Why not follow the books more closely?

[HeavyHalfMoonBlade]

5 minutes ago, Guire said:

I have been enjoying this season much better.  The WoT prime is still probably 4th best vetsion that could have been made. The problem is not with feminism.  The problem is with the Hollywood version of girl power.  Hollywood tackling gender equality is like a domestic abuser giving relationship advice.  If equality is good then a dash of misandry is better.  As shown by last few episodes the show didnt need to glow up the female characters.  Decisions that were made for idealogical reasons muddled up lots of first season and its had knock on effects to second.  They are doing some really good TV story telling.  Much of that is just great casting and acting.  The feminist reinterpretation in the new turning is one of the big anchors slowing the story down.  I dont really enjoy Mat, Perrin, Elyas, Lan, Abel, and on the fence on Ihvon and Maksim.  Even though the changes were meant to appeal to younger and broader audience I have seen little evidence it is. Performative activism does no one any good and that is most of what Hollywood and Big Tech brings. 

Good explanation, though I don't quite see what a lot of the characters you list have to do with any specific spin on the story. Like for instance, you bring up Abel, without mentioning Nattie, who I would say gets a far more cutting treatment in the show, so really it is not Abel that is changed, but Mat's parents. So I do not see how that is directed at any particular slant.

[Guire]

31 minutes ago, HeavyHalfMoonBlade said:

Perhaps I am mistaken, but I think I covered fairly succinctly what feminism actually is, in the post you quoted. Perhaps you can elucidate where you think opinions come into it?

You described what feminism should be.  What version are we currently accepting as dogma? Should there be payback for past misogyny and patriarchy?  The politics here especially by activists and anyone who is concerned about their public brand is often not a clear cut moral imperitive.

[Guire]

3 minutes ago, HeavyHalfMoonBlade said:

Good explanation, though I don't quite see what a lot of the characters you list have to do with any specific spin on the story. Like for instance, you bring up Abel, without mentioning Nattie, who I would say gets a far more cutting treatment in the show, so really it is not Abel that is changed, but Mat's parents. So I do not see how that is directed at any particular slant.

Nattie is supposed to be the sympathetic broken monster.  Abel's horrible treatment has driven her to alcohol, despair, and child abuse.  Neither Abel nor Nattie are redeemable to me at this point.  Also Mat leaving his sisters in that situation if he never goes back makes him pretty horrible too.

[Elder_Haman]

4 minutes ago, Guire said:

Neither Abel nor Nattie are redeemable to me at this point.

I mean come on. They had all of 2 minutes of screen time and they are irredeemable? I'm sort of sympathetic to the idea that some of the male characters (Lan in particular) have been given short shrift. But when you pull this out as an example, it's hard to take the argument seriously.

 

It seems like a lot of the most vehement critics of the show are desperately seeking evidence that Rafe has turned the Wheel of Time into a polemic for modern, leftist politics. But apart from the fact that gay, lesbian and bisexual people have been brought to the forefront of the story (something that has textual support in the source material), I find little evidence supporting this claim.

 

If you want to find leftist polemics in media today, you don't have to look too hard. WoT just ain't that.

[HeavyHalfMoonBlade]

26 minutes ago, Guire said:

You described what feminism should be.  What version are we currently accepting as dogma? Should there be payback for past misogyny and patriarchy?  The politics here especially by activists and anyone who is concerned about their public brand is often not a clear cut moral imperitive.

Respectfully, I described what it is. What it means. 

 

It is like being concerned about the environment, some people might want to do things to protect the environment that you don't agree with, but that does not make protecting the planet a bad thing by definition. 

 

Some people that call themselves feminists are misandrists, but that does not made feminism bad. And there are definitely those out there, that see feminism as misandry as they are so threatened by it.

 

But that is why I would recommend not discussing the showrunner, or the motivations that they may have, and actually discuss the show.

Edited September 25, 2023 by HeavyHalfMoonBlade
Respectively, I English not can gerbil. I think I better get to bed.

[HeavyHalfMoonBlade]

16 minutes ago, Guire said:

Nattie is supposed to be the sympathetic broken monster.  Abel's horrible treatment has driven her to alcohol, despair, and child abuse.  Neither Abel nor Nattie are redeemable to me at this point.  Also Mat leaving his sisters in that situation if he never goes back makes him pretty horrible too.

That is not how I saw it, but there was not a lot of material to base it on. But Abel appeared to be carousing with another woman, which is not exactly the worst character trait in the world, though shocking in Emond's Field 🙂 Nattie was uncontrollably drunk, a bad mother to the girls, unbelievably cruel to Mat, and the motivation we have for this is that her man is not faithful. Oh Light, how could a woman manage to cope if her man does not worship her, no wonder she falls to pieces. Does not say a lot for the moral fortitude of this particular woman. Which seems strange in a show that holds up that female characters are empowered and make characters denegrated to the point it is actually misandry.

And Mat had to leave because of the trollocs, you cannot hold that one against him.

But nice to be discussing the show instead of the showrunner.

[Guire]

I am not going to quote but just kind of answer last few posts. Nattie specificalky said Mat was going to be a bastard like his father.  Also Abel looked in direction of drunk Nattie and Mat.  In a tiny town being a philander is a bit more abusive to spouse than in a city where some doubt can be cast. Abel almost seemed to be getting off on harm he caused.  When trollocs attacked he straight abandoned the girls.  No coming back from that.  Even pretty timid people step up when thwir kids are threatened.

[Elder_Haman]

1 minute ago, Guire said:

Nattie specificalky said Mat was going to be a bastard like his father.

Okay. But she was drunk off of her rear when she said this.

 

1 minute ago, Guire said:

Also Abel looked in direction of drunk Nattie and Mat.

Okay?

 

2 minutes ago, Guire said:

In a tiny town being a philander is a bit more abusive to spouse than in a city where some doubt can be cast.

This is a stretch. Adultery is adultery. It might be more hurtful when the 'other woman' is known to the cheated upon spouse, but not necessarily. 

 

3 minutes ago, Guire said:

Abel almost seemed to be getting off on harm he caused.

That's a huge stretch. 

 

3 minutes ago, Guire said:

When trollocs attacked he straight abandoned the girls.

So did Natty. They were attacked by monsters out of legend. And they were drunk at the time.

 

4 minutes ago, Guire said:

No coming back from that.

Yes there is. The girls lived. The experience causes them to give up drinking, get right with each other, and start being better parents to the girls. That's how you come back from it.

[Ralph]

4 hours ago, Samt said:

Well, I wouldn't use the word malice.  But there is definite intent.  The creators have admitted that they want to make a feminist re-imagining of the wheel of time.  As the saying goes, when someone tells you who he or she is, believe him or her.  

 

can you show me where they said this please? iirc they said that rj  wrote a feminist series for his time but that it needs updating. not the same thing at all. 

 

and I think I asked you once - were you upset when bs introduced normal gay characters in his novels? in rj ones there were no gay men, and the only lesbianism was playing around as novices, and Galina. I know many gay people were extremely offended by this. but clearly bs was introducing a new political point that rj didn't deem suitable. so were you outraged? 

[Samt]

4 hours ago, Elder_Haman said:

It's pretty dang good!  Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

As far as the show goes, I've moved past worrying about it matching the books.  It's simply not worth keeping track of the changes.  I've also decided to just watch without worrying about the politics.  

 

The thing is, I haven't watched episodes 5 and 6 yet.  Once I let go of the books connection and the politics, the show just isn't interesting anymore.  I don't care about the characters or the story.  I haven't consciously decided not to watch the show and I may eventually get to it.  I even started episode 5 at one point, but I just didn't care.  

 

It just isn't a very good show.  

[Elder_Haman]

3 minutes ago, Samt said:

As far as the show goes, I've moved past worrying about it matching the books.  It's simply not worth keeping track of the changes.  I've also decided to just watch without worrying about the politics.  

 

The thing is, I haven't watched episodes 5 and 6 yet.  Once I let go of the books connection and the politics, the show just isn't interesting anymore.  I don't care about the characters or the story.  I haven't consciously decided not to watch the show and I may eventually get to it.  I even started episode 5 at one point, but I just didn't care.  

 

It just isn't a very good show.  

Sorry, I just have to disagree. It's a good show that is trending in the right direction. Episode 6 was the best yet. 

[Scarloc99]

7 hours ago, notpropaganda73 said:

I would argue that every bit of art if political to some degree, some just seem unwilling to engage with it on that level (which is fine as well, sometimes people just want to enjoy art as it is without engaging in that). 

 

What I find quite boring about most of the "discourse" today (bleh) is that none of these points are interesting. Rafe has a very particular world view, so what? Is the show working within the parameters that the writers/creators have set? Are their choices for adaptation working in bringing WoT to the screen? If not, why not? That's the interesting bit to me.

 

I may be stepping on some toes or opening a can of worms here but as an example of this sort of thing, I was honestly super interested in the idea of a female Dragon Reborn because I thought it could link into a transgender channeller. I never believed that Rand wouldn't be the Dragon (because Rafe kept telling us that all book readers know who the Dragon is), but the idea that a woman could be, that was interesting. What would happen to a person born a woman, who could channel, but they are actually a trans man? Do they become blocked from the Source once they transition, or can they suddenly access saidin? Do they go mad? Could they be the Dragon Reborn after transitioning? And also the reverse, if someone born a man transitions, can they now access saidar? 

 

Sure, I am sympathetic to the trans community and a supporter of their rights etc., but that's not why I was interested in that idea, it was more about those sorts of questions. And I don't think it's a terrible shame on the world RJ created to introduce a character like that or ask those sorts of questions within the parameters of his world (as best we can). In today's climate online and politically, it would probably be a disaster for the show (I'm also not sure if the writers' could really pull it off - but maybe I'm being harsh), but that saddens me, that even an attempt at introducing something like that would be seen as some sort of extremely woke or political move, rather than just an artistic choice in telling a wider story. 

I have a trans friend who had an issue with WOT because of how it depicts its version of a trans character, halima, however they also accepted that getting in what he managed in terms of strong female characters, hints to same sex relationships and the way male and female roles worked at that time, in fantasy, was a step in the right direction. They are actually is pretty convinced that if RJ wrote wot now, souls would not be gendered either. 

Edited September 26, 2023 by Scarloc99

[Samt]

42 minutes ago, Scarloc99 said:

I have a trans friend who had an issue with WOT because of how it depicts its version of a trans character, halima, however they also accepted that getting in what he managed in terms of strong female characters, hints to same sex relationships and the way male and female roles worked at that time, in fantasy, was a step in the right direction. They are actually is pretty convinced that if RJ wrote wot now, souls would not be gendered either. 

It's a bit pointless to speculate as to what RJ would have written today.  

 

But your friend's position demonstrates the point.  It's political.  It just happens to be political in a way that he or she agrees with.

[Kaleb]

2 hours ago, Samt said:

It's a bit pointless to speculate as to what RJ would have written today.  

 

But your friend's position demonstrates the point.  It's political.  It just happens to be political in a way that he or she agrees with.

The Wheel Of Time is - aside from being a wonderful fantasy story - Robert Jordan's main political statement of his views on many many topics. If you read between the lines, you can see it to be just as political as Gulliver's Travels in quite a few of his themes. Political discussion boils through the whole thing, but to his credit, he really did an admirable job of maintaining a degree of humility as he approached political topics like gender roles and sexuality and the role of religion in society and civil rights and tax policy. He doesn't make it a polemic in most senses, he presents all these topics in service of his story and readers are mostly free to see different approaches to all these topics favorably or unfavorably according to their own dispositions.

 

Any adaptation of this story is forced to present discussion of all these topics because they are inseparably woven into this story. There is no apolitical option. In my opinion, insisting that there is such an apolitical option is the most disingenuously political critique around.

[HeavyHalfMoonBlade]

12 hours ago, Guire said:

I am not going to quote but just kind of answer last few posts. Nattie specificalky said Mat was going to be a bastard like his father.  Also Abel looked in direction of drunk Nattie and Mat.  In a tiny town being a philander is a bit more abusive to spouse than in a city where some doubt can be cast. Abel almost seemed to be getting off on harm he caused.  When trollocs attacked he straight abandoned the girls.  No coming back from that.  Even pretty timid people step up when thwir kids are threatened.

I was not attempting to turn it into a competition 🙂 What I was trying to point out that most of what we see concretely is about Nattie, but yes it is a good bit of story-telling, in a very succinct scene, it tells a long and depressing story about their relationship and personalities. And yes, this is TV, of course there is coming back from it. I personally dislike when stories take these kind of relationships and pretend they can be fixed, but they could do that, though it would be better if we saw that they broke up and found healthy lives apart imo, while caring for the kids. Or you could even have the burning house metaphor made real, the kids are trapped in a house fire and Abel keeps going back in until the house falls on top of him, which lets Mat know that no matter what personality flaws you have, you can still be a hero when it is needed. I should be writing this stuff 🙂 

 

What I was referring to is the classic cherry picking of the misandrist argument. Mat's parents have been made awful, yet I think you would find it not so easy to find a post complaining about that on these forums, whereas people complaining about "honourable" Abel can be found in every thread that even slightly touches upon the subject. And cherry picking come from unconscious or deliberate bias, and why would anyone be biased against the show?

[Scarloc99]

6 hours ago, Kaleb said:

The Wheel Of Time is - aside from being a wonderful fantasy story - Robert Jordan's main political statement of his views on many many topics. If you read between the lines, you can see it to be just as political as Gulliver's Travels in quite a few of his themes. Political discussion boils through the whole thing, but to his credit, he really did an admirable job of maintaining a degree of humility as he approached political topics like gender roles and sexuality and the role of religion in society and civil rights and tax policy. He doesn't make it a polemic in most senses, he presents all these topics in service of his story and readers are mostly free to see different approaches to all these topics favorably or unfavorably according to their own dispositions.

 

Any adaptation of this story is forced to present discussion of all these topics because they are inseparably woven into this story. There is no apolitical option. In my opinion, insisting that there is such an apolitical option is the most disingenuously political critique around.

I have long said the biggest thing I am impressed with is how RJ's personal religion is not there front and centre on the page, for a man who took communion more then once a week and described himself as high church Episcopalian I would have expected a far more organised religion, churches temples, and a lot more references to people worshipping the creator etc. But Randland does not have this, Rand is not given "god like powers" his powers are tied to the pattern which is not some ethereal being. The only organised religious group in Randland are depicted as the bad guys. 

It is one of my biggest bug bears with Sandersons work, an author who has openly stated he puts his faith into his writing, All of a sudden the creator takes an active part in the last battle, Rand becomes able to "see dark friends and mark them", and the story switches into a very new direction. 

This for me is going to be a more interesting line for Rafe to thread, how much of Sandersons work does he actually use, and how does he couch it and show it vs what are in effect meaningless changes to Lore in regards to the story about non gendered souls etc. In fact I might start a thread about it :). 

[Vartija]

I wouldn't mind "another turning of the Wheel" so much for the Sanderson books. In a way they already are because we don't know how much of it was RJ's vision and how much was Sanderson's own ideas. I don't meant to belittle Sanderson's contribution either but I think it will be easier to accept changes to those parts of the story. 

[Averlan]

On 8/10/2023 at 8:04 PM, expat said:

Because you CAN'T tell the story as originally written due to production constraints (cost, time, availability of actors, medium differences) and the structure of the books.

 

What I mean by the structure of the books is:

1. Too many characters for TV viewers to relate to.  A good example from the books is the ending of the EOTW.  We get two random Forsaken in the concluding battle, but they appear out of nowhere and then just die. 

 

See I always felt those 2 forsaken were important more for Rand seeing Nyneave,Egwene totured and well basically snapping which is how he ended up channeling the Eye, and basically being mad with grief explains how he did some of hte things, he honestly didn't know how to do at the time.

 

On the other hand i can see how there is only so much screen time and maybe shortcuts are needed. I think they did the end of S1 wrong, because the army was killed, and no Shienarians had seen a man channel, which i believe made it easier for them to become dragonsworn when they did later. However that is not the end of the world.

 

Mat's character is a totally change imo, he was a jokester/trickster but not someone who would endanger another until he started carring the dagger with a piece of what turned a stalwart city of light into a festering pit of suspiscion and evil.  then he had a ton of holes in his memories,  but still would help his friends. others have different opinions obviously, but the characterization of Mat and the end of S2 are the 2 biggestest misses in the series so far.

[Scarloc99]

On 10/8/2023 at 12:53 AM, Averlan said:

 

See I always felt those 2 forsaken were important more for Rand seeing Nyneave,Egwene totured and well basically snapping which is how he ended up channeling the Eye, and basically being mad with grief explains how he did some of hte things, he honestly didn't know how to do at the time.

 

On the other hand i can see how there is only so much screen time and maybe shortcuts are needed. I think they did the end of S1 wrong, because the army was killed, and no Shienarians had seen a man channel, which i believe made it easier for them to become dragonsworn when they did later. However that is not the end of the world.

 

Mat's character is a totally change imo, he was a jokester/trickster but not someone who would endanger another until he started carring the dagger with a piece of what turned a stalwart city of light into a festering pit of suspiscion and evil.  then he had a ton of holes in his memories,  but still would help his friends. others have different opinions obviously, but the characterization of Mat and the end of S2 are the 2 biggestest misses in the series so far.

People really do not remember the boos as well as they think, Matt in books 1 and 2 was gollum, sinking into despair and becoming more and more evil. You don’t get the Matt you love until really book 5/6, although there are glimpses in book 3

[Mirefox]

46 minutes ago, Scarloc99 said:

People really do not remember the boos as well as they think, Matt in books 1 and 2 was gollum, sinking into despair and becoming more and more evil. You don’t get the Matt you love until really book 5/6, although there are glimpses in book 3

We also get the Mat we love prior to Shadar Logoth.  The snow just character assassinated him from the start.

[Elder_Haman]

7 minutes ago, Mirefox said:

We also get the Mat we love prior to Shadar Logoth.  The snow just character assassinated him from the start.

How was his character “assassinated”?

[Ralph]

8 minutes ago, Mirefox said:

We also get the Mat we love prior to Shadar Logoth.  The snow just character assassinated him from the start.

 

Jon Snow?? 🤔😉😜

[Mirefox]

6 minutes ago, Elder_Haman said:

How was his character “assassinated”?

Mat is Pippin in the FotR movie.  He is a fun-loving rogue who might steal a pie.  The book introduced him as a dark and brooding character who hooks up with girls to steal their jewelry to fleece to the peddler.

[Mirefox]

7 minutes ago, Ralph said:

 

Jon Snow?? 🤔😉😜

Whoops.😁

[Elder_Haman]

So they made him a different kind of thief? That’s a modification, not an assassination. And one that fits with the shift in the other main characters.