Ask A Simple Question, Get a Simple Answer (No AMoL Spoilers)

[Luckers]

Cleary I do.

 

I said not everyone has the ability to overcome their illness mentally, however it can be overcame. Normally I'd tell you to point out one mental illness where no one was able to overcome it, just one, but that would accomplish nothing. However would like you to point out where I was wrong in those statements above.

 

Your attitude. You present that hearing a voice is 'merely' hearing a voice. That because it is not physical it is in some way less. That is not only wrong and ignorent. It's offensive.

 

Is the voice physical?

 

No. The inference of this question, that it not being physical makes it somehow less damaging is offensive.

 

Can it do physical harm?

 

No. The inference of this question, that it not being physical makes it somehow less damaging is offensive.

 

[edit: correction... of course I was wrong in this comment. I let my indignation speak, without considering. Obviously mental illness can and indeed often does cause physical harm, and in an analogy of this Jordan displayed Lews Therin nearly killing Rand in KoD in an attempted suicide. That being said I do maintain that the idea that a mental illness is in some way less damaging because it is not obviously and inherently physical is indeed offensive, including instances where the negative results of the illness are not physical]

 

Am I wrong in my comparrison to a voice outside your head, i.e. the people who commit mass murder because someone else hounded them until they did it.

 

Yes, you are.

 

Are you implying OCD cannot be overcame without the aid of drugs? (This one I know for a lie, because I deal with it myself, same with depression).

 

No.

[thisguy]

As Lucker's said, it's not merely another voice, LTT was able to take possession of Rand's body.

 

And, you're wrong, many mental illnesses cannot be cured, although many can be treated.

[Vardar]

Cleary I do.

 

I said not everyone has the ability to overcome their illness mentally, however it can be overcame. Normally I'd tell you to point out one mental illness where no one was able to overcome it, just one, but that would accomplish nothing. However would like you to point out where I was wrong in those statements above.

 

Your attitude. You present that hearing a voice is 'merely' hearing a voice. That because it is not physical it is in some way less. That is not only wrong and ignorent. It's offensive.

 

Is the voice physical?

 

No. The inference of this question, that it not being physical makes it somehow less damaging is offensive.

 

Can it do physical harm?

 

No. The inference of this question, that it not being physical makes it somehow less damaging is offensive.

 

Am I wrong in my comparrison to a voice outside your head, i.e. the people who commit mass murder because someone else hounded them until they did it.

 

Yes, you are.

 

Are you implying OCD cannot be overcame without the aid of drugs? (This one I know for a lie, because I deal with it myself, same with depression).

 

No.

 

(1-3) Less damaging is an interesting term. I cannot refute that, because the way you state it, I suppose I do believe it is less damaging, like I personally consider physical abuse to be more damaging than mental abuse, since the later cannot affect you if you don't let it, as opposed to the former. Now, they both have the same severity, hell mental abuse might be worse, but in the context used, you would be correct.

 

That doesn't make it offensive.

 

4) How so? Do you have to listen to the voice? (Not sure how intimately familiar you are with this here, but again there are no absolutes). It CAN be ignored. Can everyone do it? That's a subject of debate in itself. Does everyone have the capaticy to do it, but not the ability? That's probably closer to the truth. To use a base comparison, some people are more suspectible to suggestion, what makes them that way? Why do some people join cults and kill themselves or others and some dont?

 

5) So then why quote it if you're not implying it's wrong?

 

Schizophrenia is not curable, you can only treat it. Moreover, we're not talking about mental illness, we're talking about a personality that once lived and shares the mind and body of another person who does live. I think even a very strong minded person would be freaked out, to say the least.

 

Freaked out yes, go insane, I doubt it would occur everytime. It would go along the lines of depression and OCD everyone is different and reacts differently. Bi-polarizsm as well. It's not always about the degree to which a person suffers from it either, it's about the person and their will (for lack of a better word).

 

As Lucker's said, it's not merely another voice, LTT was able to take possession of Rand's body.

 

And, you're wrong, many mental illnesses cannot be cured, although many can be treated.

 

Channeling ability not body. Subtle difference here. (Which makes all the difference)

[thisguy]

Wrong, h

Cleary I do.

 

I said not everyone has the ability to overcome their illness mentally, however it can be overcame. Normally I'd tell you to point out one mental illness where no one was able to overcome it, just one, but that would accomplish nothing. However would like you to point out where I was wrong in those statements above.

 

Your attitude. You present that hearing a voice is 'merely' hearing a voice. That because it is not physical it is in some way less. That is not only wrong and ignorent. It's offensive.

 

Is the voice physical?

 

No. The inference of this question, that it not being physical makes it somehow less damaging is offensive.

 

Can it do physical harm?

 

No. The inference of this question, that it not being physical makes it somehow less damaging is offensive.

 

Am I wrong in my comparrison to a voice outside your head, i.e. the people who commit mass murder because someone else hounded them until they did it.

 

Yes, you are.

 

Are you implying OCD cannot be overcame without the aid of drugs? (This one I know for a lie, because I deal with it myself, same with depression).

 

No.

 

(1-3) Less damaging is an interesting term. I cannot refute that, because the way you state it, I suppose I do believe it is less damaging, like I personally consider physical abuse to be more damaging than mental abuse, since the later cannot affect you if you don't let it, as opposed to the former. Now, they both have the same severity, hell mental abuse might be worse, but in the context used, you would be correct.

 

That doesn't make it offensive.

 

4) How so? Do you have to listen to the voice? (Not sure how intimately familiar you are with this here, but again there are no absolutes). It CAN be ignored. Can everyone do it? That's a subject of debate in itself. Does everyone have the capaticy to do it, but not the ability? That's probably closer to the truth. To use a base comparison, some people are more suspectible to suggestion, what makes them that way? Why do some people join cults and kill themselves or others and some dont?

 

5) So then why quote it if you're not implying it's wrong?

 

Schizophrenia is not curable, you can only treat it. Moreover, we're not talking about mental illness, we're talking about a personality that once lived and shares the mind and body of another person who does live. I think even a very strong minded person would be freaked out, to say the least.

 

Freaked out yes, go insane, I doubt it would occur everytime. It would go along the lines of depression and OCD everyone is different and reacts differently. Bi-polarizsm as well. It's not always about the degree to which a person suffers from it either, it's about the person and their will (for lack of a better word).

 

As Lucker's said, it's not merely another voice, LTT was able to take possession of Rand's body.

 

And, you're wrong, many mental illnesses cannot be cured, although many can be treated.

 

Channeling ability not body. Subtle difference here. (Which makes all the difference)

Wrong, he tried to choke Min, didn't he? That was Rand's hands doing the choking.

[thisguy]

As for ignoring a voice, if I talked to you night and day you wouldn't just ignore me and I'm not in your body. You can't just "ignore" certain things.

 

This is silly.

[Vardar]

Wrong, he tried to choke Min, didn't he? That was Rand's hands doing the choking

 

What? Semi did that, not LTT. She used the Domination bands on him and forced him to do it.

[thisguy]

Ah! You're right about that. I'm just rereading for the first time in a long time. Sorry.

[Vardar]

Ah! You're right about that. I'm just rereading for the first time in a long time. Sorry.

 

It's cool. I really may have missed a moment where LTT took over his body. The only thing I can think of that was close was when Rand made a comment about if he gave in now, he knew that LTT would be in control and he would be a voice in his head.

 

But other than that, all LTT taking over was channeling which technically is a mental thing only.

[Luckers]

(1-3) Less damaging is an interesting term. I cannot refute that, because the way you state it, I suppose I do believe it is less damaging, like I personally consider physical abuse to be more damaging than mental abuse, since the later cannot affect you if you don't let it, as opposed to the former. Now, they both have the same severity, hell mental abuse might be worse, but in the context used, you would be correct.

 

That doesn't make it offensive.

 

Yes, it does. In fact that argument has been used to excuse abuse.

 

4) How so? Do you have to listen to the voice? (Not sure how intimately familiar you are with this here, but again there are no absolutes). It CAN be ignored. Can everyone do it? That's a subject of debate in itself. Does everyone have the capaticy to do it, but not the ability? That's probably closer to the truth. To use a base comparison, some people are more suspectible to suggestion, what makes them that way? Why do some people join cults and kill themselves or others and some dont?

 

Yes, actually, when the voice is inside your head you do in fact have to listen to it. I could be cheap and leave it at that, but no... you display an innate misunderstanding of the way mental illness affects the perception of the individual suffering it. Not only do you suffer the effects, but those effects influence every other aspect of your personality, right down to a neurochemical level.

 

You speak in ignorence. Your very comparisons are deeply offensive. If you wish to speak authoratatively on mental illness, please go and study it.

 

5) So then why quote it if you're not implying it's wrong?

 

You asked me a question, was I supposed to ignore it? More than that, why wouldn't I quote it, given I wasn't implying it was wrong?

[Vardar]

Yes, it does. In fact that argument has been used to excuse abuse.

 

Did you reasd my entire statement or just bold that part? I said mental abuse is more damaging, but I stand by my cannot affect you if you don't let it. Why do you think torture isn't 100%. Some people can resist. I wasn't excusing it at all, I don't exsuse it, as I stated.

 

Yes, actually, when the voice is inside your head you do in fact have to listen to it. I could be cheap and leave it at that, but no... you display an innate misunderstanding of the way mental illness affects the perception of the individual suffering it. Not only do you suffer the effects, but those effects influence every other aspect of your personality, right down to a neurochemical level.

 

You speak in ignorence. Your very comparisons are deeply offensive. If you wish to speak authoratatively on mental illness, please go and study it.

 

 

I have, I'm not, and I have. It can be ignored. There are plently of cases of people successfully self treating themselves without the aid of medication. And I'll state it again, since apparently it's offensive, it doesn't work for everyone, why, that's the unknown part. (Which will most likely never be known).

 

Why are my comparrasions offensive? Are OCD, and Depression not examples of mental illness?

 

You asked me a question, was I supposed to ignore it? More than that, why wouldn't I quote it, given I wasn't implying it was wrong?

 

The first time you quoted it. You didn't say anything, you just quoted 5 of the things I said. I made a statement, and you said I had no understanding of it. You didn't even quote my entire statement, just those 5 things.

 

I said:

 

I understand it's a mental illness, like OCD, but I also understand as a mental illness, it can be overcome (In some cases, not all cases).

 

 

You said I obviously have no understanding of Mental Illnesses. OCD and schizophrenia have been overcome with and without drugs. As well as most other mental illnesses. Apparently, I'm wrong about those facts?

Edited July 30, 2012 by Vardarmus

[Luckers]

Did you reasd my entire statement or just bold that part? I said mental abuse is more damaging, but I stand by my cannot affect you if you don't let it. Why do you think torture isn't 100%. Some people can resist. I wasn't excusing it at all, I don't exsuse it, as I stated.

 

I read your entire statement.

 

I have, I'm not, and I have. It can be ignored. There are plently of cases of people successfully self treating themselves without the aid of medication. And I'll state it again, since apparently it's offensive, it doesn't work for everyone, why, that's the unknown part. (Which will most likely never be known).

 

Actually studies show that ignoring mental illness is the least effective and most destructive response possible, and self treatment most commonly leads to addiction issues--whether narcotics, alcohol or otherwise. That is where your comments are the most offensive. You've clearly reached the conclusion that mental illness can be simply ignored or controlled by someone with a strong enough will... and you are wrong. Studies have shown you are wrong. This is not even under debate by the psychological community. In fact, this attitude--that a person should be able to control their mental problems, and that their failure to do so is indicative of weak will--has been directly connected to incidences of suicide.

 

Or am I the one that is wrong? Sorry, you have stated directly now that you have studied mental illness. What precisely did you study? For myself, I studied abnormal psychology and addiction at Sydney University.

 

Why are my comparrasions offensive?

 

Because they disregard the severe issues that the mentally ill face in their lives.

 

Are OCD, and Depression not examples of mental illness?

 

Yes, they are. And you apparently have them, by your statements. And I presume that you regard that as a reason your statements should be regarded as informed.

 

That being said, whilst I sympathise with your personal situation, you have displayed a deep and clear lack of knowledge about mental illness, and thus, no, I do not hold that your own conditions lend weight to your argument.

 

I'm sorry.

 

The first time you quoted it. You didn't say anything, you just quoted 5 of the things I said. I made a statement, and you said I had no understanding of it.

 

I said:

 

I understand it's a mental illness, like OCD, but I also understand as a mental illness, it can be overcome (In some cases, not all cases).

 

 

You said I obviously have no understanding of Mental Illnesses. OCD and schizophrenia have been overcome with and without drugs. As well as most other mental illnesses. Apparently, I'm wrong about those facts?

 

Specific to your question: "Are you implying OCD cannot be overcame without the aid of drugs? (This one I know for a lie, because I deal with it myself, same with depression)".

 

My answer was, and remains, no.

 

Beyond that, yes, I do thank you for allowing me to clarify. I no longer think you have no understanding of mental illness, I now believe you have a mistaken understanding of mental illness based on your own experiences.

[Vardar]

Actually studies show that ignoring mental illness is the least effective and most destructive response possible, and self treatment most commonly leads to addiction issues--whether narcotics, alcohol or otherwise. That is where your comments are the most offensive. You've clearly reached the conclusion that mental illness can be simply ignored or controlled by someone with a strong enough will... and you are wrong. Studies have shown you are wrong. This is not even under debate by the psychological community. In fact, this attitude--that a person should be able to control their mental problems, and that their failure to do so is indicative of weak will--has been directly connected to incidences of suicide.

 

Or am I the one that is wrong? Sorry, you have stated directly now that you have studied mental illness. What precisely did you study? For myself, I studied abnormal psychology and addiction at Sydney University.

 

Show me where I said, SHOULD. I didn't. I said can, and it has been done, which is not up for debate. Again, stop taking my comments out of context and lumpng me in with people you have an issue with. It has occured, succesfully. Am I suggesting it to people, no. Have I suggested people do it? No I haven't, although you assume I have.

 

And as to the weak will part, that's open to debate, and can never be proven either way. It will always be an idea, that will never be disproven. Saying weak will however makes it offensive, and I do believe I never used that termology, instead I said someone with a strong will, or extremely strong will. If you wish to take it as an offensive statement, that's your choice. But it's not intended in that way. The fact that person 1 can function with a gunshot wound, while person 2 passes out from the pain doesn't mean person 2 is weak, but instead points to the fact that perhaps person 1 is extremely strong-willed.

 

Most of my studies have been on a personal level, i.e. not in school but on my own time. Books, papers, seminars, and discussions, mostly on OCD and depression, although some on alcoholism. Basic pysc classes at University.

 

Because they disregard the severe issues that the mentally ill face in their lives.

 

Comparing mental issues with other mental issues disregards the severe issues mentally ill people face in their lives? Howso? I didn't compare to something that wasn't a mental illness, unless you're speaking of something else.

 

Yes, they are. And you apparently have them, by your statements. And I presume that you regard that as a reason your statements should be regarded as informed.

 

That being said, whilst I sympathise with your personal situation, you have displayed a deep and clear lack of knowledge about mental illness, and thus, no, I do not hold that your own conditions lend weight to your argument.

 

I'm sorry.

 

Never stated that. My arguments stand firm. Unless of course you're debating that no one has ever defeated mental illness without the assistance of medication, which of course you won't. You will however continue to ignore my posts or quote half of my statement in an attempt to make it seem I am saying something I am not. But I'll make it clearer since it's apparently not already clear:

 

I do not speak in definates or abesolutes. The evidence proves, numbers or percentages withstanding since the numbers are at best an estimate, that mental illnesses have been beaten succesfully without aid of medication, and sometimes without outside help. Are you refuting this?

 

Specific to your question: "Are you implying OCD cannot be overcame without the aid of drugs? (This one I know for a lie, because I deal with it myself, same with depression)".

 

My answer was, and remains, no.

 

Beyond that, yes, I do thank you for allowing me to clarify. I no longer think you have no understanding of mental illness, I now believe you have a mistaken understanding of mental illness based on your own experiences.

 

And again I state, I'm not basing everything on my own experiences, although they were what lead me to do a deeper evaluation and study. And it's Dealt not deal.

 

And you still haven't clarified that part about grouping that statement with the others implying it was wrong, but I suppose you won't.

[Thrasymachus]

I don't know that this is worth getting mad about, seeing as how dissociative identity disorders that result from the resurfacing of past life memories aren't real mental illnesses. To compare what Rand's going through to a real mental illness is a bit silly. Rand's mental illness, like Rand himself, is fictional.

 

With that being said, I think the proper answer here is; No, you can't just ignore the past-life memories and past-life personalities that surface, at least in Rand's case. The very fact that those memories surfaced was traumatic for Rand, and the contents of those memories would have been traumatic for anybody. Together with the fact that the voice was insane, which is not simply a matter of being irrational, but of being possessed by overwhelming emotions, and it becomes not simply a matter of willpower to deal with these things.

[Vardar]

I don't know that this is worth getting mad about, seeing as how dissociative identity disorders that result from the resurfacing of past life memories aren't real mental illnesses. To compare what Rand's going through to a real mental illness is a bit silly. Rand's mental illness, like Rand himself, is fictional.

 

With that being said, I think the proper answer here is; No, you can't just ignore the past-life memories and past-life personalities that surface, at least in Rand's case. The very fact that those memories surfaced was traumatic for Rand, and the contents of those memories would have been traumatic for anybody. Together with the fact that the voice was insane, which is not simply a matter of being irrational, but of being possessed by overwhelming emotions, and it becomes not simply a matter of willpower to deal with these things.

 

But Rand has proven he can "Shut LTT off" right? Why wouldn't he just continue to do that, which is what I was getting at. (Besides the fact that it kinda makes the book series pointless).While Semi may believe what she said was true, I highly doubt there would be no one who failed to go insane from it.

 

Anyway, you're right, although I'm not mad, I'm rarely mad. It's a waste of energy.

[thisguy]

It doesn't really matter as we know that all men who use saidar since the breaking go insane. Rand would have gone insane even without LTT's insane personality inhabiting his own mental space.

[Thrasymachus]

The "getting mad" point was mostly directed at Luckers. I understand where he's coming from with that, though, and don't disagree with what he says one bit, but I don't think it's worth bringing those points into the discussion. We only have analogous mental illnesses to Rand's in the real world, and analogies can be broken. But fundamentally he's right, it's naive to think that Rand can "control" either the memories or the voice. Sometimes Lews Therin listens to Rand and does what he says, and sometimes, he hangs around in the back of Rand's mind and weeps or gibbers. Rand's not ignoring or controlling the Lews Therin voice in those instances, he's trying to act in spite of (in other words, in reaction to) the voice.

 

Don't take the separation of mental/physical too far, in fact, it's best to not divide them at all. Lews Therin has taken control of Rand's channeling, there's no reason at all he couldn't take over Rand's limbs or voice and act or speak, he just doesn't, because by the time the disorder has progressed that far, Rand and Lews have reached a working agreement. And it can be argued that Rand's picking up Lews Therin's gestures, like thumbing his ear and humming at pretty girls, simply is the Lews Therin personality taking modest control of Rand's body.

 

Look at it this way, in order to think, you've got to have a thinker. We call our thinkers brains. If your thinker's broken, the things you think are gonna be all messed up. Likewise, if the things you think are all messed up, then either your thinker's incompatible with the inputs it's getting, or it's broken. Mental disorders imply physical disorders and vice versa. If you break your leg, that's gonna affect your thinker through all the pain signals its sending plus all the hormones and other chemicals it releases that change the way your thinker behaves. Imagine how a person acts who's just broken their leg. Now, how would you evaluate their mental health if you witnessed their behavior, but we prevented you from knowing their leg was just broken? You'd think they had some sort of mental disorder, possibly ocd mixed with some paranoia among other things.

[Vardar]

The "getting mad" point was mostly directed at Luckers. I understand where he's coming from with that, though, and don't disagree with what he says one bit, but I don't think it's worth bringing those points into the discussion. We only have analogous mental illnesses to Rand's in the real world, and analogies can be broken. But fundamentally he's right, it's naive to think that Rand can "control" either the memories or the voice. Sometimes Lews Therin listens to Rand and does what he says, and sometimes, he hangs around in the back of Rand's mind and weeps or gibbers. Rand's not ignoring or controlling the Lews Therin voice in those instances, he's trying to act in spite of (in other words, in reaction to) the voice.

 

Don't take the separation of mental/physical too far, in fact, it's best to not divide them at all. Lews Therin has taken control of Rand's channeling, there's no reason at all he couldn't take over Rand's limbs or voice and act or speak, he just doesn't, because by the time the disorder has progressed that far, Rand and Lews have reached a working agreement. And it can be argued that Rand's picking up Lews Therin's gestures, like thumbing his ear and humming at pretty girls, simply is the Lews Therin personality taking modest control of Rand's body.

 

Look at it this way, in order to think, you've got to have a thinker. We call our thinkers brains. If your thinker's broken, the things you think are gonna be all messed up. Likewise, if the things you think are all messed up, then either your thinker's incompatible with the inputs it's getting, or it's broken. Mental disorders imply physical disorders and vice versa. If you break your leg, that's gonna affect your thinker through all the pain signals its sending plus all the hormones and other chemicals it releases that change the way your thinker behaves. Imagine how a person acts who's just broken their leg. Now, how would you evaluate their mental health if you witnessed their behavior, but we prevented you from knowing their leg was just broken? You'd think they had some sort of mental disorder, possibly ocd mixed with some paranoia among other things.

 

My reasoning for discounting channeling was because it's a purely mental thing. I.e. non physical (Although it affects the physical world). I understand about not separating them, however in this world we have nothing similiar to that, hence why I separated them. The thumbing and humming were not really physical, more of a bad habit he picked up.

 

As for your example, the way people react to pain is all a mental thing as well. I've seen some people break their leg go, Son of a b***, I just broke my leg. And calmly ask for my assistance getting to the car. I've also seen the exact opposite. Same with gunshots and other tramautic injuries. We're all different creatures. So in your example, it would depend what his/her reaction was. Although using that same example, I've seen people assume someone was crazy because they injured themselves and didn't react the way they think they should.

[mb]

If LTT is in Rand's head - who is in Taim's and Logain?

The taint on saidin affects different saidin channelers in different ways; not all would have a previous incarnation of their soul in their head.

Depending on Taim's alliance, he might have had the Dark One's protection. Not sure whether "protection" is the right term or not.

Logain I take was severed before insanity could start.

[Terez]

Hard for me to know what "the voice is real" means.

 

The debate has always suffered from semantics issues. The 'realers' are generally people who have a hard time making distinctions, taking the clear reality of Lews Therin's memories too far. It's what RJ intended—readers accepted Rand's interpretation without questioning it really—and the fact that he was able to pull it off was one of his greatest accomplishments, along with hiding Verin's mission in plain sight. You can argue about it all day, but as long as you recognize that 1) Lews Therin's memories were effectively Rand's memories, and 2) the 'voice' and its accompanying delusions were byproducts of taint madness, then you're all good.

 

I don't know about other 'realers' but I questioned Rand's assertions in great detail, and I have little problem with making distinctions. You claim the memories are real. You claim that Rand constructed a personality around those memories, and called it Lews Therin. Thus, you claim that the voice is not real, whilst the memories are.

 

I did say 'generally'. And the personality was nothing like the 'real' Lews Therin—Rand's change in personality was a much more accurate representation of that—so clearly I am correct on that point.

 

Semirhage claimed that you are wrong.

 

This is what I mean about semantics and distinctions. You're reading way too much into Semirhage's usage of the word 'real'.

[Suttree]

Hard for me to know what "the voice is real" means.

 

The debate has always suffered from semantics issues. The 'realers' are generally people who have a hard time making distinctions, taking the clear reality of Lews Therin's memories too far. It's what RJ intended—readers accepted Rand's interpretation without questioning it really—and the fact that he was able to pull it off was one of his greatest accomplishments, along with hiding Verin's mission in plain sight. You can argue about it all day, but as long as you recognize that 1) Lews Therin's memories were effectively Rand's memories, and 2) the 'voice' and its accompanying delusions were byproducts of taint madness, then you're all good.

 

I don't know about other 'realers' but I questioned Rand's assertions in great detail, and I have little problem with making distinctions. You claim the memories are real. You claim that Rand constructed a personality around those memories, and called it Lews Therin. Thus, you claim that the voice is not real, whilst the memories are.

 

I did say 'generally'. And the personality was nothing like the 'real' Lews Therin—Rand's change in personality was a much more accurate representation of that—so clearly I am correct on that point.

 

Semirhage claimed that you are wrong.

 

This is what I mean about semantics and distinctions. You're reading way too much into Semirhage's usage of the word 'real'.

 

I tend to agree with that. To my mind it's not a definitive statement...

[Steven Holland]

I have a simple Question, why does everyone hate Egwene? I understand peoples dislike of Elayne, but not Egwene?

[Oort]

I have a simple Question, why does everyone hate Egwene? I understand peoples dislike of Elayne, but not Egwene?

 

Lol, that's not as easy a question as it seems, countless of topics have started or digressed in Egwene hate/love discussion wich all are shut down by admins for mud slinging.

[Steven Holland]

I have a simple Question, why does everyone hate Egwene? I understand peoples dislike of Elayne, but not Egwene?

 

Lol, that's not as easy a question as it seems, countless of topics have started or digressed in Egwene hate/love discussion wich all are shut down by admins for mud slinging.

 

Haha, Ok then. Can someone explain in brief why she is hated? and maybe a bit about why she is loved?

[Mr Ares]

Ah! You're right about that. I'm just rereading for the first time in a long time. Sorry.

It's cool. I really may have missed a moment where LTT took over his body. The only thing I can think of that was close was when Rand made a comment about if he gave in now, he knew that LTT would be in control and he would be a voice in his head.

 

But other than that, all LTT taking over was channeling which technically is a mental thing only.

How about the time in FoH (chapter 3) where Rand failed to respond o his own name, but did respond to Lews Therin?

 

I have a simple Question, why does everyone hate Egwene? I understand peoples dislike of Elayne, but not Egwene?

Lol, that's not as easy a question as it seems, countless of topics have started or digressed in Egwene hate/love discussion wich all are shut down by admins for mud slinging.

Haha, Ok then. Can someone explain in brief why she is hated? and maybe a bit about why she is loved?

Egwene is hated for a variety of reasons. A common one is that she is often perceived as a Mary Sue. She becomes an expert politician in a very short space of time, when she is in the WT, an AS asks her for advice on dealing with Warders - in other words, she wins because she gets very good in a short space of time, and because everyone around her is dumbed down in order for her to win. Her opposition to Rand during their meeting is often felt to be unwarranted - some people feel that she is stupid in opposing the Dragon with no good reason, and she should listen to his explanation for why he wants to break the seals. She's accused of lacking a distinct personality, because she merely adapts her identity to whatever situation she's in - around the Aiel she's the perfect Aiel, around the AS she's the perfect AS, and so on. I'm sure if you check the many Egwene hate threads, you can find people explaining their own reasons at greater length.

[TristanWebb]

I never liked Egwene because she has no loyalties. Or rather her loyalties are to whatever she is doing at the moment. As soon as she met the wise ones she started looking down on AS, and soon as she was in Salidar the AS were the pinnicle of achievement, except for those who didn't do what she wanted who were idiots.

 

The Mary Sue element never bothered me, in many ways WoT is built on them. Ta'veren is the most egragious attempt of rationalizing Deus Ex Machina I have ever read.