IGN Explainer - the Dark One

[TheDreadReader]

1 hour ago, king of nowhere said:

why wouldn't the foretelling mention dragonmount? why would they need to change that?

 

Logically, mentioning the dragonmount in the clip is not necessary in the technical sense of the word as that information can be communicated in other ways or at other times.    Nor, can one necessarily conclude that they have changed anything from the books from that clip.

 

Conceptually, they seem to be framing her search from her point of view.  That can be useful from a writing perspective if they try to add multiple points of view to the storylines from TEOTW.   In that book you're fairly limited to Rand's knowledge and perspective so doing things more from Moiraine's perspective can help fill in the gaps.   

 

[Arthellion]

I mean there is no change needed to Gitarja's prophesy.

 

They know the original Dragon was a male. "We don't know if he was reborn as a girl or a boy."

 

"He" in the prophesy refers to Lews Therin, not whatever child was born. 

Edited November 8, 2021 by Arthellion

[TheDreadReader]

30 minutes ago, Arthellion said:

I mean there is no change needed to Gitarja's prophesy.

 

 

Equally, there is no need to include that prophesy.   They can exclude it from the show without changing who or what the Dragon is.  They can, likewise, include it in the show without changing who or what the Dragon is.  

 

Ultimately, there is not enough information at the present time to conclude that they have included, excluded, or changed it based on the information that we have seen.

 

[MasterAblar]

11 minutes ago, TheDreadReader said:

 

Equally, there is no need to include that prophesy.   They can exclude it from the show without changing who or what the Dragon is.  They can, likewise, include it in the show without changing who or what the Dragon is.  

 

Ultimately, there is not enough information at the present time to conclude that they have included, excluded, or changed it based on the information that we have seen.

 

Hard to say as I’m not a first time viewer obviously but keeping the prophecy as is and at the same time saying they don’t if it’s a boy or a girl is likely to create confusion in viewers. Even reading generously, part of the foretelling can only be read as pertaining to the baby in question being born and not LTT. It’s not LTT lying in the snow crying.

[MasterAblar]

1 hour ago, TheDreadReader said:

 

It is no more contrived than it was in the original books when you factor in various measures for "contrived".   It really depends on how you frame it. 

 

For example, "We don't know where" is a generally true statement.  Book Moiraine could have said it without violating the three oaths.   All you have to do is infer a limiting clause of "on the slopes of the dragonmount".  The audio from the clip that the line comes from can easily include additional information.

 

The key element from the book is that Moiraine is looking for someone born on the dragonmount when she arrives in the two rivers but she doesn't have to know that some one was only that the possibility exists that one was.

  

 

 

Moiraine arriving in the Two River wasn’t contrived, she was acting on information which she doesn’t seem to have in the show (obviously the promotional material might be misleading we’ll see.

 

Now he arriving one day before the shadowspawn, yeah that was contrived obviously.

 

Of course contrived in this case is just another way of saying Pattern Say You Go Here.

[Rose]

The Pattern Did It is the best excuse for everything ?

[Skipp]

The "We don't know where" line has me surprised that everyone is taking it literally.  I took it to mean we don't know where the child is now as no one actually lives on the slope of Dragonmount. Gitara's foretelling could, and I believe still does, say the child was born on the slopes of Dragonmount.

[Rose]

7 minutes ago, Skipp said:

The "We don't know where" line has me surprised that everyone is taking it literally.  I took it to mean we don't know where the child is now as no one actually lives on the slope of Dragonmount. Gitara's foretelling could, and I believe still does, say the child was born on the slopes of Dragonmount.

 

I mean yeah it could mean that. But I think the exact wording was "The Dragon has been reborn. We don't know where, or to who."

 

Which to me means we don't know where the Dragon has been reborn.

 

But it could totally just be voiceover for promo purposes that's not exactly accurate to what happens in the show.

 

It's like the "one of 5" thing that's almost definitely not in the show because everything else says one of 4.

Edited November 8, 2021 by Rose

[TheDreadReader]

12 minutes ago, MasterAblar said:

Hard to say as I’m not a first time viewer obviously but keeping the prophecy as is and at the same time saying they don’t if it’s a boy or a girl is likely to create confusion in viewers. Even reading generously, part of the foretelling can only be read as pertaining to the baby in question being born and not LTT. It’s not LTT lying in the snow crying.

 

That confusion exists more (to me) in the minds of established book readers than new viewers.  Book readers have to reconcile their book knowledge with show knowledge which may just be a specific subset of that book knowledge.   

 

For new viewers, the show has the ability to progressively go from general information to more specific information over time.   The trick from a writing perspective is to not screw up that progressive revelation of new information in a way that feels wrong to the viewer.    

 

There is nothing contradictory (or even confusing) in having her say "We don't know whether it is girl or a boy" in episode one and then later saying "We know know that it is one of these three boys"  because she has moved from a general statement to  more specific one.   And, you don't really need to include something like Gitara's foretelling to go through that process.   (That said,  I do think that they include it as a prologue or flashback scene at some point.)

 

That same progression would also exist in something like "We don't know where exactly he was born", to "We know he was born on dragon mount but not exactly where", to "We know that he was born on dragon mount where the Illianers and Aiel were fighting".   They each go from general to more specific. 

 

Rafe used the search for the next Dalai Lama as a reference point for the Rand is LTT reborn.   I'm not entirely sure how that process works in the real world but it does provide a useful frame of reference for how they plan on doing things.   

 

 

 

 

[DojoToad]

On 11/4/2021 at 9:49 PM, Beidomon said:
I agree with your take, to an extent. I’ve said this before, that one of the greatest weaknesses of WOT is how flat some of the characters are, particularly the bad guys, and it’s an area I hoped WOTTV to improve upon, so I LOVED hearing Rafe speak to this. On this point at least, he clearly “gets it.”

 

I also agree with the notion of “restoring balance” versus “good defeating evil.” This is actually something I think Sanderson mishandled a bit with how AMOL ended. 

 

 

That I recall, never once did any of the Forsaken mention balance. They were for all out victory. Forces of light should be same way. We can stop your holocaust on that continent but won’t because the good we are doing here offsets the evil they are doing there. So it must be tolerated. Bull!

[Rose]

6 minutes ago, DojoToad said:

That I recall, never once did any of the Forsaken mention balance. They were for all out victory. Forces of light should be same way. We can stop your holocaust on that continent but won’t because the good we are doing here offsets the evil they are doing there. So it must be tolerated. Bull!

 

I know we've been over this already, that's not what balance means (in my opinion). Not going to reopen the debate though lol

 

9 minutes ago, TheDreadReader said:

 

That confusion exists more (to me) in the minds of established book readers than new viewers.  Book readers have to reconcile their book knowledge with show knowledge which may just be a specific subset of that book knowledge.   

 

For new viewers, the show has the ability to progressively go from general information to more specific information over time.   The trick from a writing perspective is to not screw up that progressive revelation of new information in a way that feels wrong to the viewer.    

 

There is nothing contradictory (or even confusing) in having her say "We don't know whether it is girl or a boy" in episode one and then later saying "We know know that it is one of these three boys"  because she has moved from a general statement to  more specific one.   And, you don't really need to include something like Gitara's foretelling to go through that process.   (That said,  I do think that they include it as a prologue or flashback scene at some point.)

 

That same progression would also exist in something like "We don't know where exactly he was born", to "We know he was born on dragon mount but not exactly where", to "We know that he was born on dragon mount where the Illianers and Aiel were fighting".   They each go from general to more specific. 

 

Rafe used the search for the next Dalai Lama as a reference point for the Rand is LTT reborn.   I'm not entirely sure how that process works in the real world but it does provide a useful frame of reference for how they plan on doing things.   

 

 

 

 

 

I understand what you mean and I agree it could work, but it wouldn't stand up to rewatches, because once you do have the more specific information, you realize you were intentionally misled in the beginning. In order for it to work, they'd need to do it in a way that isn't contradictory, just vague.

[TheDreadReader]

35 minutes ago, MasterAblar said:

Moiraine arriving in the Two River wasn’t contrived, she was acting on information which she doesn’t seem to have in the show (obviously the promotional material might be misleading we’ll see.

 

Now he arriving one day before the shadowspawn, yeah that was contrived obviously.

 

Of course contrived in this case is just another way of saying Pattern Say You Go Here.

 

She is acting on information in the show too if we assume that the clip where Lan asks her where they are going next appears in the show.   She responds with a reference to the old blood rather than a reference to dragon mount.  It can reasonably concluded that she is referencing the line about being raised by the old blood in the prophecies of the dragon.   

 

That is a good example of the framing problem I keep mentioning.   A lot of the conversation focuses on the foretelling and can lose sight of the prophecies (and the inverse can be true too).   The causality of her actions can be grounded in either thing with the same or similar effects/outcomes.  

 

 

 

 

[TheDreadReader]

6 minutes ago, Rose said:

 

I know we've been over this already, that's not what balance means (in my opinion). Not going to reopen the debate though lol

 

 

I understand what you mean and I agree it could work, but it wouldn't stand up to rewatches, because once you do have the more specific information, you realize you were intentionally misled in the beginning. In order for it to work, they'd need to do it in a way that isn't contradictory, just vague.

 

A lot of that depends on how much you think that they are trying to create mystery over who the dragon is and for how long they play it out.   I think that everyone has a pretty clear idea of who the dragon by the end of the episodes released on the 19th.   And, "misleading" is kind of the Aes Sedai brand. ?

 

 

 

[Elder_Haman]

31 minutes ago, Rose said:

It's like the "one of 5" thing that's almost definitely not in the show because everything else says one of 4.

And I'm fairly certain that in the show, she actually says "it's one of you" period. 

[themann1086]

51 minutes ago, Rose said:

The Pattern Did It is the best excuse for everything ?

I say this with complete sincerity and not sarcasm, but RJ creating an in-universe explanation for the Forest of Coincidences that invariably happen in any work of fiction was legitimately brilliant. "These events sure seem contrived." "The Wheel weaves as the Wheel wills."

[Ralph]

And ta'veren similarly

[DojoToad]

9 minutes ago, Rose said:

I know we've been over this already, that's not what balance means (in my opinion). Not going to reopen the debate though lol

So what does balance mean then?  Yes, has been debated in several areas - but guess what, it just got brought up again.  Sorry, not trying to be an @$$.  But I would be interested in what your opinion of balance is.

 

Mine is that good and evil balance: I lie to my mom so now I need to eat my peas without complaining.  Or I killed someone on purpose now I need to donate a wing on a hospital to save a life.  Or I killed someone on accident - an ambulance will do.  That is my simplistic thoughts on balance.  And I think it is all bull.  Because if I build a new wing on the hospital, they will save more than one life - that means I have some killings in my pocket.  Or what if striking my significant other in anger can be made up for by doing the dishes for a week.  What if she thinks it should be two weeks?  Who judges when my tally is balanced?  

 

If I'm well to the good side of balance and a kid runs out into traffic - I'm able to save him, but if I do I'll be even more to the good and severely imbalanced.  If I let him get hit, that evens me out and I'm perfectly balanced.

 

See what I mean.  Would appreciate your perspective on balance.

[Arthellion]

1 hour ago, MasterAblar said:

Hard to say as I’m not a first time viewer obviously but keeping the prophecy as is and at the same time saying they don’t if it’s a boy or a girl is likely to create confusion in viewers. Even reading generously, part of the foretelling can only be read as pertaining to the baby in question being born and not LTT. It’s not LTT lying in the snow crying.

 

You're focusing too much on the foretelling itself, no offense. Look at the trailer/clip in it's whole.

 

She says that a dragon existed and it was a He. And we don't know if "he" has been reborn into a boy or a girl. 

 

So for gitarja's foretelling, that he can specifically refer to Lews Therin being reborn. That's if they keep this prophesy. If they do keep it, then they don't need to change anything. The soul of Lews Therin (HE) is reborn. Doesn't require that He be reborn into a male body. 

[Elder_Haman]

2 minutes ago, DojoToad said:

So what does balance mean then?  Yes, has been debated in several areas - but guess what, it just got brought up again.  Sorry, not trying to be an @$$.  But I would be interested in what your opinion of balance is.

 

Mine is that good and evil balance: I lie to my mom so now I need to eat my peas without complaining.  Or I killed someone on purpose now I need to donate a wing on a hospital to save a life.  Or I killed someone on accident - an ambulance will do.  That is my simplistic thoughts on balance.  And I think it is all bull.  Because if I build a new wing on the hospital, they will save more than one life - that means I have some killings in my pocket.  Or what if striking my significant other in anger can be made up for by doing the dishes for a week.  What if she thinks it should be two weeks?  Who judges when my tally is balanced?  

 

If I'm well to the good side of balance and a kid runs out into traffic - I'm able to save him, but if I do I'll be even more to the good and severely imbalanced.  If I let him get hit, that evens me out and I'm perfectly balanced.

 

See what I mean.  Would appreciate your perspective on balance.

 

Rather than think of "balance" (which for you seems to imply an even weight on both sides of the scale), think of it as the proper degree of tension between good and evil. When you think of the wheel weaving the pattern, the threads must be kept taut - not too much slack, but not pulled too tight. It's not a 50/50 split between good and evil that's required, but there has to be some quantity of evil in order to provide context to free will. "Balance" in this sense means the striving to find the amount of tension that maximizes "good" while keeping just enough evil so the pattern doesn't snap or fall apart.

[DojoToad]

2 minutes ago, Elder_Haman said:

 

Rather than think of "balance" (which for you seems to imply an even weight on both sides of the scale), think of it as the proper degree of tension between good and evil. When you think of the wheel weaving the pattern, the threads must be kept taut - not too much slack, but not pulled too tight. It's not a 50/50 split between good and evil that's required, but there has to be some quantity of evil in order to provide context to free will. "Balance" in this sense means the striving to find the amount of tension that maximizes "good" while keeping just enough evil so the pattern doesn't snap or fall apart.

Thanks for the input.  Again, not trying to be argumentative but rather attempting to poke holes for better understanding.  You are correct - I am thinking equal weight.  Which I guess would be the most obvious/literal definition of balance.

 

But in yours, why does good have to be maximized - why couldn't evil with just enough good to keep everything from unraveling.  Why couldn't I cheat on my wife and taxes as long as I'm saving kids from cancer and rescuing pit bulls from illegal fights?  Guess that gets back to my question as to who/what is to judge?  You want to maximize good, but how much good is enough?

[Katherine]

6 minutes ago, DojoToad said:

Thanks for the input.  Again, not trying to be argumentative but rather attempting to poke holes for better understanding.  You are correct - I am thinking equal weight.  Which I guess would be the most obvious/literal definition of balance.

 

But in yours, why does good have to be maximized - why couldn't evil with just enough good to keep everything from unraveling.  Why couldn't I cheat on my wife and taxes as long as I'm saving kids from cancer and rescuing pit bulls from illegal fights?  Guess that gets back to my question as to who/what is to judge?  You want to maximize good, but how much good is enough?

 

[DojoToad]

1 minute ago, Katherine said:

 

Is that a level?  ?

[Elder_Haman]

7 minutes ago, DojoToad said:

But in yours, why does good have to be maximized - why couldn't evil with just enough good to keep everything from unraveling.  Why couldn't I cheat on my wife and taxes as long as I'm saving kids from cancer and rescuing pit bulls from illegal fights?  Guess that gets back to my question as to who/what is to judge?  You want to maximize good, but how much good is enough?

Well, that's sort of the eternal question isn't it?

On a personal level, recognizing that there is evil in the world, it seems each individual should strive to do good all of the time. Of course, this is impossible because all of us are selfish and imperfect to one degree or another. So we should try to do the most amount of good and the least amount of evil.

On the metaphysical level, the Dark One seeks to inject enough evil into the pattern that the tension is lost. In those cases, he wins again. The pattern unravels entirely. 

[Rose]

38 minutes ago, DojoToad said:

So what does balance mean then?  Yes, has been debated in several areas - but guess what, it just got brought up again.  Sorry, not trying to be an @$$.  But I would be interested in what your opinion of balance is.

 

Mine is that good and evil balance: I lie to my mom so now I need to eat my peas without complaining.  Or I killed someone on purpose now I need to donate a wing on a hospital to save a life.  Or I killed someone on accident - an ambulance will do.  That is my simplistic thoughts on balance.  And I think it is all bull.  Because if I build a new wing on the hospital, they will save more than one life - that means I have some killings in my pocket.  Or what if striking my significant other in anger can be made up for by doing the dishes for a week.  What if she thinks it should be two weeks?  Who judges when my tally is balanced?  

 

If I'm well to the good side of balance and a kid runs out into traffic - I'm able to save him, but if I do I'll be even more to the good and severely imbalanced.  If I let him get hit, that evens me out and I'm perfectly balanced.

 

See what I mean.  Would appreciate your perspective on balance.

 

I explained what I thought was meant by balance in the context of the ending of AMoL here:

 

 

 

 

Basically, it's about free will more than about needing to make everything equal. Again, my interpretation of the ending of the series and not necessarily my views about how our world actually works.

 

(For starters, I don't believe there's such a thing as the Dark One in our world so the whole idea is moot)

 

Edited November 8, 2021 by Rose

[DojoToad]

2 minutes ago, Elder_Haman said:

Well, that's sort of the eternal question isn't it?

On a personal level, recognizing that there is evil in the world, it seems each individual should strive to do good all of the time. Of course, this is impossible because all of us are selfish and imperfect to one degree or another. So we should try to do the most amount of good and the least amount of evil.

On the metaphysical level, the Dark One seeks to inject enough evil into the pattern that the tension is lost. In those cases, he wins again. The pattern unravels entirely. 

Yes, and that is what is so frustrating about it all.  There needs to be a standard.

 

Dark Friend - does evil his whole life (including theft, rape, murder) but takes care of his mom, loves his wife, and is genuinely excited to raise kids.  Maybe an outside judge weighs him as good enough - but what about the victims of his crimes?

 

White Cloak - never lies, steals, cheats but is brutal or indifferent when bringing the light to the world.

 

Average Two Rivers citizen - Always does the best she can by everyone and the worst anyone has to say about her is that she's a gossip or busybody (where she genuinely thinks she is helping)