Active Users:3116 Time:23/01/2025 05:24:18 AM
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 2324 Views
Re: Graendal's Fate (Alive or Dead?) - 05/01/2010 06:46:19 PM 1082 Views
Re: Graendal's Fate (Alive or Dead?) - 05/01/2010 07:15:41 PM 952 Views
Nynaeve's boat... - 05/01/2010 07:23:57 PM 909 Views
Balefire is REALLY confusing. - 05/01/2010 07:41:05 PM 790 Views
Good point ... - 05/01/2010 07:52:04 PM 765 Views
I'm somewhat surprised objects have threads. - 05/01/2010 08:45:52 PM 4498 Views
Re: I'm somewhat surprised objects have threads. - 05/01/2010 09:23:06 PM 747 Views
Re: I'm somewhat surprised objects have threads. - 05/01/2010 10:30:42 PM 767 Views
Wasn't there a quote somewhere - 06/01/2010 02:05:32 AM 685 Views
Probably a bit of retconning there by Brandon - 06/01/2010 03:34:55 PM 718 Views
BS is definitely wrong here - 06/01/2010 02:01:23 AM 731 Views
Re: BS is definitely wrong here - 06/01/2010 03:36:06 PM 707 Views
There is another way... - 05/01/2010 07:00:31 PM 754 Views
Re: There is another way... - 05/01/2010 07:35:05 PM 786 Views
Re: There is another way... - 05/01/2010 11:05:26 PM 706 Views
Nope - 06/01/2010 04:36:56 AM 788 Views
USe Occam's Razor yourself... - 06/01/2010 05:53:22 AM 905 Views
and why didn't she invert any of the weaves? - 06/01/2010 05:55:54 AM 731 Views
Exactly! *NM* - 06/01/2010 05:27:52 PM 391 Views
Maybe you cannot invert compulsion? - 06/01/2010 06:56:35 PM 765 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 671 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 625 Views
I am inclined to agree with Datakim here. - 07/01/2010 02:04:42 AM 932 Views
Why aren't inverted weaves standard practice? - 07/01/2010 01:24:09 AM 780 Views
Balefire is so confusing - 05/01/2010 07:03:29 PM 791 Views
Re: Balefire is so confusing - 05/01/2010 08:52:57 PM 762 Views
She's dead as a bloody doornail. Or whatever that saying is... *NM* - 05/01/2010 07:20:36 PM 384 Views
Clearly dead - 05/01/2010 07:29:11 PM 935 Views
Re: Clearly dead - 05/01/2010 08:21:16 PM 802 Views
Re: Clearly dead - 05/01/2010 08:41:15 PM 759 Views
I think... - 05/01/2010 09:05:48 PM 759 Views
No way. - 05/01/2010 07:31:12 PM 821 Views
Re: No way. - 05/01/2010 08:31:54 PM 706 Views
Re: No way. - 05/01/2010 10:16:03 PM 735 Views
Graendal's as dead as BS/RJ makes her. *NM* - 06/01/2010 02:40:46 AM 376 Views
She's dead as dead gets. - 06/01/2010 01:43:34 AM 679 Views
Dead is my bet - 06/01/2010 11:48:46 AM 700 Views
She's dead *NM* - 06/01/2010 11:58:34 AM 351 Views
Dead. *NM* - 06/01/2010 03:58:19 PM 361 Views
I think she's alive. - 06/01/2010 06:12:50 PM 720 Views
Compulsion is rather useless isn't it? - 06/01/2010 07:44:42 PM 796 Views
It may take an exceptional Delver/Healer - 06/01/2010 08:49:37 PM 768 Views
What if.. - 06/01/2010 10:41:44 PM 673 Views
I'll roll my eyes, and snort if she's alive - 08/01/2010 04:21:20 AM 695 Views
Well... - 10/01/2010 03:24:39 AM 898 Views

Reply to Message