Mat In Season 1

[KakitaOCU]

1 hour ago, SingleMort said:

And you ignore that I already covered this in my last message regarding narrative twists. You point out twists that subvert the expectations of narrative storytelling but those are the exception to the rules of the narrative not the norm. If they were the norm then they would not be twists.

The thing is, they don't have to be twists to be not one interpretation.  I don't know anyone who was surprised Rand channeled the door open.  It being him instead of Egwene wasn't a twist either.

The 9th Doctor having centuries of adventure between leaving and coming back for Rose isn't a twist, it's just the plot.   I'm not arguing ooh, this will be a twist.  I'm pointing out we don't see a theft and while your way is a single interpretation, it's not factual at this time.
 

1 hour ago, SingleMort said:

Didn't say it was evil either if we go back to the original comment I made about 500 years ago all I did was use the example of Mat looting the dead and stealing as a difference from book Mat vs TV Show Mat.

I used evil generically and in tandem with amoral.  My apologies on the lack of clarity there.  I'd also argue that we don't actually know Book Mat before book 3.  He's a nothing blip with "trickster" behavior until the dagger.
 

1 hour ago, SingleMort said:

Err but that IS essentially the definition of fraud.

 

Not in a legal or financial sense.  In banking/finance Fraud is specifically if someone steals your identity or your card/account information to make charges.  The moment YOU give authorization or access it's your poor decision, not fraud.  That goes from the crazy Nigerian Prince scam all the way down to you told your kid to only fill up the gas tank and they went and spent a grand at Gamestop.  It's all your responsibility, not fraud.  Not unless there's proof that you were not fit to take care of yourself.

Your definition doesn't actually disagree.  It just applies to location of responsibility.  If you got scammed and could somehow prove and have the police catch the bad guy, courts might order you restitution.  But the financial institute will bill you and hold you responsible for it.

Side note, happy to drop this thread, was just something that perked my interest after 15 years as a fraud investigator.

 

Edited January 28, 2022 by KakitaOCU

[WhiteVeils]

9 minutes ago, VooDooNut said:

We have the draft scripts for episode 1. I think it's a bad idea to rely on previous drafts of a script to come to any conclusion. Ultimately, the decision was made to cut this content because, for whatever reason, it didn't fit the story they were trying to tell. Is it interesting and insightful? Absolutely. But I also think it distracts from and obfuscates studying the material we know the show actually wanted us to see. In other words, if we are going to hold the show creators responsible for the material they produce, we can't also be judging them on the material they chose to cut before it ever appeared in front of the viewership.

 

If the (final version) bracelet scene is a point of contention among fans, (and I'd agree that it is) I suspect that was a deliberate choice by the show runners and Mat's character growth will continue to be explored in season 2.

Pretty much agree...just wanted to put it out there.

[SingleMort]

36 minutes ago, KakitaOCU said:

Your definition doesn't actually disagree.  It just applies to location of responsibility.  If you got scammed and could somehow prove and have the police catch the bad guy, courts might order you restitution.  But the financial institute will bill you and hold you responsible for it.

It's not my definition I just copied it from wikipedia which is in turn citing the Judicial Council of California Criminal Jury Instructions (CALCRIM No. 1804. Theft by False Pretense (Pen. Code, § 484)). I'm no expert on fraud but what you are saying sounds like it's dependant on the type of institution and I'm guessing the laws in the country that the fraud happens in. To try and bring this back to WoT I doubt local authorities would indulge the nuances and legal loopholes that are found in modern banking and online fraud. 

 

 

49 minutes ago, KakitaOCU said:

Side note, happy to drop this thread, was just something that perked my interest after 15 years as a fraud investigator.

okie dokie but to bring down to brass tacks (2nd Saul Goodman reference check) like I mentioned before, the point of all of this was just based on a offhand comment that was basically TV Show Mat and Perrin are significantly different from there book counterparts and their actions (like those previously mentioned) make them seem far less likeable in the show. The stuff about fraud really only cropped up when you mentioned it a few messages ago. Happy that it peeked you interest but I don't really think it's the main subject.  

[KakitaOCU]

51 minutes ago, WhiteVeils said:

Pretty much agree...just wanted to put it out there.

Honestly, it's fair since it shows that at least at the beginning it was deliberately meant to be ambiguous.  So in the battle of "It was clearly petty theft" vs "We don't know exactly what happened"   I think we're good.

[Cauthonfan4]

9 hours ago, VooDooNut said:

Mat's character growth will continue to be explored in season 2

Continue? You act as if he got actual growth in season 1. Instead he got character regression. 

He starts as a thief or conman who cares about his sisters.

He then progresses to stealing from the dead and abandoning his friends

Then he is being called evil by moiraine and having the reds sent after him.

[Deviations]

2 hours ago, Cauthonfan4 said:

Continue? You act as if he got actual growth in season 1. Instead he got character regression. 

He starts as a thief or conman who cares about his sisters.

He then progresses to stealing from the dead and abandoning his friends

Then he is being called evil by moiraine and having the reds sent after him.

Yea Mat!!!

[Andra]

 

On 1/27/2022 at 8:38 PM, VooDooNut said:

Mat's character growth will continue to be explored in season 2.

On 1/28/2022 at 6:02 AM, Cauthonfan4 said:

Continue? You act as if he got actual growth in season 1. Instead he got character regression. 

He starts as a thief or conman who cares about his sisters.

He then progresses to stealing from the dead and abandoning his friends

Then he is being called evil by moiraine and having the reds sent after him.

 

And bear in mind that, at the time Moiraine sent that message she still thought Mat could be the Dragon Reborn.

She literally took a 20% chance of arranging to gentle the person she'd spent the last 20 years searching for.

[Deviations]

2 hours ago, Andra said:

And bear in mind that, at the time Moiraine sent that message she still thought Mat could be the Dragon Reborn.

She literally took a 20% chance of arranging to gentle the person she'd spent the last 20 years searching for.

A masterclass in politics and leadership given that she let him stay behind.  Oh wait.  Mat got covid so he COULDN'T go through the ways.  Couldn't super-Nyn have healed that too?

[Cauthonfan4]

20 minutes ago, Deviations said:

A masterclass in politics and leadership given that she let him stay behind

given how bad aes sedai politics were shown in the show...

 

[KakitaOCU]

2 hours ago, Cauthonfan4 said:

given how bad aes sedai politics were shown in the show...

 

Spoken like someone who never watches real politics I guess?

Of all the things to critique on the show, Aes Sedai Politics being a little bit transparent is an example of Aluminum Christmas trees (something real that people are convinced has to be fake) more than they are an example of bad politics.

[Spiritweaver1]

Well this thread came back from the dead.  Now most of you know I am not a fan of the writing staff on this show and the show runners decisions regarding the writing team.  Naturally Rafe is also a member of the team since he started and ended it.   However, there are several points in this thread I would like to address from my own meager perspective.  Some of this is deliberately aimed at making people think about what they are arguing about.

 

First I will start with my love for the Matt character's arc as created by RJ.  I don't agree he was a nothing character in TEoTW.   He started out as a youth who really had not  matured at the same pace as his friends.   He visit's SL where he definitely steals a dagger from the dead and tries to carry away a whole bunch more treasure.  So my first question is stealing from people who have been dead 2000 years more moral than stealing from people who have been dead 10 minutes?    He starts getting influenced by the dagger which carries the hate and fear that consumed SL.  Yet he has the strength to fight it and help Rand until Caemlyn where he is on the verge of being consumed when Moraine isolates him temporarily from it's influence.  Then on the way to the Eye Matt fights and kills multiple shadow spawn with his bow.   I don't see how this is a nothing arc.   Matts story only picks up from there.  

 

Second I whole heartedly agree with those that making Matt appear half a dark friend was a complete bungling of the initial character arc.  From happy go lucky youth to being nearly consumed by the dagger is high contrast.  From 1/2 dark friend to 7/8 dark friend is low contrast from a development perspective.

 

Third there are a number of folks who seem to think Moraine leaving Matt behind was some sort of wise decision.  As pointed out that means that there was a 20% chance that Moraine's only hope of stopping the DO is off the table and she is going to kill the other 4 fools who follow her.  I appreciate the bind the writing team was in at this point but their solution was so weak.  Far better to have them discover that Matt couldn't be the DR for some reason and then leave him back in TV for the full course of healing.

 

I agree with those who say you can't use draft scripts as a prediction for the future.  The only conclusion is that the forces of grimdark   and the forces of light are at odds in the writing room.  So far the forces of light seem to be winning but who knows what the future holds.   What is clear is that the writing team is writing a based on story and this gives them the freedom to do whatever they like with any character.  The only people who like Matt or any other character are the so called book fans,  From the  staff interviews and remarks by the Amazon PRcloaks on various social media it is clear that they don't value book fans or care much about their opinions.    Anyway WAFO on Matt.  Perhaps he will be merged with Rahvin.  Both of them like the ladies and it will save money and that should be enough for writers who don't care about the source material.  

 

 

 

[Mailman]

16 minutes ago, Spiritweaver1 said:

 

 

First I will start with my love for the Matt character's arc as created by RJ.  I don't agree he was a nothing character in TEoTW.   He started out as a youth who really had not  matured at the same pace as his friends.   He visit's SL where he definitely steals a dagger from the dead and tries to carry away a whole bunch more treasure.  So my first question is stealing from people who have been dead 2000 years more moral than stealing from people who have been dead 10 minutes?   

 

 

 

I would say that there is no owner of the treasure located in SL. Probably the closest is the Queen of Andor as the city is located in her country. So it is no way the same as the looting of the corpse that show Mat does. He takes the dagger more than steals it.

 

Is anyone also not buying that the people that killed the Aielman in the cage would have left a valuable gem in his possession.

[Spiritweaver1]

1 minute ago, Mailman said:

I would say that there is no owner of the treasure located in SL. Probably the closest is the Queen of Andor as the city is located in her country. So it is no way the same as the looting of the corpse that show Mat does. He takes the dagger more than steals it.

 

Is anyone also not buying that the people that killed the Aielman in the cage would have left a valuable gem in his possession.

Only if you had superstition about stealing from the dead!!  My point is that the dagger was owned by somebody who is now dead.  I am not sure why the length of time between when the person died affects the morality of "grave robbing". 

[Mailman]

2 hours ago, KakitaOCU said:

Spoken like someone who never watches real politics I guess?

Of all the things to critique on the show, Aes Sedai Politics being a little bit transparent is an example of Aluminum Christmas trees (something real that people are convinced has to be fake) more than they are an example of bad politics.

The fact they are both shit is does not absolve the show of its shit.

 

These Aes Sedai are meant to be master manipulators using a whisper to overturn kings and queens, and as you admit what we got was transparent frauds of this.

[Mailman]

3 minutes ago, Spiritweaver1 said:

Only if you had superstition about stealing from the dead!!  My point is that the dagger was owned by somebody who is now dead.  I am not sure why the length of time between when the person died affects the morality of "grave robbing". 

Its that everyone who had any claim to ownership is long dead.

 

If I die without any family and fail to assign someone ownership of my goods do they then sit there permanently and anyone taking them is a thief for all time?

 

Eventually the goods revert to the state or become freehold. The dagger was also not at a grave but in a room with treasure so its not corpse or grave robbery. 

[KakitaOCU]

2 hours ago, Mailman said:

The fact they are both shit is does not absolve the show of its shit.

 

These Aes Sedai are meant to be master manipulators using a whisper to overturn kings and queens, and as you admit what we got was transparent frauds of this.

Sounds like real life politics where people overturn things with a whisper and then blatantly lie in public and no one calls them on it.  ?

[Mailman]

5 hours ago, KakitaOCU said:

Spoken like someone who never watches real politics I guess?

Of all the things to critique on the show, Aes Sedai Politics being a little bit transparent is an example of Aluminum Christmas trees (something real that people are convinced has to be fake) more than they are an example of bad politics.

 

32 minutes ago, KakitaOCU said:

Sounds like real life politics where people overturn things with a whisper and then blatantly lie in public and no one calls them on it.  ?

 

Well which is it.

Your desperation to defend the TV show is suffocating.

[KakitaOCU]

3 hours ago, Mailman said:

 

Well which is it.

 

Which is what?  My two comments aren't in conflict with each other.  Real life politicians pull sway, win and manipulate the masses while being blatantly childish, catty and dishonest.  The idea that Aes Sedai can't possibly be effective while being the same is a false idea.

[Mailman]

1 hour ago, KakitaOCU said:

Which is what?  My two comments aren't in conflict with each other.  Real life politicians pull sway, win and manipulate the masses while being blatantly childish, catty and dishonest.  The idea that Aes Sedai can't possibly be effective while being the same is a false idea.

One quote describes the politics as transparent the other that they are master manipulators. They are clearly in conflict. 

[KakitaOCU]

6 hours ago, Mailman said:

One quote describes the politics as transparent the other that they are master manipulators. They are clearly in conflict. 

This is so very hard to do when I'm trying to not use real life politics that might cause an upset.

We have a political party that, for better or worse, feels the best use of their power is to make sure that businesses get every break and advantage imaginable while doing their best to make sure the government accomplishes nothing else, believing a truly free market is the best way to function.  Part of how they do this has ben to make blatant lies in every theatre they speak in, saying things that are factually false, easily seen through as nonsense or otherwise dismissible.  Despite this many people on that side of the political spectrum support and agree with them.  In addition to this, those untrue statements and nonsense are rarely anything directly to do with the actual policy changes they're going for.  Yet their opposition focuses in on those issues and fights over them while other goals are accomplished without much fanfare or attention.

It is transparent, it is borderline childish and it is a master class in keeping people distracted while doing what you want.

The two are not mutually exclusive.

Note: I tried to post the above without any tilt towards which side I'm on or pushing it into an actual debate, but if this is too close to that edge I apologize.  Just don't really know how the point can be made without being able to cite real world examples.

 

[Deviations]

Jordan wrote about an organization that pushed rulers where they needed to be pushed.  Suian clearly made mistakes but her grasp of history and the impact of past A. Seat holders shows a level of intelligence and deft political craftwork.

 

What we saw in the show was a joke.  None of the complexity written by Jordan was evident.  Real life politics and the lies told by both parties isn't relevant.

[KakitaOCU]

59 minutes ago, Deviations said:

Jordan wrote about an organization that pushed rulers where they needed to be pushed.  Suian clearly made mistakes but her grasp of history and the impact of past A. Seat holders shows a level of intelligence and deft political craftwork.

 

What we saw in the show was a joke.  None of the complexity written by Jordan was evident.  Real life politics and the lies told by both parties isn't relevant.

 

The only real slip was Moraine making the oath too personal.

We're talking about an organization that somehow forgets two people are deeply close and lovers because they don't talk in public for a few years.  So either the Aes Sedai were NEVER the level of manipulators and masterminds that people like to see or that they paint themselves as.

Or... People on the whole and large are a lot more malleable than we'd like to think and having the skill to pull strings doesn't make one a perfect Machiavelli.

 

[AdamA]

The Aes Sedai were never master manipulators. They manipulate kings and queens by bullying and intimidation because they're the only organization in the Westlands allowed to channel. They scorn and ostracize wilders and gentle men. They're effectively a nuclear monopoly in their world until the Aiel show up and the Forsaken come back into play, at which point we see who can really manipulate world leaders, including manipulating the Aes Sedai. They're so "masterful" at politics that they hand over dictatorial war powers to a 20 year-old because they forgot to read their own laws. They're almost totally and universally wrong about the Aiel, about Rand, about the Kin, about the Seanchan, about the Forsaken, even when others in the know flat-out tell them what's going on. They embarrass themselves in tel'aran'rhiod. They get continually punked by the Asha'man as soon as they can no longer castrate them. Verin is about the only one who is consistently getting it right. Even Cadsuane seems to realize she's been stupid around the time Tam is telling her off and maybe publicly spanking the most powerful man in the world when he doesn't address you as "Sedai" was the wrong approach. She's lucky Rand ever paid any attention to her at all, which was entirely because of Min, not because any of her counsel was ever worth a damn, never understanding that the Lews Therin memories were important and that Rand actually knew what he was talking about when it came to the enemy's plans, and she had no idea.

 

One of the more important developments in understanding the books is coming to realize how badly wrong the Aes Sedai image actually is.

Edited February 1, 2022 by AdamA

[Deviations]

52 minutes ago, KakitaOCU said:

We're talking about an organization that somehow forgets two people are deeply close and lovers because they don't talk in public for a few years.  So either the Aes Sedai were NEVER the level of manipulators and masterminds that people like to see or that they paint themselves as.

1.   Not a few years but something like 20

2.  Common for novice friendships to be put aside after gaining the shawl

3.  The organization forgot but several within did not

4.  I don't remember the New Spring.  I've only read it once.  Somehow, it doesn't get picked up every year when I re-read the cycle.  Was deeply close and lovers in that book?

[KakitaOCU]

4 minutes ago, Deviations said:

1.   Not a few years but something like 20

2.  Common for novice friendships to be put aside after gaining the shawl

3.  The organization forgot but several within did not

4.  I don't remember the New Spring.  I've only read it once.  Somehow, it doesn't get picked up every year when I re-read the cycle.  Was deeply close and lovers in that book?

1.  20 is a few years.  As you age time is shorter and shorter in your perceptions, add in a lifespan of several centuries and yeah.  For the record, I still remember 9/11 as just a little bit ago.  I know people who recall the 80's in a similar light.

2. Yep, everyone assumes that's the way it goes and take that assumption over actual analysis.  Sounds like typical unperceptive people.

3. Yep, a few individuals were more perceptive, something that isn't ruled out in the show. 

4. Yes.  RJ writes in more indirect methods, but there are several comments on their intimacy and closeness including but not limited to shared kisses, references to them being pillowfriends and always together and Cadsuance grilling Moraine on details she ended up feeling embarrassed over because they should be private things.