Season 1 Discussion (Full Book Spoilers) v2.1

[Jaysen Gore]

28 minutes ago, Truthteller said:

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.

Just as I have no proof that the show will address this, you have no proof they won't. you believe they won't. fine, but you can't say they HAVE obliterated it until after the show is done.

 

28 minutes ago, Truthteller said:

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. 

Perrin and Mat are Ta'veren because they are Ta'veren. Linked to Rand yes, but not part of his journey. And as @KakitaOCU pointed out, making Egwene Ta'veren doesn't not change the fact that she both loves Rand - more than in a brotherly way - and is opposed to him going alone.  All this women can be Dragons talk is smokescreen BS for TV marketin, and does not impact the story. BECAUSE THE DRAGON IS RAND AL"THOR.

 

32 minutes ago, Truthteller said:

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.  

Lan's journey does not impact Rand's journey in any way. I'm not going to defend it, but I assume you despise the Lord of the Rings just as much, yes? for doing this to Aragorn? Or to Faramir? How about Hal Jordan as Green Lantern? Or Jason Mamoa's Aquaman? Hmm? What makes al'Lan Mandragoran so special?

 

Mat is a thief, not a gigolo. If he were a gigolo, Fain could sell the necklace, because it was a fair trade between Mat and Dena. And yes, now Mat has farther to go to show that yes, "he is a Bloody hero", after all. He has farther to go, but the road is the same

 

Perrin - be mad at Hollywood. But now there is even more symmetry to his story - it begins with a woman he loves in a berserker rage, and ends with a woman he doesn't in cold blood. And a man terrified of violence for a very good reason needs to learn that sometimes it is absolutely required.

 

Love Triangle - I got nothing so far, and I hate it. But I don't think it is what it appears to be.  And doesn't have a thing to do with the overall story I described, and that you agreed with.

 

And your last paragraph is, well, I don't know what to say. If you think that the changes in Edmond's Field obliterate any possible opportunity for them to successfully deliver on the the themes of the Wheel of Time as a whole - that a lack of fidelity to 133 pages can destroy the value, plot, themes and characters that evolve over 14,000 pages, then there's not much else to say.

 

Thanks for posting your honest feedback.

[Ralph]

7 minutes ago, ashi said:

 

You even reacted to the post! ;D

Thank you. Sorry I can't keep track of who says what ?

 

But I am expecting the show also to play into the lack of control and giving in to the "wolfiness." Not the trauma itself - that is the effect of losing control, but not the focus itself. 

 

That was why I was asking what you feel is different. It seems I misunderstood your intention here, since your response was to someone who directly referenced that struggle, in the way that I have said - that the wife-killing is the greater effect of losing control, not the point itself. 

Edited January 12, 2022 by Ralph

[Jaysen Gore]

15 minutes ago, KakitaOCU said:

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.

And I would add the context of RJ being a soldier in Vietnam to any discussion around the gray morality behind the necessity for violence. I'm not going to get into a debate over the theory - in the books, Perrin goes berserk, kills two people protecting "people" he loves, spends 11 books reconciling himself to the fact that sometimes violence is the only solution, and calmly shows that belief, and willing to pay the moral price of doing so.

[ashi]

6 minutes ago, Ralph said:

But I am expecting the show also to play into the lack of control and giving in to the "wolfiness." Not the trauma itself - that is the effect of losing control, but not the focus itself.

 

22 minutes ago, KakitaOCU said:

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.

 

5 minutes ago, Jaysen Gore said:

Perrin goes berserk, kills two people protecting "people" he loves, spends 11 books reconciling himself to the fact that sometimes violence is the only solution, and calmly shows that belief, and willing to pay the moral price of doing so.

 

I think the main issue is that, while Perrin does fear losing his literal humanity and his imagined loss of control that he thinks giving in to the wolf entails, this is secondary to his strong moral core that hates killing (with which, as Jaysen rightly says, he eventually is able reconcile its necessity).

 

Reading and writing this actually makes me fear the show will lean more heavily into Perrin the anxious berserker, afraid of losing his humanity to the wolf, than Perrin, who hates killing because it to him is morally repugnant, who believes that it is killing by volition, not only in animal rage, that risks one's humanity.

[ashi]

43 minutes ago, KakitaOCU said:

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.

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.

It is precisely because it is an act, and not an accident, and that it is (debatably) justifiable from Perrin's point of view, that it is different from the wife-killing.

 

Well that, and if you like plot significance, that it drives the Whitecloaks to the Two Rivers.

[Ralph]

6 minutes ago, ashi said:

 

 

 

I think the main issue is that, while Perrin does fear losing his literal humanity and his imagined loss of control that he thinks giving in to the wolf entails, this is secondary to his strong moral core that hates killing (with which, as Jaysen rightly says, he eventually is able reconcile its necessity).

 

Reading and writing this actually makes me fear the show will lean more heavily into Perrin the anxious berserker, afraid of losing his humanity to the wolf, than Perrin, who hates killing because it to him is morally repugnant, who believes that it is killing by volition, not only in animal rage, that risks one's humanity.

Now this is what I originally thought you meant. And I was wondering where you see that RJ meant this

[ashi]

6 minutes ago, Ralph said:

Now this is what I originally thought you meant. And I was wondering where you see that RJ meant this

Well, it is not a quote specific to Perrin, so you may not connect it as I do, but to me it is fairly clear that Perrin's struggle with violence (hating killing, hating the axe and what it represents, always hating what he does when he actually does kill (in complete human non-wolf non-berserk sanity, to boot)), but eventually coming to see and accept its sometime necessity (and his part in it) -  represents one aspect of this:

 

Quote

Jordan

 

There's also the difficulty in deciding how far you can go in fighting evil. I like to think of it as a scale. At one end you hold purely to your own ideals no matter what the cost, with the result that possibly evil wins. At the other end, you do anything and everything to win, with the result that maybe it doesn't make much difference whether you've won or evil has won.

 

 

Edited January 12, 2022 by ashi

[ashi]

1 hour ago, Ralph said:

But I am expecting the show also to play into the lack of control and giving in to the "wolfiness." Not the trauma itself - that is the effect of losing control, but not the focus itself. 

 

That was why I was asking what you feel is different. It seems I misunderstood your intention here, since your response was to someone who directly referenced that struggle, in the way that I have said - that the wife-killing is the greater effect of losing control, not the point itself.

Right, and I think it sidetracks his moral and psychological arc:

 

Perrin will, after much moral struggle, come to realize that embracing the wolf nature is natural, that violence and killing (including whitecloaks in defense of wolves) is sometimes necessary, despite being to him repugnant.

 

Perrin killing his wife in an accident of rage is always an absolutely bad thing, and so it will never be a part of this moral struggle. It is not even an act of agency.

Edited January 12, 2022 by ashi

[KakitaOCU]

10 minutes ago, ashi said:

It is precisely because it is an act, and not an accident, and that it is (debatably) justifiable from Perrin's point of view, that it is different from the wife-killing.

 

Well that, and if you like plot significance, that it drives the Whitecloaks to the Two Rivers.

I'm not discussing if the book plot was enough on it's own.  Just talking to why that change was made.  

As for the two rivers, him being a weird wolf creature would be enough, that and if he still gets accused of killing Geoff Bornhald.

[ashi]

10 minutes ago, KakitaOCU said:

As for the two rivers, him being a weird wolf creature would be enough, that and if he still gets accused of killing Geoff Bornhald.

Yes, or they might even have him kill Children in defense of wolves in Falme. It might make sense, maybe, to postpone that confrontation (if it happens) until his mental connection with the wolves is more established, so that it indeed can come across as being in the defense of friends.

Edited January 12, 2022 by ashi

[Mailman]

28 minutes ago, KakitaOCU said:

I'm not discussing if the book plot was enough on it's own.  Just talking to why that change was made.  

As for the two rivers, him being a weird wolf creature would be enough, that and if he still gets accused of killing Geoff Bornhald.

Padan Fain influencing Pedron Niall was the reason the Whitecloaks went to the Two Rivers as a means to draw Rand than anything else.

[ashi]

12 minutes ago, Mailman said:

Padan Fain influencing Pedron Niall was the reason the Whitecloaks went to the Two Rivers as a means to draw Rand than anything else.

Fair. Though Perrin believes they are there for him (and Dain and Byar probably are ?):

 

Quote

The Shadow Rising, chapter 13, Rumors

"The rumor is, my Lord, that the Whitecloaks have gone into the Two Rivers. Hunting the Dragon Reborn, it’s said. Though of course, that cannot be, since the Lord Dragon is here in Tear.” ... “These rumors can run very wild, my Lord. Perhaps it’s only wind in a bucket. The same rumor claims the Whitecloaks are after some Darkfriend with yellow eyes, too."
[...]
[Perrin] "A hundred reasons to stay, but the one reason to go outweighs them. The Whitecloaks are in the Two Rivers, and they’ll hurt people trying to find me. I can stop it, if I go."

 

And Perrin does feel that he needs to give up his life to them in answer for his crimes.

 

Quote

The Shadow Rising, chapter 14, Customs of Mayene

 

Staring at the splintered gash his axe had made in the door, he found himself telling it what he could not tell her. “I killed Whitecloaks. They would have killed me if I hadn’t, but they still call it murder. I’m going home to die, Faile. That’s the only way I can stop them hurting my people. Let them hang me. I cannot let you see that. I can’t. You might even try to stop it, and then they’d . . . .”

 

Edited January 12, 2022 by ashi

[SingleMort]

52 minutes ago, KakitaOCU said:

I'm not discussing if the book plot was enough on it's own.  Just talking to why that change was made.  

As for the two rivers, him being a weird wolf creature would be enough, that and if he still gets accused of killing Geoff Bornhald.

I think it's a bit of a stretch to say Perrin being vaguely in the same area as Bornhald when he died and Perrin physically killing Whitecloaks with his own two hands are in any way on a similar level of culpability. The fact is in the books was not clear cut because Perrin DID do the things he was accused of and it was more about was he justified in doing them. Perrin was also found guilty in the trial.

 

Now if the TV show wants to go another way and have Perrin actually kill Bornhald (justified or otherwise) that's another matter but it would completely destroy Bornhalds character arc. Bornhald died actually doing something good by fighting the Seanchan at Falme he was one of the few Whitecloak characters to actually seem halfway sympathetic even If he wanted to execute Perrin. If they change that to give Perrin a big bad Whitecloak to take out I can't see how it's an improvement to his character if anything it's just dumbing him down 

[Mailman]

55 minutes ago, ashi said:

Fair. Though Perrin believes they are there for him (and Dain and Byar probably are ?):

 

 

And Perrin does feel that he needs to give up his life to them in answer for his crimes.

 

 

Correct I was not saying that there where not other motivations present but the force behind the Whitecloaks getting to the two rivers was a play by Fain to draw Rand out.

 

Without Fain whispering in Nialls ear I highly doubt the Whitecloaks would have ever sent a force there.

[ilovezam]

https://old.reddit.com/r/WoT/comments/s1vlac/sarahs_response_to_the_backlash_from_episode_8/

 

Sarah Nakamura had responded to the criticism to Episode 8 and to me it's not a good look...

 

She thinks Episode 8 is "deft" and "surgical" and that she's super proud of Season 1 and she's fully on board with the new story they're telling, and dismisses the criticism directed to her as sexism from men, when Rafe is probably the most hated figure above all else.

[VooDooNut]

9 minutes ago, ilovezam said:

https://old.reddit.com/r/WoT/comments/s1vlac/sarahs_response_to_the_backlash_from_episode_8/

 

Sarah Nakamura had responded to the criticism to Episode 8 and to me it's not a good look...

 

She thinks Episode 8 is "deft" and "surgical" and that she's super proud of Season 1 and she's fully on board with the new story they're telling, and dismisses the criticism directed to her as sexism from men, when Rafe is probably the most hated figure above all else.

Watching this was interesting, and sad. More proof that constant use of social media can't be good for mental health. If I could reach out to Sarah directly, I'd advise her to ditch social media entirely freeing herself to focus on doing the best job she can in whatever capacity her consultant role demands (glad I'm not in her shoes). Who could hope to function in their role under the constant ire of social media junkies users participants? Ridiculous.

 

All that aside, I'm sure season 2 will be fine, in part thanks to her work.

[Terry05]

7 minutes ago, VooDooNut said:

Watching this was interesting, and sad. More proof that constant use of social media can't be good for mental health. If I could reach out to Sarah directly, I'd advise her to ditch social media entirely freeing herself to focus on doing the best job she can in whatever capacity her consultant role demands (glad I'm not in her shoes). Who could hope to function in their role under the constant ire of social media junkies users participants? Ridiculous.

 

All that aside, I'm sure season 2 will be fine, in part thanks to her work.

Wonder how many posters from here were in Sarah's DMs ?

[Ralph]

5 hours ago, ashi said:

Well, it is not a quote specific to Perrin, so you may not connect it as I do, but to me it is fairly clear that Perrin's struggle with violence (hating killing, hating the axe and what it represents, always hating what he does when he actually does kill (in complete human non-wolf non-berserk sanity, to boot)), but eventually coming to see and accept its sometime necessity (and his part in it) -  represents one aspect of this:

 

 

 

Thank you. Not sure you can criticise the show if it doesn't go this way though. And in the books it is often expressed as losing himself to the wolf. 

 

Does Perrin ever really decide killing those Whitecloaks was justified? He accepts Morgase's verdict

4 hours ago, SingleMort said:

I think it's a bit of a stretch to say Perrin being vaguely in the same area as Bornhald when he died and Perrin physically killing Whitecloaks with his own two hands are in any way on a similar level of culpability. The fact is in the books was not clear cut because Perrin DID do the things he was accused of and it was more about was he justified in doing them. Perrin was also found guilty in the trial.

 

 

But Byar, and therefore Bornhald Jun, do believe he was involved

[Ralph]

42 minutes ago, ilovezam said:

https://old.reddit.com/r/WoT/comments/s1vlac/sarahs_response_to_the_backlash_from_episode_8/

 

Sarah Nakamura had responded to the criticism to Episode 8 and to me it's not a good look...

 

She thinks Episode 8 is "deft" and "surgical" and that she's super proud of Season 1 and she's fully on board with the new story they're telling, and dismisses the criticism directed to her as sexism from men, when Rafe is probably the most hated figure above all else.

Can someone post the actual text from her post please. 

 

 

[Terry05]

1 minute ago, Ralph said:

Can someone post the actual text from her post please. 

 

 

I listened to her on her Instagram fleet

[ilovezam]

13 minutes ago, Ralph said:

Can someone post the actual text from her post please. 

Got you fam

 

Transcript:

Quote

So in December, I thought it'd be a really great time to take a step back from social media, and just focus on my family, relax, unplug. I did - it was wonderful, I turned off all notifications for social media and had only a very select few people who can actually reach me via text.

 

Uhmm, it was amazing, and I think, just like, the best decision I've ever made in my whole life. But like, *giggles*, I turned on my Instagram notifications last night or the day before, and the stuff that is still coming through from Episode 8 is cracking me up.

 

Some people are so pressed about Episode 8 that they're coming for my throat - and I find it absolutely hysterical, to be perfectly honest, because it's all men, and I guarantee you that if I were a man they would not be coming at me with that same energy because, guaranteed, they are not going after any of the other people that may have helped to provide support for this show, with that same energy. Guaranteed that it is not happening, so, I'm finding that absolutely hysterical, and uhmm, just the fact that, I'm not bothered - I'm so proud of Episode 8!

 

The end of the Eye of the World is difficult from a book perspective, and so, how we wrapped everything up while hitting some of the peaks of this scene when it comes to the confrontation at the Eye I felt were right on the money. We also planted a lot of seeds within that whole episode that will bear fruit in the coming seasons, and I felt like it was done deftly and surgically and we just kinda left things to grow, and I am so thrilled with all of that. But man!

 

Some of you guys really need to take a deep breath, relax, and, think twice about coming after a stranger on the Internet. For those of you asking, I sleep very well at night, and I'm really really proud of the work that I do and the support that I provide. But gonna need for people that are questioning me to looking up the meaning of "consultant" and also the meaning of "advice". I am not a producer - bottom line - I am not a producer, I can't make anyone do anything and I don't let things happen because I'm not a decision-maker. I provide support, I advise, and fight battles that maybe feel like I need to fight? *cuts off*

 

And just to wrap all of this up, I am all in on the outline and the vision of what is happening for this show - I'm fully sold on all of Season 1 and I am committed to the story that we're telling and how we're telling it, and at the end of the day, super super happy with all of it, and so I support our showrunner with my full heart, and kindly thank you, no, I will not be killing myself, so stop asking.

 

TL;DR: She loves the show, thinks that Episode 8 was expertly written, and claims that people going after her are all men who are only doing it because she's a woman. She's fully on board with the story they're telling for the show.

 

She doesn't talk about any of the well-written criticism directed at the show, and chooses to only address the idea that people are "coming for [her] throat", and that the people doing that were all sexist men, which I think is pretty nonsensical. I'd bet my left kidney that Rafe is receiving actual death threats and hate in orders of magnitude higher than what she's receiving - not even many people would have known of Sarah Nakamura at this point.

 

Personally I don't think this is a super good look for Season 2. It seems book expert consultant thought that Episode 8 was "deft[ly] and surgical[ly]" written, and I think even the people who generally loved Season 1 would find it hard-pressed to agree with that.

 

The problem with a show that goes out of its way to be extremely politically driven is that the politics are often used as a shield against criticism. I'm pretty damn left-leaning, but I have to repeatedly make these disclaimers to even criticize the show - Rafe stated explicitly that the Wheel of Time would receive a feminist makeover from him, and the end result is that if you didn't like it, you might just be a sexist. Sarah seeds to be hiding behind exactly that, and I really don't like that.

 

Having said all that, people who are personally attacking her do need to take a step back and take a deep breath, and not let their remarks muddy the waters of reasonable critique. 

Edited January 12, 2022 by ilovezam

[VooDooNut]

Just now, ilovezam said:

Got you fam

 

Transcript:

 

She doesn't talk about any of the well-written criticism directed at the show, and chooses to only address the idea that people are "coming for [her] throat", and that the people doing that were all sexist men, which I think is pretty nonsensical. I'd bet my left kidney that Rafe is receiving actual death threats and hate in orders of magnitude higher than what she's receiving - not even many people would have known of Sarah Nakamura at this point.

 

Personally I don't think this is a super good look for Season 2. It seems book expert consultant thought that Episode 8 was "deft[ly] and surgical[ly]" written, and I think even the people who generally loved Season 1 would find it hard-pressed to agree with that.

 

The problem with a show that goes out of its way to be extremely politically driven is that the politics are often used as a shield against criticism. I'm pretty damn left-leaning, but I have to repeatedly make these disclaimers to even criticize the show - Rafe stated explicitly that the Wheel of Time would receive a feminist makeover from him, and the end result is that if you didn't like it, you might just be a sexist. Sarah seeds to be hiding behind exactly that, and I really don't like that.

 

Having said all that, people who are personally attacking her do need to take a step back and take a deep breath, and not let their remarks muddy the waters of reasonable critique. 

Yikes. This should not be normalized in any way. Any amount of death threats greater than zero is too many.

 

I agree with your last statement. But the irony lies in us expecting social media to function simultaneously as a town hall and viper pit.

[ilovezam]

1 minute ago, VooDooNut said:

Yikes. This should not be normalized in any way. Any amount of death threats greater than zero is too many.

 

Agreed yeah. I'm saying pointing that out to serve as a counter to her assertion that people are only going after her because she's a woman, but it's totally not okay to send death threats to anybody.

[Terry05]

15 minutes ago, VooDooNut said:

Yikes. This should not be normalized in any way. Any amount of death threats greater than zero is too many.

 

I agree with your last statement. But the irony lies in us expecting social media to function simultaneously as a town hall and viper pit.

Obviously without seeing her DM's we can't know for certain - but I can just imagine the type of shit she's receiving and no doubt it would be from men who are likely saying things they wouldn't say to a male, so I don't doubt what she's saying at all.

Edited January 12, 2022 by Terry05

[VooDooNut]

1 minute ago, Terry05 said:

Obviously without seeing her DM's we can't know for certain - but I can just imagine the type of shit she's receiving and no doubt it wold be from men who are likely saying things they wouldn't say to a male, so I don't doubt what she's saying at all.

Right, but that's why I see social media as poison. It's tainted, like Saidin. Try to use it for good and eventually the madness will creep up on you. Eerie how similar the two are.