Jump to content

Why I Use “Mandate” Instead of “Intent”


Confused

Recommended Posts

This post explains my use of the word “Mandate” to describe what most everyone else describes as a Shard’s “Intent.” After this, I’ll link to this post instead of writing “Mandate (Intent)” a gazillion times. I’m not trying to sell anyone on “Mandates” – the word “Intent” has currency on the Forums. I just want to explain my usage.

 

1. “Mandate” is the only textual word Brandon has used to describe this phenomenon. In the HoA Chapter 79 Epigraph (emphasis added), Sazed says that power without “a consciousness to direct it” has “only a vague will of its own, tied in to the mandate of its abilities.”

 

TRANSLATION: “Undirected power acts according to its mandate.”

 

2. In AU (Kindle, p. 17), Khriss describes magical “rules of perception and intent.” In Elantris (10th Anniversary Edition, Kindle p. 487), Khriss says

 

As in other forms of Investiture, intent is very important. An Elantrian can’t accidentally draw an Aon…. One must wish to draw an Aon, and have an inkling of the required shape, before anything will happen.

 

The Coppermind says one needs “an intent to create a Hemalurgic spike.” Otherwise, the spike will simply rip a hole in a person without transferring any magical attributes.

 

This “rule of intent” refers to a mortal’s state of mind, not something that attaches to Investiture. The mortal must “intend” the desired magical result. Otherwise, nothing happens, whether with an Aon or a hemalurgical spike. That is a different concept than a Shard’s “intent.” Brandon would not use the same word to mean two different things, particularly when “intent” as Khriss uses it IS “canonical” (at least to her as a scholar).

 

3. @Chaos first observed Mandates in early 2011. He coined the term “intent” to describe them. Brandon has used the term “intent” in conversations with fans but never in a book. He has also used the words “role” and “personality” to describe this phenomenon.

 

Until Brandon makes a different word canon, I'll use "Mandate" despite “intent’s” currency. Besides, it’s easier to say “Mandated Investiture” than “Investiture subject to an Intent.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Confused said:

The Coppermind says one needs “an intent to create a Hemalurgic spike.” Otherwise, the spike will simply rip a hole in a person without transferring any magical attributes.

Mistborn: Hero of Ages Spoiler

Spoiler

This is kinda off topic, but does this mean that the soldier who stabbed spook meant to create a hemalurgic spike?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Bridge Boy said:

Mistborn: Hero of Ages Spoiler

  Hide contents

This is kinda off topic, but does this mean that the soldier who stabbed spook meant to create a hemalurgic spike?

 

Spoiler

I don't think the soldier did, but Ruin had direct involvement so I think his intent counts. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you're going to run into the same issue as your classification of magics topic, where virtually everyone recognizes Intent so you're going to have to keep pointing people back to this topic to explain your preference for a different term. And since Brandon has used Intent in the way that you're using Mandate (and added that Splinters can have their own Intent), it seems perfectly fair to use that term pending either a change in a published source or a confirmation. Brandon has on occasion been specific about when he's using a tentative term (Resonance for the interaction of multiple magic systems) or when he repeats a fan term but doesn't necessariy endorse it as canonical (Shardpool) but he's never put in a disclaimer like that when talking about Shards having Intent.

@Bridge Boy Brandon has stated that Ruin could and did provide the intent necessary to create the spikes (one example) so in that case no, the person didn't intend to create a hemalurgic spike but they were guided by something that did and that's all that was needed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Using the word mandate would to me indicate someone(or something) else handing it to the shard, while intent would more indicate that it is the shards own will(own intent) that controls its actions.

I dont really think there is something else that gives a mandate to the shards. Its all their own intents. 

Then again, anyone can call things what they wish. Just risks confusion:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, dyring said:

Using the word mandate would to me indicate someone(or something) else handing it to the shard, while intent would more indicate that it is the shards own will(own intent) that controls its actions.

It is the Mandate that the shard imposes on the a Vessel, though they can resist to some extent. 

Regardless, if Kriss uses the word Mandate to describe what we call a shard's Intent, then it is a perfectly reasonable term to use. It would only be problematic if we were using mandate in another context. 

3 hours ago, Weltall said:

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Trellium said:

Regardless, if Kriss uses the word Mandate to describe what we call a shard's Intent

Small correction - the word "mandate", with a small m, was used by Harmony/Sazed in Hero of Ages, not by Khriss. See OP for the reference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Chaos locked this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...