Pathfinder

On 5/2/2020 at 4:39 PM, Chaos said:

My impression is that they worked with Isaac to make them canonical. 

Thanks! Reason I asked is the same as ginger below:

On 5/2/2020 at 10:58 PM, ginger_reckoning said:

Am I the only one who finds Battar's blade to be suspiciously close to how Oathbringer is described?

My thoughts exactly! We can now theorize as to the other dead shardblades we have seen, what orders they potentially belong to!

Do we know if the artwork of the honorblades counts as canon at all?

Thanks Chaos!

@Pathfinder, I myself interpret that WoB differently.

 

Like: Honor has Shattered into spren, can they be put back together?

So the question is basically whether a Bondsmith could reforge spren into whole Honor again.

 

Although I am still leaning towards my own interpretation, that is an excellent point. So like I said, the fact that there can be three different understandings of it, shows it needs to be referenced. Putting links to the full WoB would solve that and I whole heartily support. 

As there does not seem to be a quote feature on this page, I will bold my answers (edit: LOL and now I realize the quote button is greyed out unless you move your mouse over the post. whoops! lol)

I'm sorry Pathfinder, that's not something that's going to happen,it would take up too much space.  I think you mistake the purpose of me listing all these facts like this. It's meant for people who don't keep up as closely with new information, most of this stuff was posted a couple weeks ago, or for those who want a brief overview of the new interviews as a jumping off point. I don't even include every new question because that would take up too much space, and there's not much point in me simply posting a whole interview on this article. It's meant to be a quick overview of what was said. I'll add links to the interviews themselves next time, but most of these use essentially the same words that Brandon did. If you disagree with my interpretation, feel free to discuss it here, that's what comments are for.

I hope I did not come off personally critical or confrontational Windrunner. I was not stating that to say your interpretation is wrong, and I am right. I was stating to say that there can be two ways to look at the WoB and I felt it would be helpful to those viewing it to be able to reference the source and derive their own conclusions from it. I understand there is a space issue which is why I whole heartily agree with yours and Chaos's idea to include links to the WoB themselves. I think that solves both issues perfectly. 

If you have specific issues with the interpretations here, please do say so. But I do think there are space concerns. Full quotes take up a huge amount of space.

I intend to have future things of this nature to involve direct links, however. Those we will have. That way the balance is better on this issue.

This article is already one of the longest articles on 17S news. I like long articles, but they do need to be distilled appropriately. Additionally we generally discuss factoids (with people like Windy, Weiry, Zach, and I, and some more) and stand by minor interpretations made. We are always happy to discuss, however, as is already occurring in the comments.

Sure, I would be happy to . So basically the WoB I am referencing is this:

QUESTION

BRANDON SANDERSON

I disagree with the paraphrasing of new information. There is already one instance I can see where I recall the WoB and disagree with the interpretation. I am not saying I am right, but I feel posting the WoB themselves would allow people to derive their own conclusions.