Jump to content

Bondsmith error


Recommended Posts

Just rereading the Bondsmith page, and I noticed an error. Essentially, something that is pretty much just a theory is being stated as a fact. From the Coppermind:

Quote

Shards & Spren → The Bondsmiths are unique in that they have a maximum of three members, and all three are bonded to a single spren (presumably the Stormfather given Dalinar's experience). The Stormfather told Dalinar that he would be a knight without shards which would make sense in an order where multiple knights were bonded to a single spren; such an order would either have no shard or would have to share the same set of shards.

From WoB:

Quote

 

"But as for the Bondsmiths, they had members only three, which number was not uncommon for them; nor did they seek to increase this by great bounds, for during the times of Madasa, only one of their order was in continual accompaniment of Urithiru and its thrones. Their spren was understood to be specific, and to persuade them to grow to the magnitude of the other orders was seen as seditious."

This strongly implies three members, but the line "which number was not uncommon for them; nor did they seek to increase this by great bounds" makes it seem like the "members only three" refers to a specific set of Bondsmith, and that the number three was common, but that it would be possible for it to be a little higher, maybe reaching as high as 5. This is up for discussion, and there are theories on the subject.

As for a single spren that they share, it is speculation based on the usage of the singular word "was" in "Their spren was understood to be specific". Though the use of the singular "was" could also mean that there is one type of spren, (not just one spren) as with the other orders. It's very plausible that Bondsmith share a spren, but not canon yet.

 

Essentially, some of this info needs to be clarified and broadened, and other parts need to be in the Theories and Speculation section.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It has been confirmed by Brandon that they have three unique but separate spren. 

From Pagerunner's Reddit WoB collection # 495

Quote

Q: The pocket companion states that there are three spren that can bond a person to make them into a bondsmith, the Stormfather being one of them. As far as I recall the books implied that the number was low, and implied heavily that it was around that number in an epigraph, but didn't actually have a straight confirmation. So, should I take that as canon?
 
A: Yes, you can take that as canon. They came to me for that information.
 
Q: Sweet. I guess it hasn't been canonized which three spren these are? I seem to recall that the prevailing theory on 17th Shard was that Nightwatcher was one of them, and the third was that weird spren with too many faces that Axies the Collector looked at in the tWoK interlude.
 
A: RAFO. :)
 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree that stating there were absolutely 3 at most is a bit strong. The epigraph quote (not WoB, straight from the text) suggests there could be more than three Bondsmiths if nothing else. I don't think there's any point in speculating how many there may be. Just say what the epigraph says. Something like "there were usually no more than three Bondsmiths." If it turns out there were never more than three, that statement is still true.

And yes, this WoB confirms that the "their spren were understood to be specific" does not mean they only have one spren to share. Should change this statement and cite the WoB.

Also... what the heck is going on with the formatting of this article. It looks like garbage. :huh: I guess someone wanted to throw in a bunch of this info and it was never edited.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I did a little bit of work taking out the stuff about about a single Spren and improving the format slightly. I'm reluctant to do much more right now, partly because I don't want to put a ton of work into an article that will likely need heavy revisions in a few months when OB comes out and partly because I'm generally opposed to including speculation in articles, and the longer I work on that page, the more tempted I'll be to delete everything in the powers section except the definitions of tension and adhesion. 

 

That being said, if you want to do more @jofwu, you can. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If nothing else I'll probably go in and reformat it to look like the other Order articles. The use of those arrows and the poor section usage is bothering me.

But yeah, I may cut some of the speculation as well. And I really don't know why it's setting out to explain the scientific definition of those surges. Doesn't feel appropriate to me.

Edit: Made changes. Feel free to comment/edit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/13/2017 at 11:39 PM, Lord Maelstrom said:

Just rereading the Bondsmith page, and I noticed an error. Essentially, something that is pretty much just a theory is being stated as a fact. From the Coppermind:

From WoB:

This strongly implies three members, but the line "which number was not uncommon for them; nor did they seek to increase this by great bounds" makes it seem like the "members only three" refers to a specific set of Bondsmith, and that the number three was common, but that it would be possible for it to be a little higher, maybe reaching as high as 5. This is up for discussion, and there are theories on the subject.

As for a single spren that they share, it is speculation based on the usage of the singular word "was" in "Their spren was understood to be specific". Though the use of the singular "was" could also mean that there is one type of spren, (not just one spren) as with the other orders.

Or it could mean that each one has a unique spren, as opposed to the other orders that all have the same type of spren.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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