• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Pathfinder last won the day on February 5

Pathfinder had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

1,810 Dawnsinger


About Pathfinder

  • Rank
    Lord of Book Quotes

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

4,844 profile views
  1. Then I wish you luck with your theory! I'll still cling to mine till we find out more lol.
  2. I guess where I get confused is the impression I got from you is that there are two orders of note (bondsmiths and truthwatchers) who have had their members in the past bonded corrupted spren. That this has occurred enough for it to be reflected in an in world artist's interpretation. Now you are saying the unmade are corrupted spren, but are bondsmith level spren because Odium made them that way? Again, feel free to reason that way, just personally that does not work for me. My personal theory is that truthwatchers as an order, normally cannot see the future. Potentially they can view things far away as a remote viewing. But Renarin is unique. That is my take. The implication I got from the book is that Renarin and the Oathgates were new unique experiences that have never been done before. So if they are two independent accounts, then one should not affect the other in my interpretation.
  3. I agree, and considering we already have enemies that are insubstantial (shades from Threnody), where only one type of weapon actually harms them (play DnD with those enemies, without the proper weapons and see how far you get), then I think invisibility is on the table. I would argue fighting something that is insubstantial with only one weakness that without you are screwed, is far worse than invisibility, considering there are ways and tricks of dealing with someone invisible (throw a bomb in the area you suspect the invisible person. Invisibility does not protect from AoE. Throw dust. Listen for movement. And so on)
  4. So are you saying you belive the Unmade are corrupted bondsmith spren? So each line is denoted by a number. So second emerald, first emerald, etc. It has shown up in the book in the below order. We could potentially reason that the two second emeralds are from the same emerald, same subject. We could potentially reason emeralds one through the final are one full thought recorded over the course of multiple emeralds. The order would then be: Or it could be (exchange the two second emeralds order): Or it could be (the second emerald is its own separate thing): Or what you are positing: I personally think it is separate. Even if it is linked as you posit, to me it does not change it could be a truthwatcher concerned about what is happening with his order with the failing of Urithiru. Again no magic involved. Another member of the stonewards was concerned about the windrunners and skybreakers fighting while a willshaper felt they have all devolved into squabbling children. A skybreaker is even stating he or she thinks honor is changing, while an elsecaller is theorizing why the sibling is withdrawing. So it would not be a stretch that another member would be concerned regarding his or her order. All I was saying is for myself, I think truthwatchers normally do not see the future. That is my own personal theory I am holding onto till we learn more from Renarin.
  5. And the larkins only have their mouths over the bondsmith, and their claws holding the truthwatcher. Every other order is just overlaid. My point is I am not saying you are wrong to reason as you do. I am just saying by itself it isn't evidence enough to directly say truthwatcher spren must be corrupted. Otherwise why aren't the bondsmith spren as well? So for myself, the gemstone isn't enough. It could just be, to me, artistic license like the woman with the safe hand. That is your interpretation. Just like my own interpretation of the gemstone archive is that the truthwatcher is talking about something he figured out. I have used this example before: Lets say hypothetically I see two friends expressing interest in each other. I know them separately, and know they would be horrible together. But I also know they would get defensive and upset if I said as much to them. Ultimately they get together, and it goes horribly like I knew it would. If I point that out, they would get upset at me for not having warned them. So I do not want them to know, could not say it, but I foresaw it. All without any magical means. So I think it was put there, to make people think "Hey! truthwatchers of old could see the future! Renarin must be normal!". That way when it was truly revealed, it still had impact. That is my own interpretation. I could be wrong. I am just waiting till we see more truthwatchers on screen to either confirm or deny that. Further I am waiting to see more of Renarin too, to learn how Glys got corrupted and what that means.
  6. That chart is the in world artistic rendition. Everyone wondered why there is a woman there, and why she has a covered safehand if this is the voidbringer chart and would be thought to be associated with the parsh. That is when brandon explained people in world chose to draw it that way, and the safe hand doesn't necessarily mean anything. The knights radiant chart has two larkin on it. We have not seen anything tie larkin directly to the radiants, nor the specific orders it is facing. So personally I do not feel because a red gemstone is centered, means truthwatchers on whole are corrupted. You can certainly reason that, but I do not think it is evidence that stands on its own. As I said I have my own personal theory I cling to till we see more from Stump. If Stump starts having visions of the future like Renarin does, then sure they can too. But I will operate as Renarin is unique as his spren has been (at least in appearance) verified to be different than normal truthwatcher spren. So till I see otherwise, I will operate on "normal" Truthwatchers not being able to see the future.
  7. With our current level of technology in the real world you would get a mirage yes. But also with our current technology in the real world we need a power source to produce a laser. Lightweavers can just make them. We have trouble making "holograms". The closest we have come is projecting over a mist, or spinning diodes really fast to produce an image with seeming depth. Yet again, lightweavers can produce full illusions, some of which can be interacted with. So again I see no reason why bending light would be off the table for an order of knights that literally manipulate light. But since you do, then to each their own.
  8. I still cling to my own theory that the Truthwatcher quote from the gemstone archive was a red herring to hide the great reveal that Renarin was not a "normal" truthwatcher. Basically the quote is saying the person figured something out, but the others would be upset if he pointed it out to everyone else. No magic involved. But I will have to wait till we see more of normal truthwatchers before my theory will either be vindicated or disproved.
  9. Don't think you are dumb. I will just respond to this post and then leave it. I will quote the prior post I made in this thread that covers this: "Ultimately I think what it comes down to it is what is central to my understanding of Jasnah and Kaladin means they would not get together, and if they did it would not work. That core part of my understanding of them would by extension see any reason to get them together as artificial and forced. So this has become less a discussion, and more an attempt to convince me, when me pointing to my thread on Jasnah is essentially (i did not realize this originally but do now) me saying my mind cannot be changed. Kind of saying "That is Jasnah to me. That Jasnah would not get in a relationship with Kaladin." So it is kind of unfair to all to continue to bring up reasons that Jasnah and Kaladin would work, just for me to say all the reasons why that new reason would not work for me. I think I adequately related my stance at length, so me responding to further reasons would I think be counter productive. So I guess good luck to those who believe the ship. If it happens, I hope you get all you wanted. if it doesn't, I hope you still get the development you sought from the relationship in another manner. " So my intent in that post that I copied above, was to relate that: 1. I wrote a really long thread on my understanding of Jasnah 2. It is my personal understanding of her 3. The reason I pointed to it, is because some of the things mentioned that she is lacking in this thread, are mentioned in that thread, and are objective. For instance, the scene of Jasnah dropping her research to be outside Shallan's room, while she was red eyed and distraught over her ward potentially committing suicide. It objectively occurred. Another instance when Jasnah is on the ship, speaking to the sailors with respect. Shallan thinks she is aloof and thinks them stupid, when Jasnah corrects her. That fools can be found in any place. She respects those that do their work and do it well. Again, it objectively occurred. That is why I asked you to read it 4. Having said that, I realize my issues with the the ship are based on that personal understanding of Jasnah. (to clarify I am not saying I personally understand Jasnah above all else, in case that is misunderstand. Personal understanding is stating I have my own view/reading of the character) 5. When someone has a view that is counter to the general view, things tend to devolve into people saying "well what about this?" "that doesn't work for me because...." "then what about this?" "that doesn't work for me because...." "there is also this" "that doesn't work for me because...." 6. this turns the thread into more the appearance of trying to convince me towards a side that based on my personal understanding of the character, would not work. I am not saying I am close minded, but as I have said repeatedly, I do not see it. I do not see them currently be attracted. I do not see a scenario that could organically build an attraction between them. I do not see a narrative need for them to have an attraction. So since on every level I do not see it, for me the ship does not sail. Anyone else can feel the ship sails. They can feel free to say as much. But like (as you referenced), when someone goes to Jasnah to try to convert her, she will respond with all her reasons as to why she is an atheist. She is not trying to make anyone else an atheist. She is not saying believing in religion is wrong. Just since someone is trying to tell her why she should believe in religion, she responds with why she does not. So when someone says to me that Gavinor is a reason that Kaladin and Jasnah could spend more time together. I say why I do not think that would occur. If I am told to assume Gavinor makes Kaladin and Jasnah spend time together, then I will say why I do not think it would affect their relationship. So In summation, I am not trying to tell anyone how they are allowed to think. I am not telling anyone they are right or wrong. I am saying why it does not work for me. Singular. My very own self. None of the reasons brought forward have been enough to convince myself that it would be possible or plausible. That does not mean others cannot think that way. It just means I am stopping responding to why these things do not work for me.
  10. So I went through this already in another place, so I will do my best to explain how I envision it, and then leave it be. We know via: Elantris Spoilers It is possible to attach an illusion to something. A part of clothing, etc. We also see this with Shallan. We see Shallan cover herself with the color black from head to toe to hide from Amaram without messing up her eyesight. The aperture that you see out of with your eye is your pupil. The pupil is what lets light in for your brain to register. There are contact lenses that cover the entire eye except the pupil, and people can see out of that. There are colored contacts that cover the iris to change its color, yet people are still able to see since the pupil is uncovered. As long as the pupil remains unobstructed, you will have peripheral vision. The illusion could be attached to the pupils, so the pupils could still expand and contract with the illusion, without the illusion covering the pupils. Shallan should already have to do this when she changes her eye color when she goes out as Veil the darkeyes. So her vision should be unaffected. The problem is people will see two little black dots suspended in mid air. Hence looking towards the ground by tilting the head, or coming up with some other ways to help the two black dots to avoid detection. (I have attached an image of a sclera contact lens. The idea is the red area, as well as the rest of the face is covered in the illusion. only the pupil is uncovered. the individual using that contact lens that I have attached is able to see.) As to the issue you are bringing up regarding someone behind the lightweaver. That is assuming "invisibility" technology of having to have cameras take an image behind the person, and produce the image on the person so to produce "reactive" camouflage. That is not the only way. There are metamaterials that can bend light. Where we are currently is only 2 dimensional and only a very very small space, but considering the whole purpose of lightweavers is manipulating light (we know they can make lasers for instance), I see no reason why they could not be able to create illusions that bend light around them, providing functional invisibility, without the needs of being aware of your surroundings to constantly change the image.
  11. I am forgetting the wording of the WoB to pull it up, but that is what inspired Brandon to write the magic system for Emperor's Soul. He was in a museum and saw pieces like that. That eventually turned into forgery.
  12. Shallan has made nesting illusions (as in wearing just a shift, and putting an illusion of shirt and pants, and then illusion of a dress) at Urithiru (no perp), and at Kholinar (no perp). Those illusions as I said require the clothing to be able to flow naturally with her form, otherwise you get the model programming issue I mentioned in my last post. So we have see it be done without a perp. Already covered that in my last post. Have you read the light bringer series? Actually let me just quote myself again instead of typing it all over again: "I see it working like the paryl drafters from the Lightbringer series. everything would be invisible except the pupils, so the lightweaver would need to look down at the ground while they walk so their pupils are not as visible, or find ways of avoiding detection of their pupils. "
  13. So few things. First, we saw Shallan quickly cover herself from head to toe with the color black to blend in to the shadow she was standing in to avoid Amaram. So not only can lightweavers make illusions without having to draw them or shape them first (Pattern was perplexed as to why she felt she needed to), but it is also possible to make quick color changes across your body. Second, if Shallan could only create stationary illusions, I would agree with you, but that is not the case. If we were only talking Shallan early on, then I would again agree with you, but again that is not the case. Let us take an illusion of everybody's prize boy Adolin. If that illusion runs forward, the illusion has to account for the legs moving, the arms moving. The illusion has to account for the movement of the clothing rippling in the breeze as he runs. If the illusion swings a sword, the illusion has to account for all the various folds of the clothing changing across the body. Video game modeling is a prime example of this. The characters in Fire Emblem are beautifully drawn, and move animatedly with their dialogue. The problem? When Dorothea (who has long hair that drapes over the front of her shoulders) turns her head to the right, the hair remains rigid and sticks out like it is laying across something invisible. Shallan's illusions are reactive. For those reasons I think it is possible for Shallan to cover herself with an illusion head to toe that mimics her surroundings. If you really want to push it, then add to it there is pattern to help with the maintenance. I see it working like the paryl drafters from the Lightbringer series. everything would be invisible except the pupils, so the lightweaver would need to look down, or find ways of avoiding detection of their pupils.
  14. The same quote includes: "that a “place” for women must be defined and set forth to begin with. Half of the population must somehow be reduced to the role arrived at by a single conversation. No matter how broad that role is, it will be—by nature—a reduction from the infinite variety that is womanhood. I say that there is no role for women—there is, instead, a role for each woman, and she must make it for herself. For some, it will be the role of scholar; for others, it will be the role of wife. For others, it will be both. For yet others, it will be neither. Do not mistake me in assuming I value one woman’s role above another. My point is not to stratify our society—we have done that far too well already—my point is to diversify our discourse. A woman’s strength should not be in her role, whatever she chooses it to be, but in the power to choose that role." Looks like she is saying a woman should be able to choose any role. She just used two (scholar and wife) as two examples. She states a woman could choose neither, and do something completely different. Vorinism has stratified their society. Jasnah is saying a woman should be able to choose. Not to be nitpicky, but I do not see everyone agreeing with you on that. You responded to Config that you do not see that coming up. Eugenides then responded that if the Vorin Church was destroyed, then Jasnah would not have that conflict. I responded that based on what I read of the book, Jasnah is not directly opposed to Vorinism. She is accepting of all religions. What she is opposed to is the stratification, and limitation the Vorin religion has imposed on the culture and society. That it tries to prevent questions. That it forces people into roles that they would not other wise have chosen. So even if the Vorin Church was destroyed, the systemic problems in the culture and society would still prevail, and need to be over come. Which would to me, still be a conflict for Jasnah.
  15. In the book she is quoted on writing a paper on a womans role in the world. That women should be able to chose to go beyond house work, or be able to do house work if it pleases them. That she does not want to be misconstrued to be saying that house work is something to be looked down upon. It is not. Just that a woman should be able to choose. I'll come up with the quote later Words of Radiance page 772 (shallan is reading a book by Jasnah) "What is a woman’s place in this modern world? Jasnah Kholin’s words read. I rebel against this question, though so many of my peers ask it. The inherent bias in the inquiry seems invisible to so many of them. They consider themselves progressive because they are willing to challenge many of the assumptions of the past. They ignore the greater assumption—that a “place” for women must be defined and set forth to begin with. Half of the population must somehow be reduced to the role arrived at by a single conversation. No matter how broad that role is, it will be—by nature—a reduction from the infinite variety that is womanhood. I say that there is no role for women—there is, instead, a role for each woman, and she must make it for herself. For some, it will be the role of scholar; for others, it will be the role of wife. For others, it will be both. For yet others, it will be neither. Do not mistake me in assuming I value one woman’s role above another. My point is not to stratify our society—we have done that far too well already—my point is to diversify our discourse. A woman’s strength should not be in her role, whatever she chooses it to be, but in the power to choose that role. It is amazing to me that I even have to make this point, as I see it as the very foundation of our conversation."