Meg

I found this one on Peter's Twitter, but I'm not sure whether he's only answering to the release date (his answer hints to this possibility) or whether the summary there is "legit". edit: Ooops, Yemeth got Brandon's answer already. Both of them do not help us about our questions and confusion.

Here Brandon mentioned this. I didn't look further. TWoK Ch. 55 I hope this is, what you remembered. Though it's "late" in the book, it's from the end of that day when Kaladin killed the Shardbearer and got his sas nahn brand.

There have been at least three other threads about this question :)/>. I don't remember a passage in TWoK where Kaladin regrets not to have taken this Shards. I may err here (I don't have my book handy). And whether I would have taken this Shards or not: I really don't know but I fear I'm not that honorable as Kaladin. On the other side: who knows, having the same past perhaps it would have been wrong to me as it was for Kaladin.

I don't dare making a new thread for it but I found a short review from Patrick Rothfuss about Steelheart: Patrick's review It's not much but perhaps somebody liked to know.

Thank you soooo much . The forum search didn't give me this (probably because it's in the TWG-archive).

IIRC you wrote the Ars Arcanum from Alloy of Law?

I stumbled about this a few days before. Do you have some reference where it's stated that the two are interchanged in the Ars Arcanums in some editions?

Thanks to all four of you, you really helped me.

Yesterday I discovered that there are two different (not entirely, I'll tell below) Ars Arcanum in two different editions of TWoK. One is the paperback book and the other is the e-book. They differ only in two points: the primary and secondary divine attribute for (2) smokestone and (5) emerald. This are interchanged. I don't have the possibility to upload the files (one is the picture from the e-book the other is a (bad) scan from my paperback) to show, I'm sorry. Did anyone of you find the same or another oddity like this?

You're welcome :-), but I have to quote myself (I'm not doing this normally): TWoK Chapter 12 edit 1: TWoK Chapter 13 I think the description in the book itself is "cannon" enough. And for the Coppermind one can say what is not marked as "theory" or something like this, can be "bought" as given. This, for once, hadn't been Sigzil. Renarin brought this story up and Navani told it (TWoK, Chapter 61), it was Parasaphi doing this thing with the seedstones -- which doesn't seem to me to be a Soulcast-thing. Hmm, at the moment it's a WoK-forum in my understanding. I think it would be better to put spoilerish things in spoiler-tags (there's a discussion about this matter here).

I hope this doesn't count as a double-posting :-). I take this thread for may question because it's sort of relating, but my question is mostly about understanding/translating: Jasnah says: (TWoK Ch. 72) Please, may someone help me about "inherent". If I look this up in a dictionary there are different translations given: angeboren: inherent {adj} innate {adj} congenital {adj} native {adj} inherently {adv} hereditary {adj} [factor, characteristic] inborn {adj} inbred {adj} congenitally {adv} constitutional {adj} natural {adj} connate {adj} natively {adv} instinctive {adj} temperamental {adj} [laziness etc.] innewohnend inherent {adj} intrinsic {adj} immanent {adj} indwelling {adj} dazugehörend inherent {adj} appertaining {adj} {pres-p} belonging to it appertaining to anhaftend inherent {adj} adhesive {adj} adherent {adj} inherently {adv} inhering adhesively {adv} adherently {adv} adherent to inherent (in) ... ... ... In the German book it's transcribed with "angeboren" which I also would prefer. But: If actions are the most important basis for any change on Roshar, why is it mentioned that the KR had "inherent abilities"? How did you read this sentence? Did you understand "inherent" as "born with" or more as "adhesive"? Sorry for such questions but as reading is always interpreting too I might do some mis-interpreting also because of mis-understanding (the "-" are intended :-))

May I -- naively -- ask why not create a sub-board for SA2 now? The threads from the readings or the writing-videos could be put there for example. (I see that this will not make spoiler-tags or spoiler-warnings unnecessary and I really appreciate the users doing so.)

I apologize for conradicting :-). TWoK Chapter 12 edit 1: TWoK Chapter 13 edit 2: There is a little article on the Coppermind wiki about greatshells too. edit 3: @ Martinitram: (numbers added by me) @(1): Q&A thread here on the forums @(2): yes, and not only greatshells @(3): Gems can be mined, but I'm lazy now and give you a Meg-RY* for that :-) (you can read it in TWoK itself). @(4): As far as TWoK ends, I claim, it's not sure that the chasmfiends are greatly feared gods to the Parshendi. *RY=ReadYourself because I don't dare creating a "Meg-RAFO".

Falling into line with the others who questioned this. I only found one thing about Shallan and apprenticeship: source The Q&A-thread here on the forum doesn't give any hint about Shallan's apprenticeships. So now I'm very curious.

I'm sorry, this "discretion"-point was mentioned before but I don't understand it :/. About theoryland: 1. http://www.theoryland.com/wheel-of-time-interview-search.php 2. look up for example "Shallan" 3. search through the results 4. finding the quote I searched I have to copy the link-address of the interview in the www....-bar (that is important! ) (http://www.theoryland.com/intvmain.php?i=612) 5. click this link 6. strg+f "Shallan" or read through the interview 7. remember the number of the entry (#2) 8. assemble the result of 4. and 6. (http://www.theoryland.com/intvmain.php?i=612#2) 9. here's my link It's a real shame that it's so laborious. :)/>/> edit: emphasized my own tip because I instantly forgot it:

Because I'm bit of a hair-splinter I dare giving one (last) comment on "confirmation" and "possibilities" and therefor I use this example. But, I've got to point out, that all reading is a bit of interpreting too, so I feel right about my interpreting others don't have to stand with me. This statement from Brandon I interpret as a (more or less) definite "Yes". What we think is our thing (even if I'm sure that we nearly all think the same ). But "That's interesting, isn't it?" or similar answers are -- in my opinion -- not nowhere near to a "definite" proposition. This makes a big difference for me (especially in threads like this). Please, I don't want to insult anyone I only try to tell my point of view. I'd like to get answers to it, both, agreeing and disagreeing, to learn more about the habits here.

You really worried me. But I didn't feel insulted. So don't worry. I'm sure you will find a better example. :)/>

(emphasizes mine) Maybe I misunderstand you but I read this emphasized part as: "Meg gave a quote with no reference." If I interpreted you right here I've to complain because the "title" of the quote "*arrow* Viper, on 17 February 2013 - 04:27 AM, said:] gives you that reference, that link to the posting were this exact quote come from. The link is hidden behind the . But I think I must have misunderstood you, because I think you know this already. Then please explain what errors I made. :/ Why I quoted what I quoted (and not more) you can read here. PS @ theoryland: I really try to use it but sometimes it's annoying to search and note and search and note to get a full link.

On topic: I didn't quote this two lines because I think that they are not important for my question. Brandon's answer "That's very interesting, isn't it?" for me is no statement, no confirmation and no evidence. I read it as "This might be." and a possibility doesn't give evidence. So as I understand this Brandon said it might take an effort to use magic on other planets and it might be that soulstamps could be carved with Arelon as a base. I am looking for facts which I think should be provided with such a thread. I apologize for having misunderstood the intention.

(emphasizes mine) I'm not sure if I did misunderstand something but I remembered one of the last signings where I've read this: Doesn't the latter statement (kind of) reverse the older statement if only about Sel and Aons and Stamps? Where is my fallacy?

Here's your quote :-) TWoK, Chapter 15 And, I think, with this quote from TWoK this idea that some (or more) chasmfiends succeed with their pupation because they are to far to the east, seems disproved :/.

While looking up something in TWoK I found this: Bashin, huntmaster, in his pre-hunt advice during the hunt (TWoK chapter 12) As Brandon said, we "haven't seen what they start out as..." this quote from Bashin may or may not mean that chasmfiends don't merely pupate once in their life. Or the pupation is the last step for the maturing of chasmfiends. So it is mentioned that "chasmfiends crawl up to a plateau for pupate" (that's paraphrased) it seems that the real adult chasmfiends aren't (very) different to the last-to-adult-ones. But we really don't know "what they start out as..."

I'll like to add that Dalinar felt the Thrill whilst being Heb too. From the Starfalls chapter, too. As Dalinar can't summon his Shardblade during his visions and being sure he's not wearing his Plate experiencing this vision, I still think, the Thrill is not (directly) linked to Blade and Plate.

This is a valid point (that I missed to write in the OP). Despite the people on the Shattered Plains knowing about this, I dare to say that 'we' didn't know it. Remembering some postings I'm under the impression that we (most of us) didn't even think about this possibility. But ... I'm sorry, that hole thing may not be so interesting for others than for me :-). But now we have to think the other way around: what were the chasmfiends before pupating? I'm really curious about this.

Reading this posting I started. :-) I'm sure there were postings about this subject (maturing of chasmfinds/finishing the pupation-process) but I beg for your pardon, I'm at work and don't really dare searching around a lot (not to mention that I get distracted always). Am I the only one that got an 'aha experience' while reading this quote about the chasmfiends? :-) So, now our question isn't anymore what accrues out of the chrysalises but what were the chrysalises before they pupate. edit: typos