Season 1 Discussion (Full Book Spoilers) v2.1

[ashi]

2 hours ago, Truthteller said:

That so many of the defenders of the series are unwilling to acknowledge that significant changes have been made at all suggests to me that the disagreement has as much to do with what the books are about as it does with the series.

41 minutes ago, KakitaOCU said:

Because last I checked, the issue is more that the changes are not seen a significant because they don't actually affect that narrative as a whole.

 

While significant, plot and narrative are not the only aspects of a story - for some (including Robert Jordan - see a relevant quote somewhere) not even the most important aspects.

 

Apart from affecting (or not) the overarching plot, a change can also affect the motivations and integrity (or lack thereof) of characters, the themes of the story, or the cohesion and depth of the world.

 

Perhaps the difference in willingness to accept certain changes is dependent on what it is about the story that draws us.

Edited January 11, 2022 by ashi

[MColson]

The idea that everyone on this forum either loves or hates this TV series is simplistic. I can question a change without hating the entire show.

But, I stand by my thought that the more changes made to the original story undercut the TV series for those who did read the book. There are plenty of movies derived from books. The reasons for success or failure of those movies is complex, but for those who read the book first the movie often seems to have been disappointing. That is where I am right now—disappointed. Maybe season 2 will be better, maybe not.

Edited January 11, 2022 by MColson
clarity of grammar

[Truthteller]

18 minutes ago, Elder_Haman said:

Who are these people that are saying there have been no significant changes? As a "defender of the series" (which is really sort of silly - as if art is something that requires "defending"), I've yet to see someone who isn't willing to acknowledge that significant changes were made. It's whether those changes "RUIN THE WHOLE SERIES!!!!" that seems to be the thing that is in question.

See even here we disagree.  This thread is filled with defences that amount to, sure that isn’t exactly what happened, but those changes are not significant, the core of the story and characters are still there and are consistent with what happens later.  
 

That is the nature of the syllogism, if the changes do not ruin the series then they are not significant.  
 

Perhaps, you are arguing that this, very different series, might also be good despite these differences.  

 

I might have time for that argument, but no one is making that argument.  

 

[Elder_Haman]

2 minutes ago, Truthteller said:

This thread is filled with defences that amount to, sure that isn’t exactly what happened, but those changes are not significant, the core of the story and characters are still there and are consistent with what happens later.

And?

That's exactly how The Last Kingdom is - vast differences between the books and the tv series. And yet, despite those vast differences, the books and the series manage to tell the same story.

 

You seem to be arguing the position that the changes that have been made mean that the tv series is somehow "not the Wheel of Time". I reject that contention. Nonetheless, I acknowledge that there are significant differences between the show and the books.

[Truthteller]

1 hour ago, Elder_Haman said:

And?

That's exactly how The Last Kingdom is - vast differences between the books and the tv series. And yet, despite those vast differences, the books and the series manage to tell the same story.

 

You seem to be arguing the position that the changes that have been made mean that the tv series is somehow "not the Wheel of Time". I reject that contention. Nonetheless, I acknowledge that there are significant differences between the show and the books.

The last kingdom is a pretty good comparison.  I liked but did not love both the series and the books, and don’t care whether they are the same, because the books weren’t about something, so the only thing that matters is the story.  And truth be told I like the tv series and characters better.  

 

The WOT books were about something, and that something has been obliterated by the series. And in the name of what?  
 

Now maybe there are book fans of the LK that think the series is sacrilege, I don’t know, but if there are that kind of proves my point, that the WOT series was made by and is appreciated by people who don’t really like the books.  I mean how many times in these threads do you see someone say something like, that the changes are ok because the EOTW isn’t that good anyway.

 

It may not be the best novel in the series but it is not the worst, and it sets up the rest of the series well.  The first season of the TV show, on the other hand, undermines every major theme and plot event to come.  

[Elder_Haman]

5 minutes ago, Truthteller said:

the WOT series was made by and is appreciated by people who don’t really like the books.

I really like the books. And I also appreciate the series. I'm not understanding your logic.

 

6 minutes ago, Truthteller said:

that something has been obliterated

This is hyperbole. Nothing has been 'obliterated'. To me, use of that type of hyperbole signals an unwillingness to engage in a good faith discussion.

 

8 minutes ago, Truthteller said:

The last kingdom is a pretty good comparison.  I liked but did not love both the series and the books, and don’t care whether they are the same, because the books weren’t about something,

What do you mean the books weren't about something? Do you mean they didn't have a plot? (They did, obviously) Or that they don't explore deeper issues? (They do)  Either way TLK is a series that is full of depth and meaning. The TV show does a good job of exploring many of the same underlying themes in slightly different ways and using different characters.

 

12 minutes ago, Truthteller said:

It may not be the best novel in the series but it is not the worst, and it sets up the rest of the series well.

Agreed.

 

12 minutes ago, Truthteller said:

The first season of the TV show, on the other hand, undermines every major theme and plot event to come.  

Hard disagree.

[Jaysen Gore]

17 minutes ago, Truthteller said:

The WOT books were about something, and that something has been obliterated by the series. And in the name of what?  

See, this is the kind of reaction that makes it hard to discuss. Because for me, WoT is about a world where the balance between Light and Dark, and men and women is fundamentally broken, and the Creator and it's guiding hand (the pattern) has spun forth the Chosen One to bring it back into balance. But for the Chosen One to succeed in that, he (the individual) needs to accept that it is in fact the Chosen Ones (the plural they) who need to undertake the actions that return balance. He is not responsible, and in fact cannot, succeed on his own. In book terms, he cannot carry the mountain alone. No one can.

 

I concede they have changed the emphasis on the characters, decreasing the importance of the Chosen One. They have moved story elements around, so things we learn in book one will be learned later (Saidar with the Girls, Saidin with Asmodean, the Prophecies with Moiraine and Verin, etc, etc, etc)

 

But what is it that you think they have obliterated so badly that there is no way for the series to convey the same themes as the books? Because I'm just not seeing it.

Edited January 11, 2022 by Jaysen Gore

[KakitaOCU]

17 minutes ago, Truthteller said:

The first season of the TV show, on the other hand, undermines every major theme and plot event to come.  

Explain please?  See, it's arguments like this that lose me when there's no given explanation of what plots are undermined and how.

[ashi]

14 minutes ago, Jaysen Gore said:

He is not responsible, and in fact cannot, succeed on his own.

I think you are missing a word in this sentence, or there is a fly in your syntax. I don't believe you wish to say that "he is not responsible".

Edited January 11, 2022 by ashi

[Gothic Flame]

14 minutes ago, Jaysen Gore said:

They have moved story elements around, so things we learn in book one will be learned later (Saidar with the Girls, Saidin with Asmodean, the Prophecies with Moiraine and Verin, etc, etc, etc)

You have zero basis for this. And nothing in eight episodes that would suggest such to begin with.

[KakitaOCU]

4 minutes ago, Gothic Flame said:

You have zero basis for this. And nothing in eight episodes that would suggest such to begin with.

Actually, there's more evidence for that then that they're "Combining the power" that some people like to claim.

The supplementary materials explain Saidin and Saidar.  Episode 4 specifically calls out that women can't see what men weave.

This all establishes that Saidin and Saidar are a thing.  So speculation that the story will explain them at a later time is a fair assumption.

Where as the evidence for the idea that they're throwing that away?  It seems to boil down to "They didn't specifically use the words Saidin and Saidar in episode."  Which isn't evidence of anything.

[Gothic Flame]

18 minutes ago, KakitaOCU said:

Where as the evidence for the idea that they're throwing that away?  It seems to boil down to "They didn't specifically use the words Saidin and Saidar in episode."  Which isn't evidence of anything.

Eight episodes of show-and-tell me nothing say much. The only question remaining is how many more episodes will that trend continue...

 

20 minutes ago, KakitaOCU said:

So speculation that the story will explain them at a later time is a fair assumption.

Speculation and assumption goes both ways.

[Truthteller]

38 minutes ago, Jaysen Gore said:

See, this is the kind of reaction that makes it hard to discuss. Because for me, WoT is about a world where the balance between Light and Dark, and men and women is fundamentally broken, and the Creator and it's guiding hand (the pattern) has spun forth the Chosen One to bring it back into balance. But for the Chosen One to succeed in that, he (the individual) needs to accept that it is in fact the Chosen Ones (the plural they) who need to undertake the actions that return balance. He is not responsible, and in fact cannot, succeed on his own. In book terms, he cannot carry the mountain alone. No one can.

 

I concede they have changed the emphasis on the characters, decreasing the importance of the Chosen One. They have moved story elements around, so things we learn in book one will be learned later (Saidar with the Girls, Saidin with Asmodean, the Prophecies with Moiraine and Verin, etc, etc, etc)

 

But what is it that you think they have obliterated so badly that there is no way for the series to convey the same themes as the books? Because I'm just not seeing it.

This is an answer I can work with this, unfortunately I don’t have time for a proper response.  So quickly . . . 
 

I agree with you with what the books are about, though I would say “wholeness” rather than “balance.”  
 

Here the reduction of Rand makes a huge difference.  While many of the characters undergo some kind of reconciliation of the different parts of themselves, the template for this is Rand.  Rand is the one who has the power, Rand is the one who has to come to terms with the implications of violence, Rand is the one who needs to learn he needs others.  
 

The tv show has demonstrated no awareness of this.  Rand is able to learn the lessons he needs to learn because of the way he was raised and his relationship with his father and his father figure (Lan and Thom).  The show ignores these relationships, relationships that are the bedrock of his character.

 

And it isn’t a one off thing,  Perrin and May are Tavaren because they are part of Rand’s thread, they have to do things he cannot do.  Egwene has a different thread, which is at least partly to oppose Rand, here her role is similar to Tuon in Rand’s journey.  Making her tavaren is just more of the dragon can be a man or woman nonsense, and demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding.  
 

Or Lan, his journey is parallel to Rand’s, and yet show Lan seems to have learned these lessons already.  Early book Lan would not laugh and smile at a campfire, tv Lan would never say “duty is heavier than a mountain, death is lighter than a feather.”

 

May is a gigolo?  I mean there is a parallel with Tylin, but the context is entirely different, and so the effect on the character is entirely different.

 

Perrin kills his wife by accident?  How is this analogous to killing the whitecloaks?

 

Bizarre love triangle? Whose character is made more interesting by this?

 

What happened to the traditional Emond’s Field, where woman kill Trollocs with their bare hands and have sex whenever they feel like.  This is an entirely different place, but the place is at the core of the major characters, so now the major characters are entirely different.  
 

And like Tylin these changes happen in the book, at least somewhat, but because they started there, there can be no change, and hence no moment of “you can’t go home again.”

 

I could go on and on . . .

[DaddyFinn]

1 hour ago, Truthteller said:

 

 

 the WOT series was made by and is appreciated by people who don’t really like the books.

That is obviously not true. What makes you say that?

1 hour ago, Truthteller said:

 

I mean how many times in these threads do you see someone say something like, that the changes are ok because the EOTW isn’t that good anyway.

 

 

I like tEotW but it's just so different from the rest of the series. The prose, silly dialogue, structure. Books 2&3 suffer from the same IMO. I hate the way that characters repeat the same words and lines during dialogue, I hate Ishy's evil monologues during dream sequences, the first books all end similarly etc. 

 

Tl;dr I like books 1-3 but I wish they weren't so different from the rest. I know why they are and I can't really blame RJ.

 

Edited January 11, 2022 by DaddyFinn
Typo

[Truthteller]

58 minutes ago, KakitaOCU said:

Explain please?  See, it's arguments like this that lose me when there's no given explanation of what plots are undermined and how.

This has been explained time and time again by so many different people.  I just tried again above.

[ashi]

37 minutes ago, KakitaOCU said:

Where as the evidence for the idea that they're throwing that away?  It seems to boil down to "They didn't specifically use the words Saidin and Saidar in episode."  Which isn't evidence of anything.

 

Eh, I mean, don't you think you are being a bit dismissive and unwilling to see their point of view?

 

The evidence is not conclusive, but the argument is that they seem to have gone out of their way not to mention Saidin or a clear separation of the One Power inte male and female halves, when they have had ample opportunity to do so (they did, however, have Latra use the word 'Saidin', which was translated to 'your Power'):

 

Quote

S1E1 [Liandrin] This Power... it's meant for women... and women alone. And when you touch it... you make it filthy.

S1E4 [Thom] How at the end of the last Age, the Dark One corrupted the One Power... so men couldn't use it without going mad?

 

S1E8 [Latra] You expose the very source of the One Power to Him. If He touches and corrupts it, your Power will be out of control. It will run unchecked.

 

S1E8 [Rand] Will you teach me how to channel? [Moiraine] I can't. Every time you touch the Source, it'll take you closer and closer to the madness.

 

S1E8 [Ishy] Yes. There. Now release everything, everything inside you. Let the Power flow through you like you're an open sieve. Don't fight it!

 

As I said, it is not conclusive, but it does raise the question of why they would write the above if they intend to keep the dualistic separation into male and female halves.

 

Anyway, you may not see it, but it frankly is a bit insulting to reduce people's grievances to "it boils down to [something trivial]". Clearly they do not see it that way.

Edited January 11, 2022 by ashi

[KakitaOCU]

11 minutes ago, Gothic Flame said:

Eight episodes of show-and-tell me nothing say much. The only question remaining is how many more episodes will that trend continue...

 

Speculation and assumption goes both ways.

That's not really how deductive reasoning and logic works.

The evidence that exists about use of the power based on gender is:

1: They refer to it as the "One Power"
2: Women cannot see Men's weaves.
3: There is an extra material that specifically spells out Saidin and Saidar.
4: Moraine says there's no time to train Rand.

So, Point 1 matches the books, it's the One Power in the books too with Saidin and Saidar being its two halves.  Point 2 supports the divide.  Point 3 flat out says the divide is there.  Point 4 suggests it's not, but could be First Oath slipperiness.

There is no evidence to support that they removed it.

[Truthteller]

1 minute ago, DaddyFinn said:

That is obviously not true. What makes you say that?

I like tEotW but it's just o different from the rest of the series. The prose, silly dialogue, structure. Books 2&3 suffer from the same IMO. I hate the way that characters repeat the same words and lines during dialogue, I hate Ishy's evil monologues during dream sequences, the first books all end similarly etc. 

 

Tl;dr I like books 1-3 but I wish they weren't so different from the rest. I know why they are and I can't really blame RJ.

 

See this is one area the tv show could been better.  Instead of going for big changes, make these kinds of changes to dialogue, foreshadowing, make the dream sequences more significant and better, really lean into the prologue, take advantage that this time you have foreknowledge of where everything is going.

 

A season that spent 7 episodes on the book faithfully, and 1 episode on the theft of the horn could have been better than the book.

[KakitaOCU]

5 minutes ago, ashi said:

Eh, I mean, don't you think you are being a bit dismissive and unwilling to see their point of view?

No, I think the extras feature specifically explaining Saidin and Saidar puts the nail in the coffin and makes the argument utterly pointless.  But I am instead choosing to accept the idea that the extras are somehow not part of the series canon and so there's a possible debate.

 

9 minutes ago, Truthteller said:

The show ignores these relationships, relationships that are the bedrock of his character.

Rand learns very little from Thom until book 4 where it's offscreen explained that he learns politics from Thom and Elayne.  His time with his father is covered.
 

10 minutes ago, Truthteller said:

Perrin kills his wife by accident?  How is this analogous to killing the whitecloaks?

Because the only reason killing the Whitecloaks matters is because it starts his fear of being an animal and not maintaining his humanity.  The idea that his rage and anger lead to hurting someone important makes it more important to learn that line than killing two people in self defense.

 

14 minutes ago, Truthteller said:

Making her tavaren is just more of the dragon can be a man or woman nonsense, and demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding.

Actually, it makes her success in the Tower make sense.  Without something tugging threads the idea that the entire white tower unites behind her and accepts her as Amyrlin while every single Ajah feels she is perfectly suited to join them comes off as Mary Sue.

The rest of what you mention is largely hyperbole and your person opinion and distaste vs actual undermining of anything.

 

 

[DaddyFinn]

13 minutes ago, Truthteller said:

See this is one area the tv show could been better.  Instead of going for big changes, make these kinds of changes to dialogue, foreshadowing, make the dream sequences more significant and better, really lean into the prologue, take advantage that this time you have foreknowledge of where everything is going.

 

A season that spent 7 episodes on the book faithfully, and 1 episode on the theft of the horn could have been better than the book.

I see your point, but since I have no knowledge(please no mocking of Rafe's knowledge) in how to make a good and coherent TV show out of such a long book series with the time and budget constraints they have, I doubt it's actually that simple.

Edited January 11, 2022 by DaddyFinn

[Ralph]

3 hours ago, Truthteller said:

See even here we disagree.  This thread is filled with defences that amount to, sure that isn’t exactly what happened, but those changes are not significant, the core of the story and characters are still there and are consistent with what happens later.  
 

That is the nature of the syllogism, if the changes do not ruin the series then they are not significant.  
 

Perhaps, you are arguing that this, very different series, might also be good despite these differences.  

 

I might have time for that argument, but no one is making that argument.  

 

Nobody can deny there have been significant changes to what happens, people can deny that they have had a significant effect on the core story and the characters nonetheless. Not a contradiction

Edited January 11, 2022 by Ralph

[ashi]

11 minutes ago, KakitaOCU said:

Because the only reason killing the Whitecloaks matters is because it starts his fear of being an animal and not maintaining his humanity.  The idea that his rage and anger lead to hurting someone important makes it more important to learn that line than killing two people in self defense.

That is not how a lot of readers (and writers, i.e. Jordan himself) view Perrin's relationship with violence.

Edited January 11, 2022 by ashi

[Ralph]

4 minutes ago, ashi said:

That is not how a lot of readers (and writers, i.e. Jordan himself) view Perrin's relationship with violence.

 

Please expand on this. I find it interesting how you see the difference. 

 

And please show your evidence that RJ perceived it like you. 

[KakitaOCU]

6 minutes ago, ashi said:

That is not how a lot of readers (and writers, i.e. Jordan himself) view Perrin's relationship with violence.

I don't believe I said that was his entire relationship with violence.  I said the only reason the death of those two whitecloaks matter to Perrin is because they're the first time he fought in a rage and gave into the wolf.  He didn't kill them completely in control so to speak, but by embracing the wolf.  Which starts the seeds of fear that the wolf will overcome him or that giving into his rage and violence will risk his humanity.

And it was always a bit of a debate on if it was a good point or not to use justifiable self defense killing as that catalyst.  I remember people debating it back in the early 2000's and all the way up to when Sanderson took over.

[ashi]

12 minutes ago, Ralph said:

 

Please expand on this. I find it interesting how you see the difference. 

 

And please show your evidence that RJ perceived it like you. 

 

You even reacted to the post! ;D