Chapter Index
    Cover of Rhythm of War (9781429952040)
    Fantasy

    Rhythm of War (9781429952040)

    by Sanderson, Brandon
    “Rhythm of War” is the fourth installment in Brandon Sanderson’s epic fantasy series, The Stormlight Archive. Set on the planet Roshar, the novel continues the conflict between Dalinar Kholin’s coalition of Knights Radiant and the forces of Odium, a malevolent god seeking dominion. The story delves deeper into the psychological and emotional struggles of key characters, including Kaladin, Shallan, and Navani, as they grapple with war, trauma, and the mysteries of ancient magics. Themes of resilience, identity, and the cost of power are explored amidst intricate world-building and high-stakes battles. The book expands the Cosmere universe, revealing new layers of lore and setting the stage for future confrontations.

    Navani, a promi­nent fig­ure, engages in a tense com­mu­ni­ca­tion via a spanreed—a mag­i­cal device that allows dis­tant writ­ten con­ver­sa­tion. The mys­te­ri­ous cor­re­spon­dent accus­es her of heresy for exper­i­ment­ing with fab­ri­als, which trap spren (spir­i­tu­al enti­ties) to har­ness their pow­er. The cor­re­spon­dent con­demns these actions as cru­el and unnat­ur­al, com­par­ing it to impris­on­ing a storm. Navani remains com­posed, seek­ing to under­stand the the­o­log­i­cal objec­tions while her team of schol­ars and engi­neers metic­u­lous­ly mea­sures the spanreed’s decay to deter­mine the correspondent’s loca­tion.

    The engi­neers, led by the ani­mat­ed Falilar, use pre­cise scales and instru­ments to gauge the dis­tance of the spanreed’s oth­er end. Their ini­tial mea­sure­ments sug­gest the cor­re­spon­dent is alarm­ing­ly close—possibly with­in the same tow­er. Navani and her scribe, Kala­mi, spec­u­late whether the cor­re­spon­dent is a singer (a non-human race) or some­one pos­ing as one. The correspondent’s rhetoric frames Navani’s exper­i­ments as a moral vio­la­tion, insist­ing that spren must remain free and accus­ing humans of inher­ent vio­lence.

    Navani attempts to buy time by pre­tend­ing to con­sult a the­o­log­i­cal advi­sor, while her team relo­cates to tri­an­gu­late the correspondent’s posi­tion. The group rush­es to the plateau out­side the tow­er, set­ting up the span­reed again for a sec­ond mea­sure­ment. The cor­re­spon­dent, seem­ing­ly aware of their move­ments, ques­tions their actions, reveal­ing pos­si­ble sur­veil­lance. Navani deflects, ask­ing for clar­i­fi­ca­tion on the moral objec­tions, but the cor­re­spon­dent grows impa­tient, threat­en­ing to with­draw if the suf­fer­ing of the spren con­tin­ues.

    The chap­ter cul­mi­nates in a race against time as Navani’s team seeks to pin­point the correspondent’s loca­tion. The ten­sion esca­lates with the impli­ca­tion of a spy with­in their midst, pos­si­bly the same per­son who plant­ed the span­reed ruby. The correspondent’s silence after Navani’s prob­ing ques­tions leaves the sit­u­a­tion unre­solved, height­en­ing the mys­tery and stakes. The chap­ter under­scores themes of eth­i­cal exper­i­men­ta­tion, the­o­log­i­cal con­flict, and the blurred lines between tech­no­log­i­cal advance­ment and moral respon­si­bil­i­ty.

    FAQs

    • 1. What method does Navani’s team use to try to locate the mysterious spanreed correspondent, and what does this reveal about the correspondent’s location?

      Answer:
      Navani’s team uses precise measurements of spanreed decay—the phenomenon where the pens become heavier the farther apart they are—to triangulate the correspondent’s location. By setting up the spanreed on Falilar’s sensitive scale and taking measurements from different locations (first inside the tower, then on the plateau outside), they determine that the decay is minimal, indicating the correspondent is extremely close, likely inside Urithiru itself. This suggests the mysterious writer may be a hidden ally, enemy, or informant within the tower, possibly watching Navani’s movements.

      2. How does the mysterious correspondent justify their claim that Navani’s fabrial experiments are “heresies,” and what does this reveal about their perspective?

      Answer:
      The correspondent argues that trapping spren in fabrials is morally equivalent to imprisoning nature itself, comparing it to confining a storm or depriving a flower of sunlight. They emphasize that spren should be free and accuse humans of “dominating” them, which aligns with Singer cultural values. This reveals the correspondent likely holds a Singer worldview or is posing as one, as they frame fabrial technology as a violent act against spiritual beings rather than a neutral tool, contrasting sharply with Vorin theology’s acceptance of fabrials as mundane objects.

      3. Analyze the strategic implications of Navani’s decision to feign ignorance and request theological advice during the spanreed conversation.

      Answer:
      Navani’s tactic of pretending to consult theological advisors serves two purposes: First, it buys time for her team to take critical second measurements for triangulation. Second, it manipulates the correspondent into revealing more about their motives by posing as a receptive listener (“How is it you know what our ardents do not?”). This mirrors espionage tradecraft—keeping an opponent engaged while gathering intelligence. However, the correspondent’s awareness of their movement (“Why did you move?”) suggests Navani’s ploy may have been detected, raising stakes for future interactions.

      4. What does Kalami’s concern about the spanreed exchange—that “they’ll learn more about us than we do about them”—suggest about the risks of Navani’s investigation?

      Answer:
      Kalami’s warning highlights the asymmetric risks of communication with an unknown party. While Navani seeks to uncover the correspondent’s identity, every reply potentially exposes: (1) Urithiru’s technological capabilities (via the decay measurement setup), (2) Navani’s investigative methods, and (3) the tower’s internal divisions (as the correspondent seems aware of her fabrial experiments). This mirrors real-world counterintelligence dilemmas, where pursuing a source risks becoming the subject of their scrutiny. The chapter later confirms this when the correspondent detects their relocation, proving the threat is actively monitoring them.

      5. How does the chapter frame the ethical conflict between technological progress and moral responsibility through the fabrial debate?

      Answer:
      The confrontation crystallizes a central tension in the Stormlight Archive: whether advancing technology justifies exploiting spiritual entities. The correspondent’s accusations position fabrials as systemic violence (“Do you kill? Humans always kill”), while Navani’s pragmatic comparison to chull-drawn carts reflects utilitarian ethics. This mirrors real-world debates about scientific ethics—like animal testing or AI rights—where convenience clashes with moral consideration for consciousness. The “heresy” framing elevates it beyond practicality into a theological crisis, questioning whether Vorinism’s approval of fabrials stems from ignorance of spren suffering.

    Quotes

    • 1. “Other Shards I cannot identify, and are hidden to me. I fear that their influence encroaches upon my world, yet I am locked into a strange inability because of the opposed powers I hold.”

      This opening italicized passage sets a tone of cosmic mystery and vulnerability, hinting at unseen forces influencing events. It introduces a key theme of the chapter: the tension between knowledge and power, and the limitations even powerful beings face.

      2. “Spren are meant to be free. By capturing them, you trap nature itself. Can a storm survive if placed in a prison? Can a flower bloom with no sunlight? This is what you do. Your religion is incomplete.”

      This passionate argument from the mysterious spanreed correspondent presents the core ethical dilemma of fabrial technology. The poetic metaphors make a compelling case against spren captivity, challenging human assumptions about their right to harness natural forces.

      3. “The decay is almost nonexistent… Extremely near. Inside the tower.”

      This revelation from Falilar’s measurements creates a moment of tension, revealing that the mysterious communicant is much closer than expected. It shifts the chapter’s dynamic from abstract philosophical debate to immediate physical threat, raising questions about infiltration and hidden enemies within Urithiru.

      4. “Humans always kill.”

      This blunt, accusatory statement encapsulates the deep-seated resentment held by some non-human entities in this world. Delivered through the spanreed, it serves as both a condemnation of Navani’s experiments and a broader indictment of human nature in the cosmere’s conflicts.

    Quotes

    1. “Other Shards I cannot identify, and are hidden to me. I fear that their influence encroaches upon my world, yet I am locked into a strange inability because of the opposed powers I hold.”

    This opening italicized passage sets a tone of cosmic mystery and vulnerability, hinting at unseen forces influencing events. It introduces a key theme of the chapter: the tension between knowledge and power, and the limitations even powerful beings face.

    2. “Spren are meant to be free. By capturing them, you trap nature itself. Can a storm survive if placed in a prison? Can a flower bloom with no sunlight? This is what you do. Your religion is incomplete.”

    This passionate argument from the mysterious spanreed correspondent presents the core ethical dilemma of fabrial technology. The poetic metaphors make a compelling case against spren captivity, challenging human assumptions about their right to harness natural forces.

    3. “The decay is almost nonexistent… Extremely near. Inside the tower.”

    This revelation from Falilar’s measurements creates a moment of tension, revealing that the mysterious communicant is much closer than expected. It shifts the chapter’s dynamic from abstract philosophical debate to immediate physical threat, raising questions about infiltration and hidden enemies within Urithiru.

    4. “Humans always kill.”

    This blunt, accusatory statement encapsulates the deep-seated resentment held by some non-human entities in this world. Delivered through the spanreed, it serves as both a condemnation of Navani’s experiments and a broader indictment of human nature in the cosmere’s conflicts.

    FAQs

    1. What method does Navani’s team use to try to locate the mysterious spanreed correspondent, and what does this reveal about the correspondent’s location?

    Answer:
    Navani’s team uses precise measurements of spanreed decay—the phenomenon where the pens become heavier the farther apart they are—to triangulate the correspondent’s location. By setting up the spanreed on Falilar’s sensitive scale and taking measurements from different locations (first inside the tower, then on the plateau outside), they determine that the decay is minimal, indicating the correspondent is extremely close, likely inside Urithiru itself. This suggests the mysterious writer may be a hidden ally, enemy, or informant within the tower, possibly watching Navani’s movements.

    2. How does the mysterious correspondent justify their claim that Navani’s fabrial experiments are “heresies,” and what does this reveal about their perspective?

    Answer:
    The correspondent argues that trapping spren in fabrials is morally equivalent to imprisoning nature itself, comparing it to confining a storm or depriving a flower of sunlight. They emphasize that spren should be free and accuse humans of “dominating” them, which aligns with Singer cultural values. This reveals the correspondent likely holds a Singer worldview or is posing as one, as they frame fabrial technology as a violent act against spiritual beings rather than a neutral tool, contrasting sharply with Vorin theology’s acceptance of fabrials as mundane objects.

    3. Analyze the strategic implications of Navani’s decision to feign ignorance and request theological advice during the spanreed conversation.

    Answer:
    Navani’s tactic of pretending to consult theological advisors serves two purposes: First, it buys time for her team to take critical second measurements for triangulation. Second, it manipulates the correspondent into revealing more about their motives by posing as a receptive listener (“How is it you know what our ardents do not?”). This mirrors espionage tradecraft—keeping an opponent engaged while gathering intelligence. However, the correspondent’s awareness of their movement (“Why did you move?”) suggests Navani’s ploy may have been detected, raising stakes for future interactions.

    4. What does Kalami’s concern about the spanreed exchange—that “they’ll learn more about us than we do about them”—suggest about the risks of Navani’s investigation?

    Answer:
    Kalami’s warning highlights the asymmetric risks of communication with an unknown party. While Navani seeks to uncover the correspondent’s identity, every reply potentially exposes: (1) Urithiru’s technological capabilities (via the decay measurement setup), (2) Navani’s investigative methods, and (3) the tower’s internal divisions (as the correspondent seems aware of her fabrial experiments). This mirrors real-world counterintelligence dilemmas, where pursuing a source risks becoming the subject of their scrutiny. The chapter later confirms this when the correspondent detects their relocation, proving the threat is actively monitoring them.

    5. How does the chapter frame the ethical conflict between technological progress and moral responsibility through the fabrial debate?

    Answer:
    The confrontation crystallizes a central tension in the Stormlight Archive: whether advancing technology justifies exploiting spiritual entities. The correspondent’s accusations position fabrials as systemic violence (“Do you kill? Humans always kill”), while Navani’s pragmatic comparison to chull-drawn carts reflects utilitarian ethics. This mirrors real-world debates about scientific ethics—like animal testing or AI rights—where convenience clashes with moral consideration for consciousness. The “heresy” framing elevates it beyond practicality into a theological crisis, questioning whether Vorinism’s approval of fabrials stems from ignorance of spren suffering.

    Note