Active Users:367 Time:27/04/2025 05:41:46 PM
Re: Balefire is so confusing Shishka Send a noteboard - 05/01/2010 08:52:57 PM
I always used to believe that the way Balefire worked was that it only erased things with actual threads in the pattern backwards through time. That is to say, only living things like people and animals and such. That is why when balefire struck physical objects (like the walls in the palace during the Rahvin confrontation) it simply cut through them, creating grooves. But when it struck anything alive, the living being turned to glowing sparkling mist and then vanished completely.

If this view were correct, your theory simply could not work since as a physical object that was not alive, the angreal would not have a thread to be burned back. Its destruction, even by balefire would not reverse the compulsion. Only the death of Graendal herself by balefire would work.


I agree. Objects must have threads that can be burned back in time, for my idea to work.

But then we got to TGS and my understanding went right out the window. There are several cases where balefire in this books acts differently to the way it did before.

Compare for instance what happened during the final confrontation with Ishamael. Ishy weaves balefire at Rand, who somehow splits the balefire in two. The split balefire actually HITS Rands wool coat, igniting it, but just barely misses Rand himself. The balefire then strikes the colums, but again simply bores through them rather than causing them to disappear in sparkles. We see this again in the Rahvin confrontation. Balefire striking walls just bores through rather than causing the wall to sparkle away.

But thats not how it works in TGS. When Rand weaves balefire at his coat, rather than just making a hole into it (and the floor), the coat disappears entirely. This happens again during the Graendal confrontation. Rand's balefire, rather than just boring through the mansion (and erasing the living things it hits) actually erases the entire mansion. Even the parts that were not hit.

When asked about this, Sanderson actually said that the view I had was wrong and that physical objects in the pattern actually DO have threads, in which case your theory could be true.


Agreed, given what BS said. Regardless whether BS is right or wrong, it seems we should use balefire evidence from TGS to determine the possibility/impossibility of an idea regarding other balefire usage in TGS.

Having said that ... based on discussion in this thread, I'm thinking my idea is pretty unlikely, even if evidence from TGS suggests that it could be possible.

The whole thing gives me a headache.


Me too!
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?) - 05/01/2010 05:44:12 PM 2379 Views
Re: Graendal's Fate (Alive or Dead?) - 05/01/2010 06:46:19 PM 1134 Views
Re: Graendal's Fate (Alive or Dead?) - 05/01/2010 07:15:41 PM 1001 Views
Nynaeve's boat... - 05/01/2010 07:23:57 PM 968 Views
Balefire is REALLY confusing. - 05/01/2010 07:41:05 PM 850 Views
Good point ... - 05/01/2010 07:52:04 PM 818 Views
I'm somewhat surprised objects have threads. - 05/01/2010 08:45:52 PM 4551 Views
Re: I'm somewhat surprised objects have threads. - 05/01/2010 09:23:06 PM 804 Views
Re: I'm somewhat surprised objects have threads. - 05/01/2010 10:30:42 PM 822 Views
Wasn't there a quote somewhere - 06/01/2010 02:05:32 AM 742 Views
Probably a bit of retconning there by Brandon - 06/01/2010 03:34:55 PM 773 Views
BS is definitely wrong here - 06/01/2010 02:01:23 AM 790 Views
Re: BS is definitely wrong here - 06/01/2010 03:36:06 PM 763 Views
There is another way... - 05/01/2010 07:00:31 PM 808 Views
Re: There is another way... - 05/01/2010 07:35:05 PM 845 Views
Re: There is another way... - 05/01/2010 11:05:26 PM 762 Views
Nope - 06/01/2010 04:36:56 AM 841 Views
USe Occam's Razor yourself... - 06/01/2010 05:53:22 AM 960 Views
and why didn't she invert any of the weaves? - 06/01/2010 05:55:54 AM 788 Views
Exactly! *NM* - 06/01/2010 05:27:52 PM 416 Views
Maybe you cannot invert compulsion? - 06/01/2010 06:56:35 PM 810 Views
so it's the one and only thing we've seen that can't be inverted? seems a little - 06/01/2010 11:31:09 PM 723 Views
Re: so it's the one and only thing we've seen that can't be inverted? - 07/01/2010 12:02:00 AM 671 Views
I am inclined to agree with Datakim here. - 07/01/2010 02:04:42 AM 988 Views
Why aren't inverted weaves standard practice? - 07/01/2010 01:24:09 AM 829 Views
Balefire is so confusing - 05/01/2010 07:03:29 PM 845 Views
Re: Balefire is so confusing - 05/01/2010 08:52:57 PM 820 Views
She's dead as a bloody doornail. Or whatever that saying is... *NM* - 05/01/2010 07:20:36 PM 411 Views
Clearly dead - 05/01/2010 07:29:11 PM 990 Views
Re: Clearly dead - 05/01/2010 08:21:16 PM 857 Views
Re: Clearly dead - 05/01/2010 08:41:15 PM 805 Views
I think... - 05/01/2010 09:05:48 PM 815 Views
No way. - 05/01/2010 07:31:12 PM 886 Views
Re: No way. - 05/01/2010 08:31:54 PM 755 Views
Re: No way. - 05/01/2010 10:16:03 PM 795 Views
Graendal's as dead as BS/RJ makes her. *NM* - 06/01/2010 02:40:46 AM 401 Views
She's dead as dead gets. - 06/01/2010 01:43:34 AM 733 Views
Dead is my bet - 06/01/2010 11:48:46 AM 756 Views
She's dead *NM* - 06/01/2010 11:58:34 AM 382 Views
Dead. *NM* - 06/01/2010 03:58:19 PM 385 Views
I think she's alive. - 06/01/2010 06:12:50 PM 770 Views
Compulsion is rather useless isn't it? - 06/01/2010 07:44:42 PM 857 Views
It may take an exceptional Delver/Healer - 06/01/2010 08:49:37 PM 823 Views
What if.. - 06/01/2010 10:41:44 PM 728 Views
I'll roll my eyes, and snort if she's alive - 08/01/2010 04:21:20 AM 747 Views
Well... - 10/01/2010 03:24:39 AM 958 Views

Reply to Message