Timewaster's Guide Archive
Local Authors => Brandon Sanderson => Topic started by: charity on January 23, 2008, 03:03:24 PM
-
My husband and I were having an argument about this (the friendly type...promise there was no yelling ;))
HE says that Kelsier is tall and well muscled. A very tough looking character that the scars on his arms only intensified.
I said that I thought Kelsier was a tall, skinny guy, a little worse for the wear, since he's been to the Pits and it's done it's dirty work on him. Like someone whose spent time doing hard labor and never fully recovered from it.
My husband said I'm wierd, and wrong. (he says I'm weird alot, so I wasn't so offended)
What do you think? Or maybe EUOL can tell us so that I can go back to him with an accurate answer.
-
He looks like me.
In fact, the character was based on me. Because I started a religion and have hundreds of followers. Only they didn't wait for me to die first.
-
So does that mean your only barely hanging onto your sanity? that you have scars up your arms? And that really didn't answer my question... ;) are you skinny and a little worse for the wear or are you well muscled and tough?
Either way, though, you'll still be a little unhinged.
-
I think THSGRHPMoME's packing a little extra in his badunka dunk so.....
Actually, others on this board have suggested he might look a little like Nathan Fillion (http://news.filefront.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/08/nathanfillion1.jpg). The suggestions are in the 'If Mistborn were made into a movie' thread.
When I was reading it however, I always imagined him looking more like a skinnier, blonder Aragorn.
Hope that helps.
-
I'll settle this once and for all.
Kelsier = Owen Wilson
-
Skinny Kelsier?
I can't exactly go back and quote, but I usually try to read a character's description thouroughly and think about it for a minute, so I base my mental pictures on specific phrases in the writing.
I remember thinking when I read Mistborn1, Kelsier must look like a burly Irish guy with reddish blonde hair and blotchy skin, but sort of tame in a handsome way that makes him look lean and tidy.
That said, sometimes when my mind dislikes the way the author portrays a character, my subconscious changes the image halfway through the story. That's why I still think Johnny Depp would make a fine Kelsier in the movie.
-
When I was reading it however, I always imagined him looking more like a skinnier, blonder Aragorn.
Woah, that's exactly along the same lines that I was thinking!
-
Woah, that's exactly along the same lines that I was thinking!
Maybe great minds do think alike.
Ok, I'm thinking of a word and it's definitely not kitty. Can you guess what it is? ;D
-
Ummm... puppy? ;D
-
Ummm... puppy? ;D
Ahhh!!! Get out of my head! Get out of my head!
-
So does that mean your only barely hanging onto your sanity? that you have scars up your arms? And that really didn't answer my question... ;) are you skinny and a little worse for the wear or are you well muscled and tough?
Either way, though, you'll still be a little unhinged.
wow, now I know I think of the character differently. I don't know that there was any evidence to support the idea that Kelsier was right on the edge of needed to be institutionalized. Perhaps a bit eccentric, but hardly on the fringes of sanity.
-
Come on! He's got this hatred for the nobility that goes beyond normal. He's cold about it. I'm not saying he's like Mr. voice of God in his head (what's his name, Zane? I'm forever forgetting the names of characters, after reading so many books, it's all kind of melded together) but he's definitely got some issues he needs to work on.
He's nearly unhinged like Sirius Black is nearly unhinged. Gone through horrible experiences they didn't deserve and now they can't get over it to the point that they are heartless and reckless. NOT normal behavior, IMO.
-
I really don't think his hatred is that abnormal, actually. It sounds as if your suggesting at least 50% of the population of the world needs serious counseling. Which means that "stable" doesn't reflect a normative behavior. If that's the case, aren't we just saying that "normal" means "Like me"? Which in the end sounds exactly what you're trying to argue against -- the persecution of a group because they are different from you.
So no, I still can't see your point in saying that he's psychotic or whatever psychiatric term you think is appropriate.
And Sirius Black is only nearly unhinged because Rowling says "he's unhinged." I don't believe we ever actually see any unhinged behavior. He rebels against authority, true, but is that insane? Hardly.
-
well, I do think that at least 50% of the worlds population probably does need counseling. And no, I did not say he was crazy I said he was nearly crazy... or at least that's what I meant.
And now we are talking about characters in books as if they are real people, this always gets me back to reality. You said
Sirius Black is only nearly unhinged because Rowling says "he's unhinged."
that's the clincher there. We can argue forever about whether or not kelsier was nutso, but since he's a product of EUOL's mind, then I suppose he's the only one who really can say.
And Sirius Black does react in some situations in a not so stable manner, like when he refers to Harry as James.
-
Wow... go from discussing the way a character looks to if he's crazy. And I think to an extent he is slightly crazy, but it's more of a Crazy Genius. I mean, you have to be slightly off base from what most people thing (thus being slightly crazy) in order to come up with something no one else has ever done, give it the passion and the drive to make it seem possiable, and then go off and do it. Crazy? Yes, but also a genius.
As for the looks, didn't EUOL say that one of candylion's pics of Kelsier looked exactly like he was imagining? If so, why not look at that... easy answer. *peace*
-
Charity, but that Sirius Black behavior isn't nearly borderline crazy. I have four kids, and sometimes I have to say four names before I say the right one. Frequently I will call Maire by "Rachael" and not even notice I did it. What's crazy about that?
If 50% of the world needs counseling, then as I said, your judgement of what's crazy isn't based on a normative behavior, I think. So, when you say I'm barely clinging to my sanity, it doesn't mean much to me. Especially with the very normal behavioral things that you seem to think are unbalanced.
-
Wow... go from discussing the way a character looks to if he's crazy. And I think to an extent he is slightly crazy, but it's more of a Crazy Genius. I mean, you have to be slightly off base from what most people thing (thus being slightly crazy) in order to come up with something no one else has ever done, give it the passion and the drive to make it seem possiable, and then go off and do it. Crazy? Yes, but also a genius.
Thank you. Agreed.
Ehler's I have three kids, and I agree at times it is hard to keep their names straight, but it's not exactly the same, as you ought to know. Are you arguing just to argue? ;)
I like Rainbow's definition, it's a genius thing. And I often don't make sense, even to myself, so don't worry to much ;) BUT, I didn't say you were barely clinging to your sanity. You did! You said you were like Kelsier, that he was based on you.
AND, the whole team thinks he's crazy too. They even say it. And he agree's.
-
As far as Kelsier being "crazy" goes, I think maybe he would have a little of the mad scientist look. A blonde Aragorn plus the mad scientist look? I don't even know if that works... maybe "rakish" is the word we're looking for here....
Ummm... puppy? ;D
Ahhh!!! Get out of my head! Get out of my head!
bwahahaha... I knew you were going to say that.
;)
-
wouldn't rakish imply
a man who is licentious;
(that's from the dictionary.com for rake).
-
Ehler's I have three kids, and I agree at times it is hard to keep their names straight, but it's not exactly the same, as you ought to know. Are you arguing just to argue? ;)
No, not at all. I fail to see a difference. It would be abnormal for Harry *not* to remind him of James. What's substantively different there?
Yes, he says he's crazy. And I say I'm going to stab something when I'm frustrated. Do I ever actually stab something? No. Do I ever actually INTEND to stab something? no. Do I ever actually SERIOUSLY feel like ACTUALLY stabbing something? No. Taking a comment like that literally is, itself, a sign of being a bit crazy.
He actually has a solid, well planned, thoroughly reasoned, farseeing, and above all WORKABLE plan for accomplishing something that they thought might be impossible. That's the *opposite* of crazy. But what would be the point of saying "no i'm not. It will work because of x, y, and z"? Even if they DID mean it literally that he was crazy, you've created a paradox. "Who's the greater fool? The fool or the fool who follows him?" If they know he's crazy, than *they* are by definition crazy for going along with the plan. Being crazy, isn't their judgement of what's crazy more than a little suspect?
-
Yes, he says he's crazy. And I say I'm going to stab something when I'm frustrated. Do I ever actually stab something? No. Do I ever actually INTEND to stab something? no. Do I ever actually SERIOUSLY feel like ACTUALLY stabbing something? No. Taking a comment like that literally is, itself, a sign of being a bit crazy.
I can't believe we're arguing this. But he isn't like you in that he does intend to stab them. He goes around killing people callously because of their birth, and he enjoys fighting Inquisitor's when any normal person would be scared spitless.
Admit it, he's a bit off the average.
And Sirius saw Harry as James, not just called him that. She makes that clear outside and inside the story.
-
wouldn't rakish imply a man who is licentious;
(that's from the dictionary.com for rake).
My OED (Oxford English Dictionary for those of you who aren't English majors ;D ) defines it as "having or displaying a dashing, jaunty, or slightly disreputable quality in appearance" or "trim and fast-looking," and "devil-may-care".
That's more of what I was going for....
-
I can't believe we're arguing this. But he isn't like you in that he does intend to stab them. He goes around killing people callously because of their birth, and he enjoys fighting Inquisitor's when any normal person would be scared spitless.
Admit it, he's a bit off the average.
And Sirius saw Harry as James, not just called him that. She makes that clear outside and inside the story.
No no no no. Now you're taking it out of context. *I* say I'm going to stab them, non literally. He says he's going to stab them, not because of his emotional alienation from them, but because it's part of his plan. The statement that we're taking nonliterally from him is that it's "i'm crazy." Try to keep up here. Wanting to kill someone does *not* automatically make you unstable. He holds a different set of morals and ethics than you do. Is everyone with a different set of behavioral standards from you nearly crazy? That doesn't make sense. He is perhaps a bit more loose in what he calls a justification for killing, but he is not just killing every noble because they're nobles. He's doing it because killing them will advance a plan that will bring MORE justice to MORE people.
You haven't yet presented a solid argument for why he's nearly crazy, so I can't admit it. On many points, I agree with his behavior from an objective points of view. On those that I don't agree (such as the murder and such) I can see how a rational person could come to that conclusion.
Perhaps I will need to re-read the passage about Sirius -- though it holds no bearing on the Kelsier discussion. Though "outside the story" holds little to no weight. If the character doesn't behave crazy, he's not crazy. Saying "He's crazy," especially outside of the narrative, just indicates poor writing.
-
He holds a different set of morals and ethics than you do. Is everyone with a different set of behavioral standards from you nearly crazy? That doesn't make sense.
Since someone being willing to perform acts that observers would consider abhorrent (rampant murder of nobles on general principle in this case) unavoidably implies that they have different morals and ethics than those observers, we've got a nice circular argument here.
Since the morals and ethics of any given person are only really observable through their behavior, especially in books (as Ehlers points out by rejecting extratextual sources about Sirius Black) then we must assume that a character's morals and ethics closely match their behavior, (unless explicitly stated otherwise in the text). And since Ehlers insists that having different morals and ethics than the observer doesn't make the observed crazy (see above), it follows that no one is crazy, no matter what they do. Ergo, Kelsier is not crazy and Ehlers is right.
You've found a brick wall here Charity. But don't feel bad, most people on this forum have bloody foreheads and brick dust in their hair.
-
I'd like to point out that there are different levels of crazy. There's the "Quick, lock him away. He's a danger to himself and everyone else around him," kind. There's the "Slightly off his rocker, and not able to funtion in the normal way, but harmless none the less" crazy (a lot of your crazy old ladies in stories fit in this. They don't make any sense in what they say, live in the past, and are barking mad, but not going to cause any problems.) There's the "for the most part not able to work with normal people but every once in a while comes up with the amazing idea that helps you in a pinch." (This is like Adien would have been before the AonDor was restored, had he popped up with the number of steps like he does.) then there's the "Has weird passions, loves things that most people don't, has habits that are a bit too weird for normal people, but they can do what most people do -- just not without being looked at weird." Crazy. I fit into this catagory, as does, I think, Kelsier (though on different levels). I personally think Enstine was on this level as well. (Did you know that even though he could do those insanely hardmath problems he couldn't count his pocket change?) He's not normal in any sense of the word. He doesn't act like most people do. If he isn't careful he'll move up into the next step and be truly crazy. Right now he's harmless, but still a bit off his rocker, and not living with the rest of the world, but he can do what normal people do when he needs/wants to.
-
ah, no.
You've equated my statement that different morals and ethics always involves killing
Some people think that homosexuality is not immoral. Others consider it immoral. Does that make one side or the other crazy? If you say so, than honestly, you frighten me. Yes, I insist that "different morals and ethics than the observer doesn't make the observed crazy" but I have *not* made the argument that no one is crazy, nor do I intend to. Nor does that follow from my arguments. That's *your* input, thank you. Nice straw man though.
No, a difference in morals and ethics does not mean a person is crazy, but that doesn't mean a crazy person can't have different morals and ethics.
No, there's no circular argument there. You simply need to demonstrate to me with more specific arguments. To take Skar's statement, is it "rampant murder?" seems to me it was more targeted. There's also the question of what motivates the murders. It's unquestionable that Kelsier hates nobles and thinks they're better off dead, but he isn't killing them willy nilly, nor is he systematically killing all of them. He's selecting targets in order to cause more damage than the killing itself in order to achieve a strategic advantage.
Sort of like killing enemy combatants in order to disable an advantage they have or maintain your own.
So maybe by your argument anyone in the military, or at least in a position of command regarding the military, is doing something abhorrant. I know that YOU, skar, definitely don't agree with that. The question then, is NOT is he killing them, but is he justified in killing them. I don't see that he's doing anything insane here by killing these people.
I like how not being convinced of something else makes me unreasonable in my arguments though. That was a nice touch. Also a nice companion to the currently popular theory that if you *do* change your position you're a "flip flopper" or a "waffler." There seems to be no winning. If you don't change your mind, you're arrogent and unreasonable. If you do, you're weak and undependable.
*shakes head*
Now, that we've both gotten our shots in Skar, should we try again and perhaps find *real* flaws in the arguments instead of making them up about the person making them?
@ rainbow: "Has weird passions, loves things that most people don't, has habits that are a bit too weird for normal people, but they can do what most people do -- just not without being looked at weird." I find it irresponsible to call this "crazy." It has an undeserved stigma attached to it, and doesn't accurately approach the issue of difference at hand. I like collecting action figures. "Most people" don't do this and consider it "weird." That makes me a step or two away from dangerous? How does that follow. HOnestly, this is the sort of thinking that alienates people. Actually treating people that are different like their minds don't work right WILL drive them to insanity. Not because something was wrong to start with, but because they've been alienated and treated as damaged.
None of that seems to apply to Kelsier. He's *revered* for his differences. And his differences are rationally based. His interests are not very different from those of his peers. He doesn't actually do anything that different either.
-
He doesn't act like most people do. If he isn't careful he'll move up into the next step and be truly crazy. Right now he's harmless, but still a bit off his rocker, and not living with the rest of the world, but he can do what normal people do when he needs/wants to.
Thankyou for saying what I was trying to say. Yes, Skar, my head is hurting a bit... is that why?
And Ehlers you keep talking about his well planned killing... okay, that's smart, but he's heartless about it, he's cold and heartless and enjoys it and to me those aren't the types of behaviors a normal person has. Add to that his internment in the Pits and what Rainbow said fits.
-
wow. It's like you don't even read what I write.
or else you think that by not agreeing with you, even when I explain why, I'm inherintly and unreasonably obstinate.
-
Actually I didn't read what you wrote... cause I was posting too. ;)
And he's not revered for his differences until AFTER he's dead... everyone goes along with him cause they trust him. Not because they revere him
-
But your probably right. He's more eccentric than crazy.
and ehler's this is just for you, my husbands response to the same question:
Nope I don’t think he is portrayed as insane in the least. If anything at all, the brilliance of his plan, and the accuracy of his prediction how the mass would react to his death, and his foresight in having his Kandra convince everyone he is a god show up show him extremely sane.
-
FINALLY we're getting somewhere. I don't recall very many descriptions of him performing the killings (but it's possible that it's simply been too long. But you do have a point. He does seem to have extremely little regret about the necessity of what he does -- as evidenced by his conversations, particularly with Vin, about why he does it. And I am forced to concur that this does not seem to be healthy. So maybe a little bit crazy?
Still, he hates them, and does think they'll be in the way. His practical experience doesn't give him a lot of reason to *not* think they're a hinderance. But that is countered by the fact that I don't perceive that he's ever *tried* to see if they're useful, though that's largely inference. He comes across as having similar bigotry problems to your average racist. So it's not what I'd call abnormal behavior, but it is behavior that is, in my understanding, antithetical to societal stability and growth, which I can accept as a provisional descriptor of some types of "crazy."
hrm. I sound like I'm trying to say I guess I'm wrong without saying that. Maybe I'll leave it as that. Though it's not the sort of crazy that I was thinking of.
and yay for justification! There's a lot of sanity there, imo. But there are near crazy problems, I'm ready to admit. They're just not traits that are central to his plan.
-
Still, he hates them, and does think they'll be in the way. His practical experience doesn't give him a lot of reason to *not* think they're a hinderance. But that is countered by the fact that I don't perceive that he's ever *tried* to see if they're useful, though that's largely inference.
Agreed.
Though I think when Vin falls for Elend this gives Kelsier the first opportunity to see them as something other than 'the enemy' and allows him the chance to see them differently. Of course Elend doesn't help that along by running into the crowds trying to find her...
-
So it's not what I'd call abnormal behavior, but it is behavior that is, in my understanding, antithetical to societal stability and growth, which I can accept as a provisional descriptor of some types of "crazy."
hrm. I sound like I'm trying to say I guess I'm wrong without saying that. Maybe I'll leave it as that. Though it's not the sort of crazy that I was thinking of.
So, someone can be considered crazy over behaviors that are perfectly in line with their morals and ethics. Excellent. You broke the circle.
-
Skar, it IS like YOU don't actually read my posts. There never *was* a circle. I simply said that someone else's behavior outside of your own code of morals and ethics does not mean they are crazy. What you inferred from that was neither intended nor does it necessarily follow from what I said.
But then it would be against your nature to realize that you made a mistake in understanding what I said.
-
My sincerest apologies for the snark. It was uncalled for.
I did, however, read your post and the below is a pretty clear equation on your part:
"Wanting to kill someone does *not* automatically make you unstable. He holds a different set of morals and ethics than you do. "
When it is immediately followed by :
"Is everyone with a different set of behavioral standards from you nearly crazy? That doesn't make sense."
it seems quite clear that you are equating following one's morals and ethics with being sane. That is circular for the reasons I outlined.
You later repudiated that equation, which prompted my latest previous remark. Obviously, you meant something different than what I took from your statements. Given what I've quoted above, I can't really feel too bad about it.
-
The problem is it's not quite clear. Yes, your conclusion was not an irrational one, but it was NOT the *only* one, and that's what irritated me. You have a tendency to assume that the reasoning behind someone's statements and behavior is the most irrational or pernicious possibility (this I have observed from your statements about teachers, me, democrats, gays, and just about everyone. I think there would be much nicer if instead of making that assumption, all of us would give others the benefit of a doubt.
-
Yes, perhaps the path of reason I see behind a person's statement is occasionally something other than the path they actually followed. I certainly don't do that on purpose. But since we're dealing with text representing that reasoning (and only text, since it is not possible to access anything beyond the text) I don't see how making one assumption over another is going to improve understanding. It might make things nicer, but if I still fail to divine what you really meant, my experience tells me that you're just as likely to start telling me I didn't really read what you wrote, that I need to keep up, or any of a dozen condescending tropes you use over and over.
Perhaps if you assumed that others are not deliberately interpreting your statements in the worse possible light or that others did understand what you wrote and therefore, perhaps, your text didn't say what you meant it to say, the niceness quotient would also be increased.
-
I don't want to make myself part of this whole argument but I will say I don't consider Kelsier crazy.
Kelsier lives in a world where skaa are beat to death because they sneezed and it startled one of the nobility. Where it is acceptable for nobility to rape a skaa woman as long as they kill her afterward. Where nobility will have a laugh with each other during the day, but then order assassins to kill the other and their entire family at night when it is more socially acceptable. Where hundreds of skaa will have their heads chopped off just to send a message to the others, meanwhile much of the nobility will be watching the show like they are at Superbowl Sunday Barbeque.
When almost the entire population, skaa included, think all of this is right and proper, the fact that Kelsier wants to kill the same people that would have him put to death without batting an eyelash, seems sane by comparison. Kelsier will do whatever it takes, including accepting death's cold embrace to end the oppression of the innocent. In his world killing another to get what you want isn't crazy, going on a hunger strike as part of a non-violent protest is.
-
I haven't decided if Kelsier is crazy or not yet. If, however, you base your statement that he is not crazy on the idea that he is somehow justified in his killing, I have to disagree with you.
You give as his justification (and proof of his sanity) the fact that the nobles murder all the time, skaa as well as each other, and that they would kill him if they caught him. Tit for tat. They do it, therefore he does it.
Unfortunately, if he uses the "they do it therefore I do it" justification for his perpetration of the exact same behavior, he loses any ability to argue that the noble's actions are wrong, since he must also be wrong by the same argument.
So, the nobles engage in murderous behavior and by that behavior become wrong. Kelsier engages in the same behavior and expects to be right. This fits the classic, "do the same thing, expect a different result" definition of crazy.
Of course, this assumes that killing noblemen is equivalent to killing skaa. That they are both innocents. If it could be shown that Kelsier only killed nobles that he knew to be guilty of murder themselves, it would be different. Good arguments can be made for vigilante justice in a society like the one he lives in. It's been a while since I read the first Mistborn so I could be wrong, but I seem to remember that Kelsier was pretty indiscriminate.
-
I'm not so sure I agree with you Vegas. My reasoning is based on what you said
When almost the entire population, skaa included, think all of this is right and proper, the fact that Kelsier wants to kill the same people that would have him put to death without batting an eyelash, seems sane by comparison.
He is a skaa and by your definition of that he should think that it is okay for the nobility to behave in such a manner. His thinking differently than almost the entire population suggests the opposite. If in fact we are defining sanity on the realms of this world and not our own.
In our own world they would indeed all seem insane BUT him, however in his world it's the opposite. Make sense?
-
Yes, perhaps the path of reason I see behind a person's statement is occasionally something other than the path they actually followed. I certainly don't do that on purpose. But since we're dealing with text representing that reasoning (and only text, since it is not possible to access anything beyond the text) I don't see how making one assumption over another is going to improve understanding. It might make things nicer, but if I still fail to divine what you really meant, my experience tells me that you're just as likely to start telling me I didn't really read what you wrote, that I need to keep up, or any of a dozen condescending tropes you use over and over.
Perhaps if you assumed that others are not deliberately interpreting your statements in the worse possible light or that others did understand what you wrote and therefore, perhaps, your text didn't say what you meant it to say, the niceness quotient would also be increased.
The problem with this skar, is you clearly didn't fully read a post. When you posted "So, someone can be considered crazy over behaviors that are perfectly in line with their morals and ethics. Excellent. You broke the circle. " you also quoted from a post that explained there was no circle, and why. If you actually read the whole post before you posted that, you wouldn't have posted it for any reason other than to be a jerk. So the choice left to me is believe you're a jerk, or else that you didn't read my post. Which was it?
You know, if you see there's more than one possibility, you could always *ask* what is meant, instead of making any assumptions. Wouldn't that be revolutionary!
The same is true of your first post in the thread. You chose to be condescending and not only believe the worst reasoning behind my argument, but make it sound like it was the ONLY possible reasoning behind my argument, which it clearly wasn't. I'm calling it like I see it, Skar. I'm trying to understand why you would dive into a discussion with such a dismissive attitude without considering that the person might actually be saying something intelligent. Is it because you enjoy making people feel bad? Or is it because you don't take the time to consider what the source of their arguments are? Or is it because you genuinely can't see any possibilities but one? Maybe that's my error. I think you're not actually reading posts closely, but really you just can't see that there might be another reasoning other than your immediate first impression.
-
you also quoted from a post that explained there was no circle, and why. If you actually read the whole post before you posted that, you wouldn't have posted it for any reason other than to be a jerk. So the choice left to me is believe you're a jerk, or else that you didn't read my post. Which was it?
Nice false dichotomy. I'm either a jerk or I didn't read your post. Condescension at its Ehleriffic best.
Since the only post I quoted, in the post you're referencing, not only didn't explain why there was no circle, it didn't even contain the word "circle", I'm left to believe either that you're simply addicted to feasting on your own low-calorie rhetoric or... you know there really isn't a second option at this point.
I started to read this thread because it looked interesting. Then I saw you running out the same old "try to keep up" condescension-guns on Charity and, because she seemed nice, reasonable, and intelligent and I didn't want you to run her off, I thought I'd warn her. We all get the Ehler's treatment from time to time, she shouldn't feel singled out. You have amply demonstrated the appropriateness of my warning. So let's just go here:
You're right, I'm wrong, the world as you know it is not about to come to an end.
Excuse me while I go shake the brick dust out of my hair.
-
ok, my mistake it was a different post. You *still* didn't reaed a post. So no, I don't think it's a false dichotomy. so Which is it, Skar, did you fail to read the post where I explained that? Or were you beign a jerk? If that's false, tell me what another option is, because I'm trying to see one and I can't, and you're nto telling me what it is. Instead you're getting passive aggressive and rude.
Despite what you think, I *am* trying to understand what you were really doing there. You say you were trying to help someone, but, it seems to me, you were attacking more than that. You didn't take the time to see what my position was. I wasn't simply using false arguments, I was using solid ones. Ones you didn't try to understand, apparently.
If I'm wrong, explain how you could post that quote, respond the way you did, and still have read my post and not respond that way to be a jerk. Don't go into eye rolling and flinging insults.
-
I haven't decided if Kelsier is crazy or not yet. If, however, you base your statement that he is not crazy on the idea that he is somehow justified in his killing, I have to disagree with you.
You give as his justification (and proof of his sanity) the fact that the nobles murder all the time, skaa as well as each other, and that they would kill him if they caught him. Tit for tat. They do it, therefore he does it.
Unfortunately, if he uses the "they do it therefore I do it" justification for his perpetration of the exact same behavior, he loses any ability to argue that the noble's actions are wrong, since he must also be wrong by the same argument.
So, the nobles engage in murderous behavior and by that behavior become wrong. Kelsier engages in the same behavior and expects to be right. This fits the classic, "do the same thing, expect a different result" definition of crazy.
Of course, this assumes that killing noblemen is equivalent to killing skaa. That they are both innocents. If it could be shown that Kelsier only killed nobles that he knew to be guilty of murder themselves, it would be different. Good arguments can be made for vigilante justice in a society like the one he lives in. It's been a while since I read the first Mistborn so I could be wrong, but I seem to remember that Kelsier was pretty indiscriminate.
I would not argue that Kelsier is 100% morally justified in his killings. However, he is the product of an environment where the noble class has actively persecuted the peasant class, both by directly ordering their deaths, or upholding with real conscience the continuation of the killings. A military officer may not completely agree with what his command officer is doing, but as he has chosen to be a part of that military structure, when he is killed by enemy forces, they are justified in their actions.
The nobles have put themselves in a position where they are targeted due to the society that have helped uphold. Perhaps to be morally righteous, Kelsier should not kill the nobles with reckless abandon, but it is certainly not a sign of insanity to due so, nor is it even really a sign of truly poor moral character.
And it isn't really a circular argument, because of, quite simply, the question of "Who shot first?". Even ignoring all of the degradation the skaa continually suffer, the nobles started it. If there are two groups of people, and one group starts attacking the other, am I in the wrong if, while fighting back, I injure people who were with the group, but had not necessarily been the ones to attack me? Perhaps more caution should be taken, but they had involved, and continued to involve themselves with a hostile force.
-
The fact that you referenced a post that had no bearing on the point you were trying to make is a perfect example of what I'm talking about. You made a dead wrong statement to support your argument, and then, somehow, I'm a jerk for pointing it out. Your posts are often garbled and unclear, and when people don't take the point you had in mind, they didn't read closely enough, they're slow, or they're jerks. You're just repeating the same pattern I warned Charity about.
Here's a perfect example. You did make a post where, I believe, you attempted to show that your argument was not circular. To start:ah, no.
You've equated my statement that different morals and ethics always involves killing
First, that isn't even actually a sentence. What was equated with what? I thought I took your meaning though. You seemed to be saying that someone had said that actions abhorred by an observer with different morals and ethics than the perpetrator must always involve killing. Since I had said nothing of the kind, I could only assume that you were talking about something someone else had said. No bearing.
You then said:
but I have *not* made the argument that no one is crazy, nor do I intend to.
I never said you made the argument, only that it followed from your statements, which I had quoted. Then you said: Nor does that follow from my arguments. That's *your* input, thank you. Nice straw man though.
Notice the complete lack of a response to the actual reasoning involved. You simply said I was wrong and accused me of putting up a straw man. Note that you have since contradicted yourself here and allowed that my reasoning was a reasonable extension, though not the one you intended.
Then you said:No, a difference in morals and ethics does not mean a person is crazy, but that doesn't mean a crazy person can't have different morals and ethics.
Here you contradicted your earlier statement, where you imply that Kelsier's morals and ethics have direct bearing on whether or not he is considered crazy. "He holds a different set of morals and ethics than you do. Is everyone with a different set of behavioral standards from you nearly crazy? That doesn't make sense." Which, for all intents and purposes, validated my point.
But then you immediately said:
No, there's no circular argument there. You simply need to demonstrate to me with more specific arguments.
Again, this didn't make a lot of sense. Demonstrate what to you? But the rest of the paragraph talked about Kelsier's motivation for killing and what bearing that had on the question of whether he was crazy or not, entirely abandoning the morals and ethics argument you had made in the above post to which I had responded. Therefore, again, no bearing.
I did read your post. At the time I thought you might have been trying to address the point I had made about the circular reasoning but you never addressed the actual points of my post so it didn't seem appropriate to respond. You did, in a later post, speak to the circular reasoning I pointed out, to which I responded with the post in question.
-
...A military officer may not completely agree with what his command officer is doing, but as he has chosen to be a part of that military structure, when he is killed by enemy forces, they are justified in their actions.
Agreed.
The nobles have put themselves in a position where they are targeted due to the society that have helped uphold....
Agreed.
...If there are two groups of people, and one group starts attacking the other, am I in the wrong if, while fighting back, I injure people who were with the group, but had not necessarily been the ones to attack me? Perhaps more caution should be taken, but they had involved, and continued to involve themselves with a hostile force.
Agreed.
You clearly point out why killing Skaa and killing Nobles are not equivalent acts.
To transpose this on the real world...there's a fuzzy line, especially in our age of representative governments, between those who are responsible for objectionable acts performed under the umbrella of a government and those who are not. To give it a face in Palestine, in my opinion any given Israeli soldier is a legitimate target for the Palestinian "resistance." His family is not. Random people in a marketplace are not. The same goes for Iraq. Any given soldier, American, British, Iraqi, etc... is a legitimate target for the "resistance." The children surrounding a candy giveaway, or worshipers at a mosque are not. There's definitely a fuzzy area in between the two extremes though.
I think Nobles in the Mistborn world fall on the killable side of the line. Do their young children? I don't think so. Did Kelsier kill noble children on purpose? I don't remember. Moral justification aside, I think the question of craziness on Kelsier's part rests on that point. Did he indiscriminately murder anyone of noble blood? Did he target Skaa servants of the nobility? The more indiscriminate he was, the crazier he gets in my opinion.
-
I think Nobles in the Mistborn world fall on the killable side of the line. Do their young children? I don't think so. Did Kelsier kill noble children on purpose? I don't remember. Moral justification aside, I think the question of craziness on Kelsier's part rests on that point. Did he indiscriminately murder anyone of noble blood? Did he target Skaa servants of the nobility? The more indiscriminate he was, the crazier he gets in my opinion.
I don't believe he killed any children. As for the servants, if I recall correctly, while he didn't specifically target them, or go out of his way to kill them, he didn't care entirely all that much if they got in the way, and they had to be killed to achieve his objective. I could be off on that, though.
-
wow. Just. wow.
-
I don't think anyone's answered the original question yet... except maybe Ehler's but I don't know what he looks like so I'm still in a conundrum. ;)
-
I can never get a real handle on what a character looks like unless the writer manages to slip in a really good description of him. So, when someone asks what a character looks like I try to think what actor I could imagine playing them well. In this case, I say Christian Bale. Perhaps someone has already suggested that, I can't remember. Christian Bale would make an excellent Kelsior IMO.