How did I miss this so long

[Bob T Dwarf]

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.

 

You have a very different interpretation for how Rand is "changing" than I do.

 

What I see is someone who is becoming tentative and even more uncertain.  Becoming ineffectual.

 

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.

 

If you're going to quote me, quote me accurately. 

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.

That is a simple fact from the books.  Absolutely nothing says that anybody other than those three are needed to win.  Common sense would tell us that many others would be needed as well, but nothing in any form of prophesy says that is the case.

 

Given that Jordan set up a universe where prophesy always comes true, and given that no form of prophesy specifies any individuals other than Rand, Mat and Perrin are required for the Light to prevail, Rand could indeed kill every other person on the planet and still win.

 

Rand would never do that, of course.  His own innate decency wouldn't permit it.  But, technically, he could.

 

Conversely, all forms of prophesy specify that the Dragon Reborn must be present at TG in order for the Light to stand any chance of prevailing.  Thus, every person ( other than Mat and Perrin ) on that planet needs him far more than he needs any of them.  Yet, all any of them do is bedevil him with nonsense.

 

After 11 books, all of us are more than fed-up with Rand's whining, and childishness.  But, even with all of his faults, he's the only one who is giving any thought to how the Light can prevail.  Whatever shortcomings Rand has, they are less than nothing compared to the shortcomings of nearly every other character in the books.

 

I repeat, Rand does not need their respect, they need his respect.  And, it's long past time that everyone else started acting in a way that allows him to extend that respect.

 

And, truthfully, given the way everybody on the planet works so diligently at being utter nincompoops, a 99.99% reduction in population without a victory by the DO would have to be ranked as a victory for the Light.  With a very few exceptions, no character or group in this series could behave any more stupidly if they tried with every fiber of their being.

 

Is it realistic to portray people as entirely shortsighted and selfishly stupid?  Not really.  Granted, that is what we see the most of in real life, but we also see incredible self-sacrifice and real nobility as well.  TG is a kind of natural disaster of global proportions.  Real people set aside their differences in situations like that.  They roll up their sleeves, dig in, and do whatever is needed.  Except in Randland.  There they do nothing but bicker and backstab and try to shaft everyone they can.

 

If you live in Randland, is there any hope of life, or even existence if Rand fails at TG?  Will you have property or station if Rand fails at TG?

 

Kinda makes it in your best interest to see that Rand gets to TG with whatever he thinks he needs to succeed, doesn't it?  You don't need to know him.  You don't need to like him.  You don't need to respect him.  All you need is to respect your own life.  Your own hopes and dreams and aspirations.

 

Rand would be utterly justified in almost anything he chose to do.  At any time.  For any reason.  Or, no reason at all.  The people he's been tasked to risk his existence for, based entirely on their own conduct, deserve nothing more.

[Jehaine]

Well... Think of it this way. Rand has admitted from his own mouth that he can't handle seeing a woman die. Given that the Aes Sedai, being the vast majority of his artillery in TG, consists entirely of women, and the Far Dareis Mai will also be fighting at the frontlines, there is a VERY likely chance that a lot of women are going to die.

 

Cadsuane has realised that in TG, where Rand is effectively their trump card, Rand must not be allowed to choke up, since that would make the DO's victory there almost a certainity.

 

Thus, her behaviour focuses on knocking women in general down a peg or two, eventually making him use them the same way as he throws men into battle... Though teaching him actual strategic skill would be more Bashere's area.

[Graendals favourite]

Dbob, here's a few comments. I cannot summon a passion to start defending Cadsuane very vehemently, so I'll just say some things that come to mind. This jungle of quotes makes structured answering more difficult, but I will try to stay coherent with the comments. But debating, no, I think the various Asmo threads have drained the desire to debate out of me, nowadays I just make my best effort to convey my thoughts, afterwhich it is solely he listener's problem to make something out of it if they will (It is nearly impossible for me to say anything related to Asmo since I don't have anything new to say and it's all there to be read.).

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.

We seem to read the books in quite a different way. I don't really, while reading, have much interest in what function a certain character has in some standard storyline. As if the purpose of writing were to fit some mold, like making a song you'd always have to have the beginning-A-A-B-A-B-C-B-B-end and each part fulfills some preordained function. Whereas I think the structure serves what is said, things are more accessible when they are said in a way the listener can relate to. What I read in Rand's storyline is, put a young man in that situation, and what you read is what you get. Also, it is completely credible that the people near Rand exist. That Cadsuane exists is credible, and her being who she is she will be drawn to Rand when he publicly rises to power. Rand on the other hand, by the time she gets there, will have been almost torn apart, with scarcely any humanity left, and him still a young man which means he has very little experience of life. The structure of writing has hardly any significance in comparison to what is written.

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.

That's the way I would read it. You know, I have hardly ever looked at the books thinking that if I don't understand something that is written then it must be written wrong. I choose very carefully the books I read because whatever I read I consider what is said, I become annoyed if I find I have been engaged in a purely semantic argument and have wasted time with that. To me, if there is something I don't understand, this means there is something new for me to learn. Often it means there may be some non-trivial plotline or world structure, something to build a theory on. Like pointing out that actually no one travelled without a gateway in the early books, it was always something else. With Rand and Cadsuane, this may be RJ relating his experiences on war and what it can do to you as a young man, killing people and watching those around you die. I don't really sit in an armchair and say his relating of the events to be unrealistic, at the very least it his opinion on things. And no, I don't really take someone's words as an objective truth, I have a tendency to add the 'In my opinion' though they don't say it.

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?

I just recently commented on this in another thread, and there it shall stay, but I will say that if to you nothing exists beyond yourself and your experiences, then I don't have so much to say to you, I do not need to be part of that experience.

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.

There's a difference between saying this I don't understand, or this I don't like, and this is badly written. The last will not be a very popular thing to say, if you discredit what is written what is there left to talk about? I for one don't have the least interest in talking about anything Goodkind has written.

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.

Well, it got me at least. I think the thought has crossed my mind, that can't someone just go and slap him. Cadsuane is there of her free will, attempting to change the course of events, when the course is toward disaster, and she is furthermore probably the most qualified person for it. But, I think Cadsuane can defend herself, the writing reads fine, there's not much for me to discuss here either. So I'll answer, read the books again, maybe you'll change your mind.  ;)

[Dbob]

We seem to read the books in quite a different way. I don't really, while reading, have much interest in what function a certain character has in some standard storyline. As if the purpose of writing were to fit some mold, like making a song you'd always have to have the beginning-A-A-B-A-B-C-B-B-end and each part fulfills some preordained function. Whereas I think the structure serves what is said, things are more accessible when they are said in a way the listener can relate to. What I read in Rand's storyline is, put a young man in that situation, and what you read is what you get. Also, it is completely credible that the people near Rand exist. That Cadsuane exists is credible, and her being who she is she will be drawn to Rand when he publicly rises to power. Rand on the other hand, by the time she gets there, will have been almost torn apart, with scarcely any humanity left, and him still a young man which means he has very little experience of life. The structure of writing has hardly any significance in comparison to what is written .

 

Well, the structure of a novel is at least as important as the story the author is telling, it’s the foundation of the whole story, the premise, the rules of the game. An artist might be able to conceive the most stunning imagery the world has ever seen but if he can’t put brush to canvas there is no painting. I don’t know why you seem to be saying that there is some kind of common mold for structure in prose. That’s certainly not the case. The way an author builds his/her books is just as personal, and idiosyncratic as the stories being told.

 

With truly great authors the structure of the prose is part and parcel of the story. Look at say, Fitzgerald. The structure of <i>Gatsby</i> is built in such a way as to mirror the main irony of the plot line. But even with someone like him, not every book is perfect. <i>Tender is the Night</i> starts off pretty close to being as perfect as prose gets. But then his wife went mad, his mind was on other things, he finished in a rush, and the second half of the book is unfocused and wandering.

 

Does this mean he was a bad author? No. Does this mean people are forbidden to mention this? No. Does that in any way lessen the scope of his achievement? No. There’s no artist that’s ever been whose every work was perfect. There are eleven novels so far, if you want to think on the truly remarkable, it’s that there are only a few wobbles.

 

Once again, you’re not addressing  my point. If Rand isn’t hard as stone, there is no need for <i>anyone</i> to fix that.

 

 

That's the way I would read it. You know, I have hardly ever looked at the books thinking that if I don't understand something that is written then it must be written wrong. I choose very carefully the books I read because whatever I read I consider what is said, I become annoyed if I find I have been engaged in a purely semantic argument and have wasted time with that. To me, if there is something I don't understand, this means there is something new for me to learn. Often it means there may be some non-trivial plotline or world structure, something to build a theory on. Like pointing out that actually no one travelled without a gateway in the early books, it was always something else. With Rand and Cadsuane, this may be RJ relating his experiences on war and what it can do to you as a young man, killing people and watching those around you die. I don't really sit in an armchair and say his relating of the events to be unrealistic, at the very least it his opinion on things. And no, I don't really take someone's words as an objective truth, I have a tendency to add the 'In my opinion' though they don't say it. .

 

This is the second time you’ve ascribed opinions to me that I don’t hold. I never once anywhere said that R.J. was a bad writer, or that the books are badly written. I wouldn’t be reading them if I thought either. As to the armchair thing, what’s the point of that? No one has experiences like those in the books. No one has ever had experiences like those in the books. R.J. isn’t setting himself up as a person who lived through the last battle with the dark one and is relating real world experience of what that was like.

 

I said before that an author who writes in SciFi/Fantasy genre has to suspend disbelief, in order to do that the author has to be absolutely faithful to the premise created, the rules of the game, the <i>structure</i>. How plausible would you find it if the Borderlanders drove to the last battle in M- 1 A-1 Abrahams tanks? Would you just accept that? An extreme example I grant, but that is quite finally the point.

 

 

I just recently commented on this in another thread, and there it shall stay, but I will say that if to you nothing exists beyond yourself and your experiences, then I don't have so much to say to you, I do not need to be part of that experience.

 

Commented on what exactly? I don’t even know what this means. You seem to be saying that somehow I’m being selfish about something?

 

 

There's a difference between saying this I don't understand, or this I don't like, and this is badly written. The last will not be a very popular thing to say, if you discredit what is written what is there left to talk about? I for one don't have the least interest in talking about anything Goodkind has written.

 

Well, it got me at least. I think the thought has crossed my mind, that can't someone just go and slap him. Cadsuane is there of her free will, attempting to change the course of events, when the course is toward disaster, and she is furthermore probably the most qualified person for it. But, I think Cadsuane can defend herself, the writing reads fine, there's not much for me to discuss here either. So I'll answer, read the books again, maybe you'll change your mind.   

 

This just ascribes opinions to me that I don’t have. Critical Analysis is fun, part of my enjoyment of a book is the skill the author posseses in creating the book. You can find irony, subtlety, and even puns in the way authors use the skeleton of a book. You don’t have to read that way, but please, stop trying to imply that just because I have an issue with some of the structure; that this automatically means that I think R.J. is a hack and the books worthless. That’s just incendiary and frankly, false. I don’t know how to say that more clearly.

 

And what’s with the “discredit”? Again, I wouldn’t care about the books at all if I thought they were rubbish. Appreciation of literature does not require a person to become hopelessly sycophantic. I can love the books just as much as you for all that I think that R.J. missed on the Rand/Cad plotline. I didn’t say it above, but I’ll say it here, I think some people are getting offended if you don’t worship and bow to every little period. I think this is irrational. I don’t think this digression had anything to do with Rand/Cad, it had to do with people actually getting proprietary about which opinions are acceptable.

 

We both love the books, I’ve read them probably around 20 times to date, the earlier ones more than the later, since I re-read when a new book comes out and in regards to my supposed, and quite imaginary, dislike of R.J; I’m not sure I’m going to buy the last book. Another author, however good, isn’t going to be the same.

 

[Charlz Guybon]

 

How plausible would you find it if the Borderlanders drove to the last battle in M- 1 A-1 Abrahams tanks? Would you just accept that? An extreme example I grant, but that is quite finally the point.

 

Not at all. If they could get a hold of M-1 A-1s, why would they get the more advanced M-1 A-2 tanks?

[Dbob]

Not at all. If they could get a hold of M-1 A-1s, why would they get the more advanced M-1 A-2 tanks?

 

The funding is being held up in comittee.

[Bob T Dwarf]

An author is free to put anything on the page that he pleases.

 

If he expects his effort to be well received, he does have to follow some rules.  Cause and affect being foremost among those.

 

In order to effect a given outcome, it's necessary to follow a logical progression.  A begets B which in turn begets C, etc.

 

If step A ( the initiating cause ) is violence, then whether the resultant outcome B is violence or not, somewhere down the line, at C, or D, or M, or W, violence will result.  Especially if the initiating violence is reinforced at any opportunity.

 

Cadsuane began with violence at her very first encounter with Rand.  She has continued that violence at every opportunity.  The only logical outcome from that is violence in return from Rand.  With how stressed and fragile Rand is, when he blows it should be epic.

 

Given Rand's reluctance to harm women, it's most likely that his violent outburst will be directed inappropriately at any handy non-female target.  Alternatively, as happens with many serial rapist-murderers, his inability to strike back at Cadsuane ( a mother figure ) will result in great violence toward other females.

 

How this logical, inevitable, well documented ( in the real world ) outcome is supposed to be helpful to Rand, beggars belief.

 

Any other outcome beggars credulity.