Fifth of Daybreak

He's been in a coma for the majority of his life. Anything visual he experiences is internally imagined. All of his outside stimuli are audio, no visual, at least pre-calamity. So radio makes more sense, as it's geared for audio learning, not visual. I think that's why the grafitti glows as well. Grafitti is usually more abstract, and fits the more ethereal dream world Dawnslight is used to.

"The Earth got used up" is just a really bad euphemism for Epics destroying everything on Earth. River is just an Epic, and Mal is David's descendant, hence the bad euphemism. Some things never change.

That is correct, except the building they were led to had the bomb. Regalia was in a separate location entirely.

I think the confusion on terminology is a great portion of the worldbuilding. There is nothing set. Half the time I think they are making it up as they go along because it's such a wide spectrum. Fortuity is considered a high epic by definition, but is considerably less powerful than Regalia.

Challenge accepted!

That's awful! Dear god I'm never sleeping again! I also have recurring spider nightmares.

And it was the one time David didn't act with reckless abandon and just kill the Epic!

I'll save my disagreement for when I post a new thread, since it's off topic here.

I'm kinda with you on the spiders, and kinda not. What I mean to say is, spiders make me uncomfortable and squirm, but if they are there in person, they can die, and dead spiders aren't scary ( I refer to them as "squished peace of mind.") I also had some bad experiences with spiders growing up, including one where he managed to crawly up my arm and onto my shirt before I could find out what the crawling sensation had been, then he crawled up my neck, under my glasses, and across my eyeball (immediately prior to taking an all expenses flight out the bus window.) Spiders are creepy. Spiders that aren't real though, those are the ones that get me. I'm not so much afraid of real spiders as the thought of spiders. Pictures in textbooks, movies, talking about spiders, internet videos of Australian spiders all just about make me insane. My worse experience with a spider was actually when it was protected behind the glass display case at a store, and I couldn't kill it. I about had an anxiety attack. So, I'm able to overcome my fear/discomfort with real spiders, but I'm not sure I'll ever get over my terror at the thought of spiders.

I doubt that. He was pretty far on the edge through the whole book. I plan on typing up a topic for that later when I get my book back from my friend and can reference the scenes.

I think this has to do more with the playing to probabilities. Is it possible to figure out her exact location if you keep pushing her to appear farther in the same direction and figure out the exact five mile distance? Yes, it's very possible, but also impractical. You'd yield greater data in getting a point of reference away from the other points, where there's small overlap between the circles. While they mention in the book they could rely on her not showing as a useful data point, it really isn't, as is demonstrated later in the book when she does appear outside her range (granted that does make the whole exercise futile, but my point is that she's a human variable.) She doesn't just show up every time, and they can't repeat the exercise (killing High Epics) an indeterminable amount of times to narrow down the results. So let's assume they did try to gather data farther in the northern direction. They attempt to illicit a response 2.5 miles away from the edge of the last circle, and Regalia doesn't appear. That could mean that somewhere between the edge of that circle and the current point is her 5 mile radius, or it could mean that she ignored them and didn't appear. Now, if they attempt to elicit a response in an area that doesn't have a lot of data points, they'll get more useful information out of an area they haven't yet collected information on. Let's refer to your diagram. The second diagram you drew is their plan yes? They are playing to probabilities, because a positive response provides more information than a negative response, and it's more likely they'll get a positive response in that direction, rather than testing at the boundaries to a very specific degree, as in your third diagram. Does your way provide the exact information if a positive response can be elicited? Yes, but it also relies on a good deal of precision, and doesn't include the human variable element of applying the mathematics to a real world scenario, which includes other considerations brought up earlier. Getting more information is more useful. In your third diagram, you've assumed a perfect guess of where the edge would be, just trying to explain the concept. They don't have the luxury of attempting multiple times to achieve the exact distance needed to elicit a positive response. You're saying that this is an error, but the way they choose to perform the math doesn't make it an error if they can still come a correct conclusion. What you've been arguing the whole time isn't that it doesn't make sense, but that you don't agree to their methods, which is a distinctly different assertion. Can it be done your way? Yes, but there are multiple barriers to that which could include lack of a heavy population, lack of city, Newton not patrolling that area, a lack of response not being a true data point, etc. So here's my question for you. If their methodology can still come to a correct answer, because as you state, direction doesn't matter, so them experimenting in the SE corner instead of other areas doesn't matter, just distance, then how can it even be an error, as it's just their choice as to where to establish the points? She'll be doing the same math, come to the same conclusions, just not doing it in a way you agree with.

Megan had the advantage of Epic rehab. I'd be very curious to see how she acted before joining the Reckoners.

This is Epics that we're discussing though. I think it's more rational to massacre because you think it's God's will than it is to massacre simply because you have the power to do so with impunity. I'm not arguing that he's right, but that he's the closest Epic to sanity we've been shown who isn't a gifter.

Well, is faith not rational? I have to say, that it's not that irrational a thought to have. You're given incredible destructive powers that also corrupt and cause evil in the world. A voice that's not your own tells you things. You connect that with parables from the bible and scripture. Obliteration is Abraham, but God never told him not to kill his son.

I asked Brandon what would happen to a spren if it's bonded died at the WoR Chicago signing. He said it would be an emotionally traumatizing event, but not shattering. I then asked if that meant Helaran wasn't a surgebinder, and he asked why I said that. I mentioned the gem on Helaran's blade being a hint, and he said it was a huge hint. I took that to mean if Helaran had been bonding a spren, it wasn't at the point he could manifest it as a shardblade.

It's been talked about before on the threads. King Taravangian mentions the brother training Shallan Mraize hints he's a Skybreaker, which would imply a spren bond anyways. I feel like we should start a betting pool as to which Rosharan faction Shallan's mother was a part of.

Let me attack this from a different angle. I really enjoyed Brandon's discussions on morality in WoK, so I'm going to analyze Obliteration using the philosophies discussed. The Philosophy of Starkness: Kill or be killed-This is my least favorite of the philosophies, so I won't put much effort into justifying his actions using it, though it does in a way. Philosophy of Purpose: Actions are not evil; intent is evil.-Obliteration's intent is to carry out God's will. Philosophy of Ideals: Removing evil was the ultimate moral-"The seed of the Epic is inside." From all proof we have at hand to date except for Megan, Epic powers are pretty evil, and he is removing its source, humans. Philosophy of Aspiration: If the goal is worthy, then the steps taken are worthwhile, even is some of them-on their own-are reprehensible-Obliteration's goal is worthy, in fact, it seems to be the same goal as the Reckoner's just on a broader scale. It all depends on how you define humanity and Epics. Obliteration's definition, knowing more than we do, is that humans are just pre-epics, and need to be dealt with. I'm not saying I think his actions are moral, but I think they are justifiable in several regards, and are even noble, and more sane, when compared to to other Epics. As far as the story is concerned, we don't even know that he's wrong about being an angel of death until we read the next book. Now I'm sure that won't be the case, but it is not outside the realm of possibilities.

I was discussing Firefight with a friend, when we got on the subject of Obliteration. She voiced a complaint that too often when an openly religious character appears in the book, they are insane. It got me thinking about Obliteration, and I'd have to completely disagree that he's insane at all. Obliteration is the only sane Epic. This may seem counter-intuitive, after all, most epics created small kingdoms, and became tyrants. That's something that happens in every day life anyways, people are oppressed and killed in volume, but only the absolutely crazy ones kill civilians in mass. But that's using logic applied to ordinary humans, along all ranges of the spectrum from humanity's best to its worst. Epics are a different story. Every single epic that we've been exposed to were corrupted by their power, and began to abuse it, simply by right of power and conquest. They believe themselves to be superior, and above humanity, and so doing deserve their position, and to be free form consequences. Basically, they are all classic sociopaths, acting with care for consequence, but really to no purpose other than a self serving one. Obliteration is different. Obliteration might have taken a town at first, and succumbed to the power, but with his quoting of scripture, and the few scraps of normal conversation we hear from him, he isn't a meglomaniac. He didn't burn down Houston and the other cities because of some obsession with destruction. He was acting with a purpose. Every single other Epic took their abilities as some granted right, but he took it as a call to greater action, even if he was wrong about what that action would be. In his conversations, he presents himself as a horseman of the apocalypse, which honestly, isn't that far of a stretch considering is powers don't seem to have much allowance for constructive use (I could be wrong about that, I'll admit a heat sink would be valuable in certain situations, as well as possible welding and bonding capabilities, but very limited as compared to his destructive capabilities.) He mentions that all of humanity has the taint of Epics and needs to be cleansed. This isn't someone acting out of self preservation or self interest. Obliteration is the only epic who seems to be called to a higher purpose. He's the only one who took his powers, and found an outside rationality to their existence, and then set himself to the task he believed had been given to him. Even all of Regalia's machinations seemed geared only to corrupt another individual, though her mentioning of the angel and such might lend her some credibility in the same theory. Still, I feel like her driving motivation was more the satisfaction of seeing her old friend turned nemesis destroyed and twisted than acquiescing to a higher power. Obliteration is the only sane Epic.

It's immediately before that, when he first meets Calamity. He feels the tainted power going through him, and says he was an epic, then mentions finding out for sure before drowning himself. That's when he hears the whisper in his mind to take the power, and he rejects it. After that is when he says he isn't an epic.

Sounds like Obliteration teemed up with a slider. Weeks for them, only a week for us.

I think that's accounted for and why he was given Nightblood. Szeth doesn't necessarily have to develop a spren bond to become a Skybreaker with my theory, and giving Szeth's another way to invest considering his skill just plain makes sense. Put your best in their best.

My personal opinion is that all of the Skybreakers attracted a spren and broke their oath on purpose to kill them. It explains why Helaran's blade is a mystery, and why King T thought he could teach Shallan suregebinding.

I need to learn to be more specific. In my copy of Firefight, I asked Brandon for any information about Helaran or his Shardblade he was willing to divulge. He replied with this: Not exactly the gem I was hoping for. But it's something. I know I may be biased, but I think this only reinforces my opinion that Nalan is not corrupted, but instead believes his actions are ultimately for the good, as Mraize implies Helaran joined the Skybreakers. Granted, this doesn't really imply that Nalan believes he's doing the right thing, and could be corrupting others, but that's about all I can read into this. Anybody else have any thoughts?

I've been thinking about that myself, and I think it was part of the foreshadowing for David's fear. Later on, when he tries to get to the burning building, he has the same panic type scenario, and I believe it mentions that the only reason he shot out of the water was because he accidentally made a fist, not because he consciously though about using the spyril. I can't double check on that right now though, I lent out my book to a friend.

I think it would be similar to Firefight's shadow. She could pull in that variable of David, but it would lack substance and it's powers would be incredibly variable as Megan mentions. Sometimes' Firefight is all shadow, and sometimes she can feel the heat. To use that sort of scenario in any useful way, I think she'd have to be close to her regeneration like she was in the fight with Evil Prof.