Timewaster's Guide Archive
Local Authors => Brandon Sanderson => Topic started by: Kykeon on September 15, 2010, 07:39:46 PM
-
At the end of the book, a figure that seems to be the 10th herald breaks down in front of Hoid.
Who do you think will get his armor & blade, and do you think this will be important for the story?
Is it one of the "Dawnshards"?
Why are they sent to "hell" after each death?
I hope I'm not spewing nonsense, lol.
-
He's not dead.
Also, you should really edit the thread title so it doesn't give out huge spoilers.
-
At the end of the book, a figure that seems to be the 10th herald breaks down in front of Hoid.
Who do you think will get his armor & blade, and do you think this will be important for the story?
Is it one of the "Dawnshards"?
Why are they sent to "hell" after each death?
I hope I'm not spewing nonsense, lol.
If you read the description of his blade it comes off as being very spear-like. Thus I'd say eventually it ends up in the hands of Kal.
-
Okay I'm confused.
I thought that if a Shardbearer dropped his or her Blade, it would dissipate, to prevent it being taken? It says the Herald's Blade didn't dissipate, so I would think he WAS dead?
-
Read the Prelude again. Heralds' blades behave the opposite. They only disappear when their bearer dies. Something else I find worthy of note: Taln leaned on his sword with the point into the ground, and it only cut a finger's breadth in. A normal shardblade would've, in theory, dropped clear to the hilt.
Of course, if it were his dawnshard or dawnblade or whatever you wanna call it, I would've expected it to be described more as more ornate than it was (see the Prelude again, on the beautiful flowing designs on all the other weapons).
-
I don't have my book in front of me right now so this is going more from memory but I thought that in the section where the King gets knocked to the ground by the Chasmfiend and his sword dissipates, that it mentions that a sword could remain solid if you willed it.
There may be differences in the blades themselves though because in one section it mentions that someones sword was really long and would be unwieldy by someone without full shardplate but in another section Dalinar mentions that the blades are practically light as air. He could of course be factoring in shardplate. In any case, I'll have to reread the book to come across the exact quotes again but I remember thinking, that it was odd.
-
Something else I find worthy of note: Taln leaned on his sword with the point into the ground, and it only cut a finger's breadth in. A normal shardblade would've, in theory, dropped clear to the hilt.
As I recall, he dragged it rather than leaning on it, though I haven't gone back and checked the book to be sure. If he angled it so that the flat of the blade is downward, it would naturally not cut very far.
-
Read the Prelude again. Heralds' blades behave the opposite. They only disappear when their bearer dies. Something else I find worthy of note: Taln leaned on his sword with the point into the ground, and it only cut a finger's breadth in. A normal shardblade would've, in theory, dropped clear to the hilt.
Of course, if it were his dawnshard or dawnblade or whatever you wanna call it, I would've expected it to be described more as more ornate than it was (see the Prelude again, on the beautiful flowing designs on all the other weapons).
Hoid has seen many things on many different worlds, so he probably wouldn't mentioned it in his mind...
A herald's blade disappears because they are reincarnated over and over again.
Since the catastrophe announced by the visions is called "The true desolation", this cycle is no longer necessary, and the blade remains when it's bearer dies.
Or maybe not, lol. :-\
-
I don't think he is dead. If I where to guess I would say that you could only get one of the Heralds Blades if it is given to you. Of course if you have one of there blades then maybe you would become a Herald.
-
I thought he might be dead, since he was prodded and didn't move, and since the sword didn't disappear (but, as well already mentioned, if it's his Herald's blade, it behaves by different rules.), but I was reading some of Sanderson's online interviews just now.
http://yetistomper.blogspot.com/2010/09/brandon-sanderson-interview-stompingmad.html
At this point I believe you have met every one of the major viewpoint characters for the series. I don’t want it to spiral out of control. I think too many viewpoint characters is a danger to epic fantasy, putting a writer in difficult predicaments for subsequent books--whether to leave some characters out, or whether to show a little bit of each of them without getting any major plot arcs for any of them.
So you’ve seen pretty much everybody. Now, at this point there are several who are major viewpoint characters for the series who we have not had many or any viewpoints from yet--Jasnah is one, a character who shows up in the epilogue is another, and there are a few others--but there are in my mind essentially eight or ten major characters in this series, and it will stick to that.
If Taln was dead, he wouldn't be getting any viewpoint scenes. And I really don't know why he'd be waving around a normal shardblade instead of his Herald blade.
-
Okay, he is not dead. Also as has been stated previously by others the blades of the heralds do not dissipate when dropped. I am pretty sure that the blades of the heralds are dawn-shards. From the prelude one herald died in the final battle before the breaking of the oath pact. The other nine go their separate ways leaving the one who died still bound by the oath pact, this Herald being of course Talenel. His shard being spear like perhaps he will in time give it to Kaladin but, no he is not dead now.
AndrewMM
Life before Death, Strength before Weakness, Journey before Destination
-
So far, the only real information on the Dawnshards that we have comes from Jasnah's notes in the epigraphs:
'Taking the Dawnshard, known to bind any creature voidish or mortal, he crawled up the steps crafted for Heralds, ten strides tall apiece, toward the grand temple above."
I'm curious as to exactly what "bind" means in this context.
-
So far, the only real information on the Dawnshards that we have comes from Jasnah's notes in the epigraphs:
'Taking the Dawnshard, known to bind any creature voidish or mortal, he crawled up the steps crafted for Heralds, ten strides tall apiece, toward the grand temple above."
I'm curious as to exactly what "bind" means in this context.
Binded to the oathpact maybe?
-
So far, the only real information on the Dawnshards that we have comes from Jasnah's notes in the epigraphs:
'Taking the Dawnshard, known to bind any creature voidish or mortal, he crawled up the steps crafted for Heralds, ten strides tall apiece, toward the grand temple above."
I'm curious as to exactly what "bind" means in this context.
Binded to the oathpact maybe?
Well, it says it can bind "voidish" creatures, which I assume means Voidbringers. And it doesn't seem to make much sense to be able to bind them into the Oathpact.
-
So far, the only real information on the Dawnshards that we have comes from Jasnah's notes in the epigraphs:
'Taking the Dawnshard, known to bind any creature voidish or mortal, he crawled up the steps crafted for Heralds, ten strides tall apiece, toward the grand temple above."
I'm curious as to exactly what "bind" means in this context.
Binded to the oathpact maybe?
Well, it says it can bind "voidish" creatures, which I assume means Voidbringers. And it doesn't seem to make much sense to be able to bind them into the Oathpact.
If a voidish creature can be binded in some way or form maybe we will see some bond between Kaladin and Shen?
-
Or perhaps "binding" them is what changed the Parshendi into the Parshmen.
-
Or perhaps "binding" them is what changed the Parshendi into the Parshmen.
Then what would happen if you bonded a creature mortal? (i.e. human)
-
Or perhaps "binding" them is what changed the Parshendi into the Parshmen.
Then what would happen if you bonded a creature mortal? (i.e. human)
You get a Surgebinder?
-
Or perhaps "binding" them is what changed the Parshendi into the Parshmen.
Then what would happen if you bonded a creature mortal? (i.e. human)
You get a Surgebinder?
That would mean that the bonds where different, because one comes from the Almighty while the other comes from Odium. (assuming that the voidbringers come from Odium).
-
Except for one thing- The Parshendi aren't of Hate (Which is what Odium means). They seem to have deep respect for their dead and for those in battle. When they are fighting Kaladin, they focus on the more experienced people rather than the weakest, which is what an Alethi would be more likely to do.
-
Do we really know enough about the parshendi to judge whether they are motivated by hate? Everything they have done is clouded in mystery, making it hard to discern their true motives.
-
Do we really know enough about the parshendi to judge whether they are motivated by hate? Everything they have done is clouded in mystery, making it hard to discern their true motives.
We know how they act.
Either they're not motivated by hate, or their definition of "hate" is very different from ours.
-
Do we really know enough about the parshendi to judge whether they are motivated by hate? Everything they have done is clouded in mystery, making it hard to discern their true motives.
We know how they act.
Either they're not motivated by hate, or their definition of "hate" is very different from ours.
How would you define assassinating Gavilar? It is not too much of a stretch to say he was killed because of hate. He have no idea what there motives behind that move was. How about declaring war? War is usually driven by hate. What's there motive behind the war? we just dont know. It could very well be hate.
-
Do we really know enough about the parshendi to judge whether they are motivated by hate? Everything they have done is clouded in mystery, making it hard to discern their true motives.
We know how they act.
Either they're not motivated by hate, or their definition of "hate" is very different from ours.
How would you define assassinating Gavilar? It is not too much of a stretch to say he was killed because of hate. He have no idea what there motives behind that move was. How about declaring war? War is usually driven by hate. What's there motive behind the war? we just dont know. It could very well be hate.
It is a stretch to say that he was killed because of hate, because so far, they haven't shown any emotional animosity towards any humans, and we have no idea why they killed him in the first place.
-
Do we really know enough about the parshendi to judge whether they are motivated by hate? Everything they have done is clouded in mystery, making it hard to discern their true motives.
We know how they act.
Either they're not motivated by hate, or their definition of "hate" is very different from ours.
How would you define assassinating Gavilar? It is not too much of a stretch to say he was killed because of hate. He have no idea what there motives behind that move was. How about declaring war? War is usually driven by hate. What's there motive behind the war? we just dont know. It could very well be hate.
It is a stretch to say that he was killed because of hate, because so far, they haven't shown any emotional animosity towards any humans, and we have no idea why they killed him in the first place.
My point exactly. We cannot say for certain it is hate, but neither can we rule it out.
-
Do we really know enough about the parshendi to judge whether they are motivated by hate? Everything they have done is clouded in mystery, making it hard to discern their true motives.
We know how they act.
Either they're not motivated by hate, or their definition of "hate" is very different from ours.
How would you define assassinating Gavilar? It is not too much of a stretch to say he was killed because of hate. He have no idea what there motives behind that move was. How about declaring war? War is usually driven by hate. What's there motive behind the war? we just dont know. It could very well be hate.
It is a stretch to say that he was killed because of hate, because so far, they haven't shown any emotional animosity towards any humans, and we have no idea why they killed him in the first place.
My point exactly. We cannot say for certain it is hate, but neither can we rule it out.
We might not be able to rule it out but I find it highly unlikely that it is hate due to the way they treat their enemy on the battle field. Why would hateful people show respect and honor.
Hateful people would have attacked Kaladin as soon as his back was to him and he was going for their shardbearer.
Hateful people wouldn't salute someone for being able to flee, to would be angry.
So where you can't say with 100% surety that it isn't hate, it doesn't seem very likely.
-
We might not be able to rule it out but I find it highly unlikely that it is hate due to the way they treat their enemy on the battle field. Why would hateful people show respect and honor.
Hateful people would have attacked Kaladin as soon as his back was to him and he was going for their shardbearer.
Hateful people wouldn't salute someone for being able to flee, to would be angry.
So where you can't say with 100% surety that it isn't hate, it doesn't seem very likely.
Exactly.
In my opinion, "respectful violence" describes the Parshendi. Hatred really doesn't enter the equation.
-
I am not convinced that the Parshendi are the ones to have Galivar killed. Maybe the alliance would have stopped the mass chaos that is sure to ensue in that world. perhaps the key to victory is in the shattered plains, after all if the Parshendi wanted Galivar dead why not kill him themselves or with there own assasin, why hire a Shin?
-
I am not convinced that the Parshendi are the ones to have Galivar killed. Maybe the alliance would have stopped the mass chaos that is sure to ensue in that world. perhaps the key to victory is in the shattered plains, after all if the Parshendi wanted Galivar dead why not kill him themselves or with there own assasin, why hire a Shin?
Then why did they claim responsibility for the assassination?
-
I am not convinced that the Parshendi are the ones to have Galivar killed. Maybe the alliance would have stopped the mass chaos that is sure to ensue in that world. perhaps the key to victory is in the shattered plains, after all if the Parshendi wanted Galivar dead why not kill him themselves or with there own assasin, why hire a Shin?
Because Szeth is really, really good at it and they aren't?
-
I think it's possible that the Parshendi were misled by some other party into killing Galivar, but I don't have any doubt that they made the order. That said, I don't think it's very likely that someone else talked them into it. I think there is a reason that the Parshendi killed him, although we don't know it yet. The scene with Dalinar and the Parshendi Shardbearer near the end of the book could have something to do with it. They needed to get Dalinar out into the Shattered Plains for some reason, or something along those lines.
-
the parshendi could be following the lines of Taravangian, maybe they didnt want all of the highprinces to become unified. and why did the parshendi agree to the alliance in the first place if they would just kill him? and why did Gavilar want to make a peace treaty with them anyways?
-
Do we really know enough about the parshendi to judge whether they are motivated by hate? Everything they have done is clouded in mystery, making it hard to discern their true motives.
We know how they act.
Either they're not motivated by hate, or their definition of "hate" is very different from ours.
Or this is how they act when they aren't actively touched by Odium. We have enough information to make a few assumptions, but even whether Jasnah's assumptions about the voidbringers are true is debatable. Trying to figure out Odium's exact connections with the Parshmen or Parshendi from what we have is reaching too far, imo.
I'm not saying we can't speculate, but that we don't really have a basis to treat any of our assumptions about the Parsh- whatevers as fact yet.