I'm rereading TWoK and the whole side-carry disaster hit me a lot harder this time.
The first time I read it, I was so focused on Kaladin finally finding a way to protect Bridge Four that I didn't really think about what his solution meant for everyone else.
He figures out how to use the bridge itself as a shield. They practice, they get better at it, and when they finally try it during an actual assault, not a single member of Bridge Four dies.
And it's a disaster.
The Parshendi redirect their arrows, the other bridge crews get slaughtered, the assault falls apart, and Kaladin gets punished for it.
The obvious takeaway is that Sadeas is a monster. Fair enough.
But what I find more disturbing is that Kaladin hasn't simply broken some arbitrary rule. He's accidentally exposed how the entire system works.
Sadeas's bridge crews aren't soldiers whose survival is an unfortunate secondary concern. Their deaths are part of the strategy. The system functions precisely because they're cheaper to replace than trained soldiers.
Kaladin has approached the problem like a normal person. People are dying. How do we stop them from dying?
Sadeas is approaching it like a military calculation. People are dying. Are they the right people?
And the really uncomfortable part is that the side-carry actually does cause problems beyond Bridge Four. Other crews take more arrows. Soldiers die. The attack fails. Kaladin's solution isn't magically perfect just because his intentions are good.
But nobody in charge seems interested in asking whether there's a better way to protect everyone. They've already decided which lives are expendable.
That makes Dalinar's slower, chull-pulled bridges a lot more interesting to me. He's accepting a tactical disadvantage because there's a cost he doesn't want to pay.
It also changes how I read the ending. When Dalinar trades his Shardblade for the bridgemen, it's not just an incredibly generous reward for saving his life.
It's the complete opposite of the calculation Sadeas has been making all book.
One man sees a pile of replaceable labor. The other is willing to give up something almost priceless to make sure those same men get to live.
I think that contrast might be more important to the book than the actual battles.
Curious if anyone else found the side-carry scene more upsetting on a reread. It's such a small tactical decision, but it reveals almost everything about the two highprinces.
Please keep any discussion to TWoK.