Mistborn Trilogy Question (SPOILERS)

[CthulhuKefka]

Sorry if this had been posted before but I had some random thoughts about the trilogy as a whole. I also apologize for the slightly long read.

I guess I'll start by asking who writes the synopsis on the backs of the books? This question is kind of important because my thoughts center around a part of it.

On the back of "The Final Empire" it says: "What if the prophesied hero had failed to defeat the Dark Lord?" Now at first it would appear to be a red herring concerning the Lord Ruler, but he is obviously defeated at the end of the first book. It could be referring to Ruin, but I'll elaborate on that in a minute.

I'm putting forth this hypothesis. Each title of each book is misleading in a way. I'll try to break it down.

Book 1: The Final Empire

Not being able to figure out how this can be misleading until reading The Well of Ascension, where on page 733 (paperback version) when Elend returns to the city after letting Vin pewter-drag herself back to find the Well, this passes between them:

"I'm sorry. I think I did something bad."
"Oh?" He asked. "What is that"
"I made you emperor"

Now this may have just been a passing thing between the two, but after reading the sample chapter for "Hero of Ages," it continues.

"Wait," Fatren said, causing the stranger to pause. "Who are you?"
The newcomer turned, meeting Fatren's eyes. "My name is Elend Venture. I'm your emperor."

Now I know it's not specifically stated anywhere that an Emperor has an Empire, but if it is true, then the "Final Empire" is not actually the final empire so to speak. Elend has a whole new Empire as Emperor.


Book 2: The Well of Ascension

This one I don't really have anything to go on, other than the knowledge that we as readers learn through Sazed that the Well isn't all it's cracked up to be. Through Ruin's machinations, knowledge about the prophesied hero was altered to allow an expedited freeing of him. (him? it? lol)


With subtle misleading titles, it is my thoughts that the Hero of Ages will have a similar twist. Referring back to the blurb on the back of the book, if Ruin is indeed the "Dark Lord" mentioned, then the prophesied hero will fail to defeat him.

Another thing that caught my attention was in one of Mr. Sanderson's annotation for "The Final Empire," more specifically "Mistborn Prologue Part One" where he writes

Somewhere in the italicized pre-chapter blurb of the prologue here is the clue one needs to figure out the over-arching mystery of the entire series. If you figure it out, good for you! If you don't, you'll have to wait until the last chapter of the final book to get it explained. . . .

Now the pre-chapter blurb is from the journal and references the Hero doubting himself. Could this doubt carry over to the Hero actually never defeating the "Dark Lord?"
I know it would seem like a cop out, and I really feel bad for bringing it up, but in a series that likes to take conventional fantasy cliches and turn them upside down, what better way than having the bad guys win?


Again, sorry for the long post, I was rambling through most of it. Unfortunately, once I get random ideas in my head, it is hard to keep them in. 

[Reaves]

Interesting ideas. I think when the book says the prophesied hero failed to defeat the Dark Lord the Dark Lord refers to the Lord Ruler. Eventually we find out that who we thought was the Lord Ruler was actually the prophesied hero, and his packman became the Lord Ruler. I dont think it refers to Ruin as we didn't even know he existed in Final Empire.
For the titles, I'm pretty sure most authors don't get to choose the exact title. He may suggest idea after idea that are turned down by the editor/publisher. He may finally get one they like but he may not. I don't really think the titles can be used to support your ideas, sorry 

[CthulhuKefka]

Hehehe it's ok. I kind of figured that my theory had a large number of holes in it. Ah well, it's always fun to speculate. 

[Reaves]

thats what we do here 

[Inkthinker]

Hm.

You know, Brandon's said before that the basis of the story, the "elevator pitch" if you will, is the question, "what if a Hero rose to defeat the Dark Evil... and he failed?".

Are we 100% certain he's talking about the Lord Ruler and his encounter with Ruin/Preservation? What if he's talking about the story as a whole?

I've got confidence that Brandon's not writing a tragedy, but he does love to take expectations and give 'em a twist. He's talked about that more than once on Writing Excuses, and I wouldn't put it past him to do it again.

[Peter Ahlstrom]

Never put anything past our Brandon. Oh dear me no.

[GreenMonsta]

Im going to agree with Reaves on the title explination but im also going to add a little something. When the empire that was ruled by TLR was in place it was looked at as the final empire. Now this name may not mean that there will never be another empire just that during TLR reign (over 1000 years) it didnt appear that there would be any others. The final empire was more a name for what TLR intended with his empire than the reality of what happens.

[MajSpike]

I like this theory a lot. Sazed and his lack of faith FTW.

[Miyabi]

Thoeries! YAY!

Sazed = real Hero (I've said that a lot of times before. ROFL  I like the idea of him being the Hero.)

He doesn't believe in any religion, and the Hero is a part of a religion.  So if he's the Hero he doesn't believe in himself. ROFL.

[neiana]

doesn't believe in any religion, and the Hero is a part of a religion.  So if he's the Hero he doesn't believe in himself. ROFL.

While the amusement is...err...amusing...

Sazed can be the Hero, believe in himself and still not believe in any religion.  Semantics, I know, but believing in oneself has nothing to do with being the Hero of any myth.

Also, he can believe he's the Hero while not believing in himself.

Furthermore, Sazed could believe himself to be the Hero while at the same time not believe in the prophecies about the hero.

et cetera, et cetera, et cetera

[Miyabi]

OMG I love you.  You spell (and I assume say) et cetera correctly!

Anyway.  Believe in a religious idol is to believe it what it stands for.  If you say "the watermelon exists, but is not a fruit" it's the same as saying "the watermelon doesn't exist."  Believing in something is believing in what it is.  If you don't believe in WHAT it is, you can't believe in IT.

[neiana]

OMG I love you.  You spell (and I assume say) et cetera correctly!

Anyway.  Believe in a religious idol is to believe it what it stands for.  If you say "the watermelon exists, but is not a fruit" it's the same as saying "the watermelon doesn't exist."  Believing in something is believing in what it is.  If you don't believe in WHAT it is, you can't believe in IT.

re et cetera:  partly because I lived with a Latin student and partly because I know that foreign loan words require italics.

re belief:  If I say "Sazed believes in himself" that is not to say "Sazed believes he is the Hero" as much as it is not to say "Sazed believes he is a slice of mango pie".  We would need to objectify the specific belief in which we are regarding him before making denials or proclamations.  Sazed, if he ever did believe he was the Hero, could still not believe 'in himself' insofar as he wouldn't believe he would make the ideal Hero even though he may conclude that he is, in fact, the Hero.

With the three statements provided, one could entertain at least nine or more different ways in which Sazed could believe or disbelieve and all would have a pinch of truth to it.  The answer we would seek, however, is the one where all three answers ding into place like a slot machine.

[Miyabi]

If we italicized EVERY word that was loaned from another language half of our language would be italicized.

But he still couldn't believe himself to be 'the Hero' unless he believed in the Hero.

[neiana]

If we italicized EVERY word that was loaned from another language half of our language would be italicized.

But he still couldn't believe himself to be 'the Hero' unless he believed in the Hero.

There's a difference between an English word and a loan word.  For example, et cetera is a loan word whereas facade is now generally considered English (stolen from French, though its root I do not know).

Actually he could.  I don't really feel like digging up old blog entries I've had with my ex-philosopher roommate, but suffice to say I could drone for awhile about this sort of topic (sometimes at my own peril ).

I read somewhere-and it may have been either in or in regards to Harry Potter-that a prophecy is not necessarily meant to come true the way we see it.  A huge example is right at the end of MB2, the prophecy said one thing but then it was actually something else.  Sazed could believe that a person will come along with the traits exhibited by the Hero, do what the Hero is supposed to do, and that he himself is the one to be this 'Hero', all while disbelieving in the actual prophecy of the Hero.

If I said "In three days, someone will eat cheddar cheese and that person is the CHEESE EATER OF AWESOME", and you believe that you will eat cheddar cheese in three days, that does not require you to believe that you are the CHEESE EATER OF AWESOME.  See?  You can believe that you are a person to fulfill these duties but it does not require you to believe you are some mythical cheese eater because you are merely eating lunch.

[Miyabi]

I love philosophical debates.  I miss debate, that was a fun class/sport.

Yes, but if you define the 'Cheese Eater Of Awesome' as the person who will eat every type of cheese on Tuesdays, then you couldn't believe that someone is the 'Cheese Eater Of Awesome' unless tey eat every type of cheese on Tuesdays.