Why is everybody hating on Rand?

[okstate91]

thats probably the only super important reason for cadsuanes character, but i dont think she is going to be stupid enuf (or rj, that is) to make him a complete wuss so he wont be able to do wat needs bieng done, i.e. love evryone.

[Nevare]

We don't want a wuss- just someone who cares.

[okstate91]

wat a cliche...

[Nevare]

I like cliches.

[Zardi]

Being someone who cares is a cliche?

[Nevare]

I guess a hero caring is a cliche . . . but don't ask me.

[okstate91]

like i said b4, sappy war heros are worthless. the sappy war hero bit is a cliche. he 'sacrifices himself in the end to save every1 else.huge cliche.

[Zardi]

You aren't much of a hero if you don't have to give anything up. Part of what makes Rand a hero is that, since he found out what he is, he's been willing to do his duty no matter what the cost to himself. That's part of his problem: no one's asking Rand to be sappy, but we want him to feel something again -- sadness for what he's lost and will still lose, fear when his life is in danger, hope for the future, etc. Lately he has worked towards a victory at TG because he has to, not because he wants to. He's far too apathetic about everything, other than the girls, and it's worrying. Suppose he decides he no longer cares about his duty: what motivation does he then have to win TG if he doesn't have a life to look forward to, or at least something he desperately wants to protect? (I am not saying that is going to happen; I'm just trying to illustrate my point.) Having something to care about doesn't make him a wuss or a cliche, it makes him a stronger and more realistic hero.

[RobertAlexWillis]

That's exactly why it's the girls who are going to save him. He will never stop caring about them, and to protect them, he has to protect the world. It all about the veins of gold, baby.

[Nevare]

'Sides something has to be a phrase to be a cliche'. (I know I just got lectured about it for 4 hours).

[Luckers]

Argue back: The inherent adaptability of a living language like this allows for the progressional adaptability of words. In recent times the word cliche has been used increasingly in the pop culture paradigm in reference to behaviour as well as phrases which has influenced popular opinion--something which MUST be acknowledged.

 

Heh. I learnt that in how to be a wanker 101. Robert, please don't hurt me.

[Nevare]

That's hilariuos. Another thing I was getting lectured about was how words mean more than just their definitions. :shock: Go figure.

[Luckers]

Clearly, what you must do, is start bastardizing every word and gramatical construct you can think of when your around those people.

[RobertAlexWillis]

Definitions are, by definition :lol: , constructed over time by usage. Grammarians hate it, but that the way it is.

 

You actually described one of the major problems in linguistics. Who determines when and how a word can change meaning? Who determines when and how a word HAS changed meaning? When people use the same word to mean two different things, even different shades of meaning, who is right? I anyone "right"?

 

Incidentally, probably 40-50 percent of the arguments in these rooms can be boiled down to this: two people understanding the same words differently. A perfect example is the "affect"v. "effect"n. "effect"v. argument about the RJ statement regarding the Eelfinn's lack of ability to "affect" the outside world. I'm pretty sure in this case, Jordan's usage agrees with my interpretation, but there are some ... ah ... persons who vehemently disagree with me.

 

Sitting around and arguing about this stuff is what keeps tenured language professors occupied and paid. If we ever solved these problem, they would all have to get real jobs. Since thats where I'm aiming, career-wise ... lets not solve this just yet, ok?

 

 

:D

[Luckers]

My thought on language is that its a tool like any other. It exists to convey an idea, and if the avalliable language does not match the idea, then play with it. Twist it on its head an back again. The importance is in how successful it is at communicating.

 

That being said i do get the need for the other side to have some conception of what your talking about. My thought is that you first need to learn how to use language according to the 'proper' guidelines, then you can learn when to break it.

[RobertAlexWillis]

Yes, the balance between flexibility (for range) and consensus (for mutual understanding) is the key. If I express an idea perfectly, with words you don't understand, or worse, misunderstand, then communication has not occurred. But if language is so frozen and stylized that it cannot encompass new thoughts or ideas, what is the purpose of communication?

 

Lovely problem.

[Nevare]

So perhaps we should clarify everything we say?

Example:

I (meaning myself, me, the person typing) like (meaning find rather nice, or on occasions merely okay) to (as in the process of doing something) argue (as in to force my ideas- which are always right- down my opponents' throat till he chokes on them). 8)

[RobertAlexWillis]

What a WONDERFUL idea! You should keep doing that. All the time. :lol:

[Nevare]

I (meaning myself, me, the person typing) will (meaning I shall proceed with clarifying everything I say). Man (using this as an expression of exclamation) this (clarifying everything) is (at the present time starting to) getting(meaning to become) exhausting (meaning a lot more typing than usual).

[Luckers]

I saw a commedian do this once for an hour, it was strangely hysterical.

[Nevare]

I think I'm done. (If you didn't understand that request extended version).

[okstate91]

hilarious nevare. but i would be too lazy to type all the defs after the words lol

[okstate91]

i just read the very first post on this thread again, and were off topic lol

[RobertAlexWillis]

No, no, okstate, we're, uh, hating on Rand because he doesn't explain himself clearly, yeah ....

[okstate91]

oh i see :roll: