skaa

Cool! I speculated a few weeks ago that Sel's Cognitive Realm has some sort of violent storm. Glad to know I was on the right track.

@Edgedancer: Thanks for the excellent critique! *upvotes* (Side note: The reason why I keep using the word "transfersion" instead of "transference" or "transformation" is because "transfersion" is the term used in the books. I think that Brandon chose this very rare spelling for a reason, that it can't possibly be only meant to refer to "turning stuff into steel". But perhaps my definition for it isn't the best. Maybe I'll come up with a better definition for it later, or maybe you guys can help me out.) Anyway, the definition of transfersion that I gave above doesn't say anything about permanence, so it doesn't really matter if some forms of transfersion are permanent and some aren't. If I may use an imperfect Cosmere analogy, there are many ways of Investing objects, some permanent and some aren't, but no matter which kind of Investiture you use, Investiture is still Investiture, and certain general rules (like the one that says it is harder to Invest something the more Invested it already is) still apply. You mentioned that Megan switches reality with another reality or overlays a reality onto another, and you're correct, but it is interesting because those could be what all transfersion powers do. What I mean is that weak transfersion powers (like non-Calamity Gifting) may simply be overlaying an impermanent, ephemeral possibility over the target, whereas a stronger form of transfersion (like Steelheart's Steel Transfersion or Calamity's Gifting) takes things much further and actually switches the target with another core possibility. I've actually thought about this while writing the OP, but I feared it makes Megan a bit too special. I'll think about it. I think there's an equivocation problem here. But first, let me rephrase the point I was trying to make about how the Likeness Limit Rule applies to Megan: Metal is to Steelheart as core possibility is to Megan. It is harder for Steelheart to turn metallic objects and it is harder for Megan to affect core possibilities. Non-metal is to Steelheart as as ephemeral possibility is to Megan. These are easier for them to affect. So, the first problem in your argument is that you failed to distinguish between the two categories of possibilities that Megan can access. Now, why did Megan say that she finds it easier to pull possibilities "similar" to her current reality? Let me put a couple of quotes. First: This implies that Megan can navigate a sort of "possibility space", where possibilities exist as endlessly diverging branches. Now for the second quote: Let's go back to Steelheart for a little bit. Tell me, is every non-metallic non-living object equally easy for Steelheart to Transferse? The answer is no, because distance (among other things) makes a difference. It will take Steelheart a bit longer to affect an object a kilometer away than an object in his hand. This is different from the insulation effect that David described, a separate scenario altogether. The same goes with Megan. It is easy in general for Megan to use ephemeral possibilities (these are her "non-metals"), but even then, if an ephemeral possibility's point of divergence from Megan's core possibility is a very long time ago (and is thus farther away in "possibility space"), then it will take her some time to reach it. If the point of divergence is near, then she'll reach it faster. But even if an ephemeral possibility is of a similar location in "possibility space", an ephemeral possibility is NOT a similar kind of thing as a core possibility. The difference between core and ephemeral possibilities are a difference in kind, not just a difference in location... just like the difference between metal and non-metal. That's the second problem with your argument. The Likeness Limit Rule applies to a similarity in kind, whereas you are referring to a similarity in location. This has the same flaw as your argument that Gifters can't be Transfersers because what they do isn't permanent. What part of my definition of the word disqualifies size as a transfersion attribute? But I will admit that there is no textual evidence showing what Loophole's Likeness Limit could be. Perhaps there is a certain minimum size change that she can make. Say, if the limit is 6.28 centimeters, then she can't easily make a change less than 6.28 centimeters from the original (so she can make someone 3 meters taller, but not 3 centimeters taller, 2 meters shorter, but not 2 millimeters shorter). Again, I have no evidence for that (and I have no idea what the exact value of the limit is, except it's less that "a few inches" according to her fight scene with David). I'm just describing one possibility. It was just about how a transfersion power is somehow imbued with an anti-weakness intent. David can't use the tensor power properly when he felt like a failure, because the feeling of failure is Prof's weakness. David regrew after sneezing because sneezing was Loophole's weakness. Epics found it harder to be good when using their powers because humans being good was Calamity's weakness. I'm aware that Calamity's transfersion power seems to have a much more proactive Downfall Avoidance than Prof's or Loophole's, but the important thing is that all these transfersion powers react to weakness. Actually, there are countless ways to kill Megan. It's just that most of those ways won't kill her permanently. Again, look at my definition of the rule. There is no mention of permanence there. Also, even if someone manages to permanently prevent Megan from returning at full strength (and remember, the burning alive thing is still speculation on their part), the Death Trigger effect could simply pull the next nearest thing from an alternate reality. Perhaps Firefight will suddenly find himself pulled into David's core possibility the morning after Megan dies permanently. Or better yet, the power could pull a version of Megan who isn't an Epic.

Thanks! I'm fine with that. I just like theories that are both simple and could explain multiple mysteries, and as you can see by my examples above the Likeness Limit is one such theory. It could still be wrong, of course, and I would welcome any counter-examples.

Preface/Opening Rant: Calamity's Epic Downfall Part I: Transfersion and Impedance I got the term "transfersion" from the "Great Transfersion", the event where Steelheart turned almost every non-living thing in Chicago into steel, thus creating Newcago. I define transfersion as any Epic effect that transmutes the nature of things. Each transfersion ability has an attribute. In the case of Steelheart's "Steel Transfersion", the attribute is steel. Early on in the series, Megan and David described a quirk of Steel Transfersion: One might prefer to believe that this quirk has no implication beyond Steelheart. If that's what you think, that's perfectly okay, but you might want to stop reading this post. Anyway, I theorize that this insulation effect applies to other Transfersion-type powers, and is therefore a general rule for Transfersion: Likeness Limit Rule: Things that are similar in nature to a Transfersion's attribute resist transfersion, and things that fully match the attribute block transfersion completely. The Likeness Limit Rule explains why Gifters can't Gift to other Epics. Gifters are Power Transfersers, and the Likeness Limit hinders them from Transfersing powers to people who already have powers. The Likeness Limit Rule also explains why Megan could only pull shadows of alternate worlds when she wasn't at her full capacity. Just as Steelheart found it more difficult to Transferse steel onto non-steel metal, Megan requires more effort to Transferse a core possibility onto her current core possibility, especially if the two core possibilities are close to each other. Ephemeral Possibility Transfersion (a weaker form of the power that only pulls shadows of possibilities) is much easier, so she relied on that for most of the series. Part II: Transfersion and Weakness Suppose Gifter Bob had the power of enhanced strength, and his weakness is the sound of a chihuahua barking. Bob Gifted his super strength to average Joe, and then Bob went off to terrorize some people in another country. Joe, excited about his new power, decided to impress some girls by lifting a 500 kilogram barbell with just one hand. Suddenly, a woman approached, her pet chihuahua barking madly in her bag. According to David's Large Dispersal Rule ("An Epic's weakness has less and less influence on their powers the farther you get from the Epic's presence"), Bob is too far away for his super strength to be affected by that particular chihuahua who's barking at Joe. But what of Joe? Will the power Gifted to him remain? Will it fade away? Will Joe have a sudden urge to kill the dog with the barbell? Does Bob's weakness have any effect on Joe at all? Now let us look at an example from the books. Calamity's weakness can be triggered by someone who conquered their fear in order to save others. A person that Calamity has Gifted experiences this weird compulsive urge to lose all empathy, be utterly selfish, and be absolutely terrified of Epic Downfall every time they use their Gifted power, and this feeling vanishes once they start freeing themselves from their Gifter. Despite Larcener's sneering and self-rationalization, there has to be a connection there. Does this mean that the darkness is part of Gifting in general? Obviously not, otherwise the Reckoners would have felt it when they used Prof's powers. Rather, the darkness was part of Calamity's Gifting. Somehow, the power being Gifted knows its owner's weakness, and fears that weakness. Downfall Avoidance Rule: When a sentient being is Transfersed by an Epic, the power becomes aware of the concept of ownership and will defer to a "true owner" by actively avoiding his weakness. So in the above example, Joe would definitely be affected by the chihuahua. Once I came to that conclusion, it was surprisingly easy to find evidence in support of it, not just from Gifters but also from other Transfersers of humans as well. For example, sneezing allowed David to grow back from being shrunk by Loophole. The shrinking transfersion fled him the moment he manifested Loophole's weakness. Note that Loophole's Downfall is supposed to be triggered by her own sneezing, not anyone else's, but somehow the power was still repulsed by sneezing even when it was from the target of transfersion (i.e. David). In the first book, there were two instances where David unexpectedly couldn't use the tensor powers properly. In both cases, he experienced a moment of failure before using the powers. In the first scene, David must have felt like a failure many times over: In his mind, he failed to bring Megan to safety, failed to hide from Enforcement, and failed to keep intact his only means of escape. Even though he really was capable of using the powers without the gloves, his feeling of failure triggered the Downfall Avoidance Rule, so the powers fled him. In the second scene, his failure to hit the enemy led to Cody being hurt, and then he failed to take down the enemy with his second shot, but this at least distracted the enemy from finishing Cody off. David was able to use the tensor, but there was resistance. The power was close to leaving him. There are still some open questions. I don't know if the Downfall Avoidance Rule had anything to do with the Diggers going crazy, because we don't know what Digzone's weakness was. I also don't know why the rule no longer applied to Megan after she started "owning" her power (perhaps because the power has accepted her as its true owner?). (Update: The open questions above have mostly been answered by a deeper analysis of power ownership, as I discussed here.) Part III: Transfersion and Death When Steelheart died in the first book, we saw that part of his corpse turned to steel: We've only seen a few other "odd" deaths in the series, but all of those had been of Transfersers. This made me think that Prof was onto something, and that this was another general rule that governed all Transfersers: Death Trigger Rule: A Transfersion effect happens at some point after a Transferser's death, unhindered by the Transferser's weakness. The obvious example of this aside from Steelheart is Megan. Her power of Possibility Transfersion pulls the possibility of a living Megan every time she dies, in accordance to the Death Trigger Rule. "Death Trigger" might remind you of Deathpoint, who was a Transferser who could turn people's flesh into ashes. When Deathpoint died, he didn't turn to ash, so that ironically looks like a violation of the Death Trigger Rule at first glance. But remember that Deathpoint had a second ability, the one that he was about to use on Steelheart before Blain Charleston shot him. Perhaps this second ability is the one that manifested when he died. I'm speculating that this ability's attribute is death itself (instead of ash, as in his first ability); think Avada Kedavra from the Harry Potter series. I'm not sure if such a power could have killed Steelheart, but it would mean that Deathpoint's corpse was lethal to touch. Good thing his corpse was Transfersed into harmless steel moments later. How about Gifters? Well, fortunately we've already seen a Gifter die (well, "close enough"). Calamity is the ultimate Gifter, the one who Gifted all of the Epics on David's core possibility. Soon after our heroes returned from defeating Calamity, they learned that Mizzy has become an Epic. How interesting! But I don't think it's likely that Calamity chose to Gift someone just as he was facing opponents (I mean, priorities...). I think Mizzy became an Epic after Calamity was defeated, that Calamity's Gifting power was Death Triggered. And since the Death Trigger effect is immune to the Epic Downfall (since the Epic already...fell), it must also be immune to Downfall Avoidance. This means that anyone Gifted by Calamity's Death Trigger would not have felt the darkness, and would not have experienced the Rending. This is consistent with the ending scene. When Knighthawk informed Megan about Mizzy turning Epic, there was never any indication that Mizzy went on a homicidal rampage, something that Knighthawk wouldn't have forgotten to mention. They didn't seem worried at all about the news. It stands to reason that Mizzy fully owned her powers the moment they were Gifted to her. Edit: Removed weak speculation about Prof and motivators. Reworded some things for clarity.

No, that was Voidus. Or I thought that was what he was saying, what with all his talk of redemption in the previous page. But now he's saying otherwise. Meh. I'm taking a break from all this so that I can make my planned Calamity thread.

Yep! On-topic: I think it's an established convention in fantasy literature that things of a magical nature whose name can be found in a real world dictionary are capitalized. This is to avoid ambiguity (and maybe to make it look Cool). Things of a magical nature that have a proper fantasy name (e.g. atium) are sometimes written without capitalization because nobody would confuse them for some real world object.

DID I HEAR "CORPSES"? asked a black-robed skeletal figure. OH, WAIT. WRONG FANDOM.

The similarities do seem to be there, I agree. Also, both the Old Magic and Feruchemy have a balance theme going on. Unfortunately I don't yet have a good theory connecting these two magic systems. The kneejerk response would be that all manifestations of Investiture are under the general laws governing the Cosmere and so it is natural to find similar magics on different Shardworlds, but perhaps there's a more interesting connection. *shrugs* Oh, and may I ask for a link to that WoB, please? Thanks!

The Thrill apparently comes from Nergaoul. He is first mentioned in WoR: Brandon confirmed the connection last December on Reddit:

@Voidus: First of all, I will admit that I've been unfairly downplaying the role redemption in the books. Megan was redeemed. Prof was redeemed. In my zeal to express my point, I've fallen for the trap of trying to negate every little thing that you said without regard for truth, and I was wrong to do that. Nonetheless, I still think my main point stands. Let me try a different tactic. Option 1: In writing the ending of Calamity, Brandon utterly failed to do one simple thing that he had no trouble doing in Elantris (which was his first published book!): When making an antagonist have a change of heart, make this change sufficiently clear. Crumpling to the ground and vanishing is not a sufficient sign of a change of heart for Calamity. Brandon could have made Calamity send the protagonists safely back to the ground. Brandon could have made Calamity take away the powers of truly psychopathic Epics like Obliteration. Brandon could have made Calamity utter one word of remorse, one word of goodness. But he didn't. Brandon Sanderson, award-winning novelist, mentor and inspiration to many writers, wrote a sub-amateur level ending to a book series. Option 2: In writing the ending of Calamity, Brandon used the magic system in ways consistent with the Laws of Magic that bear his name. He doesn't always follow those laws in other books (because an expert knows when he can break rules), but he decided to follow them in this case. He made sure that the aspect of magic that he used in solving a problem was sufficiently explained beforehand. He used a limitation in the antagonist's magic power. He made sure that this limitation is not something out of the blue by placing hints of it beforehand. I choose Option 2. Now, I'm not saying that Brandon can do no wrong, or that Calamity was a perfect novel. The book was not perfect, as can be seen by the many Sanderson fans disliking it. But even so, I think choosing Option 1 is a bit too much. Calamity is not a perfect story, but I daresay Brandon put more thought into the ending than Option 1 implies.

Actually, it was. This is what you said first: Then you proceeded to acknowledge that Limelight's weakness was based on perception, which is a clear contradiction of what you said. You will have to rephrase that for me. Not sure where that "objectivity" issue came from, and why that matters as to whether Calamity had an Epic weakness or not. Do you or do you not agree that Calamity's weakness is similar to Prof's? If not, why not? Except that's not the only "show" for that. Heck, the scene of Prof's defeat is almost a mirror image of the scene of Calamity's defeat (the only difference is that David and Megan are joined by Prof this time in activating the enemy's Epic weakness). Every instance of David defeating an Epic via his Epic weakness can be seen as foreshadowing of how Calamity was defeated. Lastly, there were several clues about Larcener's weakness, meaning it didn't really come out of the blue as you imply. On the other hand, your interpretation of "Calamity just gave up" had absolutely no foreshadowing whatsoever. That some people can't see those simple connections is frankly not my problem, but it is sad that they are not able to appreciate the book more because of this. Alright. Let me rephrase my statement: I concede that Brandon sometimes hides the consistency of his magic rules in order to have something to show in future books (and perhaps so that his fans can theorize about how the inconsistencies can be resolved), but when I find an opportunity to interpret a Brandon novel so that its magic already appears consistent without the need for a future book, why would I not embrace that interpretation, at least until I get a good argument that an apparent inconsistency (that needs to be resolved in a future book) exists? 1. Yes, and the powers came from Calamity's species. 2. So what? Besides, he clearly states that he was not the first of his kind to be sent. 3. Again, so what? All Gifters give people powers. How does being an Omni-Gifter change whether or not he has a weakness? 4. So because he has all the Epic powers he must not have an Epic weakness? Your blatant disregard for the Second Law is showing again. There might be some rules that don't apply to him, but there also has to be some rules that apply to everyone including him, or else this particular magic system becomes irredeemably inconsistent. All three books of the Reckoners series have shown Epics being defeated by their Epic weaknesses. Giving Calamity an Epic weakness is consistent with Sanderson's Third Law. I am sincerely sorry. I did not intend to make you feel as if I was telling you what to do, but that must have been how I sounded. It's a mistake I will try not to repeat. Interesting. Almost every page of every Reckoners book (except the pages of the Epilogues) involved David and/or the Reckoners either talking about the atrocities of an Epic, or talking about how to defeat an Epic, or carrying out a plan to defeat an Epic (sometimes failing, sometimes not), or actually defeating an Epic. Two of the three Reckoners books are named after an Epic that was defeated in that book. A multitude of instances involving the bullying done by Epics is shown in every book. The main character of the book, David, whose name is a reference to another famous story you may have heard that also involved defeating a powerful being, took down several Epic bullies on his own even before he officially became an Epic hero. There are many lessons that young adolescents can take from the Reckoners series. I only pointed out one that I thought was pretty neat. But you chose to attack that and claimed that you don't see how the books teach that the powerful can be defeated. You say that such an important message is just filler and comparable to candy-eating. You accuse me of implying that kids should physically hurt bullies, as if defeating the powerful can only be done through violent means (something that Calamity's defeat clearly contradicts). You might think that everything you've said above is good, but I don't. Huh... so "good" is not "clearly objective" after all, eh? It appears people can disagree about what is good, and that we can only hope to convince another person to see the good that we see.

Thanks for accepting a counterexample to your argument. Why do you think Limelight's weakness can be like that but Calamity's can't? If Calamity collapsing and disappearing was the only "show" of his change of heart, then that's a bad, bad way of "showing". It's something that some bad amateur writers I know wouldn't fall for. You have to "show" more than that. The very reason Hrathen's ending worked in Elantris was because it was "showed" properly. Thanks for acknowledging Brandon's virtue of at least trying to treat magic consistently. I concede that Brandon sometimes hides the consistency of his magic rules in order to have something to show in future books (and perhaps so that his fans can theorize about how the inconsistencies can be resolved), but when I find an opportunity to interpret a Brandon novel so that its magic is consistent, why would I not embrace that interpretation, at least until I get a good argument that an inconsistency exists? You can't honestly say that after multiple examples of David defeating seemingly invulnerable Goliaths. Sure, you may have taken a different moral lesson for the stories, but do you really claim that you didn't get any inkling at all of "Even the powerful have a weakness, so fear them not"? Well, fine, that certainly is a big difference in how we read it.

But isn't rejection something perceived? And I don't think the definition of a compliment is as narrow as you think it is. Newton obviously didn't think so, and those compliments that David gave clearly weren't veiled insults that only sounded like compliments; they were simply compliments that weren't heartfelt. I mean, if your boss told you that you did a great job, but you feel that he was just being nice and that he didn't really find your work that impressive, would you say that therefore he wasn't complimenting you? As for Prof, Megan made it quite clear that the perception of failure is Prof's actual weakness, and that their original theory only seemed to be correct because Prof perceived a connection between his powers and the chance of failure: Prof's powers deactivated shortly after Megan and David reiterated Prof's failures.

Except there was no textual evidence that Calamity had any character change. Do you think Brandon is so amateur that he'd fail not only in "showing" but also in "telling" something that important? On the other hand, there were plenty of times an Epic was defeated by using his Epic weakness. My interpretation, if true, means that Calamity's defeat had lots of foreshadowing. But thanks for explaining why you like that option better. If I was Brandon and I chose for the main villain to have a change of heart, I'd have added a bit more dialogue showing how remorseful the villain was (like what he did with Hrathen in Elantris) before he went away. That would have made more sense from a storytelling perspective. Thing is... I'm pretty sure I'm not better than Brandon at storytelling. Well, it felt right to me because it makes the magic system consistent. This consistency when dealing with magic is one of the things I like about Brandon. Where did you get that? Limelight's weakness activated when he perceived his own failures. Fortuity's weakness is activated by a strongly positive perception of someone. Newton's is a perception of being valued. Etc., etc. On a related topic, whether you think Calamity's weakness is magical or psychological, I believe that the Reckoners as a YA series teaches an important lesson to young people: All Epics have weaknesses. It is good to know that Goliath can be felled, that you don't have to tolerate a powerful bully and wait until he leaves you. As G.K. Chesterton said: "Fairy tales don't teach children that dragons exist. They already know that dragons exist. Fairy tales teach them that dragons can be defeated."

But that's what they've been calling him since Firefight! Sure you can debate on why he isn't, but obviously David thought he was, thus explaining his actions. @Voidus: Sorry, but I did address it: In other words, the proposal that Calamity had no magical flaw, which meant David had to attack a mundane psychological weakness, is a violation of the Second Law. Insisting on a mundane solution when an awesome magical solution was staring at you right in the face (seriously, how many times has David defeated an Epic by cleverly guessing his or her weakness and acting on that at the last minute?) violates the Zeroth Law. To be clear, I fully acknowledge that only Brandon can conclusively tell us if Calamity is close enough to what an Epic is to have an Epic power-negating weakness. I can't read his mind, obviously. He has broken his Laws before (e.g. the mists Deus ex Machina in TFE), and I have no doubt he will do so again. But to be honest, I don't know why you prefer the "Calamity is not an Epic" solution. Where is the appeal there? Why do you insist on it?

I believe I addressed the psychological weakness vs. magical weakness above. Also, Larcener seemed capable of interacting with humans to some extent even if he did find them reprehensible and bizarre, so "petrified" is a bit much. Let me summarize the two possibilities proposed: David thought that if he could show Calamity that heroic Epics can become common, he'll be so irrationally terrified by that fact that he'll just run away screaming, vanishing into the void. David thought that if he could show Calamity that heroic Epics can become common, his magical weakness will be triggered and he'll become powerless, vanishing into the void. Tell me, which line of thought is worthy of being called a good plan? Which would the renowned Steelslayer think of? Would he really rely on a baseless hunch regarding how a totally alien being would react to fear? Or would he bet on the tried-and-tested formula of making Epics lose their powers via their magical weakness? Again, I'm asking you to think of Sanderson's Laws. This is his book. All his comments about it implied that he was happy with how he ended this series. Would he really use such a mundane solution as you guys propose? (Sparks! That came out a bit too emphatic for some reason. It's just a fantasy book. Lighten up, skaa!)

Do you guys seriously suggest that? Can you imagine the reaction of fantasy readers everywhere if someone asked Brandon why Calamity faded away and he answered "Oh, he just gave up and left in despair"? I'm sorry, I guess I'll get a downvote for appearing to be an arrogant jerk who thinks he's always right, but you've got to explain to me why you think it's a good idea for Brandon to break three of his Laws of Magic in the last few pages of the last book of the Reckoners series. Because that's what this idea implies. First Law: Explain something before using it to solve a problem. You're basically saying that without any foreshadowing, without any reason at all, David magically guessed that Calamity will politely go away if only he could show him the error of his ways. Second Law: The weakness is more interesting than the power. You're claiming that Calamity's power has no weakness, and that the only reason he left voluntarily is for pure psychological reasons. And finally: Zeroth Law: Always err on the side that's awesome. You proposed a mundane solution, not an awesome one. That's one way to interpret it. But if the weaknesses are not intrinsic to the powers, then why does Megan still have a weakness after she's claimed her powers for herself (such that Calamity can no longer take the powers away)? Or maybe you're saying that the weaknesses are gone now that Calamity is gone? Are you suggesting that the Epics in Firefight's version of Earth (one where "Invocation" left a year after manifesting in the sky) walk around with no supernatural weakness, some of them with Prime Invincibility? That would be very interesting if true. It would seem to go against Sanderson's Second Law of Magic, but it's still interesting. Allow me to propose another interpretation: The powers in the Reckoners Multiverse all come from the dimension where Calamity and Invocation came from, which we can look at as something akin to the Cosmere Spiritual Realm (although obviously a different thing). There are beings from this eldritch dimension that can be seen as Gifters of all the powers, and these beings are sent to various alternate Earths to Gift these powers to people. These powers always come with a weakness, one weakness per individual. Even the eldritch god-like Gifters have a weakness. In other words, each Epic's specific weakness is not from Calamity himself per se, but is rather inherent in the magic of the eldritch dimension. With this interpretation, I am simply expanding upon what everyone in the Reckoners Multiverse know about the Epics. I am basically following all of Sanderson's Laws, including the Third Law: Expand on what you already have. With this interpretation, David was able to analyze Larcener's way of thinking and figured out his (and therefore Calamity's) Epic weakness, which is why he knew what to do once Megan arrived in that space station scene: show Calamity an alternate Earth where truly heroic Epics are common. Everything about this was foreshadowed in accordance to the First Law. It utilizes a weakness in the magic system in accordance to the Second Law. It uses a previously defined rule in accordance to the Third Law. And being able to logically deduce the magical weakness of a god-like creature of immense magical power is awesome. I have more thoughts on the matter (like the nature of the darkness), but I plan to put them in a separate thread. The main point that I'm trying to say here is that we don't have to settle for the "Brandon decided to break his Laws of Magic by making a god-like being give up for tenuous reasons" explanation for the ending of Calamity. I mean, sure, you can go with that, but I won't.

The book doesn't say outright that Calamity was defeated via a fear-based weakness. It is only strongly implied by this scene: Unless you have a alternative, I will suggest that the only reasonable conclusion is that Calamity got defeated the same way Steelheart and Limelight got defeated: his weakness was triggered, rendering him powerless.

I think you kind of missed the point. Facing one's fear does not allow an Epic to use his powers, it only drives away the darkness and the compulsion for evil. Remember that fire still renders Megan powerless even after she's no longer flees from it. The same should apply to the Epic of Epics.So, what would a powerless Calamity be capable of doing to save people from up there in low Earth orbit? Nothing. In fact, because his presence on that particular version of Earth most likely depends on his powers (because he doesn't belong in that reality), losing those powers should send him back to his home dimension. And that's what happened.

There are two ways to kill an Epic. One is to force him to encounter his Epic Weakness that is based on fear. This leaves him powerless, allowing you to kill him like you would an ordinary human... Except if he was never a normal human in the first place. When Calamity was faced with his fear, his powers left him. And with his powers gone, what form should he have taken? What is he without his powers? Certainly not a human. Certainly not anything from Earth's dimension. Even his being on Earth was a manifestation of the power of dimensional projection (like what Megan does), and so as he lost his powers he lost the ability to stay in that dimension. That's why he disappeared. He returned to that formless void from whence he came. Hence the "lacking" ending. I'm guessing some people found it lacking because Calamity didn't die in a "proper" manner suitable for a villain, like how Steelheart died in an explosion triggered by himself and how Regalia died of a gunshot after her most terrible act was revealed. If you were the author, how would you make Calamity's defeat more fulfilling? Well, in order for him to not simply fade away like he did, you'd have to destroy him without triggering his fear. An Epic can also be killed by overwhelming his defenses. This is not going to work on some Epics, though. For example, Megan would just resurrect when killed with her powers enabled. Ooh! Maybe if someone hit him with a nuclear explosion! I bet the person who has the Prime Invincibilty powers of all the High Epics who ever existed will succumb to that! Don't be silly. One good thing about the Reckoners series is that it avoids the trap of using Deus Ex Machina to solve problems. Villains are defeated in ways that doesn't come out of the blue. This, I think, was why Brandon chose this ending. All the Epics in the world wouldn't be able to defeat Calamity by sheer force alone. They had to use his fear, meaning there was no choice for Brandon but to write that scene of Calamity fading away when he realized his fear was right in front of him. Perhaps Brandon could have chosen a better fear than "humans not being inherently evil", but frankly I'm okay with it. What fear would you give Calamity if you were in Brandon's shoes?

So... this was downvoted for some reason. I'll try to rephrase my argument (Warning: BoM spoilers): So, is the signing over? How was it?

Yeah, especially since removing Calamity from *all* alternate realities where he hasn't left might take a while.

What an interesting way to read the trilogy! HoA spoilers Vin's mother was quite insane, and Ruin manipulated her into sacrificing her baby (who was a Seeker) so that her other daughter Vin (who Ruin intended to use in his plan to free himself) could have a Hemalurgically-enhanced Seeking ability that would be useful in finding the Well of Ascension. I'll stop right there in case you don't want to be spoiled about the rest of HoA. Have fun reading!

Thanks! You gave me enough keywords to use so that I could find the specific annotations myself: Annotation of Chapter 4 Part 2 and Annotation of Chapter 14. I'm putting the links here so that others may benefit from reading the source.