Jump to content

"so few of the Shards" or what


Ripheus23

Recommended Posts

One of those OB letters seems to imply that most Shards settled at least in pairs, contrary to some original agreement (which I now suspect was not the agreement it was made to sound like). That means most of the remaining mystery Shards are probably paired up, or even grouped up. What if there is a world with a Council of Shards?

Honor, Cultivation, Ruin, Preservation, Devotion, Dominion, [Endowment, Odium, Ambition, Autonomy]... So, 6/10 in pairs. If all the remaining 6 were individual, then the loners would be 10, which would make the "so few" qualifier (quantifier, Kristian!!!) false. The minimum we have to take from the remaining 6, to keep the "so few" remark true, is, hmm... 9/16 is the absolute minimum overall required, but then why the "so" in "so few"? But, we need at least 3 more paired Shards, but that would be contradictory. So, at least four of the remaining Shards must be grouped together? EDIT: or the three are on one planet, or what.

Edited by Ripheus23
Link to comment
Share on other sites

She uses the expression "interfer with each", not "settle together". It doesn't necessarily mean that the Shards settled on the same world, just that they still interacted, in opposition to their pact. Actually, the three dishardic worlds we know are presumably the only ones; Khriss stated that they are unusual, but if there was even one more world with two Shards, half of the Shards would have settled on dishardic worlds, and mulitiple Shards settling on the same world wouldn't be really unusual if half of them did it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Elegy said:

She uses the expression "interfer with each", not "settle together". It doesn't necessarily mean that the Shards settled on the same world, just that they still interacted, in opposition to their pact. Actually, the three dishardic worlds we know are presumably the only ones; Khriss stated that they are unusual, but if there was even one more world with two Shards, half of the Shards would have settled on dishardic worlds, and mulitiple Shards settling on the same world wouldn't be really unusual if half of them did it.

This implies that at least 6 more shardworlds exist(that we don't know about).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Karger said:

This implies that at least 6 more shardworlds exist(that we don't know about).

Not necessarily. As far as we know, Ambition for instance never settled on a shardworld, so there might be similar cases of Shards splintered before they Invested. It's also confirmed that one of the Shards we don't know floats around without a planet (can't find the WOB right now, only the ones that reference it).

There are 10 major shardworlds (at least that's what Brandon said ages ago) and we know 6, maybe 5 if Braize doesn't count (but it should) ... I think it adds up quite nicely. I'm just wondering where he's going to find the place to discuss all of the Shards in-depth. I fear that he won't be able to in a lot of cases, except for general classifications in Dragonsteel and possibly a Cosmere encyclopedia.

Edited by Elegy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Elegy said:

Not necessarily. As far as we know, Ambition for instance never settled on a shardworld, so there might be similar cases of Shards splintered before they Invested. It's also confirmed that one of the Shards we don't know floats around without a planet (can't find the WOB right now, only the ones that reference it).

But what about Bradvin's thing?  "She" probably maintains more shardworlds then just the two we know about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Karger said:

But what about Bradvin's thing?  "She" probably maintains more shardworlds then just the two we know about.

Yes, but First of the Sun counts as a minor shardworld (akin to Ashyn and Threnody), so those wouldn't be among the 10. Major shardworlds are only those with a full Shard. As for minor shardworlds, yeah, I could definitely imagine there's like a dozen of those left!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, John203 said:

Why does "so few" have to mean less than half? Edgli sounds like exactly the type of jackwagon who would say: "I can't believe I scored so low on this test!" (93%) 

I didn't write that.

What I wrote about "less than a half" refered to Khriss' statement, not to Edgli's.

Edited by Elegy
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...