Ragsiez Posted January 10, 2015 Posted January 10, 2015 (edited) SPOILER: (I dunno how spoilers work so here's for good measure. TURN AWAY: GO AWAY: YOUR LAST WARNING: A red glowing person with angel wings... A person who can gift powers. Though he is Calamity, a disastrous event. Hmmm, wouldn't he be 'GOD'? If he knows every single fear to all epics... Edited January 10, 2015 by Ragsiez
Edgedancer he/him Posted January 10, 2015 Posted January 10, 2015 A red angel. A person who can gift powers. Though he is Calamity, a disastrous event. Hmmm, wouldn't he be 'GOD'? If he knows every single fear to all epics... Dude, spoiler and /spoiler in brackets please. [ ]
Ragsiez Posted January 10, 2015 Posted January 10, 2015 Dude, spoiler and /spoiler in brackets please. [ ] Sorry. Um, like how do you write it down. Is there a specific way to do it, or...just [ blah ]
Edgedancer he/him Posted January 10, 2015 Posted January 10, 2015 (edited) Sorry. Um, like how do you write it down. Is there a specific way to do it, or...just [ blah ] You can see the proper formating when quoting a post with a spoiler tag. just put the brackets at the beginning and ending of your post. Edited January 10, 2015 by Edgedancer
TwiLyghtSansSparkles she/her Posted January 10, 2015 Posted January 10, 2015 I doubt Calamity is God. A godlike being, certainly, but not any deity currently recognized by a world religion. Sanderson tends to keep that sort of theology out of his books. Hinting, implying, prodding for questions—that's more his style. Making the most-likely-malevolent being turning people into killing machines the deity of both Christianity and Judaism? That doesn't seem like his style.
Edgedancer he/him Posted January 10, 2015 Posted January 10, 2015 I doubt Calamity is God. A godlike being, certainly, but not any deity currently recognized by a world religion. Sanderson tends to keep that sort of theology out of his books. Hinting, implying, prodding for questions—that's more his style. Making the most-likely-malevolent being turning people into killing machines the deity of both Christianity and Judaism? That doesn't seem like his style. Regalia was a priest and Obliteration is nuts, so I wouldn´t take their word on it, even if Regalia probably is one of if not the person with the most knowledge about Calamity.
Nahlion Dahlyr he/him Posted January 11, 2015 Posted January 11, 2015 Hmm, Calamity. I think (if The Reckoners turn out to be in the cosmere) that it would be the result of someone collecting Odium and Endowment and putting them together, but maybe not Odium...? I think we just don't know enough about Odiums exact intent.... I.E. what does he hate? Everything? People? Life? We have very little idea.
Ragsiez Posted January 11, 2015 Posted January 11, 2015 In Mistborn, there's fake religions. Why is this book any different?
Ragsiez Posted January 11, 2015 Posted January 11, 2015 Brandon Sanderson's job is not excluding religion. He will write it believably. If all of the people found out that he was an epic...people would either turn in to fear or get angry. Some, that admires Epics, would worship him. That is what would happen and Brandon clearly knows this.
RawToast225 he/him Posted January 11, 2015 Posted January 11, 2015 Some Epics demand that the people worship them.
ChocolateRob he/him Posted January 11, 2015 Posted January 11, 2015 Hmm, Calamity. I think (if The Reckoners turn out to be in the cosmere) that it would be the result of someone collecting Odium and Endowment and putting them together, but maybe not Odium...? I think we just don't know enough about Odiums exact intent.... I.E. what does he hate? Everything? People? Life? We have very little idea. There is one major difference between Calamity and Cosmere Shards. The powers granted by Calamity are repeatedly mentioned by David as having no relation to normal physics whatsoever but all the magic systems in the Cosmere are all defined by clearly understood rules and limitations (even when they've not all been figured out yet). If Calamity were a Shard I think he/she/it would be far more powerful than any other.
Sand Master Posted July 20, 2015 Posted July 20, 2015 What I would like to know is the origin of Calamity. IIRC, someone, at some point, mentioned that people thought it was an experiment by government scientists gone wrong? There were other proposed theories as well, but this one stuck with me. It fits with Prof being a science teacher (even if it was only for fifth graders) and Tia working for NASA. I think they both know more about what Calamity is and where it/he/she came from than they're letting on. Aside from where Calamity came from, David speculates that perhaps what Calamity is is an Epic, the first Epic, who just gifted random powers to the people that he wanted to turn into Epics. This seems to make the most sense to me. An existing religious figure, as Regalia seems to view Calamity, doesn't seem to be Sanderson's style and wouldn't be very appealing to me as a reader. And some kind of unknown god doesn't seem to fit either. An all-powerful Epic seems to be the most likely to me. Unless.... Guys..... What if Calamity is.... SUPERMAN!?
TwiLyghtSansSparkles she/her Posted August 3, 2015 Posted August 3, 2015 Calamity is a stick. jW Which is why he can't be bought or sold, bargained or reasoned with. Because some men aren't men at all. Some men are Stick. 2
Evil_Reptile Posted August 19, 2015 Posted August 19, 2015 Calamity is a stick. jW Well, comets are Stick-shaped, and... Guys, we've got it! 1
Hovand Posted November 28, 2015 Posted November 28, 2015 (edited) What if the Calamity in the sky is from an alternate reality, like Firefight? It could be just a well done fabrication, a separate being pulled in by the origin of Epic powers it/his/herself to give people a misleading belief on the origin of Epics. Why would this be necessary? Who knows. Edited November 28, 2015 by Hovand 1
cToastER Posted June 7, 2017 Posted June 7, 2017 My answer: At many times in the story, calamity is referred to as the destroying angel. My theory is Brandon left this as a hint that God was challenged by an angel that if humans were given power, they would be corrupted. God let him do his work but the angel having free will cheated in some of the realities and stayed away in others. Calamity refers to a higher power several times. Anyone else agree?
Jondesu he/him Posted June 7, 2017 Posted June 7, 2017 18 hours ago, cToastER said: My answer: At many times in the story, calamity is referred to as the destroying angel. My theory is Brandon left this as a hint that God was challenged by an angel that if humans were given power, they would be corrupted. God let him do his work but the angel having free will cheated in some of the realities and stayed away in others. Calamity refers to a higher power several times. Anyone else agree? Heads up, you replied to a thread that's from 2015, which is generally frowned on. Just something to keep an eye out for in the future. I'm pretty sure Brandon would have intentionally avoided such religious subtext, since he's been very consciences about that in other books. Perhaps you could interpret it along those lines, but I would be fairly certain Brandon didn't write Calamity to be an angel.
Ammanas Posted June 7, 2017 Posted June 7, 2017 12 minutes ago, Jondesu said: Heads up, you replied to a thread that's from 2015, which is generally frowned on. Just something to keep an eye out for in the future. I've never understood this...perhaps you could explain this to me. It makes more sense to just resurrect a old thread that talks about the same ideas rather than to create a new one. Over at westeros they get mad at you for creating a new thread when a existing one is in place.
Yitzi2 Posted June 7, 2017 Posted June 7, 2017 Calamity is a being sent into the universe (the physical realm in Realmatic terms, to the extent that applies to a non-Cosmere setting) in order to test people by giving them powers. Where it was sent from, who sent it, and what its natural state is...we can't really know, though the Apocalypse Guard series might give more information.
Jondesu he/him Posted June 7, 2017 Posted June 7, 2017 2 hours ago, Ammanas said: I've never understood this...perhaps you could explain this to me. It makes more sense to just resurrect a old thread that talks about the same ideas rather than to create a new one. Over at westeros they get mad at you for creating a new thread when a existing one is in place. I'm not the one to explain it. I just had it explained to me when I joined after making a similar mistake, and they said if it's over 6 months old, unless you're adding to an existing theory with new info, you should make a new thread. It's in the site rules I believe.
Ammanas Posted June 8, 2017 Posted June 8, 2017 12 minutes ago, Jondesu said: I'm not the one to explain it. I just had it explained to me when I joined after making a similar mistake, and they said if it's over 6 months old, unless you're adding to an existing theory with new info, you should make a new thread. It's in the site rules I believe. Huh...If its site rules than I will try to follow it in the future. Thanks for getting back to me.
TheKittyOfAtlantis Posted June 8, 2017 Posted June 8, 2017 Site etiquette on reviving dead threads: Quote On that same note, don't bring back topics that have been dead forever. This is called thread necromancy (or simply "necroing"). If after a long time you post something new in a topic--one whose discussion has long since ended--that would be thread necroing. We're going to be more lenient about this on the Brandon Sanderson forums, because if you have something to add in the "Mistborn Movie Casting" topic and there hasn't been a post there in a great while, why shouldn't you? You're adding something to the discussion, that's fantastic! A lot of the Books forums will have theory threads, and if you have something to add to them which just perfectly fits the topic, better to revive a dead thread, right?Thread necroing is only bad in a case like this: let's say Mi'chelle and Josh post in General Discussion saying "We're married!" in a few months. Members will congratulate them, but what you don't want to do is post three months later a congratulation. The sentiment's nice, but at the same time, the news is outdated. Your post is itself outdated, which means it didn't really need to be said. It was superfluous and there was no need for you to post it. Does that make sense? That's why most forums hate thread necromancy, because it's superfluous posting. Essentially, spamming.
Chaos he/him Posted June 10, 2017 Posted June 10, 2017 In this situation topic necro is fine, I should think? It was clearly relevant to the topic at hand. I think the thing KittyofAtlantis linked absolutely indicates this is okay here. Totally okay in my book. 2
Jondesu he/him Posted June 11, 2017 Posted June 11, 2017 3 hours ago, Chaos said: In this situation topic necro is fine, I should think? It was clearly relevant to the topic at hand. I think the thing KittyofAtlantis linked absolutely indicates this is okay here. Totally okay in my book. Adolnasium has spoken. Glad to hear it! I shall keep that in mind.
Recommended Posts