Relationship Between Soulcasting and Forging [Theory]

[Trickonometry]

Maybe this has been established already, but I am curious about the relationship between Soulcasting and Forging. Forging, IIRC, is essentially re-writing the past of an object to become what it COULD have been, and the greater the deviation from what it currently is, the greater the detail needed in the Forging. After reading WoR, we find out that Soulcasting, at least for Shallan, is a process of convincing an object of the need for it to become something else. Forgery, then, seems to be the Physical Realm equivalent of Soulcasting in the Cognitive Realm. I realize that the shards present in Aon are greatly different from those on Roshar, but there are certainly links. Maybe this is obvious/already been discussed, but I am curious about other people's thoughts.

[Tempus]

Yes, the two are essentially similar - I wouldn't say Forgery is all about the physical realm though. You're essentially just encoding cognitive data into a physical form. The story you want the object to tell is written down and realized with shardic investiture, but it's essentially just a representation of the cognitive way you see the object. Which you then stamp to bind it to the object in question.

 

So... cognitively imagining what you want -> applying it to the object with investiture (forging or stormlight) -> changes the way the object views itself, transforming it

 

On Sel the method is 'Form', so you encode it in a written form. On Roshar the method is 'surgebinding', so they use a surge to transport the stormlight and information to the cognitive realm directly.

[Chromium Compounder]

Each has its limits and strengths over the other.  

 

Forgery is slower, more limited in the depth of the changes, and the changes aren't permanent.  Even stamps that take can be broken.  However, forgery lets you do much more with details than you could ever do with Soulcasting, and there isn't a significant investiture cost.

 

It's like the difference between a jackhammer and a chisel.  The jackhammer (Soulcasting) does big drastic changes and takes a lot of energy.  The chisel (Forgery) does small finely detailed changes and takes a lot of time.

 

Personally, I would choose Forgery over Soulcasting.

[NutiketAiel]

The similarity seems pretty straightforward to me- in both cases, you are changing an object by changing how it sees itself, or working with how it sees itself.  I am reminded of two particular scenes from Emperor's Soul that make very clear the similarity between forging and Shallan's need to convince the cognitive aspects of the objects that she wants to soulcast to agree to the change.

 

First, the scene on Day 30 when Shai forges the stained glass window:

 

 

Even after all this time, the window had seen itself as something beautiful.

 

Second, the scene on Day 76 when Shai creates a mural:

 

 

"It will take," Shai said.  "If you were the wall, what would you rather be?  Dreary and dull, or alive with paint?"

 

"Walls can't think!"

 

"That doesn't stop them from caring."

[Chromium Compounder]

While I agree that the principles behind them are certainly related, I think they come at it very differently.  

 

When Shallan soulcasts the boat she has to argue with it about WHY it should change.  When she soulcasts the goblet it doesn't seem to have any emotions about its form, so it doesn't need to be convinced.  I've heard it said that the stormlight given is like a bribe.  I'm not sure if that's what it is, or if they need the stormlight to power the change.  Either way, you apparently need to convince them to change.  How much convincing is required depends on the strength of the objects identity, but I wouldn't be surprised if the stormlight required is more related to the size of the object than to the strength of its identity.  Anyway, the main point is that with soulcasting you are arguing with the object about WHY it should change.

 

Forgery on the other hand focuses on HOW you want it to change.  I think that what you're actually doing is twisting the identity of the object into a slightly different shape.  I think of identity as being like a super strong piece of silly putty.  Forgery lets you twist it, squish it, stretch it, but never cut it (that's more the realm of shardblades) or break it (that's more the realm of Soulcasting).  The object's identity can only be twisted so much before it would break.  Identity refuses to break for Forgery though, so instead any change you ask it to do will refuse to take.  

 

You could never Soulcast a beat up, splintery, old table into a well maintained ornamented masterpiece.  But you could also never Forge a goblet into blood.  The changes involved in Soulcasting are at a much more fundamental level, and any details you want to put into the result make it far more difficult.  Forgery however is all about details.  Yes, those details may seem huge, but you can't forge something into something that is fundamentally different.  

 

Soulcasting is like convincing someone to change religions, while Forgery is more like suggesting that someone try a new flavor of cereal.  Yes, they're both conversations, but that doesn't mean they're the same thing.

[NutiketAiel]

I think that Forging has the potential to turn a goblet into blood.  It seems to me that the limitation is not inherent in the power; rather, it is limited by the forger's ability to communicate with the cognitive aspect of the object being forged.  A Soulcaster enters the cognitive realm (or their mind does, at least) and communicates directly with the spren of the object.  This allows them to, for lack of a better term, apply direct persuasion.

 

The forger lacks the ability to communicate with the object's spren (I use the term "spren" for convenience, I know Sel doesn't have spren per se).  So, the forger can only change an object into something that coincides with that object's self-image.  The soulcaster can convince an object to change that self-image; the forger cannot.  I think that, if we had a forger that had the ability to enter the cognitive realm or otherwise communicate directly with an object's spren, we would see a vast difference in the options available for forging.

Edited March 19, 2014 by NutiketAiel

[Kurkistan]

Forging quite explicitly works through "changing" an object's past. At the point when we're no longer within those bounds, we're no longer talking about Forging, I don't think.

[NutiketAiel]

Forging quite explicitly works through "changing" an object's past. At the point when we're no longer within those bounds, we're no longer talking about Forging, I don't think.

 

That's a fair point, and I easily could be wrong.  My question is this, though- does Forging work by changing the object's past because that is the only way the power can express itself, or does it work that way because the Forger is incapable of communicating with the Spren of the object and convincing it to allow the power to work on it in any other way?

 

It's a question of whether the limitation is inherent to the way forging works, or a limitation based on the lack of capacity for forgers to enter Shadesmar.  I tend to think it is the latter, but the former is equally possible.  We'd never know unless we see a Forger who can also enter Shadesmar, or if we ask Brandon.

[Kurkistan]

Well now you've gone and done it... :/

I apologize for what I'm about to do to you, but I refer you to the "Forms and Forgery" link in my sig. There you will find over-detailed reasons why Forgery very likely does not really "change" anything about an object, on a fundamental level.

The short argument, though, for why Forging!=pseudo-Soulcasting: A Forged object is still of the same "type" no matter what, and it needs a continual input of magic-ness to stay Forged. Pop the stamp off and it's the original object. When magic stops being applied in Forging, the object reverts: in Soulcasting, that go let will stay blood forever.

Edited March 19, 2014 by Kurkistan