Comparing Wheel of Time to other fantasy adaptations

[EmreY]

2 hours ago, Gothic Flame said:

*shrugs*

If you enjoy lotr by injecting some religious belief...well.

But neither elf, dwarf, or Númenorean was taught were taught such. 

Eonwe came among them and taught them; and they were given wisdom and power and life more enduring than any others of mortal race have possessed.

 

 

And the loremasters among them learned also the High Eldarin tongue of the Blessed Realm, in which much story and song was preserved from the beginning of the world; and they made letters and scrolls and books, and wrote in them many things of wisdom and wonder in the high tide of their realm, of which all is now forgot.

For the Dunedain became mighty in crafts, so that if they had had the mind they could easily have surpassed the evil kings of Middle-earth in the making of war and the forging of weapons; but they were become men of peace. Above all arts they nourished shipbuilding and sea-craft, and they became mariners whose like shall never be again since the world was diminished

 

Religious beliefs are inherent in the story; Tolkien himself acknowledged it.  Shrug all you like, it makes little difference.   And

Quote

 "But neither elf, dwarf, or Númenorean was taught were taught such. "

 

is as categorical as I have come to might expect from you, and also demonstrably wrong.  Not only does the Silmarillion open with Tolkien's version of Genesis (and that is "handed down", presumably by Eonwe or others) but several of the mightiest of the beings who participated in that Creation then descend on Arda, the Numenorean kings engage in worship, Eorl is dumbfounded by Cirion, Aragorn finds his sapling in a hallows, not in the middle of a pentagram, and all the rest.

 

And thank you for that quote.  You will note there is nothing arcane in the second and third paragraphs unless writing books, making weapons or ships is magical.  ? 

 

As for the first paragraph, if wisdom and knowledge were equal to magic, I suspect some would consider themselves quite the magician.

Edited February 20, 2022 by EmreY

[expat]

Quote

I see two maybe three people arguing the point with me.  Many?

Are you taking the position that everyone that isn't actively arguing with you supports your position?  If so, count me as disagreeing with you, even though I haven't posted in this particular argument. 

[Gothic Flame]

10 hours ago, EmreY said:

the Numenorean kings engage in worship

What worship?

10 hours ago, EmreY said:

Aragorn finds his sapling in a hallows, not in the middle of a pentagram, and all the rest.

Pentagram? Wut?  Much of the magic is in either crafts, or intuitive...in some cases one could invoke the name of a Valar for aid.

 

How does Beorn and his shape-shifting fit in with your narrative?

[Andra]

21 hours ago, EmreY said:

A Wizard of Earthsea, Harry Potter etc.  The first is actually referenced in the post immediately above yours.  Perhaps instead of requiring things of other posters, you read their replies?

I scrolled back through the comments, and still can't find any mention of A Wizard of Earthsea.  Or any other posts prior to mine where you gave an example of what you think qualified as "magic."

 

Edit:  Oh wait, I see you mentioned the School of Roke.  A reference which someone who hadn't read the book would never get.  Perhaps instead of snark, you actually tried to answer a question?

 

And I wasn't "requiring" anything of you, just trying to figure out what line you were drawing, since as you said, no one seemed to be accepting what you took for granted.

 

21 hours ago, EmreY said:

I see two maybe three people arguing the point with me.  Many?

And none agreeing with you.

Otherwise known as "not many."

 

21 hours ago, EmreY said:

The difference between, say, Dumbledore and Gandalf I'd say is two-fold.  First, the ability is innate to both, but its use has to be learned in Dumbledore's case and not in Gandalf's.  Second, Dumbledore is a magically talented human; Gandalf is an angel in disguise.

 

...

 

I will go further and say that WoT doesn't really have magic either.  The ability to channel crops up in what, 1-2% of the population and is inherited?  That seems to be a very natural thing, a product of evolution perhaps, not something else.

Gandalf is not remotely the only example from LotR.  Others are from mortals, who had to be taught.  Others are from immortals, but weren't "angels."  Aand who had to be taught.  Even if he were the only example, we have literally no idea what he had to learn thousands of years in his past.

Given that non-humans can also do magic in Potterworld, the fact that Dumbledore is human is a distinction without a difference.

...

Yes, I saw earlier that you said channeling wasn't "magic."  Which is why I included it in my parenthetical.

 

The ability to channel is no more inherited in WoT than magical ability is in Harry Potter's world.  Significantly less so, it would appear.  And both channelers in Wot and witches and wizards in Potterworld have to be taught.  

 

Every fantasy world's magic system has rules for how it's controlled.  In Potterworld, those rules include incantations and the use of wands.  In WoT, those rules include "weaves."  In Potterworld, the magic isn't in the incantations or the gestures.  They are just how it is controlled.  In WoT, the magic isn't in the weaves, they are just how it is controlled.

 

By the definition you appear to be applying, if magic appears in a fantasy world, it is part of nature.  Thus, not "supernatural."  And therefore not "magic."

 

Edited February 21, 2022 by Andra

[notpropaganda73]

While I find it interesting to think of very little magic in Tolkien's world, I find it odd that witches and wizardry in Harry Potter = magic, but channeling in WoT does not? I'm not sure I understand the distinction you're drawing between the two @EmreY? Both are innate things people are born with, both have to be taught in order to be controlled, both have various levels of strength depending on the persons' own ability, both can be used as weapons, can be used to help build, in self-defence, etc. What is the distinction between a channeler in WoT and a wizard or witch in Harry Potter that one is magic and one is not? 

[Chivalry]

2 hours ago, notpropaganda73 said:

While I find it interesting to think of very little magic in Tolkien's world, I find it odd that witches and wizardry in Harry Potter = magic, but channeling in WoT does not? I'm not sure I understand the distinction you're drawing between the two @EmreY? Both are innate things people are born with, both have to be taught in order to be controlled, both have various levels of strength depending on the persons' own ability, both can be used as weapons, can be used to help build, in self-defence, etc. What is the distinction between a channeler in WoT and a wizard or witch in Harry Potter that one is magic and one is not? 

 

I've been following this discussion peripherally...I don't have enough knowledge about Tolkien to comment definitively. I've read the Hobbit and LOTR multiple times, but not in nearly 20 years, and I could never get through the Silmarillion.

 

But when I first began reading the WOT, I didn't think of channeling as magic. The One Power was...something different, akin to The Force in Star Wars.  I think that's one reason I enjoyed the series so much - I could identify with this mystical, power-based system that could only be accessed by certain individuals (born with the ability).

 

Now that I've read more Fantasy literature, of course it's pretty clear why some/many people would consider channeling the Power and using the Force to be magic. It's a question of semantics in one sense, and it's in the eye of the beholder to a certain extent.

[VooDooNut]

Just gonna throw my 2 cents in here while we are on the topic: I see "magic"/channeling in WOT as the ability to cause quantum entanglement between 2 or more objects regardless of space/time (in most cases). This is supported by the heightened sense a channeler has while channeling. Another good example is the Warder bond, and another good example is the technique of Traveling. They are linking/entangling with the matter/energy around them So, *technically* not "magic", but also, what the heck is "magic" anyway?

 

“Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.”

-- Arthur C. Clarke

 

and all that

Edited February 21, 2022 by VooDooNut

[Gothic Flame]

Some fantasy literature don't even use the word "magic." Besides WoT there's Jim Butcher's "Codex Alera" where magic is referred to as "furycraft, and one is typically born tied to one or two particular elements (wood, iron, earth, fire, water, air) with associated physical abilities that go with them. 

1 hour ago, VooDooNut said:

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.”

-- Arthur C. Clarke

"Sufficiently advanced technology my ass!"

~~Harry Dresden 

[Andra]

1 hour ago, Gothic Flame said:

Some fantasy literature don't even use the word "magic." Besides WoT there's Jim Butcher's "Codex Alera" where magic is referred to as "furycraft, and one is typically born tied to one or two particular elements (wood, iron, earth, fire, water, air) with associated physical abilities that go with them. 

"Sufficiently advanced technology my ass!"

~~Harry Dresden 

I would suggest that most fantasy literature doesn't use the word "magic."

Writers prefer to make their own names for what happens in their worlds, in the same way they make their own names for the people and places in them.

 

I can only think of a few that I have personally read that use the word.  Usually it's something else.  Like "power" or "craft" or "-mancy" something similar.

[Scarloc99]

The Necroscope books refer to Psychometry and the ability to utilise gifts of genetics to do things like talk to the dead, shape reality, teleport to new worlds. These are things that would be assigned as being "magic" but are given a different term. 

But lets go to a definition as given by Wikipedia 

"Magic in fiction is the endowment of characters or objects in works of fiction with powers that do not naturally occur in the real world." 

 

In Fantasy Magic can be learnt, or can be natural, in DnD and many other TTRPG systems you have a variety of sources of "magic". But DnD probably covers all the standard "tropes" in fiction nicely Wizards learn it from books, the idea is that anyone who has the aptitude and ability to study can learn it, inherent "magical ability" is not needed, Sorcerors on the other hand have a connection to magic that is natural, able to channel some force to cast spells without needing to read or learn, Warlocks magical power is given to them by a patron, a being of great power who does not need to be a god but has the ability to offer gifts of magic, you get the divine magic of Clerics given as a gift by a god who they worship and act on behalf of,  you get Bards, the idea that a magic users power can come from an affinity with an ability, in there case music, an Artificers tinkerers and makers of things that get there magic from the ability to manipulate tools and craft items of magic. 

There is no doubt the powers shown by Gandalf and the other beings in LOTR is in fact Magic, Part of Gandalfs power comes from the ring he wears, which is by definition a Magic Ring, but it is also stated that the Wizards and Balrogs work and use magic. 

[notpropaganda73]

18 hours ago, Chivalry said:

 

I've been following this discussion peripherally...I don't have enough knowledge about Tolkien to comment definitively. I've read the Hobbit and LOTR multiple times, but not in nearly 20 years, and I could never get through the Silmarillion.

 

But when I first began reading the WOT, I didn't think of channeling as magic. The One Power was...something different, akin to The Force in Star Wars.  I think that's one reason I enjoyed the series so much - I could identify with this mystical, power-based system that could only be accessed by certain individuals (born with the ability).

 

Now that I've read more Fantasy literature, of course it's pretty clear why some/many people would consider channeling the Power and using the Force to be magic. It's a question of semantics in one sense, and it's in the eye of the beholder to a certain extent.

 

Sure, I'd actually be in a very similar boat to you. I just found the distinction between Harry Potter and channeling to be interesting. Other than the fact in Harry Potter you need a wand, I can't really see a distinction between the two things. The only thing I can think is the fact they are called witches and wizards, and perhaps culturally we instinctively understand that that means what they wield is magic. Whereas other fantasy/sci-fi situations tend to come up with unique users of whatever power it may be, so some of us more easily disassociate what we are reading as being "magical". 

[VooDooNut]

4 hours ago, notpropaganda73 said:

 

Sure, I'd actually be in a very similar boat to you. I just found the distinction between Harry Potter and channeling to be interesting. Other than the fact in Harry Potter you need a wand, I can't really see a distinction between the two things. The only thing I can think is the fact they are called witches and wizards, and perhaps culturally we instinctively understand that that means what they wield is magic. Whereas other fantasy/sci-fi situations tend to come up with unique users of whatever power it may be, so some of us more easily disassociate what we are reading as being "magical". 

Specifically comparing the magic of Harry Potter to the channeling of The Wheel of Time, I see a few interesting distinctions:

1. While the magic in both worlds is widely varied in use, scope, and complexity, the magic in HP doesn't seem to rely on a single key principle or foundation that all spells build off of. Whether it is the power of love (e.g. Harry's protection), the power of souls (e.g. horcruxes), the power of happy thoughts (e.g. pratronus), charms magic, dark arts/defense against, the power of academic prowess (e.g. potions, botany, etc.), innate magical ability (e.g. Harry disappearing the glass, Neville surviving a long fall as a child, etc.), magic without wands, there are many ways (human wizard/witch) magic is displayed in the series, and many of these examples do not have an overlapping rule-set.

Oppositely, in WOT all of the channeling magic follows fairly strict rules that, while growing in complexity as the series and character knowledge progresses, is still derived from a singular foundation. Channeling has rules. Those rules are (usually) adhered to, and there are dire consequences for the channeler that attempts to push beyond these rules.

2. The other magic, outside of what a channeler or witch/wizard can do, is more mysterious and irregular, and that is a trait both of these series share. (magical monsters in HP, wolfbrothers in WOT, seeing the future in HP/WOT, etc.)

[Raal Gurniss]

It doesn’t matter…They are all works of fantasy, they are all 100% unrelated to each other unless the author references one or more others and even then it is all down to the author to how much if any.

 

Anything is possible within a story setting! But poor writing is poor writing and it can make things implausible even within a realm of fantasy where nothing is off the table.

 

 

[Chivalry]

One thing I truly appreciate about the WOT books is that the One Power has very specific rules...who can access it, how it is accessed, what things can be done with the Power, etc.  Becoming proficient is a process, and it takes practice, even if young channelers keep rediscovering abilities that were lost.

 

Similarly, the kids had to learn how to fight. Despite some natural abilities and physical strengths, they're clearly in over their head fighting 'just' Trollocs at the beginning. They got better with experience...which is what one hopes to see.

 

I'm a bit concerned that the WOT series may just skip all of this growth (not enough time/too boring for some)...which is a shame, because Robert Jordan put a lot of time and effort into these particular details, he was quite the stickler. Seriously, Rafe, throw us a bone...at least show us a Rocky Balboa-like training montage! One minute of Rand working the sword forms wouldn't hurt, would it? Even Arya had some training!

[Andra]

1 hour ago, Chivalry said:

One thing I truly appreciate about the WOT books is that the One Power has very specific rules...who can access it, how it is accessed, what things can be done with the Power, etc.  Becoming proficient is a process, and it takes practice, even if young channelers keep rediscovering abilities that were lost.

 

Similarly, the kids had to learn how to fight. Despite some natural abilities and physical strengths, they're clearly in over their head fighting 'just' Trollocs at the beginning. They got better with experience...which is what one hopes to see.

 

I'm a bit concerned that the WOT series may just skip all of this growth (not enough time/too boring for some)...which is a shame, because Robert Jordan put a lot of time and effort into these particular details, he was quite the stickler. Seriously, Rafe, throw us a bone...at least show us a Rocky Balboa-like training montage! One minute of Rand working the sword forms wouldn't hurt, would it? Even Arya had some training!

Absolutely agree with all of this.

It was my initial reaction when I heard Rafe had aged up our protagonists.  That we would miss not only them learning about their unique powers and natures, but about the world outside the Two Rivers in general.

And Nynaeve (and to a lesser extent Egwene) doing the things they did with no training leaves very little room for them to get better.

 

And Arya was by far a more compelling character because of the training we saw her receive.

[Mailman]

Speaking about other adaptations do people think  that WoT will cop additional backlash from the upcoming LoTR fallout.

 

Initial leaks and promotional materials are not looking good for the Rings of Power. As well as the disaster of the "superfans videos". Can easily see the anger flowing over into WoT whether it is deserved or not.

[Gothic Flame]

On 3/3/2022 at 8:02 PM, Mailman said:

As well as the disaster of the "superfans videos".

Omg...those were  embarrassing...

[Chivalry]

4 hours ago, Gothic Flame said:

Omg...those were  embarrassing...

? 

OMG, this is hilarious...
I'm actually starting to feel better about our series. Hopefully, Rafe and company listen to legit criticism and improve the series.

[Chivalry]

On 3/3/2022 at 5:02 PM, Mailman said:

Speaking about other adaptations do people think  that WoT will cop additional backlash from the upcoming LoTR fallout.

 

Initial leaks and promotional materials are not looking good for the Rings of Power. As well as the disaster of the "superfans videos". Can easily see the anger flowing over into WoT whether it is deserved or not.

I'm gonna take a hopeful, glass half full view. The WOT team see the insane backlash and address legit criticism to provide a better viewing experience for all (but especially us book fans).

[Mailman]

7 hours ago, Chivalry said:

I'm gonna take a hopeful, glass half full view. The WOT team see the insane backlash and address legit criticism to provide a better viewing experience for all (but especially us book fans).

Series 2 will be well and truly wrapped by then, I'm guessing they are already about 50% right now.

 

I can really see a Solo comparison incoming, Solo was garbage but coupled with the hate generated by The Last Jedi it got truly obliterated. 

[Raal Gurniss]

12 hours ago, Chivalry said:

I'm gonna take a hopeful, glass half full view. The WOT team see the insane backlash and address legit criticism to provide a better viewing experience for all (but especially us book fans).

Hmm…Given how they intentionally went out their way to upset many fans and how criticism was received about as poorly as it could be….Half full or half empty you are only going to get half the show you would hope it to be.

[Raal Gurniss]

On 3/4/2022 at 1:02 AM, Mailman said:

Speaking about other adaptations do people think  that WoT will cop additional backlash from the upcoming LoTR fallout.

 

Initial leaks and promotional materials are not looking good for the Rings of Power. As well as the disaster of the "superfans videos". Can easily see the anger flowing over into WoT whether it is deserved or not.

I honestly think WoT is safe from further backlash…
 

 

No sense in flogging a dead horse after all, some people might continue to ride it, but it’s not going to much further.

[Chivalry]

8 hours ago, Raal Gurniss said:

Hmm…Given how they intentionally went out their way to upset many fans and how criticism was received about as poorly as it could be….Half full or half empty you are only going to get half the show you would hope it to be.

Quite possible, but I can still hope for better.

[DavyDrones]

On 11/27/2021 at 10:42 PM, LordyLord said:

I agree with the fact  EOTW is quite derivative and Rafe had the burden to make it unique.

But judging by the critic reviews, it doesnt seem Rafe succeeded. Rememeber the Critics dont care about the changes. They are reviewing quality

 

Shadow and Bone was in the same situation. The source material was your typical chosen one girl with a mild Love triangle thrown in.

 

The Show runner had the same challenge to make it unique. And they did. They cleverly introduced an new plotline that ended up making the Show BETTER than the books.So the Shadow and Bone showrunner succeded where Rafe is doing.....averagely

 

 

The TV series is in the same category as Eragon and Legend of the seeker. Which means in the trash bin. Amazon really like to throw money don't they. 

[DojoToad]

11 minutes ago, DavyDrones said:

The TV series is in the same category as Eragon and Legend of the seeker. Which means in the trash bin. Amazon really like to throw money don't they. 

Some people have money to burn...