Active Users:1150 Time:22/11/2024 11:02:40 AM
There's actual evidence: fionwe1987 Send a noteboard - 22/01/2016 06:25:25 AM

Desperately Nynaeve reached for saidar. Fear streaked through her anger, but there was anger enough—and it ran into an invisible wall between her and the warm glow of the True Source.

This is from tFoH, in TAR. When Moghedien did land a shield on Nynaeve. As you can see, it is a wall.

Later in the same chapter:


Even as she did, saidar seemed to fill Moghedien like a flood. Liandrin’s probe died as the Source was shielded from her. Flows of Air picked her up and slammed her against the paneled wall hard enough to make her teeth rattle...

Suddenly she was tying off the shield, the knot growing ever more intricate, until Liandrin lost the twists and turns completely. And still it went on. “There,” Moghedien said finally in tones of satisfaction. “You will search a very long time to find anyone who can unravel that. But you will have no opportunity to search."



The knot is intricate, but Liandrin never once says anything about the shield itself being different. She just calls it "the shield" as if she knows it, just like she mentions Flows of Air.

If there was anything special about Moghedien's shield, neither Nynaeve nor Liandrin mention it.

And look at this description from tSR:


The knife-sharp shield that Egwene had used to still Amico Nagoyin sprang into being, more weapon than shield, lashed at Moghedien—and was blocked, woven Spirit straining against woven Spirit, just short of severing Moghedien from the Source forever. Again the Forsaken’s counterblow came, slashing like an axe, intended to cut Nynaeve off in the same way. Forever. Desperately Nynaeve blocked it.

Once again, nothing about the shield looks different to Nynaeve. You argue that maybe the difference is only obvious once the shield is in place, but 1)when it was placed later, Nynaeve calls it a wall and 2)Why would Moghedien need to use exactly as much strength as Nynaeve, then? If he shield is more flexible and different, more like Berowyn's, wouldn't it also take less of the OP. Instead, it is an exact match for Nynaeve's.

So the only evidence we have from an AoLer shielding an Aes Sedai is from Moghedien. And there is absolutely nothing different about her shield. Neither in how it is made, nor how it feels to women who are shielded. It certainly doesn't expand one bit for Nynaeve.

As for Lanfear's shield, it was different in that it allowed a tiny trickle of the OP, but she also makes it clear the pain thing is nothing special:


He was never very good at breaking through a shield; you must be willing to accept pain, and he never could.

The tense she uses, and the "never" all point to the pain being a regular aspect of breaking a shield.


View original post
What evidence do you have that shielding was not a result of Aes Sedai searching for effective ways to stop males from destroying the world? We know Aes Sedai did a lot of research around how linking worked as part of stopping mad males, or at least controlling them. Given that Tower law requires a male to be brought to Tar Valon and put on trial, shielding would have been a massively important skill for early Reds to have mastered.

Wait, ou're claiming they forgot shielding and reinvented it in the 300 years after the Tower's founding? That is certainly not true:
Or were many of these “false Aes Sedai” actually Aes Sedai who resisted going along with the amalgamation of independent groups into one whole? Certainly there is evidence that many of these women were “forced to kneel to the Amyrlin Seat and the White Tower,” at least some were stilled, and a large number joined the Tower and were thereafter accepted as Aes Sedai.

This is before the White Tower was even completed.



The fact that it also worked on women would have been incidental and what would prompt Aes Sedai to find more effective weaves to block other women. Aside from knowing that there was a lot of politicking in the early days of the Tower and probably more than a few conflicts ending in dead pre-Tower Aes Sedai, there is nothing to suggest Aes Sedai hunted down, shielded and brought to trial women who falsely claimed the Aes Sedai title and even if they did this happened within a very short timeframe so it seems far less likely that women would have spent a lot of time figuring out more effective ways to shield other women. Especially since they were already in large groups and linking was an option.

You forget that the Breaking was also filled with groups of Aes Sedai hunting down the remnants of the Shadow, which certainly included women. There is absolutely no evidence that Shielding was a skill that was ever lost, during the Breaking. And it makes good sense that it wasn't. Shielding and Severing are major tools for any woman against both the Shadow and mad male channelers. They were probably among the weaves to survive the Breaking intact.
Reply to message
Angreal, Sa'angreal and Moiraine at 66 - 11/01/2016 08:53:23 AM 2289 Views
Or we can choose to assume Elayne is incorrect - 11/01/2016 03:50:14 PM 1077 Views
Uhhh... - 12/01/2016 12:07:42 AM 1216 Views
Yet there are problems with either - 15/01/2016 08:52:04 PM 910 Views
Re: Yet there are problems with either - 16/01/2016 05:29:11 AM 1159 Views
Would you consider... - 17/01/2016 09:06:59 AM 1025 Views
random thought on Shielding - 19/01/2016 07:34:20 PM 1086 Views
You're forgetting the other side, though. - 19/01/2016 08:19:59 PM 1148 Views
yes but it doesn't proactively do this - 19/01/2016 10:06:25 PM 1000 Views
Responding to a shield doesn't require proactiveness - 20/01/2016 05:53:24 AM 912 Views
it's a visualization thing really - 20/01/2016 04:39:08 PM 967 Views
Not the crux of the debate... - 21/01/2016 03:37:40 AM 1035 Views
Not really though - 21/01/2016 05:00:34 PM 820 Views
I always explained it as - 21/01/2016 09:26:35 PM 1048 Views
There's not much to go on since all the shields except Berowyn's are the same - 21/01/2016 09:55:14 PM 932 Views
That's precisely my point - 21/01/2016 10:09:02 PM 1064 Views
now you are speculating based on a lack of evidence - 21/01/2016 10:39:13 PM 873 Views
There's actual evidence: - 22/01/2016 06:25:25 AM 1078 Views
what's dense here is that you keep putting in quotes that don't support your position - 22/01/2016 03:28:16 PM 1201 Views
Whoa.. - 22/01/2016 04:24:19 PM 1148 Views
Not at all - 22/01/2016 05:03:50 PM 1090 Views
Wonderful - 22/01/2016 06:30:35 PM 1064 Views
yup that's my argument. that and you're a dick so I'm done with this - 22/01/2016 06:46:23 PM 883 Views
Re: yup that's my argument. that and you're a dick so I'm done with this - 23/01/2016 02:35:33 PM 1188 Views
Petty much *NM* - 24/01/2016 02:50:32 PM 487 Views
Hmmm.... - 23/01/2016 03:06:15 PM 1125 Views
Let me clear this up - 25/01/2016 04:19:51 PM 1266 Views
Some more quotes - 25/01/2016 05:10:51 PM 1039 Views
none of which I've denied or tried to prove otherwise - 25/01/2016 07:19:48 PM 1314 Views
Re: none of which I've denied or tried to prove otherwise - 26/01/2016 03:45:52 AM 1095 Views
Re: none of which I've denied or tried to prove otherwise - 26/01/2016 09:00:55 AM 1251 Views
Re: none of which I've denied or tried to prove otherwise - 26/01/2016 10:39:49 AM 1032 Views
Oh well then I agree with you - 26/01/2016 08:50:55 AM 1129 Views
thanks - 26/01/2016 04:26:46 PM 1307 Views
Yes, but that's not what I'm arguing... - 16/01/2016 08:56:15 AM 868 Views
But additive doesn't explain buffers and being able to overdraw - 16/01/2016 03:02:33 PM 889 Views
Don't those two facts explain each other? - 16/01/2016 03:24:44 PM 935 Views
It actually seems counterintuitive to me - 19/01/2016 07:15:37 PM 877 Views
Simple - 19/01/2016 08:21:11 PM 1006 Views
Not at all - 19/01/2016 10:17:39 PM 778 Views
Huh? - 20/01/2016 06:01:04 AM 998 Views
agree to disagree I suppose ... I don't see it this way *NM* - 20/01/2016 04:41:16 PM 539 Views
I didn't sense disagreement so much as confusion over my position. *NM* - 21/01/2016 12:01:16 AM 514 Views
Re: I didn't sense disagreement so much as confusion over my position. - 21/01/2016 02:07:21 AM 896 Views
Re: I didn't sense disagreement so much as confusion over my position. - 21/01/2016 03:32:59 AM 912 Views
I don't necessarily think that's true - 21/01/2016 05:07:40 PM 1005 Views
I don't see how magnifiers solve this - 21/01/2016 10:01:17 PM 989 Views
Re: I don't see how magnifiers solve this - 21/01/2016 10:16:16 PM 918 Views
Uhhh... - 22/01/2016 06:51:11 AM 1065 Views
Funny, I just saw this post - 17/09/2016 11:13:09 PM 798 Views
The very first chapter (the Prologue) disproves this - 03/10/2016 06:56:28 AM 863 Views
No it doesn't - 05/10/2016 12:47:03 AM 757 Views
Re: Don't those two facts explain each other? - 08/10/2016 05:06:53 AM 674 Views
Re: Yes, but that's not what I'm arguing... - 08/10/2016 04:52:06 AM 887 Views

Reply to Message