one thing I just recently noticed, Sorcery of nonman, inrithi etc origin is pretty much always described with the adjective "unholy." Doesn't really matter who is seeing or experiencing the magic, it usually gets a descriptor of 'unholy light' at some point.
But when the cishaurim water is described, only some perspectives use "unholy" usually heavily biased perspectives like Proyas. Others tend to use descriptors like dazzling, and iirc, when it zooms out to the omniscient narrator, the cishaurim magic is "holy" and the inrithi magic is "unholy".
So do we just excuse or ignore the repeated designation of 'unholy' because our perspectives are nominally on the side of the Inrithi and we refuse to believe that they're on the wrong side, that they are the badguys, fighting for hell with the weapons of hell?
Because it seems pretty clear and it seems like only readerly assumptions and readerly self-deceptions would prevent a literal and clear reading of the adjective.
This quote is attributed to lockesnow in the previous thread.
I touched on this at some point in the not too distant past.
Sorcery is described not only as a mark, but as being ugly, as being a stain, as being a bruise, and as marring the God's world, etc...
I couldn't have remembered what you said about the Cishaurim and how the descriptions change via the POV of the characters, but it adds even more to the Mystery Fire.
What I also touched was how, when Malo observes Meppa's "work," he is stunned by the beauty of it. The opposite of ugliness.
I think this could all end up being nothing, but it is intriguing if one believes that maybe there's something more to the Cish or that the Fanim have the correct religion, so to speak. Not that there's anyone in these threads that would entertain such silliness.