Jump to content

General info on shards


FirstSelector

Recommended Posts

I've been doing quite a bit of cleanup on the wiki, mostly to flesh our articles that are not nearly complete enough. One thing in particular is that I want to make the wiki a source for everything Shards, and to that end I have a few questions.

First, are we sure that Leras, Ati, Tanavast, Skai, Aona, Rayse, and Bavadin were the original holders of their respective Shards? Since we distinguish between the Shardholder and the Shard, I figured that each of those people should get a page independent of their Shard. I will also create a category for Shardholders.

Second, what should we call the Shards that we don't know their proper name? I propose, for the wiki, to use "Aona's Shard", etc. While I know Brandon doesn't see the difference, I want to make it clear on the wiki that we know of Shards if not by name. I realize it may be a bit of work to move the page later, but I think it is worth it in the name of a concise wiki.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First, are we sure that Leras, Ati, Tanavast, Skai, Aona, Rayse, and Bavadin were the original holders of their respective Shards? Since we distinguish between the Shardholder and the Shard, I figured that each of those people should get a page independent of their Shard. I will also create a category for Shardholders.

Second, what should we call the Shards that we don't know their proper name? I propose, for the wiki, to use "Aona's Shard", etc. While I know Brandon doesn't see the difference, I want to make it clear on the wiki that we know of Shards if not by name. I realize it may be a bit of work to move the page later, but I think it is worth it in the name of a concise wiki.

Er, "original" holders of their respective Shards is a difficult thing to exactly pinpoint, because we don't know the circumstances Adonalsium Shattered. But for all practical purposes, yes, those are the names of their Shardholders. Those are the people typically associated with Ruin, Preservation, Honor, etc. Bavadin is indeed a Shardholder, but we don't know what Shards he holds.

When Joe gets on I'll let him know what you're doing with categorization. I don't have a problem with it, per se, but he has strong opinions on how he categorizes stuff. He's our caretaker, but he doesn't much like making content. I do very much like the content you've been putting out. I don't know if he had strong opinions on giving articles to Shards which cover the Shardholders as well. Granted, we don't really know much about the Shardholders themselves, so I can see an argument for just referring to Shards directly, kind of like how that list goes on the Cosmere template that you see at the bottom of a lot of those articles. Those Shardholder articles could be almost uselessly short. So I don't know yet. Carry on until we figure something out (always a good policy to have).

As for "Aona's Shard", I think that's a pretty safe choice.

We'll see what our main wikiers (the Worldbringers) say ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...but he has strong opinions on how he categorizes stuff.

I will admit, I was a bit silly to just rush into reorganizing things without asking first. So, my apologies to anyone whose toes I have stepped on!

My reasoning for setting up individual pages for the (especially original) Shardholders was that we know some things about them that doesn't pertain to their power. For example, the characterizations of Ati or Rayse, or Sazed's entire life up until he took up his Shards. Furthermore, they have histories independent of their power, even if we don't know them yet. This way, if we ever learn more about them as individuals we can keep that separate. You are right, though - those entries will be very short until we learn more about the individuals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will admit, I was a bit silly to just rush into reorganizing things without asking first. So, my apologies to anyone whose toes I have stepped on!

My reasoning for setting up individual pages for the (especially original) Shardholders was that we know some things about them that doesn't pertain to their power. For example, the characterizations of Ati or Rayse, or Sazed's entire life up until he took up his Shards. Furthermore, they have histories independent of their power, even if we don't know them yet. This way, if we ever learn more about them as individuals we can keep that separate. You are right, though - those entries will be very short until we learn more about the individuals.

Don't worry about it! That's part of the wiki fun--it should be spontaneous. ;)

I think you make a good argument for your case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

hah, I forgive you for doing any categorization, since you went ahead and filled in the Metal's pages, a job that definitely needed doing :D

I'd advise against the use of the word Shardholder, since Brandon doesn't like it ;)

.... owait, you reinstated the Shardholder category *tears out hair* :P and please, dont remove interesting titbits like the appearances of shard's, especially when they've been referenced. Or indeed remove anything that has a reference that is seemingly interesting. I dont mind you moving them about, or rewording things, but dont delete things cause they dont fit with your structure...

anyways, best be off to workski! *hops*

Link to comment
Share on other sites

and please, dont remove interesting titbits like the appearances of shard's, especially when they've been referenced.

Fear not! One of my reasons for moving Leras (and the other original holders of the Shards) to their own page is so that these tidbits have a home. I did fix the references, though, you are certainly right there.

My only real concern is how to reference Brandon's statements about the cosmere. While the Brandonology page is nice for quotes, it doesn't say where and when the questions were asked. I don't remember if the Google doc does (I can't remember how to find it), but it would be nice to be able to reference "Interview with B.S., 30 Feb 2011" or something.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, I know Brandon doesn't like the term Shardholder, but he implied that the person becomes the Shard itself. That's fine for him, but we need a term to refer to the person, and Shardholder is 17th Shard standard. We'll change it if Brandon gives us a canonical term that does the same thing.

That Brandonothology page desperately needs formatting. Sorry about that. For the purposes of citations, I want to split up each specific Q&A in there to their separate pages.

The organized Brandonothology is: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ipqNXbkWKALSs8-O5m2XRLW5gxPDKFaI72l9imF-DWs/edit?hl=en_US

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey, sorry, I've been out. Welcome to the wiki, FirstSelector! You've been doing wonderful, wonderful things with the projects you listed on your user page. Yeah, my life is a little crazy right now (but in a good way :lol: ) but I do need to format the Brandonothology page:

That Brandonothology page desperately needs formatting. Sorry about that. For the purposes of citations, I want to split up each specific Q&A in there to their separate pages.

...and also I'm working on chapter summaries for Warbreaker and Way of Kings, as well as trying to flesh out the basic information in the Way of KIngs pages. So if you ever run out of projects (ha!) I'd be glad to point out a few dozen more. Anyhow. Thanks for all your edits, FirstSelector!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, I know Brandon doesn't like the term Shardholder, but he implied that the person becomes the Shard itself. That's fine for him, but we need a term to refer to the person, and Shardholder is 17th Shard standard. We'll change it if Brandon gives us a canonical term that does the same thing.

That Brandonothology page desperately needs formatting. Sorry about that. For the purposes of citations, I want to split up each specific Q&A in there to their separate pages.

The organized Brandonothology is: https://docs.google....s/edit?hl=en_US

it also makes it confusing with the official shardbearer from TWoK :P

I always wondered if we should try to come up with a term he likes. Like.....i dunno... Shard heir, or Adonalsium recipient or something. but the above mentioned issue is my only real beef with shardholder. Its way too similar to shardbearer

Link to comment
Share on other sites

it also makes it confusing with the official shardbearer from TWoK :P

I always wondered if we should try to come up with a term he likes. Like.....i dunno... Shard heir, or Adonalsium recipient or something. but the above mentioned issue is my only real beef with shardholder. Its way too similar to shardbearer

Hey, you come up with something that doesn't sound totally ridiculous, I could be persuaded :P Shardholder also has a nice symmetry to Shardbearer, which is a good thing. This is an improvement over people referring to Shardholders as Shardbearers themselves, before we switched terms.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey, you come up with something that doesn't sound totally ridiculous, I could be persuaded :P Shardholder also has a nice symmetry to Shardbearer, which is a good thing. This is an improvement over people referring to Shardholders as Shardbearers themselves, before we switched terms.

Yeah, i know, those two are terrible :P

Like i said, i just don't like how closely related they are in terminology. Too easy to cause confusion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How about if we call the Shard it self "Shard-Piece", and we call the holder "Shard-Mind"

Hyphens are not preferable, and Shard is far too canonical for us to refer as something different.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hyphens are not preferable, and Shard is far too canonical for us to refer as something different.

How to win at coming up with new names for shardholders:

Go to thesaurus.com and look up both Shard and Holder. Choose two random synonyms.

Therefore, it is my entry for the new name of shardholders to be "Butt squires" :P

Though, couldnt ShardMind without the hyphen work? After all, grammatically, shouldn't shardholder be either spaced or hyphened anyways?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't like ShardMind or Shardmind for two reasons. One: Halo. Graveminds. Enough said.

Secondly, from a Realmatic perspective it is more than simply a mind. Clearly, since when Preservation died, you saw the Shardholder's body fall. Shardmind implies it's just the Cognitive aspect, which is not true.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Secondly, from a Realmatic perspective it is more than simply a mind. Clearly, since when Preservation died, you saw the Shardholder's body fall. Shardmind implies it's just the Cognitive aspect, which is not true.

I don't know, technically when they shardholder IS the shardholder, they dont seem to have any body that i'm aware of. It was once the shard was taken from him that he reverted to a physical form. So from my perspective, they seem to lose their corporeal body during the period in which they possess the shard, which i would think would indicate that it is more of a cognitive thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know, technically when they shardholder IS the shardholder, they dont seem to have any body that i'm aware of. It was once the shard was taken from him that he reverted to a physical form. So from my perspective, they seem to lose their corporeal body during the period in which they possess the shard, which i would think would indicate that it is more of a cognitive thing.

Their body is still theirs, however. Linked to that entity--the entity of the Shardholder in some way. Considering we are talking about Ati, Leras, etc., and some of our biggest evidence that a human (of whatever variant) holds a Shard comes from that body, it seems premature to call Leras a Shardmind. It does not fit for the usage we require in theories.

Really, Shardholder is a very natural term to use, and it's naturalness and ease of use makes it a favorable term, regardless of any potential confusion. I haven't seen anyone on the boards get Shardholder and Shardbearer confused. I do want to get a 17S terms guide up so new members can know what terms mean what. (Another term we use is that 17th Shard refers to this site. Seventeenth Shard refers to the in-world organization)

EDIT: A possible, more general term for Shardholder could incorporate the fact that Shards can be bound to an object, which Josh said is the case.

Edited by Chaos
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But the body is not required, remember Kelsier held Preservation in the time between Leras and Vin, Kelsier didn't have a body at that moment and if I could remember what chapter it preservation dies I'm 99.9% sure it says he was able to do so because he had chosen to not pass on to the Spiritual realm, therefore it was only the COGNITIVE aspect of him controlling the Shard.

Also I have confused Shardholder and Shardbearer on several occasions but that's just me

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But the body is not required, remember Kelsier held Preservation in the time between Leras and Vin, Kelsier didn't have a body at that moment and if I could remember what chapter it preservation dies I'm 99.9% sure it says he was able to do so because he had chosen to not pass on to the Spiritual realm, therefore it was only the COGNITIVE aspect of him controlling the Shard.

You're kind of splitting hairs. Kelsier's Spiritual component was obviously a part of that interaction as well. We don't really know the precise Realmatics of how a Shard's bond works, so Shardmind is very premature. There is more than just a mind at work.

But that's beside the point. I don't care about that much. The term is imprecise and it sounds nasty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

but so does Shardholder

No it doesn't :P

Doesn't matter. Different people have different aesthetic tastes. However, Shardholder is exactly descriptive of what it means. It's precise, where Shardmind isn't.

For example, consider the main instance we have mentioning people, rather than the Shards themselves. This is what the letter says about Rayse:

He holds the most frightening and terrible of all the Shards.

Seems like Shardholder is the natural term to extrapolate from that line. Just saying.

Edited by Chaos
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The term Shardholder has the most common use on our site, and in addition, Shardmind is also a D&D term, so that would get more confusing. Until Brandon gives us a canon term for the person/object who holds or is bound to a Shard, the wiki will use the term Shardholder.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

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