(Steelhunt) Shadows of Self: Who Wrote Marsh's Book?

[Kurkistan he/him]

Nope.

Physics are universal and absolute. Granted they do some weird things under certain circumstances, but the idea that you can turn a blank wall into a mural because it wants to be one, or that causility is secondary to how "plausible" a vase turning into a chamber pot is, has no room in the laws of physics in our world.

Similarly, morality can be subjective in our world, and objective in the cosmere, absolutely. It's a fictional universe. The laws of anything can be however the author envisions, including morality, absolutely.

If you're choosing to squabble over the semantics of the word "absolute" then please provide me a word that means "entirely, universally and utterly consistent within the framework of its specific real or imagined universe" and I will use it instead of "absolute."

 

Be aware that your position is a position, and a non-trivial claim. Kant, for one, would slap you upside the head for saying that morality could change due to mere changes in the nature of the physical world.

 

Beyond that, many others who allow the nature of morality to supervene on the nature of the physical world would demand a far more rigorous account of why exactly the oddities of the Cosmere allow us to decide that hemalurgy is evil there while perhaps permissible in our world.

 

Beyond that, even if one were to give you that moral questions potentially possess different answers in the cosmere than they do in the real world, there is still a rich discussion to be had about how our own morality would, hypothetically, apply to that world.

 

If you want a better word, perhaps "relative a priori", or "true within its epistemic context", or simply "absolute relative to the cosmere." "Absolute" has strong connotations of applicability to all possible worlds.

 

*Drops mike, stands around awkwardly*

Edited November 29, 2013 by Ookla the Inveterate

[Shardlet he/him]

Just for the record, I do indeed believe in absolute standards and principles of morality.  This stems from my religious beliefs and my faith in them.  My points were mostly presented to highlight the factors that might affect the moral standards in the cosmere and their absoluteness or lack thereof.  My intent was certainly not to take a position as to whether or not hemalurgy is or is not absolutely evil.  I personally don't think we can make that determination in a practical manner until Brandon gives us more information on the cosmere, Adonalsium, the Shards, and whatever else is there.  It is Brandon's universe.  I actually doubt that he wants to make it absolute (as in directly establish it through positive info in the books).  It seems, that he prefers to create a framework that may evoke thought and perhaps even introspection.  If he does decide to give us the info to make an absolute conclusion, I expect it won't be until many many books have passed.

 

I don't think those quotes support you as well as you seem to think... you're right, they don't expressly say, "the limbs will rot and fall off." They also don't say anything specific about what happens in the future, so it also doesn't say "the limb will continue looking fine forever." On our world of Earth, if someone cannot feel or use their arm, it will atrophy. I'm no medical doctor, but I don't think that with Arthurian level technology, a limb that presented with total nerve damage would last long. Do we know that a Shardblade does nothing worse than nerve damage? Will blood still travel? Will it still heal on its own? How could it, with no sensation to anything? Bumps, bruises, cuts. There are medical conditions which include a total lack of the sensation of touch/pain, and one of the biggest issues patients face is that, like an Elantrian, you bump your own limbs on things constantly in normal use.

 

I mean... correct me if I'm wrong, but your argument seems to be, "if the limb rotted and fell off, Szeth would have mentioned it," and I don't agree. If I am mistaken, please feel free to enlighten me.

 

Hah, I will now switch tracks back to shardblade injuries. I think there are some important framework points which ought to be discussed.  If we are to determine that shardblade injuries are effectively a nervous system blockage or severance, then it should be pointed out that shardblades do not damage living tissue. Thus, blood should still continue to flow and thus continue to provide cells with oxygen and 'food'.  Given that, we may look at a shardlade wound as a form of paralysis.  It is very clear that in the case of paralysis, the tissue does not die, it simply cannot be acted upon by nervous impulses.  The only way that a shardblade wound would result in rotting flesh is if the flesh could not survive separation form the spiritual aspect of the body in spite of continued blood flow.  Frankly we just don't have the info yet. 

 

As to Szeth or anyone else having knowledge as to how shardblade injuries behave, even if Szeth or anyone else is new to a shardblade, there is at least 4500 years of shared history where shardblades would have been used against people (i.e., the KR were not likely to have spent there time fighting greatshells between Ahrietam and the Recreance).  This is a lot of time for a pretty solid base of knowledge about shardblade wounds to disseminate throughout Roshar.  

Edited November 29, 2013 by Ookla the Occulus

[Oudeis he/him]

Be aware that your position is a position, and a non-trivial claim. Kant, for one, would slap you upside the head for saying that morality could change due to mere changes in the nature of the physical world.

That is not even slightly what I said, and if I did say it I'd slap myself silly. I did not mean to give you the impression that I thought physical changes caused morality changes; I simply meant that if the one can change, so can the other. Independently.

 

*Drops mike, stands around awkwardly*

 

=D Upvote. I think I really did end debate on that one...

 

This is a lot of time for a pretty solid base of knowledge about shardblade wounds to disseminate throughout Roshar.

 

But it wasn't 4,500 years of stability and openness. Roshar wasn't a world where the dissemination of information is a big thing. There's an entire branch of historians trying to establish what really happened from the incredibly skewed accounts that they have access to. A lot of knowledge on Earth got lost or wiped out. I'm no historian, but it's my belief that two big things that could set human knowledge back are wars and massive natural disasters.

 

It's a good thing Roshar isn't subject to constant warfare and weekly natural disasters...

 

To give more concrete examples... no one, not even the most well-educated, knows what a dawnshard is, or where Urithiru is, or what Voidbringers were, or what's up with the Recreance, or what happened to the honorblades, and there's been more than enough time for that information to disseminate. Yes, I realize none of those things are quite as prevalent as Shardblades, but I also think Shardblades aren't quite common. Libraries are rare and the Palaneum is a wonder of the world. From one of Lirin's first talks with Kaladin, it sounds like after 4,500 years of medical practice, the average person considers washing a wound to be a waste of time, and this is a world where germs get their own visible-to-the-naked-eye spren. I do not think your argument that "knowledge of a comparably rare medical condition would be wide-spread" has a strong foundation, though several of your others hold merit.

Edited November 29, 2013 by Ookla the Confuzified

[Kurkistan he/him]

That is not even slightly what I said, and if I did say it I'd slap myself silly. I did not mean to give you the impression that I thought physical changes caused morality changes; I simply meant that if the one can change, so can the other. Independently.

 

Sorry, I was too broad with my terminology. By "physical world", I had meant to encompass the nature of the entire universe. I used entirely the wrong word to spell that out, though. My apologies for the confusion.

 

Kant's views hinge on the nature of rationality. Those of others hinge on sensation, or sentience, or... Suffice it to say, several philosophies care very very little about the nature of the universe insofar as it does not affect that which they do care about.

 

Assuming (rather fairly, I'd say) that people in the cosmere are rational, then, Kant would not allow anything else to affect his judgement of their moral obligations. So no, the physical world conceivably being different in other possible worlds does not logically entail that morality could be different in other possible worlds. Kant would tell you that a world without rationality is a world without morality, not one with a "different" morality.

 

=D Upvote. I think I really did end debate on that one...

Yeah, that was nice.

Edited November 30, 2013 by Ookla the Inveterate

[Shardlet he/him]

That is not even slightly what I said, and if I did say it I'd slap myself silly. I did not mean to give you the impression that I thought physical changes caused morality changes; I simply meant that if the one can change, so can the other. Independently.

 

 

=D Upvote. I think I really did end debate on that one...

 

 

But it wasn't 4,500 years of stability and openness. Roshar wasn't a world where the dissemination of information is a big thing. There's an entire branch of historians trying to establish what really happened from the incredibly skewed accounts that they have access to. A lot of knowledge on Earth got lost or wiped out. I'm no historian, but it's my belief that two big things that could set human knowledge back are wars and massive natural disasters.

 

It's a good thing Roshar isn't subject to constant warfare and weekly natural disasters...

 

To give more concrete examples... no one, not even the most well-educated, knows what a dawnshard is, or where Urithiru is, or what Voidbringers were, or what's up with the Recreance, or what happened to the honorblades, and there's been more than enough time for that information to disseminate. Yes, I realize none of those things are quite as prevalent as Shardblades, but I also think Shardblades aren't quite common. Libraries are rare and the Palaneum is a wonder of the world. From one of Lirin's first talks with Kaladin, it sounds like after 4,500 years of medical practice, the average person considers washing a wound to be a waste of time, and this is a world where germs get their own visible-to-the-naked-eye spren. I do not think your argument that "knowledge of a comparably rare medical condition would be wide-spread" has a strong foundation, though several of your others hold merit.

 

I think that the Dawnshard example is very out of step with shardblades.  Shardblades are objects which have been the source of and used to carry out conflict for the last 4500 years.  It is not like a single civilization having a technology or knowledge which is lost when that civilization falls for whatever reason.  While Shardblades are not (at least currently widely disseminated throughout Roshar, there are nearly 100 of them known to be spread throughout Roshar (about 40 in each of Alethkar and Jah Keved, leaving 20 to the other 8 kingdoms).  Further, there is current scholarship and libraries in various localities throughout Roshar which undoubtedly carry a great deal of current knowledge.  Shardblade wounds are not likely to be closely held secrets.  On top of which, the Shin clearly are in possession of a minimum of one shardblade and by all appearances have sent the at least one shardblade out into the world multiples of times.  The Shin at least are very likely to have some significant knowledge of the nature of shardblade injuries.

[Scriptorian he/him]

I probably just haven't been on the forms long enough, but this is the most tangentially divergent thread I've seen.

 

To clarify my own thoughts on the morality debacle: I believe in absolute morality, that certain actions are generally speaking immoral, but that the circumstances and intentions of the involved persons are as important as the action itself. So killing people is, generally speaking, a bad thing to do, but under very certain circumstances, can be acceptable. However, if a person's intentions are not "good", by my definition it would still be immoral. Of course, in an ideal world, no one would be dying anyway. I guess you could say I just have a pragmatic view on absolute morality. There are ideals that everyone should strive for, but circumstances may require individual adaptation. When in doubt, I usually err on the side of the ideal.

 

Now, Hemalurgy. Under my definition of morality, you'd need at least as good a reason to kill someone as you would to kill them and then steal their spiritual whacha-ma-call-it, such that, in most circumstances, using hemalurgy would be an evil act. I could conceive that there might be a case where using hemalurgy is preferable to the alternatives, but, like I said above, in an ideal world, no one would have to die in any circumstances. Also, because the primary use of hemalurgy is to grant oneself more power, the intents behind the act usually aren't very good.

 

As to whether Hemalurgy itself is evil, I don't think we know enough about the process yet to say. If it does cause a person suffering in the Afterlife, than I would say yes (although, my personal interpretation is that "souls" and the afterlife are separate from the Three Realms and the Cosmere as we understand it), but we just don't know. In any case, we can see the means of Hemalurgy, killing and robbery, are by themselves going to be immoral 99% of the time, so, when in doubt, don't spike.

 

 

On the other tangent...well, shardblades are just awesome regardless. So there.

[Kurkistan he/him]

I probably just haven't been on the forms long enough, but this is the most tangentially divergent thread I've seen.

 

Isn't it glorious!

 

If you really want tangents, look up "Shardblades and Hemalurgic Decay".

 

In our defense, the OP was asked and answered before the tangents kicked in: It is (heavily implied to be) the same book, and as to the author we know that Marsh didn't write it and just about everyone agrees that it sounds like Spook.

[Oudeis he/him]

I think that the Dawnshard example is very out of step with shardblades. Shardblades are objects which have been the source of and used to carry out conflict for the last 4500 years. It is not like a single civilization having a technology or knowledge which is lost when that civilization falls for whatever reason. While Shardblades are not (at least currently widely disseminated throughout Roshar, there are nearly 100 of them known to be spread throughout Roshar (about 40 in each of Alethkar and Jah Keved, leaving 20 to the other 8 kingdoms). Further, there is current scholarship and libraries in various localities throughout Roshar which undoubtedly carry a great deal of current knowledge. Shardblade wounds are not likely to be closely held secrets. On top of which, the Shin clearly are in possession of a minimum of one shardblade and by all appearances have sent the at least one shardblade out into the world multiples of times. The Shin at least are very likely to have some significant knowledge of the nature of shardblade injuries.

If we were talking about earth, you'd have a point. No one is hiding knowledge of shardblade injuries, and if the culture of Roshar were the culture of Earth we could look it up on stormipedia or wait for buzzspren to tell us about The One Trick With Shardblades a Dad Figured Out (That Soulcasters Hate). In our world information has to be supressed to be little-known. In this world no one knows because that just isn't the culture. There are a few hundred Shardblades in the known world. That is a tiny amount. They get treated seriously, not pulled out for party tricks. They are the express purview of men, and natural philosophy is restricted to women. The Shin have one Blade we know of that they keep sending out of the country; Szeth would know less about the non-immediate effects of Blades than just about anyone else.

I'm sure there are tons of documented cases that literally tens of people have bothered to read in the last century or so. Normal people in this world believe a dark-eyes picking up a Shardblade will turn into a light-eyes. There is no evidence from this book to support the idea that the population of Roshar is, en masse, well-educated. People can be smart and they frequently know a lot about the things that directly affect them. Maybe the average Shardbearer knows (though it's a stretch to say that many would care about something that esoteric) and a few generals, a handful of doctors, and a few scholars who happen to care about such a specific topic.

[Shardlet he/him]

Well, I think you are selling Roshar and the importance placed on shardblades short.  But, you are of course entitled to your opinion.  I am fairly comfortable in mine.

[Oudeis he/him]

Well, I think you are selling Roshar and the importance placed on shardblades short.

Computers are arguably the most important thing on earth. On our well-educated world, where computers are everywhere (not just wielded by a tiny fraction of the population) with more information available than at any point in our history, what percentage of the population do you think understands anything beyond the absolute basics of computer programming? Shardblades rarely wound; they are used to kill. The long-term effects of a wound wouldn't be something people have to deal with commonly, or something the average person would see in his lifetime. And the 'average person' on Roshar is functionally a peasant. Or infantryman (and while of course I have the utmost respect for the infantryman of any country's military in today's world, on Roshar it seems reasonable to assume that they were not terrible well-educated).

 

Roshar example: People think that Shardblades will turn a darkeyes into a lighteyes, which does not seem to be the case. If everyone knew how Shardblades work so well, why would so many people be so mistaken as to their use/abilities? Shardblades are modern tools, yes, but they're also things of myth and legend, and Jasnah's entire part of the book deals with how the world has their myths and legends entirely wrong.

 

EDIT: Grammar.

Edited November 30, 2013 by Ookla the Confuzified

[Aether he/him]

First of all, amazing how much discussion there's been around two simple facts: whether or not "shard-severed" limbs rot or not and whether or not this would be generally known. 

 

Otherwise, just dropping in for two small additional titbits:

 

First of all, while Brandon himself does believe there are absolute moral values, he is also somewhat of an eccentric case. He is aware that not everyone holds the same belief on morals as himself, and in those very same Annotations, he several times over states that his books is not about depicting his own moral standard. They are obviously influenced by them, but not consciously. So while his characters themselves might hold one particular view or another on absolute moral values, his worlds in themselves doesn't necessarily have them. For him, it is more about presenting moral conundrums and then make the readers (and his characters) make up their own minds.

 

Roshar example: People think that Shardblades will turn a darkeyes into a lighteyes, which does not seem to be the case. If everyone knew how Shardblades work so well, why would so many people be so mistaken as to their use/abilities? Shardblades are modern tools, yes, but they're also things of myth and legend, and Jasnah's entire part of the book deals with how the world has their myths and legends entirely wrong.

Secondly, how does it not seem to be the case? True, winning a killing a Shardbearer without Shards yourself is somewhat of a rare event, but little seems to suggest that people doesn't become Lighteyes when they pick up Shards (at least Shardblades). The descendants of the darkeyes that picked up the Shards after the Recreance seems all to be Lighteyes, the fact that Szeth's eyes change back when he dismisses his Blade is a known exception, and Hoid even hints to the fact that there is (originally) a good reason for Lighteyes being in charge in the first place.

Edited November 30, 2013 by Ookla the Omniscient

[Oudeis he/him]

 

just dropping in for two small additional titbits:

I really hope that was a typo. =D

Secondly, how does it not seem to be the case?

Lirin, the only educated man in Hearthstone, tells Kaladin that it's a rare occurence. Szeth's own thoughts on the matter suggest that his Blade is unique in turning his eyes blue in the first place, not the fact that the color doesn't stay. And Taln's eyes are brown, while he is clearly wielding his Blade.

[bartbug he/him]

Taln is a herald, so we can't decide what rules apply to him and what rules dont'. And, Taln may be using an Honorblade, which has different rules. I think that Sanderson doesn't want us to know about this, though, because your point with Szeth is valid.

[Aether he/him]

 I really hope that was a typo. =D

Actually, "titbit" is how it is supposed to be spelled. It is only because of the dainty Americans and their tendency of seeing sexuality and fornication everywhere that it was changed to "tidbit" in the first place. Most British still spell it in the former way.

 

 Lirin, the only educated man in Hearthstone, tells Kaladin that it's a rare occurence. Szeth's own thoughts on the matter suggest that his Blade is unique in turning his eyes blue in the first place, not the fact that the color doesn't stay. And Taln's eyes are brown, while he is clearly wielding his Blade.

I thought Lirin was only referring to darkeyes winning Blades in the first place? could you provide the quote?

Also, what bartbug said. We have no idea how Heralds fit into this. They might just be the exception.

Edited November 30, 2013 by Ookla the Omniscient

[Shardlet he/him]

Computers are arguably the most important thing on earth. On our well-educated world, where computers are everywhere (not just wielded by a tiny fraction of the population) with more information available than at any point in our history, what percentage of the population do you think understands anything beyond the absolute basics of computer programming? Shardblades rarely wound; they are used to kill. The long-term effects of a wound wouldn't be something people have to deal with commonly, or something the average person would see in his lifetime. And the 'average person' on Roshar is functionally a peasant. Or infantryman (and while of course I have the utmost respect for the infantryman of any country's military in today's world, on Roshar it seems reasonable to assume that they were not terrible well-educated).

 

Roshar example: People think that Shardblades will turn a darkeyes into a lighteyes, which does not seem to be the case. If everyone knew how Shardblades work so well, why would so many people be so mistaken as to their use/abilities? Shardblades are modern tools, yes, but they're also things of myth and legend, and Jasnah's entire part of the book deals with how the world has their myths and legends entirely wrong.

 

I am not saying that the vast population of Roshar is well schooled in everything about shardblades.  The example you gave was spoken of by darkeyes, most of whom have never even seen a shardblade.  Contrast that with a group of people who have, and frequently use, shardblades.  The Alethi duel using shardblades.  Dalinar thinks about the potential for injury with blade.  He says it rarely happens in duels, but says nothing about actual battles.  Again however the Shin possess and at least one shardblade and Szeth is well trained in its use by the time he assassinates Gavilar.  The Shin (not every individual) are likely to have some substantial knowledge about the use and physical effects of shardblades. 

 

I also think you are unjustified in saying that shardblades rarely wound.  We simply do not have the information about this.  We have a flashback scene and a battles with parshendi where shardblades are used.  The POV for the flashback scene is from someone who largely cares for his squad above everyhthing else.  He just saw nearly his entire immediate world collapse in the shardbearer attack.  He does not see or contemplate any of the wounded from the battle, so we have no information from him there.  In the Parshendi battles, we have only the observations of Dalinar and Kaladin.  There is no information on Parshendi wounded at all.  Again no information to rely on about shardblade injuries in battle.  The information is simply not there.

 

Again, you are welcome to your opinion.  I simply disagree with it.

Edited December 1, 2013 by Ookla the Occulus

[Oudeis he/him]

The Shin seem to have a single Blade, one that they consistently send out of their own country. Almost no Shin would know anything about Blades. I'm sure Szeth would know more than most, but the long-term affects aren't germane to him. By the time he held the blade, he was Truthless. No one was going to waste time spending long evenings debating the esoterica of Shardlore, by then it would likely have been, "Take this, here's what you need to know, now get out."

Your argument seems to be predicated on a few flimsy bases. First, you assume that Szeth would know about the long-term effects of a shard-severed limb, which I think is a weak and unsupported argument. Second, since Szeth mentions them in passing and says nothing about the the state such a limb will be in long-term, you seem to assume that his silence proves that limbs remain healthy, just non-functional. Because, apparently, he would have to have told us that in the exposition if limbs rotted, so his silence proves that they don't.

I agree with you that we don't know enough to make a determination; a long time ago, you seemed to be of the firm opinion that any reasonably intelligent person would agree that you're right and I'm wrong. If we both agree now that the text doesn't prove, or really even support, either argument, well then we're in agreement. If you still think the text proves you right, then I heartily disagree.

[Shardlet he/him]

The Shin seem to have a single Blade, one that they consistently send out of their own country. Almost no Shin would know anything about Blades. I'm sure Szeth would know more than most, but the long-term affects aren't germane to him. By the time he held the blade, he was Truthless. No one was going to waste time spending long evenings debating the esoterica of Shardlore, by then it would likely have been, "Take this, here's what you need to know, now get out."

 

My point is not that all or even most Shin would know anything about the blades, but rather that some at least would.  Some body (not to be confused with somebody) of Shin are going to be in charge of the care and keeping of the blade(s).  And there is no statements that I know of either WoB or in the text that Szeth was Truthless before he ever held the blade.  And neither you or anybody else has any real idea (beyond conjecture) about what ways a Truthless is prepared to be sent out into the world.  I doubt that Szeth's fighting skills were obtained only upon being booted from Shinovar.  He clearly has has some substantial training.  There is plenty of room to speculate about what knowledge he may or may not have. 

 

You have proposed one possibility, I have proposed another.  You disagree with me, I disagree with you.  I'm sorry that you got the impression that I thought the text proved anything (I studiously try to avoid this, by the way).  So far, the text proves not much of anything in terms of any of the theories produced on this site.  I freely admit that much of what I have said is conjecture.  If you will once again review my comments on this issue (as I just have), I think you will find that I have made very few positively affirmed statements and each of those statements is clearly established by the text.  If you have a specific statement, I'd be happy to address your concern.  And, as to the flimsiness of my supported evidence, yours seems to me at least as flimsy. 

 

I really don't wish to rehash this any further.  Like I said, if you have a concern with something I have set forth and feel that something that I addressed as fact should not have been addressed so, I will be happy to respond to that.  Otherwise, it seems this aspect of the discussion has become unproductive.

Edited December 2, 2013 by Ookla the Occulus

[Swimmingly he/him]

Nope, it's evil. Always has been, always will be. WoB.

But even in Brandon's universe, Brandon's values and beliefs don't hold true. This is a major selling point for his books for me, personally. Thus, we see despicable characters capable of good things (and vice versa), convincing atheists, etc. And, possibly, morally justifiable Hemalurgy...if that's what the story calls for. Kelsiers actions are just as morally justifiable as hemalurgy, for many of the same reasons. Even if it's "evil", it might can still be used in interesting and creative ways - just by people you would not want living in the same city as you.

[Oudeis he/him]

Way, WAY back to the OP, I figure I'll put in the text from the novel, un-spliced. This is what Wax was reading at the start of the blurb, without interjections about their wedding plans. Please note that like everything in the Steelhunt, it isn't canon until it's been published.

 

I figure I should write one of these things. To tell my side. Not the side the historians will tell for me. I doubt they’ll get it right. I don’t know that I’d like them to anyhow.

I know Saze doesn’t approve of what I’ve done. But what did he expect me to do? Knowing what I know . . .

I couldn’t let it die. It’s not right. Hemalurgy is good now, I figure. Saze is both sides now, right? Ruin isn’t around anymore.

We can use it. We should. Shouldn’t we?

 

Of all the people who know Sazed well enough to call him "Saze," the only ones living by the end of the novels are, unless I'm mistaken, Marsh, Breeze, Ham and Spook. Would Allrianne know him that well? I'm gonna say no, and we've got it confirmed that Marsh did NOT write the book.

 

Breeze has never been that indecisive in his life, mental breakdown included. And he would not "write one of these things," he would "inscribe the intimate details of my life onto the very annals of history itself, that future generations might know the glory that was me."

 

I can totally see Ham being this indecisive. Indecisiveness was utterly the hallmark of his character. To the extent of provoking the surprised reaction from Elend in Hero of Ages, "Ham... did you just come to a conclusion?"

 

Spook makes more sense, as he's got more direct experience with hemalurgy and with Ruin. But I would truthfully not be surprised if this turned out to be written by Ham.

[Shardlet he/him]

Spook makes more sense, as he's got more direct experience with hemalurgy and with Ruin. But I would truthfully not be surprised if this turned out to be written by Ham.

 

Ham did wax philosophical, but I think that he usually hedged on the side of 'Is this actually the right thing to do?'.  Like with his concern about whether overthrowing TLR was actually right.

[Oudeis he/him]

Ham did wax philosophical, but I think that he usually hedged on the side of 'Is this actually the right thing to do?'.  Like with his concern about whether overthrowing TLR was actually right.

 

Exactly. Hence his waffling in this very book. He doesn't just say, "This is right." He says, "This is right. I mean, it is. isn't it? Right?" That sounds like the kind of hedging I'd expect from Ham.

 

Again let me re-iterate, I still think it's Spook. But I think Ham is an option (literally, in my opinion, the only other possible option) and he's not a terribly unlikely one.

[loganmathewjohnson]

Okay, folks. It seems we're pretty unsure as to who wrote this book, but I'm going to say it was Spook, for a few reasons:

1. As far as I know, Spook is the only one who Sazed directly contacted after his ascension. (The letter at the end of HoA)

2. Spook had the most Hemalurgic experience that we know of, among the surviving members of Kell's crew. (Except Marsh, but we know he did not write the book.)

3. The author of the book says that he wants to tell his side, not the way the historians will tell it. Unless Ham has done something world-altering with Hemalurgy, (A possibility) It seems unlikely that he will be remembered. The life and decisions of the Lord Mistborn, however, would most certainly be recorded by historians.

4. Ham has a more philosophical nature, while Spook tends to experiment more. Ham asks: "Should we? Can we? What do you think would happen?" While Spook acts. He didn't seem to give serious thoughts as to the consequences of becoming a Tin Savant, whereas Ham would have. The author of this book seems to imply that he created some Hemalurgic creations by saying: "I know Saze doesn’t approve of what I’ve done. But what did he expect me to do? Knowing what I know . . . I couldn’t let it die. It’s not right."  In this regard, it could have been Ham, but I think after Spook's experience with Hemalurgy, knowing the strength it granted him, he would be much more likely to experiment than Ham.

5. This one is the most pivotal to my opinion here. The phrase 'Knowing what I know.' from the book, as mentioned above. So, obviously, the author of this book knew things about Hemalurgy far above the common soul. I have WoB right here that says Spook knew some things he 'really should not have.' The author used Hemalurgy to do something Sazed didn't approve of, something that probably shouldn't have been done, using knowledge that probably shouldn't have been known...

 

Anyway, still could have been Ham. I think those two are really the only options... But i'm 95% certain the author was Spook. 

 

EDIT: added "among the surviving members of Kell's crew." to  the end of #2 above.

Edited January 2, 2014 by loganmathewjohnson

[Oudeis he/him]

3. The author of the book says that he wants to tell his side, not the way the historians will tell it. Unless Ham has done something world-altering with Hemalurgy, (A possibility) It seems unlikely that he will be remembered.

Anyway, still could have been Ham. I think those two are really the only options... But i'm 95% certain the author was Spook. 

 

I think you and I are largely in agreement here. I'm only like 90% sure it's Spook, but we certainly seem to agree it's one of them.

 

Actually re-reading the quote you posted to, I'm maybe now up to 95% with you. The "knows things he shouldn't know" is just too leadin...

 

Anyway, as for "does history remember Ham," please check the map. The Irongate river flows into Hammondar Bay. I am going to say yes, Ham did enough to be remembered. Maybe there's a plaque.

[Shardlet he/him]

I suspect that there are various features of Elendel named for each of the members of Kelsier's crew and other notables (e.g., Demoux Prominade).

[loganmathewjohnson]

There are multiple locations, both in and out of Elendel, that are named for historical Scadrian locations or members of Kell's crew. eg: Tathingdwel, Alendel (Alendi) Rashekin (Rashek) Doxonar (Dockson) Vindiel-Cameux (Vin)

 

So, I don't think there's any real historical significance behind Ham... Of course, I have been wrong before. It's also possible that the city planner named locations for things people did before the Final Ascension, where Ham played a major role. 

 

But I'm still going with Spook.