Welcome back to the Warbreaker reread! Last week, we observed growing relationship between Siri and Susebron as they continued their quest to understand the politics surrounding them. This week, Vivenna reluctantly breaks more of her own standards in her quest to guard her people from invasion.
This reread will contain spoilers for all of Warbreaker and any other Cosmere book that becomes relevant to the discussion. This is particularly likely to include Words of Radiance, due to certain crossover characters. The index for this reread can be found here.
Click on through to join the discussion!
“All right, then who were you?”
Chapter 25
Point of View: Vivenna
Setting: Various locations in T’Telir
Timing: About one month after her arrival
Take a Deep Breath
Vivenna strolls through a square in T’Telir, deeply uncomfortable with much of what she sees around her and what she herself does to avoid notice, yet also acknowledging the beauty of some things she’d always considered ostentatious. (Gardens, for example.) The normal business of the shopping district is disrupted by cries of “Help! Fire!” and she recognizes the first distraction of Denth’s plan for the day. As traffic comes to a halt, Clod steps forward and breaks the leg of one of the carriage horses, causing the carriage to tip; a trunk on the top slides off and splits open, spraying gold coins across the street and causing a very effective second distraction. Vivenna walks away, knowing that in the chaos, Denth and some hired thieves are raiding a nearby shop.
Back at their lodgings, Vivenna waits with Jewels for the others to return. Eventually, she begins to ask questions, but Jewels rejects her attempts at conversation. Attempting to understand the abrasiveness, Vivenna extends her sympathy for Jewels’s loss of her Breath as a child, but her sympathy is rejected even more forcefully than her conversation.
Several hours later, Vivenna looks out over the city, pondering the contradictions inherent in Jewels’s beliefs as well as her own. Her self-evaluation is interrupted when Denth joins her on the balcony. She asks after the job, which she hadn’t understood, and Denth explains what they did and why they did it. She finally asks him if Jewels really believes in the Hallandren religion (she does), and how that fits with working for Vivenna to undermine her own people’s ability to make war. Denth’s answer is all about how people just don’t understand mercenaries, and she turns to asking about his beliefs. He claims not to believe in anything, but Vivenna finally gets a reaction when she mentions Vasher; the conversation ends abruptly.
Breathtaking
“No price is worth a soul,” Vivenna said. “You—”
“Stop judging me!” Jewels snapped. “Kalad’s Phantoms take you, woman. I was proud to sell my Breath! I still am. A part of me lives inside the God King. Because of me, he continues to live. I’m part of this kingdom in a way that few others are.”
Jewels shook her head, turning away. “That’s why we get annoyed by you Idrians. So high, so certain that what you do is right. If your god asked you to give up your Breath—or even the Breath of your child—wouldn’t you do it? You give up your children to become monks, forcing them into a life of servitude, don’t you? That’s seen as a sign of faith. Yet when we do something to serve our gods, you twist your lips at us and call us blasphemers.”
They’re both right, and they’re both wrong, as is so often the case.
Local Color
The annotations for this chapter concern the effectiveness of the break-in, with additional comments on the Tears of Edgli and their effect on the economy and the setting; Vivenna’s conversation with Jewels and notes on the religions in the Cosmere thus far; and Vivenna’s reflections on her own beliefs as well as real world application of those thoughts.
These last two sections form the meat of the discussion today. The first one is well worth reading, too, though I won’t dig into it. I especially enjoyed the comment on designing Hallandren as the exotic “other” place—the other end of the silk road, as it were—and then making it the setting for the majority of the book.
Snow White and Rose Red
The first few times I read this chapter, I mostly rolled my eyes at Vivenna. This time, not so much; I guess I was looking more at her character development. She’s still got a long way to go, but … well, I really enjoyed this one.
So she’s been in town for a month, and is working out how to blend in without compromising her own standards too much. I find this a little heart-wrenching, actually. Whether or not you agree with those standards, they were sincerely held; now she’s wearing garish colors and yellow hair, though she’s at least managed to find a style that at least allows her to remain covered, and is maintaining an awkward balance between cognitive stability and physical discomfort. It’s important for her work that she not stand out as Idrian (much less a princess), but it’s important for her integrity that she not abandon her principles. At the same time, she is abandoning principles by paying Denth’s team to do illegal stuff: arson, destruction of property, and theft (that she knows about—we’ll wait to discuss the other purpose of this event until she learns about it). It’s an uncomfortable situation all around.
Once the job is done—and she didn’t participate, she just hung out where those who were participating could keep an eye on her at the same time—there’s some waiting to be done. This requires Vivenna and Jewels to share space… which they do very uneasily. Ultimately, Vivenna concludes that Jewels’s irritability must have something to do with being a Drab… Oops.
At twenty-two years old, having lived a very education-heavy but still very sheltered life, it hasn’t sunk in that people in other places really view Breath differently than Austrism teaches. Sure, she’s learned that the Hallandren people—the wealthy ones—are accustomed to using Breath as an economic commodity, but that’s from the perspective of those who can afford to buy extra. It’s natural, if naive, for her to expect that those who had to sell their Breath might resent its loss. Which is not to say that I think she’s right to expect it, but it makes a lot of sense given her background.
The Chapter 22 annotation explains that “most Hallandren are looking for justifications when they say that giving up one’s Breath isn’t all that damaging to them” – and that the Idrians are correct in believing that you really do lose part of your soul. Nonetheless, it’s pretty tactless to simply assume someone’s attitude, so in a way she does deserve the smackdown Jewels gives her. A question or two might have been a better approach than claiming to understand something which she clearly doesn’t! While she ends that section with a slightly sanctimonious-sounding retreat, the conversation does have an impact.
The next section has her wrestling with a concept she’s never considered before: how do you reconcile the requirement of humility with firmness of convictions?
Vivenna was trapped. The Five Visions taught that she must try to understand others. They told her not to place herself above them. And yet, Austrism taught that what Jewels had done was an abomination.
The two seemed contradictory. To believe that Jewels was wrong was to place herself above the woman. Yet to accept what Jewels said was to deny Austrism. Some might have laughed at her turmoil, but Vivenna had always tried very hard to be devout. She’d understood that she’d need strict devotion to survive in heathen Hallandren.
Heathen. Didn’t she place herself above Hallandren by calling it that word? But they were heathen. She couldn’t accept the Returned as true gods. It seemed that to believe in any faith was to become arrogant.
Also known as “caught between a rock and a hard place.” The fact that she’s facing this head-on, even if only in her own thoughts, is a sign of her maturing. She’s taking out her beliefs and assumptions, a little at a time, and reevaluating both those beliefs and herself. It’s often a valuable lesson.
Eventually, when Denth comes back, she asks him about it, and here’s where I think the underlying strength of her personality comes to the fore. Naïve as she may be, she sees through Denth’s claim that he doesn’t believe in anything. (People like to claim this, thinking they’re pretty tough because they don’t need religion, but the truth is, everyone has a set of beliefs that governs our actions. It might not be something recognized as a formal, organized religion; it might be as venal as narcissism, or as dismal as nihilism, or as vague as humanism, but everyone believes something.) Anyway, Vivenna acutely points out that Denth isn’t really the mercenary he claims to be, because she can see that he doesn’t really care about the money; in fact, the only thing that triggers genuine emotion in him is… Vasher. She doesn’t yet know why, of course, but she’s observant and insightful enough to put that much together.
She hasn’t reached a point yet where she can comprehend someone else’s perspective, but she’s got to the place where she realizes that her lack of comprehension doesn’t necessarily invalidate that perspective.
Clashing Colors
The colors definitely clash in this chapter. Vivenna’s “understanding” and her bewilderment that Jewels actually believes in the Iridescent Tones create a convincing clash indeed.
“But surely you can’t still worship those so-called gods,” Vivenna said. “Not after what was done to you.”
“What was done to me? I’ll have you know that I gave away my Breath willingly.”
“You were a child!”
“I was eleven and my parents gave me the choice. I made the right one. My father had been in the dye industry, but had slipped and fallen. The damage to his back wouldn’t allow him to work, and I had five brothers and sisters. Do you know what it’s like to watch your brothers and sisters starve? Years before, my parents had already sold their Breath to get enough money to start the business. By selling mine, we got enough money to live for nearly a year!”
Even if you didn’t believe in the Returned as gods, that would be pretty good incentive to sell your Breath, especially if you believe (or have convinced yourself) that you’re really not losing anything by it. Jewels insists that her family was blessed because of her sacrifice; whether anyone else accepts it as a miracle or not, the fact remains that her father recovered and was able to reopen the family business, and it’s still going.
Jewels has some valid points against Vivenna:
“You don’t have to believe in my miracles. You can call them accidents or coincidences, if you must. But don’t pity me for my faith. And don’t presume that you’re better, just because you believe something different.”
She doesn’t quite cross the line, at least here, but it’s worth pointing out that this demand should go both ways. If Vivenna shouldn’t presume superiority because of her beliefs, so too Jewels shouldn’t despise Vivenna for those beliefs. It comes up a lot throughout the book—every time there’s a difference in belief, and there are many, each person considers themselves the superior one. Very true to life.
In Living Color
The more I think about Denth during this reread, the more I get irritated by him. I know that the first time through, I thought he was the good guy and I was totally flummoxed when he turned out to be such a dirtbag. So now, of course, realizing what a plausible case he makes for pretty much every horrible thing he does, I just get angrier for having been taken in before.
He tells a nice tale about how mercenaries can compartmentalize their lives, and how no one understands their ability to separate themselves from the jobs they do. While Vivenna isn’t completely taken in by his line this time, it’s almost frightening to look at it in light of later events. It’s not so much that his crew is able to view themselves as tools in the hand of the employer who is ultimately responsible for the things she tells them to do… it’s more like they just don’t care about anyone or anything outside their own little group—all Jewels’s noise about serving her gods notwithstanding.
Don’t Hold Your Breath (Give it to me!)
Not really anything to say about Lifeless in this chapter, except that Clod is large and intimidating. Also, he breaks the carriage horse’s leg. Bad Clod.
Exhale
Welp. I hope that all made sense…
This particular heist will come up again later, and Vivenna will learn just how badly she underestimated Denth, but I’ll wait to address that until it comes up again. On the surface, it looks like this chapter is mostly about Vivenna’s discomfort and arrogance, but these conversations and the fallout from them will play an important role in the things to come. The “job,” the religious differences, Vivenna’s uncertainty about her role and the contradictions inherent in belief—all these will Matter as we proceed.
That’s it for the blog—now it’s time for the comments! Join us again next week, when we will cover Chapter 26 (and maybe 27) in which Lightsong attempts to continue his investigation (and Siri looks for ways to get information that don’t involve priests).
Alice Arneson is a SAHM, blogger, beta reader, and literature fan. Did you see that new progress bar for Oathbringer’s fourth draft? If it still says 4% this morning, don’t believe it; reliable authorities indicate it’s quite a bit higher than that, and will be updated soon.
I was also firmly in the hoodwinked by Denth camp. I think I might have been less sympathetic towards Vivenna had I seen through him before she did, but I didn’t.
When Vivenna started questioning the contradictions of superiority through humbleness, I was pleased. Religious zealotry isn’t an appealing quality for a protagonist.
This week I think the annotations are really the meat of the matter as Alice said.
Forgive me for quoting the whole second half.
Brandon’s annotations:
Warbeaker was released in 2009 – the annotations in 2011.
Yet Brandon’s comments on the US political elections could have been said about any election in the last 20 years.
His comments on being humble in his religion are wonderful – and again could have been said in any time in the last 20 years (or more).
I really have to applaud Brandon for holding his religious beliefs, yet is willing to write and create a divers set of religions. None are a bad parody of an Earth religion. Elements of many can be found in them, and are presented in respectful ways. It would be almost impossible to create a belief system that doesn’t sound “similar to” another belief system when you have all of human history to pull from.
So having this contrast of one true believer vs all the others – is a great way to be respectful of these beliefs.
Tears of Edgli: I’m impressed that this one flower can produce many different color dyes. I guess the only way to accept it is to think that they are as colorful as roses, and that each different color of flower, produces a matching color dye. Because to do otherwise is to way overthink his simple solution to the problem of dyes.
I’ll stop before I go into my knowledge of Earth plant dyes.
P.S. Alice, I’m really happy that TPTB on Tor dot com are keeping this rearead going. Now I just wish they would throw some money at the IT department to fix the comment boxes that have been acting oddly since the site redesign.
@1 The narrative wants the reader to believe Denth is a lovable rogue, I believed he was a loveable rogue. Oops. Sometimes Sanderson is a jerk to his characters and readers.
@2 Maybe the tears change color based on processing, like cooked to a certain temperature or mixed with other reagents?
Great post, Alice. Very thought-provoking!
Had the same thoughts as you, Braid_Tug – both about checking the dates to see which presidential election the annotation would have applied to, and to overthinking how one flower produces multiple kinds of dye!
I really liked this chapter. Having grown up Mormon in Utah, I was probably more like Vivenna than I’d like to admit when I first moved away; being surrounded by your own religion always and pretty much exclusively it’s hard to know how arrogant you really are about it. I hope I’ve gotten better about it in the last decade plus, but I think I still have days.
As for Denth… I really liked and trusted him the first time. It’s amazing the amount of hints I should have picked up on and didn’t the first time. That’s what makes Sanderson the best I guess.
Im also with 2 @Braid_Tug. So happy this reread is continuing!!! (At least for now?!) So many others that I’d started checking in on have gone, it makes me sad. If this one is gone it will be pointless to have a login here anymore; I won’t be coming to the site like I have been.
As I’ve stated previously, I didn’t trust Denth’s “mercenary humor” in the slightest. But I still didn’t notice how apathetic he seemed to be about everything. Everything, that is, except Vasher. I was so focused on what he could do to Vivenna, what he’d already done to Vivenna, that I neglected to question why. This reread is giving me a bit more sympathy for Vivenna, given how it points out how thoroughly discombobulated she is by it all, but she’s still a naive princess at this point, and will remain so until her… adventure, let’s call it, next time.
I always assumed that the Tears of Edgli naturally came in multiple different colors, like a poppy field but with each flower a different hue. There’d be an extensive sorting process (probably with a 3rd-Heightening Awakener on staff to oversee it), and processing afterwards would even out the colors, plus set the saturation to the right tone.
All my sympathy to Vivenna here. I know how it feels to be required, for the first time, to listen to people whose opinions contradict my fundamental beliefs. To struggle with the feeling that if they’re not wrong then I must be wrong, and how can I believe anything if multiple conflicting perspectives aren’t wrong then how can any be right? This was about environmentalism ad activism, not religion as such, but it was the existential crisis of a freshman at College of Skepticism the Atlantic. It haunts me still, hindering my ability to argue anything.
It was presumptive of her to say what she said to Jewels. But I felt the pain of that first verbal punch.
(Projecting much? Yes).
The top of a carriage seems a risky place to put a trunk full of coins. Am I forgetting something?
I too was completely fooled by Denth.
I actually was much more inclined to be sympathetic to Vivenna than to Siri, even from the beginning of the story. It took me a little bit to warm up to Siri (I found her rebelliousness somewhat irritating), but I found Vivenna interesting immediately. By the end of the novel, I had come to like Siri only slightly less than Vivenna.
Great post, Alice!
First, a bit of warning: this post will be relatively long and will involve religious and theological discussion as well as a bit of politics. Skip it if you aren’t interested in those things.
Thinking about Vivenna’s religious conundrum, one of the fine distinctions in belief, especially one that preaches humility, is the bifurcation between the believer and the thing believed in.
To start, I’m going to go ahead and state that it is, or at least ought to be, fundamental to any system of belief that one hold that the belief is the truth and that any competing belief is therefore not true. Certainly there are a few philosophical schools that are exceptional in that regard, but they are not the norm and trying to force such on a system that does not allow for competing truth undermines that system. In other words, almost all belief systems hold that they have a monopoly on truth, whether in whole or in part, and that even if there is room for other belief systems if they are complementary, there can be no room for beliefs that are contradictory.
Take, for example (since it’s what I know best), Christianity. The Christian is called to humility and servitude, but is also called to defend the truth of Christ, the Crucifixion, and the Resurrection and to deny all false gods, false religions, and false teachings that claim to be Christian. The balancing act is to be humble in yourself but proud in Christ, to be humble as a believer but proud of what you believe. All too many people (likely including myself) are proud of themselves for their belief, even though it isn’t really they who believe under their own will but rather the Holy Spirit who allows them to believe despite that will.
The conversation then between a Christian and a heretic, pagan, or atheist, should not be one between the two individuals, it should not involve the Christian attacking the other for persisting in his mis- or unbelief, but rather it should address the merits of the respective belief systems themselves, with the Christian doing the part of the sower, planting seeds that the Holy Spirit will cause to grow. Of course, the other party should be doing the same, instead of attacking the Christian directly and mocking belief, he should be discussing the nature of the respective beliefs and explaining why he believes as he does and why he rejects the teachings of the Church.
That kind of dialog would also be useful in other contexts, such as political ones. Imagine how much more productive political discourse would be if people actually argued on the principles underlying their beliefs. If a Republican would not attack a Democrat as a godless socialist murderer but rather would explain the fundamental principles that he accepts and how they inform any proposed course of action, and if a Democrat would not attack a Republican as a sexist racist homophobe but rather would explain the foundations for his beliefs and how they inform his proposed policies and actions, then not only would political discourse be far more polite and productive, there might even be some kind of common ground on policy where the divergent underlying principles can allow the two parties (or Parties in this case) to reach at least similar conclusions.
Vivenna’s crisis of conscience, in the context of the above, strikes me as a little bit artificial, actually. It’s possible that Austrism lacks something akin to the Christian sense of sinfulness (as in, all of Creation is in a state of sinfulness, meaning that all things are unnaturally divided from a right relationship with God, and nothing that was made can under its own power bridge that divide), but it does seem to have a sense of Austre seeing all people as equal and also to have some concept of sin. If I can assume that belief in sin also incorporates a belief in sinfulness, then Vivenna ought to see herself as a sinner as much as the heathens whose belief she despises. The fact that she is educated does her no credit in comparison to those who are ignorant, as she still sins despite her education (indeed, her sins would be worse as they are done despite knowledge, while the sins of the heathen would be done in ignorance).
Alternatively, if Austrism believes in what amounts to works-righteousness, or the idea that people can through their own efforts remain free of sin, then there is not state of sinfulness as such and Vivenna’s religious confusion becomes more understandable. There would be a fundamental contradiction between righteousness and humility, since righteousness would come from within a person, thereby making that person better than a less righteous fellow. If one person is better than another, then humility on the part of the better one would be dishonesty. This would be in contrast to the aforementioned Christian understanding, where righteousness doesn’t come from the individual or his own merits but rather is accounted to him by virtue of Christ.
This particular section is what strikes me the most. Believing that “to believe that Jewels was wrong was to place herself above the woman” seems to suggest that belief is an entirely voluntary and self-directed thing, in which case lack of belief would indeed be a failing. If a religion concerns itself with virtue ranking, then it would seem inherent to that religion that believers are indeed better than heathens. Yet for that same religion to forbid placing one’s self above others would seem to be contradictory. Perhaps it is Vivenna’s understanding of her own religion that is flawed…
Interesting points, Porphyrogenitus. As an atheist reading this, I would contrast your interpretation of Christianity[1] with traditional Hinduism, in which a person’s current status is by definition what they deserve (due to karma, universal justice). In Hinduism it is specifically a person’s will and choices which determine that person’s fate (again, in a traditional interpretation of Hindu belief). This is directly contradictory to Vivenna’s thoughts about Austrism or the Hallandren beliefs about the Gods and such.
The truth is, of course, that we don’t know enough about either religion or the “real” state of affairs (e. g. the relationship between Austre and Endowment) to fully understand, and this is most certainly by the author’s design.
[1]I don’t mean that you are just making up this Christian doctrine, just that it isn’t universally accepted among Christian believers–for instance, what you write would seem to utterly disagree with the Calvinist belief in the Elect. When there are a billion people in any group, they will not universally agree on things!
Another great post Alice. :-)
In here, Vivenna seem more approachable, even more human. :-) Her character is growing.
Porphyrogenitus @9 – very nice essay! I’ve been trying to comment on it for days, but with no luck. Anyway, I enjoyed your thoughts. That’s roughly where I wanted to go with this, but ran out of time and energy to get it written.
Also, I see nothing that a Calvinist would disagree with. Hyper-Calvinist, maybe.
Calvin himself would disagree, but I guess he’s as hyper-Calvinist as possible ….
You’re going to have to be more specific. I see nothing Calvin would argue. (And no, John Calvin would not be considered “hyper-Calvinist.” That title is for those who, not understanding him, take certain issues to extremes with no Biblical justification.)
“John Calvin held a view on predestination sometimes referred to as “double predestination.” This is the view that God has actively chosen some people for damnation as well as for salvation.” From Wikipedia, but it’s well-sourced and not the first or only place you find that stated.
carlf @15 – Yes, I understand Calvin’s view on predestination. (Full disclosure – I’m Calvinist myself.) What I’m not seeing is where Porphyrogenitus contradicted that.
The idea that one’s own will makes any difference toward salvation, when salvation (in the Christian sense) is predetermined (in Calvinism). Free will does not exist in Calvinism.
I’m coming at this as a nonbeliever, so the Christian (for many sects) paradox that allows for both free will and predestination is not going to make sense to me.
@17 Are you familiar with the story of the Scorpion and the Frog? “A scorpion asks a frog to carry it across a river. The frog hesitates, afraid of being stung, but the scorpion argues that if it did so, they would both drown. Considering this, the frog agrees, but midway across the river the scorpion does indeed sting the frog, dooming them both. When the frog asks the scorpion why, the scorpion replies that it was in its nature to do so. When the frog asks the scorpion why, the scorpion replies that it was in its nature to do so.”
One could argue it is that sort of thing. That they have the ABILITY to choose one way or the other but because of their nature, for good or for ill will only make one choice.
Regarding the Tears of Edgli, I believe they are more than simple flowers. I don’t think anything’s been confirmed, but if you don’t mind Cosmere spoilers, you can look up Edgli on the Coopermind wiki.
Oops. Coppermind
carlf @17 – Free will does, absolutely, exist in Calvinism – just not in your assumptions about Calvinism. “I’m coming at this as a nonbeliever, so the Christian (for many sects) paradox that allows for both free will and predestination is not going to make sense to me.”
This particular argument always makes me laugh a little, because it’s exactly what 1 Corinthians 2:14 says: “But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.” The arrogant notion that a mere human can judge God’s design and purpose is … well, laughable. If the only god you can accept is one that fits inside your human understanding, you’re doomed to have a very, very small god – and not one worthy of worship, trust, or even acknowledgement. To have someone say that they can’t accept Christianity because they can’t comprehend the paradox just makes me shake my head. Of course you can’t comprehend it. That’s why it’s called a paradox. That doesn’t make it any less valid – it just means that the limited human brain can’t wrap around it.
Wetlandernw @21, the trouble is, that logic can literally be used to justify any conclusion: your judgment is flawed, so don’t use it. Just take the word of [insert prophet here].
Sorry, no.
Should I repeat the bit about the Scorpion and the Frog?
@21 Wetlandernw
The Bible is infallible, because the Bible says it is! I’m Christian, and I can still see the problems with that argument. Circular logic is inherently flawed; if someone already trusts the Bible completely, then they don’t need to be convinced, and if they don’t believe the Bible is infallible, they’re not going to take the Bible’s word that they’re wrong.
Predestination requires us to believe that God has decided to torture some of his beloved children forever, and that he made this decision before they were born, before they had any chance to sin. If God does this, then God is totally depraved beyond the imagination of any human criminal or tyrant; if men worship this kind of God, then we are worshiping evil because it is big and powerful.
The idea of a God outside of morality separates God’s power from his goodness, suggesting that slavery or torture could be “good” if God decided they were, and that feeding the hungry and giving sight to the blind could be “evil” if God said so. Thankfully, we have Christ’s example to show us that this is not so. Jesus taught through his words and his actions, and he showed us that we could know God’s purpose and design; it involves feeding the hungry, healing the sick, and forgiving sinners. Our Savior “suffered the children to come unto him” rather than casting them into hell, and I suspect that he knows his Father’s mind better than John Calvin.
@23 BenW
I liked the story of the Scorpion and the Frog, but people aren’t scorpions. We have choices.
Now, the idea of God preemptively knowing what choice we make, but not directly controlling our choice, seems to be compatible with free will. The idea of God sending a two year old to hell after they get hit by a bus is not. Two year old children are not moral actors; they do not understand good or evil, nor are they capable of understanding.
Without deviating into discussion of whether a loving, merciful God would torture his children forever, there is a difference between a God who would condemn people to suffer forever for actions and choices they made as adults and a God who decides that toddlers should suffer forever because…he said so.
@25 I am not sure I believe in that idea myself, I just wanted to make sure you knew you were aware of it
@25 In any case I am not a Calvinist so much as a lapsed Catholic and one of the cores of Catholic doctrine is that if you don’t know something is a sin your ignorance can not be held against you. This even holds true for mortal sins. Or maybe it is only mortal sins. I did mention I am lapsed.
I know this is straying a bit from the actual topic of the post, but the discussion is interesting.
First, an explanation of where my viewpoint is based. I’m an Orthodox Christian (Greek, specifically), a Romano-Byzantine enthusiast, and a strict-constructionist Constitutionalist (in the American political context).
Now on to the actual post:
Regarding free will and predestination, as I understand it Orthodoxy teaches that certain people are elect (or predestined to salvation). That does not necessarily require that all who are saved are elect, nor does it require that those who are not elected to salvation must instead be elected to damnation. Indeed, Hell was not prepared for people at all, but rather for the devil and his angels. Only by affiliating yourself with Satan by rejecting Christ do you condemn yourself to his fate.
My understanding of the Calvinist position (perhaps only the five-points Calvinists?), based largely on some college studies and some devoted Calvinists who I knew there, is that predestination does in fact include all those who are saved being elected to salvation, and all those who are damned being elected to damnation. This is commonly known as double predestination, which is in contrast to single predestination which is the Lutheran position (IIRC), namely, that those who are saved are elected to salvation, but those who are damned are not elected to damnation but rather bring it upon themselves. The subtle distinction becomes that all men would by nature bring damnation upon themselves, and only Grace which is gifted to those who are predestined to salvation allows them to believe.
Again, as I am neither Lutheran nor Calvinist, merely having studied both to some small extent and having known members of both denominations (I did go to a Lutheran school and had to take confirmation classes though everyone knew I would not be leaving Orthodoxy), my understanding of both is likely flawed. Even my grasp of Orthodox teachings is limited, as I am not a theologian nor did I attend seminary. Please correct me if I got anything wrong.
The apparent paradox would lie in the idea that foreknowledge must equal predestination (I personally think that this is the root of one of the traps in which the Calvinists have fallen). However, like any question involving time, it is possible to make or break an argument based on what assumptions you start with.
If you know that somebody made a decision, does that mean that the person in question never had a choice? Did the fact that I know that so many of you have posted replies to this thread mean that you were bound to post those replies and never actually could have chosen not to submit your posts? As I type this I could easily decide to discard all of my work and simply close the tab without posting, or I could choose to submit the post. Does the fact that you are reading it mean that I didn’t actually have a choice about it but rather only thought that I did?
The same question applies to an entity that exists independently of the material world. If such an entity (God in the Christian context) were to look at creation, it (or He) would see it in all dimensions, even time, and as such would be able to observe things that from our perspective have yet to come to pass. Does that mean that the entire system is locked? Does it mean that everything is predetermined and nobody has a choice about anything that happens? Or does it simply mean that within the universe choice still exists and the outside viewpoint simply sees what the actors within actually chose in the moment?
In an effort to bring this back around to the actual reread, does anyone know if Brandon Sanderson intends at some point to write a sequel to Warbreaker, or at least to reveal some additional details about the setting? The particulars of Austrims specifically could be incredibly interesting, especially in relationship to the rival belief systems and to the meta narrative of the shards and the rest of the Cosmere.
If you claim to be a Christian, read Romans 9 before you tell me God can’t choose some of his creatures for glory and some for damnation. The idea that all humans are “his beloved children” is so unbiblical as to be almost hilarious. Remember that bit where Jesus tells the Pharisees that they are of their father, the devil? All humans are God’s creation – not all are His children.
As for “the Bible is true because it says it’s true”… there is more literary and historical evidence of the veracity of the Bible than there is of any other body of work older than about 1200 A.D. That aside, the relative validity of the converse argument should also be pointed out: “The Bible can’t be believed because I don’t believe it.” In any such discussion, you have to acknowledge your presuppositions. I have freely acknowledged that I believe the Bible; carlf has freely acknowledged that he doesn’t, and we were discussing Calvinist theology. Is this a problem for anyone?
ETA – I thought I’d posted this about 4 hours ago. Oops.
Re: the Warbreaker sequel – Yes, there is supposed to be a sequel at some point. As far as I know, it’s main plot will concern Nightblood, and how/why he and Vasher ended up on Roshar. I, too, would love to see more details of Austrism, but I don’t know that we’ll get much.
@29 Wetlandernw
“Father, forgive them, for they know what what they do.” Jesus said those words to his Father about the men who were crucifying him. If Christ could look with love upon the men who were torturing him to death- if he could see them as his Father’s children, worthy of forgiveness, in the very moment of his agony- I cannot imagine who would be beyond mercy.
I do claim to be a Christian. I worship the God who offered forgiveness to the soldiers who crucified his son, the God who came to Saul, the murderer of his followers, and offered a second chance on the Road to Damascus. Saul was one of the Pharisees that you believe were somehow beyond God’s mercy, and he became an apostle.
The burden of proof lies with the party who makes a claim. If I say that I have a magical unicorn pony that is invisible to everyone but me, you wouldn’t reply, “Of course I believe you! I can’t prove that your magical unicorn isn’t fake, so I’ll just assume you’re right!” You would insist that I prove the existence of my magical unicorn before you believed in it.
Simply taking books, or people, at their word because you can’t immediately prove that they’re wrong is a good way to buy swampland in Florida. The Bible can be believed, but only through careful consideration and thought, not through simple acceptance that a book should be trusted when it tells you it’s trustworthy. That’s just bad life choices.
I have no problem with this discussion, though I do feel that Calvinist theology represents a particularly wrong turn in Christian thought, a mindset that insists God’s infinite mercy and love have to be rationed like water in the desert rather than pouring out like a river. The centurion who oversaw Jesus’s crucifixion and Saul of Tarsus both sinned greatly against God, but he treated them as “lost lambs”. Most Christians accept this, but Calvinists reject it, preferring a God who loves only a select number of his children, like the angry older son who insists that his father should not so easily forgive the prodigal.
Christ’s own words on the cross, the Parable of the Prodigal Son, the example of the Apostle Paul…there are countless Biblical examples of God’s infinite mercy, but Calvinists simply overlook the parts of Scripture they don’t like in favor of an exclusive club that allows them to view their fellow children of God as less than a special “elect”. God will, of course, forgive them.
I can’t go back and comment on every single post that I missed, but I did want to comment here as this is actually one of my favorite parts of the book, and why I actually very much enjoyed Vivenna’s journey (I can understand that as a character she is off putting to some people, but I still enjoyed reading her). It may be simply because I definitely am more like her than Siri – I was never a rebellious person.
I will not open up the other can of worms here regarding grace/salvation but I’ll just throw in my hat as somebody who is a practicing Roman Catholic – and in my 20s definitely had some of the obnoxious self-assured zeal Vivenna displays at times. I am no less Catholic nowadays, but the paradox between conviction and humility is one worth thinking about every day. Which is why I have always appreciated Sanderson’s books; even if the religions in his framework are themselves ultimately not what they seem, I always appreciate the portrayals of these kinds of intellectual questions especially in people of faith, instead of portraying them as either hyper pious, or hypocritical, or having faith merely be a window dressing.
More to the point of the chapter though (maybe missing my own point), while I still empathize with Jewels (especially the way Viv condescends to her)…it’s hard for me not to still feel that Vivenna is ‘more’ right here (especially as we have the outside knowledge that giving up your Breath really does impact a person). A choice made to escape crushing poverty isn’t the free-est of choices. It might be easier to swallow were it not a child having to make that choice.
As near as I can tell losing your breath impacts your immune system and your emotional well being. You get sick easily, you are irritable and prone to negative emotional states. Sounds like me without my medication.
These negative aspects could be somewhat counteracted by rationalizations and positive feedback. Jewels is the girl who saved her family, that gains her status with them. She brought a divine blessing upon them, her father got better because of her. She can be proud of that. She can be proud of her bond to the God King and through him to the whole kingdom. That’s a whole lot of positive feelings.
A drab who gave up their breath to a God probably feels a whole lot different about it than somebody who just sold it to another person. More noble, even holy. That sense of uplift could be very helpful dealing with the depressions and irritations.