PDA

View Full Version : Callandor with possible other properties?


Rand al'Fain
11-03-2011, 08:43 PM
It was lightly touched upon in the questions thread, but never really went very far. Anyways;

Near the end of the book The Dragon Reborn, when Rand is fighting Ishamael, Ishamael, or one of his traps at least, blasts some balefire at Rand. Rand uses Callandor to slice it in half while in TAR. Is it an effect of TAR, or is it possibly some effect of Callandor? Because normally in TAR, you could turn balefire another direction, or eliminate it entirely, rather than cutting it in half.

finnssss
11-03-2011, 09:06 PM
What happens in TAR is a result of what you believe and how strongly you believe it.

Rand overwhelmingly believed with the power he held that he could split the balefire with the sword, so he did.

Landro
11-04-2011, 09:26 AM
This may have to do with Calandor really existing in T'A'R just like dreamspikes. But that's just speculation on my part.

Zombie Sammael
11-04-2011, 09:56 AM
I think that Callandor is what it is: a powerful but flawed male ter'angreal, that requires that male to both trust and cede control to a female to use it safely. Given that it was apparently made towards the end of the War of Power, when troubled politics along gender lines in the AS of the time were beginning to emerge (if not yet the Taint), that may even have been intentional:

JWB: Was Callandor constructed during the War of Power?
RJ: Yes

JWB: Was it used in the War of Power?
RJ: Yes, that is how the flaw was discovered.

JWB: Why didn't they ward/buffer Callandor?
RJ: The flaw with Callandor is simply a manufacturing flaw. (He went on to talk about how they were at the end of their tech age with only a few sho-wings and jo-cars left. A couple of shocklances were still around but they were not as prevalent as they had been. Anyway they had been mass producing ter'angreal, angreal, and sa'angreal, and there are bound to be flaws with the products. The flaw with Callandor is simply one such flaw.)

Terez
11-04-2011, 10:38 AM
Don't see how you can argue that the flaw was 'intentional' with that RJ quote in mind.

frenchie
11-04-2011, 10:43 AM
Don't see how you can argue that the flaw was 'intentional' with that RJ quote in mind.

That's never stopped Felix.

Davian93
11-04-2011, 11:18 AM
That's never stopped Felix.

Callandor wears a cape.

GonzoTheGreat
11-04-2011, 11:47 AM
Callandor wears a cape.And not just any cape:
A crystal sword perhaps an object of the Power, perhaps only an ornament; he had no way of telling held down the Dragon banner of Lews Therin Kinslayer, spread out like a tablecloth and spilling onto the floor.

Zombie Sammael
11-04-2011, 11:53 AM
Don't see how you can argue that the flaw was 'intentional' with that RJ quote in mind.

I thought someone might say that. Seems like there are two things: first, just because the person using the sword - at a time after its creation - "discovered" the flaw doesn't mean it wasn't put there intentionally. European explorers "discovered" the temples of the Aztecs. I can "discover" a virus on my computer. Second, I personally find the term "manufacturing flaw" to be rather ambiguous. If someone builds a car with no brakes on purpose, that's still a manufacturing flaw.

But in any case, it's not an idea I'm particularly attached to. Like I said, I think in this case, a sword is just a sword (that isn't a sword).

Davian93
11-04-2011, 11:56 AM
Yes but the RJ quote rather heavily implies that it was just a quality control issue due to mass production and technology levels rapidly plummeting due to the war effort.

Zombie Sammael
11-04-2011, 12:03 PM
Yes but the RJ quote rather heavily implies that it was just a quality control issue due to mass production and technology levels rapidly plummeting due to the war effort.

(there exists a dim possibility that I may have come up with the theory, realised there was a quote, found the quote, and realised I was going to have to try to warp it to fit the theory. That may not have been 100% sensible, but there you go)

Terez
11-04-2011, 01:40 PM
(there exists a dim possibility that I may have come up with the theory, realised there was a quote, found the quote, and realised I was going to have to try to warp it to fit the theory. That may not have been 100% sensible, but there you go)
That's funny, because I was reading your post and thinking, 'Damn, now I have to go get that quote'. And then I saw that you had included it, and I'm like, 'Well, gee.'

Zombie Sammael
11-04-2011, 01:46 PM
That's funny, because I was reading your post and thinking, 'Damn, now I have to go get that quote'. And then I saw that you had included it, and I'm like, 'Well, gee.'

Thus proving that even having learned to use EWOT, the interview database (in its existing form), and read all of your FAQs several times, I'm still a noob?

Terez
11-04-2011, 02:00 PM
Don't feel bad; Brandon is still a noob too.

The Unreasoner
11-04-2011, 04:18 PM
I suppose I can be a 'noob for life' then.

I always liked the idea that the flaw was intentional. I just think the Wheel was the 'intender'. The flaw probably serves a purpose, maybe facilitating the merger when 'all he is can be seized'. Of course, that implies that it will happen at SG, and I know some people do not like that notion.