Shardic Force and Shard Grouping Theory

[Chromium Compounder]

After rereading HoA I began to get the feeling that each shard has an underlying force to it.  When Sazed took Preservation and Ruin he could recognize them as powers for stability and change.  Both of these are good things in their own right, but taken to the extreme each could be bad, and I think the Intent of a shard is what happens if the power is taken to the extreme.  Given enough time, every shard can't help but go to the extreme (hence Ati going from a decent person to trying to destroy an entire world).

 

For some shards they may seem the same, or they may be difficult to tell apart, but the theory still holds.

So this of course brings up the question of what is the underlying force of the other shards.  

To help answer that, let's look at another question many have been looking into: What if shards can be grouped similar to the groupings of allomantic metals?  Physical, Mental, Temporal, and Enhancement (I've always thought Enhancement felt like it should be Spiritual.  Perhaps the reason it's enhancement for allomancy is because allomancy is physical, and spirit enhances physical.  This makes it line up better with Realmatic theory.  So anyway, I'm putting spiritual instead of enhancement.)

Within each of those there is internal and external, and within each of those there is pushing and pulling.  I'm not positive on all of them, but here's how I think it is for the known shards.  I start with its placement in the grouping, and then I put what I believe to be its underlying force.  The grouping makes the force make more sense to me.  Some of these may not seem like a force, but in that realm it makes sense to me for them to be forces.

I've got Endowment twice (mental external pushing and spiritual internal pushing).  I don't think it's both, but I see valid arguments for it to be either one.  I can't think of anything else to fit in either place, so I'm going to leave it in both for now.

 

I'm putting in the unknown shards with ?s to hold their place in the grouping.

Physical internal pulling - maintenance (Survival)
Physical internal pushing - ?
Physical external pulling - stability (Preservation)
Physical external pushing - change (Ruin)

Mental internal pulling - ? 
Mental internal pushing - ?
Mental external pulling - acquisition (Dominion)
Mental external pushing - distribution (Endowment)

Spiritual internal pulling - integrity (Honor)
Spiritual internal pushing - investiture (Endowment)
Spiritual external pulling - love (Devotion)
Spiritual external pushing - discernment (Odium)

Temporal internal pulling - ?
Temporal internal pushing  - ?
Temporal external pulling - ?
Temporal external pushing - growing (Cultivation)

The placement of shards may be off, but I think I've got it mostly correct.  The best part is that it gives you an idea of what the remaining unknown shards could be.  Here's some possibilities:

Physical internal pulling - maintenance (Survival)
Physical internal pushing - action (Vigor)
Physical external pulling - stability (Preservation)
Physical external pushing - change (Ruin)

Mental internal pulling - education or memory (Enlightenment or Reminiscence)
Mental internal pushing - imagination (Inspiration)
Mental external pulling - acquisition (Dominion)
Mental external pushing - distribution (Endowment)

Spiritual internal pulling - integrity (Honor)
Spiritual internal pushing - charity? (Endowment)
Spiritual external pulling - affection (Devotion)
Spiritual external pushing - discernment (Odium)

Temporal internal pulling - youth or memory (Vitality or Reminiscence)
Temporal internal pushing - (Prophecy?)
Temporal external pulling - (Decay)
Temporal external pushing - growing (Cultivation)

 

So, that's my idea.  Let me know what you think.

[WeiryWriter]

I'm looking for the quote at the moment, but I believe we have WoB that Shard's are not grouped like the allomantic metals.

 

Edit: Here is a quote concerning this, basically it says that the classifications of the allomantic are something that scholars in world created.  Which to me means they aren't "inherent" characteristics.

 

(http://www.theoryland.com/intvmain.php?i=618#59)

 

Edit Again: I just wanted to say that I do like this theory, it would have been cool if it was like this but alas.

Edited May 28, 2013 by WeiryWriter

[Senor Feesh]

Overall theory... Probably not. But I do like Inspiration as an Intent for a Shard

[Pechvarry]

He didn't say the scholars and researchers were wrong...

[Chromium Compounder]

He didn't say the scholars and researchers were wrong...

I agree. I still think this theory has merit, and as more cosmere books come out and reveal more shards I'm going to see if they fit this model.

[Isomere]

Good theory, enjoy an upvote for the time and thought involved.

 

I definitely support the idea of having the Shards follow an order and pattern that will be reflected in the way each magic system uses them. My guess is we will have to do some major revisions to the groupings, but your arrangement is thoughtful and works for now. Personally I think Ruin is temporal pushing (obsessed with our eventual state of decay) and Preservation is spiritual pulling (obsessed with keeping the spiritual aspect perfect and static)

 

For some reason I can't find the quote, but I do remember somewhere reading that the shards aren't grouped exactly like the Allomantic Metals are grouped. That to me just means the Scadrians didn't get it exactly right, not that the powers and the Shards aren't correlated.

[WeiryWriter]

For some reason I can't find the quote, but I do remember somewhere reading that the shards aren't grouped exactly like the Allomantic Metals are grouped. That to me just means the Scadrians didn't get it exactly right, not that the powers and the Shards aren't correlated.

 

You mean the one I linked to in my post?

[Isomere]

LOL yes. need to follow more links 

[WeiryWriter]

Here is another relevant quote. www.theoryland.com/intvmain.php?i=977#169

 

I would also like to say, since I don't think I've made it clear at this point, I do believe that the Shards are grouped in some way.  I just don't think it will be the same as the Allomantic metals.

[Leuthie]

I believe there is no formal grouping. Published novels have Shards that fit the stories. Remaining Shards fill in human Intents. Narratively it would be too difficult and not worth the effort to constrain storytelling ability by over defining...blahblahblah

[Chromium Compounder]

Here is another relevant quote. www.theoryland.com/intvmain.php?i=977#169

I would also like to say, since I don't think I've made it clear at this point, I do believe that the Shards are grouped in some way. I just don't think it will be the same as the Allomantic metals.

The main part of this arrangement I believe in is the four main groups (Physical, Mental (aka Cognitive), Spiritual, and Temporal). The internal/external groupings and the pushing/pulling groupings I could easily see as something else. I don't have anything else to go on though, so I stuck with how it is done for allomancy.

EDIT:

I believe there is no formal grouping. Published novels have Shards that fit the stories. Remaining Shards fill in human Intents. Narratively it would be too difficult and not worth the effort to constrain storytelling ability by over defining...blahblahblah

I disagree. I'm an amateur author (written 2 novels, but neither is worthy of publishing in their current forms. The one I'm working on now has potential if I could ever find more than a few minutes at a time to work on it.), and one thing I've found when writing fantasy or Sci fi is that the 'world' has to make sense to me according to the rules I create for it. I know that's not true for all authors, but I'm pretty sure it is for the best ones, and I certainly think it does for Brandon. Grouping the shards' intents would make it make more sense to me, and make it feel more believable. Edited June 2, 2013 by Windrunner
Please don't double post, simply edit your original post. Thanks! :)

[Kaurne]

Decay sounds too much like Ruin to be a different Shard. I like the whole Physical/Mental/Spiritual/Temporal idea you have (we've got something similar going on in that other thread) but I think the concept of internal and external and pushing and pulling sounds like you're stretching a bit to get them to fit. Obviously, it might turn out that once more Shards appear they all fit perfectly, but I'm not going to support this until we have more evidence.

 

I certainly do think there are groupings - it doesn't seem like Brandon to have all these intricate and complex yet still ordered magic systems, where all the powers can be neatly categorised and placed into relationship diagrams, or can be paralleled in other magic systems, and then have him say about Shards 'No, there's no underlying structure, I just based them around whatever cool idea I had in my head at the time with no thought for larger relationships'. That just doesn't seem like how Brandon does things.

[Phantom Monstrosity]

I certainly do think there are groupings - it doesn't seem like Brandon to have all these intricate and complex yet still ordered magic systems, where all the powers can be neatly categorised and placed into relationship diagrams, or can be paralleled in other magic systems, and then have him say about Shards 'No, there's no underlying structure, I just based them around whatever cool idea I had in my head at the time with no thought for larger relationships'. That just doesn't seem like how Brandon does things.

Brandon does put things in with the intention to tie them together later on, like the pool in Elantris. Heck, there's a mention from May 2011 that he still hadn't decided how many shardworlds there would be, yet.

http://www.brandonsanderson.com/annotation/86/elantris-Chapter-61-1

I�m honestly not sure what the pool is or how exactly it fits into the theory of this magic system. It was added as a plotting devise, as mentioned earlier, and therefore was never tied directly to the cosmology or theoretics of the world. When I do a sequel to this book, I think I�ll try and find a way to tie it in. For now, however, it�s kind of a loose thread.

[Leuthie]

I'm not saying there's no intention to tie them together, I'm saying its a bit complicated to tie things together long before they have to be. He has strong ideas for how his Cosmere will progress, and many of the stories are set, including, probably, an outline of the umbrella Shard arc. However, such a long term outline should allow for the inclusion of new ideas and changes while actually writing the stories. A very loose structure allows for more creative freedom and growth.

Why tie himself down to a hard and fast structure like pre-set Shards and shardworlds?

[realmatist]

Something I noticed was that the known pairings of Shards weren't consistant with their groupings.

Example: Dominion vs. Endowment, difference mental vs. spiritual; as compared to Ruin vs. Preservation, difference pushing vs. pulling.

 

What this would imply would be that each shard has more than one other shards that it is paired to. For me, this is the biggest hole in the theory. If you could modify your theory to explain this discrepancy, that would go a long way in my book.

[Chromium Compounder]

Something I noticed was that the known pairings of Shards weren't consistant with their groupings.

Example: Dominion vs. Endowment, difference mental vs. spiritual; as compared to Ruin vs. Preservation, difference pushing vs. pulling.

What this would imply would be that each shard has more than one other shards that it is paired to. For me, this is the biggest hole in the theory. If you could modify your theory to explain this discrepancy, that would go a long way in my book.

As I said before, I wasn't sure where to put Endowment. I could see valid arguments for both mental and spiritual. Personally I think it's more likely spiritual than mental, but I couldn't come up with something else to put in that spot for mental, so I left it in both, for now.