DoctaDajman Posted March 12, 2025 Posted March 12, 2025 If it takes 10 heartbeats to summon a shardblade, how would that work for a circulatory system that may not run off of a typical heart as a pump? For instance I imagine a kandra could either exist without the need for a heart at all or even grow 10 hearts and have them each work in tandem to pump blood around various areas of the body. For another example, they are working on an artificial heart that works with magnets and spins continuously, producing no true pulse. How would summoning the shardblade work for these people? Is the 10 heartbeat rule something that simply exists because that is what they have chosen via cognitive powers of suggestion and assumption over generations and generations? Is something else happening behind the scenes that could trigger the shardblade to move into the physical faster than those 10 beats? Would 10 hearts beating simultaneously fulfill the requirement?
Treamayne Posted March 12, 2025 Posted March 12, 2025 (edited) 16 hours ago, DoctaDajman said: If it takes 10 heartbeats to summon a shardblade, how would that work for a circulatory system that may not run off of a typical heart as a pump? <snip> Would 10 hearts beating simultaneously fulfill the requirement? For a deadeye blade, the "10 heartbeats" is a manifestation of Connection and, as we see with Adolin in Oathbringer, is not an immutable factor. Realmatically, what we beleive is happening (pieced from clues, but not yet described in detail in the books) is that the Bonding Gem is forging a Connection between the Shardbearer and the Shardblade (WoR) - which is why summoning and dismissing the sword still works when the bonding gem is Dun (can't be Dun during bonding). Once the Connection is established, the 10 heartbeats is a manifestation of perception[1] for the Shardbearer sharing themeselves with the Spren to pull them through and manifest as a Blade. Likewise, with a stonger Connection, Adolin summons Maya during the Battle of Thaylen Field in only seven heartbeats. I would guess that if a "heartbeat" wasn't a viable factor for the Shardbearer[2], then some other perceived "symbol of life" would become the primary driving force to estimate the time it takes for the Deadeye to transition realms into the Physical and manifest as a Blade. Hope that helps [1] - Like in WoK, Szeth would not have needed 10 heartbeats for the Honorblade, but he did because he believed he did. [2] - Dysian Aimians have been Radiant and wielded deadeye blades - with hundreds (or more) gemhearts amongst the hive it is likely some other factor is primary. Edited March 13, 2025 by Treamayne SPAG 1
DoctaDajman Posted March 13, 2025 Author Posted March 13, 2025 15 hours ago, Treamayne said: For a deadeye blade, the "10 heartbeats" is a manifestation of Connection and, as we see with Adolin in Oathbringer, is not an immutable factor. Realmatically, what we beleive is happening (pieced from clues, but not yet described in detail in the books) is that the Bonding Gem is forging a Connection between the Shardbearer and the Shardblade (WoR) - which is why summoning and dismissing the sword still works when the bonding gem is Dun (can't be Dun during bonding). Once the Connection is established, the 10 heartbeats is a manifestation of perception[1] for the Shardbearer sharing themeselves with the Spren to pull them through and manifest as a Blade. Likewise, with a stonger Connection, Adolin summons Maya during the Battle of Thaylen Field in only seven heartbeats. I would guess that if a "heartbeat" wasn't a viable factor for the Shardbearer[2], then some other perceived "symbol of life" would become the primary driving force to estimate the time it takes for the Deadeye to transition realms into the Physical and manifest as a Blade. Hope that helps [1] - Like in WoK, Szeth would not have needed 10 heartbeats for the Honorblade, but he did because he believed he did. [2] - Dysian Aimians have been Radiant and wielded deadeye blades - with hundreds (or more) gemhearts amongst the hive it is likely some other factor is primary. So is the bond to the gemstone more than the dead eye itself?
Treamayne Posted March 13, 2025 Posted March 13, 2025 8 minutes ago, DoctaDajman said: So is the bond to the gemstone more than the dead eye itself? The Gemstone is what facilitates a bond between the Shardbearer and the Deadeye. WoR Ch 67: Spoiler “We made a breakthrough in the design of new Shardblades the other day.” “What, really?” he asked. “What happened? How soon will you have one ready?” She smiled, arm around his. “What?” “Just seeing if you are still you,” she said. “Our breakthrough was realizing that the gemstones in the Blades—used to bond them—might not have originally been part of the weapons.” He frowned. “That’s important?” “Yes. If this is true, it means the Blades aren’t powered by the stones. Credit goes to Rushu, who asked why a Shardblade can be summoned and dismissed even if its gemstone has gone dun. We had no answers, and she spent the last few weeks in contact with Kharbranth, using one of those new information stations. She came up with a scrap from several decades after the Recreance which talks about men learning to summon and dismiss Blades by adding gemstones to them, an accident of ornamentation it seems.” <snip> “Not if this fragment is correct. The implication is that the Radiants could always dismiss and summon Blades—but for a time the ability was lost. It was only recovered when someone added a gemstone to his Blade. The fragment says the weapons actually shifted shape to adopt the stones, but I’m not certain if I trust that. “Either way, after the Radiants fell but before men learned to put gemstones into their Blades and bond them, the weapons were apparently still supernaturally sharp and light, though bonding was impossible. This would explain several other fragments of records I’ve read and found confusing. . . .” It's also why the mechanic from WoK Prime is no longer Canon (in Prime, you could steal a Shardblade by breaking the attached Polestone and adding your own instead). WoBs: Spoiler Quote Adontis I've always wondered, how do you determine where the line between "Word of Brandon" and "Read and Find Out" is? Has it ever caused issues where you've said something, but later that thing changed when it went into a book making your first statement now false? Thanks so much for writing as much as you do, I'm looking forward to all your upcoming books, keep up the great work! Brandon Sanderson Boy, this one is an art, not a science. I've several times said something that I later decided to change in a book. I've always got this idea in the back of my head that the books are canon, and things I say at signing aren't 100% canon. This is part because of a habit I have of falling back on things I decided years ago, then revised in notes after I realized they didn't work. My off-the-cuff instinct is still to go with what I had in my head for years, even when it's no longer canon. An example of this are Shardblades. In the first draft of TWoK in 2002, I had the mechanics of the weapons work in a specific way. (If you wanted to steal one from someone, you knock off the bonding gemstone, and it breaks the bond.) I later decided it was more dramatic if you couldn't steal a Shardblade that way--you had to kill the person or force them to relinquish the bond. It worked far better. But in Oathbringer, Peter had to remind me of that change, as I just kind of nonchalantly wrote into a scene a comment about knocking off a gemstone to steal a Shardblade. These things leak back in, as you might expect for a series I've been working on for some twenty years now--with lore being revised all along. So...short answer...yes, I've contradicted myself a number of times. I try very, very hard to let the books be the canon however. So you can default to them. As for what I answer and what I RAFO...it depends on how much I want to reveal at the moment, if I'm trying to preserve specific surprises, or if I just want people to focus on other things at the moment. Like I said, art and not science. damenleeturks In WoR, Navani muses to Dalinar about how the gemstones in the Blades could be the focus that allows the bond with the Blade to exist. If this theory is correct, it would follow that someone could damage that gemstone and thus be able to steal the Blade with it then having no intact bonding mechanism, right? I guess I'm having trouble seeing how the example you describe isn't possible. Peter Ahlstrom The gemstone is needed to create the bond and operate the bond's functions. If you remove the gemstone, the person the sword is bonded to can't summon it or dismiss it to mist. But neither can anyone else. If they eventually pop another gemstone in and try to bond it themselves, they will fail, and the original person can then resummon their Blade. The bond is with the dead spren of the Blade, not with the gemstone. The stone facilitates the bond. So, you can haul around a de-gemstoned Blade with you all the time and successfully steal it that way. But this makes it very easy to steal back. You'd have to kill the holder of the bond in order to rebond it. Which is no different from usual. And in general, if you can get close enough to a Shardbearer to steal their Blade, you are also close enough to kill them anyway. Phantine So that scene where Dalinar crushes the gemstone and hands the Shardblade over, he's also doing some sort of mystical de-bonding? Or is it just 'if you WANT to give it up, you gave it up'? Peter Ahlstrom Yes, if you want to give it up, you gave it up. Phantine If nobody is currently bonded to it, does the attuning still take a week? Otherwise it seems weird people would figure out putting a gemstone in hilt lets you summon it, since nothing would happen without a week of bonding time. ricree Not that weird. One of the books (WoK, I think) mentions that many years passed before the gemstone bonding was discovered. Shardblades were still really valuable, though, and even more vulnerable to theft, so it makes sense that people would have kept them close at hand long enough for the bonding process. Other than that, all you need is someone to accidentally decorate the blade correctly, which is something that took a long time to happen, but was probably bound to happen eventually considering how key infused gemstones are to the world. Peter Ahlstrom Well said. /r/fantasy AMA 2017 (Feb. 10, 2017) Quote Questioner So, the fan page wanted to know. Would it be possible for Hemalurgy to steal a living Shardblade? That was the top voted question. Brandon Sanderson Ok, so you're bonded to a Shardblade. You get spiked, then they spike off the bond so that the Shardblade is bonded to someone else. Questioner I assume so... Brandon Sanderson But can they do it with a living Shardblade? You can definitely do it with a dead Shardblade because its just stealing the Connection. With a living Shardblade, yes you could do that 'though the spren could break the bond at will. White Sand vol.1 Orem signing (June 29, 2016) Hope that helps 1
DoctaDajman Posted March 13, 2025 Author Posted March 13, 2025 24 minutes ago, Treamayne said: The Gemstone is what facilitates a bond between the Shardbearer and the Deadeye. WoR Ch 67: Hide contents “We made a breakthrough in the design of new Shardblades the other day.” “What, really?” he asked. “What happened? How soon will you have one ready?” She smiled, arm around his. “What?” “Just seeing if you are still you,” she said. “Our breakthrough was realizing that the gemstones in the Blades—used to bond them—might not have originally been part of the weapons.” He frowned. “That’s important?” “Yes. If this is true, it means the Blades aren’t powered by the stones. Credit goes to Rushu, who asked why a Shardblade can be summoned and dismissed even if its gemstone has gone dun. We had no answers, and she spent the last few weeks in contact with Kharbranth, using one of those new information stations. She came up with a scrap from several decades after the Recreance which talks about men learning to summon and dismiss Blades by adding gemstones to them, an accident of ornamentation it seems.” <snip> “Not if this fragment is correct. The implication is that the Radiants could always dismiss and summon Blades—but for a time the ability was lost. It was only recovered when someone added a gemstone to his Blade. The fragment says the weapons actually shifted shape to adopt the stones, but I’m not certain if I trust that. “Either way, after the Radiants fell but before men learned to put gemstones into their Blades and bond them, the weapons were apparently still supernaturally sharp and light, though bonding was impossible. This would explain several other fragments of records I’ve read and found confusing. . . .” It's also why the mechanic from WoK Prime is no longer Canon (in Prime, you could steal a Shardblade by breaking the attached Polestone and adding your own instead). WoBs: Hide contents Hope that helps It does. Thanks. Seems like so very much of the cosmere is simply limited by what people expect and know already... although I guess that is the same with us... what we could have that we simply don't know about until the day we do right? 1
Treamayne Posted March 13, 2025 Posted March 13, 2025 3 minutes ago, DoctaDajman said: It does. Thanks. Seems like so very much of the cosmere is simply limited by what people expect and know already... although I guess that is the same with us... what we could have that we simply don't know about until the day we do right? Much of it is also crafted by Brandon this way on purpose. The average reader doesn't need to know the mechanics of Shardblade bonding to enjoy the story - but the mechanics are deep enough for the people interested to learn, if they are so inclined.
Recommended Posts