Him, hence offering forgiveness even to those who do not seek it, and having mercy even on those who do not deserve it (for after all, neither do we deserve mercy, but He gives it to us anyway).
Talk of being unable to forgive, or of hating people, violates that principle. Dalinar did vile things, but he recognizes his culpability and seeks redemption. Amaram did vile things, but he should not be hated, rather he should be pitied for his short-sighted ignorance and his arrogance and pride that blind him to the truth of his actions. Sadeas is in many ways a tragic figure, for he had greatness in him, but he embraced his depravity and wallowed in his evil rather than rising above it, until he made himself too dangerous to everyone around him to be allowed to continue to act. Hatred should be for the act, not for the actor. Just as no man is righteous in himself, no man has done something so evil as to be beyond redemption – provided he can be made to see his sins and repent. Indeed, even the smallest of sins is enough to condemn if one refuses to repent of it, and even the greatest of sins can be redeemed (rather, has been redeemed) if one takes responsibility for it and recognizes the need for repentance and forgiveness.
Something that should obviously be addressed about nessecary evils. Is that’s it’s always important to examine wether or not they really or nessecary. And that we must ALWAYS remember that even WHEN they are necessary they are still evil. This is because that there is a potential trap laid there. It’s not that necessary evils don’t exist. It’s that someone can get so used to doing them, (especially if times are dire)that they start doing them by habit rather than because they really are necessary. And that way leads disaster.
#91, @Gepeto,
“So both are guilty, Dalinar as the initiator, Sadeas as the accomplice. Only Alethi innocent here is Evi.” Evi is not Alethi, of course. Innocent, yes.
“On the Nahel Bond: We knew before Venli it was possible for a Listener to become a Radiant, not because the narrative told us so, but because Brandon said so in interview. So we knew, while this never happened before, it was a possibility. Everyone theorized years ago Eshonai was a Willshaper despite being a Listerner, so Venli is not particularly special nor outside the expectations.”
So because something was theoretically possible in-universe, even though nobody knew that, being the first to actually do it is not particularly special? I assume you think Neil Armstrong’s little stroll was unimportant, since Goddard, Oberth, and Tsiolkovsky all knew it was possible decades earlier?
As Porphyrogenitus says: Sadeas never felt regret, and by Christian rules can’t be redeemed therefore. Amaram is a tragic figure because he did know he was doing the wrong thing, but was too proud to ask for forgiveness. (Pride, of course, being a key sin to Christians.) In Christian morality you don’t forgive yourself (or rather that doesn’t mean anything). You need a third party to forgive you. Evi here stands in for the not-present-in-the-Cosmere Christian God.
#100, @BenW: yes, the Diagram is a Cultivation trick, and I think Odium caught on during his conversation with Taravangian. Cultivation actively added to the Diagram during that chat, and Odium’s reaction indicates he noticed. Odium is not stupid.
MIA because of 4th of July but will catch up and comment tomorrow!
@64 Porphyrogenitus – Are you Brandon? or Peter? ;-)
Moderators, will there be a new post this week?
@97 BenW
I believe where the confusion comes in, is in the example I provided, the third option, whatever it may be would be very very unlikely to work. I took what you said to be in any situation where you had to chose between lives, you would try to find a third one that preserves all lives no matter how unlikely that third option is. At least you tried to preserve everyone. Also before I continue to reply to your posts, I would like to establish the dictator example was put forward by Porphyrogenitus, who hopefully without offending, I will refer to from hence forth as porphy because remembering to type that whole name out is a total pain lol.
So now that that is clarified, in the scenario of the trolley dilemma, in the very brief time you have as it is barreling towards the individuals, and you only have the time to decide which way you are going to leave the switch (the description in the original thought experiment was a lever you pulled one way to move the track one way, or pushed it another way to move it back. Only a binary choice). Given there is not enough time to untie the individuals, get help, or warn anyone, I would hazard there also would not be enough time to calmly think out all the various permutations of third options to potentially solve the issue ultimately preserving all life. Even if that was the case, the purpose of this thought exercise is to examine morality and decision making in a specific context, so trying to think through tricks of solving the problem (much like the parable in Oathbringer of the 3 murderers and 1 innocent man) is defeating the purpose of the exercise. Since it is purely a thought experiment I can continually add more circumstances to limit further the choices till we are at the place of the original point of the discussion, which is where I ended up going with Porphy. Ultimately it does not matter the level of physics knowledge you possess, nor how the trolley came to be barreling down the track, all that matters in this thought experiment is when faced with a choice between lives of some individuals or others, how do you personally as a person make the choice?
The implication I got from Porphy is that a dictator has a kill squad with people lined up ready to be executed. There is an old man standing in front of you. The dictator hands you a gun with one bullet in it, and there are guards with guns trained on you. So to me that scenario prevents insurrection as the innocents are outnumbered and literally out gunned. Shooting anyone other than the old man could only result in your, the old man’s, and the people’s deaths. You shoot the dictator, why would the rest of the soldiers just give up? They would execute you in recompense for the death of their leader, and eliminate all present. I just expanded it to include the fallout of such potential action. The rest of my response I believe will be for Porphy regarding the dictator example as he put it forward and stated his actions and I replied to them in query, so that should expand on it further.
@98 BenW
For this answer, please refer to my response to your post at 97
@99 Gepeto
When one has a morality or adherence to the law, one must hold it against multiple scenarios in order to determine the quality and desire to maintain said morality or law. If this morality or law does not hold up, then it must be re-evaluated, and changed to grow with the progression of time. With Dalinar and Sadeas you stated (I blued it and bolded to prevent confusion)
Dalinar. He set the trap. He ordered no one was to escape. He changes his mind halfway, after many already died, but can’t because his orders were followed in ways which cannot be changed.
Sadeas is however guilty of allowing the trap to take form, of following inhuman orders. It is like the Nazi all over again: guilt cannot be excused because you were following orders. So Sadeas is guilty too, but his guilt does not erase Dalinar’s nor does it change the fact without Dalinar, there would be no trap.
You also stated how you would see the Rift from their perspective. So let us take this morality, or view of the law and apply it elsewhere. You have stated how you feel about Jasnah. Morality/Law still holds up. You have stated how you feel about Shallan. Morality/Law still holds up. However when we reach Adolin is where there is conflict. Adolin killed countless Parshendi during war. He followed orders. So per your morality/law regarding Sadeas, there is no excuse for Adolin. Following orders nor desire to carry out such orders does not absolve Adolin from the actions he took under those orders. From the Parshendi’s perspective, the Alethi are the aggressors. To which the response would be “well they started it!”. To which I reply, well yes, and then they had their retaliation. Gavilar died. The Parshendi leaders (all except Eshonai, who was not a leader at that point, but they did ask her advice), remained and claimed ownership of the assassination. All of the leaders were executed. The Parshendi meanwhile abandoned their homes and retreated to the center of the Shattered Plains. But it did not end there. Elhokar called for war and wiping the Parshendi out. That is when the Alethi became the aggressors. So from the Parshendi perspective, Adolin has killed countless brothers, sisters, mothers, fathers, and so on. So Adolin should be jailed for life imprisonment by the morality/law you applied to Dalinar, Sadeas, Jasnah, and Shallan. That was the point of my query regarding the bomb.
I respect your opinion that the bond is not working in reverse, but we still do not know enough about the deadeyes to say conclusively it could not work in reverse. I respect that you personally do not think it can be.
You stated Dalinar should be locked away for life for the lives he took. No mitigating factors. Period. Adolin took the life of Sadeas. So he should be placed in jail for life no mitigating factors, period.
And this is the fundamental core of our disagreement. You feel the continual screaming voices of the dead in Dalinar’s mind does not register as punishment. Does not register as torment/torture. Yet when I read how Dalinar handled those screams, and how Szeth handled those screams, all it says to me is they were experiencing utter torment every moment of their lives. So I do not feel either of them reformed without punishment.
And I am saying the same punishment that you would say is severe and should be meted out to Dalinar, was enforced on Roshone, and if you were to ask Kaladin or Moash if that punishment was severe enough, they would say no.
And as I said I feel the punishment Dalinar and Szeth underwent fit the crimes they made. As to the Amaram babies example, it has been shown in many books of fiction of religious cults sacrificing children because their innocence is more potent and powers the spell or ritual or what have you greater. So in Amaram’s mind he would have a valid motive. We would abhor this and obviously disagree, but to him it would be valid. But again the point was for you it is the “quality” of the individual over the number slain which is where you draw the line.
I think you mean specifically Adolin, Renarin, and Navani as the entire coalition did not trust Dalinar and treated him as Fen did. Dalinar had to work to gain their trust. That was a huge plot point of the entire book. Personally I do not see how Adolin, Renarin, and Navani being upset at Dalinar would be more punishing than the never ending screaming voices in agony that Dalinar experienced. But YMMV.
@100 BenW
So I have two responses to this point. First and foremost I agree that the Diagram and Taravangian’s genius, in my opinion, was the result of Cultivation using Taravangian as a “plant” to screw over Odium.
Now having said that. From Taravangian’s perspective, the reason he has not given up on the Diagram is that it was made in such a supremely intelligent moment that all situations and eventualities were accounted for. Have you ever watched the anime called Death Note? Its a game of chess. Even when the Diagram “fails”, it is actually succeeding, because it needed you to think it failed, so you would act the way it needed to accomplish some goal you have no knowledge of. That is why Taravangian has utter faith in it. Another example would be the Nightwatch series by Sergei Lukyanenko. What I am wondering, and very curious to see is what would it take, how much of an error would be required to make Taravangian abandon the Diagram? How much would it fall apart before he would admit to himself it was faulty? I look forward to finding out.
@101 Porphy
That is great, and I respect your beliefs so long as you respect my own, and realize I will not be persuaded to your religious beliefs. Now that that is done, onto the rest of the post!
So the reason for that scenario is that is how I feel Taravangian views the situation. To him, he definitively knows for a fact that it is either the extinction of all human life (the five people), or the death of a specific number of people at his own hand (the one). All his research, and advisors have come to the same conclusion. That ultimately any other action he takes leads to full extinction. That the only choice that leads to the preservation of any life is the choice that results in him actively ending specific individual’s lives. He chose to take that guilt and burden unto himself. For him he is damning himself to hell for his actions. He knows this and accepts it if it means saving enough. Now that could still be termed utilitarian but as it has been said that is from a clinical stand point. However as we see Taravangian feels every murder. He abhors every step he takes and feels he should suffer for it. So to me it reads as that old man choosing to sacrifice his own life so the other villagers may live. He is choosing to take the bullet. That does not absolve him of his actions, nor make him an exemplary individual, but it does make him multidimensional which is why his character interests me. So I am not asking you to like the character, just understand him.
I respect your view on religion and how it applies to Dalinar, Sadeas, and Amaram. As I said I agree, though for non-religious rationale. The purpose of law is to maintain society. It does so by providing structure, security, and means of restoring that security. The law is fallible, which is why it is a continually evolving construct but the goal does not change. The punishment fits the crime in an effort to reform the individual and allow them to re-enter, reintegrate and become a productive member with society. Dalinar chose to reform genuinely. Sadeas knew his actions were wrong but had no interest in reforming. Amaram knew his actions were wrong, but denied that wrongness and attempted to justify it through his religion. When his religion failed him, he clung to another. Ultimately proving it did not matter the justification, so long as he felt justified. That is why I abhor Amaram. That is also why for me there is a very thin line separating Taravangian and Amaram to me. I am curious if Taravangian will cross that line, and if so, when.
@102 BenW
That is where I feel Taravangian is currently at. He has examined as much as he can for other options, but ultimately he feels the evils he is taking are necessary. He does still accept they are evil, and accepts he will be punished for them.
@103 Carl
I agree on all points (Maya, Amaram, and the Diagram), though as I have said above, my perspective is of the non-religious inclination. Though I am not sure personally if Odium has caught on to Cultivation yet. But that is just my own thoughts with nothing to base it on.
@106 AndrewHB – It just went up!
@107: I think your analogy is wrong.
Adolin killed enemy soldiers during an official war where both parties agreed to fight one against the other. Kaladin, Dalinar, Sadeas and basically anyone having taking part into any war has killed enemy soldiers. Per law, enemy soldiers killed during wartime are not considered murder or else every single army soldier having killed someone during a conflict would be a convicted murderer. Now, you can see where this ideology ends. Killing, when there is a war, is inevitable.
Where I draw the line is when Dalinar/Sadeas decides to kill civilians. Civilians are not soldiers, they are not the opposing army, they are essentially civilians. Agreeing to kill civilians because you were ordered to is akin to Nazi killing the Jews because they were ordered to do so. Yes, there was a “war”, but those people were not enemy soldiers killed during an official conflict. They were civilians. The Rift was filled with civilians.
Adolin ever killed any civilians. He only killed enemy soldiers in the course of an official battle.
This is not a case of my “morality” changing when it comes to Adolin: it is a matter of Adolin not having killed civilians and children just because he was ordered to (Sadeas) or on his own volition (Dalinar). Adolin never condone such actions nor did he ever take part in any needless slaughter of civilians. He did not invade the Parshendis private housing to slay their children which is essentially what Dalinar/Sadeas did.
Hence, both examples are completely different and totally opposite. Adolin/Kaladin killed enemies on the battlefield. Dalinar/Sadeas also killed enemies, but where they were wrong is when they killed civilians to prove their point.
Adolin however did murder Sadeas, but he murdered no Parshendis just as Kaladin did not murder Helaran. They both however killed enemy soldiers during a conflict on a battlefield: completely different.
I honestly do not know how it can be reasoned Adolin murdered Parshendis! You do not commit murder when you are a soldier and you are fighting a battle against a foe. You commit murder when you are killing someone outside the context of war or when you are killing the non-soldiers, the civilians.
On Dalinar and Jail: I stated how I would feel towards him had one of my children been among the ones he burned alive. When it comes to judgment, the nature of the crime, the scope of it, the means for it all are taken into consideration when comes the time to make a sentence. We cannot say Adolin/Dalinar did similar crimes. Dalinar burned alive thousand of innocent people while Adolin killed a mass murdered having professed he would never stop killing until he killed Adolin’s father. There are a lot of mitigation around Adolin murdering Sadeas, his crime is less brutal, less terrible, less animal: he killed a terrorist outside a defined battle which makes it illegal. Dalinar burned children. It cannot be argue, for those crimes alone, both characters deserve the same sentence.
On Amaram: The babies were no thread to him and would never be. He has no motive except his twisted beliefs which are not an excuse for slaughtering. His “religion” is not a valid motive.
On Adolin/Renarin/Navani: It is merely unthinkable a man such as Dalinar would be able to retain his family’s love after what he did. His children should bear the scars of their father’s behavior. And losing the trust of someone he cares about would be, IMHO, worst than hearing voices. It would mean Dalinar’s actions have consequences on his external life, not just the dead or himself.
Edit: Real life parallel.
Dalinar is akin to the man being single-handily responsible to have the planes crash into the World Trade Center. He then doomed thousand of innocent people to die in horrible pain and suffering by being trapped inside an inferno.
Adolin is akin to an off-duty soldier randomly stumbling on Ousama Ben Laden in a random corridor at a time where both are acting as civilians. Ben Laden then gloats to Adolin how he will keep on being a terrorist up until he fulfills his goals which are to slaughter Adolin’s entire family and anyone standing in between. Adolin kills him.
Those two events do not even begin to compare! One is a case of pure terrorism done at the expense of innocent civilians which were killed in a horrible manner. The other involves a known terrorist, a man having killed thousand and being a threat to National Security. Sure both cases involve the word “murder”, but I cannot for all the life in me even begin to view them as anywhere near equivalent.
And were it real-life, I doubt many people would buy nor care about how repentant Dalinar would be for the World Trade Center, but the same people would cheer over Adolin.
@109 Gepeto
You took it from the prospective of your children dying as if they were in the Rift. So take it from the prospective of your husband dying at Adolin’s hands. As per what you said, he should be jailed for life. I think quite a few people here, philosophers and so on would argue murder is murder regardless the context. Is it deemed acceptable for some due to wartime? Sure. But that is not what you stated in your prior posts. Dalinar killed people during battle with the Rift, but that was considered murder for you. So same should apply to Adolin.
Didn’t say Amaram’s rationale in this hypothetical situation was a valid motive to me. However it could be a valid motive to him.
Personally I do not see the consequences equating continual screams of agony vs your son being upset at you, but as we both said YMMV.
@110: No, Dalinar killed civilians not soldiers, this is the difference. Had he just attacked the Rift the normal manner, fought their army and won, we wouldn’t even be talking about it. The different is Dalinar took it out on the non-combatant people. I have always stated I found the Rift, the burning of the Rift to be immoral, not the fact two armies are killing each other. Well, we could argue if the war by itself was moral or not, but from the moment both parties are agreeing to said war, then enemy soldiers being killed do not count as murder. The Rift however was the murder of children, not soldiers, not people who had agreed to fight and perhaps die. Innocents. If my husband were a soldier being killed in battle, I would be upset, but I wouldn’t call it murder. If he were a civilians being burned alive, then yeah, that would be murder.
Hence, Dalinar committed a lot of murders. Adolin murdered only Sadeas.
Every killer believes their motives are valid. Law will ultimately decide what is considered valid and what isn’t. There are no lawful system within civilized countries which would accept “my religion wanted me to do it” is a valid motive. Hence, Amaram’s motive, whatever he may think of them, would not be valid.
Not frustrated, not talking to you, not believing in you, not trusting you. It is one thing to live consequences on yourself, I find it is worst when your actions have consequences on others. Hence, had Dalinar make his closed ones suffered for his deeds and not just himself, I would have considered a more worthy punishment, because it wouldn’t be just him. It would also be they.
I added this to the other post to further illustrate my points:
Edit: Real life parallel.
Dalinar is akin to the man being single-handily responsible to have the planes crash into the World Trade Center. He then doomed thousand of innocent people to die in horrible pain and suffering by being trapped inside an inferno.
Adolin is akin to an off-duty soldier randomly stumbling on Ousama Ben Laden in a random corridor at a time where both are acting as civilians. Ben Laden then gloats to Adolin how he will keep on being a terrorist up until he fulfills his goals which are to slaughter Adolin’s entire family and anyone standing in between. Adolin kills him.
Those two events do not even begin to compare! One is a case of pure terrorism done at the expense of innocent civilians which were killed in a horrible manner. The other involves a known terrorist, a man having killed thousand and being a threat to National Security. Sure both cases involve the word “murder”, but I cannot for all the life in me even begin to view them as anywhere near equivalent.
And were it real-life, I doubt many people would buy nor care about how repentant Dalinar would be for the World Trade Center, but the same people would cheer over Adolin.
Wow, I missed some meaty discussion, but perhaps for the best as I wouldn’t have had time to keep up.
To be honest I find things like the trolley scenarios kind of maddening – as Porphyrgenitus brings up (and coming from a Roman Catholic background many of my ideas align with therirs) there’s something offputting about reducing people to math problems. When people bring up scenarios like that I find it’s usually to have some kind of “gotcha!” moment to prove that their ideals wouldn’t really hold up. And then when you get into scenarios like “but what if you were trapped in a box and so couldn’t do anything else” then I have to ask who the heck orchestrated this whole thing? And in that case, that is where the responsibility truly lies, not necessarily with the person forced to make a sadistic choice.
This is not to say that life isn’t full of tough choices that aren’t as black and white as they seem but I just don’t think there’s a one-size-fits-all metric to all of them. When it comes to Dalinar and Amaram and T and Moash – in terms of their *actions* I don’t find much value in judging which one is worse. They’re all awful in different ways and for different reasons. Motives and cultural context do come into individual culpability but I think the acts themselves can be judged as objectively awful no matter what. However, in terms of redemption and culpability I think we can argue that Dalinar alone (and maybe T) seems to be the only one who truly repents and is trying to grow and take accountability. But I do think Gepeto raises some good points in that for his victims that may not be enough (especially as the truth comes out). And I do think the narrative is showing that the leaders in other countries decidedly don’t trust him.
@Scáth wrote, “I agree on all points (Maya, Amaram, and the Diagram), though as I have said above, my perspective is of the non-religious inclination” To clarify, I’m an atheist. I’m just a literate, American atheist who knows a lot about Christianity and has inevitably read a lot of Christianity-influenced fiction (most obviously Lewis and Tolkien, but also many, many other stories). I’ve also written about, for instance, Taoist influences on the Stormlight Archive, but those would appear to be more philosophical and even that-world physical rather than moral/ethical.
@Gepeto: “Adolin killed enemy soldiers during an official war where both parties agreed to fight one against the other.” You can’t be serious. The Parshendi as a culture and as individuals did not “agree” to fight. They resisted genocide.
@11 Gepeto
Not asking about what the official morality as per the government, or Alethi, or real world of killing parshendi is. You stated that you looked at the Rift from the perspective of a mother of a child in that city. So I am asking you, to put yourself in a parshendi’s shoes and have your husband killed and then tell me you would be fine with it. If you can genuinely say your husband’s death whether in war or not would not affect you and you wouldn’t feel rage and anger at the person who did it, then I will drop this subject right now. If however you cannot, then by your morality of Dalinar’s culpability regarding the Rift, that no matter how Dalinar feels regarding his actions he should be punished by life imprisonment, then by extension so too should Adolin. Purely based on the feeling of being in the shoes of those wronged as per what you put forward.
Again, continuing on putting yourself in the offended shoes, as per Moash and Kaladin, losing the title, and being cast away from family is a slap on the wrist. If however we are to look at the individual, as you are saying with Adolin, then as readers we have seen Dalinar’s torment over his actions, and his genuine desire to atone. Continuing with the treatment of Adolin in view of Dalinar, then Dalinar has been redeemed. But all of this is in my opinion because we disagree on quite a few fundamental points
First, whether the screams constitute punishment
Second, whether the voice was really Evi accepting his forgiveness
Three, whether or not the person and all the extenuating circumstances in that person’s life should come into play regarding the punishment and redemption
So ultimately we will never come to agreement. I respect your perspective, just I fundamentally disagree with it.
@112 Lisamarie
I do realize some individuals use such thought experiments in such manner, but that is not my intention. My intention is to better understand the depth of the characters in the books, as well as cause us to question our values under pressure. That does not mean to cast them aside, nor a gotcha moment. It is only under pressure, or extreme circumstances can we truly know where our feelings and thoughts lie. Dalinar, Amaram, and Taravangian are all prime examples of this. Had the religion Amaram believed in remained in dominance, then he would have no reason to take any actions in its defense. By extension he would not have to see how far he was willing to go in its defense. Finally he would not have to see whether those convictions were held up or faulty. So too with Taravangian. If there wasn’t the end of the world, then he would not have to make such decisions. He could have remained an innocuous ruler of a city too small to be worth fighting over. He would never had to find out how far he was willing to go to maintain the ideals he values. So the thought experiment isn’t meant to criticize those who believe the way they do. Feel free to by all means. I meant it to show how much depth these two chapters contain, and how questioning oneself and others can lead to profound lessons and greater understanding of each other. Now if I may, based on your post, if you were in such a position to make such a choice, in that moment why does it matter who brought it about? It doesn’t change the scenario that you have to deal with. Does having someone to blame make the choice easier, vs it being a confluence of events that no one deliberately caused? The team and coach trapped in the cave in Thailand is one such example of a dilemma coming about as the result of a confluence of events. Would that change your answer? Hopefully my wording is not offensive, for it is not meant as such whatsoever.
@113 Carl
Sorry about the assumption. I myself was raised Catholic so I am well versed in that as well as other faiths. The information I gleaned from various faiths is why I chose to identify as athiest/agnostic (I am aware of the definition of each and still chose to identify as both in my own way).
As to the Parshendi, I agree once more. Well put
Regarding my answer regarding blame – it’s not that it would change my actions; and honestly I don’t know how I would react because there could be a bunch of other factors we haven’t defined. The one thing I can admit to myself – for better or worse – is that if my own children were a factor, I feel a specific obligation to my children that I must uphold, so they would be my priority. Of course you’ll probably just say ‘what if one of your children was on the trolley and one was on the track’ in which case I would say ‘whoever I’m most likely to save’. Similar to how I view ED triage situations or things like danger to a mother in childbirth – you give your best effort to save who you can actually save. And sometimes that means letting people die (whichever one it is) but there’s not a moral blame to that. Sometimes you can’t save both.
But it’s just that I often find questions like these posed so that the asker can say, “Aha, see, you DON’T actually care about all people equally” or “oh, so you value X over Y”, etc and often have to come up with more and more grisly scenarios to force the person being asked to admit that they would let somebody die. And it’s just ridiculous – the questions we should be asking are how do we prevent such conditions (such as they exist in real life) from arising in real life. So, sorry if I have little patience with these kinds of questions :)
@115 Lisamarie
All things being equal of course we should do all we can to prevent tragedy, but unfortunately we live in a world where such tragedy will always exist. As I said there is one such situation occurring as we speak. A team and coach are stuck in a tunnel network in Thailand. Rescuers are struggling to save them. The team age varies from 12 to 16. The rescuers are going to have to make decisions regarding this situation that I do not envy. Already as per reports, one Navy Seal has lost his or her life. That is just one instance. The point of these two chapters is that for a ruler, these situations are normal. You zoom out the metaphorical camera enough, and by sheer roll of the dice these situations come up daily. So by all means we should do all we can to prevent such occurrences, but at the same token we should be prepared to handle them when they do occur. I understand you personally do not like such questions, and I respect your right to not answer them.
I am not denying tough decisions – that’s true for everybody. I just reject the idea that situations are usually that binary. I’m sure it CAN happen, and has.
@117 Lisamarie
Never said they all were that binary. It was a thought experiment to illustrate a broader range of dilemmas and how for leaders they are frequently faced with choices that are very rarely clearly right or wrong. We are not supposed to be able to think of an actual solution to the trolley dilemma, the dictator issue, nor the scenario in the book of the 3 murderers and 1 innocent. There shouldn’t be an “ah ha! gotcha!” moment. It isn’t to try and out-think the person asked. The point is to make a choice, and then ask ourselves why. Why did we make that choice? I posted earlier in this thread that the reason I love these chapters so much is because I surprised myself as to why I despise Amaram, but could forgive Dalinar. I also find it very interesting that I myself as an atheist through my own world view comes to an almost identical conclusion on Dalinar as Porphy does coming from a religious world view. I find it interesting how for me Amaram and Taravangian are separated by a line so slim it may not very well be there at all. But I understand where you are coming from and respect your stance.
@114 You said you brought these up because you believe you can best tell who people are when they are under pressure? That’s one school of thought. Another school of thought is that when people are under pressure they are LEAST like themselves. Kind of like how when you torture someone they are likely to say anything regardless of weather it’s true or not to make the torture stop. Or how metal and becomes twisted and deformed. You want someone who can talk about iti better then me see this guy here https://sfdebris.com/videos/firefly/firefly9.php
@119 benw
Lol personally I feel there is a difference between being under pressure and being actively physically tortured for information but funny reference :)
@120 I’m Glad you approve
@120 Also here’s the thing with HYPOTHETICAL stress test. You can’t ever know which way you will bend, and it might be a different way in theory then reality. And each time is a new chance to break. Remember Marco from Animorphs who I mentioned earlier? Throughout the book series he was quite arguably the most Machiavellian of the Animorphs he was the one worried about weather something would work or not. He was the one pushing for the Smart option. And yet near the end of the the series when the stress gets high, he reaches this point where he’s like “this was the end of smart and the beginning of right,” and breaks and does something he WOULD NEVER ADVOCATE had the stress not gotten to him. Also despite the bad short term ramification there are ARGUABLY good unforeseen long-term ramifications down the line.
He’s not the only example of this in the series, but as he is the one character I had brought up before I thought I would mention him as an example.
@122 BenW
Very true, the thought experiments are not some clinical and verifiable absolutes. Never said they were. I just find it very interesting to question ourselves and seek deeper understanding in who we are. As Socrates said “the unexamined life is not worth living.”
@113 and @114: As far as we know, the Vengeance Pact happened because the Parshendis killed King Gavilar. The Parshendis knew they would face retribution when they decided to kill the King, hence the war in between the two nations happened for a reason. The Parshendis broke the truce, they killed the King while being guesses to this King and all of this happened because Eshonai heard of Gavilar’s plans.
Hence, the war was justified. The Parshendis did agree to this war: they were the first aggressors! They killed a man for what he said he would try to do instead of something he actually did. The war hence was warranted so saying Adolin should feel sorry for killing the people who killed his uncle, who his nations has gone into open war with for the past 7 years is really trying to make Adolin look bad in order to make Dalinar look better.
Adolin only murdered Sadeas. Dalinar murdered so many more people. He does reflect on this within Part 5.
@Lisamarie: I do feel the situations were made to make it sound as if what Dalinar did was perfectly acceptable, normal and not any worst than what other characters did, especially Adolin none of which I agree to, but these are just my impressions.
#123, @Gepeto: I say again, you can’t be serious.
Because a few leaders, who literally could fit in one room, decided to assassinate the Alethi king, that means “The Parshendi,” meaning the ENTIRE SPECIES, agreed to a war of extermination? What moral system works that way? Remind me never to step on your shadow, I’m sure you’d respond by declaring war on the entire United States of America!
@124 Gepeto
You didn’t answer my question. Put yourself in a parshendi’s shoes. If your husband was killed, would you be fine with the individual who killed him? Would you feel no anger or rage at that individual? Would you not want them punished or killed in turn? You. Not the culture over all. Not the government. Not if it is diplomatically justified. You. As a person. You viewed the Rift from the perspective of a mother of a child killed in that city, so I ask you to view Adolin from the perspective of a mate to a parshendi he has killed. Never said for Adolin to feel sorry. You were talking punishment. Would you want revenge at the death of your husband? Would you want to see Adolin punished?
edit: To give a better illustration. As the parshendi war pairs are typically also mated pairs, then you got a front row seat to watching Adolin crush in your husband’s sternum, burn out his eyes, and then horribly desecrate his corpse by kicking his body into your friends. All in Way of Kings page 380. Quotes below
“They’d noticed that the Parshendi grew enraged when you moved their dead”
“Nearby, Adolin began to lay about him with punches as the Parshendi got too close; he was fond of the tactic, switching between using his sword in two hands or one. Parshendi corpses flew this way and that, bones and armor shattered by the blows, orange Parshendi blood spraying across the ground. Adolin moved back to his Blade a moment later, kicking away a corpse.
In response to your reply to Lisamarie,
“@Lisamarie: I do feel the situations were made to make it sound as if what Dalinar did was perfectly acceptable, normal and not any worst than what other characters did, especially Adolin none of which I agree to, but these are just my impressions.”
please tell me, feel free to quote me where I said what Dalinar did was perfectly acceptable? This is the second time you took what I wrote out of context, so please provide a clear reference where I said that.