Shardlet

I would suggest rather that they are triggered or activated by the wielder. There does not seem to be any indication of energy loss from the wielder; So I don't think that powered by the wielder is quite right.

It is interesting that he thinks of it as Sela Tales rather than as Yulay, Marabethia, Babatharnam, or Tu Bayla. It seems to me to suggest (if it is not a continuity error) how steeped be has become in 'The Way of Kings' if he thinks of present day areas in terms of their ancient names.

I like it! It is concise, tidy, and fun. Everyone is trying the new game that is sweeping the Cosmere. Physical, Cognitive, Spiritual. Play today at your local convention or book-signing!

Do we have any evidence that Jasnah did not hear her other than that we have not seen Jasnah comment on it yet? I suspect that Shallan and Jasnah will have a significant discussion obout this coment in the WoR and this may show up as a late chronology flashback sequence.

I would give the human soul idea a very tepid possibly. It seems that this would require a vast sacrifice of humanity and would weaken the core group of people that Honor is counting on to fight against Odium. And while the human soul can be very powerful, nnnnnhhh I'm not sure if it would be sufficient for this purpose. I think the voluntary splinters of Honor (and perhaps Cultivation) invested in the Honorblades vs. in the radiantblades are simply different and that these two types of blades are simply created to be specifically different (Honorblades are more powerful [as shown in the Prelude], bigger splinter?) than each other.

I didn't mean to say that no spren other than Syl are seen to be sentient. While the quote you cited does affirm that there are other sentient spren other than Syl, it does not qualify any conditions or the nature of that sentience. For example, . Now, I suspect that some seed of sentience must be present in order to effect a bond, it is apparent that, at least in the case of Syl, the strength of the sentience is directly tied to the bonding of the spren with another entity. In other words, Syl is not unique in her sentience, but we have not seen any evidence of spren which have a developed sentience exclusive of a direct and significant bond with another entity except that Jasnah declares the Cryptics to be a kind of spren. I have little doubt that Jasnah belives her conclusion to be accurate. But, I have a suspicion that, in this case, she is not. Thank you for the quote, though. I don't recall seeing it before and it is definitely germaine to my thoughts.

Also chapter 68 bears her name. This is when she arrives at the Battle of the Tower.

Yeah. I think it is premature to say for sure whether or not Jasnah has interactions, especially regular interactions, with the Cryptics. We surmise that she does since she expresses some degree of familiarity with them to Shallan as well as the fact that Jasnah soulcasts without a functioning soulcaster. But, while the Cryptics are a means of going to Shadesmar, I think it is likely that they are not the only way on Roshar (I say 'on Roshar' since there must be other ways in from other worlds that don't include Cryptics). I don't see any evidence of a causal relationship between the Cryptics and soulcasting. When in Shadesmar, Shallan interacts with the cognitive aspect of the goblet directly rather than via a Cryptic. The Cryptic does not appear to participate in the actual soulcasting. On a wild tangent, I find the Cryptics to be a substantial puzzle. Jasnah identifies them as spren. However, this never rang accurate to me. If they are spren, they have some very singular characteristics that set them apart from any of the other spren we have encountered. 1) They do not visually manifest in the physical realm in a general fashion. I expect they can be visibly perceived by certain individuals in particular circumstances (as is the case with Elhokar apparently seeing them in mirrors [hardcover pg. 826]). But they are not generally apparent to the population at large. Yes, Syl is principly visible only to Kaladin, I know. 2) They are appear to be sentient without any evidence of any significant bonding. They follow Shallan (perhaps because they recognize that she has a means of perceiving them). But they communicated with her prior to her giving anything to them. 3) They are very distinct in their appearance relative to other spren (whether by choice or by nature I don't know) while being similar to each other. And now for something completely different: Here is a counter-theory to the present theory (or perhaps a variation on the theory). I had originally intended to describe the theory here, but I decided that it might be be perceived as hi-jacking the thread.

I have made comments about a number of these details in other posts. So, I apologize if much of this is ideas you have heard from me already. But, I thought it was time to couch it in an independent and cohesive theory. Shardblades each have a gemstone in the pommel (or at least in some location; largely irrelevant for the present purpose). Fabrials are devices which gain extraordinary abilities via a spren captured in a gemstone fit in the fabrial. It is my contention that shardblades are a sort of god-fabrial. I suspect that rather than a simple spren being captured in the gemstone it is a piece of a Shard voluntarily splintered and placed or invested in the gemstone (or even, it may be the gemstone) for the express purpose of forming the shardblade. We have seen in WoR that the gemstones came after the Recreance to facilitate bonding Shardblades and that Shardblades are in fact spren. Spren are, however, splinters of Honor/Cultivation so they are in fact splinter's of Honor/Cultivation. I personally believe that the radiantblades and the Honorblades were formed by Honor (and perhaps with Cultivation as well). However, I believe that Szeth's blade is Odium's version of a shardblade. My basis for this belief is that the radiantblades are described as being massive and as being "designed to slay dark gods" (Hardcover, pg. 29). In contrast, Szeth's blade is described as smaller than normal shardblades (hardcover, pg. 25). As I see it, radiantblades are designed to fight great big nasty unnatural beasties (like thunderclasts) while Szeth's blade is designed to fight humans. We now know that sprenblades (as opposed to Honorblades) are able to shift in size and shape, but that the default form is a blade since they were patterned by the spren after the Honorblades. While it is not fully confirmed (to my knowledge at least. I have been out of the loop for the last few months and last I saw Brandon demurred rather than give a full confirmation), WoR screams that Szeth's blade is an Honorblade and almost certainly Jezrien's blade since Jezrien is the patron saint, as it were of the Windrunners which had the same skill set as Szeth did. I also believe that the reason Syl has such a strong aversion to shardblades is due to them being tainted, perhaps in events leading up to the Recreance or perhaps resulting from events immediately following the Recreance. I think it is not the swords themselves that are the source of her aversion, but rather the use to which the swords were put. Shardblades were designed and created to be used to defend humanity against the unnatural enemies they faced during the desolations. But after the last desolation, they have been been turned against ordinary humans. Something sacred, something containing a piece of a 'god' voluntarily sacrificed has been turned against the purpose it was designed for. I think this is hinted at by the following text: We now know that Syl hated the Shardblades because they are "dead" spren. They would be particularly abhorent to honorpren like Syl since they would be a visceral symbol of broken oaths. This is my prime theory on shardblades. While there is a certain zen aspect to requiring Odium to provide the weapons necessary to defeat his forces as, at least part of, his part of the Oathpact; How could Honor and Cultivation trust Odium to not create backdoors and weaknesses into the weapons he provided?

Why would they be searching for an invincible spearman? If you mean they had noticed that they have not previously been able to hit Kaladin, remember the bridges were a death trap for the bridgemen before Kaladin arrived.

I think Youngy means a single post which has links to all the readings and perhaps to their associated transcriptions.

Hahaha, I think your terminator-cat is pretty slick. I just thought you guys might get a kick out of a representation of the double-pupil eye from the book. I never thought of it as creepy looking since I always had that context in mind. Incidentally, you are the first person to comment on it. Maybe I should put up a poll in the general discussion to see if people think it is creepy or cool . As to my reply to Phantom, I was only pointing out there there are soldiers other than bridgemen within ready bowshot. I like your 'I'm killing you because I respect you' line of reasoning. It seems to me that, given Parshendi battle honor, they would respect the bridgemen highly since they unflinchingly face death in the eye to achieve their goal. I think this idea has much more traction than your previous line of reasoning. I like it. It gels nicely. Edit: typo

Who's uncoordinated archers? If you mean the Parshendi, I haven't seen any evidence to indicate a lack of coordination. If anything, they seem to be exceedingly coordinated with their chanting. In any case, the bridgemen are not the only ones in range. Recall, if the bridgemen are armored the Parshendi choose to fire on the regular troops and completely ignore the bridgemen. This indicates that the bridgemen are not the only ones within range. If they were firing on the regulars and the arrows were falling short and hitting nothing, then Sadeas would be pleased with not having to replace the bridgemen.

You make a good point Kurkistan. I agree that, given their transient forms, Parshendi would have a stronger view of equality of individuals. And I agree that people do irrational things to uphold their values (focusing on Kaladin so exclusively emphasizes the strength of their feelings at the defilement of their dead). However, given the weakness in effect of targeting bridgemen (once again, Sadeas says the tactic rarely hinders his armies), it doesn't seem that in any sense of the situation, given what we know about Parshendi so far, to be advantageous, beneficial, honorable, or anything currently apparent, to target the bridgemen. Unless after 7 years, the Parshendi don't have any recognition of the differences in physical nature (ability to change forms or lack thereof) between the humans and themselves. From the Eshonai POV, this seems very unlikely. It seems that she has been studying the humans for quite a while in a way that Dalinar is only beginning to study the Parshendi. Also, your idea that they may be simply trying to kill as many men as possible seems to ascribe tactical ignorance to the Parshendi. Even a casual observer of a few of Sadeas's battles would recognize that the bridgement aren't coming accross the bridge. The only thing I can think of that makes any real sense is that it is a long-term strategy. Perhaps the Parshendi, because of their honor, have a blind spot to Sadeas’s callousness. If that were the case, then perhaps the Parshendi would be trying to deplete the overall supply of bridgemen in order to make Sadeas’s bridges untenable. This largely depends on how long Sadeas has been running the bridges this way. We know that this is a newer tactic of Sadeas’s, but there is a sense of routineness and past trial and error (bridgemen at least at one time were given some kind of shielding) that suggests that is has been in practice at least a few months by the time Kaladin arrives at the plains. In any case, this is the only way so far that I can reconcile what we read about the Parshendi's battle honor and the targeting of the bridge crews.

Those answers seem too easy for me. Tactically, if you have a wounded soldier who can still use his weapon, then he should be rapidly incapacitated so as to not be a distraction or a surprise attack while fighting more capable soldiers. Further the Parshendi do not coordinate beyond pairs. The fighting appears to be largely one-on-one. The only soldiers they apparently try to overwhelm are the shardbearers since this seems to be the only semi-effective tactic. The Parshendi seem to routinely eschew tactical advatages in favor of other considerations. Consider, they completely ignore everything and everyone else to take down one man when he ways pieces of Parshendi carapace as armor. Tactically, it would make a lot of sense to have some Parshendi jump the chasm and cut down the spearmen. It would also make strong tactical sense to take an uncommitted body of Parshendi over the chasm once the opposing forces are committed on the plateau and cut through the archers and bridge crews, drop the bridges into the chasm and strand the army on the plateau. Also, if you wanted to stop a cavalry charge, bottle-neck them on the bridge. If you clog the bridge with a few horses and soldiers then the cavalry charge is effectively stopped before if begins. (I think I have played too many video games). This coupled with the fact that bringing down the bridge crews is rarely an effective tactic for stopping the charges. I think you are selling the Parshendi's observational abilities short. They clearly recognize when bridgemen are armored. They would also be able to discern that they dress poorly, look like crap (especially as compared with the regulars), and don't participate in the battle beyond bridge running. This would certainly suggest to them that these are not regular troops. I also doubt that, after six years of fighting, the Parshendi have not noticed the relative effects and abilities of various troop types (i.e., cavalry, heavy infantry, light infantry, archers, etc.). With that much fighting experience, what to expect and what tactics would be best employed to counter each type of troop. Edit: Also we must consider the cost of the arrows used by the Parshendi. They must be made somehow from something, but they live isolated on a plateau with no apparent lines of supply. To produce sufficent arrows for a tactic which is rarely effective would be extremely costly in these circumstances. Another likely more effective tactic would be to use archers as support and cover for Parshendi troop who manually interfere with the setting of the bridges and even attenpt to shift them to the side to push them into the chasms. With this tactic, the only thing that could be used to counter it would be fire from the Alethi archers. It wouldn't matter how many Alethi soldiers the Alethi had on the other end of the bridge, they would not have the leverage to counter a shift of the Parshendi end of the bridge to the side.

Upvote for Mikanium to let him know I was not making fun but rather found the occurence to be funny. Sorry if I wasn't clear about that.

I was reading the Tor WoK reread for chapter 15 and Carl included the following quote as the quote of the chapter: We know the Parshendi fight in an honorable fashion. For example, So, if the Parshendi are being honorable fighters and choose not to fight the wounded, and the bridge runners are not armed or armored, and bringing down a few bridges rarely affects the effectiveness of Sadeas's armies, why then do the Parshendi fire on the spearmen preferentially when unarmored and don't shoot at them when armored? As I see it, one of two things are at play here: 1) A bit of a continuity error (although firing on the bridge crews is such a siginificant plot point, this alternative seems rather unlikely. or 2) There is something that I, at least, am missing in the Parshendi's motivation here.

That is beautiful! You just linked to a post in the same thread and the post was 4 posts above yours! The only thing that could top that is making a post and then editing that post to include a link to the same post!

I also think this is a cool idea. It does give us a little sense of time scope though. We know from the letter that Ruin corrupted Ati. We know that it takes a looong time for such a corruption or change of the holder by the Shard to occur. And we know that, in the books written, Mistborn happened quite a long time ago (but after Elantris). However, Pallonian brings up an up-vote worthy point: How would Ati know that Ruin would corrupt him? I am somewhat open to him noticing changes in himself, but the deal he made with Preservation would be some hugely long-term planning for an end-game play to stop himself.

The span of time between the Recreance and the Heirocracy and between the Heirocracy and the present are very key to this discussion. If enough generations had passed between the Recreance and the Heirocracy then it is easier to change peoples feelings about those things since they become abstractions in their mind. They no longer have a frame of reference for the people or events of the time. Actually I think a perfect hero would have played well in the scenario I laid out. If the KR were more relatable to the people, then the stories of them would be more plausible. If the KR were taught to be and perceived to be 'a perfect hero' then it makes it more likely that the people would accept them as constructs of the Ardentia vaunted for the purpose of securing power and authority for the Ardentia. Look at some of the criticism of WoK as an example. ' Dalinar and Kaladin are too perfect, too good, too righteous'. A large segment of our population rejects stories of heroes unless the heroes have moral flaws. Kaladin's depression is not enough, that is an internal flaw. His choices and motives are too pure. The same kind of thing goes for Dalinar. Personally, I find it refreshing to have heroes that are truly good people, not who just do good things. But there are so many people out there who disagree with me on that. It is not that hard to take down a pure hero when the people have no personal knowledge of them other than stories. Edit: typo

Considering what we have so far been given regarding the KR and the Recreance, I am reluctant to accept (yet) that the KR "betrayed" the people. We haven't yet seen anything to suggest that the KR left in time of dire need or where such a need was expected. Everyone was told they won the last desolation, the Heralds bailed. This brings up another interesting point. The Heralds bailed, but are still revered. The Radiants bailed, but are vilified. It will be interesting to see what actually happened and why this difference exists. For the time being, I stand by my supposition that the Sunmaker is the source of the vilification of the KR. The KR would have been held high in the estimation of the people, but they are apparently confused by the Recreance. Vorinism clearly held the KR to be of particular significance since Kabsal identifies the Recreance as the first great failure of Vorinism. The Heirocracy occurs: the establishment which doctrinally upheld the KR tries to take over, the Sunmaker sees an opening to politically destroy the Ardentia as well as weaken the esteem in which the KR are held by the people. If the Ardentia who upheld the KR are bad, then people will be be more likely to believe the KR were bad as well. The Sunmaker proposes significant social change and the people are now in a mind set to give place for such a change. Given what we have so far, this line of reasoning makes the most sense to me. Though, it is entirely possible that (at least some of) the KR did turn against rather than away from the people, I have not seen any evidence of that yet except for the general regard of the people that this was the case. So far, the events don't match this line of thinking though.

One thing that has always struck me is the present perception of the KR and the Recreance. There have been no desolations since the Recreance, no major historical world conflicts, nothing that seems to require the efforts and influence of the KR. Yet the KR did not "abandon" the people, they "betrayed" them. There is a world of difference between those words. How did the Recreance come to be termed as a betrayal? The KR did not turn on the people as is sometimes hinted. They simply, by all appearances so far, jumped ship. It seems clear that this had to be the result of a direct choice to reframe this. Since the principles set forth by the Sunmaker are so starkly different (even possibly opposite) than those of the KR, I suspect that he was the source of the paradigm. If you want an new idea to take hold you either cozy that idea up to established ideas and slowly differentiate or you directly contrast that idea with an established idea and point out how bad the established idea is. That being said, I would not rule at complicitness of Vorinism and the Ardentia in this change. If the writing was on the wall for the Ardentia at the time of the Heirocracy, then the Sunmaker could have manipulated them into complicitness in exchange for their survival as a body of influence. The Sunmaker then condemns the KR, the Ardentia "admits" the KR "turned against humanity", the Sunmaker publicly suggests that Vorinism be changed, and that the Ardentia take on a new politically impotent role in society. The Ardentia now is in a position to alter and affect a change in the peoples thinking in the name of "openness and coming clean" about the past.

I like the Sanderson Cameo. As to 1), while a racially homogenous cast is generally uncalled for (and even distasteful), I think it is appropriate for the story told (a movie adaptation of the book could very easily be tweaked to allow for visible differences between the Nobles, Skaa, and Terris (be very careful which race you put where). But I selected the cast I did 1) to reflect my understanding from reading about the visible similarities and differences between the races in the book (i.e., Skaa look like mostly like Nobles <essential for thieving crews to blend with noble society>, and TLR <and therefore Terris> must look like nobles as well or differences would have been readily noted and Vin's revelation at the end of FE would have been pie-in-the-face obvious and 2) I quite simply am not well versed in a big enough cross-section of actors from non-white peoples (Black, Indian, Polynesian, Hispanic, etc.) to form a full cast with any real sense of the actors abilities (I mean, I couldn't even come up with a suitable choice for Vin and Elend given an all-white cast). As to KS, I doubt she could even remotely adequately pull off the accent and everything I have seen her in she is only good at playing sullen (my opinion, if you like her as an actress, that's fine, I just don't see it).

upvotes all around for the quotes. Thanks.

I envision a lot of these guys like Breeze and Dox being older, but I just did a reread and most of these guys are in their 30's. It is easy to forget that that. The only one I got the impression that he might actually be in his 50's would be clubs. But temper that with the fact he's got a 15 year old nephew. John Hurt is definitely too old and Cumberbatch has too much of a cynical edge for Sazed. I would be fine with Fillion as Kel if he could pull of a solid accent (recall: one of my conditions was a British/Irish/Scottish accent cast). I haven't seen him with an accent so I could not say. Same goes for Fuhrman. Giamatti doesn't have the right look to me (my opinion).