Timewaster's Guide Archive

Local Authors => Brandon Sanderson => Topic started by: Chaos on June 02, 2009, 09:38:28 PM

Title: Mistborn 3 Annotations Discussion *Spoilers*
Post by: Chaos on June 02, 2009, 09:38:28 PM
Now that Ookla is getting the annotations posted on a regular basis, I think we should have a thread where we can pore over them as a group ;)
Title: Re: Mistborn 3 Annotations Discussion *Spoilers*
Post by: Shard on June 03, 2009, 03:38:27 AM
So the first annotation is posted: Title Page (http://www.brandonsanderson.com/annotation/257/Mistborn-3-Title-Page).

I like that he was originally going to go with Final Hero mostly because it adds to the idea that "Hero of Ages" could apply to more then one person. Preservation was trying imo to get a Hero to counter Ruin. I think that's what it's plan was all along and Sazed was the "final Hero" though I feel Vin and  Alendi were Heros of Ages as well.
Title: Re: Mistborn 3 Annotations Discussion *Spoilers*
Post by: Chaos on June 05, 2009, 08:28:43 PM
Quick thing, Ookla: the annotations on the main page (as of today) say Chapter Five and Chapter Six, yet clicking on those links lead to an empty page. Going to the Annotation home page, there are only three updates, and none of them are the chapter ones. I wonder why on the front page it has the wrong ones displayed.
Title: Re: Mistborn 3 Annotations Discussion *Spoilers*
Post by: Peter Ahlstrom on June 05, 2009, 09:45:22 PM
It's a bug. Chapter 6 is the latest one to be uploaded, but it has not yet gone live and won't until July. What would be better would be for the latest live ones to be listed on the left. I've emailed Jordan about this.

(Also, I screwed up the dates for the two latest annotations that did go live. The second one wasn't supposed to go live until this next Tuesday, but I put the wrong year on it and it throws up an error when I try to change it.)
Title: Re: Mistborn 3 Annotations Discussion *Spoilers*
Post by: Chaos on June 05, 2009, 09:53:03 PM
That makes sense. Thanks for the explanation, Ook.
Title: Re: Mistborn 3 Annotations Discussion *Spoilers*
Post by: Chaos on November 13, 2009, 08:48:36 PM
I'm resurrected this thread because the latest MB3 annotation, Chapter 38.

Quote
First, to these forces, energy and mass are the same thing. So, their power can take physical shape—as Preservation's did in the bead of metal Elend ate. Second, there is a bit of Preservation inside of all the people—and it's this that allows the people to perform Allomancy. It needs to be awakened and stirred to be of use, but when it is, a proper metal can draw forth more of Preservation's power. It's like the metal attunes the bit within the person, allowing it to act as a catalyst to grab more power.

Allomancy is not fueled by metal; it is fueled by Preservation. The metal is the means by which a person can access that fuel, however. If there were another way to access it, then the metal wouldn't be needed.

Preservation's touch on people differs. Some have more, some have less. This doesn't make them better or worse people—indeed, some most touched by Preservation have been among the worst people in the world. As Ruin later points out, there is a difference between being evil and being destructive.

Regardless, if a person can get more Preservation into them, they become better Allomancers. Hence Elend becoming a Mistborn. Like all people, he had the potential within him—it was just too small of a potential to be awakened through normal means. That little jolt of Preservation's body, however, expanded and awakened his Allomancy.

As a tidbit, that was a side effect of what that bead of metal did. It wasn't the main purpose of the bead, and if another Allomancer were to burn it, it would do something else. ;)

First of all, this answers that conversation way back where we argued how that metal could be burned when you already have to be an Allomancer to burn metals.

Second, Lerasium does something else? Discuss.

From my very spiffy Table of Allomantic Metals (which is incredible, by the way), Lerasium is:

Quote
Pure lerasium transforms a person into an Allomancer or drastically improves their Allomantic powers. In alloy form, it produces various expanded physical and enhancement effects, including the creation of Mistings.

I believe that I must mention that these Tables are in-world creations, and this one is a couple centuries after the end of Hero of Ages. They wouldn't have Lerasium to test. They only know what Vin/Elend learned in Hero of Ages, which is that this particular metal creates Allomancers. Obviously, judging from Brandon's tongue-in-cheek ";)" emoticon, this is intentional.

This also explains the disparity between the power of the God Metals, as atium's influence is decidedly less permanent than lerasium. [I suppose we should use the convention of keeping metal names lowercase.] Lerasium does something completely different.

Guesses?

We may have some clues on Feruchemical/Hemalurgy tables, as atium's temporal-ish Allomantic effect seems somewhat related to its Feruchemical power. Lerasium probably acts the same. So whatever our guesses for its actual Allomantic effect will probably be vaguely related to its Feruchemical power.
Title: Re: Mistborn 3 Annotations Discussion *Spoilers*
Post by: Eerongal on November 13, 2009, 09:07:03 PM
My guess would be it would have some sort of opposite-atium effect, though I have no idea what this could be.... we all ready have the "back in time" sort of metals, so i'm really unsure.

Lessee....Atium shows you all potential things someone can do.....maybe it lets you see all potential mental actions someone can do? I dunno, sounds kinda reaching to me....
Title: Re: Mistborn 3 Annotations Discussion *Spoilers*
Post by: Chaos on November 13, 2009, 10:19:28 PM
As I read your comment, I came up with an idea.

Atium, you see, has both temporal aspects and mental aspects. You can see into the future, and your brain can process the information more effectively (I would also assume that it gives you a bit more Ruin, compared with the body's natural Ruin/Preservation, just like lerasium gives you a better link to Preservation. However, unlike Preservation which gives you a clear magical effect, this Ruin-side effect may be more related to the violence one inflicts with atium, as Sazed notes in the epigraphs of MB3).

As alloyed-atium grants expanded mental and temporal aspects, and there are two clear components in atium's Allomantic effect, I think that the converse is true for lerasium. Its Allomantic power is physical and enhancement in nature, most likely.

That's really interesting, actually. Whereas normal metals have a pair in the same quadrant, like gold and electrum, atium and lerasium are on opposite halves of the metal wheel.

So, if atium grants invincibility through mental/temporal means, which in effect it does (brings a whole new meaning to god metal, yes?), lerasium may grant invincibility via physical/enhancement methods. That seems really plausible to me.

If this is true, there better be a frickin' lerasium vs. atium burning battle in a later Mistborn trilogy, or I will be extremely upset. That would be all kinds of awesome.
Title: Re: Mistborn 3 Annotations Discussion *Spoilers*
Post by: Aranfan on November 13, 2009, 10:32:29 PM
I thought we had reached a consensus that the Atium we see the characters use was the Electrum Alloy form?
Title: Re: Mistborn 3 Annotations Discussion *Spoilers*
Post by: Eerongal on November 13, 2009, 10:37:01 PM
As I read your comment, I came up with an idea.

Atium, you see, has both temporal aspects and mental aspects. You can see into the future, and your brain can process the information more effectively (I would also assume that it gives you a bit more Ruin, compared with the body's natural Ruin/Preservation, just like lerasium gives you a better link to Preservation. However, unlike Preservation which gives you a clear magical effect, this Ruin-side effect may be more related to the violence one inflicts with atium, as Sazed notes in the epigraphs of MB3).

As alloyed-atium grants expanded mental and temporal aspects, and there are two clear components in atium's Allomantic effect, I think that the converse is true for lerasium. Its Allomantic power is physical and enhancement in nature, most likely.

That's really interesting, actually. Whereas normal metals have a pair in the same quadrant, like gold and electrum, atium and lerasium are on opposite halves of the metal wheel.

So, if atium grants invincibility through mental/temporal means, which in effect it does (brings a whole new meaning to god metal, yes?), lerasium may grant invincibility via physical/enhancement methods. That seems really plausible to me.

If this is true, there better be a frickin' lerasium vs. atium burning battle in a later Mistborn trilogy, or I will be extremely upset. That would be all kinds of awesome.

that actually seems quite plausible. I wholely expect the two to be opposites in every possible manner, and i think your assessment is probably pretty accurate.
Title: Re: Mistborn 3 Annotations Discussion *Spoilers*
Post by: Chaos on November 13, 2009, 10:49:09 PM
As I read your comment, I came up with an idea.

Atium, you see, has both temporal aspects and mental aspects. You can see into the future, and your brain can process the information more effectively (I would also assume that it gives you a bit more Ruin, compared with the body's natural Ruin/Preservation, just like lerasium gives you a better link to Preservation. However, unlike Preservation which gives you a clear magical effect, this Ruin-side effect may be more related to the violence one inflicts with atium, as Sazed notes in the epigraphs of MB3).

As alloyed-atium grants expanded mental and temporal aspects, and there are two clear components in atium's Allomantic effect, I think that the converse is true for lerasium. Its Allomantic power is physical and enhancement in nature, most likely.

That's really interesting, actually. Whereas normal metals have a pair in the same quadrant, like gold and electrum, atium and lerasium are on opposite halves of the metal wheel.

So, if atium grants invincibility through mental/temporal means, which in effect it does (brings a whole new meaning to god metal, yes?), lerasium may grant invincibility via physical/enhancement methods. That seems really plausible to me.

If this is true, there better be a frickin' lerasium vs. atium burning battle in a later Mistborn trilogy, or I will be extremely upset. That would be all kinds of awesome.

that actually seems quite plausible. I wholely expect the two to be opposites in every possible manner, and i think your assessment is probably pretty accurate.

I'm really enjoying going back to theory mode.

I thought we had reached a consensus that the Atium we see the characters use was the Electrum Alloy form?

I never subscribed to that notion :P I'm unconvinced of it. The burden of proof is on you, really. I'm not trying to condescending, but it's true. What clear evidence do you have that this atium is atium-electrum?

Brandon has said that when godhood is in its solid form, it does a specific thing. In liquid form, it's most potent. I forgot what gaseous did, but what is the atium we currently have? It does one specific thing. Sure, there are alloys, but the point is that atium is fits this description, too. I thought the primary evidence for atium-electrum was that lerasium, with its Mistborn-granting powers, was far superior to atium's power, so obviously this "atium" isn't true atium, but an alloy of that.

This annotation supports the opposite, however, that what we thought of as lerasium's "primary" ability isn't primary at all, but a side effect.
Title: Re: Mistborn 3 Annotations Discussion *Spoilers*
Post by: Eerongal on November 13, 2009, 11:01:08 PM
So do you think lerasium's like some kind of super powered Pewter/Duralumin alloy, or like an "unlimited" supply of gold-style healing from hemalurgy for causing invicibility?

Other than just straight saying "you're invincible", i'm trying to think of ways it could make you invincible. That's all i can really come up with, unless it does something crazy like making you so incredibly elastic you can't be damaged or other weird methods of being "invincible"
Title: Re: Mistborn 3 Annotations Discussion *Spoilers*
Post by: Chaos on November 13, 2009, 11:12:08 PM
Heck if I know. I got my theorizing done for today. Usually this is the part where I sit back until I have a revelation.
Title: Re: Mistborn 3 Annotations Discussion *Spoilers*
Post by: Patriotic Kaz on November 14, 2009, 05:23:37 AM
Man is sentient on Scardiel b/c the preservation/ ruin ratio is inbalanced so your theory of atium giving you more of Ruin to me is far-fetched. Leras was weaker than Ati (until he seperated Ati from his body) b/c of it, which is why Leras gave up his "mind" to make a prison for Ati.
Title: Re: Mistborn 3 Annotations Discussion *Spoilers*
Post by: Chaos on November 14, 2009, 05:30:40 AM
Man is sentient on Scardiel b/c the preservation/ ruin ratio is inbalanced so your theory of atium giving you more of Ruin to me is far-fetched. Leras was weaker than Ati (until he seperated Ati from his body) b/c of it, which is why Leras gave up his "mind" to make a prison for Ati.

My rationale was that if lerasium had a side effect, atium must as well.
Title: Re: Mistborn 3 Annotations Discussion *Spoilers*
Post by: happyman on November 14, 2009, 05:36:41 AM
As I read your comment, I came up with an idea.

Atium, you see, has both temporal aspects and mental aspects. You can see into the future, and your brain can process the information more effectively (I would also assume that it gives you a bit more Ruin, compared with the body's natural Ruin/Preservation, just like lerasium gives you a better link to Preservation. However, unlike Preservation which gives you a clear magical effect, this Ruin-side effect may be more related to the violence one inflicts with atium, as Sazed notes in the epigraphs of MB3).

As alloyed-atium grants expanded mental and temporal aspects, and there are two clear components in atium's Allomantic effect, I think that the converse is true for lerasium. Its Allomantic power is physical and enhancement in nature, most likely.

That's really interesting, actually. Whereas normal metals have a pair in the same quadrant, like gold and electrum, atium and lerasium are on opposite halves of the metal wheel.

So, if atium grants invincibility through mental/temporal means, which in effect it does (brings a whole new meaning to god metal, yes?), lerasium may grant invincibility via physical/enhancement methods. That seems really plausible to me.

If this is true, there better be a frickin' lerasium vs. atium burning battle in a later Mistborn trilogy, or I will be extremely upset. That would be all kinds of awesome.

I would also like to agree with this notion.  This might also explain why Elend managed to recover from the fatal wound like he did.  He (very temporarily) had super-pewter, which would go a long way towards healing him, or at least stopping him from dying.
Title: Re: Mistborn 3 Annotations Discussion *Spoilers*
Post by: zas678 on November 14, 2009, 05:57:23 AM
The Lerasium-side effect of becoming a mistborn makes sense. After all, doesn't Atium make you an incredible killing machine (as Sazed mentions in one of the epitaphs).

But what this leads me to wonder is what Lerasium would do as a Spike. Since Atium does something specific in Allomancy, it stands to reason, that a Lerasium Spike would do something specific too. (Although you'd have to be pretty stupid to make a spike out of it instead of just burning it)
Title: Re: Mistborn 3 Annotations Discussion *Spoilers*
Post by: Chaos on November 14, 2009, 06:00:11 AM
As I read your comment, I came up with an idea.

Atium, you see, has both temporal aspects and mental aspects. You can see into the future, and your brain can process the information more effectively (I would also assume that it gives you a bit more Ruin, compared with the body's natural Ruin/Preservation, just like lerasium gives you a better link to Preservation. However, unlike Preservation which gives you a clear magical effect, this Ruin-side effect may be more related to the violence one inflicts with atium, as Sazed notes in the epigraphs of MB3).

As alloyed-atium grants expanded mental and temporal aspects, and there are two clear components in atium's Allomantic effect, I think that the converse is true for lerasium. Its Allomantic power is physical and enhancement in nature, most likely.

That's really interesting, actually. Whereas normal metals have a pair in the same quadrant, like gold and electrum, atium and lerasium are on opposite halves of the metal wheel.

So, if atium grants invincibility through mental/temporal means, which in effect it does (brings a whole new meaning to god metal, yes?), lerasium may grant invincibility via physical/enhancement methods. That seems really plausible to me.

If this is true, there better be a frickin' lerasium vs. atium burning battle in a later Mistborn trilogy, or I will be extremely upset. That would be all kinds of awesome.

I would also like to agree with this notion.  This might also explain why Elend managed to recover from the fatal wound like he did.  He (very temporarily) had super-pewter, which would go a long way towards healing him, or at least stopping him from dying.

I had the same thought as well.

The Lerasium-side effect of becoming a mistborn makes sense. After all, doesn't Atium make you an incredible killing machine (as Sazed mentions in one of the epitaphs).

But what this leads me to wonder is what Lerasium would do as a Spike. Since Atium does something specific in Allomancy, it stands to reason, that a Lerasium Spike would do something specific too. (Although you'd have to be pretty stupid to make a spike out of it instead of just burning it)

Precisely right on both accounts.
Title: Re: Mistborn 3 Annotations Discussion *Spoilers*
Post by: Patriotic Kaz on November 14, 2009, 06:21:10 AM
It's not stupid if done in the name of science and knowledge!!!! :P you can excuse anything under that phrase.... and we have!!!!
Title: Re: Mistborn 3 Annotations Discussion *Spoilers*
Post by: Ari54 on November 14, 2009, 11:22:22 AM
The Lerasium-side effect of becoming a mistborn makes sense. After all, doesn't Atium make you an incredible killing machine (as Sazed mentions in one of the epitaphs).

But what this leads me to wonder is what Lerasium would do as a Spike. Since Atium does something specific in Allomancy, it stands to reason, that a Lerasium Spike would do something specific too. (Although you'd have to be pretty stupid to make a spike out of it instead of just burning it)

Perhaps it could steal all of a person's powers, feruchemy and mistborn included? *shrug*
Title: Re: Mistborn 3 Annotations Discussion *Spoilers*
Post by: Aranfan on November 14, 2009, 04:57:24 PM
Perhaps [Lerasium] could steal all of a person's powers, feruchemy and mistborn included? *shrug*

No, a previous annotation already said that Atium does for all the powers.  Unless you mean Lerasium could steal more than one power at a time.
Title: Re: Mistborn 3 Annotations Discussion *Spoilers*
Post by: Patriotic Kaz on November 15, 2009, 12:36:56 AM
I just got back from his signing with Inquisitor and I asked B.S. what a lerasium spike would do. He decided to answer as vaguely as possible, it apparently makes you a mistborn with the addition of effects outside the three magic systems which he wouldn't elaborate on. As i left he told Harriet that he wanted to RAFO me but that was the first deep question about one of his books....


P.S. Inquisitor wore his TCU garb b/c of the game today and to taunt Brandon...
Title: Re: Mistborn 3 Annotations Discussion *Spoilers*
Post by: Andrew the Great on November 15, 2009, 12:44:15 AM
As i left he told Harriet that he wanted to RAFO me but that was the first deep question about one of his books....

Sad! It's not like there aren't plenty of questions to be asked!

Though, granted, people are kind of obsessing over TGS right now....
Title: Re: Mistborn 3 Annotations Discussion *Spoilers*
Post by: Chaos on November 15, 2009, 01:41:15 AM
It must make you a Mistborn because it's giving you that same jolt of Preservation as before.
Title: Re: Mistborn 3 Annotations Discussion *Spoilers*
Post by: Patriotic Kaz on November 15, 2009, 03:04:15 AM
it makes you more than mistborn the question is what?
Title: Re: Mistborn 3 Annotations Discussion *Spoilers*
Post by: Peter Ahlstrom on November 15, 2009, 06:30:22 AM
I thought we had reached a consensus that the Atium we see the characters use was the Electrum Alloy form?

I thought myself so clever for coming up with this theory.

At this point I am in a position where I could confirm it or deny it.

However, my position also means that I must do no such thing.

Mwa ha ha ha ha.
Title: Re: Mistborn 3 Annotations Discussion *Spoilers*
Post by: Chaos on November 15, 2009, 08:07:58 AM
I thought we had reached a consensus that the Atium we see the characters use was the Electrum Alloy form?

I thought myself so clever for coming up with this theory.

At this point I am in a position where I could confirm it or deny it.

However, my position also means that I must do no such thing.

Mwa ha ha ha ha.

You enjoy this way too much :P
Title: Re: Mistborn 3 Annotations Discussion *Spoilers*
Post by: Natalie Perkins on November 15, 2009, 08:37:22 PM
Ok, so maybe I'm over thinking this. But with the number 16 thing and the Mist Sickness, etc. etc. According to the metal chart it doesn't make sense that there would be atium Mistings as one of the 16... which one was left out?? And does that mean there were lerasium Mistings? Where were they? What would they do?

As i left he told Harriet that he wanted to RAFO me but that was the first deep question about one of his books....

Sad! It's not like there aren't plenty of questions to be asked!

Though, granted, people are kind of obsessing over TGS right now....

=( I went to the Chicago signing and I was so excited I forgot all my questions. Lol.
He even asked me when he signed my book, "Do you have any questions?"
And all I could do was smile.
Next time I'll bring a page of them so I don't forget.
(Also I was hesitant asking about any of his books because it was tecnically a TGS signing.) Oh well.
Title: Re: Mistborn 3 Annotations Discussion *Spoilers*
Post by: Chaos on November 15, 2009, 08:41:42 PM
Ok, so maybe I'm over thinking this. But with the number 16 thing and the Mist Sickness, etc. etc. According to the metal chart it doesn't make sense that there would be atium Mistings as one of the 16... which one was left out?? And does that mean there were lerasium Mistings? Where were they? What would they do?

Preservation switched cadmium and bendalloy for atium and malatium. It was a temporary switch, and he did it to cadmium because it was the rarest of the sixteen metals on Scadrial, so it would be unlikely people would inadvertently discover it.

Now, lerasium mistings. That's a much more interesting question.
Title: Re: Mistborn 3 Annotations Discussion *Spoilers*
Post by: Eerongal on November 15, 2009, 08:50:28 PM
Now, lerasium mistings. That's a much more interesting question.

Heh, well, if you're gonna be a misting, may as well be one that will make you a "misting" for all of 10 seconds after you find out. :P

But yeah, that is an interesting idea...
Title: Re: Mistborn 3 Annotations Discussion *Spoilers*
Post by: Ari54 on November 16, 2009, 01:56:01 AM
Perhaps [Lerasium] could steal all of a person's powers, feruchemy and mistborn included? *shrug*

No, a previous annotation already said that Atium does for all the powers.  Unless you mean Lerasium could steal more than one power at a time.

Indeed. Atium can steal any power. I was proposing that perhaps Lerasium could steal all of the powers it was exposed to at once.

edit: Oh, and Peter: I had the same theory about Atium being an electrum alloy, but I thought that meant that Seers were actually just electrum mistings who could burn Atium because it was an alloy of electrum. I totally hope we find out more about alloys of Atium sometime, even if you can't spoil it for us. You tease. ;)
Title: Re: Mistborn 3 Annotations Discussion *Spoilers*
Post by: Patriotic Kaz on November 16, 2009, 04:25:57 AM
You are half right it steals all the abilities from a mistborn but it somehow does MORE....
Title: Re: Mistborn 3 Annotations Discussion *Spoilers*
Post by: Chaos on November 16, 2009, 06:10:51 AM
Wouldn't a spike of pure lerasium give one's body that same jolt of Preservation, therefore making you Mistborn?
Title: Re: Mistborn 3 Annotations Discussion *Spoilers*
Post by: Czanos on November 16, 2009, 07:01:23 AM
Well, if Hemalurgy grants power by augmenting your spiritual structure with material from other people, wouldn't a Lerasium spike be like augmenting your spirit with Preservation? It would definitely make you more attuned to Preservation that way, granting Misborn powers, but I can't imagine that having spiritual material of a God in your body would be good for you either.

I also wonder if Atium has a side-effect like Lerasium does. Perhaps a few experiments with uncharged Atium spikes in Hemalurgy?
Title: Re: Mistborn 3 Annotations Discussion *Spoilers*
Post by: Valkynphyre on November 16, 2009, 07:52:08 PM
It is my understanding, that unless a spike is charged, it will have no effect (except injuring the person impaled). Assuming this is true, You would have to kill someone with a Lerasium spike, then plant it in a specific place on someone's body in order to get ANY effect out of it.

Wouldn't that be using Ruin's magic system with a fragment of Preservation's body?

I think the real question we want to be asking is what would a full Mistborn get out of burning an Atium/Lerasium Alloy?

That's what I want to know. And as previously stated, becoming an Atium misting (assuming the Atium used in the books isn't an Atium/Electrum alloy) is a side-effect, correct?
Title: Re: Mistborn 3 Annotations Discussion *Spoilers*
Post by: Patriotic Kaz on November 16, 2009, 08:02:44 PM
You have to know where to put the spike into the victim to get the power as well... And Chaos you do steal all of a mistborn's abilities if you have a lerasium spike but it grants other powers outside the three magic systems as well. (the powers given are not related to the Allomancy, Feruchemy, or normal Hemalurgy systems so i'm told)
Title: Re: Mistborn 3 Annotations Discussion *Spoilers*
Post by: Czanos on November 16, 2009, 09:47:28 PM
That is true, but swallowing raw metal without Allomancy is a bad idea as well. With Lerasium, we know what it does to normal people, and part of what it does in Hemalurgy, but not Feruchemists or Allomancers. With Atium, we have details about all three magic systems, but no clue what use, if any, it has for normal people.

I would hazard a guess and say it's similar to Lerasium's effect, making the user more attuned to Ruin, but what does that do, exactly? Improve Hemalurgic capabilities? Make you go insane?
Title: Re: Mistborn 3 Annotations Discussion *Spoilers*
Post by: Eerongal on November 16, 2009, 09:52:07 PM
That is true, but swallowing raw metal without Allomancy is a bad idea as well. With Lerasium, we know what it does to normal people, and part of what it does in Hemalurgy, but not Feruchemists or Allomancers. With Atium, we have details about all three magic systems, but no clue what use, if any, it has for normal people.

I would hazard a guess and say it's similar to Lerasium's effect, making the user more attuned to Ruin, but what does that do, exactly? Improve Hemalurgic capabilities? Make you go insane?

i would say it grants/improves Hemalurgic potential. As far as insanity goes, they only really went insane from the total experience (being mind controlled, the horrific tasks and abilities, etc), not from just being touched by ruin on its own, at least thats what it seems to me.
Title: Re: Mistborn 3 Annotations Discussion *Spoilers*
Post by: Chaos on November 17, 2009, 05:42:20 PM
This is very interesting.

Quote
Hence the decision that where the spike was placed in the receiver, and how it was used to kill a person, influenced how the power was shaped. Now a pewter spike could steal any of a number of powers, based on how it was used. And regular people could be used instead of Allomancers—however, when that happened, the receiver was twisted much more than if an Allomantically charged spike or a Feruchemically charged spike was used.

My rationale for this is that if the spike is pulling out the pure power of Preservation—part of the power of all creation—and twisting it, it would change the body of the recipient greatly. Twisting them through use of the twisted power.

I never really fully understood how Hemalurgy created koloss. Now I do.

Also, I totally called it that the Blessing of Stability granted emotional stability.
Title: Re: Mistborn 3 Annotations Discussion *Spoilers*
Post by: darxbane on November 18, 2009, 05:45:50 PM
I'm glad you guys started up some new Mistborn discussions, it's been forever.  I have one comment about Lerasium; If Lerasium is concentrated Preservation, and part of what Hemalurgy does is steal a portion of Preservation from the victim, then wouldn't it be impossible to use Lerasium this way?

My theory on what a Mistborn can do with Lerasium is based on what the Well of Ascension gave.  It's logical to assume that the Well was Lerasium in liquid form, so a bead of Lerasium would enhance an allomancer in every possible way, although it would obviously burn up very, very quickly.
Title: Re: Mistborn 3 Annotations Discussion *Spoilers*
Post by: Patriotic Kaz on November 18, 2009, 09:49:35 PM
It is possible b/c Brandon said it works... and watch we will see a lerasium spike sometime or he would have told me exactly what it would do!!!
Title: Re: Mistborn 3 Annotations Discussion *Spoilers*
Post by: darxbane on November 19, 2009, 04:41:26 AM
Ahhh, so you pumped the Man for information.  Nice!  Unfortunately, I think my children will have read Mistborn and the Wheel of Time before we get a definitive answer (they're 3 and 2 now, by the way)  :(
Title: Re: Mistborn 3 Annotations Discussion *Spoilers*
Post by: zas678 on November 20, 2009, 12:35:18 AM
Random outside-the-box thinking here, but if Inquisitors (who weren't originally allomancers) had children (why don't we see any female Inquisitors anyway?), would they be more likely to be allomancers?

Probably not, but it's an interesting thought. If it is true, we might see some children of Marsh (unlikely) that have powers. Who knows, maybe the mistborn from the next trilogy might be his son/daughter.

One more random thought. I say that at some point in the next trilogy, the hero will guiltily hemalurgically spike a dying man, in order to try and defeat the villain.
Title: Re: Mistborn 3 Annotations Discussion *Spoilers*
Post by: happyman on November 20, 2009, 12:49:03 AM
Random outside-the-box thinking here, but if Inquisitors (who weren't originally allomancers) had children (why don't we see any female Inquisitors anyway?), would they be more likely to be allomancers?

Probably not, but it's an interesting thought. If it is true, we might see some children of Marsh (unlikely) that have powers. Who knows, maybe the mistborn from the next trilogy might be his son/daughter.

One more random thought. I say that at some point in the next trilogy, the hero will guiltily hemalurgically spike a dying man, in order to try and defeat the villain.

These are good questions.  The fact that Inquisitors actually are a different species that propogates itself by killing mistings/mistborn would seem to be a partial answer.
Title: Re: Mistborn 3 Annotations Discussion *Spoilers*
Post by: Patriotic Kaz on November 20, 2009, 05:11:16 AM
And they ARE allomancers just usually mistings beforehand...
Title: Re: Mistborn 3 Annotations Discussion *Spoilers*
Post by: Czanos on November 20, 2009, 05:34:56 AM
Not always. It's entirely possible to make an Inquisitor out of a normal person, it's just that if they're made of Allomancers beforehand they have greatly increased Allomantic strength in those areas.
Title: Re: Mistborn 3 Annotations Discussion *Spoilers*
Post by: Patriotic Kaz on November 20, 2009, 02:43:47 PM
And they are most commonly seekers like Marsh
Title: Re: Mistborn 3 Annotations Discussion *Spoilers*
Post by: Chaos on November 20, 2009, 02:50:25 PM
What Inquisitors are previous to becoming Inquisitors has nothing to do with the questions at hand: rather, if Inquisitors had children, would they be more likely to be Allomancers? This is an interesting question, because Hemalurgy--in effect--splices the power into the person.

Perhaps more interestingly, if someone has a hemalurgic spike in them (and normal humans can breed true, of course), will their children more likely be Allomancers?
Title: Re: Mistborn 3 Annotations Discussion *Spoilers*
Post by: happyman on November 20, 2009, 03:27:25 PM
What Inquisitors are previous to becoming Inquisitors has nothing to do with the questions at hand: rather, if Inquisitors had children, would they be more likely to be Allomancers? This is an interesting question, because Hemalurgy--in effect--splices the power into the person.

Perhaps more interestingly, if someone has a hemalurgic spike in them (and normal humans can breed true, of course), will their children more likely be Allomancers?

If I had to guess, I'd say "No."  Brandon called Hemalurgy a "hack," and I don't see the spikes being driven through the body as being any more heritable than, say, losing a limb.  It probably depends mostly, though, on how new souls and bodies get the touch of preservation in them needed to give them the power.  It can be inherited physically, obviously.
Title: Re: Mistborn 3 Annotations Discussion *Spoilers*
Post by: Eerongal on November 20, 2009, 03:32:49 PM
... I don't see the spikes being driven through the body as being any more heritable than, say, losing a limb....

the idea of this makes me laugh.
Title: Re: Mistborn 3 Annotations Discussion *Spoilers*
Post by: Chaos on November 20, 2009, 04:06:12 PM
What Inquisitors are previous to becoming Inquisitors has nothing to do with the questions at hand: rather, if Inquisitors had children, would they be more likely to be Allomancers? This is an interesting question, because Hemalurgy--in effect--splices the power into the person.

Perhaps more interestingly, if someone has a hemalurgic spike in them (and normal humans can breed true, of course), will their children more likely be Allomancers?

If I had to guess, I'd say "No."  Brandon called Hemalurgy a "hack," and I don't see the spikes being driven through the body as being any more heritable than, say, losing a limb.  It probably depends mostly, though, on how new souls and bodies get the touch of preservation in them needed to give them the power.  It can be inherited physically, obviously.

Yeah, my gut says no as well. Interesting to think about, though.
Title: Re: Mistborn 3 Annotations Discussion *Spoilers*
Post by: darxbane on November 20, 2009, 05:04:48 PM
I agree.  Not just for allomancy, as that possibility would exist anyway, but this would allow Feruchemy to be spread via Inquisitor offspring as well.
Title: Re: Mistborn 3 Annotations Discussion *Spoilers*
Post by: zas678 on November 20, 2009, 07:12:40 PM
Or the Lerasium spike as well
Title: Re: Mistborn 3 Annotations Discussion *Spoilers*
Post by: Patriotic Kaz on November 20, 2009, 08:24:16 PM
This is wild speculation that will never be answered.....
Title: Re: Mistborn 3 Annotations Discussion *Spoilers*
Post by: Chaos on November 20, 2009, 08:32:29 PM
This is wild speculation that will never be answered.....

"Never" is a rather harsh word ;)
Title: Re: Mistborn 3 Annotations Discussion *Spoilers*
Post by: Eerongal on November 20, 2009, 08:49:08 PM
...And then Brandon started work on a series of books titled:

--Intercourse, Hemalurgy, and you, an interactive manual.

--Where do baby allomancers come from? The popup book.

--The reproductive cycle of the feurchemists and the Koloss.
Title: Re: Mistborn 3 Annotations Discussion *Spoilers*
Post by: Andrew the Great on November 22, 2009, 07:37:45 AM
Sounds fun! We'll have to ask him to write them after he finishes his 36 book arc (or however many it is, these days).

As to the "Can inquisitors pass on allomancy to their children?" Thing, my gut feeling was initially yes, but as I thought about it more, I decided they probably couldn't. Especially when we consider that the Allomantic powers leave when the spike does.
Title: Re: Mistborn 3 Annotations Discussion *Spoilers*
Post by: Patriotic Kaz on November 22, 2009, 05:22:18 PM
You could argue that it acts in the same way foriegn DNA used in gene splicing does and if that is the case then it is indeed heritable.... however if it is smiply a hack then it isn't
Title: Re: Mistborn 3 Annotations Discussion *Spoilers*
Post by: happyman on November 23, 2009, 12:35:56 AM
You could argue that it acts in the same way foriegn DNA used in gene splicing does and if that is the case then it is indeed heritable.... however if it is smiply a hack then it isn't

If I understood it correctly, the hemalurgic spike literally takes part of someone else's soul and binds it to yours in order to give you access to the power.  So depending on how Allomancy is inherited, this may or may not make a difference.  I would tend to think "No," but it's not a foregone conclusion.
Title: Re: Mistborn 3 Annotations Discussion *Spoilers*
Post by: Argent on November 23, 2009, 02:18:41 AM
I don't see how Inquisitors - or anyone given Allomantic powers through Hemalurgy - will be able to pass their powers on. Spook lost his pewter-burning abilities when the spike was removed from his body, so it was the spike that was doing the Allomancy, not Spook. At least that's what I think.
Title: Re: Mistborn 3 Annotations Discussion *Spoilers*
Post by: Morderkaine on November 23, 2009, 03:27:10 AM
A hemalurgic spike works by stealing the little bit of Preservation within a person's soul and splicing it into another's, granting specific abilities depending on the abilities of the sacrifice and the placement in the recipient. Since the ability to use allomancy is directly proportional to the amount of Preservation in one's soul, no matter how it got there, and the inborn level of Preservation in a person is a function of their parents levels at the time of conceiving, the children of Inquisitors would be almost guaranteed some allomantic ability, and possibly feruchemical ability as well. That is assuming, of course, that Inquisitors breed true, after all, we only know of one hemalurgic creation that breeds true, the Kandra, and even they don't breed completely true. Given this I believe that the number of spikes effects the ability to reproduce, the more spikes a creature posses the less likely it is to breed true but we will need to meet more hemalurgic creations to confirm this as right now we only have three: 1) Kandra with two spikes who breed somewhat true, Mistwraiths as opposed to Kandra, 2) Koloss with four spikes and don't breed true and, 3) Inquisitors with eleven plus spikes and probably don't breed true.

<edit>
fixed a small spelling mistake
Title: Re: Mistborn 3 Annotations Discussion *Spoilers*
Post by: Patriotic Kaz on November 23, 2009, 03:59:36 AM
I'm convinced it is in all aspects a hack (if you remember it has diminished powers from the original host, which supports the hypothesis) and in being a hack not heritable.
Title: Re: Mistborn 3 Annotations Discussion *Spoilers*
Post by: Morderkaine on November 23, 2009, 07:38:13 AM
I do agree that hemalurgic endowment is a kind of human "hacking" but what the "hack" does is in-bed the Preservation from one person's soul into another's and so it could then be passed on to the spiked person's descendent's. As for the for the diminished power, I believe that is a result of the interaction between Ruin and Preservation's powers as in order to transfer that bit of Preservation from one person to another it must first be contained by Ruin's power.

Also, regarding my previous post, I was right about inquisitors not breeding true. In his most recent annotation, chapter 40, Brandon said:
Quote
The Inquisitors were always so determined to catch the skaa [mistings]. So passionate. With good reason, for that was the only means by which their race—and Inquisitors are a separate race, just like the koloss and the kandra—could perpetuate itself.
Title: Re: Mistborn 3 Annotations Discussion *Spoilers*
Post by: happyman on November 23, 2009, 03:45:12 PM
I do agree that hemalurgic endowment is a kind of human "hacking" but what the "hack" does is in-bed the Preservation from one person's soul into another's and so it could then be passed on to the spiked person's descendent's. As for the for the diminished power, I believe that is a result of the interaction between Ruin and Preservation's powers as in order to transfer that bit of Preservation from one person to another it must first be contained by Ruin's power.

Also, regarding my previous post, I was right about inquisitors not breeding true. In his most recent annotation, chapter 40, Brandon said:
Quote
The Inquisitors were always so determined to catch the skaa [mistings]. So passionate. With good reason, for that was the only means by which their race—and Inquisitors are a separate race, just like the koloss and the kandra—could perpetuate itself.

It seems highly likely to me that Inquisitors lose the desire to reproduce in the normal way, and perhaps the ability.  Given Spook's behavior, though, I think we can say that one or two spikes don't have the same effect, and so the issue of what happens with a spiked person remains.
Title: Re: Mistborn 3 Annotations Discussion *Spoilers*
Post by: Eerongal on November 23, 2009, 09:23:52 PM
I do agree that hemalurgic endowment is a kind of human "hacking" but what the "hack" does is in-bed the Preservation from one person's soul into another's and so it could then be passed on to the spiked person's descendent's. As for the for the diminished power, I believe that is a result of the interaction between Ruin and Preservation's powers as in order to transfer that bit of Preservation from one person to another it must first be contained by Ruin's power.

Also, regarding my previous post, I was right about inquisitors not breeding true. In his most recent annotation, chapter 40, Brandon said:
Quote
The Inquisitors were always so determined to catch the skaa [mistings]. So passionate. With good reason, for that was the only means by which their race—and Inquisitors are a separate race, just like the koloss and the kandra—could perpetuate itself.

It seems highly likely to me that Inquisitors lose the desire to reproduce in the normal way, and perhaps the ability.  Given Spook's behavior, though, I think we can say that one or two spikes don't have the same effect, and so the issue of what happens with a spiked person remains.

though, to me, this raises another question. When, exactly, do you cross the line between "human" and "inquisitor"? Do you have to have X number of spikes? Do you have to have large spikes, and not small spikes? Is it only when ruin gains so much control over you? Were Vin/spook technically "inquisitors" despite having tiny/few spikes?

I can understand Koloss/Kandra being seperate races, as their physiology is so radically twisted, but inquisitors by far SEEM the most human, (in regards to inner, and outer i suppose, workings of their bodies) aside from giant metal spikes not killing them.

Though, if you want to get technical the Kandra *SEEM* the most human when humans see them. :P
Title: Re: Mistborn 3 Annotations Discussion *Spoilers*
Post by: happyman on November 23, 2009, 11:45:56 PM
This is pure speculation, mind you, but it would, in my mind, be most logical to officially become an inquisitor when the removal of all the spikes would kill you.

Also, Inquisitors may look human, but that little bit about spikes not killing them is actually more extreme in some ways than the koloss.  The brain was reshaped.  How is that not going to change their behavior?
Title: Re: Mistborn 3 Annotations Discussion *Spoilers*
Post by: Czanos on November 24, 2009, 02:23:46 AM
If you want to be nitpicky about it, I'd say becoming an "Inquisitor" requires the full set of spikes in the right places, A Hemalurgist only requires one spike, and the definitive switch from one species to another is when removing the spike will kill you. The last one is basically just intuition, but it seems logical, at least to me.
Title: Re: Mistborn 3 Annotations Discussion *Spoilers*
Post by: Eerongal on November 24, 2009, 10:14:24 PM
The only problem i have with the "when the spike is removed, you die" point of being the definitive time when you officially switch is what if you have a single, small spike in a very definitive spot that removing it would kill you? Like if it were, say, in your heart, and it was tiny, but removing it (somehow, without cutting you open or something, kinda hard to do).

Actually, a better example might be a small, slightly thick spike right in the jugular, and removal will cause you to bleed to death, but when it's there, it's blocking the blood loss. It's possible, though likely rare to happen, i would assume.

Would this officially be considered not human?
Title: Re: Mistborn 3 Annotations Discussion *Spoilers*
Post by: Chaos on November 24, 2009, 10:26:59 PM
I think the distinction is intentionally vague. One could argue that Spook in Hero of Ages is inhuman in multiple ways: the first being a savant, and the time when he had an imbued Hemalurgic spike in him which altered him slightly.

(I still vote that we call something Feruchemically charged and Hemalurgically imbued, for the sake of distinctiveness)
Title: Re: Mistborn 3 Annotations Discussion *Spoilers*
Post by: Eerongal on November 24, 2009, 10:34:36 PM
(I still vote that we call something Feruchemically charged and Hemalurgically imbued, for the sake of distinctiveness)

I see no problem with that. Heck, if it becomes common enough, i dont see why we couldnt just say just charged/imbued metals to shorten it, as long as people know what we mean.
Title: Re: Mistborn 3 Annotations Discussion *Spoilers*
Post by: happyman on November 25, 2009, 03:16:56 PM
The only problem i have with the "when the spike is removed, you die" point of being the definitive time when you officially switch is what if you have a single, small spike in a very definitive spot that removing it would kill you? Like if it were, say, in your heart, and it was tiny, but removing it (somehow, without cutting you open or something, kinda hard to do).

Actually, a better example might be a small, slightly thick spike right in the jugular, and removal will cause you to bleed to death, but when it's there, it's blocking the blood loss. It's possible, though likely rare to happen, i would assume.

Would this officially be considered not human?

Perhaps we could state it more clearly as being when the loss of the spike would kill you, not any damage incident to the loss of the spike.  Getting metal pounded through your body is liable to kill anybody.  Just like, you know, the real world.  If you would die, despite the lack of further proximate cause, then you've hit a clear cutoff.

This is  a useful definition, in my opinion, because there is no going back.  You will never not be a hemalurgist again.  I think this is significant.
Title: Re: Mistborn 3 Annotations Discussion *Spoilers*
Post by: zas678 on November 25, 2009, 04:33:51 PM
So does that mean that Penrod would be considered a Inquisitor, since his spike went through his heart?

I think the point that they become Inquisitors is when Ruin (or a duralumined  Allomancer) can take control of your body. 
Title: Re: Mistborn 3 Annotations Discussion *Spoilers*
Post by: Chaos on November 25, 2009, 04:42:06 PM
So does that mean that Penrod would be considered a Inquisitor, since his spike went through his heart?

I think the point that they become Inquisitors is when Ruin (or a duralumined  Allomancer) can take control of your body. 

No, what happyman means, I believe, is that Penrod isn't an Inquisitor, since losing the spike just makes you bleed to death (bleeding to death is damage incident to losing the spike), rather than the actual loss of the spike kills you.

The point about taking control of your body is an interesting one. Certainly that's a good distinction, because it marks when you have enough spikes that there are "holes" in your mind Ruin/Allomancy can take over. The question is, what is this point?
Title: Re: Mistborn 3 Annotations Discussion *Spoilers*
Post by: Czanos on November 25, 2009, 06:52:20 PM
I think it depends on where the spike is. Brandon explained once that a person has sort of a spiritual bloodstream, and that Hemalurgy could splice new spiritual patterns into this. I would guess that critical spikes are ones that completely sever or segment the original spiritual pattern. So the bind point in your ear doesn't kill by removal because it is relatively on the edge of your spiritual matrix, the one in the spine does because that must be a major focus for spiritual flow between head and torso, and eye spikes only do if you remove both, because one is redundant.
Title: Re: Mistborn 3 Annotations Discussion *Spoilers*
Post by: darxbane on November 25, 2009, 07:59:16 PM
There is another small point here; the Inquisitors have been physically altered by Hemalurgy.  They are pale, abnormally tall (they look stretched out, actually, and IIRC, it gets worse the more spikes you have), and their voices seem to change as well.  We need to learn how many spikes it takes to begin physically twisting the body.  A single spike just doesn't appear to be enough.
Title: Re: Mistborn 3 Annotations Discussion *Spoilers*
Post by: Eerongal on November 25, 2009, 08:22:20 PM
There is another small point here; the Inquisitors have been physically altered by Hemalurgy.  They are pale, abnormally tall (they look stretched out, actually, and IIRC, it gets worse the more spikes you have), and their voices seem to change as well.  We need to learn how many spikes it takes to begin physically twisting the body.  A single spike just doesn't appear to be enough.

my guess is that each spike brings it about little by little, probably based on strength/size of the spike
Title: Re: Mistborn 3 Annotations Discussion *Spoilers*
Post by: Chaos on November 25, 2009, 08:28:06 PM
It also depends on what the metal is imbued with. Allomantic and Feruchemically imbued (see, this is why the word "imbued" is so excellent, for the distinction) alter the body less than a spike which steals Preservation itself, which will alter the body far more (ie: what happens to koloss).

Scadrial Theorizers for Proposition 1: Imbue instead of Charge for Hemalurgy! 2009.

Not exactly a bumper sticker worthy name.
Title: Re: Mistborn 3 Annotations Discussion *Spoilers*
Post by: Eerongal on November 25, 2009, 09:25:26 PM
Scadrial Theorizers for Proposition 1: Imbue instead of Charge for Hemalurgy! 2009.

Stay tuned for chaos' pep-rally to raise awareness next month.
Title: Re: Mistborn 3 Annotations Discussion *Spoilers*
Post by: Chaos on November 25, 2009, 09:29:06 PM
And then we'll all write a petition and send it to Brandon. Possibly Peter. ;)
Title: Re: Mistborn 3 Annotations Discussion *Spoilers*
Post by: happyman on November 25, 2009, 09:49:10 PM
So does that mean that Penrod would be considered a Inquisitor, since his spike went through his heart?

I think the point that they become Inquisitors is when Ruin (or a duralumined  Allomancer) can take control of your body. 

No, what happyman means, I believe, is that Penrod isn't an Inquisitor, since losing the spike just makes you bleed to death (bleeding to death is damage incident to losing the spike), rather than the actual loss of the spike kills you.

The point about taking control of your body is an interesting one. Certainly that's a good distinction, because it marks when you have enough spikes that there are "holes" in your mind Ruin/Allomancy can take over. The question is, what is this point?

I think that Ruin's control, like the physical changes, is gradual.  After all, Vin was controlled through her earring, but only weakly.  Because of this, I suspect this is not a useful criterion.
Title: Re: Mistborn 3 Annotations Discussion *Spoilers*
Post by: Chaos on November 25, 2009, 10:14:05 PM
True. So let's be specific. There is a gray area in between human and Inquisitor, but this much we know.

Definition, Inquisitor: A Hemalurgic construct with eleven (possibly nine, requires confirmation) spikes, minimum, which are imbued with Allomantic and Feruchemical abilities. May include more spikes.

Definition Koloss: A Hemalurgic construct made from two[?] spikes imbued with the power of Preservation.

Definition Kandra: ... I actually don't know what kandra are. Sure, it's a mistwraith granted sentience, but how did the Lord Ruler specifically create mistwraiths?

These are the constructs we know, at least.
Title: Re: Mistborn 3 Annotations Discussion *Spoilers*
Post by: Eerongal on November 25, 2009, 10:20:38 PM
So does that mean that Penrod would be considered a Inquisitor, since his spike went through his heart?

I think the point that they become Inquisitors is when Ruin (or a duralumined  Allomancer) can take control of your body. 

No, what happyman means, I believe, is that Penrod isn't an Inquisitor, since losing the spike just makes you bleed to death (bleeding to death is damage incident to losing the spike), rather than the actual loss of the spike kills you.

The point about taking control of your body is an interesting one. Certainly that's a good distinction, because it marks when you have enough spikes that there are "holes" in your mind Ruin/Allomancy can take over. The question is, what is this point?

I think that Ruin's control, like the physical changes, is gradual.  After all, Vin was controlled through her earring, but only weakly.  Because of this, I suspect this is not a useful criterion.

Maybe we could consider it at the point where ruin can take DIRECT control of the person in question. For example, Vin was "controlled" through her earring by being manipulated verbally, where as Marsh was physically unable to do things under his own power.

Though that just shifts the question to "When can ruin physically control you?"
Title: Re: Mistborn 3 Annotations Discussion *Spoilers*
Post by: Chaos on November 25, 2009, 10:23:54 PM
Perhaps we should avoid the matter of Ruin entirely and just speak from an Allomantic perspective. When can Allomancy take over a person's body? That seems less vague and more defined, though the strength of the Allomancer would obviously be a factor.
Title: Re: Mistborn 3 Annotations Discussion *Spoilers*
Post by: Eerongal on November 25, 2009, 10:26:03 PM
Perhaps we should avoid the matter of Ruin entirely and just speak from an Allomantic perspective. When can Allomancy take over a person's body? That seems less vague and more defined, though the strength of the Allomancer would obviously be a factor.

Good point, i'm sure ruin has the ability to control someone long before any old allomancer.
Title: Re: Mistborn 3 Annotations Discussion *Spoilers*
Post by: Chaos on November 25, 2009, 10:28:26 PM
That and Ruin has subtly on his side. From what it seems with Allomancy, you can't talk into someone's mind like Ruin can. It's all or nothing.
Title: Re: Mistborn 3 Annotations Discussion *Spoilers*
Post by: Patriotic Kaz on November 25, 2009, 10:45:43 PM
It's two spikes for Kandra and four spikes for Kolos isn't it?
Title: Re: Mistborn 3 Annotations Discussion *Spoilers*
Post by: Eerongal on November 25, 2009, 11:23:57 PM
It's two spikes for Kandra and four spikes for Kolos isn't it?

I think you're right. Though, that makes me thing....

what if you have a less-than-fully spiked human/koloss (3 or less) or kandra/mistwraith (1)

(i'm going off on a lot of tangents recently it seems.)
Title: Re: Mistborn 3 Annotations Discussion *Spoilers*
Post by: happyman on November 26, 2009, 02:42:52 AM
.
It's two spikes for Kandra and four spikes for Kolos isn't it?

I think you're right. Though, that makes me thing....

what if you have a less-than-fully spiked human/koloss (3 or less) or kandra/mistwraith (1)

(i'm going off on a lot of tangents recently it seems.)


They're all related, though.  If Inquisitors/Koloss are separate species, when do they separate?  It's all one question.

I think that each Koloss has four spikes, two pairs.  Each pair was made from one human.  The Kandra each have a pair, made from one human.  Kandra are mistwraiths which have had hemalurgic spikes placed in them.

Because the Kandra are made from mistwraiths, the question of humanity is moot.

I still like the "removal kills" criterion, with the caveat that it must kill hemalurgically.  After all, real speciation is also a continuum but we have the "can't reproduce" criterion as generally useful.   I think this is actually the most realistic approach; it is a continuum and so we have ambiguity, but the point of no return is special.
Title: Re: Mistborn 3 Annotations Discussion *Spoilers*
Post by: Patriotic Kaz on November 26, 2009, 05:24:57 AM
They are pairs but you still have to kill 4 people to make a Kollos and 2 to make a Kandra (one person can only fuel on spike)
Title: Re: Mistborn 3 Annotations Discussion *Spoilers*
Post by: gambler on January 20, 2010, 08:48:13 PM
Hi all, I just recently finished the Mistborn trilogy and had one bit of confusion.  This seemed like the thread to put it, since Brandon Sanderson just did an annotation for the chapter that I had a question about (Chapter 55 in the third book).

Just what (or who) WAS the body that fell when the Mist Spirit/Preservation 'died'?  I don't have the first book (a friend is borrowing it) but something in the description made me think it was Kelsier's body but that raises more questions.
Title: Re: Mistborn 3 Annotations Discussion *Spoilers*
Post by: Patriotic Kaz on January 20, 2010, 09:38:43 PM
It was Leras... beyond his name and his function (create the world with Ruin's help then to preserve the world) we know nothing
Title: Re: Mistborn 3 Annotations Discussion *Spoilers*
Post by: happyman on January 21, 2010, 04:02:36 AM
Hi all, I just recently finished the Mistborn trilogy and had one bit of confusion.  This seemed like the thread to put it, since Brandon Sanderson just did an annotation for the chapter that I had a question about (Chapter 55 in the third book).

Just what (or who) WAS the body that fell when the Mist Spirit/Preservation 'died'?  I don't have the first book (a friend is borrowing it) but something in the description made me think it was Kelsier's body but that raises more questions.

It wasn't Kelsier.  It was Leras.  Who or what Leras is, is currently unknown.
Title: Re: Mistborn 3 Annotations Discussion *Spoilers*
Post by: Seaoftrouble on January 21, 2010, 11:41:18 AM
 :) Is it just me or did it seem the description of Ruin was a tip of the hat to Rand ?
Title: Re: Mistborn 3 Annotations Discussion *Spoilers*
Post by: Morderkaine on January 22, 2010, 01:46:01 AM
He definitely reminded me of Rand, but then again, I discovered Brandon's work because he's finishing WoT so I might be a little biased.
Title: Re: Mistborn 3 Annotations Discussion *Spoilers*
Post by: Seaoftrouble on January 22, 2010, 11:12:36 AM
He definitely reminded me of Rand, but then again, I discovered Brandon's work because he's finishing WoT so I might be a little biased.
That's how I came across Brandon's books as well.I know it's not Rand but Knowing Brandon is not only a fan of the WOT but one of the authors as well my mind just could not help but go there for a moment when Ruin was described.   
Title: Re: Mistborn 3 Annotations Discussion *Spoilers*
Post by: Ari54 on January 25, 2010, 04:15:53 AM
Because the Kandra are made from mistwraiths, the question of humanity is moot.

Is it? They were made into mistwraiths from humans, so there's some sort of implied connection there. Like Koloss, Kandra aren't entierly non-human. You could definitely argue that they're 'post-human', in the sense that they're people that have been dramatically changed into something no longer purely human. Kandra seem to almost exclusively favour human and humanoid forms, for instance. It would certainly be interesting to know just how human these two races are after the events of HoA.
Title: Re: Mistborn 3 Annotations Discussion *Spoilers*
Post by: Patriotic Kaz on January 25, 2010, 09:41:59 PM
I want to know how the progression of Mistwraith to Kandra takes place since I doubt Sazed would allow the Kandra to "procreate" in the usual manner.
Title: Re: Mistborn 3 Annotations Discussion *Spoilers*
Post by: Chaos on January 26, 2010, 11:35:32 PM
Moving on.

MB3 Annotation 57...

Quote
Ruin's consciousness—separate from his power—isn't a particularly nice being. But you can't much blame him, as there's very little that is left of the mind that once was. The force of Ruin has pretty well molded the mind to fit with the force's intent.

This supports my hypothesis. Long ago I said that when a mind is bound to a Shard, the greater time bound to it, the more the mind is shaped by that power. Points for me.
Title: Re: Mistborn 3 Annotations Discussion *Spoilers*
Post by: Patriotic Kaz on January 27, 2010, 12:41:06 AM
Chaos, half the people on this forum believed that.....
Title: Re: Mistborn 3 Annotations Discussion *Spoilers*
Post by: PoBabylon on January 28, 2010, 02:05:38 AM
I almost feel bad for Ruin, after all Preservation is the one that betrayed him and wouldn't let him fulfill the deal they had made...
Title: Re: Mistborn 3 Annotations Discussion *Spoilers*
Post by: Aranfan on March 07, 2010, 06:44:12 PM
Moving on.

MB3 Annotation 57...

Quote
Ruin's consciousness—separate from his power—isn't a particularly nice being. But you can't much blame him, as there's very little that is left of the mind that once was. The force of Ruin has pretty well molded the mind to fit with the force's intent.

This supports my hypothesis. Long ago I said that when a mind is bound to a Shard, the greater time bound to it, the more the mind is shaped by that power. Points for me.


Actually, given the circumstances, it could be argued that Ruin was only able to shape Ati to such a degree because of Leras' betrayal.
Title: Re: Mistborn 3 Annotations Discussion *Spoilers*
Post by: happyman on March 08, 2010, 06:48:10 PM
Moving on.

MB3 Annotation 57...

Quote
Ruin's consciousness—separate from his power—isn't a particularly nice being. But you can't much blame him, as there's very little that is left of the mind that once was. The force of Ruin has pretty well molded the mind to fit with the force's intent.

This supports my hypothesis. Long ago I said that when a mind is bound to a Shard, the greater time bound to it, the more the mind is shaped by that power. Points for me.


Actually, given the circumstances, it could be argued that Ruin was only able to shape Ati to such a degree because of Leras' betrayal.

Well, we don't know exactly what happened.  But it seems likely that the powers were held by the humans involved long before Scandriel was even mooted.  Ruin claims to Vin that he had held it for a long, long time.

And on the subject, I really do agree that Ruin isn't evil.  Neither is Preservation.  Both are deadly if left unchecked; the Lord Ruler's empire is what happens with Preservation on top, while HoA is what happens when Ruin has his day.  Neither is ideal.  Stopping both was needed.

At some point, Leras probably realized this.  Being bound to Preservation, this was probably easier for him than it would have been for Ati.
Title: Re: Mistborn 3 Annotations Discussion *Spoilers*
Post by: douglas on March 08, 2010, 08:30:45 PM
I suspect that's a major reason Leras designed his plan to try to get a single person in control of both Shards at once.  Presumably, having both of them will cause their influences on Sazed's mind to cancel out, leaving the Hero with a sane non-extremist worldview to guide his use of the two powers.
Title: Re: Mistborn 3 Annotations Discussion *Spoilers*
Post by: happyman on March 10, 2010, 03:51:14 AM
OK, this probably seems obvious, but I just realized the full extent of the pattern.

The book "The Final Empire"=preservation on top and then toppled=learning about Allomancy.

"The Well of Ascension"=balance between Ruin and Preservation being destroyed=we learn about Feruchemy.

"The Hero of Ages"=Ruin begins destroying the world and gets stopped by Sazed=we learn about Hemalurgy.

Of course, I really already knew this.  I hadn't realized how thoroughly Brandon had entwined these themes in the structure.
Title: Re: Mistborn 3 Annotations Discussion *Spoilers*
Post by: Fireborn on March 11, 2010, 02:12:15 AM
I almost feel bad for Ruin, after all Preservation is the one that betrayed him and wouldn't let him fulfill the deal they had made...
Well, Ruin DID say that destructive doesn't mean evil, perhaps the reverse is true.  Preserve at any cost kinda makes you think twice, doesn't it?
Title: Re: Mistborn 3 Annotations Discussion *Spoilers*
Post by: Chaos on April 13, 2010, 10:47:28 PM
Take a look at this, from MB3 Chapter Seventy Three.

Quote
Here we finally have Vin suck in the mists and use them to fuel her Allomancy completely. I began building this plot arc way back in book one, which ends with Vin drawing upon the mists to fight the Lord Ruler. It took me all the way until here to make good on that, though I still don't even explain how or why she was able to do it. Eventually I'd like to be able to do that, but we'll see. It's bigger than this trilogy. I have to leave some secrets for later.

Thoughts on why? Or perhaps, will we learn the answer in a later Mistborn trilogy, or in some other Cosmere world?
Title: Re: Mistborn 3 Annotations Discussion *Spoilers*
Post by: Miyabi on April 13, 2010, 11:14:27 PM

I'd think it would stay in world.  Perhaps it will be explained in a religious text in one of the later trilogies.
Title: Re: Mistborn 3 Annotations Discussion *Spoilers*
Post by: Chaos on April 13, 2010, 11:22:51 PM
Considering how much we've learned in the first trilogy, I'd imagine Brandon would need some very particular secrets for the later ones. So I tend to agree with you.
Title: Re: Mistborn 3 Annotations Discussion *Spoilers*
Post by: Miyabi on April 13, 2010, 11:27:04 PM

I'm just not seeing something like the mists moving into another world.  That would seem. . . Hmm.
Title: Re: Mistborn 3 Annotations Discussion *Spoilers*
Post by: Chaos on April 13, 2010, 11:44:24 PM
Well I more meant that some Realmatic explanation may come from any source, and could be directly pertinent in a different world.
Title: Re: Mistborn 3 Annotations Discussion *Spoilers*
Post by: Miyabi on April 13, 2010, 11:44:59 PM

Awe, that makes sense.
Title: Re: Mistborn 3 Annotations Discussion *Spoilers*
Post by: Comatose on April 15, 2010, 08:55:56 PM
First of all, on the point of inquisitors not being able to procreate: Vin, despite being married for over a year, and half skaa (who are known to have more children), never gets pregnat.  True, she is also half noble and Elend is full noble, and her body has suffered numerous traumas, so that could explain it as well...
Hemalurgy is all about reduction and breaking power into smaller and smaller pieces until it can all be destroyed (ie: killing several allomancers and feruchemists to put their power into an inquisitor), so, to me anyways, it could concievably make sense that it's touch renders you infertile.
Vin's mother, remember, had no spike, she was merely insane.
Just an idea.
Also, this may be a question fro Peter or Brandon, but something about hemalurgy has been bothering me.
The inquisitors gain the ability to store health in gold from their pewter spike, and as far as I know they have no gold spike (the power is unknown in the Ars Arcanum in book three anyways), so do they have gold metal minds like the Lord Ruler's atium ones that pierce their flesh so Vin couldn's see them?  How were they storing gold? 
Anyways, speaking of the Lord Ruler, we know that the atium bracelets were hemalurgically charged (In an annotation Brandon mentions that he is the product of all three magic systems, if I remember correctly), so what is the effect on him of having an atium hemalurgic piercing, besides having a metal mind to store his youth in that won't be stolen by allomancers?
Just a few questions... please, ponder away, I know I will be.

EDIT: I just realized that I have already asked this question with the inquisitors gold minds, however in my search I never discovered if it was answered.  If it was, just point me in the basic direction or summarize the gist of it, and please forgive me my ignorance. 
Title: Re: Mistborn 3 Annotations Discussion *Spoilers*
Post by: Omelethead on April 15, 2010, 11:59:46 PM
Looking back just a bit, Chapter Seventy's annotation (The Reason for the Mistsickness) says:
Quote
Suffice it to say that there are people who have Snapped because of intense joy or other emotions. It just doesn't happen as frequently and is more difficult to control.


Anyone think in the future trilogies there will be Rioters testing the population trying to Snap them? Maybe Nicrosil-enhanced Rioters, but still, just a quick Rioting of joy and then you're done. Something official, where people make an appointment and visit a "doctors" office for the test, not Allomancers randomly targeting people on the streets. Seems like a much more civilized way than beating your kids. ;D
Title: Re: Mistborn 3 Annotations Discussion *Spoilers*
Post by: Fireborn on April 16, 2010, 03:43:23 AM
Looking back just a bit, Chapter Seventy's annotation (The Reason for the Mistsickness) says:
Quote
Suffice it to say that there are people who have Snapped because of intense joy or other emotions. It just doesn't happen as frequently and is more difficult to control.


Anyone think in the future trilogies there will be Rioters testing the population trying to Snap them? Maybe Nicrosil-enhanced Rioters, but still, just a quick Rioting of joy and then you're done. Something official, where people make an appointment and visit a "doctors" office for the test, not Allomancers randomly targeting people on the streets. Seems like a much more civilized way than beating your kids. ;D
Before I read that I had the idea that they might use a series of injections to induce extreme pain without being lethal.  I suppose that this makes more sense, though.

Oh, question!  Could a Rioter control physical pain, since it's just a mental thing?  And, conversely, could a Soother reduce pain?
Title: Re: Mistborn 3 Annotations Discussion *Spoilers*
Post by: Comatose on April 16, 2010, 06:50:50 PM
I always wondered, if Inquisitors feel pain in relation to strong emotions, and I don't think they are given spikes for copper, could a rioter riot their emotions so much that they are overwhelmed with pain?
Title: Re: Mistborn 3 Annotations Discussion *Spoilers*
Post by: Renoard on April 20, 2010, 12:31:38 PM
Okay, I finally read the Mistborn trilogy.  This might be an old question but I'm left wondering, are feruchemy and allomancy intended to be mystical in nature and therefore a "magic-system" or are they intended to be biological/physical/technological processes.  Ultimately is this a SciFi series or a Fantasy series.  Personally I lean toward an interpretation that it is a "science" that only some have the biology to practice.

I get that Preservation is the ultimate source for Allomancy and Ruin for hemolurgy/bloodmagic.  But a person could argue that a god providing the ability doesn't make it any more magical than a sense of taste, which presumably Preservation and Ruin cooperated to produce in the people and animals of their planet.
Title: Re: Mistborn 3 Annotations Discussion *Spoilers*
Post by: douglas on April 20, 2010, 12:50:19 PM
"Any sufficiently analyzed magic is indistinguishable from science." (http://www.girlgeniusonline.com/comic.php?date=20081205)

If your primary criterion for "magic" is that it not be understood, then what qualifies as magic is highly subjective and depends very much on whether a magic user is a major viewpoint character and how much any such characters understand what they are doing.  Furthermore, it can change purely by in-world research or the addition of one scene containing a monologue about how it all works.  Shift around a few characters and insert monologues, and just about any fantasy series could be converted to scifi rather easily.  I think this is a rather poor and unsatisfying definition, as the definition of something should not in my opinion depend on how much of it is revealed to the reader.

I haven't really formalized the definition of what I consider magic, but I think the irreplaceable involvement of the magic-user is an important criterion, possibly the most important.  If it's something that is done by a particular person, and there are people who, regardless of mental capacity, real-world physical characteristics, and education, would be completely incapable of replacing that person even in theory in doing it, then it's probably magic.  Inventing a computer?  Get enough smarts and the right education, and anybody could do it.  Shooting coins around with Allomancy?  Sorry, if you're not a Mistborn or the right Misting, you can't do it.  Any exercise of Mind-Directly-over-Matter or similar usually qualifies too, even if everyone in the setting is technically capable of learning it.  By my definition, Allomancy and Feruchemy are most definitely magic systems.  Now that I think about it, Hemalurgy is more borderline, but I'd still call it magic due to how its interaction with the definite magic systems is such a major part of it.
Title: Re: Mistborn 3 Annotations Discussion *Spoilers*
Post by: Renoard on April 20, 2010, 01:11:41 PM
No. My criterion for "magic" include that the power be mystical in some essential way, and that the effects are such that they defy Newtonian physics in some localized phenomenon.

Saying a prayer or reciteing a spell, even making magic passes, are things that are classic elements in "magic" and are essentially mystical.  Even a Wizard in Rhyme, depends on the quality and intensity of poetic recitation and mental imagery for magic to function.

I see mysticism in the cosmology of Mistborn, but the actual practice of Allomancy is coldy rational and depends on macro-physics (e.g. gravitation, conservation of mass and energy, thermodynamics, etc.).

Psionics for instance aren't magic because they presuppose a mental acuity that is a simple inherited trait and an unknown physical force channeled through the mind, following the principles of ordinary physics.  But calling on spirits to teleport, read minds, or move things kenetically is mystical in an essential way because of the mystical being involved.
Title: Re: Mistborn 3 Annotations Discussion *Spoilers*
Post by: douglas on April 20, 2010, 03:14:35 PM
Ah, but how do you define "mystical" and what makes a "spirit" different from "an unknown physical force", and how the &*%^ is channeling it through the mind without some extremely advanced brain-tech not magical?

By any definition I care to use, psionics is most definitely magical.  The presence or absence of external "showy bits" like specific gestures or incantations, whether some subset of physical laws actually does apply to it, and how well understood it is by the viewpoint characters and readers are all completely irrelevant to me with regard to whether something is magical or not.  Functional well understood magic that only partly breaks the laws of physics is still magic.
Title: Re: Mistborn 3 Annotations Discussion *Spoilers*
Post by: happyman on April 23, 2010, 02:23:49 AM
No. My criterion for "magic" include that the power be mystical in some essential way, and that the effects are such that they defy Newtonian physics in some localized phenomenon.

It seems to me that any definition of mystical you might use really just means that we don't understand it.  Saying that something is mystical is a statement of ignorance, not a fundamental property.

As for denying Newtonian physics---why Newtonian physics?  Black holes and particle accelerators violate Newtonian physics.  If you really mean "Violate physics as we currently understand it", you are once again using ignorance as your criterion, not anything fundamental about the proposed phenomenon.

Saying a prayer or reciteing a spell, even making magic passes, are things that are classic elements in "magic" and are essentially mystical.  Even a Wizard in Rhyme, depends on the quality and intensity of poetic recitation and mental imagery for magic to function.

I'm not sure how this relates to the rest of the topic.  Are you arguing that because the external forms of Allomancy are not those of traditional magic systems, that somehow Allomancy itself is less magical?  Would you still say this if you saw Allomancy from the outside, and people refused to explain the system to you?

I see mysticism in the cosmology of Mistborn, but the actual practice of Allomancy is coldy rational and depends on macro-physics (e.g. gravitation, conservation of mass and energy, thermodynamics, etc.).

There is mysticism, in that the world is a large place and humans don't understand everything.  From the Annotations, though, it is clear that there is a large, well-developed backstory that accounts for a lot of the things that appear mystical.  I suspect that as we read further, the "oddly rational" bits will become stronger.  I would view this paragraph cited above as simply stating that we understand Allomancy better than the other parts of the world-building, and thus it seems more controlled and down-to-Earth.

Psionics for instance aren't magic because they presuppose a mental acuity that is a simple inherited trait and an unknown physical force channeled through the mind, following the principles of ordinary physics.  But calling on spirits to teleport, read minds, or move things kenetically is mystical in an essential way because of the mystical being involved.

Psionics is totally magical.  They violate Newton's laws (and Maxwell's equations) out the ears, and have absolutely no remotely plausible theory or mechanism in the real world.  The fact that such things show up so often in Science Fiction (although fantasy uses the ideas often enough, too, often as part of a larger magic system!) is an interesting historical fact, and totally blurs the line between science fiction and fantasy.
Title: Re: Mistborn 3 Annotations Discussion *Spoilers*
Post by: Renoard on April 23, 2010, 03:37:26 AM
It seems to me that any definition of mystical you might use really just means that we don't understand it.  Saying that something is mystical is a statement of ignorance, not a fundamental property.

Not even remotely.  People various religious and meditative traditions are certain that they understand mystical subjects and can even make them the subject of academics.  In depth understanding has no bearing or function in defining mysticism (though granted the word itself comes from the root for mystery).  What I'm referring to is that which has it's cause beyond the finite confines of space and time, and which can affect space and or time with itself being part of a regular chain of causality.

Black holes and particle accelerators violate Newtonian physics.

Again no.  Particles themselves may, though we can't actually (pardon the pun) quantafy any that do as yet, with the possible exception of light itself.

... classic elements in "magic" ...

I'm not sure how this relates to the rest of the topic.  Are you arguing that because the external forms of Allomancy are not those of traditional magic systems, that somehow Allomancy itself is less magical?  Would you still say this if you saw Allomancy from the outside, and people refused to explain the system to you?

You've fallen into the classic trap that you have been alluding to.  "any sufficiently advanced [technology] ... would appear to be magic."  But that classic quote itself acknowledges that there is a clear distinction between magic and that which is technologically advanced but occulted by the witness's ignorance.

I see mysticism in the cosmology of Mistborn, but the actual practice of Allomancy is coldy rational and depends on macro-physics (e.g. gravitation, conservation of mass and energy, thermodynamics, etc.).

I would view this paragraph cited above as simply stating that we understand Allomancy better than the other parts of the world-building, and thus it seems more controlled and down-to-Earth.

And again you would be misreading.  WE (the readers) are not really relevant to whether Allomancy is magical, technological or biological. What is relevant is that the Causal agent is biology, the active process is the conversion of mater to energy and the effect is one that obeys natural physical laws.  There is no real difference in terms of process and effect between burning tin and bio-luminescence.  I would be very disappointed if you told me fireflies were magical simply because we readers can't figure out how to make our own butts glow.


Psionics is totally magical.  They violate Newton's laws (and Maxwell's equations) out the ears, and have absolutely no remotely plausible theory or mechanism in the real world.  The fact that such things show up so often in Science Fiction (although fantasy uses the ideas often enough, too, often as part of a larger magic system!) is an interesting historical fact, and totally blurs the line between science fiction and fantasy.


Actually, psionics are generally supposed to use some physical sensitivity and some quantifiable capacity of human biology and energy potential that is "natural" but has yet to be discovered in the real world.  This is why fields like parapsychology exist and schools like UC Berkley spend so much money on the subject.  I agree that it's a dead end because psionics are fictional and there is nothing there to ever discover in the real world.  But using that as a criterion for whether they are magical makes, supra-luminal and temporal travel by matter equally magical.  It just isn't a sound tool for evaluation.



Title: Re: Mistborn 3 Annotations Discussion *Spoilers*
Post by: Fireborn on April 23, 2010, 05:52:03 AM
I define allomancy as mystical the same way Brandon Sanderson does, it is the power of Creation, something that is entirely mystical with either definition you are using.
Title: Re: Mistborn 3 Annotations Discussion *Spoilers*
Post by: happyman on April 24, 2010, 03:17:35 AM
It seems to me that any definition of mystical you might use really just means that we don't understand it.  Saying that something is mystical is a statement of ignorance, not a fundamental property.

Not even remotely.  People various religious and meditative traditions are certain that they understand mystical subjects and can even make them the subject of academics.  In depth understanding has no bearing or function in defining mysticism (though granted the word itself comes from the root for mystery).  What I'm referring to is that which has it's cause beyond the finite confines of space and time, and which can affect space and or time with itself being part of a regular chain of causality.


This statement made me curious.  I looked up definitions of the word mysticism and came up with the following

1.
a. Immediate consciousness of the transcendent or ultimate reality or God.
b. The experience of such communion as described by mystics.
2. A belief in the existence of realities beyond perceptual or intellectual apprehension that are central to being and directly accessible by subjective experience.
3. Vague, groundless speculation.

None of these match the one you are using, so I can see how misunderstanding can arise.  The first two definitions have no practical uses, and the third is clearly not what you mean.

Your idea seems to be that magic is mystical only if it comes from beyond space and time, the same space mystics dip in to.  Why is this?  Some mathematicians argue that mathematics is above the dynamic physical world we live in, a part of the infinite, perhaps even a view into the mind of God.  Yet we also use mathematics to design jet engines.  It's absolutely practical and perhaps the ultimate "science" or science-like discipline.

Incidentally, by this definition, Allomancy is totally mystical.  It's the power of a god, the essence of creation itself, being channeled through people.  It is also completely regular because creation itself is (in the Cosmere) fundamentally ordered.

Things outside of space and time can have rules too, you know.  If they do, science is totally willing to take a look-see, as long as everybody can agree on them.  If you argue that they can't have rules on how they affect causality, than you really are simply back to ignorance.  Maybe we can't change the fact that we are ignorance, but still ignorance.

Black holes and particle accelerators violate Newtonian physics.

Again no.  Particles themselves may, though we can't actually (pardon the pun) quantafy any that do as yet, with the possible exception of light itself.


This?  This is why I shouldn't discuss science on the internet.

News flash:  Newton's Laws as a fundamental theory have been out of fashion for more than a century.  I think you are using the term as a substitute for "physical laws that we understand."  But particles do seem to obey laws, and we know what they are to excellent approximation, and the particles obey them obscenely well. They just aren't Newton's laws.  Appealing to known physics isn't going to impress me, because I know just how much isn't known.  An awful lot of scientists suddenly become mystics when they get to the boundaries.  And in their case, I can definitely call it mysticism, and it is definitely a statement of ignorance, because they are claiming to know the unknowable through science, which just can't happen.


... classic elements in "magic" ...

I'm not sure how this relates to the rest of the topic.  Are you arguing that because the external forms of Allomancy are not those of traditional magic systems, that somehow Allomancy itself is less magical?  Would you still say this if you saw Allomancy from the outside, and people refused to explain the system to you?

You've fallen into the classic trap that you have been alluding to.  "any sufficiently advanced [technology] ... would appear to be magic."  But that classic quote itself acknowledges that there is a clear distinction between magic and that which is technologically advanced but occulted by the witness's ignorance.


No, I'm pretty sure the original author of that quote didn't believe in magic at all (at least, if it was actually coined by any of the sci-fi authors it is usually attributed to).  It's a pretty solid statement about human nature and ignorance, not a deep philosophy.

Also, how does this relate to my original question?  I asked if you would view Allomancy mystically if it wasn't explained to you.  You should answer that directly.  Especially since Allomancy represents the direct influence of the power of creation being channeled through a human directly from the essence of a god, and is a fine candidate for being truly mystical by your definition.

I see mysticism in the cosmology of Mistborn, but the actual practice of Allomancy is coldy rational and depends on macro-physics (e.g. gravitation, conservation of mass and energy, thermodynamics, etc.).

I would view this paragraph cited above as simply stating that we understand Allomancy better than the other parts of the world-building, and thus it seems more controlled and down-to-Earth.

And again you would be misreading.  WE (the readers) are not really relevant to whether Allomancy is magical, technological or biological. What is relevant is that the Causal agent is biology, the active process is the conversion of mater to energy and the effect is one that obeys natural physical laws.  There is no real difference in terms of process and effect between burning tin and bio-luminescence.  I would be very disappointed if you told me fireflies were magical simply because we readers can't figure out how to make our own butts glow.


Beyond the whole "channeling a god" bit, it's purely a natural phenomenon, I'm sure.

Or is the fact that you know what channeling a god will do that irks you and makes you think it less magical?  That you have knowledge and that the knowledge can be contained fairly easily in a human mind?


Psionics is totally magical.  They violate Newton's laws (and Maxwell's equations) out the ears, and have absolutely no remotely plausible theory or mechanism in the real world.  The fact that such things show up so often in Science Fiction (although fantasy uses the ideas often enough, too, often as part of a larger magic system!) is an interesting historical fact, and totally blurs the line between science fiction and fantasy.


Actually, psionics are generally supposed to use some physical sensitivity and some quantifiable capacity of human biology and energy potential that is "natural" but has yet to be discovered in the real world.  This is why fields like parapsychology exist and schools like UC Berkley spend so much money on the subject.  I agree that it's a dead end because psionics are fictional and there is nothing there to ever discover in the real world.  But using that as a criterion for whether they are magical makes, supra-luminal and temporal travel by matter equally magical.  It just isn't a sound tool for evaluation.

Your argument here is the fatal flaw in your whole understanding.  This basic statement that psionics might not be magical hinges on the fact that psionics might be understood it some day in some fictional world.  Again, your definition comes down to ignorance.  Sci-fi settings usually assume that it has been figured out; hence it isn't magical.
Title: Re: Mistborn 3 Annotations Discussion *Spoilers*
Post by: Peter Ahlstrom on April 24, 2010, 04:26:59 AM
Whether or not it's mystical, Brandon's magic is usually hard rather than soft.
Title: Re: Mistborn 3 Annotations Discussion *Spoilers*
Post by: Inkthinker on April 24, 2010, 03:42:40 PM
Sanderson magic systems have rules. They're more like laws of nature that you don't fully understand, but nevertheless you can see that there are limits and consistency.
Title: Re: Mistborn 3 Annotations Discussion *Spoilers*
Post by: Comatose on April 24, 2010, 11:55:12 PM
There's always go betweens in science fiction and fantasy.  When Magneto manipulates metal, it's science fiction, because he has the 'x-gene' mutation.  When Vin does it, it's fantasy, because the genetics of her ancestors were changed by the body of a god.  Interesting argument, but I think it can be taken either way (allomancy at least, I see feruchemy and hemalurgy as pretty much solely magic.  How can you explain koloss creation through science?)
I like to think of Allomancy as magic, because of it's origins, and the way metal needs to be imbibed for it to work.  The genetic power inherenent in allomancers isn't really to push or pull metals and emotions, but to unlock to power trapped in the metals.
Title: Re: Mistborn 3 Annotations Discussion *Spoilers*
Post by: Chaos on April 28, 2010, 10:56:21 PM
This is a friendly reminder to Peter to get a new annotation in the queue :) Or at least one for tomorrow.
Title: Re: Mistborn 3 Annotations Discussion *Spoilers*
Post by: Peter Ahlstrom on April 28, 2010, 11:32:57 PM
Yeah yeah, I'm busy, and the next one requires major rewriting... >_>
Title: Re: Mistborn 3 Annotations Discussion *Spoilers*
Post by: Inkthinker on April 29, 2010, 02:57:38 AM
There's always go betweens in science fiction and fantasy.  When Magneto manipulates metal, it's science fiction, because he has the 'x-gene' mutation.  When Vin does it, it's fantasy, because the genetics of her ancestors were changed by the body of a god.  Interesting argument, but I think it can be taken either way (allomancy at least, I see feruchemy and hemalurgy as pretty much solely magic.  How can you explain koloss creation through science?)
I like to think of Allomancy as magic, because of it's origins, and the way metal needs to be imbibed for it to work.  The genetic power inherenent in allomancers isn't really to push or pull metals and emotions, but to unlock to power trapped in the metals.

If I were being picky, I'd probably classify Brandon's Shard books as "science fantasy", placing it into the same category as something like Star Wars. He really likes to play around with the Clarke principle, and the fact that (like science) his magic systems operate on a basis of rules and consequences rather than the immediate needs of the plot sets these books apart from more traditional fantasy, where magic is a mysterious force that is capable of almost anything.
Title: Re: Mistborn 3 Annotations Discussion *Spoilers*
Post by: Terrisman243 on April 29, 2010, 05:27:42 AM
Clarke Principle?
Title: Re: Mistborn 3 Annotations Discussion *Spoilers*
Post by: Comatose on April 29, 2010, 06:15:07 AM
I like that Inkthinker, after all, I wouldn't refer to allomancy as Vin's magic, for some reason it sounds wrong, I'd say Vin's powers.  Perhaps Mistborn is a new truer breed of science fiction: allomancy, feruchemy, and hemalurgy could actually be considered fictional sciences, with a magical I guess.  Science Fantasy, I like it, although since I like to distinguish myself as a fantasy reader, not a science fiction/fantasy reader, I will say Science FANTASY, or something like that.
Title: Re: Mistborn 3 Annotations Discussion *Spoilers*
Post by: Chaos on April 29, 2010, 11:36:48 AM
Yeah yeah, I'm busy, and the next one requires major rewriting... >_>

Don't worry about it. We know you're busy, and we want The Way of Kings to be as awesome as possible.

Then again, we don't you to forget about annotations, either :P
Title: Re: Mistborn 3 Annotations Discussion *Spoilers*
Post by: Nightfire107 on May 17, 2010, 04:53:34 AM
I think it is a fantasy crutch to use the word "magic". All of the "magic" forms that Sanderson has used to date feel much more like a natural science.
Title: Re: Mistborn 3 Annotations Discussion *Spoilers*
Post by: Inkthinker on May 17, 2010, 05:52:11 AM
Clarke Principle?

Maybe better known as Clarke's Third Law:

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic".

Perhaps Brandon's Corollary would be "Any sufficiently advanced magic may be indistinguishable from an unknown branch of science".

As mentioned, I don't think of Allomancy, Hemalurgy or Feruchemy as magic, so much as I think of them as an extension of natural science in his universe which is poorly understood even by those who experience it.

In our own world, entirely natural mutations like albinism were seen as magical because people didn't understand genetics. Because each of Brandon's magic systems has a consistent sense of cost and exchange and results, it feels less like mysticism and more like some mysterious branch of physics. Just because we don't fully understand it doesn't change the fact that it works in predictable and understandable ways, if not for understandable reasons.

When and if he come back to the MB universe to write that future series he's spoken of, I won't be surprised if there's been a lot more study into the three magic systems, and characters who treat them as a branch of science that they don't fully understand yet.
Title: Re: Mistborn 3 Annotations Discussion *Spoilers*
Post by: Fireborn on May 19, 2010, 05:03:02 AM
An opinion I hold which I think separates magic from science is that magic is inherently unknowable through science.  It's effects and causes cannot be derived through known physics.  That does not mean that magic doesn't have rules, far from it, simply that these rules are incompatible with scientific law on a very basic level.  While their effects may be measurable according to scientific principles (a rock thrown with magic will still be stopped by a wall), but the essential things that make them up cannot.
Title: Re: Mistborn 3 Annotations Discussion *Spoilers*
Post by: Tegal Savian on May 19, 2010, 09:25:47 AM
I'm trying to jump into this discussion, but much of that which I've read herein thus far seems somewhat rather speculative (despite that some is based on either historical facts or fantastical derivations, rather than actual occurrences) and might be refuted by the unknown as any given storyline progresses.  Granted, I'm not in any way expressing an opinion based on factual information!  I've none to offer!  Not yet, anyway!  Please ... do enlighten me further!
Title: Re: Mistborn 3 Annotations Discussion *Spoilers*
Post by: happyman on May 20, 2010, 03:16:25 PM
An opinion I hold which I think separates magic from science is that magic is inherently unknowable through science.  It's effects and causes cannot be derived through known physics.  That does not mean that magic doesn't have rules, far from it, simply that these rules are incompatible with scientific law on a very basic level.  While their effects may be measurable according to scientific principles (a rock thrown with magic will still be stopped by a wall), but the essential things that make them up cannot.

This is interesting.  I've never really thought deeply about this subject before, and I like this attempt to delineate between science and magic, but I have several quibbles  with this definition, and would like to ask a few questions.

What does "Magic is inherently unknowable through science" actually mean to you, Fireborn?  How do you limit "science" such that it can't study magic, assuming it is remotely regular and empirically observable?  What does it mean to be  deeply incompatible with scientific laws on a deep level when so-called "scientific laws" are simply the regularities observed in the universe as we have seen it so far?

It seems to me that a lot of people, including in this thread, somehow treat "Science" as a branch of knowledge fundamentally distinct from other ways of knowing things.  It isn't.  Science is a deeply human field, as well as a natural field, and it takes the world as it is given.  Most of what really distinguishes science from other fields are the careful checks and balances on what needs to be done in order for something to be considered known, but does not limit the fields of study or what is actually possible, as long as it can be systematically repeated.
Title: Re: Mistborn 3 Annotations Discussion *Spoilers*
Post by: Fireborn on May 20, 2010, 09:57:10 PM
An opinion I hold which I think separates magic from science is that magic is inherently unknowable through science.  It's effects and causes cannot be derived through known physics.  That does not mean that magic doesn't have rules, far from it, simply that these rules are incompatible with scientific law on a very basic level.  While their effects may be measurable according to scientific principles (a rock thrown with magic will still be stopped by a wall), but the essential things that make them up cannot.

This is interesting.  I've never really thought deeply about this subject before, and I like this attempt to delineate between science and magic, but I have several quibbles  with this definition, and would like to ask a few questions.

What does "Magic is inherently unknowable through science" actually mean to you, Fireborn?  How do you limit "science" such that it can't study magic, assuming it is remotely regular and empirically observable?  What does it mean to be  deeply incompatible with scientific laws on a deep level when so-called "scientific laws" are simply the regularities observed in the universe as we have seen it so far?

It seems to me that a lot of people, including in this thread, somehow treat "Science" as a branch of knowledge fundamentally distinct from other ways of knowing things.  It isn't.  Science is a deeply human field, as well as a natural field, and it takes the world as it is given.  Most of what really distinguishes science from other fields are the careful checks and balances on what needs to be done in order for something to be considered known, but does not limit the fields of study or what is actually possible, as long as it can be systematically repeated.
Well, I think of magic as being made of different stuff, such that it exists on a different level from matter that makes it direct observation impossible.  It's only when you get large amounts of magic together and watch how it reacts with normal matter (say, through allomancy?) that you can really observe it all.

And to be clear, when I say science I mean natural laws like physics that have simply been observed by scientific processes.  So, theoretically, magic could fit into science, it would simply exist under a different umbrella from other things.
Title: Re: Mistborn 3 Annotations Discussion *Spoilers*
Post by: Ari54 on May 21, 2010, 12:32:01 AM
This is certainly something I've thought about in my own writing.

For me, the line between "hard" or "speculative" magic and fantastic science (ie. science that is inconsistent with how our world works) is whether the phenomenon we're talking about can be defined in terms of our existing physical universe.

If it's only definable or measurable by other magic, it's fantasy. If you can quantify it or qualify it physically in some potential alternative universe, then it's fantastic science. It's obviously a given that there also needs to be an internally consistent set of rules for fantastic science, but on its own I would contend that an internally-consistent system of rules is not enough to make something scientific. Real-world religions have internally-consistent rules, but we don't regard them as rigorous scientific theories. They also need to be falsifiable- that is, measurable and definable on a physical level.

Interestingly, this certainly defines psychic powers as magical, even though they're a long-standing part of science fiction tradition. (Also, it makes the Force into something of a fantastic science, assuming you don't try to fan-retcon out the midichlorians)
Title: Re: Mistborn 3 Annotations Discussion *Spoilers*
Post by: Chaos on May 21, 2010, 12:41:25 AM
While interesting, this really feels like a divergence from the real topic at hand--the MB3 annotations. Maybe an intrepid moderator can split the topic into something new.

I want to get this back on track a little, since I reread Chapter 79's annotation and I picked up a detail that I don't think has been mentioned.

Quote
The author is right in that Preservation did need someone to control its power, and it did seek for a host in which to invest itself. It began this search with what mind it had left about sixteen years before the return of the power to the Well of Ascension, just as it began a search for a new host before the return of the power the previous time.

Unfortunately, just as Ruin took control and manipulated Alendi, he took control and manipulated Vin.

I was not explicitly aware that Preservation had chosen Alendi, much like he chose Vin, as a recipient of the power. Also it is interesting that Preservation chose Vin sixteen years before the Well returned to power. Sixteen...
Title: Re: Mistborn 3 Annotations Discussion *Spoilers*
Post by: Drew P on May 21, 2010, 02:42:45 AM
I noticed the 16 as well. I assumed it was quite intentional, but what it means....I got nothing.
Title: Re: Mistborn 3 Annotations Discussion *Spoilers*
Post by: Nightfire107 on May 21, 2010, 06:03:33 AM
was vin 15 or 16 when she began to hear the pulses?
Title: Re: Mistborn 3 Annotations Discussion *Spoilers*
Post by: Chaos on May 21, 2010, 07:26:41 AM
was vin 15 or 16 when she began to hear the pulses?

I think she's older than 16 by the end Final Empire or Well of Ascension. The chronology is a difficult thing in Brandon's books.

I feel that this is really, really important: (MB3 C. 55 annotation)

Quote
That did not weaken his power, which still protects the world. Instead, it cost him his mind, leaving behind only a faint shadow—like the mists' memory of Preservation, far removed from what he had once been.

That consciousness attached to Preservation—like the one attached to Ruin—is a part of Adonalsium, which will eventually be explained.


Not the power. The consciousness attached to Preservation is a part of Adonalsium.

Interesting.
Title: Re: Mistborn 3 Annotations Discussion *Spoilers*
Post by: Peter Ahlstrom on May 21, 2010, 07:31:00 AM
Um, I'd better ask Brandon if that's what he meant to write.
Title: Re: Mistborn 3 Annotations Discussion *Spoilers*
Post by: Chaos on May 21, 2010, 08:13:19 AM
Good idea. I'm a little concerned about that myself.
Title: Re: Mistborn 3 Annotations Discussion *Spoilers*
Post by: Valkynphyre on May 21, 2010, 10:49:11 PM
Um, I'd better ask Brandon if that's what he meant to write.

 :) :D ;D :o ??? :( :-[
Title: Re: Mistborn 3 Annotations Discussion *Spoilers*
Post by: Tasslehoof on June 04, 2010, 04:01:53 AM
Random outside-the-box thinking here, but if Inquisitors (who weren't originally allomancers) had children (why don't we see any female Inquisitors anyway?), would they be more likely to be allomancers?

Probably not, but it's an interesting thought. If it is true, we might see some children of Marsh (unlikely) that have powers. Who knows, maybe the mistborn from the next trilogy might be his son/daughter.

One more random thought. I say that at some point in the next trilogy, the hero will guiltily hemalurgically spike a dying man, in order to try and defeat the villain.

It would make the most sense to me, that if Brandon writes another series dealing with this stuff... he'll probably do it with Spook as the center, or Spook's kids (I'm pretty sure him and Beldre get married).  Although, a darker Marsh-centered book would be quite interesting..  I know it seems like he died in the book, but I can't really recall it saying that he did specifically.. I may have to go back and look over it again.  I would assume he did, but you never know... he was quite twisted by Ruin (even by Inquisitor standards).
Title: Re: Mistborn 3 Annotations Discussion *Spoilers*
Post by: Comatose on June 04, 2010, 05:03:48 AM
At the beginning of the first book Vin is sixteen (pg 32 in the hardcover).  Each book takes place over the course of about a year, and a year passes inbetween each book, thus at the start of the second book she is 18 or close too it, and by the last book she somewhere around 20.

Inquisitors were never female, because they were all taken from the preithood, which was, for all we know, exclusively male.  Don't see any female obligators either.

I remember discovering somewhere that inquisitors can't breed?  I know they don't breed true as their own species, as mistwraiths do, and the koloss when Sazed is done with them.
Title: Re: Mistborn 3 Annotations Discussion *Spoilers*
Post by: firstRainbowRose on June 04, 2010, 07:24:40 AM
Um... sorry to correct you here, but per the man himself, there are female inquisitors.  Also, he has said that they can in fact breed like a normal person.

The second trilogy will be set 1,000 (ish) years in the future.  So basically mistings and such in the modern world.
Title: Re: Mistborn 3 Annotations Discussion *Spoilers*
Post by: Comatose on June 04, 2010, 04:45:50 PM
Really?  Interesting.  Thanks for the correction.  You wouldn't happen to have a link by any chance?
As for the breeding thing, I guess that was just another of my false memories, sorry guys... there's a lot of them.
I know I got Vin's age right.  Looked that up. ;)
Title: Re: Mistborn 3 Annotations Discussion *Spoilers*
Post by: Chaos on June 04, 2010, 10:00:09 PM
Well, there's not a link because I had asked Brandon directly (okay, through Mi'ch, but whatever :P). It confirmed what I had already expected. After all, we see female Mistborn being trained, gender biases aside. There's no reason why there wouldn't be female Inquisitors. If I was the Canton of Inquisition, I'd try to snatch up as many Mistborn as possible to become Inquisitors, for those would be the most powerful.

There were actually female Inquisitors when Vin fought the thirteen at the end of Hero of Ages, but it wasn't mentioned because it would've been distracted.

Title: Re: Mistborn 3 Annotations Discussion *Spoilers*
Post by: Comatose on June 06, 2010, 02:58:15 AM
 That makes sense.  Besides exceptions made for mistborn however, are the Cantons exclusively male?
Title: Re: Mistborn 3 Annotations Discussion *Spoilers*
Post by: Chaos on June 07, 2010, 01:18:32 AM
I don't know. But I don't imagine the Lord Ruler would care enough one way or another.
Title: Re: Mistborn 3 Annotations Discussion *Spoilers*
Post by: Comatose on June 07, 2010, 07:58:24 AM
I was about to say something, but I thought I would regret it.  So I said this instead.
Title: Re: Mistborn 3 Annotations Discussion *Spoilers*
Post by: Ari54 on June 09, 2010, 07:16:08 AM
There were actually female Inquisitors when Vin fought the thirteen at the end of Hero of Ages, but it wasn't mentioned because it would've been distracted.

You mean it would've interrupted the narrative? Perhaps, unless Brandon had just slipped in a "she" when talking about one of the inquisitors.
Title: Re: Mistborn 3 Annotations Discussion *Spoilers*
Post by: Chaos on June 09, 2010, 02:45:24 PM
Personally, I think at that point, the fight there was what the readers were to be focusing on, not the gender of the Inquisitors.
Title: Re: Mistborn 3 Annotations Discussion *Spoilers*
Post by: ryos on June 09, 2010, 07:58:28 PM
I agree with the latest batch of annotations about the ending. It had a lot of punch. It was the right thing to do.
Title: Re: Mistborn 3 Annotations Discussion *Spoilers*
Post by: link389 on June 10, 2010, 12:47:08 AM
Every time I've talk about the book, my friends generally ask what I thought of the ending, because obviously it's a big slog to get through.  I end up telling them it's not the ending you want to happen, but it's the ending that needs to happen, and it is ultimately very fulfilling.
Title: Re: Mistborn 3 Annotations Discussion *Spoilers*
Post by: Terrisman243 on June 17, 2010, 02:59:56 PM
So now that Mistborn is done, will we get annotations for warbreaker?
Title: Re: Mistborn 3 Annotations Discussion *Spoilers*
Post by: Chaos on June 17, 2010, 04:12:12 PM
There's probably going to be two or three more annotations, probably an Ars Arcanum and maybe a book wrap-up.

Then yeah, I'd assume Warbreaker starts.
Title: Re: Mistborn 3 Annotations Discussion *Spoilers*
Post by: Peter Ahlstrom on June 17, 2010, 04:14:10 PM
There's one more Mistborn annotation, but yes.
Title: Re: Mistborn 3 Annotations Discussion *Spoilers*
Post by: Comatose on June 18, 2010, 01:44:36 AM
I can't believe they are done, there were so many!  I also can't believe that book came out what?  A year ago?  Two?
Title: Re: Mistborn 3 Annotations Discussion *Spoilers*
Post by: kari-no-sugata on June 23, 2010, 02:58:14 PM
I notice that the last Mistborn annotation is up (it was actually up on my birthday ^-^). Thanks to Brandon for writing them and Peter for posting them. I really appreciate this sort of thing. Looking forwards to the Warbreaker annotations!

And now... a little confession. I actually started reading some of the annotations before I read any of the books - Brandon would often mention the Mistborn annotations in his blog posts, so I got curious about them one day and decided to read a couple. It was rather weird doing that - I was reading them in the exact opposite order  :P After a while, I decided I wanted to know what was actually going on and ordered the whole trilogy. I then read them all over a single weekend (starting on Friday evening).
Title: Re: Mistborn 3 Annotations Discussion *Spoilers*
Post by: KhyEllie on June 23, 2010, 10:40:44 PM
I guess that's one way to do it :D