I'm getting into Yet Another Re-Read, and am enjoying it.

RJ succeeded with making the Aelfinn and Eelfinn something other than merely "people in funny suits" which bugs me about the likes of the Dragons of [Autumn/Winter/Spring] trilogy and other series in that wider series, and other fantasy novels. A lot of those sorts of elfin creatures are taken from Tolkien without the writer taking the trouble to find out the behaviour of the elfish/trollish creatures in the myths Tolkien used for his fantasy, which, as I say, they wind up being "people in funny suits". I'm afraid I don't care for "people in funny suits" - once when I was a kid, in the Papua New Guinean bush, and going through some section of the bush that the locals didn't use, I was told by a local who saw me, "Bai masalai i kaikaiim yu!" - the local woodland spirit will eat you! And that guides my reading of everything that involves woodland spirits, house spirits, water spirits, and the like. Of course, Tolkien "baptized" the woodland spirits and made them into "natural Catholics" - it's good that RJ "unbaptized" them, so they are closer to their original style, but the problem I find is that they're "semi-technocrats". I would recommend reading https://www.oocities.org/thslone/masalai.html and likewise https://www.amazon.com/One-Thousand-Papua-Guinean-Nights/dp/0971412715

I agree with you.

Almost two hundred pages into The Shadow Rising, and Rand just tried to save the unnamed little girl's life with Callandor. I have been waiting for this scene! For some reason, I thought it happened at the end of TDR and have been really confused/impatient to get here. I love it for many reasons (including how it makes me tear up). It's a very important reminder that, despite all of their power, people who can use the One Power are still powerless over death, just like the rest of us.

I'm sure there's a discussion for this somewhere, but what about this game: https://www.gog.com/en/game/the_wheel_of_time

I want to be excited about this, I really do, but every time I see AAA open world RPG attached to a beloved franchise it usually means a game that looks great in trailers but loses its heart somewhere along the way. Big studios tend to focus on scale and visuals instead of the quiet details that make a world feel alive. I mostly play single player RPGs like The Witcher 3, Dragon Age: Inquisition and Baldur’s Gate 3. What I love about those games is the sense of immersion, the way every place feels like it has history and every decision feels personal. That is what I would want from a Wheel of Time game. Let me walk through a real Two Rivers village, hear the wind in the Blight, or watch the White Tower from the streets below. Reading the latest news makes it hard to stay hopeful though. It sounds more like another big promise without a clear plan. I hope I am wrong, but it feels like the kind of dream that fades long before we ever get to play it.

Thank you. You as well.

I often feel that the reason people think Jordan focused on matriarchal societies is because his world actually promotes more equality than our own in some ways, and that can feel different. As was said above, Far Madding is the only place where females are so overtly superior (outside of the White Tower). Yes, Andor's ruler is always a female, but men and women have equal rights in Andor. In Aiel culture only women can 'own' a roof, but their society is still an equal one. In the Borderlands women aren't 'superior' to men, it's just that Borderlander culture heavily respects them, especially the Malkieri.

What you say is probably true: evil deeds are not committed solely at the behest of religious dogma (one need only recall the atrocities of Stalinism and National Socialism). Yet since God evidently represents the highest authority for believers, His mandate—be it commandment, injunction, or imperative—is the least likely to be questioned and is followed with the greatest zeal and devotion. When God curses the descendants of Ham and relegates them to the status of second-class beings, is it any wonder that people then set about enslaving and persecuting them with fervor, regarding them as second-class human beings—right up to the present day? Critical thinking has no room to arise in such a context. But of course you are right again: This subject seems only loosely connected to the history of Randland. Or perhaps not? It keeps that subtle tension and invites the reader to question the connection. Its late, and tired recruits love their evening-Grappa, and thats exactly what I intend to do. Have a nice evening and love to hear from you again!

That is not true, Caelan. All that is needed is a concept of the greater good that can justify any lesser evils. Nationalism and patriotism provide that, but so do things like "protecting children", unfortunately people are amazingly good at justifying horrors and religion is far from the only culprit. If I may be so bold as to touch back upon the Wheel of Time (off topic as that is, lol), it is the rejection of the greater good by Rand that so impresses Ingtar. Yet at other points, Rand brings war and destruction for the greater good of peace. It is a complex issue, but can be far too easily abused.

It is undisputed that there are religious people who do good, and they deserve full credit for it. On the other hand, there is nothing in the realm of human empathy or humanism that atheists could not also do — or perhaps even do better. In any case, when they perform good deeds, they do not cast a glance toward a heavenly reward, but act for the sake of the good itself. And one more thing: good people do good things, bad people do bad things — but it takes religion to make good people commit atrocities. Have a nice Christmas holiday, best 73, --.../...-- from Calean

No, it was not Christianity itself that freed the slaves, but as I mentioned earlier they were often in the forefront of the abolition movement (despite others that used Christianity to justify slavery). Wilberforce was one of these Christians, as were the people highlighted in green below that he worked with. Their passion for the abolition movement often came after a conversion experience to Christianity.

Exactly my thoughts as well!

When discussing the role of Christians in the abolition of slavery, we must not overlook the fact that even in the 18th and 19th centuries, nearly the entire population of Europe and the United States belonged to some form (version) of Christianity. It was not Christianity itself that freed the slaves, but rather people capable of empathy and compassion, who stood up for their fellow human beings, even when they were of a different skin color. Side note: William Wilberforce (24 August 1759 – 29 July 1833) was a British politician, philanthropist, and a leader of the movement to abolish the Atlantic slave trade.

I quote Richard Dawkins verbatim: “The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control‑freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.”

Many of the slaveholders in the Southern states were devout Christians who took perverse pleasure in whipping runaway slaves to death. So let's dispense with the nonsense that it was Christians who championed the liberation of Black people from slavery. Far too many of them profited immensely from it.

I don't think Jordan ever tried to create a matriarchy (except in Far Madding of course). He is quoted as trying to make all his societies as balanced as possible, and was shocked that others saw something different. There is no reason to think that Jordan was trying to counter balance any sort of real world religion. He was writing a novel, not making a comment on religion or trying to push back in any way. So I'm afraid I would have to disagree that Jordan was making his books matriarchal or that they were in any way some kind of counter point to anything in the real world, much less religions.

Like many readers, I have often wondered why Robert Jordan depicted his world with such an overflowing matriarchy. It’s not only the Aes Sedai, endowed with the ability to channel, who assume an almost pathological ruler-like posture, but the female gender also dominates disproportionately within the political structures of Randland. I have reflected on this topic extensively and came to the conclusion—whether rightly or not, I cannot say—that Jordan deliberately sought to create a counterbalance to the toxic masculinity present in Abrahamic religions. I have never studied the Qur’an in depth, but it was enough for me to have to digest passages from the so-called Holy Scriptures. Would you like some examples? Deuteronomy 22:13–21 (NIV summary): If a man accuses his wife of not being a virgin at the time of marriage, her parents must provide proof (the blood on the bed sheets). If the claim is true, she can be stoned to death; if false, the husband is punished. This law treats women as property and places the burden of proof entirely on them, allowing capital punishment for perceived sexual misconduct. Women not teaching in church 1 Timothy 2:11–12: “A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet.” Frequently cited as restricting women from leadership or teaching roles in early Christian communities. Ephesians 5:22–24: “Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord.” Women are instructed to obey their husbands, reflecting a patriarchal structure. 1 Corinthians 11:3: “The head of every man is Christ, the head of a woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.” Establishes male authority over women. God thus appears not merely as a proponent of slavery (as specified in my former blog) but as the embodiment of misogyny. The stoning of women—though recommended, indeed commanded, only in the so-called “Old Testament”—ignores the physiological realities of the female body, which numerous studies have documented: only about 48 percent of women bleed during their first sexual intercourse. The conclusion: 52 percent of women were innocently murdered at the command of the Creator God. I can already hear your objection: Yes, Jesus stood protectively before the adulterous woman, saying, “Let anyone who is without sin cast the first stone.” But hold on—he apparently had no problem with stoning, as long as it was carried out by the “righteous.” In light of these facts, it seems entirely understandable—and even commendable—to me that Robert J. sought to provide a vigorous counterpoint. As always, your most Sincerely Caelan best 73, --.../...--

True that. Being christian doesn't make one good, obviously...

Well thats great for a religion guided literally by GOD. Far more likely that some good men who happened to be christians fought for freedom than that good chrisitians fought for freedom because of their faith.

Even though the church, and christians more broadly, supported/encouraged retaining slavery for centuries, that does not nullify the fact that christians also were the driving force in its abolition in the late 1700's and 1800's.

That makes a lot of sense.

Thanks for the clarification! One can discern from this that, at times, evil—perhaps unintentionally—can also give rise to something good, something positive. It is rare, but it does happen.

Hilarious the clearly out of context support of slavery. The salad approach or choosing to ignore the parts that are no longer morally acceptable is a joke. As mankind advances it drags the morals of the church with it as they desperately attempt to stay relevant. The bible especially the old testament is a book of evil.

Lol at giving credit to the christian religion for the abolition of slavery only 18 centuries after the new testament and that after specifically supporting it earlier in the "holy" book.