Rand Dying then Living

[Guest The Thin Inn Keeper]

Just read an interesting theory at theoryland on the similarities between Rand and Jesus Christ. The theory was written a while ago and is filed under the misc. theory section.

http://www.theoryland.com/theories.php?func=5&rec=58&theo=956

 

Essentially it runs as follows:

Rand has similarities to JC.

1. Wound in his side - Roman spear wound / Wound from Falme.

2. Wounds on hands - Nails / Herons (No mention of other crucifiction wounds)

 

-- I'd add the Crown of Swords and Crown of Thorns as a possible link here - Both crowns that pierce the skin of the wearer ... maybe. --

 

The author then goes on to quote a few lines from the books:

"... But Nynaeve would not be satisfied till she Healed somebody three days dead." -Elayne, tLoC chptr 7, A Matter of Thought, pg.194

 

"I myself would not believe him dead unless I sat three days with the corpse." -Master Norry about Rand, WH chptr 9, A Cup of Tea, pg.214

 

He then points out that JC was resurrected 3 days after his death. He then goes on to state that he believes that Nyn. will heal death and bring this all about.

 

Hmmmmmm.... I'm not sold on the idea of Nyn. healing him but ... There has been a lot of speculation about the death and re-birth proph. regarding Rand. Perhaps his disappearance (if not death) and reappearance 3 days later might fit in.

 

Given that RJ liked his religious/mythology ties in, I think it seems passable. Just to clarify, I'm not signing up to this, but thought it looked interesting.

 

Any thoughts?

[Juggler]

not sure this would happen but "his blood on the slopes of shayol ghul" could be a place this happens, a rebirth maybe...

[Luckers]

Personally ive always had issues with the Jesus/Rand ideas. At first glance yes, both are prophesized messiahs, and to are certain degree some of their experiences match--but if you take a more thorough look they completely diverge. I mean, ideologically they are complete and utter opposites. Jesus was a pacifist who acted in order to gelp his peoples spiritual wellbeing, whilst Rand is a warrior fighting an evil. The spiritual or personal wellbeing is not something he can remotely care about--his mission is to see that enough people survive to continue. Nothing more.

 

Beyond that, the few points the correlate between them are not anything new. Jesus is not the only messiah figure, nor the only messiac figure to recieve wounds to his side. Furthermore Jesus never lost a hand.

 

In truth Rand bears much more similarities with the boddhisatva's of Buddhism, born again and again to serve the people, the majority of which are acetists and believing in hardening oneself beyond experiencing emotional connection, believing such connection weakens the soul against what must be done for the greater good.

 

Also, the revival of a person dead for three days is scientifically unlikely, and RJ has always held to science in establishing his fantasy. How did he put it 'when your asking someone to believe something unrealistic, make everything else as realistic as possible'. The fact is that brainwave activity fades about five minutes after death lacking extreme cold. She might physically revive him by the electro-chemical activity that makes him Rand (which we know to be specific, and not a function of the soul) would be gone.

 

Of course im the Bodyswap guy, so i have a preset agenda, but yeah, those are my thoughts.

[Guest The Thin Inn Keeper]

Personally ive always had issues with the Jesus/Rand ideas.

 

As have I, hence the disclaimer.  ;D

 

Jesus was a pacifist who acted in order to gelp his peoples spiritual wellbeing

 

Well yes, Jesus was a physical pacifist. However, he was certainly a sociological terrorist as far as the authorities of the time were concerned. e.g. The much quoted "turn the other cheek" remark is most likely taken out of context: In the Arab world it is concerned the height of bad manners to touch someone with your left hand. Now, if I slap you with my right hand and you turn your face to ride the blow I cannot slap you again with my right. My only option, if I wish to continue slapping, is to hit you with my left, which I cannot do as it is socially unacceptable. Far from being a meek sign of surrender, it can be seen as a message of defiance, a defiance that the authority, or individual, cannot oppose without getting into a bind. It's a form of taunting.

 

whilst Rand is a warrior fighting an evil.

 

Agreed, however, the messiah was, as often as not, seen as a warrior king sent to fight the opressors. For whatever reason, it didn't turn out that way. However, there are theories that link Jesus to political violence. Again, I do not necessarily agree, but they are out there.

 

Furthermore Jesus never lost a hand.

 

No, but RJ has stated, and I can find the quote if need be, that his lead figures are compositions of many figures of legend. There is a Norse god who looses a hand for example.

 

In truth Rand bears much more similarities with the boddhisatva's of Buddhism, born again and again to serve the people,

 

Slightly off tangent from the quote above, but the tales of Arthur, or Saladin, or even Alexander the Great, also deal with heroes/mythological figures coming back to save the world. It's a common theme. I don't anything about the boddhisatvas so I might have missed the point here.

 

Also, the revival of a person dead for three days is scientifically unlikely, and RJ has always held to science in establishing his fantasy. How did he put it 'when your asking someone to believe something unrealistic, make everything else as realistic as possible'.

 

Gotcha, but that's not to say that there isn't some suspension of disbelief required when reading his books. Rand becoming a blademaster in no time at all for example or the t'averen (sp?) twists of fate as highlighted by Trakand 01 recently. I'm not complaining, but some of it is far fetched.

 

Of course im the Bodyswap guy, so i have a preset agenda, but yeah, those are my thoughts.

 

Ahhhh... that's where you're going wrong!  :D

 

It was mainly the 3 days quotes which I hadn't seen before that got my attention when I read it through the other day. Food for thought, that's all.

[aevogt]

Most of which leads back to my theory that Rand, as a hero bound to the horn, will be hanging out in TAR after he dies while the "Suitable Body Issues" of the real world are ironed out by those who survived TG and care to have him back.  Hence the Horn.

 

Heh heh heh.

[Guest The Thin Inn Keeper]

Most of which leads back to my theory...

 

I have an image here - Rand carps it, the DO's still going. They sort out the body issue, Rand comes back. The DO kills Rand. They sort out the body issue, Rand comes back. The DO kills Rand .... etc. etc.

 

Sorry, just being cheeky.  ;D

[aevogt]

Cheeky, but funny.  Actually, thanks for the hook up to theoryland.  I've never been to that site.

[Guest leebarr]

Interresting. But i do not see that happening

[Luckers]

Well yes, Jesus was a physical pacifist. However, he was certainly a sociological terrorist as far as the authorities of the time were concerned. e.g. The much quoted "turn the other cheek" remark is most likely taken out of context: In the Arab world it is concerned the height of bad manners to touch someone with your left hand. Now, if I slap you with my right hand and you turn your face to ride the blow I cannot slap you again with my right. My only option, if I wish to continue slapping, is to hit you with my left, which I cannot do as it is socially unacceptable. Far from being a meek sign of surrender, it can be seen as a message of defiance, a defiance that the authority, or individual, cannot oppose without getting into a bind. It's a form of taunting.

 

A fact im not unaware of--and there are countless others--the Kingdom of Heaven comments were also deeply political, as opposed to a spiritual reference to peoples rights to heaven. The messiah was not a metaphorical king, but actually supposed to be a king--as in political ruler. Lol, ill touch on this later, but in truth Rand bears more similarities to the messiah spoken of in the Maccabean prophecies than the actual reality of Jesus.

 

But thats again a divergent issue. Rand was never a social anarchist, he never sought to manipulate or influence the culture. He rules and controls cultures only to sharpen them into weapons to be used against the shadow. His peace, as prophecy says, is the peace of the sword.

 

Don't get me wrong, there are a few similarities between the two, but they are outweighed by their divergences, and in truth there are figures from other religions that are much, much more similar to Rand.

 

Agreed, however, the messiah was, as often as not, seen as a warrior king sent to fight the opressors. For whatever reason, it didn't turn out that way. However, there are theories that link Jesus to political violence. Again, I do not necessarily agree, but they are out there.

 

The messiah was, according to maccabean prophecy, a warrior king sent to take out the oppressors of the jewish people. It's a militanarian prophecy following four centuries of oppressive rule from four (or was it five?) seperate foreign powers. And the Jewish and Islamic faiths are correct, Jesus does not fit the image set up by the prophecies--and perhaps most notably, Jesus himself never, not once, claimed to be the messiah--oh he used the rhetoric in his speeches, sometimes obliquely, and sometimes no, but actual referenced of him being called the messiah don't appear until forty years after his death, and don't take true hold in christian eschatology until nearly two centuries later.

 

The actual reality of jesus, seperate the hype, is that of a subtle social manipulator, never actual activist. He does not fit even slightly with Rand's teenage bully antics.

 

Slightly off tangent from the quote above, but the tales of Arthur, or Saladin, or even Alexander the Great, also deal with heroes/mythological figures coming back to save the world. It's a common theme. I don't anything about the boddhisatvas so I might have missed the point here.

 

They fit more closely due to their mental asceticism when it comes to emotions, and the nature of their reincarnations fitting specific types and serving specific purposes.

 

I'm not aware of any mythos about Alexander the Great and reincarnation... but then ive never studied him closely. I shall have to look into that.

 

Gotcha, but that's not to say that there isn't some suspension of disbelief required when reading his books. Rand becoming a blademaster in no time at all for example or the t'averen (sp?) twists of fate as highlighted by Trakand 01 recently. I'm not complaining, but some of it is far fetched.

 

True, but in other things he sticks very closely to realism. Healing is specifically one of those things.

 

Ahhhh... that's where you're going wrong! 

 

It was mainly the 3 days quotes which I hadn't seen before that got my attention when I read it through the other day. Food for thought, that's all.

 

It's an illness, like alcoholism or pregnancy!

 

 

Oh boy, im gonna get slapped for that one.

[Guest The Thin Inn Keeper]

the Jewish and Islamic faiths are correct, Jesus does not fit the image set up by the prophecies--and perhaps most notably, Jesus himself never, not once, claimed to be the messiah--oh he used the rhetoric in his speeches, sometimes obliquely, and sometimes no, but actual referenced of him being called the messiah don't appear until forty years after his death, and don't take true hold in christian eschatology until nearly two centuries later.

 

Again, I agree. Islam sees JC as a prophet, sent by God and therefore a holy man, but not the messiah. He's seen in a similar light to Moses, Abraham etc.. And in any case, the role of the messiah in Islam isn't as straight forward as in Christianity.

 

I would, however, argue that it's difficult to rely on the sayings of Jesus. They're 2000-odd years old, and they've been translated multiple times, and I won't even bother going into the possibility of the political descisions taken by the various churches down the years ala. the genius  ;) Dan Brown. Just in terms of translation ... you're looking at the following -- Aramaic, Syriac, Arabic/Greek/Latin .... a haitus during the fall of the Roman Empire, much book burning ... then from Arabic/Greek/Latin into European languages much later. The first 2/3 steps are written in languages which use a different script than the Romance (European) languages ... that's a toughie. I speak reasonable Arabic and translation's a nightmare and that's now, with the aid of the printing press.

 

The actual reality of jesus, seperate the hype, is that of a subtle social manipulator

 

Not sure about that. Throwing the money lenders out of the temple is hardly subtle. Telling crowds of people to "turn the other cheek," if defined as I mentioned above, isn't subtle.

 

There's a lot of information, muddied by the passing of time, that indicates that JC was a political activist and possibly linked to a group using violence. Perhaps one of the clearest indications is that he was cruicified. The Romans used crucificition for crimes such as treason, armed resistance and rebellion. It was actually quite a select group, over the course of the Roman Empire, that got nailed to the cross. The punishment doesn't fit the crime if JC isn't linked to a group that's opposing Roman rule, possibly by force. Rebellions were common in Palestine, the one that ended at Massada is possibly the most famous. JC was, quite possibly, involved in violent resistance. i.e. What the Romans would have seen as terrorism.

 

I'm not aware of any mythos about Alexander the Great and reincarnation... but then ive never studied him closely. I shall have to look into that

 

I can't find you a link, I've looked. There's the problem of googling Alexander the Great ... too  much information. It's doing my head in, but I'll look into it. My problem is that I've an awful lot about ATG over the years and can't remember where I read it... I'll post it FYI if I find it.

 

What I do clearly remember, but this off the topic of a heroic return, is watching a documentary about travelling storytellers, not unlike Gleemen I'd imagine  :), in Iran (modern-day Persia). One of the stories they told was the usual "Go to bed or the Bogeyman will get you" affairs, but the evil figure was Iskander, aka ATG. Anywhos, it amused me. That's 2,500 years ish of demonizing. Excellent, it's good to see some proper commitment.

 

Anyways, apologies Luckers, this has got into religion rather than WOT ... though I'm sure that WOT fandom can be viewed as being akin to having joined a cult...  ;D

 

Do bring it back on track(ish)...

 

I love the frequent inclusion of myths/religion/folklore in TWOT. I can't imagine how much fun it must have been for RJ to sit there and thing about how he could drop all these references into his tale.

[Luckers]

I would, however, argue that it's difficult to rely on the sayings of Jesus. They're 2000-odd years old, and they've been translated multiple times, and I won't even bother going into the possibility of the political descisions taken by the various churches down the years ala. the genius  Dan Brown. Just in terms of translation ... you're looking at the following -- Aramaic, Syriac, Arabic/Greek/Latin .... a haitus during the fall of the Roman Empire, much book burning ... then from Arabic/Greek/Latin into European languages much later. The first 2/3 steps are written in languages which use a different script than the Romance (European) languages ... that's a toughie. I speak reasonable Arabic and translation's a nightmare and that's now, with the aid of the printing press.

 

I'm not actually relying on the sayings of Jesus only. I've studied extensively contemporary analysis of Jesus by both Judaic and non-Judaic sources. I even studied the texts of the Secret Mark if that tells you anything. And yes, i have studied translatory issues specifically in that period--i actually wrote a paper on the subject--didn't do terribly well, but i do understand the issues your suggesting. Despite it all, certain elements can be factually sustained, and even that which can't is indicative when shown in context.

 

Not sure about that. Throwing the money lenders out of the temple is hardly subtle. Telling crowds of people to "turn the other cheek," if defined as I mentioned above, isn't subtle.

 

Actually i would define that as the very height of subtle manipulation of a social structure. Directly the effect is insulting to the individuals, but the action, the challange of the basic state of that society--with the moneylenders both against the people, and against the religion, and with the turning of the face a challenge that forces people to consider the very morality of their actions. Absolutely these are subtle and potent manipulations of the social structure--especially for their immediate bluntness.

 

But that being said, compared to leading armies in the hundreds of thousands. Compared to cutting people in half. To blowing them apart. To having them hung... yes, Jesus was subtle.

 

I can't find you a link, I've looked. There's the problem of googling Alexander the Great ... too  much information. It's doing my head in, but I'll look into it. My problem is that I've an awful lot about ATG over the years and can't remember where I read it... I'll post it FYI if I find it.

 

Don't worry hey, i have more than a couple of resources on ATG. I mentioned it idly coz i thought it fascinating.

 

Anyways, apologies Luckers, this has got into religion rather than WOT ... though I'm sure that WOT fandom can be viewed as being akin to having joined a cult... 

 

Lol. Yes, clearly i hate that. You utter bastard. :)

 

 

[trakand_01]

Hmmmm, how interesting. I wonder if I have become so obsessed with the series that I have filled the void in my brain which normally contains all the religious stuff... I am a complete athiest, but the 'cult' thing you mentioned is actually quite apt, in a very mild way!

[Guest The Thin Inn Keeper]

I'm not actually relying on the sayings of Jesus only......

 

Oh ok. I see the Gnostic texts, what's left anyways, as probably being a better bet in any case. I don't know, I'm agnostic, most likely because of the issue of time, political influence, translation etc., etc., i.e. we don't actually have a clue what was going on in the year 0. Well, that's an exagerration, but you get the point.

 

Actually i would define that as the very height of subtle manipulation of a social structure. ....Absolutely these are subtle and potent manipulations of the social structure--especially for their immediate bluntness.

 

We'll have to agree to disagree on this one. I see the money lenders issue as a direct challenge to the Roman Empire and the Jews, primarily the religious/political elite, who were in cahoots with them. As a result I see it as direct confrontation with the Empire, and with the religious authorities within the most important religious building of the faith. Not subtle at all in my book. The turn the other cheek affair translates, going by what I said earlier, as "Hell, when you upset them and they screw you over, upset them again." It's incitement to civil disobedience at the very least and possibly more.

 

Just remembered something ... When JC is arrested in the Gardens of Getzemanie (Spelling, I know!) some of the disciples are carrying swords. Another possible indication that they weren't tree huggers.

 

There's also the King of the Jews placard that was attached to the crucifix by the Romans. Depending on your take, you could see that as being two fingers in the air by the Romans. If the reference of KOJ was used it was used for a purpose, i.e. there was a group a people who had been pushing/announcing JC as the messiah and that there was a modicum of support for the idea. Now, would the majority of the population support JC as the KOJ / Messiah, who we've already highlighted as a warrior figure, if he didn't have some links to fighters, or at least people who accepted that political violence was legitimate. -- That last one's all over the place, but basically -- You don't taunt JC's supporters with the KOJ sign if he's not predisposed to a bit of Gentile killing. In my opinion.

 

Don't worry hey, i have more than a couple of resources on ATG. I mentioned it idly coz i thought it fascinating.

 

Still looking. A story about a fisherman and a mermaid is slowly surfacing in my addled brain... But it doesn't work with the common story that pops up in google. Arrggghhh ... all that ancient history schooling ... good for nothing.

 

Lol. Yes, clearly i hate that. You utter bastard. :)

 

Hmmmm ... politics next methinks. Always good for a decent ruckus.  ;D

 

I am a complete athiest, but the 'cult' thing you mentioned is actually quite apt, in a very mild way!

 

Oh, it is. You have the splits/schisms, (mainly based around the who killed Asmo debate,) a source of infallable knowledge (the quotes of RJ on various blogs/websites). A figure who has gone away (RJ) and is prophecied to come back (in the form of Brandon Sanderson.) And then you have the twisting of the words contained within the great books to back up any looney theory ... as evidenced on these boards.

 

Then there's Luckers ... the high priest.

[Luckers]

Mmm... the High Priest of the Wheel of Time Covens. Muahaha?

 

Oh ok. I see the Gnostic texts, what's left anyways, as probably being a better bet in any case. I don't know, I'm agnostic, most likely because of the issue of time, political influence, translation etc., etc., i.e. we don't actually have a clue what was going on in the year 0. Well, that's an exagerration, but you get the point.

 

I agree about the gnostic texts, but I disagree about the idea that we don't have a clue about Year 0... there is a lot of factually sustainable information about that period.

 

And I'm an athiest so yeah....

 

We'll have to agree to disagree on this one. I see the money lenders issue as a direct challenge to the Roman Empire and the Jews, primarily the religious/political elite, who were in cahoots with them. As a result I see it as direct confrontation with the Empire, and with the religious authorities within the most important religious building of the faith. Not subtle at all in my book. The turn the other cheek affair translates, going by what I said earlier, as "Hell, when you upset them and they screw you over, upset them again." It's incitement to civil disobedience at the very least and possibly more.

 

I absolutely agree with everything you've said. I think your mistaking my meaning when i speak of social manipulation, I'm not suggesting it was ineffective in any way... indeed, though Jesus didn't gain many followers until long after his death, the repercussions of his six month career shook the world itself.

 

All of what you said--the direct challanges, the inciting of civil disobedience, all of it resulted from Jesus manipulating the social state. He wasn't hiding, wasn't avoiding confrontation in any way--which i think is what you think i was suggesting. He was attacking with a subtlty and brilliance that was extremely effective, but ultimately completely different to Rand's methodology and purpose.

 

Perhaps the confusion here comes from my suggestion of subtlty. To clarrify, I wish to point out your own statement that you reguard the attack on the moneylenders as a direct attack on the Roman Empire and the Jews. I agree, and this is precisely the sort of subtlty that made Jesus so profound a political influence. He challanged groups--not based on strength, or display of oppulence, but based on their role within society and the effects a challange of that group would have on society.

 

Just remembered something ... When JC is arrested in the Gardens of Getzemanie (Spelling, I know!) some of the disciples are carrying swords. Another possible indication that they weren't tree huggers.

 

And remember that he stopped them. Would Rand have?

 

My point was not that Jesus was some cowardly whimp who achieved nothing. My point is that his and Rand's methodologies, beliefs and purposes are completely different--even opposed....

 

There's also the King of the Jews placard that was attached to the crucifix by the Romans. Depending on your take, you could see that as being two fingers in the air by the Romans. If the reference of KOJ was used it was used for a purpose, i.e. there was a group a people who had been pushing/announcing JC as the messiah and that there was a modicum of support for the idea. Now, would the majority of the population support JC as the KOJ / Messiah, who we've already highlighted as a warrior figure, if he didn't have some links to fighters, or at least people who accepted that political violence was legitimate. -- That last one's all over the place, but basically -- You don't taunt JC's supporters with the KOJ sign if he's not predisposed to a bit of Gentile killing. In my opinion.

 

Keep in mind the context. By the time Jesus had come along roughly forty others had claimed to be the messiah of Maccabean prophecy, and they, one and all, were much truer to the military implications of the prophecy. Indeed, some of the stories attributed to Jesus in the bible were actually the work of those people. And yes, others amongst them also recieved similar placards.

 

Jesus himself had relatively little true support. Many listened, but compared to the groups that openly proclaimed the other messiah candidates his following was pitiful. His career itself lasted barely six months, and he was killed as much because of the military actions of the other messianic figures as he was for his own political railings.

 

No one is denying that Jesus used the rhetoric set up in the prophecy to one degree or another--its like a modern candidate for the president not speaking about terrorism. But his actual actions were all to a more subtle degree. No fighting, no bloodshed--and whether that occured because he was a pacifist, or because he realised that fighting openly was doing none of the other messianic candidates any good, it ultimately proved more effective.

 

 

[Guest The Thin Inn Keeper]

I disagree about the idea that we don't have a clue about Year 0

 

Yeah, that was one of those things that you wish you could take back. I agree with you. I couldn't be bothered to edit. As per the format of my last post, it's been a long week and the quote function was playing with me.

 

Perhaps the confusion here comes from my suggestion of subtlty.

 

I think it probably was. I think you and I are thinking of different things re. "sublty." I just don't think his actions displayed subtlty in any way. Yes, they were clever, they provoked a response and harmed their targets. Yes, they avoided military conflict with the Romans. I guess when I think of "subtle" I think of words like unnoticed, etc. His actions certainly weren't those. I am def. not arguing that he was ineffective.

 

And remember that he stopped them. Would Rand have?

 

Yes, he stopped them. But the very fact that his people drew weapons on Roman representatives indicates, possibly, that they were not adverse to a clash. I just don't buy the whole non-violence bit, at least not entirely. And no, Rand wouldn't have ... unless he knew they were all dead men, then possibly.

 

My point is that his and Rand's methodologies, beliefs and purposes are completely different--even opposed....

 

I realise that. My initial posting wasn't trying to suggest that they were one and the same. I was merely trying to say that there were striking similarities between some aspects of the two, most of which had been raised before. The bit that I found most interesting was the 3 day death/rebirth bit, which I hadn't seen before. Maybe that didn't come across.

 

roughly forty others had claimed to be the messiah of Maccabean prophecy

 

And if they're all seen as warriors, then maybe that was inherent to the role, as we've touched on. It just doesn't seem to fit that JC was so different from the rest. Granted, he could well have been, just seems a little off to me.

 

Jesus himself had relatively little true support. Many listened, but compared to the groups that openly proclaimed the other messiah candidates his following was pitiful.

 

True. However, it was the actions, and writings, of his followers that caused the religion to spread. Which goes back to my unease at attributing much to JC himself. His followers essentially used him as a template on which to build, in my opinion.

 

he was killed as much because of the military actions of the other messianic figures as he was for his own political railings.

 

Maybe ... As is probably quite clear, I think JC was not quite as squeaky clean as he has been portrayed to be. But yes, the fact that he could have been perceived as another Jewish upstart by the Romans certainly would have contributed to his being done over.

 

But his actual actions were all to a more subtle degree. No fighting, no bloodshed--and whether that occured because he was a pacifist, or because he realised that fighting openly was doing none of the other messianic candidates any good, it ultimately proved more effective.

 

Gotcha. Again, this is where we are butting heads, to some degree.

 

Just remembered a little nugget - If I remember correctly, I've read that there is some ambiguity as to who the people JC was crucified with were. I think I remember seeing that the Greek word used to describe them in some of the early texts could also have been translated to mean insurgents, as opposed to thieves. Taking it on faith without much more than my vague recollection, it would be seen as odd that JC was crucified with two insurgents. Suggestions of a link? Traditionally, he's also seen as being crucified between the two men. Suggests leadership/senority to me. Not sure on that though, Google here I come...

 

Overall I don't think we're disagreeing on too much. I just have a general problem with the portrayal of JC as a pacificist, I simply don't buy it. As a result, I just balk at much of what we read/are taught. He was certainly effective, I'm not disputing that.

[trakand_01]

Oh dear this is what you get from leaving a thread for days, then just reading the latest one.

 

I've been reading along and thinking 'JC... Jaichim Carridin? Didnt Sheaine kill him?'

 

I'm so dim...

[Guest The Thin Inn Keeper]

I've been reading along and thinking 'JC... Jaichim Carridin? Didnt Sheaine kill him?'

 

Now ... there's a conspiracy theory! I like it!  ;D