Kered Posted December 24, 2017 Report Share Posted December 24, 2017 I was reading the HoA annotations and came across this. Quote #14June 25, 2009 Share Brandon Sanderson Electrum I held off on using this metal because while I knew what it had to do, I also knew that it would make atium far less important. The way I built Allomancy, there is a logic to its framework. Atium shows other people's futures. Gold shows your own past. Each group of metals has internal and external powers. Therefore, one of the two alloys (either atium's or gold's) had to show other people's pasts—the Eleventh Metal from book one, an alloy of atium. The final metal of that group, then, had to show your own future. I wanted this to be an alloy of atium. But the problem was that it couldn't be. There is always a pushing metal and a pulling metal to each set. The pull always comes first; the push is always the alloy. The two external metals (that do things to other people) have to be grouped together, and the two internal metals (that do things to yourself) have to be grouped together. That means atium and gold are both pulling metals, and the ones that do things to you both had to be related to gold—and both metals that do things to other people had to be related to atium. Therefore, even though initial logic makes it seem that the alloy of atium should be the one that shows your own future, the way the magic is arranged means that it has to show other people's pasts. [Editor's note: Careful readers may intuit something else about this that Brandon is holding back.] Emphasis mine. I am apparently not a careful reader. Does anyone know what Peter is referring to here? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oversleep Posted December 25, 2017 Report Share Posted December 25, 2017 4 hours ago, Kered said: I am apparently not a careful reader. Does anyone know what Peter is referring to here? Probably the whole thing with atium not being one of sixteen metals at all. It doesn't match up with the pattern: Pulling | Pushing Internal your past | your future External other's future | other's past Both Pulling metals should deal with past (or future), but instead they do not, which breaks the pattern. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yata Posted December 25, 2017 Report Share Posted December 25, 2017 If Electrum was public knowledge, the tenous lie about the highter metals will become less credible. You Will have the proper pair to the gold and the Atium will remain the odditity in the table. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kered Posted December 25, 2017 Author Report Share Posted December 25, 2017 14 hours ago, Ookla the Indefatigable said: Probably the whole thing with atium not being one of sixteen metals at all. It doesn't match up with the pattern: Pulling | Pushing Internal your past | your future External other's future | other's past Both Pulling metals should deal with past (or future), but instead they do not, which breaks the pattern. 13 hours ago, Yata said: If Electrum was public knowledge, the tenous lie about the highter metals will become less credible. You Will have the proper pair to the gold and the Atium will remain the odditity in the table. Thanks, pals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts