Stairdweller

I concede the point that practicing with a circle-making tool doesn't necessarily mean one can't also be a reasonably good freehander. Perhaps adult rithmatists, at Nebrask, do use a tool to assist in circle making, and we just haven't seen one do so yet; all of the rithmatic battles so far have either been duels at a school, etudents defending themselves, or achool-run melees. I don't think it is beyond the bounds of reason for circle-drawing tools to be forbidden to students, in much the way that geology students are forbidden to use a protractor when drawing lines of slope in mapping classes. However, I still think there are some problems with the string tool. If anything causes the string to shorten even slightly during the drawing of the circle, (which happens all the time with these kinds of tools) you end up with an obvious imperfetion in the circle. Even a radius shortening of a few milimetres would mean that the line ends didn't mate properly. Joel, when explaining the reason that rithmatists don't use strings, states that it is more important to have a circle where the flaws aren't obvious than to have a perfect circle, A closer-to-perfect circle with a tiny mismatch where the line ends meet would be less defensible than a freehand, slightly ellipsoid circle because the flaw in the near-perfect one would be very obvious to the rithmatist's opponent.

It seems like chalk-on-a-wire would be more trouble than it is worth. A tool like that is harder to get good results with than it might seem; you need to be absolutely certain that nothing fouls the string as you form the circle, including whatever you are using to secure it. For example, if you have a friend hold the string, her body, or even her fingers as she holds the string to the ground might get in the way of the string. If a stake is used, the string wrapping around the stake will cause it to shorten and you will draw a spiral rather than a circle, I think the in-world idea is that, if you have tools to draw circles, you won't practice your freehand skills and that, when the tool inevitably malfunctions, you will not have the eye to note a decreasing circle until you get to the end (and waste a lot of time).

I am not convinced that the Ardents assign nahn or dahn; those ranks are critical in Vorin kingdoms, determining who one can marry, granting citizen and determining which rights a person is entitled to. I can't see the ardentia, which is specifically designed to not wield power, making those sorts of determinations.

So, I don't so much have an organized theory as a few points I would like to make. 1. For the purpose of full disclosure, I admit that I am most in favour of the something-in-the-vault theory, though I am also slightly suspicious of it. 2. I don't know if the Harry Potter comparison is entirely fair. The power of love group of theories seem to centre around the idea that Steelheart was made vulnerable because Dave's father was attempting to protect him-Steelheart from Deathpoint, that that protective intention was what allowed Steelheart to be harmed. (In HP, Harry was protected from Voldemort's curse by the fact that his mother died to save him from said curse and curser... Which in itself paints kind of a dark picture, as that was apparently the first time someone sacrificed themself for another person during Lord V's whole reign of terror. Real nice, wizards. But I digress.) Anyway, I think there is some merit to the intent theories, because A) all epics are evil how better to describe evil than to say it is a lack of compassion, or love, for other people? C) Since he can't understand compassion/love/protctiveness, the psychic armour or whatever that protects Steelpoint is rendered useless by it. 3. About vault theories: I think it is relevant that Deathpoint, a weaker Epic, can't effect bones or metal, which are comparatively more solid, more dense, than anything else on or in a person's body. (I'm kind of curious to know what happens to a person's glasses.) Gold, which could reasonably be stored in a bank vault, is really, really dense - perhaps dense enough to interfere with Steelheart? 4. I think that if Steelheart were vulnerable to accidental damage, he would be in serious trouble the the first time he went on a building-wrecking rampage and knocked out a load bearing wall. I'm no epic, but probably a solid ninety-five percent of my total lifetime injuries have been the results of accidents... So, seems like that would hardly be a good path to invulnerability. :-) (And the Steelheart menace was ended with the Epic carelessly crossed the street without looking both ways....) Anyway, those are my thoughts, can't wait to hear how you argue with then!

Hi there! I was at Hal Con, but I was not yet a member of this forum. (You may have seen me, I was wearing a Mistcoat.) I quite enjoyed the Q&A session - I assume you were the one who asked the first question?