Chaos

You're right, I did forget about Body Focuses. Probably because I was really tired. I don't really have anything to say regarding that, except that "Soul" is vague.

CraftyGames is making a Mistborn Tabletop game. Sometime. And yes, if you really like combat systems, Mistborn: The Inquisition is not for you. Sorry.

((Note: You guys have been talking since Silus made his first post. Sorry, but my post blathers a lot of the same stuff you’ve mentioned about Variation. I also extensively discuss the thought-focus thing. Sorry. I do eventually discuss the focus criteria you made, Mad_Scientist! Really!)) Exclusivity it is. That sounds better anyways. Before I discuss your criteria for focuses (which I think are interesting), I'm going to say that thought is a very bad focus for a magic system, Surgebinding or not. Any magic system is going to take some Cognitive element to use. Let's take iron, for example. You have to "think" and choose which lines to utilize. However, that doesn't make thought the focus. You always have to choose to burn the metal. That does not make the choice to burn the magic's focus. Let's say, for example, that you had a constant stream of metal. There would be that ability--that potential--to use magic, and your thought is the thing that actually activates it. What I suggest is that spren are like a reservoir of metal that is always on. They provide the ability, just like a metal would. Only with spren, you don't "use up" that focus. And that's perfectly fine. Magic systems don't need to use up a focus. Metalminds always stay the same, after all. So spren, in my mind, are almost like a metalmind. With Feruchemy, if you have that focus, you can use the magic. You either tap or store from an external source, which is not the focus itself. Well, a spren would be functionally identical in this case. You have a spren or Nahel bond, congratulations, you can use magic. But you need to supply a source (Stormlight), which is not itself the focus. Ultimately, the spren-focus idea does follow a type of interaction we have seen before in the cosmere on that level alone. So I don't think we can dismiss the spren theory outright. I do think that thought lacks specificity. In this spren-focus idea, genetics are (seemingly) irrelevant; anyone can become a magic user, given they have a spren. If spren are not the focus, well... everyone on Roshar can think. What differentiates a member of Bridge Four, who cannot Windrun, and Kaladin? They can see what Kaladin is doing. No matter how hard they imagine them doing the same tasks as Kaladin, they will not Windrun. Is there a genetic thing? Well, that seems unlikely. So what is sufficient to Windrun? Thought is a necessary criterion to use magic, but it is hardly sufficient. It's necessary for everything. The focus is the critical key, and looking at Bridge Four alone, I cannot see a factor that is more critical than Kaladin's bond with Syl. If Kaladin read a book on Soulcasting, could he Soulcast? Of course not. Even if spren were not the focus for Surgebinding, they are a critical component of it. Each fabrial needs it. That screams that spren are the key. Yes, I'm playing the "Appeal to Simplicity" card. Having spren as the focus does sufficiently explain Kaladin's abilities. The rest is just icing on the cake. Thought as a focus is pretty much the most unspecific focus ever, which violates the spirit of my definition of focus. Hmmm, I'm looking at my definition, and I can see how the "active" factor came in. In the course of this post, I believe that is a poor wording. I would revise my definition of focus to: a specific conduit which allows specific Realmatic interaction(s) to occur. Okay, so I might have added the (s) to interaction to help bolster the spren theory of getting two Surges in with one focus. This is true. However, if you think about it, a specific metal in Hemalurgy can make more than one "interaction" occur. It does do multiple things, depending on the way it is used, so the revised definition has some credence in canon. Hemalurgy does have Exclusivity, though (I'll disregard the fact that atium can act as a wildcard to replicate any Hemalurgic effect, because it is a god metal, after all). But I don't think Exclusivity needs to hold. If we assume Exclusivity did hold on Roshar, what would happen? Each Surge would have an independent variant of focus, whatever focus that may be. That means we would have to see one Surge Surgebinders. Let's call them standard Surgebinders for now, because "single Surge" is weird--and certainly if they existed, they would be standard. They would be more common than Radiants, so why aren't they in battle against the Voidbringers? We simply need to test whether standard Surgebinders exist. This is a tall bargain, since it is something really hard to prove or disprove, but I'm going to do a word search of "Surgebind" on my ebook. If there exist instances that are unrelated to the Knights Radiant, then standard Surgebinders would probably exist, and therefore, we can absolutely claim that Focus Exclusivity is a valid principle. This is pretty inconclusive, but in context, we're discussing the stone ridges. Surgebinders did this. Then later, we discuss sections of rock, and the Dustbringers kicked butt. On one hand, the Dustbringers could be said Surgebinders. One could certainly get that impression. Or, there are Surgebinders unrelated to Dustbringers. In that case, we have Surgebinders manipulating stone. Maybe the Dustbringers, who make rock smolder, are a much more kick-butt variant, since they made that rock smolder and all. Inconclusive, I think. Szeth now. This one is conclusive, qualifying that he has the skillset of a Radiant. The next Szeth section: I scrolled up and down and did not see any reference to Radiants. This is also inconclusive. Dalinar now. Lots of instances of Surgebinders unrelated to Radiants, however, Dalinar later thinks that the Knights Radiant may not exist yet in this vision. Divine mantle is interesting. These could be the predecessors of Radiants. Still, inconclusive. There's the quote Asha'man Logain surely likes, which suggests, possibly, that Soulcasters are independent from Surgebinders. Inconclusive for the purposes of this discussion. And lastly, there is the Ars Arcanum. Knights Radiant perform Surgebindings. This quote does not imply that anything else Surgebinds. There you have it. All instances of Surge, Surgebindings, and Surgebinders. There were a lot of instances of "surgeon", sheesh. In this analysis, it is inconclusive at best that standard Surgebinders exist. There is no conclusive evidence that show standard Surgebinders exist. You may read those differently, and that I may be interpreting them wrong. In context, though, there is conclusive evidence for Knights Radiant, lots of it! So, this weakens the notion of standard Surgebinders existing. They might exist, yes. But we have Kaladin, who is definitely not a standard Surgebinder, and neither is Szeth. Shallan has her Memories, which have been suggested to be related to her second Surge. Jasnah has that lightning thing. There are no definitive examples of standard Surgebinders, unless Elhokar happens to be one. We don't have enough information to see any ability which may be related to a second Surge. This does not mean standard Surgebinders are proven to not exist. They might. They very much might. But, with this book, it is hard to argue that for standard Surgebinders. Phew. That was a long tangent. So, like I said, if there is no evidence for standard Surgebinders, Focus Exclusivity would not exist. And I’m pretty well persuaded that standard Surgebinders don’t exist. If they did, they would probably be mentioned in histories more extensively, since they should be much more common than Surgebinders with two Surges. They aren’t. Therefore, I believe that Exclusivity is not a requirement for a focus. In the most roundabout fashion ever, I finally get to your criteria for focuses. 1. Activeness 2. Omnipresence 3. Variations 4. Exclusivity 5. Specificity #3, I believe, is satisfied with spren. Ten is a significant number in the cosmere, so having ten bondable spren qualifies there. With the analysis of standard Surgebinders, I do not believe #4 is required. I was hoping that if I assumed that Exclusivity was present, I could show some contradiction. The only one I find is that the standard Surgebinder effect is very minimal, whereas they should be more numerous. For Specificity: If I take these words to their fullest extent, especially in the bold, this means a Hemalurgic spike can do one thing. But Hemalurgy does violate the statement I’ve bolded. Metal is the critical condition to make it Hemalurgy work, but it is not the only method to determine which effect I want. So the specificity requirement, at minimum, must be broadened. I like the idea. Heck, that was my whole point of focuses, that it does something specific. But that “something” can be a particular family of effects. That is pe rfectly fine with the idea of Variation, because the Healing Aon does a whole family of healing effects, and you need additional modifiers to specify which. Though, you can successfully argue my point by saying “At the end of the day, that Hemalurgic spike only steals that one power, and that Aon only does that one action.” And you’re right. But whatever focus which grants Surgebinding power, it seems to like giving the powers by twos. With that statement I’m leaving the option open for standard Surgebinders to exist, but regardless, they are rare compared to Radiants. So if we insist that Specificity must--including additional modifiers--only provide one action, then the way Radiant powers are distributed show that Specificity is false. I think you think that activeness is violated with the spren-bond, because it merely “provides” the ability. It’s not actually active. To reiterate what I said above, if Feruchemy did not require some genetic component, and anyone could be a Feruchemist, wearing metalminds would provide the ability. A constant potential that magic can be used. Then, a Cognitive action must be made to use that capability. Making that generic: “If [magic system] did not require a genetic component, [X] would provide the ability, the constant potential for magic to be used. Then, a Cognitive action must be made to use that capability.” Feruchemy/metalmind and Surgebinding/spren would satisfy that statement. You know... the activeness requirement makes me queasy. The only “action” of Hemalurgy is stabbing some people. Other than that, it is a very passive system. Look at My Idiot Theories: A Retrospective, actually, because before Hero of Ages came out, I argued that Hemalurgy could not be a simple power stealing thing, because it was not an active magic, really. So on a personal level, I do not think we should focus so heavily on an “active” magic. I’m kind of avoiding that whole “active magic” notion you are making for exactly that reason. The whole paradigm scares me nowadays If it makes everyone feel better, Syl had to choose Kaladin. That’s kind of like an action. So I’ve handled 1, 3, 4, and 5, so that just means Omnipresence remains, which means I have to talk about Szeth. I can’t really reassure you there. My hope is that a spren was involved, somewhere, to give Szeth the abilities, in some creepy manner that we don’t know of yet. There is that Dawnshard quote, which says Dawnshards can bind any creature, voidish or mortal, so there is probably some scary stuff related to “binding” that we don’t know about. It is possible that someone/something forced a spren into giving Szeth his powers, somehow. That, or there is some Shardic influence, which would be the only other acceptable substitute for spren, under this theory. Given that there are two possible methods for Szeth to artificially get his power, I do not think Szeth is a dealbreaker for this theory. These Shards have their essence somewhere! There are Honor Splinters (which may or not be spren to being with), to say nothing of any essence of Odium or Cultivation. Phew. These rebuttals get long, don’t they? If I had any closing words, I would say that, for one thing, spren are a necessary criterion. Kaladin needs it for his Windrunning--Syl gives the power to him. Jasnah and Shallan need the Truthspren for Soulcasting (though it does seem that Shallan’s Memories don’t appear to need their help, crap). If they aren’t the focus, then they are still extremely important. An alternative focus theory would still need to describe spren are significant. However, I really don’t think there exists a critical criteria to Surgebinding which is specific enough to require ten different powers. So, I guess I am reducing the specificity requirement to only apply to the type of focus itself. The focus variant is specific. Its effect can be a family of effects, though. We need to find a list of at least ten of anything for it to be a focus. Ten different “thoughts” is a cop-out Other than the ten orders of Radiants, Heralds, Fools, and Highprinces--which are of course not focuses--our possibilities are stuff from the Ars Arcanum: gemstones, essences, body focuses, Soulcasting properties, or divine attributes. Essences would be a cool focus, but there’s no evidence for that. Gemstones, as I mentioned in my original post, are not a requirement. Divine attributes get you closer, but I could argue and say that the divine attributes are what attract spren to make the Nahel bond in the first place. None of these things feel right, or even critical. To Kaladin, he needs Stormlight and he needs the Nahel bond. To Shallan and Jasnah, they need Stormlight and some sort of bond with Truthspren. Those are critical elements. EDIT: Silus noted to me that my Feruchemy connection didn't make sense. Let me explain again. Disregard SDNA and genetics completely. Let's pretend everyone is a Feruchemist. Then, when a someone wears an iron bracer, the bracer gives the holder the capability to do some "action". In this case, store a physical property. What I am suggesting is that spren gives the user the capability to perform some "action", only in this case, it is two powers, and which two you get is dependent on which type of spren it is. Both require a Cognitive decision to perform said action, but in both cases, the focus gives you the capability to perform that action. The "action" and the fuel of the action can be anything. It's just in Roshar, if genetics was not an issue, then spren is the only thing that matters, whereas on Scadrial, SDNA and genetics are a factor of which type of metal you can use.

I need to independently verify this, but... http://www.hardocp.com/news/2011/07/29/batman_equation

Perhaps I should rephrase. I'm saying that the bond with spren is the focus for Surgebinding. Voidbinding does not have to fit in with this paradigm. Sure, metal is the focus for all the Metallic Arts, but I don't think we know enough to say that on Roshar, every magic system must share the same focuses. But yes, that's basically what I'm saying, at least for Surgebinding. There would be ten different spren capable of forming the Nahel Bond. As for Mad_Scientist... hmmm. I've been thinking ever since you posted how to respond. Hmmm. So, your argument is that with a focus, there is only one way to give a certain ability, and that specific method (in the case of Mistborn, the type of metal) is unique, regardless of all other factors. For convenience, how about we call this "focus uniqueness," because it sounds fancy. We can call it something else, if you want. Focus universality, maybe. It's your concept. And for a while, I have been quite stymied. This would indeed spell doom to this theory. I think I've thought of an example which may falsify focus uniqueness, but it is a little weak. Roll with me for a second. In Awakening, different Commands can have the same effect. You can make a Lifeless one way that costs hundreds of Breath, or you can use a more efficient Command, which does the same thing with one Breath. So that may show that a focus does not have to be unique. I could do some Realmatic handwavium and say that focuses are unique on Scadrial because those focuses are Physical. As Brandon had said in relation with deific essence, a Physical thing (like atium) will have a unique effect in a given magic system. So on Scadrial, where its focus is decidedly Physical, focus uniqueness would have to apply. It need not apply on Nalthis, since the Commands are more of a Cognitive nature. There. That's all I got. (Of course, you could mention that some Commands seem unique, like "My life to yours, my Breath become yours." In which case I will go hide in a corner.) The two Surge thing is pretty bizarre, I will agree with you. It begs the question: are there Surgebinders who only control one Surge, instead of a Radiant's two? What would be the differences between those two? With this spren theory, I would say that one spren gives two powers. It is because of this that the Radiants would organize into ten separate orders. If you are fighting Voidbringers, you wouldn't exclude an entire class of Surgebinders simply because they only held one Surge; you'd want all the forces you could muster. If there were single Surge Surgebinders, wouldn't those be much more common than a Radiant, with two? (Just think how much rarer Twinborn are than regular Metalborn.) If anything, those regular Surgebinders would be better soldiers for your army. EDIT: I'd also like to add that "thought" is a lame focus, so can I automatically dislike that idea simply because of its lameness?

I suppose it is possible Soulcasting is not a Surgebinding ability, but the fact of the matter is that two orders of Knights Radiant have Soulcasting ability, which is exactly what you would expect if Transformation was a Surge (two powers per Radiant). Besides, there is also Old Magic to fit into that paradigm. One could easily say there are ten Surges, ten Voidbinding powers, and ten things related to Old Magic. We can't know for sure which are the correct "thirty" until we get more books, though. You're right, it isn't in the Brandonothology, but that's okay. I didn't mean to say that isn't authentic. There's a lot of reasons why I think it's valid (for one, it is always good to differentiate between the time tested "it's hereditary!" thing we get in fantasy. And it would make sense in context for Kaladin and Dalinar, with how they are getting abilities). I simply didn't find the original person who posted it, and that original person I don't think had a citation either. I'd give it the benefit of the doubt. It's not so ludicrous as to immediately question its authenticity, and at the time of Way of Kings' release, 17th Shard had a lot less members. In the future, I'd like to think that we get a bit more rigorous with citations and logging what Brandon says.

Well, we know that the planet of The Silence Divine (a later, standalone cosmere book) is in the same solar system as Roshar. So I would absolutely say that they are not in individual universes; that much is certain.

Well, start picking it apart guys. I can't wait to see what you come up with. I was under the assumption that that quote referred to Warbreaker and its sequel, Nightblood. There are the Returned and they are indeed plot points and integrated into the worldbuilding. Plus, he said two books, not ten. Honestly, I wouldn't be very comfortable if, in a big series, resurrections can happen. That's a little deus ex machina for me. Or deus ex Shard, as the case may be.

I think that theory espousing has gone fairly well since its inception. It would be nice for there to be some way to look at a theory and see who all espoused it, but there isn't a good way to do that unless there's some serious infrastructure change. However, now I'm wondering how we should handle theory revisions. I would like to revise the Principle of Intent at some point, since I think it could be stated in a much cleaner fashion. So here's what I'm thinking for a policy on theory revision. People shouldn't post a new topic, since that would hurt the people who may have already espoused a given theory. So people should edit their original post, with these guidelines: The essence of the original theory must be maintained. Put the version number and the date at the top of the revised theory For reference, put the original theory at the bottom. In my mind these would only apply to large scale revisions, not line level edits. Thoughts?

Ever since I read the first pages of Way of Kings, I've been thinking how the magic works on Roshar, and one question that consistently pops up in my mind is, "What is Surgebinding's focus?" I don't think we've attacked this question much on the boards, but if it's been discussed, let me know? Some backstory: In my own discussion with Brandon (from 2009, I believe), he said that Aons are the focuses for AonDor, metal is the focus for the Metallic Arts. Those are sort of no-brainers. But then he surprised me, and said that the Commands are the focus in Warbreaker. At the time, I had guessed color, so that revelation blindsided me. It blindsided me so much, because focuses are extremely important objects, which are directly related to Shards. Ruin and Preservation are blind to metal. That’s surely no coincidence. We haven’t really discussed the mechanics behind that metal blindness, either. I had surmised that Shards were blind to their focus, but that isn’t exactly right. Endowment can’t be blind to Commands. Under Cuaiir’s Three Parts of Magic theory--which I adore--we could perhaps say that Shards are blind to the Physical component of the magic. I believe Will (possibly not) suggested to me that Endowment could be blind to color and/or art, which is pretty cool in its own right. That Physical component need not be the focus. So, what is a focus? It seems to me that a focus is a specific conduit which “activates” Spiritual power to act in a corresponding, specific manner. The metals are the most obvious example, because each metal does a specific thing. Each Aon does a specific thing, and though you can modify it with additional lines, the completed Aon draws forth the Dor’s power in a specific way. The modifying lines, in fact, make it even more specific. In Awakening, the Commands are the focus because the Command shapes the BioChromatic Investiture to a specific shape. The specificity is key. I have a quote which may support this idea of specificity, but it’s woefully out of context. Maybe you’ll buy it, maybe not. What I mean is, there is a specific conduit in the form of Allomancy. Shards can do much more than fueling magic, so that Physical form eventually vaporizes. However, backing up a second to regular magic users, we need a conduit for magic to work. We’re in the Physical Realm. The Physical Realm is rigid and specific. Perhaps for magic to work for humans--in the Physical Realm--we need a specific focus. Okay, that was kind of weak logic. These quotes are out of context, and I’m ignoring the fact that focuses don’t necessarily have to be Physical in nature, as evidenced by Commands. But, while the reasons may not be very sound, for now, I believe that specificity is a key component in defining a focus. It “focuses” the power to a specific effect. Seems reasonable to me. If you agree with that definition of focus, then I’ll stop babbling and get to the point. (I babble a lot) On to Roshar! The first candidate that I recall for Surgebinding’s focus was Stormlight. That never quite seemed right to me, and with this definition of “focus,” I finally understand why. Stormlight is a fuel, like the Dor or color [Aside: It is interesting that one of these “fuels” is Spiritual in nature, and the other is Physical. That’s not relevant to this present discussion, though]]. That’s what Surgebinding is drawing its power from, certainly. But it’s no more a focus than color or the Dor is. I’m pondering on this specificity idea. What’s “specific” in Surgebinding? It seems that the focus shapes which powers you get. What differentiates Jasnah to Kaladin? (Assuming that Soulcasting is a subset of Surgebinding, that is) There’s a distribution of powers, just like with Allomancy. Let’s set aside the fact that Allomancy has that genetic component, which determines what power you get, because you still need the specific focus for the magic to work. What’s the specific conduit that determines Radiant powers? It isn’t Stormlight, as it lacks specificity. Gems are a potential candidate, too, since there are different kinds of spheres. Unfortunately for that idea, it doesn’t matter what spheres Kaladin (or Jasnah) bring, just that they are infused with Stormlight. I can only think of one other component that is a possible candidate: spren. Sure, we’ve only seen Kaladin bond with an Honorspren, and in the past vision, Nohaden references Honorspren specifically. But Jasnah and Shallan sure as hell aren’t seeing Honorspren. Different spren, different power. ((Szeth is an aberration, because he might not have a spren. I’m leaving him out of this paradigm for now because we lack sufficient information to understand why Szeth can do what he does. But there could be some way to replicate a spren bond without the spren, just as there is a way to steal Spiritual DNA and make you into an Allomancy. Maybe a spren died to give Szeth his power Just kidding. Maybe.)) Someone said that abilities in Roshar are granted not on a heriditary basis, but by what you do. That claim is in desperate need of some proper citations, but let’s take that as fact for a moment. Your abilities attract a certain type of spren. This spren bonds with you. The type of spren is what determines what type of Surgebinding you get. And fabrials are related to spren, too. Navani’s notebook time! So, the type of gem is important, but that’s a mean to an end to attract a spren. The variety of spren is obviously a key component, or else cutting a gemstone wouldn’t be necessary. I’m no fabrial expert, but I just reread through the Ars Arcanum, and it seems that fabrials are either manipulating (in the case of Augmenters or Diminishers) or sensing (with Warning Fabrials) things that could be like Surges. In the case of Augmenters: Warning Fabrials: “Phenomenon” is vague. But Surges sort of represent forces, and fabrials seem imitating them, with spren. (So I guess there will be some Surgebinding powers related to emotions and sensations) In the Ars Arcanum, it references in Warning Fabrials “These fabrials use a heliodor stone as their focus.” Well, no fabrial is going to work without a spren, so I’m more interested at which spren is attracted to a specific stone. There is a lot of information in that Ars Arcanum with stone type and attributes. If only there was a column for Surge Name! Anyways, I’m digressing. This means I should wrap up before I say something dumb. In review, I like the idea that spren are the focus for Surgebinding (or the bond with spren, whatever). It has a nice relation to the Principle of Intent, since bonds are important. It is certainly possible that there exist stranger spren than the obvious ones we see every day, which could be as weird as Honorspren. Playing devil’s advocate for a moment, there are some issues with this idea. -”Honor” has a special significance to, well, Honor. If Honorspren are set above other spren, this is problematic for the theory, since there would need to be a spren for each order of Radiants. They’d need to be equal, so to speak. -It makes the nature of spren an even more alluring question. -The second page of Navani’s notebook says that different Stormlight patterns filtered through the gem give the fabrial its power. It doesn’t invalidate this theory, but it does give greater significance to the gemstone than I am granting it.

More more thing to note on the broadsheet. Look at the Allomancers for Hire article. "Metalborn" appears to be the generalized term for an Allomancer or a Feruchemist.

This hasn't been mentioned in relation to this theory, but I'd say that it is relevant: Emphasis mine. The reason spren could be considered the same individual is that they each have the same intent. Or, at least, each type of spren. I don't know if that's true, but it is possible.

Yup. I'm the one who keeps insisting that somewhere it was said that the Reod was a regular earthquake, so it's all my fault. Of course, I just asked Mi'ch, and while she doesn't have citations either, she recalls that the Reod was a regular earthquake, and that she is "not for absolute certain", but pretty sure that Odium did not cause the Reod. So take that for what it's worth. ((For the Alloy release, we will probably have another interview, and so we will try to get a clear answer there, if that happens))

Probably because both the full-color bookends simply can't be replicated in the paperback form.

We've been calling them Shardpools on the wiki, and I think that's technical enough until we get a more precise term. I know Odium isn't Ruin, but regardless, a Shard's death would surely have more of an effect than one earthquake.

I was fairly certain that Brandon said the Reod was just a regular earthquake, but I don't have any proof of this. Still, Mad Scientist, I think you are, for the most part, right on the ball. The one part I'm not sure about is the part that Aona is "alive". Brandon does equate Shard and Shardholder in his mind--he refers to them both as Shard. So the pool could have been color by Aona's Cognitive aspect, which has simply been carried over after her death. It would still count as direct interaction with her power. Either way, because I am very confident that the Reod was a regular earthquake, I think this theory is pretty much perfect. The lack of citations is disturbing, but this post effectively sums up what I had already thought. Plus, come on. There'd be more destruction than just a city if Odium came ten years ago. Granted, we don't much know what happen in Fjordell, but if anything, they seem stronger. I'd expect more destruction, but there isn't much evidence of it. And, of course, if Seons or Skaze are indeed Splinters from Aona and Skai, then logically we have some issues if Odium arrived ten years ago. At least, there are the bigger questions of "what are the Splinters on Sel" that are much more confusing if Odium was recent. The Dor is a strange thing, and I think it makes more sense if whichever Shard(s) that make up the Dor's power had died a while ago. The Dor is mindless, and has been for some time. Seems to me the logical explanation is that Aona and Skai died long ago.

Works for me. Oh wow, that sounds like an awesome costume.

Man, that broadsheet was cool. I didn't think it was punched out completely. Just smacked deeper into the skull. Since Marsh is the only Inquisitor still alive, as he has that bag of atium, I don't find it hard to believe that people would happen to call him Ironeyes. You know, that is a curious thing, about that atium... Brandon said Marsh would be able to use the immortality trick the Lord Ruler did, but why would Marsh have the ability to use Feruchemical atium? Doesn't seem like a useful spike for Ruin to put in him. But I digress. I don't know that all of what Allomancer Jak said was was a lie. Probably most of it. But koloss sort of breed true now, and it's curious that Jak mentions that "anyone can become a koloss." This implies that koloss still remember some of their old ways. I don't think Jak could make that up out of thin air. I also agree: the external Enhancement metals are most likely unknown. Funny that people refer to "Unknown Metals" then. Peter, there's actually a typo in the broadsheet. On the first Allomancer Jak segment on the top right, "koloss" is capitalized in the second paragraph, but it isn't capitalized in the larger Eltania piece.

Jealous of your Comic-Con going ways. Okay, I am ridiculously annoyed with the way that the RSS feed menu appears. I can't edit many of the options. Wee. I guess I'll just recode the friggin thing by hand. Bah.

It's been so long since I've read the books, and I read them so quickly that I don't remember them very well. Perhaps for that reason, I enjoyed the movies. I thought the sixth movie could have been stronger on the revelation of the Half-Blood Prince, because that was a fantastic twist in the book felt lame in the movies. But really, when it comes down to it, the movies were fun. Let's face it, Harry Potter was never the pinnacle of logical plotting. The books could have been foreshadowed better. And now that you mention it, Squallor, Voldemort should have been more awesome. I suppose the Horcruxes were fairly evil, but when you get right down to it, he doesn't seem to have any extraordinary abilities above a normal Death Eater. Until he gets the Elder Wand, it seems that wouldn't be so hard to beat. I actually had an extensive discussion with Will about that final face-off between Harry and Voldemort in the books. I remember that in the book, it was a total letdown. It could have been far more epic. (Plus, I thought the whole "Let's circle each other! In the Great Hall! With everyone watching!" blocking was cheesy and stupid, just as you did.) I haven't heard anyone say they were disappointed with the ending of the last movie. The fight felt more epic on film. It showed the duel in the cinematic way that it should have felt in the book. Because, obviously, this was cinema I really ought to reread the books and see if they hold up to my eyes now.

Mine is framed in a prominent position in my room I love it.

Agreed! I really liked it. I would like to announce that I have rolled out some improvements to the navbar. Look! Hover effects! It constantly amuses me. Oh, and I guess I added the "G" to the "Mistborn RPG" item on the navbar, but you probably don't care about that