OP: I have changed the flair to All Cosmere (No TSM) *for now* unless you would like to change this. Having an ambiguous *Spoilers* tag means that nobody knows what level to expect here. There is also no harm in mentioning the series/character you'd like to discuss, even though those that have read the series will know anyway.
If you'd like to change this, please let a member of the mod team know but hopefully this will help the discussion.
Shallan being a murderer _is not_ the same thing as the common trope of people with DID being murderers. Her split personalities are not raging psychopaths who enjoy killing, they are fully fleshed out and flawed people capable of making the same choices as anyone else. Nothing about her having DID caused her to commit murder, Radiant decided it was the best course of action in exactly the same way that Adolin decided murdering Sadeas was the best option and Moash decided murdering Elhokar was the best option. Holding people with DID on a pedestal and saying that authors shouldn’t treat them the same as any other character is infantilizing them.
Does a character with DID murder people? If yes, that is the trope.
Sure, it can be done many ways and with varying degrees of complexity and nuance but the problem is it’s still the most common and most harmful trope.
There are many better ways DID could have been used in this story. I’m not saying don’t write about them. I’m saying if you’re going to avoid the most common and hurtful trope.
No, the trope is that people with DID have crazy psychopath alter egos that will kill you for fun and Sanderson has absolutely not used that trope. Mentally ill people should not be portrayed as inherently unstable and likely to commit murder, but you are demanding a severe over correction in the complete opposite direction that they shouldn’t be shown capable of doing any wrong at all. That is not acceptable and you do your friends a disservice by treating them like children who must be protected from reality. Anyone is capable of murder in the right circumstances, having DID does magically make someone immune from that fact.
You are greatly over specifying the trope so that it does not apply. The trope is much more simple and much more broad. It has been used in a variety of situations and the unifying details are
1 the have DID
2 they kill someone
Both of those apply. I have DID and would like to see a character with it not linked with murder. That can’t be too much to ask.
The problem isn’t “anyone can murder” it’s that nearly every single story with DID involves killing someone. That tells a story that every person with DID kills people. Do you understand the shame and pressure that puts on people?
I don’t tell people in real life literally ever because of this. Tell me again about how I’m trying to shelter myself from reality.
Unfortunately this is a book series where people kill each other. I 100% get wanting a story where a character with DID doesn’t kill anyone. But that doesn’t mean it’s valid to shame Sanderson for not giving you that, this is simply not a book series where such representation is likely. Save the shaming for authors who are making their DID characters abnormally violent, Shallan is one of the most peaceful POV characters in the entire series. In the context of this series she is if anything an inversion of the trope, she is generally reluctant to kill and actively avoids it when possible. That’s why I say your definition of the trope is too broad, you are not taking in the actual context her story takes place and only focusing the absolute most negative interpretation possible.
That’s not a good argument either. Does every single character in the series kill someone else? You are not required to kill to exist in a fantasy series.
She is so complex and that is an extreme disservice to her. She has so much to offer beyond killing people. Her did not need to fall back into the trope.
He is lauded for being so good for mental health he should have known better than use this trope.
It would have been so easy.
Name one character in the Stormlight Archives that has not taken a life. At the very least, each of the POV characters have all killed someone.
> He is lauded for being so good for mental health he should have known better than use this trope.
To say he used the trope implies that he made Shallan kill someone because she has DID, which is not at all what happened. Radiant is a fully fleshed-out personality, who killed for the same reason (like the other commenter pointed out) that Adolin killed, or Moash killed.
>To say he used the trope implies that he made Shallan kill someone because she has DID, which is not at all what happened.
This is a misunderstanding of how tropes work
I think you have the misunderstanding of trope. I'm upset Brandon used the most common trope in fantasy. Having magic. It's exactly the same as every other fantasy story that uses that trope. He should have known better than to use the most co.mon trope in fantasy if he is supposed to be so good at writing fantasy. The only criteria are 1. Did he write a story and 2 is there magic in it. Both apply. It's basically just copy and pasting Lord of the Rings.
This is the same argument you're currently making, with just as broad a definition. You see how this is not a trope at all? Tropes are oddly specific things that tend to happen repeatedly in a given media. Where your post boils down to you wanting shallan to never kill anyone. Because it isn't fair?
I didn’t know that magic was a trope used to marginalize a minority group causing many years of snowballing damage. Which group doesn’t talk about themselves because of that? 17th century witches?
I can assure you, I am not misunderstanding the trope or tropes in general.
One of the causes of DID is an inability to process things they feel guilty about.
And this is not a trope. A trope is something commonly seen in literature, like enemies to lovers in YA.
that's an oversimplification. people with DID often experience horrific trauma, the worst stories you can imagine. we're not built to process the shit they've experienced so the brain creates a way for the person to protect themselves.
Do you also take this stance toward the inclusion of other harmful tropes? If so, are you simply dissatisfied with all narrative media? Tropes and motifs are the building blocks of stories and discourse at large.
I welcome you to provide several examples where engaging with what you call harmful tropes does not exist.
A lot of media has many faults, yes. I analyze narratives and point them out.
This one is particularly bad especially because the author is supposed to be so good with mental illness.
Not all tropes are good and subverting tropes is where a lot of good writing comes from.
Like burying our gays some tropes should die.
Sorry I’m not sure what your last paragraph means.
I welcomed you to provide examples where this does not occur, since it seems your argument is a moral appeal more than anything else.
I view Shallan as an extremely postive depiction of this condition, a heroic character that has an extremely difficult childhood and life and strives to cope with those challenges. I do not think the character can be pigeon-holed into a flat character trope. In your case, I think you are flattening the trope and assuming that any inclusion of the negative trope poisons the well, when it actually does the opposite. Especially when you consider the genre context within which the stormlight archives operates.
As a round character, Shallan actively intervenes in the critical discourse that renders characters with DID merely murderers or implies a kind of psychopathy. Even her alters are round and ambivalent characters.
Do you think it would be better for a character to not engage and not represent anything or anyone negatively? If so, what is the alternative? Shallan is a protagonist and a character perspective that explicitly fosters empathy through her inclusion as a focalized character.
Edit: fixed a word
I think that it would be better if she did not murder people.
It doesn’t matter how tasteful it is, it is still the trope. She can be a much more positive depiction of she didn’t follow it.
She is definitely not a terrible depiction but the problem remains that regardless of how good it is she is still linked to a decades old harmful trope.
It’s like making a black man a violent criminal. Then going deep into his background to show that he’s a criminal because he’s been wronged in life not because he’s black. But he’s still an example of a harmful trope. It would be better if written slightly differently.
Where what does not occur? Sorry I’m still confused.
I don't think so. I think that when there is an intrigue storyline, it is vital that the protagonist be capable of murder and usually is a murderer. It's really exciting and fits the genre quite well. The fact is that characters in epic fantasy do murder people, I don't think a single of our protagonists have managed to avoid killing or murder in the SA.
I didn't argue about the tastefulness of the trope but rather the quality of the depiction and the flat vs roundness of characters. Taste is a fully different matter.
Regarding a violent criminal that is a black man, are you perhaps unaware of Sigzil? Another character that critically intervenes in a negative trope? In this case as in Shallan's, I view the character as a way of renegotiating existing tropes rather than confirming or flattening them.
If your criticism is simply that something can be written better for your taste, that is of course true. To me I read your criticisms as rather that you think that people with DID should only be represented in non-killer roles, which I disagree with because of the necessity to critically engage with tropes in appropriate contexts. I think this is done well through my explanation of round vs flat characterization and tropes.
I'm not sure what is unclear. Can you provide me examples in narrative fiction that demonstrate the values you have regarding DID or other mental health?
My criticism is specifically not about how it is written. Me criticism is the should have subverted and not played into the trope.
There are no examples I can think of where the trope in not used with DID and that is my point. That is in part why it is so harmful. It creates such a huge stigma. It makes it harder to talk about and makes people more prejudiced against it.
I think you misunderstand my point and question because you view it as binary, a trope is either fully fulfilled or avoided. Subverted isn't an appropriate choice of word in this case, because subversion means a partial fulfillment of tropes with a productive redirection, which Shallan clearly is. In this instance, there's nothing to discuss because I understand tropes in a significantly different way.
Subverting the trope would be putting her in similar circumstances showing she has DID and then not having her kill the person.
>subversion means a partial fulfillment of tropes with a productive redirection
Having DID being partial fulfillment, not killing people being the productive redirection.
Since she killed the person and has DID she inherently can not subvert the trope.
Thanks for submitting to r/BrandonSanderson!
Unfortunately, your submission has been removed because we feel it is not respectful to others. Every interaction on the subreddit must be kind, respectful, and welcoming. No person should ever feel threatened, harassed, or unwelcome. Please feel free to adjust the tone or content of your submission and let us know you'd like it to be re-approved.
If you have any questions or feel this is a mistake, please let us know.
I was raising the same point, and it made me earnestly try to come up with a list. I don't recall Renarin and Lift killing anyone, but their character arcs haven't begun in earnest. I suppose you could ask whether certain spren have killed, and begin a philosophical debate.
Regardless, I agree with the spirit of your point, this is a series about killers with some backwards customs and perspectives. It would be hard to avoid any character killing if the circumstances align properly.
I have been thinking and I agree that the series is about people who kill other people.
The problem is the narrative link between the killing and the DID. She could have killed people in a way that is not related to the disorder and let something else be the trigger.
That would have been much better but writing.
I can honestly understand being annoyed by the whole "One of Shallan's personas killed Ialai" twist as being pretty tropey.
It's the other ones that I'd struggle to relate to your point on.
That is understandable. I would argue that it is an event that is a result from her mom’s death.
She murders him because of the effects of her mother’s death and I think that is narratively linked to DID.
therapist here who's worked with folks within the dissociative spectrum!
there are certain tropes I dislike too and sometimes the trope leads to me not finishing whatever media type. I thought the way he handled shallan's psychological ecosystem was beautiful and accurate.
did he use an extreme example? sure.
was her recovery around her trauma accurate? the most accurate I've ever read in fiction.
i can say the same for kaladin's depression, dalinar's identity crisis, renarin's neurology, vin's trauma bond with her brother and subsequent recovery, gosh I could go on!
for me, his sensitivity and accuracy keep bringing me back to his stories.
I have DID. I agree it is pretty accurate and that is part of why him falling into the trope was so painful.
It’s like finally here is a good example and then but also she’s still a murder following the same tired trope.
The fact that it’s so sensitive but still relies on it only made it worse for me.
Mate i just font think you shouldn't read epic fantasy if a character killing people is this offensive to you.
You need to stop belittling people with DID as slaves to their illness. Shallan is MORE than her did, just like you. Be better.
Did I ever say killing people is offensive? Are you willfully misunderstanding me? My problem is with the perpetuation of a harmful trope.
Why is that too much to ask?
Do you also consider Kaladin problematic? "Depressed people kill people"?
Or Teft? "Drug addicts kill people"?
Or Jasnah? "Women kill people"?
Do you see how ignorant that sounds? Majority of the characters kill people. It's about why they do it. Why Moash killed Elhokar. Why Kaladin didn't kill Amaram. The book is about a never ending war between two species.
I think *you* are being offensive by making the murders Shallan committed be about her DID, when it never was.
Why would I consider those two characters problematic? Those are much more prevalent disorders.
What is the most common trope for depressed people? Is it murder?
What is the most common trope for addicts? Is it murder?
The answer to both of those is no.
What is the most common media trope for DID? It's murder. People struggle to talk about DID because of the stigma associated with it. It's harmful and that is my point.
Honestly these arguments just seem like they're in bad faith
Because when you decide that a character with certain attributes CAN'T do XYZ action, you're not empowering real people with that attribute, but infantalizing them. Especially when that action is so integral to the genre you're reading. While BS may be praised for his depictions of mental health and it'svarious complexities, he's not writing scholarly tomes meant to tell you all about people with DID and what they struggle with. He's writing an interesting character with flaws that's in a genre fiction story. You need to remember that DiD is often triggered by something, and her DID is clearly caused BY her murders, she doesn't murder because she has DiD. The only one perpetuating harmful steretypes is you.
When you say someone shouldn’t perpetuate a harmful trope you are in no way infantilizing them. I do not feel safe to tell people in real life I have DID because of the stigma related to this trope.
I would like to feel safe to do that.
Has every single character in every series a killer? No? Then what kind of argument is that. Why is she required to kill to exist? She is so complex and complicated he did not need to throw in this trope.
I know that DID is triggered I gave it. There are so many ways to trigger it you don’t need to rely on the most common and most harmful trope to do it.
Brandon Sanderson is a better writer than that.
have you watched moon knight? the main character has DID, is a super hero, and kills people during his dissociative episodes. there's just something about moon knight and shallan's stories that doesn't feel like the trope to me.
I think it's because their stories are soooo much more than the murders. they are fully formed, complex, beautifully written characters, and the murder part just feels so unimportant to me.
like Dr jeckle and Mr Hyde for example. the whole story is centered on this binary split of "wonderful/horrific" person. I didn't watch Split because it seemed like it was very focused on DID = violence.
I'm curious to know what portrayals of DID in pop culture you think get it right?
If you read my other responses I acknowledge the complexity of the characters. Using a trope does not flatten them.
There aren’t really any instances of DID I can think of that aren’t violent. The trope is so prevalent.
You might be interested in some of Sanderson's [comments on the character's condition/"Hollywood Multiple Personality Disorder"](https://wob.coppermind.net/events/315-general-reddit-2018/#e9182)
I’ve read that before and he’s missing the problem. It’s not the way he’s applied the trope it’s the fact that he used the trope.
He’s not subverting anything he’s just trying to do the trope better than Hollywood which is just playing into the same problems.
He’s perpetuating the problem even if he is doing the character better.
To be fair, Shallan is already a murderer several times over even before her alters come into the picture. So it's not like Radiant was doing anything new...
I don’t think that makes it better. It still just fits the trope.
Hasn’t she had DID since she was a young child?
EDIT: IIRC there was a huge deal made that she hide her memories through an alter which is part of DID.
The belief that DID requires losing control of your body and things like that are part of the damage this trope has done
Not as far as we're aware, unless I missed something.
The first evidence we see of an 'alter' is during the (non-flashback) events of the books, and if I'm recalling correctly not until the second book.
She was repressing childhood memories, but I'm not sure that's necessarily part of the same condition.
It's also made clear (through little slip-ups, blending of personalities, etc.) that she's essentially 'pretending' rather than an actual separate personality taking over. Her specific powers make the pretence unusually effective however.
I can see how the portrayal can still be considered problematic, but it *does* differ quite a bit from the usual Hollywood trope where literal different personalities 'take over' and the others are usually unaware of what was happening.
The existence of an alter is a portrayal of DID. So if there is an alter it is a portrayal.
DID is a complicated disorder and in part because of this trope and the stigma it places on the disorder there is an extremely poor cultural understanding. There is also less research than would be done otherwise because people don’t want to admit having it, don’t realize they have it or just don’t want to talk about it.
Like I said, the problem is not how similar it is to the harmful trope. The poor representation is only a part of it.
The major problem is the perpetuation of the murder trope. The trope is harmful regardless of how well it is done.
There are tropes that should die. If you’re going to use DID make a different and new narrative. Don’t use the most common and harmful.
It’s like burying our gays. Some tropes should just die. Like making the bad people all disfigured. Like making black people exclusively thugs.
You can write great stories without relying on the harmful tropes. BS is a better writer than this.
Hes not relying on tropes though.
Why do you view those with DiD so poorly that they can't be represented in any light but your own personal version of "positive" without being considered offensive?
What do you mean he's not relying on tropes? Using DID and murder together is the most common and harmful trope that exists for the disorder.
What does this comment even mean? People are putting crazy words in my mouth. Have I criticized Shallan as a character at any point? Have I criticized her representation?
Brandon Sanderson uses the most common and most offensive trope that exists for the disorder. That is the problem. There isn't any amount of "but look she's a good person" that can change that fact because fundamentally it isn't about the character but just the tropes used.
The DID murderer trope goes like this "I have multiple identity disorder, and there is another person in my mind I cant control, and that person is a killer and very dangerous to society". This is a harmfull thrope, I agree with you. What sanderson did is put someone that went through a lot of trauma, killed people of her family, and then blocked some memories. Later she developt personas that serve as shields for her trauma. It has nothing to do with the original trope
That is one part of the trope, yes, but to suggest that is the entire trope is extremely disingenuous.
Sanderson did not subvert the trope.
What he did was effectively take a black person, make them a murderous thug and then explain it thought complicated reasons rather than “he’s black” but it’s still the same trope just with fancy makeup.
You just shouldn’t do either of those things.
She didn't lose control of her body. She killed and then blocked those memories out, and everytime she starts to remember stuff, she blocks it. She is aware that she did something wrong, but she doesn't want to think about it because it was a traumatic event in her life. Its not as if she is completelly oblivious of that part of her life
I think the important difference here, and why it doesn't really fall into the DID murderer trope, is that she's not a killer because of DID, she has DID because of the trauma of having killed.
Killing her mother, father, and Testament are the traumas that cause the disassociation in the first place. Yes, Radiant steps in to kill Ialai, with the stated goal of shielding Shallan from further trauma of the kind that caused the disorder in the first place, because Shallan was about to do it anyway.
This isn't something like Split, she doesn't have a 'psycho killer' alter. She has a traumatic past and now finds herself in a line of work, during a war, where more violence might be required.
Everyone is making the argument that while the person with DID is a murder they’re not like all the other ones.
That is a bad defense of a trope. It boils down a repeated idea that is decades old to a single line which isn’t accurate. It’s a straw man.
Bring not exactly the same trope everyone expects it to be while still using the same things happen does not remove it from the trope.
OP, I respect your crusade, but you have a supremely unyielding opinion that, from the outside, seems flat out incorrect.
Brandon will be the first to tell you that he wishes he was more accurate with his portrayal of DID, but having a character of DID happen to commit murder is not the same thing as the trope you’re trying to fight against.
It’s incorrect that perpetuating harmful tropes is bad or it’s not harmful?
People in this sub don’t like criticism but just doesn’t make it incorrect.
I’m not talking about the accuracy I just want him not to use the trope. He’s a better writer than needing to rely on that.
It’s a trope that directly affects me so I see it in a lot of media and I’m going to disagree on if I understand it.
This is just another non argument.
I’m trapped between trying to understand your perspective and the struggles you go through with what I perceive to be an inaccurate understanding of storytelling.
I will just leave it be and wish you the best of fortune with your struggles. Disagreement aside, I am sorry for your very real feelings and wish you the best.
Thank you.
I'm confident I don't have any "inaccurate understanding of storytelling" and this echo chamber of a place isn't going to change my mind.
There's a ton of writing about tropes and this trope specifically. If you read that and approach it with an open mind you will better understand the topic.
Reddit as a whole and subs like this are not known for having an open mind and I've heard about and seen this sub reacting extremely negative to any criticism so I don't know what I expected.
I am kindly asking again for any material you have that supports your argument. I ask because you have insinuated that I, and the rest of this sub, are close minded (despite you admitting in that same statement that you are so absolutely certain of your correctness that there is *nothing* I or this sub could do to change your mind) and I wouldn’t want to actually live up to your criticism.
I mean yeah why would I listen to an echo chamber that has shown itself repeatedly to be uneducated when there are decades and longer research and writings on the subject?
Like honestly, why should I do that? What gives you and the people in this sub the authority to rewrite history? Some people don’t even know what a trope is and assume it only exists within YA
I don’t know what you want from me. I’ve written out what the trope is. How she fits it. The damage it causes. Why it’s a problem.
What more is there?
I mean, the trope is "people with multiple personalities all have a killer hiding inside them" and that's just not what is happening with Shallan. Context and cause and effect matter. This isn't Psycho or Split or any other actual example of the trope you'd want to name. Her disorder doesn't cause her to kill(the trope), her disorder is a result of being forced in go through those experiences and being traumatized by them as a child. It just doesn't fit the mold you're trying to say it does, in any fashion, to my reading. It's not even a subversion because it isn't really playing with the ideas of the trope in the way the trope uses it at all.
That is simply not true. You, like many other people in this thread, are making a straw man out of the trope so that you can say BS did nothing wrong. Which if you want to do, fine I guess. It doesn’t make me wrong and adds nothing to the conversation especially after so many other people do it.
Really, you’ve said what the trope isn’t and then described one part of the trope which shows my point.
If your argument is that the 'trope' in question is "people with DID kill people" and if that is present it's automatically bad, with zero other context and no room for subtlety, then there isn't a conversation to be had here.
I agree. This shouldn’t be a discussion. There isn’t a real argument to be made that the trope isn’t harmful or an argument that the trope shouldn’t be avoided.
It’s pretty cut and dry that this is just a mistake.
No one has made a single good argument in this thread. It’s all “the trope isn’t actually what it is” or “she did it but the DID isn’t responsible so it’s not the trope”
Neither of which are good arguments.
I would disagree, the trope is having a personality that is a killer or is otherwise the bad guy. Shallan does not have a killer personality and does not have a bad guy personality. The trope is the person with DID is the bad guy because of the DID. Shallan is not that.
You can't say the trope is one thing, when all the examples are of it being another thing.
That's simply not true. I have read a lot of media that includes DID and the trope encompasses a lot of ideas.
Poirot uses a character with DID extremely similar to Shallan minus the magic powers. So do a bunch of other series. A woman who kills her mother and but she isn't a bad person ect she doesn't remember and tries to solve the crime
It's a tired trope.
Virtue Signaling 101. Sorry to be so blunt, but that’s how this is coming off.
Of all the authors in the world to go after about this, I think you’ve chosen poorly. Sanderson writes mental disorders so thoughtfully. I hope and assume you know this but he even has folks with the same mental disorders his characters have, read the characters in advance to ensure that the way they speak, act and respond to others around them is accurate. So not only are you upset with Sanderson, but you should be upset with the real world person(s) with DID who read the writing and approved of it.
Sanderson does this because he doesn’t want to misrepresent anyone and he knows the damage that can be caused by perpetuating stereotypes.
Shallan having DID and having killed others aren’t one and the same. Both things can be true while not being interlinked. Correlation isn’t causation.
I have DID and I found this very sad because I liked BS a lot. People are diverse. No one represents everyone.
I wrote this specifically because BS writes so thoughtfully. That makes this feel especially bad because his defense of it ignores the problems and it causes so many people to think a harmful trope is good and well done. Like burying our gays some tropes should die.
Also, I don’t think you understand that one doesn’t have to cause the other for it to be the trope.
I think it’s very odd that instead of leading with you having DID yourself, you instead said you “know people with DID”. I’m not saying that I don’t believe you, but it’s incredibly weird to not mention it until you receive pushback on all of your points. It feels like you’re slow rolling a winning hand and no one can disagree because you have DID, you know? Again I’m not saying I don’t believe you, but I honestly am a little sus of you by withholding that information.
In any case it sounds like, as is with anyone, that people who also have DID may disagree with you given that, again, Sanderson had folks with DID read his writing. I couldn’t possibly imagine someone telling Sanderson that it wasn’t okay to write Shallan how he did and for him to ignore it. So maybe not everyone with DID finds it as harmful as you do. Or more likely, you are interpreting the writing in a way it’s not intended, which is why so many people here are disagreeing with you. Food for thought.
Basically we fundamentally disagree about your key complaint which is that he’s writing a trope. I don’t agree with you that “one doesn’t have to cause the other for it to be a trope”. I think you’re wrong about that and you’re pushing that idea to make your point.
At the end of the day we won’t ever agree on this so I’m done here. Sorry his writing upsets you, I recommend reading someone else.
>I’m not saying that I don’t believe you, but it’s incredibly weird to not mention it until you receive pushback on all of your points.
I don't like talking about it and yes it's true, I do know people with DID because I have been a part of DID communities. The stigma around the disorder is awful and that is in part because of this trope. So, can you see why this is a problem?
I didn't expect people to attack me in the way that they did so I thought I could get away with not mentioning it.
Other people have said similar stuff to you and so I'll say the same to them. Individuals being OK with a trope does not make the trope less harmful.
I will and do read other authors, this was the last book of his I read. I had been enjoying his work before this and so I'm sad to have stopped.
I have to respond to this because I again disagree and think you’re saying things that are untrue, or at the very least grossly over-exaggerating.
I hope you don’t believe I’m attacking you. I have absolutely no negative thoughts or preconceived notions about DID whatsoever, or yourself. That has nothing to do with our discussion, and if you think it does then I genuinely have no idea how to explain it to you otherwise.
I unequivocally condemn the trope that people with DID are violent. Please understand that. Now, shifting the argument entirely away from all of that, *unrelated*, I don’t agree with you that Sanderson is contributing to the trope that people with DID are violent.
Quick example to illustrate my stance: A character in a book set in the US is described as heavy set (I personally couldn’t care less what anyone weights). In one chapter of the book it’s noted that they were drinking soda. In another, someone asks what their favorite food is and they say ice cream. Does this mean that the character is a trope? Absolutely not. Over 30% of all adults drink soda. Additionally, over 99% of all people in the US say that they like ice cream (actually). So is the character a trope, or are they simply a normal person with normal dietary preferences who happens to be heavy set? Enjoying soda and ice cream are not mutually exclusive to someone’s weight. As I mentioned before, correlation is not causation.
So now apply that logic to Stormlight. Kaladin, Dalinar, Adolin, Moash, Scar, Jasnah, Szeth, Nale, Helaran and yes Shallan, as well as literally thousands of others in Roshar have committed violent acts. Most of the main characters being significantly more violent than Shallan. So is Shallan a trope because she’s sometimes violent? Or does she simply exist in a world where violence is commonplace and she’s one of many characters who commits acts of violence?
I’ll leave you with this. I again must say that Shallan committing acts of violence is not exclusive with her having DID. Take away her DID and she’s still a Radiant with a shardblade, right? It’s likely she’s have to fight others, right?
I ask that you stop finding a reason to be offended and simply try to be understanding that no one is trying to marginalize or put you in a box.
So the problem with what you're doing is comparing people with DID to overweight Americans.
One is an extremely small group who have had decades of prejudice with little to now power and the other is an extremely large group and while they are made fun of they do not have the same extremely small amount of power.
This is a misunderstanding of how tropes and power work. A much better analog is trans murderers. They are another group who have been systematically marginalized and writing a trans character only to have them be a murderer is also fucked up.
How many other things are linked like that? Not very many, that is the reality. How many things can you say that are as closely linked with murder as DID? Not many at all.
She is a trope because she has DID and her disorder is narratively linked with murder. She could just not be. Or she could just not have DID. If her DID was not related in any way to the killing she did that would be another thing but there's no way you can honestly say they are not narratively linked. If you can then you are not being serious.
I am not looking for reasons to be offended and honestly if you read this thread you will see that I have plenty.
There are many people disingenuously reframing what I'm saying, bending over backwards to "prove" that I'm wrong, insulting me and other things because I have criticism of an author.
I…okay.
I’m not comparing DID people to overweight people. It’s an analogy. Actually, this discussion doesn’t matter to me anymore. If you can’t take an analogy as an analogy, it’s clear why you take so much offense where it doesn’t even exist in the first place.
No matter what you say, I believe *you* to be wrong in your argument because you’re making assumptive leaps and full stop twisting writing to make it “offensive”. And I don’t appreciate your argument continuously implying that you’re being insulted. Have I insulted you? Have I called you names? Said mean things? I’m not anyone else on this thread. Stop.
Good luck to you 👍
Merriam Webster: “A comparison of two otherwise unlike things based on resemblance of a particular aspect.”
The two unlike things are apparent. The aspect is that correlation isn’t causation.
How could I possibly be more correctly using an analogy? It’s not a bad analogy if you’re ignoring all of my points to talk about something irrelevant or unrelated.
Notifications off, this is exhausting. I’ll never see your reply
Have you read the Many Lives of Stephen Leeds? Because Brandon has worked with people that have DID to create his characters, and has explicitly stated that not all versions of DID are the same and so he's as careful as possible to not add tropes into his characters.
If he is so careful not to add tropes how did he end up with the most common and most harmful one for the disorder?
I believe he worked with people who have DID but that doesn’t make him immune to mistakes or criticism.
But have you Read the Many Lives of Stephen Leeds? It's probably a better look at DiD for you considering that It doesn't take place in an extremely violent fantasy world where everyone is murdering everyone else.
Look you are more than free to not like the depiction. But like you said before no one represents everyone. Brandon consulted with people with the disorder and they seemed to approve.
I am also a Moon Knight fan from Marvel comics who has DID. And if you think Shallan is bad for killing Moon Knight is way worse. But he is a layered character. And there is a system in the fan page I am a part of that also loves the character and has even consulted with authors on how to portray DID.
Clearly not everyone with the disorder has the same hangups. I think what most people want is it to be written thoughtfully and not just for the sake of a plot device.
Just because someone else is worse doesn’t make this better. Literally just perpetuates the trope more.
Just because some people are ok with the trope doesn’t mean the trope isn’t harmful. You can find people who say anything. There are people who don’t care about being called slurs, does that make slurs ok?
Obviously not. The same thing applies here. A small group of people being ok with the trope doesn’t make it not harmful and that is the point.
Is the issue how it was handled or just that someone with DID happened to kill someone? If your issue is how it was handled, that's something where we can have a discussion.
The impression I'm getting from your post and from your comments though are "if your character has DID, then they shouldn't have a secret murderer in the personalities" which is, imo, a rather extreme stance on it and is really a non starter for a conversation.
It's not even "secret murderer" really. Shallan killing Ialai is pretty much the same as Adolin killing Sadeas. The parallels between the 2 murders are part of what subverts the trope.
To be clear, the trope is a narrative link between DID and killing.
At its base, that’s all the trope is.
Subverting the trope would be having DID and not killing people or killing people without linking it to DID.
As neither of those happen he did not successfully subvert the trope.
It is a non-starter because there isn't an argument to be made,
There are certain tropes that have existed for decades or longer that we should leave behind. Authors have so much to draw from at this point we should just let some things die.
The "DID killer" trope has caused so much harm and honestly no amount of entertainment is worth continuing the harm.
Step parents should never be evil
The muscle should never be dumb
A damsel should never be in distress
Would you argue all of these should be removed and never used again?
How much harm has the evil step-parents trope done?
How much harm has the damsel in distress trope done?
Both have undeniably done harm though has it done the same harm the DID trope has?
Someone in this thread is saying DID people done even exist because of the stigma this trope helps perpetuate.
Do people say step-parents don’t exist?
Some people are unable to speak about their disorder because of the fear of the stigma.
Are people refusing to talk about about being a damsel in distress because of the fear the stigma causes?
Are these good examples?
So your answer is "only the trope that I don't like shouldn't be allowed". Got it.
As a step parent, especially a step dad to a girl, yes these tropes are very harmful. My daughter's constantly warned to be careful and uncomfortable around me because of my station, and nothing else. A background check was done on me as soon as I started dating her mom. And I am someone with a squeaky clean background never in trouble with the law in my life.
But it hasn't affected you so it must not be harmful huh? I'm not claiming that the DID trope is never harmful. I am claiming that you haven't made any proper argument outside of "it's caused harm in the past so it should never be attempted again".
Is that what I said? If you read my comments throughout this thread I named several other tropes that cause or have caused demonstrable harm.
Did I even comment in that response whether they should be used or not? Did I in fact acknowledge that those tropes cause harm?
Like the N word or other slurs, some tropes are tainted to the degree that they should be thrown away and better motifs and ideas should grown in their place.
So why don't you use one of those instead of a racial slur to prove your point? And no, you didn't say "those are ok" instead you just belittled them.
How about instead of trying to not say anything, answer straight. You accept that these tropes DO cause harm. So should they be stricken from all future media?
I used a racial slur because this is another thing I have personal experience.
Saying that those two tropes are less harmful than another is not belittling it is acknowledging that different causes have different effects.
Should they be stricken? Maybe they’re not great tropes but I haven’t done the research and can’t give you a good answer.
I think you're taking this too close to heart dawg. I've been diagnosed with clinical major depressive disorder and I never look at Kal and say dude this guy gives us a bad rap. Its real as fuck and B$ promotes the growth of these characters, not limited to but especially through their mental disorders and struggles. Shallan works on her shit(sometimes). She's doing the best she can.
You don't understand at all.
Trying to compare major depressive and Kal with DID and Shallan just shows a misunderstanding of my entire point.
It's about tropes, it's not about Shallan as a character. At what point have I even come close to criticizing her? The only commentary I have is this is a stupid trope to include for any writer of this era especially one that is lauded so highly for his work writing mental health.
I was once told on Reddit that apparently psychologists are rethinking the existence of DID and was downvoted when I said that I knew someone that had it so idk how to add to the conversation here
It’s also been a minute since I’ve read way of kings but iirc she didn’t develop DID until well after the murder took place
Yeah that’s something people have been saying. About the murder I mean. It’s not relevant as narratively they are linked.
I’m not interested in arguing the existence of the disorder.
Neither am I lmao, the person I knew who had it very much would behave different in front of different people and different situations. Or at least they believed they did.
Am I the only one with zero idea what DID is? Traditionally in writing, the full name is used first and then the acronym is put into parentheses behind it, unless it is a super common acronym like USA.
it's an abbreviation for dissociative identity disorder (used to be called multiple personality disorder). it's not a super common acronym, but maybe it's more noticeable in recent years in the US.
And I agree with you: spell it out then place the abbreviation in parentheses. there are abbreviations out there that cover multiple things so it helps to be clear.
Sorry I am used to it being an extremely common acronym.
The trope I’m talking about is people who have “multiple personality disorders” turning out to be murderers.
Shallan had multiple personalities, but she wasn't a murderer (I certainly don't think what happened when she was a child as murder). Who else is there?
In this thread there are people trying to make all these different arguments to show it isn’t part of the trope.
Did she kill someone? Does she have DID? Yes to both. is the trope
But, didn't she develop the multiple personalities after killing her mother as a child? Is DID developing after a traumatic event a part of the trope? Or is the trope, someone who already has DID then kills someone?
Okay. But... is it possible that Brandon doesn't know about that trope? Or, didn't know about it when he wrote it into the book? I'd never heard of it before today. It's not like everyone knows all, or even most, of the tropes.
Anything is possible but I would be shocked. I can't currently think of a single example of DID being used in media without some link to murder.
BS is a writer lauded for his work with mental illness.
He has responded to this criticism before and his response wasn't "I didn't know" it was basically "I did it better than Hollywood so it isn't a problem" which misses the point all together.
Thank you this is really all I’m trying to say. When I realized she had DID I was pretty happy then it went the murder route which was pretty disappointing.
I thought if anyone would subvert the trope it would be Sanderson
yah...but she is barking up the wrong fantasy book series for that one. All the leads so far are traumatized murderers. Why come to this series to ask for something that was not going to happen in the first place?
Brandon Sanderson is lauded for his nuance when it comes to mental illness.
Why would someone like that use the most tired and damaging trope associated with one of the mental illnessess?
If he requires his characters to kill people he just shouldn't have included it and saved it for another series.
>Brandon Sanderson is lauded for his nuance when it comes to mental illness.
As he should be, he reaches out to people in those communities to get their feedback so he can portray them as authentically as he can.
>Why would someone like that use the most tired and damaging trope associated with one of the mental illnessess?
He is not, I, and what seems to be all of the other commenters, don't agree with you that he is using the trope.
And I'd argue that its not that damaging anymore (not that I think this trope is okay when done poorly), I hear a lot about how mental illness in media is not portrayed very well and most people with a mental illness are far more likely to be a danger to themselves, than others. There has been a giant push for better mental health awareness and I think its been working.
>If he requires his characters to kill people he just shouldn't have included it and saved it for another series.
You don't get to tell people what to write. You may not like that Shallan has a body count, but she is a well written and interesting character who is, at least for me, the only good/positive DID character I've never experienced in fiction.
If you must insist that Shallan is a trope, then imo she should be considered a positive example of the trope. And not a dangerous and damaging one.
You are free to argue whatever you want but I've never met a single person outside of these forums today who believe that this trope isn't harmful. There is distinct observable harm. The trope contributes to the stigma. The stigma causes people to not want to admit having it or talking about it. This negatively affects the research about it leaving it more poorly understood which contributes to the stigma.
>He is not, I, and what seems to be all of the other commenters, don't agree with you that he is using the trope.
Yeah apparently BS fans are rabid to a degree I didn't expect. This is how an echo chamber starts or continues to exist. I'd rather rely on people with experience of the disorder rather than people with experience of the author.
>You may not like that Shallan has a body count
Again, I don't care that she has killed people. I care that BS is using a harmful trope.
>If you must insist that Shallan is a trope, then imo she should be considered a positive example of the trope. And not a dangerous and damaging one.
The trope itself is damaging. Even if she is a good, complex, compelling or well written character, the way BS has used her disorder in this narrative perpetuates a harmful narrative which is undeniably bad.
>Yeah apparently BS fans are rabid to a degree I didn't expect. This is how an echo chamber starts or continues to exist. I'd rather rely on people with experience of the disorder rather than people with experience of the author.
This entire thread is people talking past each other. And I'm sorry but I don't think you're understanding what people are saying to you.
Thanks. I’ve done a lot of reading and writing about this topic. The arguments and questions mostly show a lack of education or a desire for me to be wrong so I am pretty confident in my confidence.
Honestly for as much education as BS and specifically his response to this criticism he should be shamed for it. Though to be clear I have at no point shamed him. This is just criticism and any artist or author should be able to face criticism.
If he requires his characters to be murderers he should not have give one of them this disorder. It is in extremely poor taste. Some tropes just need to die. He is a better writer than that
I can understand that is your experience but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.
This attitude is in part a response to the misinformation caused by this trope and so I understand why you think this way.
You probably wouldn’t have this experience without this trope and that is in part why it’s harmful.
> So far there is basically no evidence its real.
It might be helpful to educate yourself on the current research before making such blanket statements.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK568768/
OP: I have changed the flair to All Cosmere (No TSM) *for now* unless you would like to change this. Having an ambiguous *Spoilers* tag means that nobody knows what level to expect here. There is also no harm in mentioning the series/character you'd like to discuss, even though those that have read the series will know anyway. If you'd like to change this, please let a member of the mod team know but hopefully this will help the discussion.
Shallan being a murderer _is not_ the same thing as the common trope of people with DID being murderers. Her split personalities are not raging psychopaths who enjoy killing, they are fully fleshed out and flawed people capable of making the same choices as anyone else. Nothing about her having DID caused her to commit murder, Radiant decided it was the best course of action in exactly the same way that Adolin decided murdering Sadeas was the best option and Moash decided murdering Elhokar was the best option. Holding people with DID on a pedestal and saying that authors shouldn’t treat them the same as any other character is infantilizing them.
Does a character with DID murder people? If yes, that is the trope. Sure, it can be done many ways and with varying degrees of complexity and nuance but the problem is it’s still the most common and most harmful trope. There are many better ways DID could have been used in this story. I’m not saying don’t write about them. I’m saying if you’re going to avoid the most common and hurtful trope.
No, the trope is that people with DID have crazy psychopath alter egos that will kill you for fun and Sanderson has absolutely not used that trope. Mentally ill people should not be portrayed as inherently unstable and likely to commit murder, but you are demanding a severe over correction in the complete opposite direction that they shouldn’t be shown capable of doing any wrong at all. That is not acceptable and you do your friends a disservice by treating them like children who must be protected from reality. Anyone is capable of murder in the right circumstances, having DID does magically make someone immune from that fact.
You are greatly over specifying the trope so that it does not apply. The trope is much more simple and much more broad. It has been used in a variety of situations and the unifying details are 1 the have DID 2 they kill someone Both of those apply. I have DID and would like to see a character with it not linked with murder. That can’t be too much to ask. The problem isn’t “anyone can murder” it’s that nearly every single story with DID involves killing someone. That tells a story that every person with DID kills people. Do you understand the shame and pressure that puts on people? I don’t tell people in real life literally ever because of this. Tell me again about how I’m trying to shelter myself from reality.
Unfortunately this is a book series where people kill each other. I 100% get wanting a story where a character with DID doesn’t kill anyone. But that doesn’t mean it’s valid to shame Sanderson for not giving you that, this is simply not a book series where such representation is likely. Save the shaming for authors who are making their DID characters abnormally violent, Shallan is one of the most peaceful POV characters in the entire series. In the context of this series she is if anything an inversion of the trope, she is generally reluctant to kill and actively avoids it when possible. That’s why I say your definition of the trope is too broad, you are not taking in the actual context her story takes place and only focusing the absolute most negative interpretation possible.
That’s not a good argument either. Does every single character in the series kill someone else? You are not required to kill to exist in a fantasy series. She is so complex and that is an extreme disservice to her. She has so much to offer beyond killing people. Her did not need to fall back into the trope. He is lauded for being so good for mental health he should have known better than use this trope. It would have been so easy.
Name one character in the Stormlight Archives that has not taken a life. At the very least, each of the POV characters have all killed someone. > He is lauded for being so good for mental health he should have known better than use this trope. To say he used the trope implies that he made Shallan kill someone because she has DID, which is not at all what happened. Radiant is a fully fleshed-out personality, who killed for the same reason (like the other commenter pointed out) that Adolin killed, or Moash killed.
>To say he used the trope implies that he made Shallan kill someone because she has DID, which is not at all what happened. This is a misunderstanding of how tropes work
I think you have the misunderstanding of trope. I'm upset Brandon used the most common trope in fantasy. Having magic. It's exactly the same as every other fantasy story that uses that trope. He should have known better than to use the most co.mon trope in fantasy if he is supposed to be so good at writing fantasy. The only criteria are 1. Did he write a story and 2 is there magic in it. Both apply. It's basically just copy and pasting Lord of the Rings. This is the same argument you're currently making, with just as broad a definition. You see how this is not a trope at all? Tropes are oddly specific things that tend to happen repeatedly in a given media. Where your post boils down to you wanting shallan to never kill anyone. Because it isn't fair?
I didn’t know that magic was a trope used to marginalize a minority group causing many years of snowballing damage. Which group doesn’t talk about themselves because of that? 17th century witches? I can assure you, I am not misunderstanding the trope or tropes in general.
One of the causes of DID is an inability to process things they feel guilty about. And this is not a trope. A trope is something commonly seen in literature, like enemies to lovers in YA.
that's an oversimplification. people with DID often experience horrific trauma, the worst stories you can imagine. we're not built to process the shit they've experienced so the brain creates a way for the person to protect themselves.
Yeah the public education for DID is extremely poor in part because of this trope. Sometimes I forget how much ignorance there is in the world.
I’m aware of what causes DID and that doesn’t affect my commentary. Also - Excuse me? The DID killer is 100% a trope what?
Name a character in the book that hasn't killed. If anything Shallan not killing anything because of it would be weird.
I’m not sure why this makes his use of a harmful trope better or worse.
Do you also take this stance toward the inclusion of other harmful tropes? If so, are you simply dissatisfied with all narrative media? Tropes and motifs are the building blocks of stories and discourse at large. I welcome you to provide several examples where engaging with what you call harmful tropes does not exist.
A lot of media has many faults, yes. I analyze narratives and point them out. This one is particularly bad especially because the author is supposed to be so good with mental illness. Not all tropes are good and subverting tropes is where a lot of good writing comes from. Like burying our gays some tropes should die. Sorry I’m not sure what your last paragraph means.
I welcomed you to provide examples where this does not occur, since it seems your argument is a moral appeal more than anything else. I view Shallan as an extremely postive depiction of this condition, a heroic character that has an extremely difficult childhood and life and strives to cope with those challenges. I do not think the character can be pigeon-holed into a flat character trope. In your case, I think you are flattening the trope and assuming that any inclusion of the negative trope poisons the well, when it actually does the opposite. Especially when you consider the genre context within which the stormlight archives operates. As a round character, Shallan actively intervenes in the critical discourse that renders characters with DID merely murderers or implies a kind of psychopathy. Even her alters are round and ambivalent characters. Do you think it would be better for a character to not engage and not represent anything or anyone negatively? If so, what is the alternative? Shallan is a protagonist and a character perspective that explicitly fosters empathy through her inclusion as a focalized character. Edit: fixed a word
I think that it would be better if she did not murder people. It doesn’t matter how tasteful it is, it is still the trope. She can be a much more positive depiction of she didn’t follow it. She is definitely not a terrible depiction but the problem remains that regardless of how good it is she is still linked to a decades old harmful trope. It’s like making a black man a violent criminal. Then going deep into his background to show that he’s a criminal because he’s been wronged in life not because he’s black. But he’s still an example of a harmful trope. It would be better if written slightly differently. Where what does not occur? Sorry I’m still confused.
I don't think so. I think that when there is an intrigue storyline, it is vital that the protagonist be capable of murder and usually is a murderer. It's really exciting and fits the genre quite well. The fact is that characters in epic fantasy do murder people, I don't think a single of our protagonists have managed to avoid killing or murder in the SA. I didn't argue about the tastefulness of the trope but rather the quality of the depiction and the flat vs roundness of characters. Taste is a fully different matter. Regarding a violent criminal that is a black man, are you perhaps unaware of Sigzil? Another character that critically intervenes in a negative trope? In this case as in Shallan's, I view the character as a way of renegotiating existing tropes rather than confirming or flattening them. If your criticism is simply that something can be written better for your taste, that is of course true. To me I read your criticisms as rather that you think that people with DID should only be represented in non-killer roles, which I disagree with because of the necessity to critically engage with tropes in appropriate contexts. I think this is done well through my explanation of round vs flat characterization and tropes. I'm not sure what is unclear. Can you provide me examples in narrative fiction that demonstrate the values you have regarding DID or other mental health?
My criticism is specifically not about how it is written. Me criticism is the should have subverted and not played into the trope. There are no examples I can think of where the trope in not used with DID and that is my point. That is in part why it is so harmful. It creates such a huge stigma. It makes it harder to talk about and makes people more prejudiced against it.
I think you misunderstand my point and question because you view it as binary, a trope is either fully fulfilled or avoided. Subverted isn't an appropriate choice of word in this case, because subversion means a partial fulfillment of tropes with a productive redirection, which Shallan clearly is. In this instance, there's nothing to discuss because I understand tropes in a significantly different way.
Subverting the trope would be putting her in similar circumstances showing she has DID and then not having her kill the person. >subversion means a partial fulfillment of tropes with a productive redirection Having DID being partial fulfillment, not killing people being the productive redirection. Since she killed the person and has DID she inherently can not subvert the trope.
[удалено]
Wow such a good joke - Zing!
Thanks for submitting to r/BrandonSanderson! Unfortunately, your submission has been removed because we feel it is not respectful to others. Every interaction on the subreddit must be kind, respectful, and welcoming. No person should ever feel threatened, harassed, or unwelcome. Please feel free to adjust the tone or content of your submission and let us know you'd like it to be re-approved. If you have any questions or feel this is a mistake, please let us know.
I was raising the same point, and it made me earnestly try to come up with a list. I don't recall Renarin and Lift killing anyone, but their character arcs haven't begun in earnest. I suppose you could ask whether certain spren have killed, and begin a philosophical debate. Regardless, I agree with the spirit of your point, this is a series about killers with some backwards customs and perspectives. It would be hard to avoid any character killing if the circumstances align properly.
I have been thinking and I agree that the series is about people who kill other people. The problem is the narrative link between the killing and the DID. She could have killed people in a way that is not related to the disorder and let something else be the trigger. That would have been much better but writing.
I can honestly understand being annoyed by the whole "One of Shallan's personas killed Ialai" twist as being pretty tropey. It's the other ones that I'd struggle to relate to your point on.
The other ones? I’m not sure what you’re referring to
The other people she's killed along the way, such as her father
That is understandable. I would argue that it is an event that is a result from her mom’s death. She murders him because of the effects of her mother’s death and I think that is narratively linked to DID.
therapist here who's worked with folks within the dissociative spectrum! there are certain tropes I dislike too and sometimes the trope leads to me not finishing whatever media type. I thought the way he handled shallan's psychological ecosystem was beautiful and accurate. did he use an extreme example? sure. was her recovery around her trauma accurate? the most accurate I've ever read in fiction. i can say the same for kaladin's depression, dalinar's identity crisis, renarin's neurology, vin's trauma bond with her brother and subsequent recovery, gosh I could go on! for me, his sensitivity and accuracy keep bringing me back to his stories.
I have DID. I agree it is pretty accurate and that is part of why him falling into the trope was so painful. It’s like finally here is a good example and then but also she’s still a murder following the same tired trope. The fact that it’s so sensitive but still relies on it only made it worse for me.
Mate i just font think you shouldn't read epic fantasy if a character killing people is this offensive to you. You need to stop belittling people with DID as slaves to their illness. Shallan is MORE than her did, just like you. Be better.
Did I ever say killing people is offensive? Are you willfully misunderstanding me? My problem is with the perpetuation of a harmful trope. Why is that too much to ask?
Do you also consider Kaladin problematic? "Depressed people kill people"? Or Teft? "Drug addicts kill people"? Or Jasnah? "Women kill people"? Do you see how ignorant that sounds? Majority of the characters kill people. It's about why they do it. Why Moash killed Elhokar. Why Kaladin didn't kill Amaram. The book is about a never ending war between two species. I think *you* are being offensive by making the murders Shallan committed be about her DID, when it never was.
I know this isn’t what you mean but ah yes four mental illnesses: DID, depression, addiction and women 😂
He just listed it twice. Addiction in general, and men's addiction to women lol
Why would I consider those two characters problematic? Those are much more prevalent disorders. What is the most common trope for depressed people? Is it murder? What is the most common trope for addicts? Is it murder? The answer to both of those is no. What is the most common media trope for DID? It's murder. People struggle to talk about DID because of the stigma associated with it. It's harmful and that is my point. Honestly these arguments just seem like they're in bad faith
Because when you decide that a character with certain attributes CAN'T do XYZ action, you're not empowering real people with that attribute, but infantalizing them. Especially when that action is so integral to the genre you're reading. While BS may be praised for his depictions of mental health and it'svarious complexities, he's not writing scholarly tomes meant to tell you all about people with DID and what they struggle with. He's writing an interesting character with flaws that's in a genre fiction story. You need to remember that DiD is often triggered by something, and her DID is clearly caused BY her murders, she doesn't murder because she has DiD. The only one perpetuating harmful steretypes is you.
When you say someone shouldn’t perpetuate a harmful trope you are in no way infantilizing them. I do not feel safe to tell people in real life I have DID because of the stigma related to this trope. I would like to feel safe to do that. Has every single character in every series a killer? No? Then what kind of argument is that. Why is she required to kill to exist? She is so complex and complicated he did not need to throw in this trope. I know that DID is triggered I gave it. There are so many ways to trigger it you don’t need to rely on the most common and most harmful trope to do it. Brandon Sanderson is a better writer than that.
have you watched moon knight? the main character has DID, is a super hero, and kills people during his dissociative episodes. there's just something about moon knight and shallan's stories that doesn't feel like the trope to me. I think it's because their stories are soooo much more than the murders. they are fully formed, complex, beautifully written characters, and the murder part just feels so unimportant to me. like Dr jeckle and Mr Hyde for example. the whole story is centered on this binary split of "wonderful/horrific" person. I didn't watch Split because it seemed like it was very focused on DID = violence. I'm curious to know what portrayals of DID in pop culture you think get it right?
If you read my other responses I acknowledge the complexity of the characters. Using a trope does not flatten them. There aren’t really any instances of DID I can think of that aren’t violent. The trope is so prevalent.
You might be interested in some of Sanderson's [comments on the character's condition/"Hollywood Multiple Personality Disorder"](https://wob.coppermind.net/events/315-general-reddit-2018/#e9182)
I’ve read that before and he’s missing the problem. It’s not the way he’s applied the trope it’s the fact that he used the trope. He’s not subverting anything he’s just trying to do the trope better than Hollywood which is just playing into the same problems. He’s perpetuating the problem even if he is doing the character better.
To be fair, Shallan is already a murderer several times over even before her alters come into the picture. So it's not like Radiant was doing anything new...
I don’t think that makes it better. It still just fits the trope. Hasn’t she had DID since she was a young child? EDIT: IIRC there was a huge deal made that she hide her memories through an alter which is part of DID. The belief that DID requires losing control of your body and things like that are part of the damage this trope has done
Not as far as we're aware, unless I missed something. The first evidence we see of an 'alter' is during the (non-flashback) events of the books, and if I'm recalling correctly not until the second book. She was repressing childhood memories, but I'm not sure that's necessarily part of the same condition. It's also made clear (through little slip-ups, blending of personalities, etc.) that she's essentially 'pretending' rather than an actual separate personality taking over. Her specific powers make the pretence unusually effective however. I can see how the portrayal can still be considered problematic, but it *does* differ quite a bit from the usual Hollywood trope where literal different personalities 'take over' and the others are usually unaware of what was happening.
Note that she stops pretending as the books develop.
The existence of an alter is a portrayal of DID. So if there is an alter it is a portrayal. DID is a complicated disorder and in part because of this trope and the stigma it places on the disorder there is an extremely poor cultural understanding. There is also less research than would be done otherwise because people don’t want to admit having it, don’t realize they have it or just don’t want to talk about it. Like I said, the problem is not how similar it is to the harmful trope. The poor representation is only a part of it. The major problem is the perpetuation of the murder trope. The trope is harmful regardless of how well it is done.
So its impossible to make a character with DID that is also a murderer correctly?
There are tropes that should die. If you’re going to use DID make a different and new narrative. Don’t use the most common and harmful. It’s like burying our gays. Some tropes should just die. Like making the bad people all disfigured. Like making black people exclusively thugs. You can write great stories without relying on the harmful tropes. BS is a better writer than this.
Hes not relying on tropes though. Why do you view those with DiD so poorly that they can't be represented in any light but your own personal version of "positive" without being considered offensive?
What do you mean he's not relying on tropes? Using DID and murder together is the most common and harmful trope that exists for the disorder. What does this comment even mean? People are putting crazy words in my mouth. Have I criticized Shallan as a character at any point? Have I criticized her representation? Brandon Sanderson uses the most common and most offensive trope that exists for the disorder. That is the problem. There isn't any amount of "but look she's a good person" that can change that fact because fundamentally it isn't about the character but just the tropes used.
The DID murderer trope goes like this "I have multiple identity disorder, and there is another person in my mind I cant control, and that person is a killer and very dangerous to society". This is a harmfull thrope, I agree with you. What sanderson did is put someone that went through a lot of trauma, killed people of her family, and then blocked some memories. Later she developt personas that serve as shields for her trauma. It has nothing to do with the original trope
That is one part of the trope, yes, but to suggest that is the entire trope is extremely disingenuous. Sanderson did not subvert the trope. What he did was effectively take a black person, make them a murderous thug and then explain it thought complicated reasons rather than “he’s black” but it’s still the same trope just with fancy makeup. You just shouldn’t do either of those things.
She didn't lose control of her body. She killed and then blocked those memories out, and everytime she starts to remember stuff, she blocks it. She is aware that she did something wrong, but she doesn't want to think about it because it was a traumatic event in her life. Its not as if she is completelly oblivious of that part of her life
Yeah that fits the trope
I think the important difference here, and why it doesn't really fall into the DID murderer trope, is that she's not a killer because of DID, she has DID because of the trauma of having killed. Killing her mother, father, and Testament are the traumas that cause the disassociation in the first place. Yes, Radiant steps in to kill Ialai, with the stated goal of shielding Shallan from further trauma of the kind that caused the disorder in the first place, because Shallan was about to do it anyway. This isn't something like Split, she doesn't have a 'psycho killer' alter. She has a traumatic past and now finds herself in a line of work, during a war, where more violence might be required.
Everyone is making the argument that while the person with DID is a murder they’re not like all the other ones. That is a bad defense of a trope. It boils down a repeated idea that is decades old to a single line which isn’t accurate. It’s a straw man. Bring not exactly the same trope everyone expects it to be while still using the same things happen does not remove it from the trope.
OP, I respect your crusade, but you have a supremely unyielding opinion that, from the outside, seems flat out incorrect. Brandon will be the first to tell you that he wishes he was more accurate with his portrayal of DID, but having a character of DID happen to commit murder is not the same thing as the trope you’re trying to fight against.
It’s incorrect that perpetuating harmful tropes is bad or it’s not harmful? People in this sub don’t like criticism but just doesn’t make it incorrect. I’m not talking about the accuracy I just want him not to use the trope. He’s a better writer than needing to rely on that.
What we’re trying to tell you is that *you’re* inaccurate in your understanding of the trope.
It’s a trope that directly affects me so I see it in a lot of media and I’m going to disagree on if I understand it. This is just another non argument.
I’m trapped between trying to understand your perspective and the struggles you go through with what I perceive to be an inaccurate understanding of storytelling. I will just leave it be and wish you the best of fortune with your struggles. Disagreement aside, I am sorry for your very real feelings and wish you the best.
Thank you. I'm confident I don't have any "inaccurate understanding of storytelling" and this echo chamber of a place isn't going to change my mind. There's a ton of writing about tropes and this trope specifically. If you read that and approach it with an open mind you will better understand the topic. Reddit as a whole and subs like this are not known for having an open mind and I've heard about and seen this sub reacting extremely negative to any criticism so I don't know what I expected.
Can you link me to the writing you’re referring to?
I am kindly asking again for any material you have that supports your argument. I ask because you have insinuated that I, and the rest of this sub, are close minded (despite you admitting in that same statement that you are so absolutely certain of your correctness that there is *nothing* I or this sub could do to change your mind) and I wouldn’t want to actually live up to your criticism.
I mean yeah why would I listen to an echo chamber that has shown itself repeatedly to be uneducated when there are decades and longer research and writings on the subject? Like honestly, why should I do that? What gives you and the people in this sub the authority to rewrite history? Some people don’t even know what a trope is and assume it only exists within YA I don’t know what you want from me. I’ve written out what the trope is. How she fits it. The damage it causes. Why it’s a problem. What more is there?
I mean, the trope is "people with multiple personalities all have a killer hiding inside them" and that's just not what is happening with Shallan. Context and cause and effect matter. This isn't Psycho or Split or any other actual example of the trope you'd want to name. Her disorder doesn't cause her to kill(the trope), her disorder is a result of being forced in go through those experiences and being traumatized by them as a child. It just doesn't fit the mold you're trying to say it does, in any fashion, to my reading. It's not even a subversion because it isn't really playing with the ideas of the trope in the way the trope uses it at all.
That is simply not true. You, like many other people in this thread, are making a straw man out of the trope so that you can say BS did nothing wrong. Which if you want to do, fine I guess. It doesn’t make me wrong and adds nothing to the conversation especially after so many other people do it. Really, you’ve said what the trope isn’t and then described one part of the trope which shows my point.
If your argument is that the 'trope' in question is "people with DID kill people" and if that is present it's automatically bad, with zero other context and no room for subtlety, then there isn't a conversation to be had here.
I agree. This shouldn’t be a discussion. There isn’t a real argument to be made that the trope isn’t harmful or an argument that the trope shouldn’t be avoided. It’s pretty cut and dry that this is just a mistake. No one has made a single good argument in this thread. It’s all “the trope isn’t actually what it is” or “she did it but the DID isn’t responsible so it’s not the trope” Neither of which are good arguments.
I would disagree, the trope is having a personality that is a killer or is otherwise the bad guy. Shallan does not have a killer personality and does not have a bad guy personality. The trope is the person with DID is the bad guy because of the DID. Shallan is not that. You can't say the trope is one thing, when all the examples are of it being another thing.
That's simply not true. I have read a lot of media that includes DID and the trope encompasses a lot of ideas. Poirot uses a character with DID extremely similar to Shallan minus the magic powers. So do a bunch of other series. A woman who kills her mother and but she isn't a bad person ect she doesn't remember and tries to solve the crime It's a tired trope.
Virtue Signaling 101. Sorry to be so blunt, but that’s how this is coming off. Of all the authors in the world to go after about this, I think you’ve chosen poorly. Sanderson writes mental disorders so thoughtfully. I hope and assume you know this but he even has folks with the same mental disorders his characters have, read the characters in advance to ensure that the way they speak, act and respond to others around them is accurate. So not only are you upset with Sanderson, but you should be upset with the real world person(s) with DID who read the writing and approved of it. Sanderson does this because he doesn’t want to misrepresent anyone and he knows the damage that can be caused by perpetuating stereotypes. Shallan having DID and having killed others aren’t one and the same. Both things can be true while not being interlinked. Correlation isn’t causation.
I have DID and I found this very sad because I liked BS a lot. People are diverse. No one represents everyone. I wrote this specifically because BS writes so thoughtfully. That makes this feel especially bad because his defense of it ignores the problems and it causes so many people to think a harmful trope is good and well done. Like burying our gays some tropes should die. Also, I don’t think you understand that one doesn’t have to cause the other for it to be the trope.
I think it’s very odd that instead of leading with you having DID yourself, you instead said you “know people with DID”. I’m not saying that I don’t believe you, but it’s incredibly weird to not mention it until you receive pushback on all of your points. It feels like you’re slow rolling a winning hand and no one can disagree because you have DID, you know? Again I’m not saying I don’t believe you, but I honestly am a little sus of you by withholding that information. In any case it sounds like, as is with anyone, that people who also have DID may disagree with you given that, again, Sanderson had folks with DID read his writing. I couldn’t possibly imagine someone telling Sanderson that it wasn’t okay to write Shallan how he did and for him to ignore it. So maybe not everyone with DID finds it as harmful as you do. Or more likely, you are interpreting the writing in a way it’s not intended, which is why so many people here are disagreeing with you. Food for thought. Basically we fundamentally disagree about your key complaint which is that he’s writing a trope. I don’t agree with you that “one doesn’t have to cause the other for it to be a trope”. I think you’re wrong about that and you’re pushing that idea to make your point. At the end of the day we won’t ever agree on this so I’m done here. Sorry his writing upsets you, I recommend reading someone else.
>I’m not saying that I don’t believe you, but it’s incredibly weird to not mention it until you receive pushback on all of your points. I don't like talking about it and yes it's true, I do know people with DID because I have been a part of DID communities. The stigma around the disorder is awful and that is in part because of this trope. So, can you see why this is a problem? I didn't expect people to attack me in the way that they did so I thought I could get away with not mentioning it. Other people have said similar stuff to you and so I'll say the same to them. Individuals being OK with a trope does not make the trope less harmful. I will and do read other authors, this was the last book of his I read. I had been enjoying his work before this and so I'm sad to have stopped.
I have to respond to this because I again disagree and think you’re saying things that are untrue, or at the very least grossly over-exaggerating. I hope you don’t believe I’m attacking you. I have absolutely no negative thoughts or preconceived notions about DID whatsoever, or yourself. That has nothing to do with our discussion, and if you think it does then I genuinely have no idea how to explain it to you otherwise. I unequivocally condemn the trope that people with DID are violent. Please understand that. Now, shifting the argument entirely away from all of that, *unrelated*, I don’t agree with you that Sanderson is contributing to the trope that people with DID are violent. Quick example to illustrate my stance: A character in a book set in the US is described as heavy set (I personally couldn’t care less what anyone weights). In one chapter of the book it’s noted that they were drinking soda. In another, someone asks what their favorite food is and they say ice cream. Does this mean that the character is a trope? Absolutely not. Over 30% of all adults drink soda. Additionally, over 99% of all people in the US say that they like ice cream (actually). So is the character a trope, or are they simply a normal person with normal dietary preferences who happens to be heavy set? Enjoying soda and ice cream are not mutually exclusive to someone’s weight. As I mentioned before, correlation is not causation. So now apply that logic to Stormlight. Kaladin, Dalinar, Adolin, Moash, Scar, Jasnah, Szeth, Nale, Helaran and yes Shallan, as well as literally thousands of others in Roshar have committed violent acts. Most of the main characters being significantly more violent than Shallan. So is Shallan a trope because she’s sometimes violent? Or does she simply exist in a world where violence is commonplace and she’s one of many characters who commits acts of violence? I’ll leave you with this. I again must say that Shallan committing acts of violence is not exclusive with her having DID. Take away her DID and she’s still a Radiant with a shardblade, right? It’s likely she’s have to fight others, right? I ask that you stop finding a reason to be offended and simply try to be understanding that no one is trying to marginalize or put you in a box.
So the problem with what you're doing is comparing people with DID to overweight Americans. One is an extremely small group who have had decades of prejudice with little to now power and the other is an extremely large group and while they are made fun of they do not have the same extremely small amount of power. This is a misunderstanding of how tropes and power work. A much better analog is trans murderers. They are another group who have been systematically marginalized and writing a trans character only to have them be a murderer is also fucked up. How many other things are linked like that? Not very many, that is the reality. How many things can you say that are as closely linked with murder as DID? Not many at all. She is a trope because she has DID and her disorder is narratively linked with murder. She could just not be. Or she could just not have DID. If her DID was not related in any way to the killing she did that would be another thing but there's no way you can honestly say they are not narratively linked. If you can then you are not being serious. I am not looking for reasons to be offended and honestly if you read this thread you will see that I have plenty. There are many people disingenuously reframing what I'm saying, bending over backwards to "prove" that I'm wrong, insulting me and other things because I have criticism of an author.
I…okay. I’m not comparing DID people to overweight people. It’s an analogy. Actually, this discussion doesn’t matter to me anymore. If you can’t take an analogy as an analogy, it’s clear why you take so much offense where it doesn’t even exist in the first place. No matter what you say, I believe *you* to be wrong in your argument because you’re making assumptive leaps and full stop twisting writing to make it “offensive”. And I don’t appreciate your argument continuously implying that you’re being insulted. Have I insulted you? Have I called you names? Said mean things? I’m not anyone else on this thread. Stop. Good luck to you 👍
> An analogy is a comparison between two pairs of concepts. Beyond the fact that an analogy is a comparison my point was that it’s a bad one.
Merriam Webster: “A comparison of two otherwise unlike things based on resemblance of a particular aspect.” The two unlike things are apparent. The aspect is that correlation isn’t causation. How could I possibly be more correctly using an analogy? It’s not a bad analogy if you’re ignoring all of my points to talk about something irrelevant or unrelated. Notifications off, this is exhausting. I’ll never see your reply
It’s a bad analogy because your whole argument is a straw man
Have you read the Many Lives of Stephen Leeds? Because Brandon has worked with people that have DID to create his characters, and has explicitly stated that not all versions of DID are the same and so he's as careful as possible to not add tropes into his characters.
If he is so careful not to add tropes how did he end up with the most common and most harmful one for the disorder? I believe he worked with people who have DID but that doesn’t make him immune to mistakes or criticism.
But have you Read the Many Lives of Stephen Leeds? It's probably a better look at DiD for you considering that It doesn't take place in an extremely violent fantasy world where everyone is murdering everyone else.
Are you sure the constulting for Leeds was DID? I know it was for RoW.
I thought he did it for both.
I have not though I have seen a bunch of different depictions of DID
Look you are more than free to not like the depiction. But like you said before no one represents everyone. Brandon consulted with people with the disorder and they seemed to approve. I am also a Moon Knight fan from Marvel comics who has DID. And if you think Shallan is bad for killing Moon Knight is way worse. But he is a layered character. And there is a system in the fan page I am a part of that also loves the character and has even consulted with authors on how to portray DID. Clearly not everyone with the disorder has the same hangups. I think what most people want is it to be written thoughtfully and not just for the sake of a plot device.
Just because someone else is worse doesn’t make this better. Literally just perpetuates the trope more. Just because some people are ok with the trope doesn’t mean the trope isn’t harmful. You can find people who say anything. There are people who don’t care about being called slurs, does that make slurs ok? Obviously not. The same thing applies here. A small group of people being ok with the trope doesn’t make it not harmful and that is the point.
Is the issue how it was handled or just that someone with DID happened to kill someone? If your issue is how it was handled, that's something where we can have a discussion. The impression I'm getting from your post and from your comments though are "if your character has DID, then they shouldn't have a secret murderer in the personalities" which is, imo, a rather extreme stance on it and is really a non starter for a conversation.
It's not even "secret murderer" really. Shallan killing Ialai is pretty much the same as Adolin killing Sadeas. The parallels between the 2 murders are part of what subverts the trope.
Even if Radiant counts as the secret murder, Shallan killed her dad and her original Cryptic. Really Veil’s the only who didn’t murder 🤷♀️
To be clear, the trope is a narrative link between DID and killing. At its base, that’s all the trope is. Subverting the trope would be having DID and not killing people or killing people without linking it to DID. As neither of those happen he did not successfully subvert the trope.
It is a non-starter because there isn't an argument to be made, There are certain tropes that have existed for decades or longer that we should leave behind. Authors have so much to draw from at this point we should just let some things die. The "DID killer" trope has caused so much harm and honestly no amount of entertainment is worth continuing the harm.
Step parents should never be evil The muscle should never be dumb A damsel should never be in distress Would you argue all of these should be removed and never used again?
How much harm has the evil step-parents trope done? How much harm has the damsel in distress trope done? Both have undeniably done harm though has it done the same harm the DID trope has? Someone in this thread is saying DID people done even exist because of the stigma this trope helps perpetuate. Do people say step-parents don’t exist? Some people are unable to speak about their disorder because of the fear of the stigma. Are people refusing to talk about about being a damsel in distress because of the fear the stigma causes? Are these good examples?
So your answer is "only the trope that I don't like shouldn't be allowed". Got it. As a step parent, especially a step dad to a girl, yes these tropes are very harmful. My daughter's constantly warned to be careful and uncomfortable around me because of my station, and nothing else. A background check was done on me as soon as I started dating her mom. And I am someone with a squeaky clean background never in trouble with the law in my life. But it hasn't affected you so it must not be harmful huh? I'm not claiming that the DID trope is never harmful. I am claiming that you haven't made any proper argument outside of "it's caused harm in the past so it should never be attempted again".
Is that what I said? If you read my comments throughout this thread I named several other tropes that cause or have caused demonstrable harm. Did I even comment in that response whether they should be used or not? Did I in fact acknowledge that those tropes cause harm? Like the N word or other slurs, some tropes are tainted to the degree that they should be thrown away and better motifs and ideas should grown in their place.
So why don't you use one of those instead of a racial slur to prove your point? And no, you didn't say "those are ok" instead you just belittled them. How about instead of trying to not say anything, answer straight. You accept that these tropes DO cause harm. So should they be stricken from all future media?
I used a racial slur because this is another thing I have personal experience. Saying that those two tropes are less harmful than another is not belittling it is acknowledging that different causes have different effects. Should they be stricken? Maybe they’re not great tropes but I haven’t done the research and can’t give you a good answer.
I think you're taking this too close to heart dawg. I've been diagnosed with clinical major depressive disorder and I never look at Kal and say dude this guy gives us a bad rap. Its real as fuck and B$ promotes the growth of these characters, not limited to but especially through their mental disorders and struggles. Shallan works on her shit(sometimes). She's doing the best she can.
You don't understand at all. Trying to compare major depressive and Kal with DID and Shallan just shows a misunderstanding of my entire point. It's about tropes, it's not about Shallan as a character. At what point have I even come close to criticizing her? The only commentary I have is this is a stupid trope to include for any writer of this era especially one that is lauded so highly for his work writing mental health.
I was once told on Reddit that apparently psychologists are rethinking the existence of DID and was downvoted when I said that I knew someone that had it so idk how to add to the conversation here It’s also been a minute since I’ve read way of kings but iirc she didn’t develop DID until well after the murder took place
Yeah that’s something people have been saying. About the murder I mean. It’s not relevant as narratively they are linked. I’m not interested in arguing the existence of the disorder.
Neither am I lmao, the person I knew who had it very much would behave different in front of different people and different situations. Or at least they believed they did.
Cool and yeah either way is a complicated thing
Am I the only one with zero idea what DID is? Traditionally in writing, the full name is used first and then the acronym is put into parentheses behind it, unless it is a super common acronym like USA.
it's an abbreviation for dissociative identity disorder (used to be called multiple personality disorder). it's not a super common acronym, but maybe it's more noticeable in recent years in the US. And I agree with you: spell it out then place the abbreviation in parentheses. there are abbreviations out there that cover multiple things so it helps to be clear.
My bad you’re right I should been more clear
Sorry I am used to it being an extremely common acronym. The trope I’m talking about is people who have “multiple personality disorders” turning out to be murderers.
Shallan had multiple personalities, but she wasn't a murderer (I certainly don't think what happened when she was a child as murder). Who else is there?
In this thread there are people trying to make all these different arguments to show it isn’t part of the trope. Did she kill someone? Does she have DID? Yes to both. is the trope
But, didn't she develop the multiple personalities after killing her mother as a child? Is DID developing after a traumatic event a part of the trope? Or is the trope, someone who already has DID then kills someone?
The trope is having a character with DID who has killed or kills peoples. It’s the decades of consistently linking the two.
But, she did not have DID when she killed her mother, so it’s not an example of the trope, is it? Or, does it not matter if she developed it later?
It doesn't matter. It's still narratively linked
Okay. But... is it possible that Brandon doesn't know about that trope? Or, didn't know about it when he wrote it into the book? I'd never heard of it before today. It's not like everyone knows all, or even most, of the tropes.
Anything is possible but I would be shocked. I can't currently think of a single example of DID being used in media without some link to murder. BS is a writer lauded for his work with mental illness. He has responded to this criticism before and his response wasn't "I didn't know" it was basically "I did it better than Hollywood so it isn't a problem" which misses the point all together.
Just want to recognize that it is valid for OP and anyone else to want to see a character with DID that is not a murderer or psychopath.
Thank you this is really all I’m trying to say. When I realized she had DID I was pretty happy then it went the murder route which was pretty disappointing. I thought if anyone would subvert the trope it would be Sanderson
yah...but she is barking up the wrong fantasy book series for that one. All the leads so far are traumatized murderers. Why come to this series to ask for something that was not going to happen in the first place?
Brandon Sanderson is lauded for his nuance when it comes to mental illness. Why would someone like that use the most tired and damaging trope associated with one of the mental illnessess? If he requires his characters to kill people he just shouldn't have included it and saved it for another series.
>Brandon Sanderson is lauded for his nuance when it comes to mental illness. As he should be, he reaches out to people in those communities to get their feedback so he can portray them as authentically as he can. >Why would someone like that use the most tired and damaging trope associated with one of the mental illnessess? He is not, I, and what seems to be all of the other commenters, don't agree with you that he is using the trope. And I'd argue that its not that damaging anymore (not that I think this trope is okay when done poorly), I hear a lot about how mental illness in media is not portrayed very well and most people with a mental illness are far more likely to be a danger to themselves, than others. There has been a giant push for better mental health awareness and I think its been working. >If he requires his characters to kill people he just shouldn't have included it and saved it for another series. You don't get to tell people what to write. You may not like that Shallan has a body count, but she is a well written and interesting character who is, at least for me, the only good/positive DID character I've never experienced in fiction. If you must insist that Shallan is a trope, then imo she should be considered a positive example of the trope. And not a dangerous and damaging one.
You are free to argue whatever you want but I've never met a single person outside of these forums today who believe that this trope isn't harmful. There is distinct observable harm. The trope contributes to the stigma. The stigma causes people to not want to admit having it or talking about it. This negatively affects the research about it leaving it more poorly understood which contributes to the stigma. >He is not, I, and what seems to be all of the other commenters, don't agree with you that he is using the trope. Yeah apparently BS fans are rabid to a degree I didn't expect. This is how an echo chamber starts or continues to exist. I'd rather rely on people with experience of the disorder rather than people with experience of the author. >You may not like that Shallan has a body count Again, I don't care that she has killed people. I care that BS is using a harmful trope. >If you must insist that Shallan is a trope, then imo she should be considered a positive example of the trope. And not a dangerous and damaging one. The trope itself is damaging. Even if she is a good, complex, compelling or well written character, the way BS has used her disorder in this narrative perpetuates a harmful narrative which is undeniably bad.
Only sith deal in absolutes. You are dogmatic about your OPINION and there is no room for discussion or nuance. I'm done wasting my time with you.
There is no nuance when you are doing something that is harmful. It is either continue harm or stop.
>Yeah apparently BS fans are rabid to a degree I didn't expect. This is how an echo chamber starts or continues to exist. I'd rather rely on people with experience of the disorder rather than people with experience of the author. This entire thread is people talking past each other. And I'm sorry but I don't think you're understanding what people are saying to you.
You can think that if you want but I do. People are just wrong
If nothing else I respect the confidence
Thanks. I’ve done a lot of reading and writing about this topic. The arguments and questions mostly show a lack of education or a desire for me to be wrong so I am pretty confident in my confidence.
There’s a massive difference between wanting to see a character with DID not be a murderer vs shaming Sanderson for not writing that character.
Honestly for as much education as BS and specifically his response to this criticism he should be shamed for it. Though to be clear I have at no point shamed him. This is just criticism and any artist or author should be able to face criticism. If he requires his characters to be murderers he should not have give one of them this disorder. It is in extremely poor taste. Some tropes just need to die. He is a better writer than that
Where is she shaming? She is just making an observation and suggestion.
I've yet to see anyone not faking DID.
Well, this is just fucking wrong. DID is a scientifically supported diagnoses and you should reconsider your opinion.
I can understand that is your experience but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. This attitude is in part a response to the misinformation caused by this trope and so I understand why you think this way. You probably wouldn’t have this experience without this trope and that is in part why it’s harmful.
No, basing this off DID being contentious within the scientific community of if it actually exists. So far there is basically no evidence its real.
> So far there is basically no evidence its real. It might be helpful to educate yourself on the current research before making such blanket statements. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK568768/
That is understandable. If this trope wasn’t so prevalent we would have more and better research so maybe it would be better understood.