the archives

dusted off in read-only


Chorae issues posted 08 Jun 2005, 05:06 by AleoMagus, Commoner

Of all the things in the books that I have difficulty with, chorae are definitely at the top of my list. I simply find it hard to understand the manner in which chorae could actually protect their wearers from sorcery. Sure it's easy to just say it - they render their wearers immume, but in so many ways, this doesn't make sense. Consider for example a situation where someone is standing on top of a structure of some kind while wearing a chorae. A sorcerer lights this structure on fire, or otherwise explodes/destroys it. How can the wearer be immune? Can the sorcerer not even begin a chain of events which will hurt the wearer? This seems unlikely, because assuming this, I could easily build an argument where no sorcery at all is possible so long as anyone is wearing chorae anywhere, as any chain of events would eventually affect everyone. On the other hand, maybe a sorcerer cannot directly affect a wearer but can start a chain of events which would affect the wearer. In this case, a sorcerer simply needs to affect nearby objects instead. He can explode rocks, or melt the earth, or burn down buildings. Heck, even at the battle of Kiyuth, we can imagine that it must have gotten hot for Cnair while everything was burning up around him. What about the oxygen that the fire consumes? How could one survive this? Maybe Sorcerous fire doesn't need oxygen, but then, it still must produce heat, and that would produce real fire when the flash point of any object was reached - And then that would consume oxygen. If this is the case, I think sorcerers would have long ago mastered ways of battling chorae wearers. In some sense, they might not need to change anything at all, as almost all of their sorcery would produce enough effects external to the chorae wearers, to actually affect them anyways. Going even deeper, there is just a basic question about what 'external' to a chorae wearer is to begin with. Can a sorcerer burn off clothing, or melt weapons? It's easy to conjure up a lot of scenarios like this that are troublesome, and one can even build logical contradictions around most chorae assumptions. Maybe I'm just missing something. I know it's a fantasy novel, but this is a real difficulty for me. It's the only aspect doesn't seem to lend itself to a satisfying explanation. Even the very notion of sorcery, I can imagine some kind of physics for, but the chorae just don't seem to make sense however I try to rationalize them. I'm sure you have encountered questions like this before so I'll stop and give you a chance to respond. In any case, it hasn't stopped me from loving the books. Regards Brad S view post

posted 08 Jun 2005, 23:06 by Dark Wraith, Commoner

Good question, I had the same problem with chorae. Notably the fact that Nonmen use something similar to the Gnosis and supposedly created the chorae but human sorcorers use Anagogic and Gnostic magic and can be destroyed by chorae while from what I've seen chorae don;'t kill Nonmen. view post

posted 09 Jun 2005, 02:06 by Entropic_existence, Moderator

I tried lookong for the post it was in but Scott has discussed some of the metaphysical aspects of chorae. There was a school of Nonmen sorcerors who "discovered" and studied a school of sorcery called the Aporos, which had it's grounding in negative semantics. I believe it was deemed too risky or vulgar or some such and outlawed, these nonmen sorcerors found haven for their studies with the Inchoroi. Chorae are made based on Aporotic cants which is why they nullify gnostic and anagogic sorcery. If someone else can find the thread were Scott actually talked about it can you link it? It explains it far better than I can. view post

posted 09 Jun 2005, 09:06 by AleoMagus, Commoner

[quote:20m5k6zt]Chorae are made based on Aporotic cants which is why they nullify gnostic and anagogic sorcery[/quote:20m5k6zt] but again, nullify how? if they nullify only sorcery that would immediately affect the wearer, then it's really pretty easy to just affect the world around a wearer in such a way as to harm, or otherwise affect him... but on the other hand, if they nullify any chain of events which would ultimately affect a chorae wearer, then it's a slippery slope to sorcery being altogether impossible so long as anyone has a chorae anywhere. At very least, it's easy to see how a chorae wearer could protect huge numbers of people just by somehow linking his fate to theirs. also, we have other secondary effects of sorcery that MUST affect chorae wearers, such as created light, or sound. What if this light is blinding, or this sound is deafening? ... Truth be told, I really like the idea that sorcerers can still affect chorae wearers by starting a chain of events, because I don't like the idea of chorae wearers being TOTALLY immune to sorcery. That said though, It's hard to see how this can make sense because if sorcerers can still start a chain of events to hurt wearers, chorae are basically useless. Also, it's hard imagine how sorcery is anything but a chain of events in the first place. After all, if I create a huge fireball, technically I'm not directly affecting anyone. I'm just creating lots of heat and, and that in turn accelerates molecules of air, which bump up against molecules of clothing which get really hot also and start on fire, etc... Regards Brad S view post

posted 09 Jun 2005, 10:06 by White Lord, Subdidact

[quote="AleoMagus":1m24lqbt]but again, nullify how?[/quote:1m24lqbt] Chorae affect, i.e. unravel, the sorcerous [i:1m24lqbt]cants[/i:1m24lqbt] that are the cause of, say, a fireball or lightning or any other offensive spell. They wouldn't be able to unravel natural fire or lightning, and sorcerous fire is definitely not natural. This is what happens when you use sorcery directly against a Chorae wielder. If you use it, as you say, to start a chain of events, then Chorae are no use at all. But then again, you should already know this, as it's been shown several times in the books. Chorae do not offer total immunity; if a sorcerer knows how to start these chains of events, he'll be able to harm a Chorae wielder. One of many examples in the books is the scenes after Achamian escapes from the Scarlet Spires in Iothiah. He kills Mamaradda, the Javreh captain by hurling the coals of a brazier against him, later he collapses an entire floor on the heads of Chorae-wielding Javreh. This is all an example of how a sorcerer can make use of natural objects to defeat the Aporetic cants of the Chorae. Another point I should make is the distinctiveness of natural fire, say, and its consequences, from sorcerous fire. If you use sorcery to create fire out of [i:1m24lqbt]nothing[/i:1m24lqbt] then Chorae can defeat all the secondary effects of this fire. If, OTOH, you find natural fire, and use sorcery to magnify it, or manipulate it in any other way, then you can do damage. The same if you encounter, say, the precursors of a tempest and then use sorcery to develop it into a full-blown storm with attendant lightnings and other destructive results . . . view post

posted 09 Jun 2005, 21:06 by Entropic_existence, Moderator

I knew White Lord would come to my rescue with a far better explanation of it than I could, thanks WL! view post

posted 09 Jun 2005, 22:06 by Tol h'Eddes, Auditor

If you want to pursue the subject, there is this link[url=]On the subject of Chorae[/url:seyobccc] where Scott describe the effect of Chorae, much in the same way WL explained. Here's three things Scott told us about it : [quote="Cu'jara Cinmoi":seyobccc]But remember, though a sorcerous wind would blow mundane shafts away, it would have no effect on bolts fixed with Chorae. If one the other hand, a Schoolman were to cause a low pressure cell that subsequently unleashed winds... Since sorcery interacts with the real world, it produces real effects that Chorae are useless against.[/quote:seyobccc] [quote="Cu'jara Cinmoi":seyobccc]The Chorae are actually sorcerous artifacts (of something called the 'Aporos'), manufactured prior to the Cuno-Inchoroi Wars (by Quya defectors) as a way for the Inchoroi to counter the sorcery of the Nonmen. The script inscribed across each embodies a contradiction that unravels the semantics of all known Cants - even those of the Aporos![/quote:seyobccc] [quote="Cu'jara Cinmoi":seyobccc]The logic of magic is analogistic: like affects like. If the arcane spoken is undone by the Chorae, it follows that the arcane speaker be undone as well. That was the original idea anyway. I hope to get into this much deeper as the books progress.[/quote:seyobccc] Hope it helps ! view post

posted 10 Jun 2005, 04:06 by White Lord, Subdidact

[quote="Entropic_existence":2y7r6wq5]I knew White Lord would come to my rescue with a far better explanation of it than I could, thanks WL![/quote:2y7r6wq5] No problem . . . :) view post

posted 13 Jun 2005, 15:06 by Cu'jara Cinmoi, Author of Prince of Nothing

Good questions, all. Personally, I've always worried that the Chorae may come across as too ad hoc, as mere narrative conveniences that allow a happy (but not very credible) balance between the sorcerous and the non-sorcerous. But in point of fact, that role came after - the Chorae developed independently. From the outset, I've looked at each of the sorcerous branches in linguistic terms, as practices where language commands, rather than conforms to, reality. So the Anagogis turns on the semantic power of figurative analogies, the Gnosis turns on the semantic power of formal generalizations, the Psukhe turns on speaker intention, and so on. And much as language undoes itself in paradoxes, sorcery can likewise undo itself. The Aporos is this 'sorcery of paradox,' where the meanings that make sorcery possible are turned in on themselves to generate what might be called 'contradiction fields.' Since the metaphysics of sorcery actually plays a significant role in TTT, it would probably be better to postpone a more in depth discussion until then. view post

posted 13 Jun 2005, 19:06 by Entropic_existence, Moderator

Every time I get another glimpse into the metaphysics to be revealed in TTT I just get hungrier and hungrier for it Scott :) TTT and Erickson's the Bonehunters are my two most anticipated novels of all time (since I got caught up in the Malazan series) view post

posted 13 Jun 2005, 23:06 by Deerow, Auditor

This doesn't belong here really...but nice sig Entropic. view post

posted 14 Jun 2005, 02:06 by Entropic_existence, Moderator

Thanks, I like shamelessly plugging my favourite things. Firefly....TPoN, etc. All about creating the Buzz! :) view post

posted 14 Jun 2005, 22:06 by Deerow, Auditor

Keep up the good work. *BUY FIREFLY* That is as subtle as I get. view post

posted 19 Jun 2005, 17:06 by Cu'jara Cinmoi, Author of Prince of Nothing

I know this'll likely make me sound stupid, but just what in the hell is 'Firefly'? view post

posted 19 Jun 2005, 20:06 by Entropic_existence, Moderator

Firefly was an ill-fated TV show by Joss Whedom of Buffy and Angel fame and the best way to describe it as a western in Space. Excellent dialogue, great characters, etc so of course in the US market Fox stuck it on at Friday night and aired the episodes out of order, then wondered why the show flopped after only 1/2 a season. Course when the DVD boxset came out the sales were huge and Joss managed to get it picked up as a movie called Serenity which comes out Sept. 30th. It is was an amazing TV show because it was different, all the characters were well thought out, the stories were great, the setting was cool, and Joss writes some pretty great dialogue. </promo> :) view post

posted 20 Jun 2005, 13:06 by Deerow, Auditor

Indeed...I was never a Buffy or Angel fan by any stretch of the imagination, but [i:24244sa2]Firefly[/i:24244sa2] blew me away. Do yourself a favor and at least rent the first DVD in the series...if you like what you see buy it...if not then you've only really lost $5 on the whole thing. view post

posted 21 Jun 2005, 18:06 by Scilvenas, Auditor

I watched the first episode of Firefly. Wasn't impressed enough to watch it again (plus my TV was pretty much set to the Sci-Fi channel on Friday nights back then). view post

posted 21 Jun 2005, 23:06 by Murrin, Peralogue

'First episode' meaning the first one they broadcast? That was actually the third episode, and I wasn't too impressed with that one either. Then I the second (fourth) one, which was actually quite a bit better (after that I started watching them in the [i:32sg8bj7]correct[/i:32sg8bj7] order, which improved things a bit) - it was an alright show, even if some episodes weren't quite as good as others. view post

posted 22 Jun 2005, 03:06 by Deerow, Auditor

Yeah, I wouldn't say it is the best show ever made...but a nice change of pace from crap like "The Littlest Groom" and "Survivor 47" (or whatever they are up to by now). view post


The Three Seas Forum archives are hosted and maintained courtesy of Jack Brown.