WoT Season 2 Episode 4: Daughter of the Night

[A Memory Of Why]

59 minutes ago, swollymammoth said:

Thom is definitely in TGH. Rand runs into him performing in a tavern. Thom is dating a really young girl (0% chance that ends up in the show. Only relationships with Rafe's stamp of approval are allowed) who gets killed by Darkfriends. Thom and Rand meet up at that banquet/ball thing Rand gets invited to. Thom kills the king of Cairhein

 

Tom was in TGH but wasn't playing the game, he didn't want to get involved and was more interested in his life with his young lover.

 

He was at the party but didn't really want to be associated with Rand and he killed the king because he found out the kings men killed his lover. 

 

It was in Tear during TSR where he actively played the game to help Rand.

[Chivalry]

5 hours ago, swollymammoth said:

The show's approach to sex in WoT is one of its most confusing elements and one of the most obvious ways that Rafe just decided to turn the show into his own personal fan fiction. In the books, sex is hinted at. It's there, but it isn't a focus. Characters are very old-fashioned around sex, and they often become flustered or embarrassed when the subject is raised. Rand is a virgin until Book 5, and Perrin (if I remember correctly) waits until marriage. The Sea Folk captain in the Shadow Rising mentions having to "make up" with her husband and then makes a sideways remark about how making up with him is pretty fun, and she's one of the more overtly sexual characters in the series. Sex in the books is intimate and, in public, is almost always approached indirectly, suggested rather than discussed outright. 

 

It's not GoT, but it's not LotR, either. I preferred the books, even with all the cartoonish relationships. At least it wasn't distracting.

[Mailman]

7 hours ago, DaddyFinn said:

Book 2 had quite similar stuff and much more of it. How many letters did Rand burn before attending the ball?

What bollocks.

 

The lead up to Rand being mistaken for a player in the game was far more detailed in the books.

 

Rand was dressed as a lord in the books thanks to Moiraines removing his old clothes

Rand in company with the Lady Selene is found at the site of a project involving The King of Cairhein along with what it appears to be a serving man in Hurin who is extremely deferential to Rand.

Rand is questioned by guards at the site before being escorted to the capital by the soldiers.

After arriving he is sent invitations by small houses because of the news of the outland lord poking around the Kings excavation.

He then through nativity burns the invitations which excites further interest in his status.

 

In the show he is a guy who lives in the foregate works in the city and gatecrashes a party and stole some wine.

 

That is not bloody similar.

 

[Agitel]

I do wish much of the dialogue in the show was better. Take for instance Liandrin's exchange with Leane. She just bluntly threatens her. More exciting TV dialogue would have had a conversation in which they're making seemingly inane talk about something but there's a lot of implied subtext. Where what they're really talking about isn't what they're openly talking about. And TV still usually does a wink and a nod at the viewer at some point in the conversation in case the meaning went over anyone's heads. This isn't just a Wheel of Time thing. This was the perfect opportunity for this type of exchange.

Edited September 13, 2023 by Agitel

[king of nowhere]

10 hours ago, swollymammoth said:

True, but you've got to admit that there's a difference between RJ's approach which is usually something like, "The woman wore a sheer dress that left little to the imagination. Egwene blushed furiously," and Alanna explaining the logistics of a threesome. Indirect vs. Direct.

You are right for the books, but it's the reverse in television. Here, putting up a bunch of da'covale in their canon garb would be very direct, and it could constitute softcore porn.

While alanna talking of "seeking your pleasure"? Nothing is shown. I haven't noticed any gratuitous sex - a few dialogues in a sauna-like environment, but no actual exposure and not sexualized.

Even alanna's comment, she's not explaining anything mechanically.

So I would argue the tv show is as indirect as the books

Edited September 13, 2023 by king of nowhere

[DaddyFinn]

8 hours ago, Mailman said:

In the show he is a guy who lives in the foregate works in the city and gatecrashes a party and stole some wine.

And got an invitation from a lady who took some interest in him. Who knows if we'll get more of it in this season

[notpropaganda73]

I really don't think you can argue the Rand-as-a-lord stuff has been done anywhere near as well as they have in the books, but we are only midway through the season and I like to judge these things on the whole. Similarly with the Lan storyline, I hate it at the minute but let's see where we're at come the end of S2. 

 

I think you could make a safe argument that Moiraine's sister only took an interest in Rand at that party because of Moiraine's own interest in him rather than anything else - as she said in ep4, the eyes-and-ears network for Moiraine were in fact hers, so she would have had all the info in relation to him as an orderly and everything already. The fact her sister wanted him watched would be enough to pique her interest, surely. 

 

7 hours ago, Agitel said:

I do wish much of the dialogue in the show was better. Take for instance Liandrin's exchange with Leane. She just bluntly threatens her. More exciting TV dialogue would have had a conversation in which they're making seemingly inane talk about something but there's a lot of implied subtext. Where what they're really talking about isn't what they're openly talking about. And TV still usually does a wink and a nod at the viewer at some point in the conversation in case the meaning went over anyone's heads. This isn't just a Wheel of Time thing. This was the perfect opportunity for this type of exchange.

 

Totally agree with this but the strange thing with the show as a whole is some of the dialogue, in my opinion, is really excellent. But other times it can fall off a cliff and be quite cringe-inducing. I don't feel anything has matched Ila's explanation of the Way of the Leaf in S1 as yet, that was beautiful.

[Lightfriendsocialmistress]

14 hours ago, Cipher said:

Devoted married people have more sex and better sexual satisfaction than single people.

Really?? In all seriousness. Is this a proven fact? That’s fascinating if it’s been somehow scientifically studied and proven. Especially considering the subjective nature of classifying marriages in this way narrowing the subject down to “devoted married people”. A lot of devoted married people have open relationships. A lot of devoted married people don’t have sex, at least after some time has passed. 

[Ralph]

1 hour ago, DaddyFinn said:

And got an invitation from a lady who took some interest in him. Who knows if we'll get more of it in this season

one of the coming Eps is called Daes Daemar

[Scarloc99]

1 hour ago, Lightfriendsocialmistress said:

Really?? In all seriousness. Is this a proven fact? That’s fascinating if it’s been somehow scientifically studied and proven. Especially considering the subjective nature of classifying marriages in this way narrowing the subject down to “devoted married people”. A lot of devoted married people have open relationships. A lot of devoted married people don’t have sex, at least after some time has passed. 

I decided not to bite on what is just a very wrong statement in so many ways. (the OP's not your's lol) 

Edited September 13, 2023 by Scarloc99

[king of nowhere]

1 hour ago, Lightfriendsocialmistress said:

Really?? In all seriousness. Is this a proven fact? That’s fascinating if it’s been somehow scientifically studied and proven. Especially considering the subjective nature of classifying marriages in this way narrowing the subject down to “devoted married people”. A lot of devoted married people have open relationships. A lot of devoted married people don’t have sex, at least after some time has passed. 

I think we can safely say that, on average, married people have more sex with a partner than single people.

We can also safely say that people with a happy marriage also have good sex more often than people in an unhappy marriage - unless the unhappily married suffer through all their issues only because of how great is the sex.

In general, people in a good relationship tend to be happier than people in a bad relationship, at least as far as their relationship is concerned.

From this, we can without doubt conclude that people who display a higher level of happyness tend to be happier.

😁

[Elder_Haman]

11 hours ago, Mailman said:

The lead up to Rand being mistaken for a player in the game was far more detailed in the books.

The lead up to EVERYTHING will be more detailed in the books. Cause they’re books. 

[Samt]

3 hours ago, Lightfriendsocialmistress said:

Really?? In all seriousness. Is this a proven fact? That’s fascinating if it’s been somehow scientifically studied and proven. Especially considering the subjective nature of classifying marriages in this way narrowing the subject down to “devoted married people”. A lot of devoted married people have open relationships. A lot of devoted married people don’t have sex, at least after some time has passed. 

"Married people have more sex" is a data backed assertion that also is quite intuitive in my opinion.  Outliers exist, but that goes both ways.  To be fair, the data usually includes cohabitating people in long term committed relationships as "married."  So basically you are comparing people that live with a sexual partner to people that don't live with a sexual partner.  Logistics matters.

 

In regards to quality of sex/ sexual satisfaction, that's a bit more contentious.  It's difficult to objectively measure anyways, and you have to keep in mind that perceptions of happiness and satisfaction tend to regress to the mean.   

[Cipher]

3 hours ago, Lightfriendsocialmistress said:

Really?? In all seriousness. Is this a proven fact? That’s fascinating if it’s been somehow scientifically studied and proven. Especially considering the subjective nature of classifying marriages in this way narrowing the subject down to “devoted married people”. A lot of devoted married people have open relationships. A lot of devoted married people don’t have sex, at least after some time has passed. 

This data is from 2017.

56x per year for marrieds and 51x for non-marrieds.  Marrieds use to be 67x per year.  So societal changes seems to influence these numbers.  There use to be a bigger disparity.

https://www.apa.org/monitor/2017/06/numbers

 

”A lot of devoted married people have ‘open’ relationship.”

I would argue being devoted is mutually exclusive to having an open relationship.  I would like to see the data on how long a marriage that is “open” tends to last.

Edited September 13, 2023 by Cipher

[SinisterDeath]

[Cipher]

3 hours ago, Scarloc99 said:

I decided not to bite on what is just a very wrong statement in so many ways. (the OP's not your's lol) 

Don’t bite by all means. “Very wrong statement in so many ways”? Do tell.

 

See my above post for data on married vs unmarried sex frequency.

 

Here is an article on sexual satisfaction.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/all-about-sex/202103/sexual-satisfaction-does-marriage-help-or-hurt-it

"These studies generally agree that compared with people who are single, cohabiting, or separated/divorced, those who are married generally report greater happiness, more emotional contentment, more spiritual fulfillment — and improved sexual satisfaction.”

Individuals will have varying experiences.  There are anti-marriage messages, subtle and overt, coming from media through out modern culture.

 

I think healthy, devoted families are the cure for most of society’s dis functions.

[Cipher]

25 minutes ago, SinisterDeath said:

Sorry

 

Edit:

This isn’t the best thread for my tangent, but is why I find Rafe’s changes to Two Rivers ethics objectionable.  I admired the moral fiber of 4 of the Emond Fielders and I firmly believe in the value of the ethics.

Edited September 13, 2023 by Cipher

[Cipher]

2 hours ago, Elder_Haman said:

The lead up to EVERYTHING will be more detailed in the books. Cause they’re books. 

This does not excuse Rafe under developing Rand and focusing on side stories not crucial to the main story.

[DreadLord31]

12 hours ago, Agitel said:

I do wish much of the dialogue in the show was better. Take for instance Liandrin's exchange with Leane. She just bluntly threatens her. More exciting TV dialogue would have had a conversation in which they're making seemingly inane talk about something but there's a lot of implied subtext. Where what they're really talking about isn't what they're openly talking about. And TV still usually does a wink and a nod at the viewer at some point in the conversation in case the meaning went over anyone's heads. This isn't just a Wheel of Time thing. This was the perfect opportunity for this type of exchange.

You know, it’s interesting they included that. I was thinking that what they’re doing with Moiraine is replacing what will happen to Siuan. But maybe not, now I’m thinking? I think it also gives more evidence to a Liandrin/Alviarian merge - and maybe just cut Mesana? Liandrin is one of the TV’s most developed and interesting characters so maybe run with it?! 

Edited September 13, 2023 by DreadLord31

[Elder_Haman]

1 hour ago, Cipher said:

This does not excuse Rafe under developing Rand and focusing on side stories not crucial to the main story.

Agree to disagree. They're doing fine with Rand so far (and Josha Stradowski is killing it, IMO).

[Scarloc99]

5 hours ago, Cipher said:

This data is from 2017.

56x per year for marrieds and 51x for non-marrieds.  Marrieds use to be 67x per year.  So societal changes seems to influence these numbers.  There use to be a bigger disparity.

https://www.apa.org/monitor/2017/06/numbers

 

”A lot of devoted married people have ‘open’ relationship.”

I would argue being devoted is mutually exclusive to having an open relationship.  I would like to see the data on how long a marriage that is “open” tends to last.

https://www.forhims.co.uk/blog/how-often-do-couples-have-sex

And here a study shows that unmarried couples have more sex then married couples. 

This is also focussed on America where as I am in the UK, and there is a sociatal impact here because the UK is far less religious then the US as a whole. 

being devoted is not mutually exclusive to having an open relationship, as noted above I know couples that have been "open" for 15-20 years and are as stable, happy and devoted to each other now as they where when they met, happily raising families while keeping there "special friends" private and away from the children, at least until they are themselves adults. They are in love and committed to each other while also accepting that each person has needs and desires that the other can't fully satisfy, they would explain that instead of selfishly expecting each other to ignore part of themselves in order to conform to the idea of a "stable monogamous relationship"  they allow each other to explore those aspects of themselves with other people safe and secure in the knowledge that they love each other and not feeling threatened.

I know a poly group of 5 people who have all been in a relationship together between 10 and 7 years (from when the first and last people joined) show no indication of splitting up and have just welcomed there 2nd child, and through them I know there are thousands of couples in the UK that live like this and have done for years, and those are the ones that are "open" about it and attend events and have a presence online. 

These types of relationships are not new, what has happened in the past 15-20 years, at least in the UK, is that society has become more and more accepting allowing people to become more open about things that previously happened behind closed doors. The "swinger scene" has long been much much larger then people realise, both in the UK and America. 50 Shades, as awful as it was as a piece of literature, helped a lot in opening up the conversation. Before that book came out no one talked about it, afterwards I was hearing people in work talk far more openly about the things they where into. 

There is a myth that a stable relationship has to consist of 2 people staying monogamous  if you want statistics, recent studies have shown that as long as all participants are open and honest then open relationships are statistically as likely to be successful as a monogamous one, and in fact non traditional relationships tend to have a far better chance of succeeding because the very nature requires even more open honest discussions and the building of trust to succeed and everyone involved should be understanding of those requirements for it to work. 

https://blog.gitnux.com/do-open-relationships-work-statistics/#:~:text=Research findings have shown that,and consent to the arrangement.

Now getting back and keeping it on topic 
For as badly as it is written Rand at least is open and honest with all 3 women about how he feels and his desire not to hurt any of them, the women all communicate between themselves about the situation and how they are going to navigate it. The statistics suggest there is no reason why the 4 of them cant stay in a poly relationship for many many hundreds of years if that is what they want. There are alot of positives (and a lot of lessons of what not to do) that someone can take from the WOT books, I have long wondered if RJ himself lived an alternate lifestyle in some way because of how much it peppers his work. 

 

[Agitel]

RJ was in a poly relationship with two women for part of his life, and thought if he could manage two the Dragon Reborn could handle three, or at least he said as much as a bit of a joke.

 

But what even is the rest of this conversation? 

 

[Agitel]

Quote

 

INTERVIEW: Sep 4th, 2005

DragonCon Report - Matt Hatch (Paraphrased)

 

QUESTION

I was wondering, can you talk about how your lead character would have not one but three true loves, and how does your wife feel about that?

 

ROBERT JORDAN

Um, when I was much younger, before I met Harriet, I had two girlfriends simultaneously, who arranged my dating schedule between them, who was going to date me on which night. They chipped in together to buy me birthday presents and Christmas presents. You know, they just sort of shared me between them, you know. And they had been friends before, and I am not quite sure whether or not they made the decision they were both going to date me or not, on their own, before they first met me, it just came about. But I figured if I could manage two, surely Rand could manage three. Besides there are mythological reasons to have these three women involved with him.

 

 

Quote

 

INTERVIEW: Jul 14th, 2005

ComicCon Reports (Paraphrased)

 

QUESTION

Why does Rand get three girlfriends?

 

ROBERT JORDAN

When RJ was young, for a while he had two girlfriends who shared him and even managed who got to date him when. He figures if he can have two, then the savior of the world can have three!

 

 

Quote

 

INTERVIEW: Jul 22nd, 2004

ComicCon Wrap-Up - Jason Denzel (Verbatim)

 

JASON DENZEL

Later on, Melissa made a joking comment about Rand and his three girlfriends.

 

ROBERT JORDAN

Robert Jordan's reply was not what we expected. He explained that at one point in his younger life he had two girlfriends at once. They knew about each other, and they arranged dates for him so they could both be there. They were fine with it, and young Jim Rigney just went along with it. (Wouldn't you?) He figured that if he could have two girlfriends at once, then a guy like Rand could definitely do three.

 

 

https://www.theoryland.com/intvsresults.php?kw=girlfriends

[king of nowhere]

i rewatched, and realized i misunderstood elayne. i assumed she followed egwene to leave the tower with her, but she was just following egwene to see what she was doing, and possibly to keep her from doing something stupid. good elayne. of course liandrin immediately spoiled it.

 

by book canon, liandrin shouldn't be powerful enough to keep the three girls shielded, even though none of them reached her full potential. iirc, nynaeve was roughly as strong as liandrin at the time they came back to the tower. or maybe it was egwene. anyway, liandrin may be capable of maintaining a shield on nynaeve at this point, but she can't hold all three girls together. but i'm willing to overlook it, it's not really important. maybe tv!liandrin is a bit stronger than her book counterpart. i doubt she already has access to forkroot

[SinisterDeath]

1 hour ago, king of nowhere said:

i rewatched, and realized i misunderstood elayne. i assumed she followed egwene to leave the tower with her, but she was just following egwene to see what she was doing, and possibly to keep her from doing something stupid. good elayne. of course liandrin immediately spoiled it.

 

by book canon, liandrin shouldn't be powerful enough to keep the three girls shielded, even though none of them reached her full potential. iirc, nynaeve was roughly as strong as liandrin at the time they came back to the tower. or maybe it was egwene. anyway, liandrin may be capable of maintaining a shield on nynaeve at this point, but she can't hold all three girls together. but i'm willing to overlook it, it's not really important. maybe tv!liandrin is a bit stronger than her book counterpart. i doubt she already has access to forkroot

Don't need to shield them, if they're unconscious!

 

It's the same way Benadryl works with Allergies.