What are they doing to Canon?

[Guire]

16 minutes ago, HeavyHalfMoonBlade said:

For me Perrin was always a bit over the top. The nearly all the books, he freaks out about getting a bit angry now and again. He refuses the wolves over and over again despite all the times that costs him dearly. He's just too much of a torn-faced loon too often, and for little reason. And if a Forsaken had ever gotten a hold of Faile, and told him to jump off a cliff or they would kill her, he would have and doomed the world. Which devotion to me never sat well with his well meaning, quiet mannered heroism. The shows back story is an interesting take on making all that angst and mindless devotion much more understandable. Though did not agree they gave Mat a reason to always want to return to the Two Rivers, and Perrin a reason to never want to go back, as that seems the wrong way round really. 

 

I love the books, but the show changing something is not in of itself a bad thing. It depends^TM.

I hate harping on this but Perrins story is RJ reflecting on war.  You are a nice guy who has all the tools to be good at violence.  You kill someone and then have to deal with all the myriad conflicting emotion.  you feel enpowered while hating what you can do and does it make you a bad person.

 

Then you are faced with the bad things your enemy is doing to you and your friends.  do you unleash your violence because its righteous or in self defense.  Why is your life more important than people you kill even if they are bad or you are supposed to hate them?

 

Then when something you see as truly good or beautiful pops up in your life you cling to it like a life raft in the ocean.  It may not be the healthiest relationship from most peoples perspective but it is the person you can trust and love.  In the presence of chaos and violence this is how you stay human.

 

In show Perrin is not defined by killing a stranger like a soldier would, he is defined by killing the person he is supposed to love the most and protect.  Then we get the tawdry 3 some fake out with Egwene.  Perrin is a much darker person and way less relatable.  He may become entertaining and beloved.  Right now I hope they just kill him off.

[HeavyHalfMoonBlade]

Not saying that my interpretation is better than yours, but Perrin having a unique experience makes no sense in a story full of characters going through the same thing without having so much self doubt. It is not consistent with the rest of the story. Perrin was having kittens because he thought about killing Egwene instead of letting the ravens have her. 

 

He constantly beats himself up for enjoying fighting and killing, even though he never does anything to seek it out, never encourages it, never prolongs it, never does without good cause. He absolutely is not going through what every soldier in the story is going through even if it is relatable to real life soldiery. 

 

In the context of the story, his book angst and fears for himself are totally neurotic and disproportionate to his experiences. 

 

Of course, all in my most humble opinion. 

[Guire]

17 minutes ago, HeavyHalfMoonBlade said:

Not saying that my interpretation is better than yours, but Perrin having a unique experience makes no sense in a story full of characters going through the same thing without having so much self doubt. It is not consistent with the rest of the story. Perrin was having kittens because he thought about killing Egwene instead of letting the ravens have her. 

 

He constantly beats himself up for enjoying fighting and killing, even though he never does anything to seek it out, never encourages it, never prolongs it, never does without good cause. He absolutely is not going through what every soldier in the story is going through even if it is relatable to real life soldiery. 

 

In the context of the story, his book angst and fears for himself are totally neurotic and disproportionate to his experiences. 

 

Of course, all in my most humble opinion. 

It is overblown but I think it was something close to what RJ experienced and many soldiers in real life have.  Most of the soldiers in story are older soldiers who have long made accomodation with capacity for violence and war.  Perrin is also unique because he is a massive physical specimen who could have pushed and bullied people throughout his life.  Modern war is technology. This period of human conflict his strength like Loiol and trollocs really is a factor.  In books he is basically trying not to be enraged hulk.  Mileage may very as far as who we would be more interested in seeing on screen.  You are not wrong I just found book Perrin and his entire story very enjoyable.

[HeavyHalfMoonBlade]

24 minutes ago, Guire said:

It is overblown but I think it was something close to what RJ experienced and many soldiers in real life have.  Most of the soldiers in story are older soldiers who have long made accomodation with capacity for violence and war.  Perrin is also unique because he is a massive physical specimen who could have pushed and bullied people throughout his life.  Modern war is technology. This period of human conflict his strength like Loiol and trollocs really is a factor.  In books he is basically trying not to be enraged hulk.  Mileage may very as far as who we would be more interested in seeing on screen.  You are not wrong I just found book Perrin and his entire story very enjoyable.

I very much liked many aspects of Perrin. The wolves, because I have a mental age of 14, his willingness to self-sacrifice, his refusal to acknowledge the greater good as a reason to do bad or convenient things, his deliberateness, he was a smith, even his slow acceptance of leadership, which was a bit slow really. I just felt the books asked us to take a lot on trust about why he was so cut up about things that clearly were not true. He was the character least likely to hurt someone out of spite or for enjoyment, yet fear of this was one of his most powerful motivations as a character. I get why he was not given a darker side, but I also get why the show could decide to not rely on poetic license so much, though so far they have not done much with his spousicidal (that is a real word by the way) past, but maybe they will yet in the Faile storyline. Could be pretty explosive there, if she accuses him of being too gentle with his women. 

[VooDooNut]

3 hours ago, SinisterDeath said:

Isn't he the one who shot that movie over literally 12 years?

Yep, "Boyhood" is the one you are thinking of. The Sunrise Trilogy is my favorite of his works.

[Scarloc99]

On 9/29/2023 at 4:30 PM, Mirefox said:

In the books he kills a Whitecloak.  I believe it was to protect a wolf.  This advances his character traits a lot better than a made up wife-fridging and stays true to the books.  His internal struggles and motivations came from that first kill.

Yes and no, it allows us to see the internal monologue of it all and develops it over the course of multiple books, by killing someone close to him in episode 1 you kickstart that starting point of his story with an action the audience can fully understand meaning you avoid wasting precious time making sure viewers understand “subtle hints” at things. 

[Dagon Thyne]

As daniel green has said, It's best to look at this as an alternate reality to the book world.  Think of it as just another alternate universe throughout the portal stones where the story is different than in the books.

[fra85uk]

12 hours ago, Dagon Thyne said:

As daniel green has said, It's best to look at this as an alternate reality to the book world.  Think of it as just another alternate universe throughout the portal stones where the story is different than in the books.

This is what I think to watch the TV-show without prejudices and continuosly saying in my head "that's not what happens in the books"

 

However, I also dare to say that I still find myself thinking "why bother adapting WoT if so much has to be changed?"

 

I am an oscillating superposition of these two states, depending on the quality of the just-watched episode.

Edited October 2, 2023 by fra85uk

[DigificWriter]

I said this in the chat of WoTTuber KritterXD's most recent Wheel and Chill Show Livestream, but am going to repeat it here: with their TV adaptation, Rafe and his team of writers have taken all 15 books of The Wheel of Time and created a Remix.

[Chivalry]

17 hours ago, fra85uk said:

I am an oscillating superposition of these two states, depending on the quality of the just-watched episode.

😂 This is probably the best description I've seen of this condition (a condition which I share). I remember recently posting that I'm not as emotionally attached to the series as before as it's been > 20 years since I first picked up the books, the changes add an element of unpredictability hence dramatic tension, so now I can just let go and enjoy, etc. And that's how I felt for most of the season.

 

But for some reason, Episode 7 triggered me, and I've been asking "why?" for the past couple of days. I'm going to have to lean into that alternate timeline /universe explanation.

 

Hey Rafe! How about a cold open that shows Rand, Mat, Perrin, Verin, and a troop of Shienaran soldiers standing next to a portal stone, reeling from the after effects of all that flickering? You can even label the scene "Universe 534" (like the last Doctor Strange film). It may be a bit heavy handed, but it makes the point.

[Scarloc99]

On 9/29/2023 at 6:06 PM, Guire said:

I hate harping on this but Perrins story is RJ reflecting on war.  You are a nice guy who has all the tools to be good at violence.  You kill someone and then have to deal with all the myriad conflicting emotion.  you feel enpowered while hating what you can do and does it make you a bad person.

 

Then you are faced with the bad things your enemy is doing to you and your friends.  do you unleash your violence because its righteous or in self defense.  Why is your life more important than people you kill even if they are bad or you are supposed to hate them?

 

Then when something you see as truly good or beautiful pops up in your life you cling to it like a life raft in the ocean.  It may not be the healthiest relationship from most peoples perspective but it is the person you can trust and love.  In the presence of chaos and violence this is how you stay human.

 

In show Perrin is not defined by killing a stranger like a soldier would, he is defined by killing the person he is supposed to love the most and protect.  Then we get the tawdry 3 some fake out with Egwene.  Perrin is a much darker person and way less relatable.  He may become entertaining and beloved.  Right now I hope they just kill him off.

I really never saw the issue with Perrin and Failes relationship, you can see through the books both are trying to accomodate the other, Faile has only ever seen one kind of relationship type from everyone in her life, and Perrin another but they love each other completely. I imagine if they hadn't had the small issue of the end of the world, raising an army, fighting, negotiating and dealing with everything else going on around they probably would have come to understand each other a lot better a lot faster. As it is considering they where only together in reality for what, a year or so, then I don't think they are doing bad by the end of the book. 

[HeavyHalfMoonBlade]

Faile was a bit toxic really. She expected Perrin to telepathically know why she was annoyed and would not communicate with him about it. She was physically aggressive. She punished him for things, even when she knew he was sincere. She actively tried to circumvent things that he wanted because she knew better, and did not talk to him about any of it. She took ownership of him, none of this Well, if he would be happier with Berelain then I want what is best for him, because she decided what was best for him, what he wanted, and how it was going to happen. 

 

Imo, it really detracts from her character. 

[Scarloc99]

1 hour ago, HeavyHalfMoonBlade said:

Faile was a bit toxic really. She expected Perrin to telepathically know why she was annoyed and would not communicate with him about it. She was physically aggressive. She punished him for things, even when she knew he was sincere. She actively tried to circumvent things that he wanted because she knew better, and did not talk to him about any of it. She took ownership of him, none of this Well, if he would be happier with Berelain then I want what is best for him, because she decided what was best for him, what he wanted, and how it was going to happen. 

 

Imo, it really detracts from her character. 

I saw a young girl who had no idea how a real relationship worked and came from a culture who didn't "talk" she had grown up seeing her parents and others never have these kind of conversations and so didn't know how to. She had grown up watching her mother and the other women in her life do that very thing to there husbands, know what is best and so go about that very action. She also understood what Perrin could and couldn't do, and what needed doing, she understood that leadership is sometimes ugly and you can't please everyone all at the same time and sometimes the hand has to be cut off to protect the arm. She also understood that sometimes deniability was better for Perrin because he was so honest. In terms of the punishment, she was at times immature, but again, a young women, her first romantic experience, and it was nothing like she expected. Also, the if you don't know why I am pissed off I am not going to tell you is a very real thing that many men, including me, have experienced from our significant others in the past, as is having your significant other be angry at you for what you can see as no reason, but from there perspective makes perfect sense. It is also something almost every character seems to be like in the books, She is probably the most realistically written female in the books from my perspective. 

I read everything she did as coming out of love and a lack of experience, on both there parts, and of course she saw the man she wanted and battled all opposition for his affection, I have yet to meet many women who in that situation would just roll over meekly and let someone else have the man they wanted without putting up a fight, and if a women did to me what Berlain did to Perrin my wife would stab her, no questions asked. Faile in 1 year, 2, 10 years will have grown and her and Perrin will understand each other much much better. 

[HeavyHalfMoonBlade]

17 minutes ago, Scarloc99 said:

She is probably the most realistically written female in the books from my perspective. 

I'm not sure which option is more terrifying, that you are right or mistaken.

 

It is one thing to want to be appreciated without having to tell someone that you want appreciated, another to know that your partner loves you, means well, would do nearly anything for you, but to punish him for not acting in a way that you want him to, in a way he cannot possibly know that you want him to, and point-blank refuse any communication about it no matter how often he asks, no matter what he tries. 

 

Trying to see this as a difference in perspective, but it is really difficult. But obviously we disagree no the extent I don't really think discussion is possible, our views are too far apart. So probably just best to leave it at that.

Edited October 3, 2023 by HeavyHalfMoonBlade

[Guire]

8 minutes ago, HeavyHalfMoonBlade said:

I'm not sure which option is more terrifying, that you are right or mistaken.

 

It is one thing to want to be appreciated without having to tell someone that you want appreciated, another to know that your partner loves you, means well, would do nearly anything for you, but to punish him for not acting in a way that you want him to, in a way he cannot possibly know that you want him to, and point-blank refuse any communication about it no matter how often he asks, no matter what he tries. 

 

Trying to see this as a difference in perspective, but it is really difficult. But obviously we disagree no the extent I don't really think discussion is possible, our views are too far apart. So probably just best to leave it at that.

I have been married to someone very similar to Faile for 30 years.  I have had a far happier marriage than most people I know. My wife also had a background, experiences, and lack of experiences that made our relationship bumpy at times. I would not change anything about her if I also had to change her fierce commitment to me.  Some people definately shouldn't be together.  But many people just need to find the person they love and grow past baggage that they had no control over acquiring.

[HeavyHalfMoonBlade]

Not much I can say in return to that. I wonder if any women recognise themselves in Faile, or if this a male perspective thing (seeing as she was written by a man after all).

[SinisterDeath]

There's a ton of debate about Faile over on the book forums...

My take on their relationship is that of culture. They come from two polar opposite cultures.

That said;

3 hours ago, HeavyHalfMoonBlade said:

She expected Perrin to telepathically know why she was annoyed and would not communicate with him about it.

Quote

She was physically aggressive.

Quote

She punished him for things, even when she knew he was sincere.

Quote

She actively tried to circumvent things that he wanted because she knew better,

Quote

and did not talk to him about any of it.

Quote

She took ownership of him,

Quote

 she decided what was best for him, what he wanted, and how it was going to happen. 

Every behavior you described here, was the behavior of "Men" from the 1900s.

[Vervayne]

As a female reader I found both Perrin and Faile exhausting and often would skip their chapters completely.

 

When I experienced the audiobook version I did not skip their chapters, and found their storyline to be the most difficult to get through. Faile overly pushy, Perrin overly whipped. Ugh. 

[Kaleb]

Perrin and Faile were the most extreme version of the very '90s "men are from mars, women are from venus" dynamic that underpinned most of RJ's relationship models. It certainly exists in the real world and many people find themselves most comfortable there, but it is also very frustrating to people who view gender roles differently.

[CaddySedai]

To be clear the Canon remains unchanged. 

 

That is like saying that because Tom Bombadil wasn’t in the Jackson films that he ceased to exist. 

 

At worst there is the Book canon, and there is TV canon. Hell if they ever make a movie there may even be movie canon - heavens to betsy how will we keep up lol. 

 

I find it interesting how within this fandom we hyperventilate over things that other fandoms have gotten the hang of. Trek has Memory Alpha and Beta which deal with the books and tv/movies separately and even within them there can be differences like the Roddenberryverse and Kelvin Timelines. Star Wars has Canon and Extended universes. Resident Evil has the original and remake timelines. 

 

They are not mutually exclusive and even in the most extreme example (Disney actually decanonizing stuff) they still exist and we are free to enjoy them. 

 

That has not happened here. The books remain canon in full. 

Edited October 3, 2023 by CaddySedai
Caddy bad at making words n stuff

[DigificWriter]

^ Star Trek novels/comics/et al have never been Canon, but you're right that the existence of the TV series has zero effect whatsoever on the 'WoT Canon' and is entirely its own separate entity that can, should, and does exist independent of and alongside the novels.

[HeavyHalfMoonBlade]

3 hours ago, HeavyHalfMoonBlade said:

Not much I can say in return to that. I wonder if any women recognise themselves in Faile, or if this a male perspective thing (seeing as she was written by a man after all).

Moving the off-topic to another thread should anyone like to contribute.

[Guire]

On 10/3/2023 at 9:22 AM, HeavyHalfMoonBlade said:

Not much I can say in return to that. I wonder if any women recognise themselves in Faile, or if this a male perspective thing (seeing as she was written by a man after all).

That is a really good question.  My female friend who read WoT with me long time ago loved Faile so maybe some women didnt find her horribly written/toxic.  It also could greatly be a generational and class thing also.

 

On 10/3/2023 at 11:15 AM, CaddySedai said:

To be clear the Canon remains unchanged. 

 

That is like saying that because Tom Bombadil wasn’t in the Jackson films that he ceased to exist. 

 

At worst there is the Book canon, and there is TV canon. Hell if they ever make a movie there may even be movie canon - heavens to betsy how will we keep up lol. 

 

I find it interesting how within this fandom we hyperventilate over things that other fandoms have gotten the hang of. Trek has Memory Alpha and Beta which deal with the books and tv/movies separately and even within them there can be differences like the Roddenberryverse and Kelvin Timelines. Star Wars has Canon and Extended universes. Resident Evil has the original and remake timelines. 

 

They are not mutually exclusive and even in the most extreme example (Disney actually decanonizing stuff) they still exist and we are free to enjoy them. 

 

That has not happened here. The books remain canon in full. 

The book cannon here has been discussed to death for 30 years without a significant media challenger.  I think the first season being viewed as inferior, the mystery box writing, and people questioning reasons behind changes have all contributed.  There also wasnt culture wars with semi professional critics leading the charge against changes.  Maybe with Tolkien there was.  I think if WoTprime stays entertaining people will except alternate cannon.

[A Memory Of Why]

Fail also has to put up with Perrin smelling her emotions, poor girl doesn't get a chance to deal with them, even if she knows they're wrong or stupid. 

 

You can see her struggle with this in the books and if you ignore what Perrin smells she's not as big of a B.

 

You know.. girls love it when you tell them they're being emotional. It shows how much you love and care for them and will instantly calm them down.

 

Give it a go guys 😉

 

Spoiler

I dare you. 

 

[king of nowhere]

10 hours ago, Scarloc99 said:

I saw a young girl who had no idea how a real relationship worked and came from a culture who didn't "talk" she had grown up seeing her parents and others never have these kind of conversations and so didn't know how to.

 

7 hours ago, SinisterDeath said:

There's a ton of debate about Faile over on the book forums...My take on their relationship is that of culture. They come from two polar opposite cultures.

Yes, I can forgive her for being inexperienced and suffering from culture clash.

But I have a really hard time forgiving her for treating like trash somebody who's shown nothing but unconditioned devotion to her.
 

Quote

 

That said;

Every behavior you described here, was the behavior of "Men" from the 1900s.

 

yes, we really were barbarians in the past - probably people from the future will look at us and judge us barbaric too, and that's good. it's a sign of progress.

 

that said, there were some pretty big differences. In the past, until a couple centuries ago, marriage had little to do with love. Marriage was an institution to make children to perpetuate a family. At the higher levels of society it was also used to forge political alliances.

Women married very young, because the purpose of the whole business was making children. A good third of the newborn would die before reaching adulthood, and adults also could die at any time, so a constant influx of new children was required to perpetuate society.

A woman then made children as full time job. Often they'd have a child every year, there's no way to handle that with maternity leaves. In additon, a woman also cared for the house, because it's physically light activities (at least compared to working the fields, or working in factories before steam engines) that can be performed while pregnant, or while carrying toddlers, or anyway while having toddlers in the next room and keeping an eye on them.

the men would work outside and bring money to sustain the family, because society at the time was too poor for social welfare programs. So, while the woman was preferably young, the men was generally adult, with a job and economical means.

Choosing a partner looked less like modern dating, and more like a job interview.

And everyone was hoping that the new husband and wife would love each other, and sometimes it happened, and sometimes it didn't. Dante was pining all the time for Beatrice, but Beatrice was given to a wealthy merchant. Dante took in marriage Gemma Donati, doughter of one of his main political allies. We know that Dante and Gemma disliked each other. They still had 5 children that survived to adulthood, meaning they probably had 8 to 10 total. Because it was their social duty to make children. Because the marriage was about the political alliance, and seeking love was seen as something for immature kids. As for the "unalienable right to the pursue of happyness", at the time happyness was a luxury for the privileged; the necessities of survival came first.

 

And a lot of the "traditional marriage values" sink their roots into that past, and that's why they clash so hard with modern values. From the big things (for example, men would obviously lead, because if you marry a 30 years old man trained in outside business with a 14 years old girl who was taught to raise children and perform household chores, of course the men would have more experience to deal with issues not related to childbearing) to the small things (the new couple should not see each other the morning before the marriage, because we'll be cleaning and dressing up both of them; those guys barely know each other, it will be easier for them to love each other if they have a good first impression).

 

While WoT is inspired by the values of the 80s and 90s; a time of change, when women had achieved parity in the law, but were still struggling to have that parity actually recognized. When men were still used to rule, but women were contesting that.

Which is why wot gender dinamics feel so ridiculous to me. I can recognize them as something completely out of place for that world. A product of a different society. Worse, they are presented as a great universal constant in the struggle between the genders, when in actuality they were a thing born some decades earlier, and already going out of fashion a few decades later.

My suspension of disbelief takes a blow every time I see an "ancient society" where it's not commonplace to have a half dozen children for family, but seeing values that are clearly the product of a very specific historical situation elevated to universal constants hits particularly hard.