How did I miss this so long

[Dbob]

Since he chose to portray her as he did, it might be wise to consider that he did so because her effect may not be what she ( or we ) would like it to be.

 

I considered this also. In the beginning I thought that maybe she was a darkfriend that was going to either threaten, or kill someone close to him, so that he’d have to snap out of that whole “too precious to off a female super-villain” neurosis he’s got going on. Unfortunately I no longer think she’s a darkfriend, though if the lesson had turned out to be something like that, I’d probably have 180’d on my opinion of her.

[Myndrunner]

I agree.  Not every character is meant to be lovable.

 

For me, one of the things I found most enjoyable in the series is how real all of the characters were, flaws and all.  There were times where I got really sick of Rand's bellyaching, but I enjoyed the characters.  I have some that are more my favorites than others, but I can't say that I actually hate any of them.  There are some that I love to hate, like Eladia, but that's what makes them a good villain.

 

I also like how the different POVs of each character cast different lights on the others they interacted with.  To me, it seemed like the dichotomy of good and evil in all of the characters was an underlying theme through the whole series.  A balance of Light and Shadow in them all.   

 

And now, I'm going back to my Mad Libs...Myndrunner.

[Dbob]

I ________________ (emotion) Elayne so much, I want to ____________ (verb) her on her ____________ . (body part)

[Jonn]

Jonn -

 

I agree.  Not every character is meant to be lovable.

 

My argument with the Cadsuane defenders stems from their insistence that she must be viewed as good, and pure and lovable.  Their justification for that argument is that they see her as good and pure and lovable.

 

They want her to be good, so therefore she is good.  And, her methods are the right methods - the only methods.  Period.  End of discussion.

 

Sorry, but as Dbob and I are trying to point out, any clear, objective reading of her characterization reveals that she is none of those things.  Her methods are not just flawed, but counterproductive to her stated objective.  There are a myriad of other ways for her to accomplish her stated goals.  Jordan was ( presumably ) smart enough to know that.  And, also smart enough to have her employ any of those other methods if his purpose had been to portray her as "good and pure;"  her methods as "just and necessary."

 

Since he chose to portray her as he did, it might be wise to consider that he did so because her effect may not be what she ( or we ) would like it to be.

 

It may also be that he simply missed the boat as far as any realistic outcome from her actions goes.

 

One of the themes in this series has been the fact that you don't have to be good to do good.

 

You don't have to be evil to do evil.

 

Cadsuane is one of those characters who I just hate that they're even there, but then...I used to love the Sea Folk when Elayne learned from that Windfinder in Shadow Rising. I was into their culture from what we saw in that passage, but in subsequent books, I just couldn't hate them more. Then later, when the Amayar had committed mass suicide, they showed a part of themselves that reminded me what I liked about them in the passage with Elayne. In fact, as I write this, I'm reminded of when people really liked Elayne.

 

See, life is constantly changing around you. It's rather safe to have people and things that don't change surrounding you. Things that you're accustomed to dealing with. God forbid that you come into a situation which makes you uncomfortable. It's just adversity, and adversity is necessary in order to have triumph.

 

 

[Bob T Dwarf]

Again, I agree.  Nobody is good all of the time.  Even the most devoutly evil does some unintended good.

 

However, there were already far too many disagreeable female characters in this series by the time Cadsuane was introduced.  The one thing it did not need was yet one more.  But one more very disagreeable female was what Jordan chose to give us.

 

Why?

[Bob T Dwarf]

Dbob -

 

I don't think she's Black either.  I think she is just so deep into her assumptions about her own infallibility in all things that she has no perspective.  She means well.  She just doesn't seem to possess the skillset necessary to do well in this situation.

[Dbob]

It would have been neat to have her turn out to be Semi in disguise - secretly trying to break him in the guise of saving him.

[Snowy Dawn]

``Was it not Careane who is BA? I seem to think (I've read this, I'm only on book 10) that it was she who killed Adeleas and Ispan at the Farm.''

 

Yes, but did RJ know it yet, when he wrote the passage I quoted? (Had he decided who the BA was among them, that is.) Maybe Elayne misjudges Careane's reaction,  but it also might be that a black sister might forget her allegiance long enough to be in awe of one who was a legend in the White Tower.

[Majsju]

RJs blog...

 

DomA asks whether I feel sadness at the hatred of Cadsuane.  No, nor do I feel sadness over those who dislike Egwene or Elayne or Faile or insert name here.  The characters are who I want them to be.  Some, people will like, and others people will dislike.  In any case, I’ve noticed that even Faile has her supporters.  As for her, I like her a lot.  But then, I like all of my characters, even Semirhage.  Even Padan Fain.  As a character, anyway.  As for Faile, she is a tough woman with a lot of gumption.  Taken prisoner, enslaved in truth, caught in a cleft stick by the threats of Galina and Therava, she has (1) tried to get her people to freedom as she could and (2) worked toward an escape for the rest.  However tough her situation gets, she wastes zero time on moaning about it.  She gets on with trying to make it better.  And Cadsuane?  She’s the tough maiden aunt a lot of us have had.  Not the one who tries to keep you a child your whole life.  She’s the one who began expecting at least some adult responses out of you at about age six, the one who was willing to hand you responsibilities that everyone else thought you were too young for.  You probably had a more nerve-wracking time, and more excitement and adventure, with her than you did with any three or four other adults in your life.

 

 

[Dbob]

RJs blog...

 

DomA asks whether I feel sadness at the hatred of Cadsuane.  No, nor do I feel sadness over those who dislike Egwene or Elayne or Faile or insert name here.  The characters are who I want them to be.  Some, people will like, and others people will dislike.  In any case, I’ve noticed that even Faile has her supporters.  As for her, I like her a lot.  But then, I like all of my characters, even Semirhage.  Even Padan Fain.  As a character, anyway.  As for Faile, she is a tough woman with a lot of gumption.  Taken prisoner, enslaved in truth, caught in a cleft stick by the threats of Galina and Therava, she has (1) tried to get her people to freedom as she could and (2) worked toward an escape for the rest.  However tough her situation gets, she wastes zero time on moaning about it.  She gets on with trying to make it better.  And Cadsuane?  She’s the tough maiden aunt a lot of us have had.  Not the one who tries to keep you a child your whole life.  She’s the one who began expecting at least some adult responses out of you at about age six, the one who was willing to hand you responsibilities that everyone else thought you were too young for.  You probably had a more nerve-wracking time, and more excitement and adventure, with her than you did with any three or four other adults in your life.

 

 

 

Your Point? I've said before, we all know how the author wrote the story.

[Graendals favourite]

Ah, how the author wrote the story? To be realistic?

 

You know, the author needn't to replicate the reader... Needn't imagine how the world would be in different circumstances?

 

To you I must ask, how would you do it? And what kind of world would you describe, what would happed in it?

[Dbob]

Ah, how the author wrote the story? To be realistic?

 

If R.J. was striving for realism there’d be no magic now would there. That said, I do think he wanted his characters to be like people back here in real life. Which is always and again where the contention lies. Since you’ve read this far you know why I don’t find this story line one of his best efforts. If you care to discuss that, make a point.

 

You know, the author needn't to replicate the reader... Needn't imagine how the world would be in different circumstances?

 

I have no idea why an author would try to <i>replicate the reader</i>, I have no idea what that means.

 

Many, many authors aren’t trying to imagine how things “would be different.” Some are describing reality from their perspective, some write historical fiction, some don’t delve into fiction at all. Some write movies and screenplays, some philosophy, some write children’s books, I fail to see what this has to do with anything.

 

 

To you I must ask, how would you do it? And what kind of world would you describe, what would happed in it?

 

This of course is intended to silence all argument; it’s variation of a logical fallacy. Regard:

 

<i>If you didn’t cook dinner, you can’t complain.</i>

 

Only in this case:

 

<i>If you don’t like dinner, let’s see you try to cook it.</i>

 

Whether or not I have made dinner, am capable of making dinner, or I intend to make dinners in the future, is absolutely irrelevant to the <i>dinner under discussion</i>.

 

Some things:

 

This isn’t Holy Scripture, I’m quite sure R.J. understood there were going to be people who weren't going to worship every preposition he wrote, I think he probably didn’t care. Every great piece of literature in the western tradition has been far more critically and rigorously scrutinized, by people far less forgiving than I. Does that mean that it wasn't great literature, no, no one would spend so much time with trash. Does that mean there were no valid criticisms to be made, no.

 

Honestly, I don’t see why this has to be made into an all or nothing, extreme proposition, Why get all petulant and personally offended if I don’t revere every little period and semi-colon? I don't know you, I just want to discuss the books.

 

Luckers says people read themselves into the characters and take personal insult where other people are only talking about fiction. If that's the case, start a worship thread, I promise not to come over.

 

I like to analyze fiction, for me it's part of the fun. I don't bother with fiction I hate. There's no reason why the way you like fiction, should be more "correct" than the way I like fiction. If the kind of community you want is simply a fan worship thing, then by all means put up a sticky and inform people.

 

I obviously loved WOT enough to care whether the plot line with Rand and Cad is plausible. I obviously cared enough to think about it carefully, I obviously loved enough of the series to come in here and discuss it in the first place.

 

So why the inquisition? Why so offended? I’m not asking any of you to lessen your regard for the books, nor am I saying that R.J. was a complete hack. So what’s up with the doctrinaire attitudes?

 

[Graendals favourite]

I'll now say that I intend to answer in a few days. I could say some things already, but I hope you take it as a respect for your objection, I don't have yet the time to answer or answer in full, though in my opinion the most important things are already here. Besides I'm slightly drunk=)...

[Graendals favourite]

Ah, how the author wrote the story? To be realistic?

 

If R.J. was striving for realism there’d be no magic now would there. That said, I do think he wanted his characters to be like people back here in real life. Which is always and again where the contention lies. Since you’ve read this far you know why I don’t find this story line one of his best efforts. If you care to discuss that, make a point.

The previous being done, having magic in the world by no way means RJ isn't striving for realism. It's a different realism, but no less realistic for it. I think I as well (as others) object to it being pointed out Cadsuane not being realistic because I find the storyline completely realistic.

You know, the author needn't to replicate the reader... Needn't imagine how the world would be in different circumstances?

 

I have no idea why an author would try to <i>replicate the reader</i>, I have no idea what that means.

 

Many, many authors aren’t trying to imagine how things “would be different.” Some are describing reality from their perspective, some write historical fiction, some don’t delve into fiction at all. Some write movies and screenplays, some philosophy, some write children’s books, I fail to see what this has to do with anything.

By replicating the reader, I simply mean writing to please, presenting things the way that is comfortable to the reader when the writers finds the truth to be something else. If you put it that way, of course RJ has things to say with his writing, one of which is that Rand, the shiny knight, is not able to achieve that much all by himself. It is fairly important that he himself realise this too, it could be said he is hopefully slapped into reality since nothing else works.

 

To you I must ask, how would you do it? And what kind of world would you describe, what would happed in it?

 

This of course is intended to silence all argument; it’s variation of a logical fallacy. Regard:

 

<i>If you didn’t cook dinner, you can’t complain.</i>

 

Only in this case:

 

<i>If you don’t like dinner, let’s see you try to cook it.</i>

 

Whether or not I have made dinner, am capable of making dinner, or I intend to make dinners in the future, is absolutely irrelevant to the <i>dinner under discussion</i>.

However, relevant is whether or not you understand the reality of the situation. That question of mine is not meant to silence, and it certainly isn't meant to say, "well you do it then." If you critisise the reality, are you certain you are working with a correct reality yourself?

 

Some things:

 

This isn’t Holy Scripture, I’m quite sure R.J. understood there were going to be people who weren't going to worship every preposition he wrote, I think he probably didn’t care. Every great piece of literature in the western tradition has been far more critically and rigorously scrutinized, by people far less forgiving than I. Does that mean that it wasn't great literature, no, no one would spend so much time with trash. Does that mean there were no valid criticisms to be made, no.

 

Honestly, I don’t see why this has to be made into an all or nothing, extreme proposition, Why get all petulant and personally offended if I don’t revere every little period and semi-colon? I don't know you, I just want to discuss the books.

Yea, well this is a fan site, and the books are quite new. They aren't even complete yet: it is not really possible to scrutinise them critically, yet. When people are digesting what RJ wanted to say, they don't necessarily look for criticism. It's a new thing, you want to get to know it before you critisise.

Luckers says people read themselves into the characters and take personal insult where other people are only talking about fiction. If that's the case, start a worship thread, I promise not to come over.

 

I like to analyze fiction, for me it's part of the fun. I don't bother with fiction I hate. There's no reason why the way you like fiction, should be more "correct" than the way I like fiction. If the kind of community you want is simply a fan worship thing, then by all means put up a sticky and inform people.

 

I obviously loved WOT enough to care whether the plot line with Rand and Cad is plausible. I obviously cared enough to think about it carefully, I obviously loved enough of the series to come in here and discuss it in the first place.

 

So why the inquisition? Why so offended? I’m not asking any of you to lessen your regard for the books, nor am I saying that R.J. was a complete hack. So what’s up with the doctrinaire attitudes?

I think a large part of it is because the people in question agree with Cadsuane. To say Cadsuane shouldn't be there implies that you should leave the fate of the world to 21-year-old kid. I guess it is the mentality of not just being an observer that gets people to react, when in this world there's too much of it.

[Luckers]

Luckers says people read themselves into the characters and take personal insult where other people are only talking about fiction. If that's the case, start a worship thread, I promise not to come over

 

I was speaking as much about the Cadsuane-haters as those that like her. Perhaps more so. They see their hero, Rand, being belittled and take affront.

[trakand_01]

Oh dear, yet another decent-idea post that's decended into childish bickering.

 

The idea of a debate is not to argue to the death, but to listen to everyone's opinions (because the will always differ) and then make your own conclusions... Do we have to argue every time there is a lack of agreement?

 

Crikey, I think Taim killed Asmodean, I think Mesaana may well be in plain sight and I dont completely buy the body-swap theory - if I got affronted every time someone disagreed with me i'd spend my life whining.

 

Sorry to add a moan to the thread but it does get a little tiresome to read after a while.

 

;D

[Mr Ares]

I'll address a few older quotes from the thread:

Back here in the real world I don’t know many (or really any – but I suppose there must be some out there) guys who would react positively to the way she treats Rand.

I find it implausible that you help someone through belligerence and humiliation. I find it implausible that someone who’s hard as steel doesn’t simply off her.

Why would he off her when he needs her? He is willing to put up with her for that reason. I did know people who reacted positively to treatment like Rand gives Cadsuane, and using belligerence and humiliation to help people is also something I've seen (and used). It works.

Now please tell me that: some people need to have manners beaten into them.

 

It's the next logical argument of course.

They do. Some people just won't learn any other way. Again, I speak from experience.

The "assault" isn't only to his person - it's to his authority.  His authority in this situation is the paramount thing.  Without that authority, all is lost before it even really begins.

What authority has he lost? The authority to throw tantrums and be rude? He is a more effective leader when he has control of himself and Cadsuane forces him to reassert control. Apparently he can't force himself to do it without help, which is where she comes in.

 

Now, a more recent quote:

My argument with the Cadsuane defenders stems from their insistence that she must be viewed as good, and pure and lovable.  Their justification for that argument is that they see her as good and pure and lovable.

That's crap, Bob. It's not a matter of "good and pure and lovable". Cadsuane is a good person, as seen by her actions being selflessly devoted to helping Rand (and, to toss you a bone, she may be misguided in her actions - but they are still devoted to helping Rand). What the hell do you mean by "pure"? And lovable....well, she may not be the most easily likeable person around but her actions are helping Rand. She is good, she just isn't  all that nice to most people. A bit like Granny Weatherwax, for those who have read Discworld. Therein lies the heart of the problem, at least from my point of view. You are attempting to recast that dislike of her as a person into a belief that her actions are in some way hurting Rand's cause. How about you give one good example of when her actions have damaged Rand's cause. Can we try and separate feelings towards the character from feelings towards the effectiveness of her actions? Don't like her is one thing, you can dislike her and still agree that she is helping Rand, which is what the evidence suggests.

They want her to be good, so therefore she is good.  And, her methods are the right methods - the only methods.  Period.  End of discussion.

 

Sorry, but as Dbob and I are trying to point out, any clear, objective reading of her characterization reveals that she is none of those things.

A clear objective reading? Now I've heard everything. Both sides are showing very little in the way of objectivity here, but an objective reading shows her methods working, not failing.

Her methods are not just flawed, but counterproductive to her stated objective.

How about you back that up. What has she done which is counterproductive to her stated goals? How are her methods flawed? 

There are a myriad of other ways for her to accomplish her stated goals.

Like? She doesn't have much time, remember. A few slaps to bring him to his senses and forcing him to stop acting like a child seem to be working wonders. 

Jordan was ( presumably ) smart enough to know that.  And, also smart enough to have her employ any of those other methods if his purpose had been to portray her as "good and pure;"  her methods as "just and necessary."

 

Since he chose to portray her as he did, it might be wise to consider that he did so because her effect may not be what she ( or we ) would like it to be.

 

It may also be that he simply missed the boat as far as any realistic outcome from her actions goes.

Or it may be that we are all using very different milestones with regards to what we consider a realsitic outcome of her actions? But apparently it suffices for your "clear, objective reading" that she hurts Rand and so is counterproductive?

[trakand_01]

If it helps, the Aiel use humiliation frequently to train people into doing what they want. Sulin as a maid, Egwene, naked, making laps of the camp.

[Dbob]

The previous being done, having magic in the world by no way means RJ isn't striving for realism. It's a different realism, but no less realistic for it. I think I as well (as others) object to it being pointed out Cadsuane not being realistic because I find the storyline completely realistic.

 

OK, <i>why</i> do you find the story line completely realistic? Perhaps we should define terms here. I don’t find the rand/Cad a plausible plot line, because as I said above, it appears to run counter to the “different realism” or premise set out. On the one hand Rand is supposedly hard as stone and needs someone to get him in touch with his emotions. But on the other hand he doesn’t seem to be written like he’s that way at all. Is the author deliberately introducing cognitive dissonance, is he defining stone and steel in some other way, because if Rand is not stone in the sense of hard and emotionless, why does Cadsuane exist as a character? Is her stated purpose as a character <i>plausible</i>? This a structural argument about the way the plot is built, that has nothing to do with how her character behaves.

 

On the other hand, Rand has been manipulated, kidnapped, tortured, and condescended upon by certain group of people. Then he’s warned to trust none of them, is it <i>realistic</i> to think that a stranger from that group, behaving in exactly the same way, is going to be effective. I think R.J. was well aware of this, hence Min’s viewing, <i>forcing</i> him to put up with Cad. This is an argument within the stated parameters of the plot; your “different realism.”

 

These arguments are different animals.

 

 

It is fairly important that he himself realise this too, it could be said he is hopefully slapped into reality since nothing else works.

 

This is the most realistic defense of her behavior I've ever heard. Perhaps she's being a boor simply to be a boor, with the manners thing as a cover story, the purpose, to <i>force</i> an emotional reaction. It’s realistic to the premise, the way her character is described, consistent with her statement about hurting him no more than she has to, and absolves her of the triviality of worrying about manners with the end of the world in the room.

 

 

However, relevant is whether or not you understand the reality of the situation. That question of mine is not meant to silence, and it certainly isn't meant to say, "well you do it then." If you critisise the reality, are you certain you are working with a correct reality yourself?

 

If a tree falls in a forest and there's no one there to hear it, does it make a sound?

 

 

Yea, well this is a fan site, and the books are quite new. They aren't even complete yet: it is not really possible to scrutinise them critically, yet. When people are digesting what RJ wanted to say, they don't necessarily look for criticism. It's a new thing, you want to get to know it before you critisise.

 

I've been reading these books for years, and I'm a fan too, if people just want a 'ship site, there's nothing wrong with that, just tell people.

 

 

I think a large part of it is because the people in question agree with Cadsuane. To say Cadsuane shouldn't be there implies that you should leave the fate of the world to 21-year-old kid. I guess it is the mentality of not just being an observer that gets people to react, when in this world there's too much of it.

 

I don't think that's it frankly, but that's neither here nor there.

[Dbob]

I was speaking as much about the Cadsuane-haters as those that like her. Perhaps more so. They see their hero, Rand, being belittled and take affront.

 

Sure, let me assure you that for myself at least, Rand is the last character I'd want to read myself into. He's gotten quite ridiculous. I'd much rather be Mat or Thom.

[Dbob]

Why would he off her when he needs her? He is willing to put up with her for that reason.

 

If he's emotionless why should he care about anything at all?

 

 

I did know people who reacted positively to treatment like Rand gives Cadsuane, and using belligerence and humiliation to help people is also something I've seen (and used). It works.

 

They do. Some people just won't learn any other way. Again, I speak from experience.

 

<i>I've had to beat people into having manners; therefore beating people into having manners is the most effective solution</i>. This is one of those magical self supporting arguments (we all do this), it takes the specific and applies it to the general.

 

Perhaps like was posited above, Cads is trying to be an ass. Perhaps that's her ploy - push him until he responds, perhaps she doesn't care about manners at all. Which is more realistic?

[Bob T Dwarf]

There are a number of, not merely mistaken, but upside-down assumptions being made in this thread.

 

1.  Cadsuane is "helping" Rand.  How?  ( aaaah, yes, the answer lies in assumption number two )

2.  Rand needs the respect of those around him.  Why?

 

Rand doesn't "need" anybody's respect.  All that would make things easier is their obedience to his orders.

 

In-point-of-fact - they need ( as in, are absolutely dependent upon ) Rand's respect.  There is nothing in Prophesy, Foretelling, Dreams, and Perrin or Min's viewings that even hints that anybody other than Rand, Mat, and Perrin need to survive until TG.  As far as can be known, Rand could off every other person on the planet, and the Light could still win at TG.

 

But, that wouldn't be "nice".  And, the Creator alone knows why, it is more important to most of the people on this forum that Rand be "nice" than it is that he be effective.  Which leads to utterly illogical assumption number three:

 

3.  Cadsuane can somehow "teach" Rand how to be "nice" by being arrogant, abrasive, obnoxious, rude, and physically abusive.  ( and, of course number four )

4.  It's working.

[Jehaine]

Haven't read that far yet, but maybe Cadsuane's ultimate goal is to get Rand to be less protective of women?

 

...I'll shut up now ^^;

[Bob T Dwarf]

No, please don't Jehaine.

 

I think you make a very valid point.  In fact, your point is precisely the only way I can see her actions having a positive outcome.

[bRANDan]

1.  Cadsuane is "helping" Rand.  How?  ( aaaah, yes, the answer lies in assumption number two )

 

Cadsuane is teaching Rand:

1) To think out his actions (Rand would have a string of failures under his belt if not for Cadsuane)

2) Manners, though this is just a front so she can teach him reason #3.

3) To keep his word, he doesn't care about the Bargain with the Sea Folk or the honor he let the Maidens carry.

4) To use his emotions not to keep them in a death grip, strong instead of hard.

 

Dbob- Rand thinks that he must be hard as stone to win so he is making himself hard as stone, emotionally. He is stone until a certain point and then the stone breaks. Caring about things does not mean you have emotions, you can care about what kind of sandwich you have at lunch but not feel any emotion over the sandwich or the choice of sandwiches. You can make a turkey sandwich and then whine and bitch and moan about making the wrong choice but not have any feelings towards the sandwich, you don't have remorse for making the sandwich. (Mmm, all this talk of sandwiches is making me hungry. Can anyone tell I haven't had dinner yet?) And I don't think Cads is being the same as the other AS. She is trying to guide him not control him, if he told her to leave she would, she stays because he wants her to. Yes, him wanting her to stay is mostly because of Min's viewing, but that is only because Rand is now of the mind that if anyone disagrees with him or angers him they are wrong and can go to hell, fascism in other words.

 

2.  Rand needs the respect of those around him.  Why

 

Rand needs the respect of those around him because you cannot lead without respect. If no-one had respect for him it would be only a choice few that fought alongside him, while the rest were drug to Shayol Ghul to fight, as slaves are forced to do what their master forces them to do. The simple fact that he's the Dragon Reborn doesn't mean that everyone must throw their support behind him. Remember, prophecy says he is the only one who can defeat the shadow, BUT, prophecy only lays out what must be in order for something to have the chance of happening. If Rand is a fascict dictator with the world's populace as slaves in his "Army of the Light" then the shadows defeat will be no better than the Dragon's defeat. Ever think that the reason that the Shadow has allowed Rand to live so long, after numerous chances to kill him, is that the DO means to remake the pattern by using the Dragon Reborn? Using Rand to create the chaos and destruction the DO desires until the Pattern is remade as the DO sees fit. That way either the DO is victorious and the Pattern is destroyed, or Rand wins and the Pattern is forever altered the way the DO wants. DO wins either way then. My point is I doubt, sorry, I know, that without learning these lessons he will be unable to achieve the Light's victory. The Dragon Reborn must be forged into the right person to fight TG, not just pile the support on him and let him run wild like a raging bull.

 

.  As far as can be known, Rand could off every other person on the planet, and the Light could still win at

 

Well, that makes understanding you easier. We know that he could not. Look at just the numbers involved, there's no way he can do it on his own. Look at Min's viewings, he needs others to win. If Rand offed every other person on the planet, would it really be the Light that had won? No.

 

3.  Cadsuane can somehow "teach" Rand how to be "nice" by being arrogant, abrasive, obnoxious, rude, and physically abusive.  ( and, of course number four )

 

She has not been arrogant, obnoxious, or physically abusive. Rand is rude, arrogant and obnoxious. Cads is abrasive. Cads is not physically abusive. Is a parent spanking their child physically abusing them? Is a police officer forcefully arresting someone physically abusive? No. There is a difference between physical abuse and physical contact. Being abusive is acting wrongfully, so by saying she's abusive you yourself are assuming she is wrong. Think of how you raise a child, or for that matter how any species raises their young, when the youngster misbehaves the guardian lets it know physically. Physical punishment creates a direct link between actions and consequences, you learn quicker for it. In how many cases does the "time out" style parenting work? Never seen it done, all of those kids end up being brats. Rand has suddenly been given many responsibilities and has not yet learnt his lessons, Cads is there to teach these lessons to him, and her personality befits the qualities one would have to have in order to actually teach Rand.

 

4. It's working.

 

Not an assumption. We see it working. Can you prove to us that it is not working? I can prove to you that it is. Read all of the Rand POV's in the books following Cadsuane's appearance. There is most certainly a change, subtle at first, but increasing exponentially.

 

Haven't read that far yet, but maybe Cadsuane's ultimate goal is to get Rand to be less protective of women?

 

I think this is also one of her goals. It falls under Cads is teaching Rand 4)(very top). Rand must be strong to kill women, not hard. He must be strong enough to force himself to do it, if he is hard he will crack and be unable to kill the woman. I have an interesting theory about how she achieves this. Cads ends up realising that TG is even closer then she thought and that there may only be one way to teach Rand the lessons he needs to learn. So she does something crazy, like pretend to be a BA and pretend to kill someone close to Rand or even Rand himself. Anyways in the end she ends up tricking him into killing her, he laughs for the irony of finally being rid of her and cries for what he has done. The lesson the asha'man learn may be that she shows them what it means to sacrifice everything for the victory of the Light (and as I see Logain killing Taim and becoming the M'Hael in his place before Cads' death) and they will remember the true reason of why they were named the "Guardians".

 

Sorry this is so long, just wanted to get this all down finally. As for the argument, I'm out. It has been long enough that I don't think anyone will change their minds, so any further argument is pointless. A debate is where people are deliberating or considering things, and everyone here seems to have their mind made up. I think this has entered the realm of bickering.