Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Eleaneth

Pages: [1] 2 3
1
Brandon Sanderson / Re: **SPOILERS** Shards: Power and Character
« on: June 24, 2011, 04:14:24 PM »
It makes sense to me that some Shards' powers would be easier to turn to evil than others. When it comes to Ruin and Preservation, my theory was that both of those powers could have become evil. The power of Ruin could have been restrained, to only destroy certain things. The power of Preservation could be let loose, with the goal of keeping everything the same, with no risk of destruction. I think the Giver, Matched, and Brandon's Alcatraz series are good examples of preservation gone awry. Life can be too safe; it can become meaningless.

Since I can imagine ways for Preservation's power to be used excessively, I think that it can't be just the Shard itself that is generally good or generally evil. I think that any one Shard could be used to excess. Any shard could become a person's only goal, so they care about nothing else.

2
Brandon Sanderson / **SPOILERS** Shards: Power and Character
« on: June 24, 2011, 06:09:01 AM »
So, I have a theory about how the shards affect personality, which I haven't seen voiced by anyone else. However, I have to warn you: this is not the place for a religious debate. If you turn my religious reference into an argument of any kind, the moderators will lock this thread. And I will be annoyed with you. I need to reference religion to illustrate my theory.

Latter-day Saints/Mormons believe that humans have the potential to become like God. However, there is a caveat: to share equally in God's power, you must have God's character. In Sunday School, we sometimes tell a story of a man who wanted to give his children everything he had, but first, he wanted to make sure his children developed the same rock-solid determination, dedication, compassion, and wisdom that he had. We believe that God feels that way for all of us.

How does this relate? Well, every person in Brandon's books who gains the power of one of the Shards of Adonalsium has godlike power, but they don't necessarily have godlike character. Power sometimes corrupts them. My theory is this: the degree to which a Shard-god is corrupted depends on whether they have a moral value, a goal, a person, or a cause which is more important to them than their power, just like Mormons believe the real God will only share His power with those who love Him completely. It's almost like Brandon asked the question, "What could happen if God wasn't perfectly true to his morals?"

Compare Ati/Ruin to Laras/Preservation. According to the Way of Kings, "Ati was once a kind and generous man, and look what became of him." Ati became so consumed with his power that all he cared about was Ruin: the destruction of everything.

Laras, or Preservation, chose to create humans with a little bit more of himself than of Ruin, meaning that Ruin, theoretically, would have more power in the end. Laras sacrificed some of his ability to Preserve, and he risked the ultimate victory of Ruin, by creating humankind, trapping Ruin, and letting his power go to the Well of Ascension. In other words, Laras rose above his power, choosing that something else was more important than simply Preserving things as they were.

Vin went even farther than Laras. At that point, her only reason for living was Elend, so when Ruin killed Elend, she went kamikaze. Ati was totally shocked, because her move "smacked too much of Ruin." She didn't care about the power; she wanted to be with Elend.

Sazed appears to have had a good start to staying uncorrupted: he could control two conflicting powers at once "because he was of one mind on how to use them." (I also speculate that this may play into the grander scheme of things in a really important way. Does any other Shard-god have two Shards? Sazed might be able to defeat any other single Shard-god, if necessary.)

Other Shard-gods that we know of are mostly speculative. The Honor-being in Way of Kings (the one in the Storm) might be a Shard-god who was so consumed by the Shard of Honor that he, himself, was shattered by the breaking of the Oathpact. Without people to trust and be trusted by, this being might have had nothing left.

The writer of the letters at the beginning of some chapters in the Way of Kings (who I think is Hoid) might also be a Shard-god, expressing to his opposite the need for both of them to look beyond their power to some greater goal. That could be why Hoid doesn't appear to give his disciples any magical powers--he could refrain from using his power to avoid temptation that is stronger than his own character. That might also explain why he goes about in human form--to remain himself.

What do you guys think? D'you think I'm reading to much into this, because of my background? Or do you think the personal beliefs and goals of the Shard-gods are as important as I'm guessing?

3
Rants and Stuff / Re: Would you have a second wife?
« on: April 24, 2009, 01:00:51 AM »
That would only work if there were no legal ramifications for marriage and family relationships. But since married people share their property and finances, there has to be some sort of legal contract recognizing that union and what happens if the union is dissolved. Also, realistically, the institution of marriage is thoroughly ingrained into current legal systems. It would be very difficult to remove any and all recognition of marriage relationships in law, including tax law. I think it would be much more realistic to simply replace government recognition of marriage with government recognition of civil unions.

4
Rants and Stuff / Re: What do you think of Joseph Smith?
« on: April 24, 2009, 12:26:45 AM »
Yeah. That's one of the biggest difference between Mormons and other Christian churches--that Christians usually see Christianity as beginning with Christ and the doctrine being complete when the Bible was written and compiled.
EDIT: Of course, most Christians believe that people before Christ looked forward to a Messiah. But I don't think most Christians believe that anyone before Christ actually understood that the Messiah would be the Son of God and would save the repentant from their sins.

In contrast, Mormons see Christianity as beginning with Adam. We believe that many prophets throughout the world's history have taught plainly that Jesus Christ would come, but that the knowledge of Christ and His gospel was repeatedly lost. Whenever a prophet came, they used old scripture and also taught new things that had been forgotten. That's what John the Baptist, Christ, and His followers did in the New Testament. That's what Moses did. And that's what Joseph Smith did.

Mormons in general accept that most Christians have a different view, but they are always confused and sometimes offended when others call them unChristian. Joseph Smith wrote, "We believe in God the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost... we believe that through the Atonement of Christ, all mankind may be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the gospel." (Note "may be saved," not "will be saved." Important difference.) The real name of the "Mormon" church is "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints". We believe that faith in Jesus Christ is the first principle of the gospel.

Quote
IMO if you believe that Jesus was the Christ, then you're a Christian . . .
Of course that's not a very sound opinion Erik.  Muslims believe that Jesus was the Christ. And a Muslim would be to first to take offense if you called them Christian.  There are a whole list of qualifying distinctives that include or exclude people from being Christian.

Okay, to be more specific, a Christian is one who believes that Jesus is the Christ (aka. the Messiah), AND that He is the Son of God, AND that we can only be saved from our sins through His grace. Mormons believe all of those things.

5
Rants and Stuff / Re: BOOK OF MORMON
« on: April 23, 2009, 11:57:30 PM »
I'm afraid this hasn't been my experience at all.  Almost all of the atheists I know (and I know and am friends with quite a number) are quite convinced of the moral superiority of their position and expect all other reasonable and intelligent individuals to believe likewise.  Agnostics are a totally different story, but agnostics are, as I have just said, not atheist.  And I certainly think there are at least as many evangelical atheists (as a proportion of the total atheist population) as there are evangelical Christians.

One thing that bothers me whenever it's in any belief system is intolerance. Many religions teach that only members of their particular religion will be saved and return to God. I'm Mormon, and my religion does teach that, but it also teaches that everyone will have abundant opportunity to hear the full gospel and accept it, whether in this life or the next. It also teaches that good people who reject the gospel will have a lesser degree of salvation. It's kind of complicated, but it ends up logically leading to tolerance. (Of course, there are intolerant Mormons just like there are intolerant people in every religion. But that's the conclusion I've come to.)

One reason some athiests are intolerant is that they come to their conclusion through logic. Therefore, if anyone comes to a different conclusion, they assume they are either stupid or have an ulterior motive. One reason some religious people are intolerant is that they assume that any good person will have enough spirituality to know the truth.

I like the whole concept of giving others the benefit of a doubt. It makes more sense than assuming that we know everything.

6
Rants and Stuff / Re: Would you have a second wife?
« on: April 23, 2009, 11:24:13 PM »
I think having marriage be a social and religious institution only and letting civil unions represent the legal contract is the best way to make the most people happy in such a diverse society. Legal civil unions could also be used in other non-traditional family situations to share property, economic status, and other legal rights. For instance, a grandmother and a mother in a family could have a civil union to share their finances. I think that, generally, people should have to live in the same household to have a civil union, with some exceptions for military and such.

However, one implication of this is that civil unions wouldn't protect the marriage right of sexual exclusiveness. Not that it's usually enforced anyway. Too awkward.

One problem with having marriage be defined and recognized by the government is that religious leaders act as both legal and religious authorities when they marry someone. Therefore, they have to recognize any marriage that the government recognizes. That violates the fundamental religious rights of the church being forced to recognize a certain type of marriage.

So, I think an alternate to the government only recognizing civil unions is for it to recognize any type of marriage, but for the law to explicitly state that no private organization or church will be forced to recognize any type of marriage inconsistent with its values. The main disadvantage of that policy would be that, realistically, it would make sense for a church to refuse membership to someone because of being in a certain type of relationship, but it wouldn't make sense for a company to refuse employment for the same reasons. Hence why I prefer civil unions.

But if the government only recognizes civil unions, as a legal contract and a matter of paperwork, then there's still an interesting question. Should civil unions be limited to two people, or should they be allowed to be larger? This goes back to the polygamy/poly-whatever question. (Frankly, all the different definitions confuse me.)

7
Brandon Sanderson / Re: Forget sex. Let's talk romance.
« on: April 23, 2009, 10:07:16 PM »
I think it's really cool that Brandon Sanderson can write different styles of romances. He has the realism in Vin and Elend, the chick-flick in Raoden and Sarene, a dramatic, classic style in Spook and his girl (forgot the name), and I don't even know how to describe Siri and Susebron. Vin and Elend were my favorite, followed closely by Siri and Susebron.

8
If Brandon writes a second series, it'll be really interesting to see how Sazed uses the power and if he'll let anyone have access to the God Metals. Do you think anyone will ever actually plot against Sazed? So far as we know, his only weaknesses are that metal blinds him and that he can't read minds. Otherwise, he'd be nearly omnipotent.

9
Brandon Sanderson / Re: what the metals do in feruchemy and hemalurgy
« on: April 23, 2009, 09:33:06 PM »
There's a lot of room for for Brandon to surprise us. We've only seen what one of the Atium alloys does, even in Allomancy. And we've seen three creatures created by Hemalurgy: koloss and Inquisitors (both made from humans), and kandra (made from mistwraiths). Out of those three, one gained intelligence (kandra), one kept its intelligence (Inquistor), and one lost much of its intelligence (koloss).

I wonder what other creatures are possible?

10
Rants and Stuff / Re: Would you have a second wife?
« on: April 20, 2009, 08:39:35 PM »
Really, I don't think it's the government's place to define marriage. I think the best system would be for the government to hand out civil unions for anyone who wants to live together and merge their finances. Then churches and individuals can get married and then go get a civil union from the government. That also means that everyone can choose how they define marriage.

11
Brandon Sanderson / Re: Elantris vs. Mistborn *Spoilers*
« on: April 15, 2009, 08:24:43 PM »
Hmm... If Seekers and Mistborn could learn to detect any of the powers, then a really clever Mistborn could beat any of them, because he or she could use bronze to perceive any use of any power and get out of the way with a coinpush enhanced leap.

12
Brandon Sanderson / Re: **SPOILERS! The Shards of Adonalsium
« on: April 15, 2009, 07:33:24 PM »
The reason Leras and Ati couldn't look directly at metal was because it had so much power in it, their power. I would speculate that if they'd wanted to, they could have trained themselves to perceive metal, but then they would've been blind to everything else. (Like a Steel Inquisitor, perhaps?)

I'd imagine that it depends on the nature of the power. For example, a Color shard might be unable to look directly at the God King, because he radiated too much power, but I doubt it. The power of metal was more raw and untamed. Very physical. The power of color was more enhancing, more subtle. More spiritual.

13
Brandon Sanderson / Re: Forget sex. Let's talk romance.
« on: April 06, 2009, 09:04:34 PM »
Vin and Elend's romance is actually my favorite out of all the books, because it seems the most realistic. The romance was very important to both of them, but it wasn't their reason for living. It seemed to me that the romance in book 2 was mostly about Vin's discovering who she was and if that was consistent with a relationship with Elend.

I love how they work together, talk often, and so forth... it seemed to me that they were friends first and lovers second. Which, I think, is how it works best.

I also really loved the theme of trust... that they had to make a conscious choice that they'd rather trust the other person when they couldn't know for sure what the other person was thinking or doing.

The one thing I didn't like was how much time it took for Vin to make up her mind. But then again, it is very realistic.

14
Brandon Sanderson / Re: **SPOILERS! The Shards of Adonalsium
« on: March 26, 2009, 05:29:57 PM »
Condensed 'essence' of these godly powers can act as super-fuel for Allomancy, Feruchemy, or really any of the powers.  The form of that super fuel is important.  In liquid form it's most potent, in gas form it's able to fuel Allomancy as if working as a metal.  In physical form it is rigid and does one specific thing.  In the case of atium, it allows sight into the future.  In the case of concentrated Preservation, it gives one a permanent connection to the mists and the powers of creation.  (I.e., it makes them an Allomancer.)

I'm curious--if the pool by Elantris is the essence of a shard, what is it capable of beyond releasing Elantrians?

15
Brandon Sanderson / Re: If Mistborn was a movie. . . .
« on: March 19, 2009, 11:51:17 PM »
Quote
I'm more concerned if Allomancy can be accurately displayed in a way that makes sense to viewers--all of the powers and such.

I agree, that would be one of the hardest parts... Allomancy is, in the first book, basically nine different powers. And most of them would be incredibly difficult to portray visually. Pewter doesn't have any visual effect, except perhaps in their posture. Iron and steel would probably be the easiest. They might almost have to just have Kelsier explain to Vin, "our powers are based on metals. By burning metals in our stomach, we can strengthen our bodies, influence others' emotions, and push or pull on metals around us." Then they could have some beautiful visuals of super-enhanced jumps by pushing coins into the ground. They wouldn't have time to explain everything--what gold does, the subtleties of bronze, and so on.

**SPOILERS**
I think the hardest part would be the book's beautiful surprise ending when Vin realizes the Lord Ruler's identity with Malatium. I don't think it's possible to portray that in a movie--you need to understand the whole story of Alendi, Rashek, and the Deepness to get it. Maybe the surprise ending could be when she draws on the mists--that was pretty significant, though we didn't actually find out why until Hero of Ages. Ooh--Marsh would be a pretty awesome surprise at the end, too. :D I'm imagining the Steel Inquisitors being the ultimate enemy for the first part of the movie, until Kelsier fights one. That'd be the most emotional part of the movie, I think... the people rising and everything. :)

Pages: [1] 2 3