The Show Has Been Cancelled

[HeronMarkedBlade]

On 10/2/2025 at 12:13 AM, Kaleb said:

Revisiting the wiki page on "unreliable narrator" I think it's fair to concede that the specific device is a minor theme throughout the series, it's used mostly for humor in things like the mid-series Nynaeve chapters where she constantly and comically reads people and situations in extreme ways. It's also right there related to the First Oath and everything Aes Sedai say, all of the Forsaken's speeches and interactions, and everything characters do in Daes Dae'mar, and many other discussions of false information that characters believe, but as "unreliable narrator" specifically focuses on the narrative voice, I'd agree the beginning paragraphs aren't exactly that.

 

They are indicative of the major theme related to truth, defining the truth and whether it's possible to even know the truth. I'm not enough of a literature scholar to pick one correct term, but "misinformation" is probably the closest I can think of, and that is a core theme of the series that the Chapter 1 recitation is part of. It's not only about the vast span of time, the words chosen are specifically about the decay of knowledge. 

 

On 10/2/2025 at 5:39 AM, HeavyHalfMoonBlade said:

His blood on the rocks of Shayol Ghul? Rand setting philosophers to work on them and reading untold translations and commentaries? 

 

Brigit talking about her past lives and how they were reported on stories? 

 

While I get you can argue whether this falls technically as unreliable narrator (as in the literary device) I'd say the things like the difficulty of interpreting prophecy and foretelling (Andor's Royal Line?), people using their own takes on the situation (Niall's beliefs about the Final Battle), Mat being Odin and Perrin Thor/Perun, Seanchan beliefs about Artur Hawkwing, etc., I would argue that the message being lost, corrupted or misunderstood, especially over time, is probably the most common theme in the books. It is the only real implication of cyclical time that is explored as far as I can see. 

 

Reading this, I’m not sure you understand the Unreliable Narrator trope is. It absolutely has nothing to do with book characters being wrong or not understanding certain facts or aspects of the story. 
 

RJ talked extensively about the minor and major themes of the series, and Unreliable Narrator was never among them. 
 

A better example of the Unreliable Narrator is Kvothe in The Kingkiller Chronicles. Where you get a single characters narrative wiyh no outside influence or character POV. You get his version of the story, and no other information, which paints him as the misunderstood hero, and everyone else as an impediment to his own goals.
 

It seems like you think the UN trope is about characters not understanding specific story elements such as the prophecies. That is not an example of UN. 
 

The major themes of WoT were the exploration of the sexes, misinterpretation of prophecy, and how men and women, and gender roles make us whole. This is not just about relationships, but in world views, politics, and society. Honestly, that’s why there was never a chance of a faithful interpretation of the books in our overly sensitive modern society, even though it would have been more successful had it actually followed those themes instead of turning it into “Girl Power and (Sometimes) the Boy Dragon”.  Instead of a show about the sexes complementing each other, we got a show where the boys were secondary and useless without the women. 

Edited October 27 by HeronMarkedBlade

[HeavyHalfMoonBlade]

1 minute ago, HeronMarkedBlade said:

 

 

Reading this, I’m not sure you understand the Unreliable Narrator trope is. It absolutely has nothing to do with book characters being wrong or not understanding certain facts or aspects of the story. 
 

RJ talked extensively about the minor and major themes of the series, and Unreliable Narrator was never among them. 
 

A better example of the Unreliable Narrator is Kvothe in The Kingkiller Chronicles. Where you get a single characters narrative wiyh no outside influence or character POV. 
 

It seems like you think the UN trope is about characters not understanding specific story elements such as the prophecies. That is not an example of UN. 
 

The major themes of WoT were the exploration of the sexes, misinterpretation of prophecy, and how men and women, and gender roles make us whole. This is not just about relationships, but in world views, politics, and society. Honestly, that’s why there was never a chance of a faithful interpretation of the books in our overly sensitive modern society, even though it would have been more successful had it actually followed those themes instead of turning it into “Girl Power and (Sometimes) the Boy Dragon”.  Instead of a show about the sexes complementing each other, we got a show where the boys were secondary and useless without the women. 

As I stated, even if you take this as not the literary device of Unreliable Narrator, people misunderstanding pretty much everything is a major theme, not just the prophecy. Facts becoming stories, stories becoming legends, legends becoming myths, the point is hammered home over and over again. Birgitte talking about her lives compared to the stories, Thom talking about the evolution of stories, and of Mosk and Merik fighting with spears of fire (iirc), for example. Even down to the prejudices that people like the Aiel and Sea Folk had for each other was all based people believing and spreading inaccurate information. I cannot think of a single part of the book that is not affected by this, hence why I call it a major theme.

 

Genders working together were noticeably out of whack at the beginning of the story due to the Dark One's taint on saidin. People had to learn to work together - which meant women had to let go of their grip on power. I don't see how the show turned that on it's head, and we will never see how it would have resolved this now. 

 

Claiming it showed how gender roles made us whole is completely wrong, in my opinion. Jordan made up societies with completely different gender roles - showing that they are completely arbitrary and the opposite of necessary. You criticise "our overly sensitive society" while sounding rather sensitive yourself to see viewpoints that you are not comfortable with. It seems a common thing for people to claim that the show entered politics into the story, when they mean that their politics prevent them from enjoying the show. 

 

I did not see the show treating the main themes differently than the books.

[HeronMarkedBlade]

On 10/9/2025 at 5:41 PM, Kaleb said:

I'm slowly working on a long post after I finish a re-read and re-watch, but there are so many. Most of the things that people are upset that "he added" are obviously there to lay the groundwork for future seasons. One example that got tons of hate was foregrounding Alanna as a major character. They did it to make the impact of her betraying Rand by bonding him clearer to the audience, it was a terrible action in the books and it was going to do a lot of the work of justifying Rand's deep distrust of Aes Sedai in the show. They even made Alanna the only Aes Sedai at the battle of Two Rivers so TV audiences would focus on her and have more sympathy for her. She's likable in the show, she's funny, she's sexy, she's wise and powerful, all that was set up for the audience to feel Rand's pain and realize how contemptible Aes Sedai can be, even the ones that are supposedly on his side.

 

you are giving far too much credit to Rafe if you think he was laying the groundwork for the future. In fact, one of the things Sanderson mentioned was that Rafe wouldn’t listen to him about the way his early changes would spiral out of control down the line and fundamentally change the story the books tell. From the (truly awful) very first scene, we see that Rafe clearly didn’t care about some of the most important rules of the world of Wheel of Time. 
 

On 10/14/2025 at 9:03 AM, Ithillian Turambar said:

We liked it.

 

Got confused about a few things. But generally we we're happy that we got to see it on the telly.

 

Things are always changed. We watched the Hobbit lol. And don't even get started on Rings of Power. I am very glad I have my in house nerd to make sense of that.

 

 

Who is we? If “We” liked it, the millions of us long time book readers would have continued to show up for it, not massively drop off with each season. I’m sure some book readers enjoyed it, but for you to make that claim for the rest of us is a bit presumptuous. I personally know very few long time readers with much good to say about it. 
 

in fact, the only people I personally know who liked it are women who never read the books, but that is anecdotal, just like your “We”

[Ithillian Turambar]

5 minutes ago, HeronMarkedBlade said:

 

you are giving far too much credit to Rafe if you think he was laying the groundwork for the future. In fact, one of the things Sanderson mentioned was that Rafe wouldn’t listen to him about the way his early changes would spiral out of control down the line and fundamentally change the story the books tell. From the (truly awful) very first scene, we see that Rafe clearly didn’t care about some of the most important rules of the world of Wheel of Time. 
 

Who is we? If “We” liked it, the millions of us long time book readers would have continued to show up for it, not massively drop off with each season. I’m sure some book readers enjoyed it, but for you to make that claim for the rest of us is a bit presumptuous. I personally know very few long time readers with much good to say about it. 
 

in fact, the only people I personally know who liked it are women who never read the books, but that is anecdotal, just like your “We”

People who know me know who we is. It's me and my husband. We've been on the site a long time. Oh i just checked... since 2011. We've read the books many times. We read the books as they were being written.

 

So... you might want to rethink that reply cos you just being argumentative for the sake of it if you though 'we' was everyone lmao

Edited October 27 by Ithillian Turambar

[HeronMarkedBlade]

19 minutes ago, HeavyHalfMoonBlade said:

As I stated, even if you take this as not the literary device of Unreliable Narrator, people misunderstanding pretty much everything is a major theme, not just the prophecy. Facts becoming stories, stories becoming legends, legends becoming myths, the point is hammered home over and over again. Birgitte talking about her lives compared to the stories, Thom talking about the evolution of stories, and of Mosk and Merik fighting with spears of fire (iirc), for example. Even down to the prejudices that people like the Aiel and Sea Folk had for each other was all based people believing and spreading inaccurate information. I cannot think of a single part of the book that is not affected by this, hence why I call it a major theme.

 

Genders working together were noticeably out of whack at the beginning of the story due to the Dark One's taint on saidin. People had to learn to work together - which meant women had to let go of their grip on power. I don't see how the show turned that on it's head, and we will never see how it would have resolved this now. 

 

Claiming it showed how gender roles made us whole is completely wrong, in my opinion. Jordan made up societies with completely different gender roles - showing that they are completely arbitrary and the opposite of necessary. You criticise "our overly sensitive society" while sounding rather sensitive yourself to see viewpoints that you are not comfortable with. It seems a common thing for people to claim that the show entered politics into the story, when they mean that their politics prevent them from enjoying the show. 

 

I did not see the show treating the main themes differently than the books.

 

ok, so now you’re pretending that themes Robert Jordan specifically stated were the major themes of the series, and the rest of us clearly saw in the books aren’t actually real?
 

Over and over Jordan spoke about how the series was an exploration of sex and how the two sexes need and complete and complement each other. It doesn’t matter if different societies have different gender roles, the different gender roles in those societies all complement each other. Never mind that channelers are at their most powerful when men and women link in a circle, becoming whole.

 

You can continue to ignore those themes, but tgey are extremely clear throughout the series. Faile being the brains to Perrins brawn, Lan being the quiet, contemplative anchor against Nynaeves brashness and fury, and how the forsaken couldn’t win because through their selfishness they could never give any true part of themselves to anyone else. I could go on and on, but to deny it is to be willfully blind.

Edited October 27 by HeronMarkedBlade

[HeronMarkedBlade]

8 minutes ago, Ithillian Turambar said:

People who know me know who we is. It's me and my husband. We've been on the site a long time. Oh i just checked... since 2011. We've read the books many times. We read the books as they were being written.

 

So... you might want to rethink that reply cos you just being argumentative for the sake of it if you though 'we' was everyone lmao

The idea that anyone would know your amorphous “We” means you and your husband in reply to a post that is talking about book readers generally is a bit absurd. If you meant “My husband and I”, you should have written those words. To anyone else, “We” in response to that post would clearly be read as you making a claim for book readers in general. 
 

It’s fine if that wasn’t your intention, but that’s absolutely how it reads. 

[Ithillian Turambar]

Dude... you're hysterical. If I reply to my friends they know who I am.

[HeavyHalfMoonBlade]

16 minutes ago, HeronMarkedBlade said:

 

ok, so now you’re pretending that themes Robert Jordan specifically stated were the major themes of the series, and the rest of us clearly saw in the books aren’t actually real?
 

Over and over Jordan spoke about how the series was an exploration of sex and how the two sexes need and complete and complement each other. It doesn’t matter if different societies have different gender roles, the different gender roles in those societies all complement each other. Never mind that channelers are at their most powerful when men and women link in a circle, becoming whole.

 

You can continue to ignore those themes, but tgey are extremely clear throughout the series. Faile being the brains to Perrins brawn, Lan being the quiet, contemplative anchor against Nynaeves brashness and fury, and how the forsaken couldn’t win because through their selfishness they could never give any true part of themselves to anyone else. I could go on and on, but to deny it is to be willfully blind.

So sssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss. Ouch, unexpected cat attack.

 

Who is "the rest of us"? Who exactly elected you as their spokesperson?

 

I presume your answer means that you don't have any reply to my point about pervasiveness of people misunderstanding things and not knowing half of what they thought they did. A spurious claim to the rest of us, and claiming that you speak for Jordan are not ringing endorsements of a good argument. 

 

You claim the story argues for gender roles - while they are completely arbitrary, which the book makes entirely clear. You try to back this up with claims that individuals - all of whom don't adhere to arbitrary roles forced on them by society, but live their genuine personalities and meet other individuals that complement them - apparently completely unaware that this evidence all points to the utter stupidity of forcing people to follow gender roles that they don't want to. Your claims are ridiculous. Individuals complementing each other, say nothing about rigid inflexible gender roles that everyone must follow regardless with no autonomy. It is almost like you have approached this with your own views instead of anything from the books. 

[HeronMarkedBlade]

15 minutes ago, HeavyHalfMoonBlade said:

So sssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss. Ouch, unexpected cat attack.

 

Who is "the rest of us"? Who exactly elected you as their spokesperson?

 

I presume your answer means that you don't have any reply to my point about pervasiveness of people misunderstanding things and not knowing half of what they thought they did. A spurious claim to the rest of us, and claiming that you speak for Jordan are not ringing endorsements of a good argument. 

 

You claim the story argues for gender roles - while they are completely arbitrary, which the book makes entirely clear. You try to back this up with claims that individuals - all of whom don't adhere to arbitrary roles forced on them by society, but live their genuine personalities and meet other individuals that complement them - apparently completely unaware that this evidence all points to the utter stupidity of forcing people to follow gender roles that they don't want to. Your claims are ridiculous. Individuals complementing each other, say nothing about rigid inflexible gender roles that everyone must follow regardless with no autonomy. It is almost like you have approached this with your own views instead of anything from the books. 

First, I didn’t attack you. 
 

second, gender roles vary from culture to culture, but they all complement and complete each other. This isn’t arguable. You keep skipping over the part where Jordan specifically stated these things in multiple Q&A sessions and talks he did over the years. 
 

your weird insistence that it can’t be about gender roles because those roles are different from culture to culture is just ridiculous on its face. Obviously the series explored those roles through the lens of very different cultures and societies, but the clear through line is that in each culture those roles complement and complete each other. 
 

Again, this is not just clear in the books, RJ spoke on it many times publicly. 

 

I’m sorry you can’t comprehend what is the clearest theme of the book.

Edited October 27 by HeronMarkedBlade

[Elder_Haman]

36 minutes ago, HeronMarkedBlade said:

The idea that anyone would know your amorphous “We” means you and your husband in reply to a post that is talking about book readers generally is a bit absurd.

So is just assuming that someone who uses "we" in that context is referring to literally all book readers. All it takes is a quick moment of reflection to realize that she clearly didn't claim to speak for every single book reader.

[Ithillian Turambar]

Maybe I'm a Queen and it was the royal we...

[Elder_Haman]

17 minutes ago, HeavyHalfMoonBlade said:

You claim the story argues for gender roles

That wasn't his claim. His claim was that every culture has gender roles and that those roles are universally complementary to one another. Which is very clearly what Jordan believed. This doesn't seem particularly controversial.

[HeavyHalfMoonBlade]

1 hour ago, Elder_Haman said:

That wasn't his claim. His claim was that every culture has gender roles and that those roles are universally complementary to one another. Which is very clearly what Jordan believed. This doesn't seem particularly controversial.

I disagree, his argument was that "gender roles make us whole", and the evidence he supported this claim with was not, for example, how amazingly happy the men in Far Madding were, fulfilling their enforced gender role, but his evidence was how individuals complement each other. Individuals who were all very individualistic and did not follow set gender roles for their society but were free to live their lives as they chose. 

 

Jordan's gender roles were arbitrary and entirely invented and I don't see how the Sea Folk or Aiel argue anything about gender roles, except they are relative to culture which would seem very much to back up the conclusion that they are not in anyway innate - otherwise how could they be relative? I'd say Jordan himself was in favour of gender roles given the way he treats the Seanchan - there seems to be an uneasiness about their nearly perfectly gender blind society. I have read that this was a criticism of Soviet society on his part, but I could not comment. The rigidity of his gender roles is also notable, but I found little in the books that seemed to argue that this was a good thing, rather than just a feature of those roles. Also for all his "experimentation" with gender roles, I cannot think of a time when we see a nuclear family, be it in the Borderlands, Andor or the Seanchan settlers, where we don't see plump women with flour caked hands and aprons herding naughty children while skinny taciturn men mend fences or whatever. I don't remember a lot of variation in those settings, but maybe I am misremembering. 

Edited October 27 by HeavyHalfMoonBlade

[Guire]

17 hours ago, HeavyHalfMoonBlade said:

I disagree, his argument was that "gender roles make us whole", and the evidence he supported this claim with was not, for example, how amazingly happy the men in Far Madding were, fulfilling their enforced gender role, but his evidence was how individuals complement each other. Individuals who were all very individualistic and did not follow set gender roles for their society but were free to live their lives as they chose. 

 

Jordan's gender roles were arbitrary and entirely invented and I don't see how the Sea Folk or Aiel argue anything about gender roles, except they are relative to culture which would seem very much to back up the conclusion that they are not in anyway innate - otherwise how could they be relative? I'd say Jordan himself was in favour of gender roles given the way he treats the Seanchan - there seems to be an uneasiness about their nearly perfectly gender blind society. I have read that this was a criticism of Soviet society on his part, but I could not comment. The rigidity of his gender roles is also notable, but I found little in the books that seemed to argue that this was a good thing, rather than just a feature of those roles. Also for all his "experimentation" with gender roles, I cannot think of a time when we see a nuclear family, be it in the Borderlands, Andor or the Seanchan settlers, where we don't see plump women with flour caked hands and aprons herding naughty children while skinny taciturn men mend fences or whatever. I don't remember a lot of variation in those settings, but maybe I am misremembering. 

So your last paragraph description of nuclear family is basically what 80 percent of world population would have looked like in our own world in 1300s. Most of the characters we see in books come from people in the elite, warrior, or religious(magic) classes.  Through out recorded human history with some variation gender roles have been consistently similar because of biology and survival needs.  Variations of gender roles has usually occurred because of unique differences in the environment or some major change like disease that drove an adjustment.  I would argue that the freedom to explore gender identity hasn't lead to more happiness or stability among most people. And for most of us it's not really something we seek out for entertainment.   Especially among the demo of people who watch shows on streaming services. Rafe went with probably least likely to succeed option on a service that sucks at fantasy.  Amazing it lasted 3 seasons.  And the tragedy was what it might have been.

[Raal Gurniss]

3 hours ago, Guire said:

So your last paragraph description of nuclear family is basically what 80 percent of world population would have looked like in our own world in 1300s. Most of the characters we see in books come from people in the elite, warrior, or religious(magic) classes.  Through out recorded human history with some variation gender roles have been consistently similar because of biology and survival needs.  Variations of gender roles has usually occurred because of unique differences in the environment or some major change like disease that drove an adjustment.  I would argue that the freedom to explore gender identity hasn't lead to more happiness or stability among most people. And for most of us it's not really something we seek out for entertainment.   Especially among the demo of people who watch shows on streaming services. Rafe went with probably least likely to succeed option on a service that sucks at fantasy.  Amazing it lasted 3 seasons.  And the tragedy was what it might have been.

I have read a lot of fiction over the years....

 

It doesn't really matter about gender roles  unless you start changing an established work and then rewrite it to suit.

 

Fresh work can write what they want and let the audience decide if it is a success..

 

But hijacking established work for agenda purposes, well....That is something I must look down upon...Especially when its intentionally done to challenge or antagonise! 
 

I mean by all means challenge and antagonise and push your agenda, but do it under your own IP for pity sake, by jumping on anothers work it just shows that you have no faith in your own.

 

It just creates rifts, conflict and ends entire franchisee.

 

 

[Spiritweaver1]

Hi, I don't think gender roles were the reason the show tanked.   Nor was it the deviations from the source material except perhaps indirectly.  Apples Foundation series is an example of them taking one of my favorite SF series and wandering pretty far afield from the source material while still telling a high quality story.  There were two major problems:

 

The writing team didn't have the skill to make the changes they did and still keep the focus on the development and growth of our young Edmonds Field heroes.  They lost the plot or never truly understood what made the story special.  It also doesn't seem to have the darkness and violence that American audiences want although the violence was more graphic than it needed to be.

 

The second is that the story was owned by a shopkeeper (Jeff Bezos) who was trying to top GOT and it became clear that that wasn't going to happen he threw a hissy fit and cancelled it instead of plowing along.  I don't understand streaming economics but season three was up from 2.  It could have been recovered.  

[Sabio]

You have to remember with streaming it's about how many new members did they add, if WOT wasn't really boosting subscriptions then it doesn't matter.  It's great if current members are watching it, but they need new people to join.

 

 

[Mailman]

4 hours ago, Sabio said:

You have to remember with streaming it's about how many new members did they add, if WOT wasn't really boosting subscriptions then it doesn't matter.  It's great if current members are watching it, but they need new people to join.

 

 

But retention of members is key as well if you are only watching WoT on Prime then you only need to be a member for 2 months every 2 years. That is a shit outcome for Prime. It's one of the reasons I cannot understand how we have got to the point of loads of shows doing 8 episode seasons with near 2 year breaks, If anything the old 24 epsiode season with yearly release feels like a far better fit for the modern streaming market.

[HeronMarkedBlade]

On 10/27/2025 at 4:42 PM, HeavyHalfMoonBlade said:

I disagree, his argument was that "gender roles make us whole", and the evidence he supported this claim with was not, for example, how amazingly happy the men in Far Madding were, fulfilling their enforced gender role, but his evidence was how individuals complement each other. Individuals who were all very individualistic and did not follow set gender roles for their society but were free to live their lives as they chose. 

 

Jordan's gender roles were arbitrary and entirely invented. 

Man, I just don’t think you understand what I wrote in this thread, what Jordan wrote in the books, or what he, himself publicly stated. 
 

you keep saying I’m wrong.

 

You also keep making ridiculous statements like “Jordan’s gender roles are arbitrary and invented”, which of course they were invented, it’s a fantasy world, but they certainly weren’t arbitrary, they were specific to different regions and cultures. 
 

The idea you think gender roles are about baking bread and raising families is absurd. There is far more to it than that.  Gender roles have always varied from culture to culture, with certain roles being widely accepted, like men going to war and doing the hunting, women child rearing, preserving foods and foraging, etc. while others are vastly different than ours.  In some cultures women have always been head of the household, but in most it’s men. What doesn’t change is that both sexes, in every culture, have gender roles that complement each other. 
 

And there were plenty of regular families, but you realize that we spend the books following the characters that that are literally changing the world around them, just because they aren’t the focus, doesn’t mean they weren’t there. I mean, it is there. All of Emonds Field for one. The regular folk of Camelyn and the like. In book two the horn hunters come across a slaughtered village, those people were just going about their lives, and have no part in the story beyond their deaths. Of course we aren’t regularly experiencing that part of life, but it’s definitely there. They just aren’t usually the focus of the story. We’re following characters of prophecy, kings, queens, generals, powerful Wizards, witches, and warriors. The people living normal lives are in the background. There is no reason to follow them. 

 

 

[HeavyHalfMoonBlade]

1 hour ago, HeronMarkedBlade said:

Man, I just don’t think you understand what I wrote in this thread, what Jordan wrote in the books, or what he, himself publicly stated. 
 

you keep saying I’m wrong.

 

You also keep making ridiculous statements like “Jordan’s gender roles are arbitrary and invented”, which of course they were invented, it’s a fantasy world, but they certainly weren’t arbitrary, they were specific to different regions and cultures. 
 

The idea you think gender roles are about baking bread and raising families is absurd. There is far more to it than that.  Gender roles have always varied from culture to culture, with certain roles being widely accepted, like men going to war and doing the hunting, women child rearing, preserving foods and foraging, etc. while others are vastly different than ours.  In some cultures women have always been head of the household, but in most it’s men. What doesn’t change is that both sexes, in every culture, have gender roles that complement each other. 
 

And there were plenty of regular families, but you realize that we spend the books following the characters that that are literally changing the world around them, just because they aren’t the focus, doesn’t mean they weren’t there. I mean, it is there. All of Emonds Field for one. The regular folk of Camelyn and the like. In book two the horn hunters come across a slaughtered village, those people were just going about their lives, and have no part in the story beyond their deaths. Of course we aren’t regularly experiencing that part of life, but it’s definitely there. They just aren’t usually the focus of the story. We’re following characters of prophecy, kings, queens, generals, powerful Wizards, witches, and warriors. The people living normal lives are in the background. There is no reason to follow them. 

 

 

I have no idea why you are spending so much time discussing ordinary people and that they appear in the story in a way that touches on nothing that I said. 

 

Also, I'd recommend you look up what arbitrary means, it would help the discussion. 

 

My reading comprehension is just fine, thanks. Complementary gender roles are not somehow a gold standard, nor does it make them any more admirable, in the real world or in the Wheel of Time. People being true to themselves and complementing each other is admirable, not forcing people to act contrary to their own natures and their own benefit. 

[Jaccsen]

On 11/7/2025 at 2:55 AM, Mailman said:

But retention of members is key as well if you are only watching WoT on Prime then you only need to be a member for 2 months every 2 years. That is a shit outcome for Prime. It's one of the reasons I cannot understand how we have got to the point of loads of shows doing 8 episode seasons with near 2 year breaks, If anything the old 24 epsiode season with yearly release feels like a far better fit for the modern streaming market.

Money laundering?

 

I do not get the super expensive 8 episode BS with a 2-3 year cadence. It is stupid when people are watching unproduced YouTube garbage. It is a complete unforced error. If the writing and actors are good, then people will watch no matter the production values.

 

They are spending money in the wrong spots. Give me the older 22 episode season any day of the week. The short seasons only make sense for tight, mini-series style story arcs.