Jump to content

DRAGONMOUNT

A WHEEL OF TIME COMMUNITY

Can Min's viewings fail?


Recommended Posts

Min's viewing about Berelain was: "Just a man in white who will make her fall head over heels."

 

Thanks for the correction, Elgee. Though, it still doesn't change my point. *laughs* It's still the same type of viewing as Min's viewing that three women would fall in love with Rand.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 56
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Interestingly the viewings, like the three rings terangreal which Moiraine uses in Rhuidean, create a paradox whereby, as you have said, some characters seem to have no freedom of will, or if they do use freedom of will they suffer or create disastrous consequences for themselves or others. The Prophecies of the Dragon being another example.

  Have any of you come across any of the Prophesies of the Shadow, though? There was a small section in the Great Hunt. These would seem to indicate that the Dragon has freedom of will enough to lose Tarmon Gaidon, but havent remembered seeing any more of them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Min's viewing about Berelain was: "Just a man in white who will make her fall head over heels."

 

Thanks for the correction, Elgee. Though, it still doesn't change my point. *laughs* It's still the same type of viewing as Min's viewing that three women would fall in love with Rand.

 

I completely agree with you  :D

 

I do hope the 2 get married - that would make for one rather stormy relationship  ;D

Link to post
Share on other sites
I dont beleive the pattern is a living thing.

Though it seems that the Pattern is at least sentient since it decides a number of things.

We know it decides who becomes taveren.  It also decides the degree of taverenness.

It seems to also decide who becomes a Hero of the Horn.

It also to some degree governs the lives of people & creatures.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Pattern does not decide anything. The Pattern is merely the semi-metaphorical representation of the woven lives and decisions of people, animals, and everything else which has a thread in the Pattern.

 

The Wheel decides things.

 

And it is not sentient. I'm bad at finding RJ quotes, so I'll leave that to someone else.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Neither the Wheel nor the Pattern "decides" things in the sense of a sentient person.

 

RJ said:

 

Like the Heroes linked to the Wheel, who are spun out as needed to try to keep the weaving of the Pattern straight, a man or woman becomes ta’veren because the Wheel has “decided” to use them as an influence on the Pattern. And, no, the Wheel isn’t sentient. Think more of a fuzzy logic device that uses feedback to correct what it is doing in order to do it in the most efficient way.

 

http://wot.wikia.com/wiki/Q&A_From_Glimmers_Prologue

 

He put the word "decided" in quotation marks for a reason; it is not the same kind of "deciding" that a sentient being does.  The result appears to be a "decision", but in fact is the result of "feedback".  The Wheel is a non-sentient, highly complex machine.  When pressures in the Pattern are drifting outside of the design parameters, its reaction is to make someone or someones into ta'veren, or to spin a Hero into the mix, or both.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've always imagined the WoT universe as deistic. With the Creator as the prime mover, the pattern/wheel just follows the set course/loop.

 

Maybe free will (if that even exists in randland) is a result of the DO influence. Funny thought.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would like to put forth that the Wheel is merely a device Jordan included to excuse 'coincidences' and seemingly random side plots joining with the main plot. This brilliant invention is what permits the complexity of the series without making the reader think "Oh, like that's gonna happen."

In a way, the Wheel and the Pattern help Jordan avoid implicating himself in his novels too much while still controlling them to a greater degree than average. The Wheel, then, should not be seen as a character or pseudo-character, but a literary device, and a particularly ingenious one at that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've always thought of the whole vague Creator/DO/Light/Shadow , ta'veren, and "wheel weaves as the wheel wills" as basically Robert Jordan's way of saying "It's a book. Get over yourself." but somehow, managing to never have to say that because well, when the series has several giant vague and incredibly useful plot devices, they have to be very well used to not seem over the top or just stuffed in, and I think that has been achieved. Regular prophecies we know can turn out differently, but if they, BAD STUFF HAPPENS! I mean, (this is twisted, I know) if say Perrin had killed the Tinker, he could have done it in such a way as to make Min's bloody faced death prophecy not come true (I think, I'm not sure on the exact wording). Mat was told by the door ter'angreal that if he didn't go to Rhuidean he would die, but he could NOT have gone to Rhuidean still. The problem with Min's viewings is that we know most people don't have flickerings around them, and it's appeared that, at least one time, they can be conflicting with either one or the other. Plus, in all technicalities, everything that could happen does, but the ones in which Min's viewings don't happen, especially the important ones, are going to spin off from the 'REAL' world and who knows, all we know is that they become faint and connected, but not mirrors....The point is that the books take place in the 'Real' universe and so in the universes which differ, prophecies unfulfilled for example, things will continue, but who cares?

Link to post
Share on other sites

i think Min is never wrong. But there still is some sort of free will in Randland. Rand was talking to someone about the pattern and how much it allowed for free will or decisions, and he said something like "i can choose to live on a farm or in Emond's Field, but i can't choose to become a king"

which incidentally is ironic, since he does just that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

i think Min is never wrong. But there still is some sort of free will in Randland. Rand was talking to someone about the pattern and how much it allowed for free will or decisions, and he said something like "i can choose to live on a farm or in Emond's Field, but i can't choose to become a king"

which incidentally is ironic, since he does just that.

I agree that Min is never wrong.  I think that it is a matter of knowing what choices a person will make or the results of their choices, rather than not having choices at all.  (the same for fortelling and dreaming and possibly the Finns)  I do think that the Wheel has the ability to limit choices or free will, like the conversation that Rand had, with Loial.

 

Side note, I love it when Rand and the others say something like that, irony is awesome.. ;D

Link to post
Share on other sites

even Min says that she can't force her viewings to be what she wants them to be.  Obviously she doesn't want Rand to die, but she's interpreted Alivia's viewing as Rand dying and Alivia helping him. 

 

She told Egwene or Elayne that her viewing ONLY said that three women would fall in love with Rand, and she was one of them...specifically she was worried because the viewing did NOT say that he would love them back, only that they would fall in love with him.

 

So the viewing seems to be something outside of Min's human nature to make mistakes, and it shows her character that she chooses to relay the viewings as they come to her instead of embellishing them or trying to interpret them in a way that she wants.  They are what they are, and she accepts that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Min's viewing about Berelain was: "Just a man in white who will make her fall head over heels."

 

Nothing about him falling in love with her too, or the two of them getting married.

"fall head over heels", that could be interpreted as "becoming in love"; and the literal sense hardly ever happens without being in love with the other.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Min's viewing about Berelain was: "Just a man in white who will make her fall head over heels."

 

Nothing about him falling in love with her too, or the two of them getting married.

"fall head over heels", that could be interpreted as "becoming in love"; and the literal sense hardly ever happens without being in love with the other.

....What? Fall head over heels means fall in love, with you that far. The rest? You've lost me. If you mean one person falling in love hardly ever happens without the object of your affections returning the feeling, you are wrong. The literal sense of head over heels would require falling roughly upright, with ones head over ones heels, as is normal (heels over head would make more sense, but people are idiots and often say stupid things), but I'm not sure what this has to do with falling in love, and that feeling being reciprocated.
Link to post
Share on other sites
The literal sense of head over heels would require falling roughly upright, with ones head over ones heels, as is normal (heels over head would make more sense, but people are idiots and often say stupid things), but I'm not sure what this has to do with falling in love, and that feeling being reciprocated.

 

Actually, here the term 'head over heels' actually describe a tumbling motion. So to fall 'head over heels in love' literally, one would have to first be in love and then performing somersaults. It makes loads of sense.???

 

Anyways, the viewings are actual images, seen only by Min, that need to be interpreted. If Min misinterprets tham, then what she tells people could be wrong. The viewings are never wrong, but Min's interpretation of them can be.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Anyways, the viewings are actual images, seen only by Min, that need to be interpreted. If Min misinterprets tham, then what she tells people could be wrong. The viewings are never wrong, but Min's interpretation of them can be.

 

The viewings can also be auras, and sometimes, she gets the interpretation as part of the viewing.  When she knows what it means, she is always right.  When she doesn't know, she sometimes offers an opinion.  She is usually very careful to be clear about the difference.

 

But when she knows the interpretation, it is as certain as the viewing itself.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The literal sense of head over heels would require falling roughly upright, with ones head over ones heels, as is normal (heels over head would make more sense, but people are idiots and often say stupid things), but I'm not sure what this has to do with falling in love, and that feeling being reciprocated.
Actually, here the term 'head over heels' actually describe a tumbling motion. So to fall 'head over heels in love' literally, one would have to first be in love and then performing somersaults. It makes loads of sense.???
But ones head is over ones heels anyway. By tumbling, one would have ones head above ones heels, which would make sense. Head over heels is actually normal. So to fall head over heels in love, literally, one must be in love, and then fall, maintaing a more or less upright position, with ones head above ones heels.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Bored, Mr Ares?  ;D

 

BTW, I've never had my head over my hel ... some kind of new dance, perhaps? *angel face*

Link to post
Share on other sites
Bored, Mr Ares?  ;D
Not particularly. How about you?

 

BTW, I've never had my head over my hel ... some kind of new dance, perhaps? *angel face*
Old dance. Never had you head over your hel? Then you've not lived.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bored, Mr Ares?  ;D

 

Not particularly. How about you?

 

How could I possibly be bored with all this free entertainment?  ;D

 

BTW, I've never had my head over my hel ... some kind of new dance, perhaps? *angel face*

 

Old dance. Never had you head over your hel? Then you've not lived.

 

 

I have never had me head over my hel, no ... I think it's broke  :'(

Link to post
Share on other sites
"And all the rest, of course. What is always there. Darkness swirling 'round you, and--" is all one thought.

The sentences after are what I thought of when I made the comment:

Yet "all the rest" could be a reference that previous viewings were still there; which might have been what Min meant.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

And you're wrong because you're grasp of the English language is so pour that we have to spoon feed it to you, but you also can't seem to accept that we know better than you about a language that, I'm fairly certain, isn't even your native tongue.

Link to post
Share on other sites
And you're wrong because you're grasp of the English language is so pour that we have to spoon feed it to you, but you also can't seem to accept that we know better than you about a language that, I'm fairly certain, isn't even your native tongue.

You are assuming things.  English is my native tongue.  And I have been taught about the English language throughout school (Elementary, Middle School, High School, college).

Can you point where (or how) I am wrong?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's unfortunate for you. Because you still have a poor grasp of the language.

 

Those three "sentences" (though they're really not) are all one thought. As I said before. They are all linked.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...