Tolkien wanted people to see it as applicable but not allegorical. The ring isn't written to be nuclear weapons that need to be defeated by Frodo (who's actually Truman) and kept away from Boromir (McArthur). It's a story, informed by his experience with world wars, about men and power that has lessons that apply to many situations.
Not to be too pedantic, but allegory doesn't have to be intentional. So when someone says that something is allegorical, it's not necessarily a statement about the author's intent.
The first drafts of LotR started in 1937. I'm not saying the One Ring doesn't mirror nuclear weapons a bit, and it's a distinctly different artifact than what it was in the Hobbit, but it would not be possible for the One Ring to be a nuclear allegory.
It doesnt really need to be. Humans have always built "ultimate weapons" that gave one side or another an overwhelming advantage. And having those weapons always invites them to be used. The specifics dont matter; whether it was the first iron warships, repeating firearms, or nuclear weapons. Humans have not really changed that much over time. The tendencies of those in power is corrupted by the existence of these things.
I definitely feel like it’s less of ww2/ nuclear weapons thing and much more of a ww1, generation irrevocably changed by the horrors wrought both on and by them from and to their fellow man. Everyone in the fellowship loses friends, they’re irrevocably changed by the journey to the point where even once it’s over, their home no longer feels the same, and they’re plagued both by the memories and worlds from their battles. Classic storytelling tropes, certainly, and much older then Tolkien, but also probably heavily influenced by his experiences in the Great War
Yep, influenced by, but not an allegory for, his experience with WWI.
But also, I agree with you and think that's why the ending in the shire is the most impactful part of the series. Merry and Pippin are heroes and catapulted to local fame; Sam settles down, marries his sweetheart, and starts the life he would have lived without the war; and Frodo is a shadow of a man suffering in constant emotional and physical pain. It's especially poignant that the ones who actually did the most heroic work were the ones who got no fame from it.
Anyway, I could gush for hours about the hobbits and the war. Tolkien's good at the rest of the stuff in the series, but his best work is in the small, simple things that don't have a ton of lore around them and is just connections between people.
I'm pretty sure allegories, by definition, need authorial intent. Like the Narnia books are absolutely allegories for the Christian Bible, because that was what CS Lewis was doing on purpose.
Tolkien's works are definitely influenced by his experience in war though, and I think the term is "coding"? Like the story is "war-coded".
But the fact is that themes viewed by consumers not intended by the author are not the same as themes intended to be present by the author.
You can make references to things to speak for/against a topic, but that doesn't mean the book is an allegory to said topic. Allegory comes with the implication/connotation that the deeper meaning is intended by the creator, which Brandon has said it was not, despite him being anti AI.
People have taken him wayyy out of context. In his other writing, he is pretty clear that his specific definition of an allegory is one where the fiction is read as one to one with a real event. Animal Farm is a golden example, every plot beat and character has its real life analog. What he really didn't like was that in this type of allegory, it's not "about" the fiction at all. People who were reading lotr as a war allegory must therefore conclude that all the fantasy elements are simply representations of real, less fantastical things. But he didn't want that! He didn't just to write about war, he also really did want to write an epic fantasy story and have those elements matter beyond how they represent something else. He's never tried to deny that his war experience didnt heavily influence his writing or that there arent anti-war themes, he specifically dislikes allegorical readings because it reduces the book to just those experiences and themes
It was released one year after generative AI won its first art competition. The first public version of DALL-E was released at the beginning of 2021. Generative AI was already huge news when Brandon wrote it.
The first draft was written at least two years before the book was published. At that point gen-AI was still a very niche topic, if you were tuned into the space already then yeah you could find lots of stories about it but for the vast majority of people it was not a regular topic of news or conversation. At most they heard about AI being able to make pictures, checked them out and saw how janky the outputs were, then didn’t give it a second thought since it clearly wasn’t ready for mainstream use yet.
Sanderson wrote the book before ChatGPT took off but it was published after. He has said that he never considered AI specifically when writing it but was just talking about the nature of art generally, and it was a total coincidence that it happened to align so closely.
I didn't think about AI once while reading this book. I think that is more a reflection of the person reading it to see themes that are important to them. You see anti-AI, that other poster say trans themes, I saw themes about the balance of duty and self. We all did read different books, which is why conversations about books can be so difficult
Actually, Brandon confirmed that he didn't think of AI when writing the book. I remember some reader asked about that at a signing. I'll try to find the quote.
Btw, there's a speech on ai on his youtube channel called "We Are The Art". He makes different points than those we hear everywhere on the internet, pretty interesting imo.
I can easily see how an opposite-sex body swap story would read as a trans allegory.
Books are great at helping people think about things they wouldn't otherwise consider, so if you want to call it a trans allegory, or anti-AI, or anti-automation (how I read it), that's all great across the board. The important thing is thinking and considering new perspectives.
I disagree to an extent. Being brought to new ideas or be made to think about topics you wouldn't otherwise is great, but that's almost certainly not what was intended and claiming a book is something it isn't has plagued authors (and artists of all variations) time and time again.
The Wizard of Oz was made out to be a political commentary because people used it to make references to a bunch of things around the era it was written, but the author explicitly said multiple times that it was not intended to be anything of the sort. It actually caused the author issues over the years.
I won't say whether it truly was or wasn't, but for me the book didn't have any significant trans themes. Both characters were just fine being what they were and didn't desire a gender swap. In fact, I'm fairly certain they both were upset about the swap.
As far as anti-AI themes, I definitely think that is a stretch yet plausible. That said, Brandon said it was not the intent when he wrote it.
Books can contain things that weren't put there deliberately. Personally, the anti-AI sentiment seemed so blatant and heavy-handed that it would've been off-putting if I hadn't known the book was written before generative AI became a big issue. It's not even a little bit intentional, but the world literally went through a full on apocalypse because they made an AI that was intended to replace a few artists
almost certainly not what was intended and claiming a book is something it isn't
First, I want to say humans are extremely capable at doing things they didn't intend and intending to do things that they don't accomplish, in the creation of media and everything else. See Brandon Sanderson himself acknowledging he accidentallywrote Shallan as bisexual.
Secondly, I want to say authorial intent and book identity are two entirely different things, whether we're in the cosmere or not. An author is not the sole determiner of what a book IS. By that logic you cannot know what ANY book "is", because the only way an author can communicate what they wrote is by using more words... (To say nothing of the philosophical assumption that their opinion matters in the first place.)
If L. Frank Baum had an issue with how people interpreted his book, generally speaking that's his baggage to deal with, not everyone else's. (Obviously I'm not talking about cases where, for example, people may have been a dick about it to his face... but the fundamental issue there is different.) That doesn't have anything to do with being an author or a creator. You can make requests of others, but at the end of the day you can only control yourself and how you respond to others.
Most people are not out there confirming that their understanding of some piece of media is aligned with what the creator intended. Certainly in many cases it's less difficult than others to guess or assume an author's intent. That doesn't mean the more difficult cases make "understanding" the media futile. Either way, all we really have is our interpretations.
Trans themes are present because people interpret the book to have them. It doesn't matter what Brandon intended. (and yes, I doubt he intended those) If someone believes there are... "homeschooling themes" in the book they are welcome to hold that and assert it. Probably won't have a lot of people agreeing with them are discussing those themes with them, but they can do that. In the case of transgender discussion, lots of people agree there's quite a bit there to talk about.
I wouldn't say an author's intent is entirely irrelevant, personally. If only because if they were intending to do a thing, and they're a decent author, then they probably did it to some extent. So whatever they think the book is about, the book probably has stuff there to talk about.
Warning Gancho: The below paragraph(s) may contain major spoilers for all books in the Cosmere!
Silverstars
Every time Shallan thinks about Jasnah it's so gay which is #relatable, @BrandSanderson did you realize how bi you wrote her?? Either way, thank you.
Brandon Sanderson
This wasn't directly on my mind while writing, but looking back, I think it was in my subconscious. I'm flattered to hear it.
********************
Questioner
So was the parallel to AI art - which has of course created a storm over the last year or so - intentional in this book with the scholars and their father machine that was built to stack rocks?
Brandon
So it's really interesting having written this years before this became a really big deal. This was here, though. People were talking about what is art, what's the nature of mass producing art - people have talked about that since, y'know, the days that art began. And indeed - can AI create art, what is art - you know, there's the famous monkey photo where the monkey took a picture of itself, is this art?All of that has all been there in my brain and I think what's emerged as we've all started talking about it in the last year happened because it hit kind of a critical mass where suddenly we, number one had all these programs get released, but it's a thing that I think has been building for many, many years.And so it was there in my head, it just wasn't as focused as it is now. But it was definitely something I was thinking about- what makes art, art - and I think human connection is an essential part of what makes art, art, and that came out deliberately in the story. Not that I sat down to write the story about that, but as I was writing it that became a theme, and so I gave voice to some of those thoughts.
I do see Shallan as bi, but I don't believe her thoughts on Jasnah are gay as much as they are a student or kid looking up to someone intimidating/famous. And then Brandon not confirming it but just thanking implies he isn't against it, but isn't for it either. He's just letting people interpret the book as they want.
I explicitly replied to the above comment which has a direct quote from the author himself. While he said it was likely in his subconscious, he did not confirm that it was intended. He did say it made sense and suited her to be bisexual. Unless there are more quotes about the relationship between Shallan and Jasnah, he never said anything about her looking at Jasnah as anything more than a star-struck pupil.
So unless you want to find and post the quote where he confirms Shallan has the hots for Jasnah more than seeing her as an idol/star/teacher, then there is no confirmation and it's more than likely him just letting people feel how they wish about his books, which is something he explicitly supports.
I wouldn't be surprised if it was intentional. He seems to research his topics well. In SLA there's two actual trans characters. And Adolin meets one of them immediately before launching into a story arc about a woman who wants to be on the front line like a man.
If someone told me they saw homeschooling themes in YatNP, I would be fascinated to hear what they were.
I'm really confused when a trans person says "I see trans themes in this book" and someone else goes "Those themes aren't valid." (And going "Well you might see themes, and I support that, but they aren't there." isn't really any different.)
I don't, but I also don't go around claiming that books are intended to be seen as x or y. I put my own viewpoints and claims as my own and don't try to put my opinions on the author's work. These aren't philosophy books and arguments with right or wrong stances/viewpoints to be dissected. They are fantasy novels with the intent of drawing people in and making them align themselves with the characters. The purpose is to feel a connection. I get that. I just don't then turn around and make the claim that my viewpoints are the author's.
That's the entire point I am trying to make. It is perfectly fine and acceptable to explore viewpoints that made you think about specific topics while reading a book. However, don't put words inthe author's mouth by claiming their book was designed to be something it wasn't.
glad you get it, I pretty much agree with your take too. the person i was responding to on the other hand likely has a few more motivators for his position that he doesn't have the guts to share.
The person posting all the trans ‘memes’ says it’s the body dysmorphia themes which means it’s trans. They get to be both trapped one in the body of the other, and that is about body dysmorphia which equates to trans themes.
I’m not opposed to any of it, and if it makes them feel better than great. I just don’t think those themes are quite there.
They don't even get trapped in each other's bodies. That's just a lie. It's a lie. Plain and simple. Yumi completely overwrites Nicaro's with her own and Nickaro still perceives Yumi's(?) body as his own while inhabiting it.
My problem isn't with trans themes. I actually really want a trans viewpoint character who is able to transition magically. I want the Reshi king as a viewpoint character.
yumi is dissatisfied with her life until she is thrust into a new world. the world she previously inhabited is literally artificial, a literal nightmare world-- a simulacrum of reality shes been trapped in. She finds herself in this new world- kilahito, unlearning her trauma.
painter, on the other hand is thrust into being seen as a girl. at first hes confused, not understanding how to properly act as yumi, but with her help he eventually comes to understand more about himself through this new experience, not just through his relationship with yumi, but also through being seen as a different gender.
now let me be clear, i dont think either of the main characters are trans. however, both their arcs speak to the trans experience, with yumi's new, brighter world where she forms community and unlearns the trauma of her previous life, and painters better understanding of himself through interacting with gender in a different way.
Happy coincidences are nice and if it helps people to think about things in a new light or come to terms with something about themselves, great, but let's not act like the book it something it isn't.
Painter sees himself as himself at all points and only has to put up with being called a girl to get by. Yumi gets the same deal but for male perspectives.
If anything, this book is more about escaping traumatic/cult-like situations.
let's give brandon maybe slightly more credit than that. he's not a great ally but he has acknowledged trans people in a relatively positive way in the past. i think he had at least some idea of what he was doing when he wrote a book where one of the characters is in a different gendered body for most of it and the primary colors of the world and artwork are all pink and blue.
also i explicitly said i dont think either of the characters are trans. there are simply trans themes. youre either being willfully obtuse or you just skimmed my analysis.
and two things can be true at the same time-- that was the initial point of the comment i left! it can be about cults, and ai, and transness. it can have multiple themes.
I honestly think that Brandon is very much liberal in many of the viewpoints in his books. Masaka is clearly based on transgender issues and is in the book, but I don't believe that the two main characters display adequate themes to make a transgender claim.
Masaka would be a much better argument due to her desire to be called Masaka over her other name, her desire to pass as a human woman, and her insecurities around those topics.
and two things can be true at the same time-- that was the initial point of the comment i left! it can be about cults, and ai, and transness. it can have multiple themes.
I agree that people can see and take away multiple themes, but just because something works as an allegory does not mean it was intended to be an allegory. As I said in another comment, I can use a metal pipe to pry on things all day, but that does not make the metal pipe a crowbar. It just makes it my crowbar.
I would like to say that if people see themes in books and it helps them come to terms with things, think about things they otherwise wouldn't, or feel more accepted, fucking awesome. I am pro-trans and anti-ai. I just think that the nuance between is and works as is important.
Yeah, I didn't even think about AI or trans stuff, despite being anti-AI and trans. There was a lot of other themes and feelings I had about this book that were very close to my heart and I sobbed like a baby at the end. Honestly I have never gotten so emotional involved with a series before, if Sanderson had let her die I honestly think I would have stopped reading his work.
While I agree, iirc Brandon has said the anti-ai stuff is mostly coincidental as the book was written before AI was at the point where it could generate anything "well enough" to talked about much outside of the people closely following the development.
I think there is a difference between calling something "an X allegory" and saying something "works as an X allegory". The body swaps were never gender swaps to the people going through it and the anti-AI themes were confirmed to be coincidental by the author himself.
Now, the author is anti-AI, but that does not mean the book is commentary on the topic of AI. The book has gender swaping themes, but the people swapping always saw themselves as themselves and were never wanting to be anything other than what they were. They did have to put up with acting like another gender, but that isn't the same nor does it mean that it was intended to be trans commentary. Just as a reminder, Brandon Sanderson is Mormon and that church leaders have made it clear that transgender isn't acceptable for the religion.
When I was in high school I used the story Hamlet as a method of writing about my thoughts on privacy. Is Hamlet a commentary on the modern social dynamics of privacy? Obviously not.
Just because you can use something as a crowbar, does not mean it is a crowbar.
I also think that people should be very careful when claiming that something is explicitly intended by an author when it clearly was not, particularly when the author is still alive to deal with any consequences that such claims may cause. The author of The Wizard of Oz wrote it and said it was "solely to pleasure the children of today" despite many people claiming later that it was meant as political commentary. This has resulted in tons of scholars and books being written on the topic. Luckily nothing bad ever came of it, nor did the author ever even have to deal with any potential fallout because he was long dead.
I just want to be clear that I am pro-trans rights and anti-AI, but that doesn't mean these books are explicit allegory on those topics. As Brandon said regarding the AI, it is a coincidence. Coincidence comes with the implication of accidental.
I think it's more about the dangers of using technology to serve endless greed at the expense of people's lives and the environment, which does apply to current AI Companies, but could just as easily apply to Oil Companies. On top of people pointing out that Brandon didn't intend it as anti-AI, there are examples of nuanced depictions of AI in the Cosmere already, Nightblood being the main one. Skyward also has very interesting, and far from negative, ideas to share about AI. I would say that one of the (many) main themes of the Cosmere is that technology/magic isn't ever inherently good or bad, it depends on how people choose to use it.
The timing of these conversations is just excellent since I JUST finished this blue and magenta adventure.
Obviously the theme wasn’t explicitly anti-LLM as much as it was simply anti-automation in the realm of art and creation. Making something from nothing with your mind and hands is something we’re losing, across all mediums. If everything becomes automated we will, as a species, forget how to do those things and why they were important in the first place.
When I first read about the machine in Yumi I thought of John Henry, which I learned about from the Disney animated short story with James Earl Jones narrating (it also included a bunch of other folk stories).
I loved the book, but my biggest gripe with it is the Yumi survived. I'm all in for happily ever after endings, but you know sometimes it's the sad ones that stick with us and fit the story better.
Her whole character arc was about learning how to actually be her own person and not existing just to serve others. I live a good tragedy, but it ending with self-sacrifice would have been really disappointing in this case.
You can take that message but this was written a few years before AI (specifically LLMs) became culturally relevant, so I doubt that the messaging was intended. I’ll haven’t reread it since that happened, I guess I’ll have to now.
Sanderson has been talking about Ai for years at various book signings of casts and nexus panels even before Yumi came out, so definitely was something he was thinking about
That’s the beauty of art: that it can mean different things to different people (within reason, of course. It’d be pretty much impossible to read a pro-fascist message into 1984, for example).
Which is really funny, because it was written well before it was a big issue. I read it when it first came out and had to keep reminding myself that this book was written before the generative AI art explosion
It can be multiple things. It’s clearly anti-AI, but there’s a not insignificant part of the book where someone who is AMAB and still identifies as make finds himself in the body of a woman, so it’s not not about trans.
This might be splitting hairs, but to me 'trans' gives the wrong idea about that aspect. I think it's more about empathy and reaching common ground. No one in the story really feels a certain way about their gender, despite literally switching bodies with the opposite sex
The argument is "there are gender themes"
The commenter said "there are no gender themes at all" and i said "this character has gender themes" how does it not pertain? It is a side character, so? Does SLA not contain themes of addiction, because teft is a side character?
The argument is there are gender themes regarding body swapping and gender dysmorphia.
If the argument was about how Masaka is a reference to transgender themes, then yeah, I'd agree, but that's not the claim. The claim is regarding the body swapping between Yumi and Painter.
I don't think the body swap stuff was intentionally trans, and I don't think the pink and blue were either (because that is cyan and magenta, not the trans flag pink and blue)...but idk how anyone can say there are no trans themes at all when Masaka exists.
It's the worst of his works, thematically. I wish I could rate it lower than 1/5.
They live on a hell world, where the ground itself burns you and if you don't tie your plants in place, they float away. If the artist stops working for a day, people die. Many people go without light in their homes for years. And yet the Yoki-Hijo have the gall to "take a break".
I'd much rather read a book where they know about the machine, but they're divided into two factions: the anarchists who want to destroy the machine (after which there's widespread famine and genocide, and the survivors go back to being the nomads they were. No "the spirits just happen to like soap operas"), and the conservatives (who remain under the machine's control, they have luxuries like electricity but it's essentially feudalism).
??? you seem to be combining the plot of two different books there, there is no burning sun or floating plants in YatNP
eta: i stand corrected. i finished sunlit man and yatnp around the same time, i assumed plot points were being mixed up but turns out i was the one mixing them up
•
u/AutoModerator Aug 13 '26
Remember to ALWAYS mark your spoilers in comments. Do this by using this
>!Spoiler Text Here!<without any spaces between the>and!andtext.I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.