Active Users:721 Time:25/03/2026 08:18:13 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 2586 Views
Re: Graendal's Fate (Alive or Dead?) - 05/01/2010 06:46:19 PM 1331 Views
Re: Graendal's Fate (Alive or Dead?) - 05/01/2010 07:15:41 PM 1182 Views
Nynaeve's boat... - 05/01/2010 07:23:57 PM 1154 Views
Balefire is REALLY confusing. - 05/01/2010 07:41:05 PM 1061 Views
Good point ... - 05/01/2010 07:52:04 PM 999 Views
I'm somewhat surprised objects have threads. - 05/01/2010 08:45:52 PM 4742 Views
Re: I'm somewhat surprised objects have threads. - 05/01/2010 09:23:06 PM 982 Views
Re: I'm somewhat surprised objects have threads. - 05/01/2010 10:30:42 PM 1035 Views
Wasn't there a quote somewhere - 06/01/2010 02:05:32 AM 957 Views
Probably a bit of retconning there by Brandon - 06/01/2010 03:34:55 PM 936 Views
BS is definitely wrong here - 06/01/2010 02:01:23 AM 957 Views
Re: BS is definitely wrong here - 06/01/2010 03:36:06 PM 918 Views
There is another way... - 05/01/2010 07:00:31 PM 1014 Views
Re: There is another way... - 05/01/2010 07:35:05 PM 1044 Views
Re: There is another way... - 05/01/2010 11:05:26 PM 949 Views
Nope - 06/01/2010 04:36:56 AM 1021 Views
USe Occam's Razor yourself... - 06/01/2010 05:53:22 AM 1151 Views
and why didn't she invert any of the weaves? - 06/01/2010 05:55:54 AM 960 Views
Exactly! *NM* - 06/01/2010 05:27:52 PM 502 Views
Maybe you cannot invert compulsion? - 06/01/2010 06:56:35 PM 974 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 909 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 857 Views
I am inclined to agree with Datakim here. - 07/01/2010 02:04:42 AM 1164 Views
Why aren't inverted weaves standard practice? - 07/01/2010 01:24:09 AM 1007 Views
Balefire is so confusing - 05/01/2010 07:03:29 PM 1046 Views
Re: Balefire is so confusing - 05/01/2010 08:52:57 PM 1027 Views
She's dead as a bloody doornail. Or whatever that saying is... *NM* - 05/01/2010 07:20:36 PM 506 Views
Clearly dead - 05/01/2010 07:29:11 PM 1188 Views
Re: Clearly dead - 05/01/2010 08:21:16 PM 1053 Views
Re: Clearly dead - 05/01/2010 08:41:15 PM 973 Views
I think... - 05/01/2010 09:05:48 PM 1008 Views
No way. - 05/01/2010 07:31:12 PM 1074 Views
Re: No way. - 05/01/2010 08:31:54 PM 939 Views
Re: No way. - 05/01/2010 10:16:03 PM 1007 Views
Graendal's as dead as BS/RJ makes her. *NM* - 06/01/2010 02:40:46 AM 480 Views
She's dead as dead gets. - 06/01/2010 01:43:34 AM 910 Views
Dead is my bet - 06/01/2010 11:48:46 AM 917 Views
She's dead *NM* - 06/01/2010 11:58:34 AM 479 Views
Dead. *NM* - 06/01/2010 03:58:19 PM 488 Views
I think she's alive. - 06/01/2010 06:12:50 PM 958 Views
Compulsion is rather useless isn't it? - 06/01/2010 07:44:42 PM 1052 Views
It may take an exceptional Delver/Healer - 06/01/2010 08:49:37 PM 1003 Views
What if.. - 06/01/2010 10:41:44 PM 906 Views
I'll roll my eyes, and snort if she's alive - 08/01/2010 04:21:20 AM 906 Views
Well... - 10/01/2010 03:24:39 AM 1148 Views

Reply to Message