In dark of the moon they talk about how he might be powerful enough to bring back the dead. If I were Rawneth I would try to destroy Areulan's banner to drive the Iron matriarch insane. The DNA is in that banner and he could literally make her body from what is there. Her soul is trapped in the banner. There is no reason he could not actually bring her back to life. You would literally see the threads pulling up as if someone was coming out of the banner. It could be he responded in an act of desperation in response to what Brenwyr would do, meaning he would have zero idea how he did it so no one could demand he keep doing it. Brenwyr's power would go out of control as she thinks Rawneth has destroyed the banner. I always felt that Areulan was one who held traits of both creation and preservation. She balanced Brenwyr, and even in death she tries to protect her. This could occur in similar state as when Kindrie saw his mother, where there was both a Physical and spiritual cross over. Areulan's power and Kindrie's could pull her back into the world of the living. It would be a bad ass show of power and throw a surprise into the mix. After all she has a life long contract with the Brandon. Caladane would have a fit and fall back into it. It could also allow you to set her up to be the Knorth Matriarch. This in turn would allow for her to help change the women's world.
This is a really good point. From what's been stated, That Which Preserves is also that which heals -- and healing, while not creation or destruction, exactly, is awesome and overpowering if extreme enough.
I think it's worth looking at how the three faces can counter one another, both because our three protagonists do not, in fact, agree with one another all the time, and also because it may provide insight.
That which destroys can counter creation by destroying it directly. It's a very brutal contest, and not one that anyone can. That which creates can counter destruction by overwhelming it -- creating more new things and trying to overwhlem the death and destruction. Here, it is destruction that has the upper hand, because no matter how much is created, that just provides more things for destruction to destroy and feed upon, and there will always be something at the root of creation that when destroyed will end the cycle.
That which preserves can counter destruction extremely directly, as acting as a shield to destruction's sword. But also, isn't the cloak the artifact of preservation just as the dagger is the artifact of destruction and the book is the artifact of creation? If so, one can also preserve something by -hiding- it, shielding it from destruction and forcing the destruction to go elsewhere -- the way Kindrie was saved from his family's murder. And finally, preservation can counter destruction by finding the remnants of what is destroyed and restoring it. That which destroys can counter preservation not by attacking it directly (here, preservation trumps, as if one power counters another then it is preservation that comes out on top; doing nothing is both its aim and the default) but by attacking its roots, attacking the things not protected or hidden. As much as destruction is more flexible than preservation, preservation is destruction's perfect counter, so while the aim of destruction is to destroy and shut off preservation, if they are equal it will fail.
Finally, creation counters preservation by creating new things and recontextualizing the nature of what is to be preserved. Because an "outside" always exists, perfect preservation can stand up to destruction, but not to change and creation, recontextualizing the old and eventually forcing it to change in response, however hard you hold on. Preservation -tries- to counter creation by defining a core that must be preserved, and redefining and refining that core so that something of the old remains in the new. In truth, it is creation that is dominant in this exchange, but the best new creations are also built on a core of the old, and so in the end the result is enhanced by their struggle.
Reply
I think it's worth looking at how the three faces can counter one another, both because our three protagonists do not, in fact, agree with one another all the time, and also because it may provide insight.
That which destroys can counter creation by destroying it directly. It's a very brutal contest, and not one that anyone can.
That which creates can counter destruction by overwhelming it -- creating more new things and trying to overwhlem the death and destruction.
Here, it is destruction that has the upper hand, because no matter how much is created, that just provides more things for destruction to destroy and feed upon, and there will always be something at the root of creation that when destroyed will end the cycle.
That which preserves can counter destruction extremely directly, as acting as a shield to destruction's sword. But also, isn't the cloak the artifact of preservation just as the dagger is the artifact of destruction and the book is the artifact of creation? If so, one can also preserve something by -hiding- it, shielding it from destruction and forcing the destruction to go elsewhere -- the way Kindrie was saved from his family's murder. And finally, preservation can counter destruction by finding the remnants of what is destroyed and restoring it.
That which destroys can counter preservation not by attacking it directly (here, preservation trumps, as if one power counters another then it is preservation that comes out on top; doing nothing is both its aim and the default) but by attacking its roots, attacking the things not protected or hidden.
As much as destruction is more flexible than preservation, preservation is destruction's perfect counter, so while the aim of destruction is to destroy and shut off preservation, if they are equal it will fail.
Finally, creation counters preservation by creating new things and recontextualizing the nature of what is to be preserved. Because an "outside" always exists, perfect preservation can stand up to destruction, but not to change and creation, recontextualizing the old and eventually forcing it to change in response, however hard you hold on.
Preservation -tries- to counter creation by defining a core that must be preserved, and redefining and refining that core so that something of the old remains in the new. In truth, it is creation that is dominant in this exchange, but the best new creations are also built on a core of the old, and so in the end the result is enhanced by their struggle.
Reply
Leave a comment