Nathrangking Posted May 22, 2020 Report Share Posted May 22, 2020 I don't often speculate on cosmeric lore but a thought came to me. We know (see WoB below) that the shattering did not have to happen in the precise way that we think of it having gone. We also know that numerology while a part of the comere and shard lore is not necessarily specific for every shard (see WoB below). While we don't know why this is the case I have a theory. Perhaps the numbers of specific shards relate to the different ways that the shattering might in theory have happened. To develop this perhaps as a result of the shattering these possible futures did not just go away. They stuck to quite possibly the shards who could have differently influenced the outcome. Spoiler Paladin Brewer Was it necessary that Adonalsium split into sixteen Shards, or was it happenstance? Brandon Sanderson I will RAFO that one. Paladin Brewer Would the number or intents have been different, if there were more or less people? Brandon Sanderson That's all wrapped up in that RAFO. Let's say it's conceivable that the split could have happened in different ways. Oathbringer Houston signing (Nov. 18, 2017) Questioner Does each Shard have a favorite, or special, number or color? Brandon Sanderson I would say that there are inclinations but it's not, perhaps, as specific as you are thinking. Bands of Mourning release party (Jan. 25, 2016) 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Honorless Posted May 22, 2020 Report Share Posted May 22, 2020 You might find these WoBs interesting: Quote James Furr If, instead of the 16, there had been 20 members at the Shattering of Adonalsium (with the same level of involvedness)...could it have Shattered into 20 pieces? Brandon Sanderson It's quite possible that a different number could have ended up working. Skyward Pre-Release AMA (Oct. 5, 2018) Quote Eric If Adonalsium Shattered with intent, would he always Shatter with the same Shards? Brandon Sanderson It is plausible that it could've gone a different way. Eric So it could've been different Shards? Brandon Sanderson Yes, that's plausible. Words of Radiance Chicago signing (March 22, 2014) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nathrangking Posted May 22, 2020 Author Report Share Posted May 22, 2020 3 minutes ago, R J said: You might find these WoBs interesting: These certainly relate to the theory. Though they don't lead one way or the other. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fezzik Posted May 22, 2020 Report Share Posted May 22, 2020 So what exactly is your theory? Why is Honor's number 10, while Odium is 9? 3 hours ago, Nathrangking said: the numbers of specific shards relate to the different ways that the shattering might in theory have happened. To develop this perhaps as a result of the shattering these possible futures did not just go away. They stuck to quite possibly the shards who could have differently influenced the outcome. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nathrangking Posted May 22, 2020 Author Report Share Posted May 22, 2020 Just now, John203 said: So what exactly is your theory? Why is Honor's number 10, while Odium is 9? It does not relate to the numbers themselves as assigned. It is more what might be up with there being numbers. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Experience Posted May 22, 2020 Report Share Posted May 22, 2020 Just now, Nathrangking said: It does not relate to the numbers themselves as assigned. It is more what might be up with there being numbers. It might have something to do with the identity of the Shards. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Honorless Posted May 23, 2020 Report Share Posted May 23, 2020 Maybe the sequence in which the Vessels picked up the Shards 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elegy Posted May 23, 2020 Report Share Posted May 23, 2020 (edited) I personally don't see reliable proof that 10 is specifically Honor's number. There are two Shards directly on Roshar, and I honestly don't see a good reason why the 10-centric nature of Roshar would be only associated with Honor and not at all with the other Shard, Cultivation, who has been consciously active for 2000 more years than Honor (due to him being Splintered). Roshar would logically have two different numbers, but it has been repeatedly stated that Roshar is explicitly 10-centric. Same for Scadrial with 16. So, I generally think that the Shards weren't assigned numbers from the beginning, but either the planets were, or the planets and Shards got numbers assigned through constant interaction. Meaning that Honor's number for example could possibly have been various things, depending on where he went. Relevant WOB: Quote Herald (paraphrased) Is there more significance to the 10 other planets around the Rosharan star system and them being gaseous? We know that Roshar's moons have unnatural orbits; so there seems to be some astronomical manipulation in the system. Brandon Sanderson (paraphrased) Yes there is significance of 16 in cosmere and 10 in Rosharan system. Herald (paraphrased) The outer 10 gas giants in the Rosharan system suggest a tie to the number 10 that predates the arrival of the current Shards. Is the prominent numerology we see around the cosmere an inherent property of the planets, rather than the Shards who invest them? Brandon Sanderson (paraphrased) Big RAFO. Herald (paraphrased) Would Ashyn/Braize share the 10-centric numerology of Roshar? Brandon Sanderson (paraphrased) Yes 10-centric is for the entire Rosharan planetary system...wait Braize is 9-centric. Arcanum Unbounded San Francisco signing (Nov. 30, 2016) He RAFOs it, but the last answer still heavily points at the planets being one/the crucial factor rather than the Shards. Edited May 23, 2020 by Elegy 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halyo_Alex Posted May 23, 2020 Report Share Posted May 23, 2020 7 hours ago, Elegy said: I personally don't see reliable proof that 10 is specifically Honor's number. There are two Shards directly on Roshar, and I honestly don't see a good reason why the 10-centric nature of Roshar would be only associated with Honor and not at all with the other Shard, Cultivation, who has been consciously active for 2000 more years than Honor (due to him being Splintered). Roshar would logically have two different numbers, but it has been repeatedly stated that Roshar is explicitly 10-centric. Same for Scadrial with 16. So, I generally think that the Shards weren't assigned numbers from the beginning, but either the planets were, or the planets and Shards got numbers assigned through constant interaction. Meaning that Honor's number for example could possibly have been various things, depending on where he went. Relevant WOB: He RAFOs it, but the last answer still heavily points at the planets being one/the crucial factor rather than the Shards. Agreed, I'm pretty sure the planet decides what sort of "magic number" there is in relation to the magic system. But Scadrial is an oddball because Preservation and Ruin created the planet themselves, from "scratch" so to speak, so they might have an influence on what "magic number" Scadrial ended up with, and so Preservation was free to make it 16 for the 16 metals... For some reason. I still think it's somehow possible to fit the Shards into a grouping similar to the allomantic metals, a 4-quadrant, "in/out", "positive/negative" arrangement of 16 units. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frustration Posted May 24, 2020 Report Share Posted May 24, 2020 On 5/23/2020 at 2:13 PM, Halyo_Alex said: I still think it's somehow possible to fit the Shards into a grouping similar to the allomantic metals, a 4-quadrant, "in/out", "positive/negative" arrangement of 16 units. Oh, please put that together I think you might be on to something. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halyo_Alex Posted May 24, 2020 Report Share Posted May 24, 2020 23 minutes ago, Frustration said: Oh, please put that together I think you might be on to something. It's actually a fairly old idea, and not mine originally. Currently, Ixthos' chart is my preferred arrangement (and even predicts the remaining unnamed Intents). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frustration Posted May 24, 2020 Report Share Posted May 24, 2020 7 minutes ago, Halyo_Alex said: It's actually a fairly old idea, and not mine originally. Currently, Ixthos' chart is my preferred arrangement (and even predicts the remaining unnamed Intents). Could you link me to that, or show me where to find it? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halyo_Alex Posted May 25, 2020 Report Share Posted May 25, 2020 20 hours ago, Frustration said: Could you link me to that, or show me where to find it? Sure, I'll send you a PM with a link in a sec. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.