#also I really hope that this sounds informative rather than guilt-trippy.

[riverbeatsaber]

Hello all! Here's a Stormlight Archive observation I'd like to share. Shallan's coping mechanisms are not:

❌ Veil

❌ Radiant

Veil, Radiant, and headmates in general are actually people! How would you feel if someone called you a coping mechanism or an unhealthy coping mechanism, or implied or outright said that you were not real? Yes, Veil and Radiant are characters, but there are also systems who exist in real life and can hear how you talk about them.*

To be fair, I know that for the first two books, Brandon Sanderson himself was not writing Radiant and Veil as their own people, and there is an argument to be made that he never fully pivoted away from that, but I believe/hope that we as a fandom can do better than him.

In addition, what Shallan's coping mechanisms are, from my observation:

Drawing, to distract herself from things that are stressing her out.

Being a scholar, especially in the earlier books.

Dissociation, which, interestingly, in the flashback chapters seems to be fully blanking out for a while, and in current time is written more as active repression (maybe so that Shallan can just decide not to repress her memories and achieve Character Development more easily? Not sure.)

This is kinda a sneak peak of a giant character analysis of Shallan that I've been doing for a while. I got stuck writing down quotes in Oathbringer, but I've been picking it up again recently. I hope to be posting more thoughts from that in the future:]

*I am the host of one of those systems who see y'all posting. just to make it clear

[lavander-galaxy]

Sanders Sides Analysis: Logos, Pathos, and Ethos

A few days ago in my English class, we reviewed ethos, pathos, and logos. It sparked my interest because I knew that Logan’s name was based off of logos and Patton’s off of pathos. I have seen plenty of theories about these tools of persuasion, so I decided to analyze the sides through each of these concepts. 

Enjoy!

LOGOS

Logos is an appeal to logic and reason, it is also a Greek word that means ‘a word’ or ‘reasoning’.This tool of persuasion is used to “prove” an argument through logical and sound reasoning. Now of course this sounds pretty accurate for our nerd, but I couldn’t help but realize who else this connected to. Deceit. Throughput the entirety of SvS Dee used LOGIC in order to show Thomas his point and make the other sides listen to him. Heck he even showed up as Logan in the beginning. But why would Deceit shut Logan out of the conversation if they are so similar? Well, Logan wasn’t completely shut out since Dee did use Logan to answer some questions in the episode, and he had some outbursts at some point. However, It does make some sense why Deceit wouldn’t want Logan to have an input based on later parts of the episode. For example: At the very end Logan interrupts Dee as he is trying to prove his point to the others. He says “leave the teaching to me”. Logan is the true source of logic in the group, that is what he represents. Maybe Logan feels competition between him and Dee because they both use logos to prove their arguments and explain their reasoning.

PATHOS

Pathos is an appeal to the emotions, so it makes sense that Patton is the main man representing this. Pathos is also a Greek word that means ‘experience’ or ‘suffering’. Wait.. suffering?? It is important to note that even though Patton is a bubbly character he still encompasses sad emotions. Something I found interesting about Pathos is that a way to use it is by appealing to an audiences hopes and dreams, playing on their fears and worries, or appealing to their particular beliefs or ideals. But, that’s not all only Patton. ‘Hopes and dreams’ I don’t know about you, but that sounds like Roman to me. ‘Playing on their fears and worries’ and that right their sounds like Virgil. How could all of these characters be connected? Well, A part of the series that I have noticed is how the three of them always seem to understand each other better. On the other hand, Logan is left misunderstood, not listened too, and disregarded because the other three don’t understand his way of reasoning. We really saw the clash in WDWGOOBITM. Logan and Roman kept going back and forth about who was right and wrong, but they didn’t even understand what either of them was trying to argue the while time. Not until the end when Thomas brought up their points again, and pointed out that they actually make a good team at least. In fact a way to show pathos while persuading someone is by using descriptive language and imagery which evokes emotion. Sounds pretty familiar right? That is exactly how Roman chose to explain his point of view during that whole episode. Another way to use pathos in an argument is by identifying values or emotions which relate particularly to your audience, and play to them. This was Patton’s plan during SvS. Remember how he got info out of Virgil while he was on the stand? He played to the fact that he knew how much losing a friend would hurt Virgil, so that’s how he approached his case with him. He attempted to do the same with Logan, but since they are so opposite when it comes to the tools of persuasion, it was a flop. He didn’t know what to ask, or how to get more information that he needs out of Logan. Partially was probably because he knew that Thomas didn’t actually want to go to the callback, but I can’t help but think that it is also because Patton doesn’t understand how Logan works. This also makes sense on why Logan refuses to believe he has emotions. Not only is he the furthest away from using pathos ever, but he doesn’t understand  the reason behind it. Why does he need emotions, when he can get his point across clearly with facts? Another part of pathos that I noticed is how it is connected to guilt. Pay attention to both of these examples of pathos that I found:1- If you don’t buy this life insurance you are letting your family down. 2- If you don’t go on this holiday you will regret it. You don’t want to live with regrets, do you? Wow. very guilt-trippy I know. This brings light to a quote by Roman after Patton scolds him for siding with Dee in SvS, “Yeesh, I would’ve stayed in my room if I knew dad was gonna take us on a guilt trip.” (This also just strengthens my argument that the next side is gonna be guilt but that is besides the point).It now makes sense why Patton has been using guilt as a way to persuade lately. That is what he knows, that is how he knows he is able to get the others to agree with him. Besides, if your audience is more emotionally invested and engaged with your case or argument, they are more likely to be persuaded. Right?

ETHOS

Finally ethos is up. This is the tool of persuasion that I have seen most people put Dee with. However, I think I am going to have to disagree. Ethos is an appeal to authority and credibility and it is a Greek word meaning ‘character’. One thing we know of Dee so far is that right now he is not trusted to be credible. Also every side literally takes whatever he says as a lie or not the complete truth. The main goal of using the ethos form of persuasion is to convince your audience to do what you believe is right or just to convince them of your point is by using your character or credibility. That is not deceit’s angle throughout svs at. all. The only time in that episode that used ethos is in the beginning of the episode when Patton tried to convince Thomas that he needs to skip the callback because of his morality. Patton says “what is this wacky talk? You don’t mean any of this. I’m your morality. I wouldn’t be here if you did.” And to that Deceit responds with the same exact reasoning. “You know who else is here? me. so maybe Thomas isn’t so innocent.” Ironically enough, ethos is used more against deceit than in deceit’s favor. Take Virgil for example, he has pointed out how deceit is a liar and how no one should ever trust his too many times to count. Whenever Dee is starting to make a valid point it is always shot down by his own character and credibility at the hands of the lights. Rather that his own credibility, Dee’s preferred tactic is fact and truth. (which is ironic since he is deceit). Sounds like logos right? That’s cause it is. He using the same tactics as Logan does, which explains why they butt heads so much. Deceit is there to show Thomas the truth. He hates it when Thomas lies to himself and covers up what he truly believes is true. Which is exactly the point of svs. As Dee says in the video, “What am I doing here, Thomas? Am I the snake come to trick you into sinning or have you had your mind made up since the moment you received the news about the callback?” Deceit’s arguments all focus on fact, truth, and the ABSENCE of lies. In fact whenever a side lies during this episode Deceit immediately calls them out. (I would list them but that’s for a different post) The curious case of Dee’s questions throughout that video also leave many questions. My favorite of his questions is that whenever Deceit was questioning the other sides he began with asking them what their functions were as a part of Thomas. It’s almost like he was setting Patton up to ask him the same question. Maybe then his side of the story would have made a little more sense. But alas! I guess we will just have to wait a little longer to fully understand Dee as a character. However, we did get an insight on his motives of the video. And he was doing it all to protect Thomas. Funny right? It’s almost like that was Virgil’s motive as well when he was an outcast. But, that is a completely different topic so I will leave you guys, gals, and non-binary pals with this.

Deceit obviously isn’t as cut and dry as the rest of the sides. I don’t think we can perfectly put him in a box in order to try and predict his name or his motives just yet. It is the same as the case with Virgil. The others are different. And I can’t wait to see how they flourish within the series. 

 So basically what I am trying to say is, based on what we have seen Deceit’s arguments are based more on fact that character and credibility. This leads me to believe his character, argumentative style, and name, are not based on ethos. His character seems like it is leaning more towards logos actually. 

Thanks for reading all of this! I hope that the people who decided to read this ridiculously long post (and who patiently waited for me to get off my butt and finish it) enjoyed what i had to say. If i missed anything, or you want to bring up your own p.o.v to what I offered feel free to! <333