Active Users:762 Time:23/12/2024 07:41:46 AM
Back to Messageboard Post New Thread Search Help Stats Rules
Re: Graendal's Fate (Alive or Dead?) Shishka Send a noteboard - 05/01/2010 07:15:41 PM
RJ states in several places that *objects* don't have a power to perform actions in themselves and that balefire erases the life thread of a person back in time so the action in that time never happened.


Yes, but that doesn't mean that objects don't have threads that can also (like human threads) be burned back in time. Datakim below provides a quote from BS that states that EVERYTHING has a thread.

We already knew that, anyway. In ACoS, when Moghedien balefired Nynaeve's boat, Lan said that suddenly Nynaeve went from being 50 paces ahead of him to being 50 paces behind him. The only way that could have happened is if Moggy's balefire burned the boat back in time, however long it took the boat to travel those 100 paces.

Given these two conditions, destruction of the angreal would have no more effect than had Rand balefired Graendal's hand (which she must have used to touch the emissary to effect the compulsion).


I don't see that we have nearly enough evidence to state that with certaintly, since we know for fact that objects are burned back in time. The question is, if an object is burned back in time, does it negate what the object did, or was used for, in that time? I still think the answer to that question is "yes".

Rise and fall, turn the Wheel,
'cause all life is
is really just a circle.

-BHT&tM
Reply to message
Graendal's Fate (Alive or Dead?) Shishka - 05/01/2010 05:44:12 PM 2295 Views
Re: Graendal's Fate (Alive or Dead?) randfandom - 05/01/2010 06:46:19 PM 1059 Views
Re: Graendal's Fate (Alive or Dead?) Shishka - 05/01/2010 07:15:41 PM 927 Views
Nynaeve's boat... fionwe1987 - 05/01/2010 07:23:57 PM 889 Views
Balefire is REALLY confusing. Datakim - 05/01/2010 07:41:05 PM 774 Views
Good point ... Shishka - 05/01/2010 07:52:04 PM 747 Views
I'm somewhat surprised objects have threads. Fanatic-Templar - 05/01/2010 08:45:52 PM 4479 Views
Re: I'm somewhat surprised objects have threads. Shishka - 05/01/2010 09:23:06 PM 717 Views
Re: I'm somewhat surprised objects have threads. Fanatic-Templar - 05/01/2010 10:30:42 PM 741 Views
Wasn't there a quote somewhere BlackAdder - 06/01/2010 02:05:32 AM 666 Views
Probably a bit of retconning there by Brandon Lord Haart - 06/01/2010 03:34:55 PM 699 Views
BS is definitely wrong here BlackAdder - 06/01/2010 02:01:23 AM 711 Views
Re: BS is definitely wrong here Lord Haart - 06/01/2010 03:36:06 PM 684 Views
There is another way... fionwe1987 - 05/01/2010 07:00:31 PM 729 Views
Re: There is another way... Shishka - 05/01/2010 07:35:05 PM 766 Views
Re: There is another way... fionwe1987 - 05/01/2010 11:05:26 PM 688 Views
Nope randfandom - 06/01/2010 04:36:56 AM 765 Views
USe Occam's Razor yourself... fionwe1987 - 06/01/2010 05:53:22 AM 884 Views
and why didn't she invert any of the weaves? darius_sedai - 06/01/2010 05:55:54 AM 707 Views
Exactly! *NM* fionwe1987 - 06/01/2010 05:27:52 PM 374 Views
Maybe you cannot invert compulsion? Datakim - 06/01/2010 06:56:35 PM 742 Views
so it's the one and only thing we've seen that can't be inverted? seems a little darius_sedai - 06/01/2010 11:31:09 PM 648 Views
Re: so it's the one and only thing we've seen that can't be inverted? Datakim - 07/01/2010 12:02:00 AM 599 Views
I am inclined to agree with Datakim here. Fanatic-Templar - 07/01/2010 02:04:42 AM 904 Views
Why aren't inverted weaves standard practice? BlackAdder - 07/01/2010 01:24:09 AM 765 Views
Balefire is so confusing Datakim - 05/01/2010 07:03:29 PM 771 Views
Re: Balefire is so confusing Shishka - 05/01/2010 08:52:57 PM 743 Views
She's dead as a bloody doornail. Or whatever that saying is... *NM* lilltempest - 05/01/2010 07:20:36 PM 371 Views
Clearly dead Etzel - 05/01/2010 07:29:11 PM 910 Views
Re: Clearly dead Shishka - 05/01/2010 08:21:16 PM 784 Views
Re: Clearly dead Datakim - 05/01/2010 08:41:15 PM 734 Views
I think... Etzel - 05/01/2010 09:05:48 PM 739 Views
No way. Gher - 05/01/2010 07:31:12 PM 794 Views
Re: No way. Shishka - 05/01/2010 08:31:54 PM 685 Views
Re: No way. Gher - 05/01/2010 10:16:03 PM 712 Views
Graendal's as dead as BS/RJ makes her. *NM* Great Lord of Chaos - 06/01/2010 02:40:46 AM 365 Views
She's dead as dead gets. everynametaken - 06/01/2010 01:43:34 AM 662 Views
Dead is my bet Sidious - 06/01/2010 11:48:46 AM 678 Views
She's dead *NM* Simon - 06/01/2010 11:58:34 AM 344 Views
Dead. *NM* AgentOrange - 06/01/2010 03:58:19 PM 350 Views
I think she's alive. RugbyPlayingAshaman - 06/01/2010 06:12:50 PM 696 Views
Compulsion is rather useless isn't it? Syraelle - 06/01/2010 07:44:42 PM 773 Views
It may take an exceptional Delver/Healer Gher - 06/01/2010 08:49:37 PM 748 Views
perhaps, but still I have a hard time believing Graendal didn't invert the weaves! darius_sedai - 06/01/2010 11:06:49 PM 682 Views
Re: perhaps, but still I have a hard time believing Graendal didn't invert the weaves! RugbyPlayingAshaman - 07/01/2010 03:42:17 PM 720 Views
What if.. Tweak - 06/01/2010 10:41:44 PM 647 Views
I'll roll my eyes, and snort if she's alive Wotmaniac Reborn - 08/01/2010 04:21:20 AM 667 Views
Well... Heiko - 10/01/2010 03:24:39 AM 871 Views
Back to Messageboard Post New Thread Search Help Stats Rules

Reply to Message

Block Quote Paragraph Quote
Formatting
Smiley Codes