Modification: What parts do you dislike in the WOT?

[Dbob]

Oh come on, if he couldn't have conceived of Semi, she wouldn't be there now would she. Another author would have a completely different villain, hero, and whole shebang. Or are you saying that he plagiarized.

 

I don’t see where this indignation comes from.

 

Whatever, you consider whatever you want unjust or any other thing you take it in your head to feel, for whatever reason, doesn't concern me, but I will say that it's silly to propose that an author’s work is somehow not reflective of the author, you say you are an author, when was the last time you wrote someone else's book.

 

Edit: the above refers to R. not Hybrid.

 

Hybrid, you go boy, flog that pony.

[Hybrid]

Oh come on, if he couldn't have conceived of Semi, she wouldn't be there now would she. Another author would have a completely different villain, hero, and whole shebang. Or are you saying that he plagiarized.

 

I don’t see where this indignation comes from.

 

Whatever, you consider whatever you want unjust or any other thing you take it in your head to feel, for whatever reason, doesn't concern me, but I will say that it's silly to propose that an author’s work is somehow not reflective of the author, you say you are an author, when was the last time you wrote someone else's book.

Hm.  The whole point is that you referred to everyone as a reflection of RJ himself.  He conceived of Semirhage, but Semirhage isn't an aspect of his personality as you tried to point out earlier.  You could try making coherent points.  Or not.

 

Edit: the above refers to R. not Hybrid.

 

Hybrid, you go boy, flog that pony.

*sigh*  It never fails to amaze me how immature people can be.  Someone disagrees with you in a logical manner?  Why, the best way to deal with it is to insult them and ignore their points!  Geez, it's people like you that are the reason that the world is in the state it is today.

 

Well, let me make this clear:

Histrionic personality disorder (HPD) is a personality disorder characterized by a pattern of excessive emotionality and attention-seeking, including an excessive need for approval and inappropriate seductiveness, usually beginning in early adulthood.

Wow, that's Rand all right.  Why didn't I see it before?

[Dbob]

Oh come on, if he couldn't have conceived of Semi, she wouldn't be there now would she. Another author would have a completely different villain, hero, and whole shebang. Or are you saying that he plagiarized.

 

I don’t see where this indignation comes from.

 

Whatever, you consider whatever you want unjust or any other thing you take it in your head to feel, for whatever reason, doesn't concern me, but I will say that it's silly to propose that an author’s work is somehow not reflective of the author, you say you are an author, when was the last time you wrote someone else's book.

Hm.  The whole point is that you referred to everyone as a reflection of RJ himself.  He conceived of Semirhage, but Semirhage isn't an aspect of his personality as you tried to point out earlier.  You could try making coherent points.  Or not.

 

Edit: the above refers to R. not Hybrid.

 

Hybrid, you go boy, flog that pony.

*sigh*  It never fails to amaze me how immature people can be.  Someone disagrees with you in a logical manner?  Why, the best way to deal with it is to insult them and ignore their points!  Geez, it's people like you that are the reason that the world is in the state it is today.

 

Well, let me make this clear:

Histrionic personality disorder (HPD) is a personality disorder characterized by a pattern of excessive emotionality and attention-seeking, including an excessive need for approval and inappropriate seductiveness, usually beginning in early adulthood.

Wow, that's Rand all right.  Why didn't I see it before?

 

And the point of all this is what?

[Hybrid]

And the point of all this is what?

 

Look, I agree with you, I think Rand should have tried to kill Lanfear once his capture attempts failed miserably.  I also think he would have been justified in doing so. 

 

The problem is that you keep making assessments of Rand that I don't see the evidence for.  Every time your point is refuted, you keep trying to press it.  I don't care if you dislike Rand.  But I don't agree with your analysis of his mental state or your analysis of the situation at the docks.  And I certainly don't agree with you when you say he should have "grown some balls" and killed her.  I don't equate being a man with killing.  Finally, you move on to RJ, saying that, and I quote:

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.

My point, and RAND AL THOR's, unless I'm misinterpreting him, is that the characters are not all reflections of RJ's personality or his belief system.  There are too many characters and too many outlooks on life for such an argument to even be reasonable.  You also state:

That's not why I read the books and I seriously doubt R.J. was after a treatise on the ethics of war.

However, if RJ had designed all the characters as part of his ethics and his personality, then that would be exactly the point of the story.  See the contradiction?

[Dbob]

Look, it goes like this for me, I’ve had my say, you’ve had yours, we’re free to argue what we want to argue, just like we’re free to ignore it. I said at the very beginning that I wasn’t interested in nit-picking this to death. I accept my share of the blame for not leaving it there.

 

The vast majority of my rants are equal parts hyperbole and irritation. There’s something there that annoyed me, but I’m ranting because it’s just as much fun to be annoyed with the hero as it is to hate the villain – like in horror movies when you scream at the blond to stay out of the forest – you know she’s gonna do it, but you’re annoyed with her anyway. It’s all part of the experience. There it is, it’s that simple. The moment this ceases to be fun, you can bet I’m gonna bail.

 

So when this kind of thing comes along:

 

*sigh*  It never fails to amaze me how immature people can be.  Someone disagrees with you in a logical manner?  Why, the best way to deal with it is to insult them and ignore their points!  Geez, it's people like you that are the reason that the world is in the state it is today.

 

I can guarantee you I’ll ignore any arguments that come packaged with it.

 

I told you how I feel, you told me how you feel, I don’t intend to try and change your mind. You can try to change mine if you want to, but I really don’t expect you to care about that in the first place. If you say something that I haven’t heard before or something I haven’t thought of, I can guarantee you I’ll acknowledge it. Then you can ignore me, or reply just as you choose.

 

Feel free to refute me all day long with as much page space as you like, I’ll not get in your way, I’ll probably help you along with little comments here and there, see, then you’re happy, I’m happy, everyone’s happy, and this is still fun.

 

[Hybrid]

Very well.  I don't have issue with your dislike of Rand, as I already said.  I simply thought that some of your points were incorrect and refuted them.

 

There’s something there that annoyed me, but I’m ranting because it’s just as much fun to be annoyed with the hero as it is to hate the villain – like in horror movies when you scream at the blond to stay out of the forest – you know she’s gonna do it, but you’re annoyed with her anyway. It’s all part of the experience. There it is, it’s that simple. The moment this ceases to be fun, you can bet I’m gonna bail.

 

Understandable.  I was a little harsh, but I generally get that way whenever someone has a passionate view on something I disagree with.  I still disagree with your analyses, but I'll leave it there.

[Ashaman Kovan]

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.

 

I meant that it maybe stalled Rand enough to give time for moraine to do what she had to do. She did see it in the rings after all.

 

 

 

[Great Lord of the Dark]

I don't like perrin. I know he's important to the story, but i just want to shoot him

[RAND AL THOR]

 

My point, and RAND AL THOR's, unless I'm misinterpreting him, is that the characters are not all reflections of RJ's personality or his belief system. 

 

Correct.

 

I'm going to leave it here as it seems to me that I'm talking to a wall here, which is just reflecting all my points back to me with no counter arguements.

 

Congratulations to the Great Lord of the Dark for reinstating the purpose of the thread. Let the thread go on!

[Asnos]

I don't like perrin. I know he's important to the story, but i just want to shoot him

Perrin was my favorite character until he decided to marry Faile. Then he got really annoying "Faile this, Faile wants this..." God i hope she dies or gets more interesting in AMOL.

[RAND AL THOR]

One thing I've noticed is Perrin's absence of clumsiness. At the beginning he's just thinking about his arms and how he's always clumsy etc... but we don't see much of that in the WoT. It isn't like RJ to tell and not to show but I'm curious.

[Asnos]

I thought that Perrin always said he people thought he was slow witted and clumsy. He said that he just liked to think things out. He said the people thought he was clumsy because he moved slowly because he didn't want to hurt anyone or break anything.

 

I also didn't like how RJ started talking about clothes a lot in the late books like 6-9 or 10 but thankfully he kind of stopped in the last few. He barely ever spoe about clothes in the beginning so i thought it was weird, then it got annoying.

[Ashaman Kovan]

I think the clothes thing may have been an attempt to clarify where he drew the inspiration or various peoples and cultures from. A lot of people will say "Where does that word come from" or "What country has a similar fashion sense" thing like that. Personally I read so fast that I could go right through all of that stuff just as fast as the suspenseful and interesting parts, I don't get as much entertainment from it obviously but it doesn't really bother me that much. I also have a pretty vivid imagination so I like to picture the people and what they're wearing etc in my head. Besides lots of time the clothes a certain person is wearing can actually play a pivotal role in the series. Take Alviarin noticing the hem of Messanas dress for instance.

[RAND AL THOR]

Clothing is important when introducing a character. The type of clothing instantly tells the reader about the social rank and wealth of that character. However, it is not generally necessary to describe every outfit ever worn by every other character, which some writers do, though RJ does not. I did start to tire on the extensive description in the latter books though. Much of it is redundant.

[Dbob]

I'm going to leave it here as it seems to me that I'm talking to a wall here, which is just reflecting all my points back to me with no counter arguements.

 

It's good we can agree about something.

[Hybrid]

Attention to detail is always good.  Rand's attention to the detail of Moiraine's dress when he first meets her?  Excellent, because that is precisely what we do when meeting someone for the first time.  However, I agree that some of the particular details described in the later books are less necessary.

[Jay Solace]

My point, and RAND AL THOR's, unless I'm misinterpreting him, is that the characters are not all reflections of RJ's personality or his belief system.  There are too many characters and too many outlooks on life for such an argument to even be reasonable.

 

Okay.  I'm not here because I agree with Dbob's anything on anyone.  I just want to state, that that is purile. 

 

It all comes from your imagination.

 

There's a word in that sentence: your.  It begins with the letters Y-O-U.  Everything from your imagination comes from you. It is a reflection of you.  You produced it.  It is a product of you.  It is yours.  You own it.  You reap the benifits and you reap the repercussions. 

 

Where Dbob uses, quite correctly, the word "reflection" it is to imply that the things that RJ writes are of him,  not him.  A reflection is, from the dictionary, " 2. an image; representation; counterpat 3. a fixing of the thoughts on something; careful consideration." A reflection can never be you. You are you, you are not the light rays being bounced back from the reflective surface.  Everything you or I or we or they ever say will reflect on us to ourselves and others. Coming back to a valid arguement that states that the only real person you see in the WoT is RJ with [paraphrase] "are you saying RJ is millions of people, some ogier, some horses, wolves, and some boats and stuff," is infantile.

 

If I wrote you folks a story right now about a rock, that would be a reflection of me, even though I am no rock. ( e.g.  I sit.  I do not move. I do not think.  I am a rock.)

 

You could counter Dbob with an arguement that the book is a reflection of all people through the prism of RJ's perspective but when you just choose to misinterpret a statement to that degree it derails everything else you might have presented in your post.

[RAND AL THOR]

 

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.

 

 

I am interested in how you would interpret the above post, Jay Solace.

 

I would interpret it as follows:

RJ's personal character, beliefs and aspects are present in all the characters he has created.

 

THAT is how I see DBob's post.

 

The Wheel of Time involves cycles of rebirth- a commom belief in Asian religions. But does that mean that RJ believed in rebirth himself? Maybe he did, but you can't say that purely from his work. That is the impression I get, and if the OP meant otherwise, then he should have posted more clearly.

 

I can write a short story about a sadist serial killer who murders half the human race. That would be from my imagination. Another person, who was told to write the same story, would definitely portray the main character in a different way. But how does this reflect the opinions of the writer in question?

 

As dbob said:

 

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.

 

So if my serial killer believed he was right in doing all his murders, that is a reflection of my morals? Ridiculous.

 

[Hybrid]

My point, and RAND AL THOR's, unless I'm misinterpreting him, is that the characters are not all reflections of RJ's personality or his belief system.  There are too many characters and too many outlooks on life for such an argument to even be reasonable.

 

Okay.  I'm not here because I agree with Dbob's anything on anyone.  I just want to state, that that is purile.

While we're bringing up dictionary definitions, I'd like to bring up that the word is spelled "puerile."

 

There's a word in that sentence: your.

Where?

 

Where Dbob uses, quite correctly, the word "reflection" it is to imply that the things that RJ writes are of him,  not him.

Strange, because I remember Dbob's argument to be the following:

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.

I guess you agree with this?  See, the inference that I drew is that Dbob considers Rand's morals to be worthless because he is a fictional character.  However, my argument is that Rand's morals do have value because they are driven by the ethical and moral systems in WOT.  That was my point in context.  No one is arguing that RJ's characters don't come from his imagination.

 

A reflection is, from the dictionary, " 2. an image; representation; counterpat 3. a fixing of the thoughts on something; careful consideration."

I fail to see how this defines Rand.  2. Rand is not a representation of RJ.  Unless you believe RJ to be an egotistical maniac with a severe sense of justice and a madman's voice in his head.  He is a creation of RJ.  Some of his beliefs may mirror RJ's own, but that does not mean he is a representation of RJ in WOT.  3. A reflection is someone's thoughts on a subject.  Not a made-up character.  Part three of the definition is useless, so why even mention it?

 

 

Coming back to a valid arguement that states that the only real person you see in the WoT is RJ with [paraphrase] "are you saying RJ is millions of people, some ogier, some horses, wolves, and some boats and stuff," is infantile.

I would act insulted, but I'm too incredulous at your lack of an argument.  If every character in WOT is a reflection of RJ, that implies that every character has some resemblance to RJ and his belief system.  I don't see Padan Fain, or Semirhage, or Moridin being reflections of RJ.  Neither do I see Cadsuane or Elayne or Faile being reflections of RJ.

 

You could counter Dbob with an arguement that the book is a reflection of all people through the prism of RJ's perspective but when you just choose to misinterpret a statement to that degree it derails everything else you might have presented in your post.

But I did not, so why bring this up at all?  A hypothetical situation which I have not come close to following derails your point.

 

Now, I do believe that RJ's writing is shaded by his personal experiences and beliefs.  It had to be, since no human is truly objective.  However, reflection is too extreme a description for this argument.  RJ also had a great imagination and was clearly excellent at portraying the world from diverse viewpoints.  The fact that there are many conflicting belief systems and ethical codes even among the good guys, if you will, pretty much disproves your argument.

[Dbob]

Don’t do it don’t do it, don’t do it. Arhhhgg!!!!!!!!

 

Ahh Vanity, won’t let me walk away.

 

Leaving Rand aside for the moment.

 

OK. Please don’t interpret for other people what my arguments are, then ask someone else to respond to your interpretation. It’s certainly possible that there are misunderstandings, etc. involved and obviously the author of said comments (me) doesn’t agree with your interpretations.

 

There were two different issues that I posted about. Neither one was intended to further a debate about anything, if y’all decided to take exception, well, all of us will have to chalk it up to internet chat room fixation. It gets the best of us.

 

My First Point, these forums are fun when they are lighthearted banter and opinion. They cease to be fun for me at least, when posters insist that only they are interpreting correctly, or with more insight, or want to argue from some doctrinaire, orthodox reading that may not be challenged, and will be rabidly enforced. This will cause me to bail on a discussion every time because I’ve been down that path several times before and nothing is ever resolved, the discourse slides into ad hominem attack (as in attack the posters motives, person, and comprehension, instead of what the poster said, or belittle and condescend on anyone who has a different interpretation.) There are the endless fusillades of quotes – tis a shoe, no, no tis a sandal…, and the insistence on the vast importance of minutiae and the dissection of every little phrase.  People get personally and emotionally invested in being right on a particular issue and lose sight of the fact that all of us in here are dealing in opinion, and no one is right and no one is wrong. That’s not fun for me. I won’t play that game.

 

That was all I was trying to say. If I confused you, I apologize.

 

My Second point – a post by the way, made offhand from comment about another post where I was trying to make an altogether different point, the one about not being interested in dissecting the ethical quandaries of fictional characters; which was immediately taken as a slight against the author. I like the author, I like the books, I wouldn’t be here if I didn’t. I'm glad he could conceive of someone like Lanfear, it makes the books better.

 

I don’t find any reason to argue the morals and ethics of individual characters in the story because they do not have anything resembling individual choice; they can neither act ethically nor unethically because they aren’t people with minds and choices. The author makes all their ethical decisions for them – good and bad, depending on being a villain or hero – according to how he wants the story to unfold. Villains reflect what the author has defined as bad in the structure of the novel, just like heroes reflect what the author considers to be positive (at least generally). Neither was R.J. intending to have a dialogue on morality and ethics. The ethical systems, whatever they may be, came wholly out of only his imagination and only his mind, and certainly do bear his stamp. Which is another place where I have to say that being able to write a believable villain makes the story stronger.

 

I still don’t understand how this is insulting to the author.

 

That was all I was trying to say. If I confused you, I apologize.

 

So there it is.

 

How’s the weather?

 

Tea?

 

(Now I've pushed this too far, and really do have to walk away from it. Personal failing I suppose.)

 

Mortaring reflective wall back into place

 

 

[Kaznen]

I disliked how CoS until CoT always had some kind of cliffhanger.  Then having to wait 3-6 years (Mat not IN PoD) to find out what happens.