Modification: What parts do you dislike in the WOT?

[Ashaman Kovan]

Well he does realize how much of an idiot he is. At the same time though you could make the argument that the pattern and the wheel were not done with lanfear. As she is reborn and cyndane. Maybe the fact that she was one of the original discoverers of the bore means she has some important role to play in the sealing it somehow. Who knows.

[Dbob]

That's a much better argument than most, but now I have to take issue with the creator who’s already in hot water over the Windfinders.

 

 

[Ashaman Kovan]

Whoa hey now. Beware of smiting. If he cares enough.

[Hybrid]

You know you can toss down the crazy card here, if Rand is mad it’s a catchall, I can still be annoyed, you can still like him, Rand can be a loon, we can have no issue.

 

Well, he does do a strange 180 on the issue between TDR and TFOH.  In TDR, he lops off the head of a random merchant woman whose only crime was wanting to use his campsite.  Afterwards, it turns out she is a Darkfriend, but he has no qualms here.  Yet in TFOH, he cannot bring himself to kill the Forsaken killing him.  Add that to the descriptions of his actions by other characters, like the fact that he argues out loud with a voice in his head, well, draw your own conclusions.

 

The fact that he could not bring himself to kill her even in defense of his own life does not bring to mind the word self-centered to me.  It's a strange situation.  He believes he is making the wrong decision but he is psychologically incapable of making the other one.  Self-centered, narcissistic people generally want to preserve their own lives.  Rand does not care.

 

As far as narcissism is concerned, Demandred is the character who fits the definition best, as does Sammael.  Hence their betrayal of Lews Therin.

 

Well he does realize how much of an idiot he is. At the same time though you could make the argument that the pattern and the wheel were not done with lanfear. As she is reborn and cyndane. Maybe the fact that she was one of the original discoverers of the bore means she has some important role to play in the sealing it somehow. Who knows.

I don't buy that argument.  The Wheel is a complex system, and there is free will involved.  The Wheel itself would not make Rand unable to believe he could or should kill Lanfear.  Instead, some sort of occurence would happen to prevent him from doing so.  But the Wheel does not control minds.  Otherwise, it would prevent all the Darkfriends from trying to kill the Dragon Reborn.  Also, Cyndane is a situation the Wheel has no power over.

 

That's a much better argument than most, but now I have to take issue with the creator who’s already in hot water over the Windfinders.

 

What's wrong with the Windfinders?  :o

[Dbob]

Come on now guys, clearly the creator is asleep at the wheel (groan).

 

Well, I used narcissistic because it's all about Rand, what Rand feels, how tortured Rand feels how tortured over his tortured feelings Rand feels. Ad nauseum. One could say that his ego is so important not even his own life can make an impact on his feeeeellllings.

 

(Edit: that's a good point about the merchant woman, I hadn't seen that comaprison.)

 

The Windfinders are the second great annoyance in Randland. Honestly, did the series really need yet another group of pushy, unreasonable, little old ladies (yes I know they’re not all old).

 

I like the early books, Rand was still my man, plus he doesn’t whine early on, when you’d think he’d be moaning the most, and Moiraine was alive, or at least around – my favorite female character, aside from Brigitte, a lot of the issues that I have didn’t appear until after book 5 or at least weren’t so annoying. I think the first three books are clearly in a different league in terms of characterization than the last few, especially concerning women who aren’t caricature. Plus the later in the series you go, the more monothematic the POV’s become. Some characters (Eggy) start to dominate for no apparent reason. Yes, her and the tower plotline are important, but not as important as Rand’s plot line, but he largely disappears by the last book.

 

[Dbob]

Don't make me bring up The Quest of Sir Perrin: The Faile Saga.

[Mr Ares]

It remains that this isn’t real life, this is fiction, it isn’t deep philosophy or scripture most holy, it's entertainment, and no amount of climbing up on the wrong soapboxes is going to make me think that MLK somehow means Rand isn’t a whiny baby.

What? My point was simply that being impotent and worthless are not the same as being unwilling to kill people. Those people I mentioned were (and are, in one case) unwilling to kill, but were not impotent or worthless because of it. What the hell does that have to do with Rand being a "whiny baby"? Nothing. It has everything to do with your poorly stated arguments. Rand will be or will not be a "whiny baby" regardless of MLK. But there is a difference between killing people and being worthless. I shouldn't need to point that out. And if you want fictional examples, are the Tinkers "whiny babies"? Is Batman (he beats people up but desn't kill them)? Is Shepherd Book from Firefly (the Bible is quite specific on the subject of murder, but rather less specific on the subject of kneecaps)?

 

It definitely isn't the same as starting down the road to nefarious personal insinuation and slight (which is more about how Mr Ares parsed his argument than anything you said).

What? I pointed out that your arguments are poorly phrased. For example, saying he would be completely impotent and worthless if he was faced solely with female villains. Why? Because he would be unwilling to kill them? Did you really mean to say that not murdering enemies=impotence/worthlessness?

 

I find that unreasonable and selfish because he knows she is going to kill more people, but his feelings forbid him to try to stop her (and yes, he's going to have to take her out, harsh language and a good scolding isn't going to work here).

Again, we're back to your obsession with lethal force. Anything less than killing her is "harsh language and a good scolding"? It is possible to stop people without killing them. One does wonder whether you have ever actually killed anyone? Some people can find it quite hard. Rand finds it harder to kill women than men, and in that instance found himself unable to kill Lanfear. He still tried to stop her, but he tried to stop her without killing her. There are ways to do that.

 

What's more important, how he feels about killing a woman or the lives that woman is going to take?

Ask a Tinker. Or Gandhi. Or the Dalai Lama. Some would argue that it is never acceptable to take life. Rand doesn't go that far, either with men or women. But he couldn't kill Lanfear.

 

Some characters (Eggy) start to dominate for no apparent reason. Yes, her and the Tower plotline are important, but not as important as Rand's plot line, but he largely disappears by the last book.

What? The reason is that there is nothing for Rand to do, but there is stuff for Egwene, etc. to do. If Rand's plotline isn't going anywhere for the time being, why spend unnecessary time on it? Or would you rather RJ just made something up for him to do? Even when that something wouldn't further the story? RJ was working to a plan. In the later books, Rand has had less to do, so understandably there has been less time spent on him.

[Dbob]

What? My point was simply that being impotent and worthless are not the same as being unwilling to kill people. Those people I mentioned were (and are, in one case) unwilling to kill, but were not impotent or worthless because of it. What the hell does that have to do with Rand being a "whiny baby"? Nothing. It has everything to do with your poorly stated arguments. Rand will be or will not be a "whiny baby" regardless of MLK. But there is a difference between killing people and being worthless. I shouldn't need to point that out. And if you want fictional examples, are the Tinkers "whiny babies"? Is Batman (he beats people up but desn't kill them)? Is Shepherd Book from Firefly (the Bible is quite specific on the subject of murder, but rather less specific on the subject of kneecaps)?

 

What? I pointed out that your arguments are poorly phrased. For example, saying he would be completely impotent and worthless if he was faced solely with female villains. Why? Because he would be unwilling to kill them? Did you really mean to say that not murdering enemies=impotence/worthlessness?

 

Again, we're back to your obsession with lethal force. Anything less than killing her is "harsh language and a good scolding"? It is possible to stop people without killing them. One does wonder whether you have ever actually killed anyone? Some people can find it quite hard. Rand finds it harder to kill women than men, and in that instance found himself unable to kill Lanfear. He still tried to stop her, but he tried to stop her without killing her. There are ways to do that.

 

Ask a Tinker. Or Gandhi. Or the Dalai Lama. Some would argue that it is never acceptable to take life. Rand doesn't go that far, either with men or women. But he couldn't kill Lanfear.

 

What? The reason is that there is nothing for Rand to do, but there is stuff for Egwene, etc. to do. If Rand's plotline isn't going anywhere for the time being, why spend unnecessary time on it? Or would you rather RJ just made something up for him to do? Even when that something wouldn't further the story? RJ was working to a plan. In the later books, Rand has had less to do, so understandably there has been less time spent on him.

 

Dude, relax. You’re doing what I described above.

 

You don’t have to think that Rand is a whiny baby.

 

My opinion doesn't threaten your opinion of him.

 

From what I can tell you’re pretty much offended at how I described Rand, with some swipes at me personally thrown in for good measure.

 

For example, you don’t know what obsessions I may or may not have, and none of that is relevant to the argument in the first place. This is a logical fallacy; I’ll spare you the formal terminology.

 

So why say I have an obsession with murder?

 

“But, but, but you said……..”

 

Yeah, I said he should have killed the forsaken. Did I say he should wander about murdering children and small bunnies?

 

Attempt to impeach the argument by impeaching the source, with some ridicule thrown in for good measure.

 

If you’re going to be so offended by what I’m saying that you feel the need to call names, don’t read my posts. Solves the problem.

[Hybrid]

Yeah, I said he should have killed the forsaken. Did I say he should wander about murdering children and small bunnies?

 

Why is it any better to murder Lanfear than children?  That is Mr Ares's point.  When does it become OK to kill someone?

[Dbob]

Yeah, I said he should have killed the forsaken. Did I say he should wander about murdering children and small bunnies?

 

Why is it any better to murder Lanfear than children?  That is Mr Ares's point.  When does it become OK to kill someone?

 

Actually, I think he used that term as hyperbole in order to bolster his "moral" position and cast my comments in the worst possible light. People do this all the time Ares that isn't an insult. Plus if we’re going to get that technical then start here:

 

Why is it any better to murder Lanfear than children

 

Here we have an assuption that killing both lanfear and children are both murder.

 

This argument hinges on the definition of murder. There is no argument if killing Lanfear isn’t murder. Before you even get to the ethical dilemma you have to define your terms. Because I may not be defining murder the same way you are.

 

1. If killing anyone is murder then Rand is already a murderer

 

2. If killing only children is murder then killing Lanfear isn't murder.

 

3. If killing a woman is murder then Rand is still a murderer

 

4. If killing a woman is murder but killing a man isn’t, then Rand is still a murderer, plus there remains the question of why killing a woman is murder and killing a man isn’t.

 

4a. If you postulate that killing a woman is murder because women are generally more likely to be hurt by a man than the other way around, then is killing Lanfear isn’t murder because she’s clearly not in that position.

 

4b. If killing a person and having it defined as murder depends on the relative strength of the opponents then killing a small man is murder and killing a large woman isn’t.

 

With no common definition of that term the argument is moot.

 

Killing the enemy in Randland doesn’t seem to be construed as murder (stands on it own), nor is killing in self defense, or the defense of others(no one called Mat a murderer for taking oout the darkfriend Aiel even though she was a woman), nor indeed are any of these considered as such back here in reality.

 

Therefore, Killing Lanfear isn’t murder.

 

I’m actually pretty sure you understand the difference between taking out Lanfear and taking out a toddler.

 

[Hybrid]

All right, we'll drop the term "murder."  I admit, my last question was poorly phrased.

 

Why is killing Lanfear justified?  Nynaeve didn't think she should just kill Moghedien.  Cadsuane didn't think she should just kill Semirhage.  Yet Rand should just kill Lanfear?

[Dbob]

All right, we'll drop the term "murder."  I admit, my last question was poorly phrased.

 

Why is killing Lanfear justified?  Nynaeve didn't think she should just kill Moghedien.  Cadsuane didn't think she should just kill Semirhage.  Yet Rand should just kill Lanfear?

 

Not taking someone out bears no relationship to whether or not there is justification for taking them out. Who on the light side is going to shun and condemn anyone at all who takes out a forsaken? Reverse the question, if it was Sammael at the docks. and Rand's actions remained the same, would you be defending him?

 

I don’t seem to remember reading where either of those two made a conscious decision to let the forsaken live because there was no justification for killing them. Perhaps you could point me in that direction.

 

r.e. Lanfear

 

I think it’s patently apparent what the justification is. It’s justified because she’s in the process of killing Rand with the promise of taking out Eggy and Avi next. Second - for lack of a better term - she’s a high ranking enemy super villain. Third, she’s working towards the D.O’s victory, plus I’ll toss in the all the people she’s killed and going to kill. Fourth, this is fictional storytelling not reality, there are no real ethical consequences or dilemmas involved in any of this, and I like to see the bad guys go down.

 

Anyway parsing this argument down this far - and I mean no offense here - is kind of pointless. We have plenty of questions on the ethics of war going on right now back here in reality, with real people dying in the meantime, for me to be overly concerned about the ethical squeamishness of Nynaeve Al’meara.

[Ashaman Kovan]

Quote from hybrid

 

 

I don't buy that argument.  The Wheel is a complex system, and there is free will involved.  The Wheel itself would not make Rand unable to believe he could or should kill Lanfear.  Instead, some sort of occurence would happen to prevent him from doing so.  But the Wheel does not control minds.  Otherwise, it would prevent all the Darkfriends from trying to kill the Dragon Reborn.  Also, Cyndane is a situation the Wheel has no power over.

 

 

 

Ahh but something did happen didn't it? Moraine took her through the doorway.

[Hybrid]

Ahh but something did happen didn't it? Moraine took her through the doorway.

 

I was talking about Rand being unable to kill Lanfear, not Lanfear not killing Rand.  Since you were talking about Lanfear being reborn and the Pattern possibly needing her, I inferred that you meant Rand being unwilling to kill Lanfear was the Pattern's will.

 

 

Not taking someone out bears no relationship to whether or not there is justification for taking them out.

Wait.  Now we no longer have to have a reason for our actions?  So total anarchy all around?  I'm not justified in killing this fellow, but I will anyways!  We are rational beings.  We do not act without a reason for acting.  So justification for our actions has a major bearing on our actions themselves.

 

Who on the light side is going to shun and condemn anyone at all who takes out a forsaken?

Who on the light side is going to shun and condemn anyone at all who captures a Forsaken?  Capturing a Forsaken would surely be more beneficial, would it not?

 

Reverse the question, if it was Sammael at the docks. and Rand's actions remained the same, would you be defending him?

Yes, I would.  But only if you had the rant you are having now.  So, allow me to reverse the question to you.  If it was men that Rand couldn't bear killing, would you be so angry?  And would it actually be for the same reasons?

 

I don’t seem to remember reading where either of those two made a conscious decision to let the forsaken live because there was no justification for killing them. Perhaps you could point me in that direction.

Exactly.  They did not even consider killing the Forsaken.  Now a Forsaken, if you believe what you write, is such a horrible being that he or she deserves death on the spot, no questions asked.  And yet, Nynaeve and Cadsuane, while under attack by the Forsaken, decided to capture them.

 

I think it’s patently apparent what the justification is. It’s justified because she’s in the process of killing Rand with the promise of taking out Eggy and Avi next. Second - for lack of a better term - she’s a high ranking enemy super villain. Third, she’s working towards the D.O’s victory, plus I’ll toss in the all the people she’s killed and going to kill. Fourth, this is fictional storytelling not reality, there are no real ethical consequences or dilemmas involved in any of this, and I like to see the bad guys go down.

 

First of all, your enjoyment at seeing bad guys go down has no bearing on whether Rand is justified in killing Lanfear.  Moreover, there are ethical consequences in said fictional storytelling that affect Rand, thus affecting how his character acts.  Looking at all the people she's killed, I wonder how many tried to kill her first?  Just looking at the docks incident, the vast majority of the dead were Aiel who attacked her.  So that's justified under self-defense.  People she's going to kill?  How do you know she is going to kill any people?  The future is not set in stone, not even in the Wheel.  In addition, she is associated with the DO, but I would not say she is exactly working towards his goals since she wants to overthrow him.  Oh, make no mistake, she's not a good person.  I'm simply stating that the be-all and end-all of a fight is not killing your opponent.  Most of my problems with your arguments is that before you associated "being a man" with the will to kill someone.

 

We have plenty of questions on the ethics of war going on right now back here in reality, with real people dying in the meantime, for me to be overly concerned about the ethical squeamishness of Nynaeve Al’meara.

Now it's ethically squeamish to avoid killing someone?  :o  Wow, what sort of person are you?  And have you actually killed anyone on purpose?

[Dbob]

....only myself to blame....

 

OK. Obviously you’re taking this far more seriously than I am.

 

Perhaps I've confused you, let me clarify, I don’t care about ethical debates concerning Lanfear, Moggy, Semi, Santa Claus, the Easter bunny or any of their relatives, they don’t exist. It is in no way unethical to want Lanfear dead, because she’s a fictional villain who doesn’t exist, in a fictional story I read for entertainment. Is that clear enough?

 

Rand doesn’t exist, the D.O. doesn’t exist, none of them exist. It’s pointless debating the moral fiber of fictional people. If I wanted to debate the morals and ethics of the WOT, I'd be debating the morals and ethics of R.J. because he's the only one involved who actually existed.

 

The morals and ethics of Rand in the WOT say a lot about R.J. and nothing about Rand, because – you guessed it, Rand doesn’t exist.

 

If you want to take the story and scrutinize it looking for some deep moral lesson knock yourself out. I’m sure you can find someone else to talk to who has an interest in that.

 

[RAND AL THOR]

Why is killing Lanfear justified?  Nynaeve didn't think she should just kill Moghedien.  Cadsuane didn't think she should just kill Semirhage.  Yet Rand should just kill Lanfear?

 

I believe Nynaeve has not murdered before. (At least not a person).

 

Casuane was interested in obtaining information from Semirhage.

 

Rand has already killed many many men, some women (accidently/regretted afterwards).

 

He also murdered Be'lal, Ishamael (under the belief that he is the DO), Rhavin, and intended to murder Sammael. He did not intend to extricate AoL info from these, so there is no reason for him to expect the same from Lanfear.

 

 

The only reason why Rand could not kill Lanfear is his problem with killing women. While I agree that such a weakness makes the hero more real, I agree to some extent that Rand should have been able to work up the nerve to kill a Forsaken, who deserves nothing less and who also poses a threat to all those who follow Rand. She had already incapacitated/harmed Egwene, Moiraine, Lan and Aviendha- all people whom Rand cares about. And yet, being unable to take her out is somewhat skeptical.

 

I also feel that it is unfair that he place so much value on females' lives. He goes around memorizing the faces of the women who die for him, but not the men. That is seriously unjust, despite his weakness.

[Guest The Thin Inn Keeper]

It is in no way unethical to want Lanfear dead, because she’s a fictional villain who doesn’t exist, in a fictional story I read for entertainment. Is that clear enough?

 

Rand doesn’t exist, the D.O. doesn’t exist, none of them exist.

 

The morals and ethics of Rand in the WOT say a lot about R.J. and nothing about Rand, because – you guessed it, Rand doesn’t exist.

What?!?!?

 

Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! *

[RAND AL THOR]

The morals and ethics of Rand in the WOT say a lot about R.J. and nothing about Rand, because – you guessed it, Rand doesn’t exist.

 

 

I don't think its possible to insult an author any more than this.

 

So GRRM's personality is like Ned's? or Robb's? or Catelyn's?

 

So an author whose MC is an evil murderer secretly wishes to be an evil murderer himself?

 

This is truly crazy talk. RJ spent over 10 000 pages fleshing out Rand's character. And here you are dismissing everything on the basis that he is a fictional characters and hence has no ethics and morals and that all his 'apparent' ethics and morals reflect the personality of the writer.

 

 

Oh, and I'm additionally pissed because I'm a writer myself and your above statement has no justification whatsoever. Sheesh. ::)

[Hybrid]

OK, I've been making some silly arguments re: Lanfear.  I tend to do that when I encounter people like you.  Let me clarify my stance.

I believe Rand should have attempted to kill Lanfear once it became obvious that his attempt to capture her failed.  I believe that Rand should quit his silly attitude towards women before one of them actually kills him.  But I also believe that Rand was helpless at the docks.

However, your argument that Rand is somehow less of a man because he cannot kill a woman?  Ridiculous.  As is your description of Nynaeve as "ethically squeamish" because she wouldn't kill Moghedien.  You're simply going off on a rant because you can't deal with the fact that Rand does not like killing women.  So what?  It's unfair to the men, but you know what?  You're right, it's a fictional story and doesn't affect you in the least.

 

The morals and ethics of Rand in the WOT say a lot about R.J. and nothing about Rand, because – you guessed it, Rand doesn’t exist.

Another ridiculous argument.  There are multiple ethical value systems in place in WOT.  What's to say any one of them mirrors RJ's own?  Not every main character is written as a reflection of the author or how the author believes the world should be.  When an author writes a story as complex as WOT, he designs a world.  His characters, to be as realistic as those in WOT, have to react to the world.  The world does not react to the characters.  So the ethical values in place in that world have an effect on their actions.  Your only arguments seem to be blasting RJ for creating characters you don't like.  Well, this is a thread for discussing those very parts.  Still, if you are going to assess Rand's character, at least provide a reasonable explanation for your assessment.

[Mr Ares]

Dude, relax. You’re doing what I described above.

 

You don’t have to think that Rand is a whiny baby.

 

My opinion doesn't threaten your opinion of him.

 

From what I can tell you’re pretty much offended at how I described Rand, with some swipes at me personally thrown in for good measure.

What? I'm not offended by anything you've said. Nor do I feel my opinion is threatened. And what swipes? Outside your own mind, of course. Is it really that hard to phrase your arguments correctly, to say what you mean? Or to read mine? Or do you really mean that not being willing to kill people makes one impotent or worthless? Beacause that is what you said. Rand is perfectly willing to act against women, but he doesn't kill them if he can avoid it. But you said sending women after him would render him impotent and worthless. So do you mean that anything less than lethal force is impotence and worthlessness? Because that is a rather odd position.

 

For example, you don’t know what obsessions I may or may not have, and none of that is relevant to the argument in the first place. This is a logical fallacy; I’ll spare you the formal terminology.

 

So why say I have an obsession with murder?

Strictly speaking, I said obsession with lethal force. And I said it because what you say gives the impression that you think the only solution to problems is through killing people. Which does seem a tad obsessive. It's just the impression I get. Maybe if you took more time over thinking through what you meant to say, you would have a better point. You think Rand should be more willing to kill women? Your hardly alone in that. You think the only possible way of dealing with women sent against him is by killing him? That's not quite the same thing. So which is your real position? Like RAND AL THOR said, you're ranting too much and not taking the time to put your point over properly - unless killing is manly really is your position?

 

“But, but, but you said……..”

 

Yeah, I said he should have killed the forsaken. Did I say he should wander about murdering children and small bunnies?

 

Attempt to impeach the argument by impeaching the source, with some ridicule thrown in for good measure.

But your arguments are piss poor. They are exactly what I have been arguing against. Because you haven't taken the time to think them through properly. You didn't say he should murder children and small bunnies, but you did say "He's just lucky the author didn't let the D.O. send exclusively female villains after him and everyone he cares about. Would render him completely impotent and worthless, that." So does not killing people make you impotent and worthless? You also said "I find that unreasonable and selfish because he knows she is going to kill more people, but his feelings forbid him to try to stop her (and yes, he's going to have to take her out, harsh language and a good scolding isn't going to work here)." Is there no middle ground between harsh language/good scolding and KILL? Just imagine if you brought that attitude to parenting. Your kid doesn't do what he or she is told, even after a good telling off. There's only one thing for it. I'll get my gun. Is that really what you meant to say? That there is no middle ground between a slap on the wrists and an execution?

 

If you’re going to be so offended by what I’m saying that you feel the need to call names, don’t read my posts. Solves the problem.

Again, I'm not offended, and I'm not calling names. And I enjoy reading your posts. Who knows what you'll come out with next? I also notice you avoided answering one of my questions, and you also avoided answering when Hybrid asked you. Have you ever killed anyone?

[Dbob]

The morals and ethics of Rand in the WOT say a lot about R.J. and nothing about Rand, because – you guessed it, Rand doesn’t exist.

 

 

I don't think its possible to insult an author any more than this.

 

So GRRM's personality is like Ned's? or Robb's? or Catelyn's?

 

So an author whose MC is an evil murderer secretly wishes to be an evil murderer himself?

 

This is truly crazy talk. RJ spent over 10 000 pages fleshing out Rand's character. And here you are dismissing everything on the basis that he is a fictional characters and hence has no ethics and morals and that all his 'apparent' ethics and morals reflect the personality of the writer.

 

 

Oh, and I'm additionally pissed because I'm a writer myself and your above statement has no justification whatsoever. Sheesh. ::)

 

Why does it have to be an insult, all the noble things in the characters are just as much a part of R.J. as the things we're less than enamored of, such is the nature of literature. It all relfects R.J, it would be a different work if someone else wrote it.

 

Plus I see no reason to delve into an in-depth conversation about ethics over this. That's not why I read the books and I seriously doubt R.J. was after a treatise on the ethics of war. If it's why you read the books, go for it. My mistake was getting invoved in that in the first place.

 

No, I'm going to go back to enjoying the things that I enjoy, and ranting about the things that annoy me.

[Dbob]

...Sooooo, Rand Al'thor, whiny baby, or histrionic neurosis...

 

:-*

[Hybrid]

Why does it have to be an insult, all the noble things in the characters are just as much a part of R.J. as the things we're less than enamored of, such is the nature of literature. It all relfects R.J, it would be a different work if someone else wrote it.

 

Perhaps.  Perhaps not.  At least you finally agree that it is noble to attempt to fight someone without using lethal force.  The whole point, though is when an author writes a story as complex as WOT, he designs a world.  His characters, to be as realistic as those in WOT, have to react to the world.  The world does not react to the characters.  So the ethical values in place in that world have an effect on their actions.

You haven't responded to me.  Ignoring me?  Or no counter-argument?

 

It is in no way unethical to want Lanfear dead, because she’s a fictional villain who doesn’t exist, in a fictional story I read for entertainment. Is that clear enough?

I missed this earlier.  No, it's not clear enough.  It's not even relevant to the argument at hand.  We are not debating about your desire to kill Lanfear.  We are arguing about Rand.

[RAND AL THOR]

The morals and ethics of Rand in the WOT say a lot about R.J. and nothing about Rand, because – you guessed it, Rand doesn’t exist.

 

 

I don't think its possible to insult an author any more than this.

 

So GRRM's personality is like Ned's? or Robb's? or Catelyn's?

 

So an author whose MC is an evil murderer secretly wishes to be an evil murderer himself?

 

This is truly crazy talk. RJ spent over 10 000 pages fleshing out Rand's character. And here you are dismissing everything on the basis that he is a fictional characters and hence has no ethics and morals and that all his 'apparent' ethics and morals reflect the personality of the writer.

 

 

Oh, and I'm additionally pissed because I'm a writer myself and your above statement has no justification whatsoever. Sheesh. ::)

 

Why does it have to be an insult, all the noble things in the characters are just as much a part of R.J. as the things we're less than enamored of, such is the nature of literature. It all relfects R.J, it would be a different work if someone else wrote it.

 

Plus I see no reason to delve into an in-depth conversation about ethics over this. That's not why I read the books and I seriously doubt R.J. was after a treatise on the ethics of war. If it's why you read the books, go for it. My mistake was getting invoved in that in the first place.

 

No, I'm going to go back to enjoying the things that I enjoy, and ranting about the things that annoy me.

 

How excellent! I do wonder why no-one ever diagnosed RJ with multiple personality disorder considering that there are 1000+ characters in the WoT.

 

 

It all relfects R.J

 

So you would suggest that Semirhage's twisted methods of torture reflect one of RJ's hidden sides? A character in fiction is conjured (CONJURED) from the IMAGINATION of the writer. While some writers do include parts of their own selves, it is unjust to blatantly state stuff the way you did.

 

[Hybrid]

I suppose from Dbob's point of view, there is no true creativity in literature.  Every character is just the personality of the author.  Therefore, from his point of view, RJ must be a "histrionic neurotic" (even though I still can't see how Rand possibly fits this description at all and Dbob has not tried to clarify his point other than go on another rant) who "doesn't have the balls" to kill women.  In addition, he must also be Padan Fain, schizophrenic extraordinaire; Semirhage, evil sadist; and Galad, the man who can do no wrong.  ::) 

I wonder if he has ever tried writing anything?