Major spoiler warning for the Mistborn trilogy by Brandon Sanderson (which I highly, highly recommend as it’s some of my favourite books of all time). I am not taking into consideration Mistborn: Secret History or Mistborn Era 2, so no spoilers for that.
This is the first in a series of essays I will be writing in which I will be analysing different plots, motifs and characters from the Cosmere, I currently have plans in the future to do Vin (Mistborn), Renarin (stormlight), the safehand motif (stormlight) but would really be open to ideas and suggestions if anyone has any! You can drop a comment down below or message me on my instagram literseabooks!
Kelsier is one of my favourite characters of all time but he is often accused of being boring as he arguably seems like every other hero in the fantasy genre from first glance. However, I believe the most interesting part of his character doesn’t even happen whilst he’s alive. I believe Sanderson builds up a typical hero in The Final Empire, like many argue, but ends up tearing down everything he built in the second and third books, leaving Kelsier as human as any other character by the end. Sanderson is able to take this typical trope-y fantasy hero, and create something new.
Initially, Sanderson frames Kelsier’s character as the protagonist of the novel as he is the first major character to be introduced, and he is the character everyone looks up to in the novel. He embodies the archetype easily as he is smart, cunning, gives off an air of invincibility and has a special backstory, managing to complete a task everyone thought was impossible (surviving the Pits of Hathsin). Along with this, he is just very likeable. He is extremely charismatic as he refuses to show any signs of weakness through his never ending optimism. In a world so bleak as the Final Empire is in Mistborn, both the reader and the characters gravitate to whatever source of light they can find. When the other characters seem to be giving up, declaring that their actions are nothing but a ‘mild annoyance’ in the grand scheme of things, Kelsier responds by saying “ah, but being an annoyance is something that I am very good at. In fact, I'm far more than just a 'mild' annoyance--people tell me I can be downright frustrating. Might as well use this talent for the cause of good, eh?”. The joking tone paired with the witty comeback makes the reader fall in love with Kelsier, as he is able to find the light in every sentence and every situation where others may not.
Kelsier is also depicted as being extremely powerful as reflected in Vin’s constant awe of Kelsier’s skills and intelligence. This is why the readers never expect him to die. In any other story, Kelsier would be the protagonist of the whole trilogy, he is the character that is always okay in the end no matter what because he is able to wiggle his way out of impossible situations. This makes it extra jarring when he dies in the final few chapters of The Final Empire. This is further emphasised by the Lord Ruler, or the ‘big bad’, killing him in an anticlimactic manner. The Lord Ruler merely “raised a casual arm, then backhanded Kelsier”, leading to his death. Firstly, the description of a ‘casual arm’ is an example of the literary device synecdoche, in which a part is described as separate from, but is representative, of the whole (e.g. the phrase ‘get your butt here’, it does not mean cut off your butt and throw it there, but only the butt is described in this situation to represent the whole person). This use of synecdoche emphasises just how much stronger the Lord Ruler is than Kelsier as it only requires an arm used in a casual, flippant manner to kill him, making his death even more tragic and further tearing down the image of the invincible hero. Usually, characters like Kelsier are able to defeat anyone no matter the difference in their strengths due to their intelligence, so the fact Kelsier is able to die is a subversion of this archetype. To take things further, when these characters do die, which is rare in of itself, it is usually in some grand, epic, final battle, not casually in the middle of the street with a single slap, this already makes Kelsier different from his peers. There is something so incredibly raw and tragic about this death that I am still upset about it 4 years after I first read the book.
Here is where Vin comes in. In The Final Empire it can be argued that Vin represents the reader of the book as she is constantly in awe and has a great amount of respect for Kelsier. The reader is able to learn about the world, the magic and the other characters through the eyes of Vin, and because of this, we admire Kelsier, holding him up to almost a supernatural standard. This is reflected in his final words “I represent the one thing you've never been able to kill, no matter how hard you try. I am Hope.” The capitalisation of the word ‘hope’ suggests it is a name, or a living entity. Suggesting that Kelsier, even after his death, has turned into a separate entity as he is now living through ‘Hope’ personified, an arguably supernatural character. This godlike image of Kelsier not only reflects the way the readers view him but also reflects the state of his character.
However, through Vin’s character development, Sanderson explores the real life, gritty nature of a character like Kelsier. He was described as “intense, reckless, even a little bit cruel. Unforgiving, He’d slaughter people without guilt or concern” in The Well of Ascension. Through Vin’s eyes, the previously admirable qualities of Kelsier seem to be portrayed in a more realistic manner, as opposed to the romanticised nature shown before. The word ‘slaughter’ is often used in association with animals, i.e. slaughter houses, and so it is disconcerting when it is used with humans because it suggests that Kelsier viewed the people he murdered as being sub-human, suggesting a lack of empathy from him. This is a terrifying trait to have, showing the reality of the glorified murders committed by the typical fantastical hero, and exposing that maybe Kelsier wasn’t as perfect as we deemed him to be. This also brings up the argument: was Kelsier innocent in his crimes? Or was he just as bad as the noblemen? At the end of the day, all the characters were oppressed under the hand of the Lord Ruler. To Kelsier, his actions would have been justified as the Skaa are undoubtedly living in significantly worse situations, constantly tortured, murdered and living in fear of the upper class. However, the noblemen and women also didn’t have a hand in their birth and status, and any action to try and oppose this would most likely have gotten them and their family killed. In a situation like this, would you step up to say something if it risked your loved ones? Everyone you cared about? We like to think we’d say yes but in reality, I know I wouldn’t. I couldn’t risk my family like that. This exposes Kelsier as not being the kind, caring, charming character the readers perceived him to be and caused us to overlook the murders Kelsier is shown committing in the Final Empire.
This makes the other characters like Dockson who continue to glorify Kelsier to a godlike status, spearheading the “church of the survivor”, seem ridiculous as Kelsier has been humanised in the eyes of the reader. We know he’s human. Despite this, the other characters represent how the reader would usually perceive a character like Kelsier, and how books normally glorify him to impossible degrees, just like what the other characters are doing. In a way, Sanderson is poking fun at the readers through his depiction.
This does not make Kelsier evil, this makes him human. The reader, despite now being exposed to the reality of his crimes, still can’t fault him due to his trauma, and the past he had in the pits of Hathsin. This is an original depiction and use of the archetype because fantasy has a tendency to romanticise and praise horrific actions like murder, glorifying it in a way that makes the reader crave the violence. Heroes like Kelsier can often do no wrong in the eyes of the reader. Instead of being an untouchable, charismatic hero, Kelsier’s crimes make him more human than ever. There isn’t a good versus bad scale, but Kelsier exists within the greys, making him a more realistic character. Sanderson shows that even heroes like Kelsier who go on to become legends are merely just people, and should not be glorified any more or less than the other characters in the story. Sanderson also exposes the danger of overlooking the actions of the protagonist in each story, as the reader barely registers each time Kelsier murders someone, despite it happening multiple times in The Final Empire. There were warning signs from the beginning that the readers chose to overlook because we are looking for someone to admire.
Overall, Sanderson manages to expose the ruthless, cruel side of being a fantasy hero which is rarely, if ever, explored in modern fantasy. Authors rarely kill off characters like Kelsier, because they are the type of character that rely on their invincibility, as the thrill of the character is in seeing how they will get out of situations that seem almost impossible. However, Sanderson is not afraid to twist this trope, not only killing off Kelsier early in the trilogy, but taking away his god-like aura. Therefore, this is why I believe Sanderson was successful in twisting the archetype, allowing the exploration of Kelsier’s character to grow beyond the typical.