Shardcast: Oathbringer Tour Words of Brandon Part 2


This week we are continuing our adventure through the Oathbringer Tour Words of Brandon, and Ian and I fight again on the interpretation of intent. We got our Shardblades out; it was an epic duel! Tune in now. (Okay, it wasn't that spectacular, but hopefully it was entertaining!)

Kerry returns as the one true host, and joining her is Eric (Chaos), Ian (WeiryWriter), and David (Windrunner). We also have a special guest: Kerry's phone, which went off a few times. We're all very professional.

There will be one more of these next week, and it's also over an hour long too. 

 

3


Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0


User Feedback


Speaking of confusing fanon terms, can we please try not to use the word aspect to describe those Autonomy things while the concept is still malleable so we don't end up giving it the same name as a the entire magic system from Legion? 

I'm curious, what is the does hosting one of these actually entail compared to just being a guest, @Chaos? As a listener, I didn't notice a difference except who does the intro and closing stuff. 

0

Share this comment


Link to comment
Share on other sites
ccstat

Posted (edited)

I resolved not to say anything about pronunciation of names or terms from the books, but "ray-fo"? Seriously @Windrunner? Just say RAFO the way Brandon does. There's no reason to mutilate that one.

Regarding the investiture "broken off" from Odium, I interpreted Brandon's "Yes (asterisk)" to be a sneaky reference to the Unmade. They are pieces of his power that have been separated from him, but it was done intentionally rather than as a battle wound (the questioner's apparent line of thought). 

Edited by ccstat
0

Share this comment


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Crack-Pot theory: we here at the 17th Shard are ACTUALLY the 17th Shard. The Shards have been secretly members of the forum this whole time in order to keep tabs on what we know, and so Hoid didn't send physical letters... he just made himself an account and DM'd the Shards on the forum.

I r a jenius!

0

Share this comment


Link to comment
Share on other sites

On Kaladin and spiritual Adhesion and Spiritual Gravitation. No, he doesn't have the same spiritual focus as Dalinar, but his resonance is that Windrunners get a large number a squires. He pulls people together and then binds them to himself. One of the ideals of Windrunners is leadship. They have magical Gravitas and are magically good at team building. 

1

Share this comment


Link to comment
Share on other sites

ON the intent of Shards: In the end the vessel always loses to the intent of their shard. But it might matter what they perceive that intent to be. Not what they say the intent is, Odium is lying to manipulate Dalinar when he says that he is passion. Odium sees himself as Odium. But Ati was a good man corrupted by holding Ruin, and he couldn't change the perception of Ruin to Change. Maybe it's because when he picked it up he thought of it as Ruin and could never change his perception of his own shard. Deep down, he always thought of it as Ruin. If someone picked it up, only ever thinking about it as Change, maybe it could become Change. If Dalinar picks up the pieces of Honor without knowing what he is doing, and thinks of the power as Unity while he is doing it, he may become the shard of Unity (who would probably desire to unify things...)

1

Share this comment


Link to comment
Share on other sites
Khyrindor

Posted (edited)

I think the broad spectrum of the Intent (yes, I capitalize it, fite me) is too big to perfectly sum up in one word. Really any name given by a person, Vessel, or anything like that is only an interpretation of that complex and massive Intent. The Vessel then gets to choose how to act on that Intent based on what they perceive it to be, but they can never do anything to actually change it.

Edited by Khyrindor
0

Share this comment


Link to comment
Share on other sites
Chaos

Posted

3 hours ago, Khyrindor said:

I think the broad spectrum of the Intent (yes, I capitalize it, fite me) 

Okay!

There is no instance of intent ever being capitalized referring to a Shard. The one time Brandon himself wrote it was in a Hero of Ages annotation which lowercase. 

The only time Intent capital-I has been written was said in Oathbringer and it did not refer to a Shard's intent. I don't know when people thought it was good to capitalize this word but I certainly didn't in the Principle of Intent and haven't since. To be perfectly honest, it is actively incorrect to call it Intent as capital-I Intent doesn't refer to a Shard's name at all. 

As long as you're okay with being totally wrong with the canonical usage, then go for it, but it is incorrect ;) 

19 hours ago, thegatorgirl00 said:

I'm curious, what is the does hosting one of these actually entail compared to just being a guest, @Chaos? As a listener, I didn't notice a difference except who does the intro and closing stuff. 

Leading the conversation, transitions, and such.

0

Share this comment


Link to comment
Share on other sites
Khyrindor

Posted

10 minutes ago, Chaos said:

Okay!

There is no instance of intent ever being capitalized referring to a Shard. The one time Brandon himself wrote it was in a Hero of Ages annotation which lowercase. 

The only time Intent capital-I has been written was said in Oathbringer and it did not refer to a Shard's intent. I don't know when people thought it was good to capitalize this word but I certainly didn't in the Principle of Intent and haven't since. To be perfectly honest, it is actively incorrect to call it Intent as capital-I Intent doesn't refer to a Shard's name at all. 

As long as you're okay with being totally wrong with the canonical usage, then go for it, but it is incorrect ;) 

But if we capitalize it, it's an easy way to distinguish "Shardic Intent" meaning the mandate, intent, drive of what the Shard generally wants to do/the name of the Shard, and the "intended actions of a Shard". Just a lot easier to say & less time to type, and less confusing for a reader.

Shardpools also aren't written in the books, but we still use that as a specific type of Perpendicularity. 

Until we have a canonical word for it from Brandon, this is the easiest way to distinguish, and even if it's not "correct", it's widely accepted and easily interpreted.

0

Share this comment


Link to comment
Share on other sites
Chaos

Posted

21 minutes ago, Khyrindor said:

But if we capitalize it, it's an easy way to distinguish "Shardic Intent" meaning the mandate, intent, drive of what the Shard generally wants to do/the name of the Shard, and the "intended actions of a Shard". Just a lot easier to say & less time to type, and less confusing for a reader.

Shardpools also aren't written in the books, but we still use that as a specific type of Perpendicularity. 

Until we have a canonical word for it from Brandon, this is the easiest way to distinguish, and even if it's not "correct", it's widely accepted and easily interpreted.

How is that different from writing "Shard's intent"? It's generally very clear from context. That issue is not really even an issue, honestly. For the latter, write "A Shard's intention" or something for their action. That's a minor matter.

I'm sorry, I don't agree that just because people have been flippant with capitalization over the past few years that we should accept that. We should not have a fanon word that is written like a canonical term when the things are not the same. That's not okay, in my opinion. Many don't even know intent isn't even canonical. 

I will make sure people know of the importance of not capitalizing this, and you bet on the wiki and Arcanum it will never will be capitalized for a Shard's name. 

0

Share this comment


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey shardcast crew, your podcasts continually blow my mind and also allow me to gain some different perspective and insight on thoughts and theories I’ve had.  In this episode you touched on the idea of a Shards intent, vs. Vessels interpretation of said intent and specifically @Chaos  mentioned something I would agree with, in the idea that over time the actual intent of the shard would overrule the interpretation of the individual vessel that holds it. However, what do you all think of the idea that at the event of the shattering of Adonalsium, that it was actually the individual intents of each of the would-be vessels for killing Adonalsium that shaped the intents of the 16shards that Adonalsium shattered into.

For clearer illustration:

Rayse’s motivation for killing Adonalsium was born of a passionate hatred towards Adonalsium him/herself/itself, possibly a hatred for the way things were or for others in general (which seems likely given Cephandrius’ description of Rayse in the 1st letter)

Ati’s motivation for killing adonalsium was born not out of hatred but perhaps of a conviction that all things must end, and specifically Ati was curious about what it would mean for “God” himself, to end.

Tanavast believed that Adonalsium impeded the honor of men and was allowing dishonor to reign amongst his/her/its subjects. Tanavast felt, therefore, that to restore honor to mankind, Adonalsium would have to be destroyed and someone more honorable would be able to take his place.

The vessel of cultivation wanted to cultivate a new world to grow something from the ashes of Adonalsium or along those lines.

Bavadin wanted all people to be free and Autonomous (much like Paalm in SOS)

And the vessel of Ambition just wanted to climb the ladder through Adonalsiums death... etc. (not sure how preservation, devotion and dominion fit yet)

My reason for shards having slightly different intents then what there vessels may have wished for (if this theory had any truth to it) would be similar to the reason why nightbloods command/intent to “destroy evil” did not apperantly work out the way Vasher ans sashara intended. However, the main difference is that one intent is  endowed to inanimate steal while the other would be impressed upon a large amount of raw investiture that has always had sentience and sapience byond any of the vessels themselves.

I know there is a WoB thatan be found in the lovely Arcanum (thank you @WeiryWriter) that says that Adonalsium didn’t necessarily have to be shattered into 16 per se but that this was a function of how it was split (and presumably who split Adonalsium) and so this is what leaves me to believe that it was split based off of individual intent of each of the vessels that killed adonalsium. Would love to hear your thoughts on this.

Appreciate all of you so much and i will continue to listen along to every podcast and have fun theorizing with you all!

 

Edited by Cephandrius Everstorm
0

Share this comment


Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Windrunner @WeiryWriter @Chaos and Kerry (sorry I don’t know your 17th shard tag) I was also wondering what you thought of in terms of something I heard about the unmade being Cultivations version of Honor’s ten heralds, but that 9 of them were coopted/ corrupted by Odium and only the 10th one remained Cultivations which could be the nightwatcher (note: I possibly heard this from you guys in an earlier podcast or possibly from cosmere comversations or elsewhere).This is an awesome idea to me but not sure if it holds water.

 

0

Share this comment


Link to comment
Share on other sites

RE: Hoid writing letters to Shards that like him - barring of course off-screen Shards - what are the odds that he could have counted Ruin among that number, before the Catacendre?  

0

Share this comment


Link to comment
Share on other sites


Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now