Jump to content

DRAGONMOUNT

A WHEEL OF TIME COMMUNITY
Luckers

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

Recommended Posts

I thought BS said there is a section in Hinderstrap that was written by Rj and he found it amusing that anyone points to it and says it is him just adding filler?
Nope, no quote like that. Hinderstrap and all of its zombie b-movie kitsch was 100% BS.
I take Sanderson would add only add things that the notes would allow. So, some portion of the scene/scenes would be from Robert Jordan.

 

can A bond B if B has bonded A?
There were past threads that speculated about this. As far as I am aware, neither author told one way or the other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I thought BS said there is a section in Hinderstrap that was written by Rj and he found it amusing that anyone points to it and says it is him just adding filler?
Nope, no quote like that. Hinderstrap and all of its zombie b-movie kitsch was 100% BS.
I take Sanderson would add only add things that the notes would allow. So, some portion of the scene/scenes would be from Robert Jordan.

 

That isn't how it works mb. The outline is not nearly as extensive as most people seem to believe(this was highlighted even more so by BS's recent comments). For instance in certain places he knew character A started in one place and ended up in another. He had to totally write from scratch how they got there. BS was left to create fairly significant portions of the books.

Edited by Suttree

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I thought BS said there is a section in Hinderstrap that was written by Rj and he found it amusing that anyone points to it and says it is him just adding filler?
Nope, no quote like that. Hinderstrap and all of its zombie b-movie kitsch was 100% BS.
I take Sanderson would add only add things that the notes would allow. So, some portion of the scene/scenes would be from Robert Jordan.

 

can A bond B if B has bonded A?
There were past threads that speculated about this. As far as I am aware, neither author told one way or the other.

 

It would be interesting. And, if it is a possibility, I think the benefits far outweigh the detriments for both parties. Thanks for the answer, man.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mat, good catch. You should post it in the errata thread.

 

Vardarmus, I'm not sure what you're referring to, but this seems to suggest a sister could still sometimes coerce her channeling warder:

A very strong male channeler bonded to a very weak Aes Sedai could not use the bond to control her. Whoever holds the bond is in charge, though she might have a hard time controlling him.

 

EDIT:

Ninja'ed by Suttree. But it seems we're reading this quote in completely different ways. Me, I think the problem would be his ability to protect himself by embracing saidin. After all, 'a hard time' isn't the same as 'can't'.

 

Lol.

 

The real question is was he using the phrase "A Hard Time" literally.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He could've said it meaning "it's never going to happen". Only that interpretation doesn't sit well with "whoever holds the bond is in charge".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He could've said it meaning "it's never going to happen". Only that interpretation doesn't sit well with "whoever holds the bond is in charge".

 

Pretty much this.

 

Some people use "Ar hard time" to describe something that's impossible, and others use it to mean it's possible just hard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a question about something that took place in LoC. Alannna bonds Rand against his will and then later makes the comment to Verin that she wasn't able to compel him using the bond. Has the reason as to why she couldn't compel him been revealed yet? Did I just miss it?

 

AS can not use the "spirit" weave to compel a strong male channeler like she could a normal warder she is bonded to. The Ashaman bond however allows for compulsion with a thought to those they have bonded. No channeling required. That is the "extra bit" in the weave that Logain could do without.

 

She can, actually, so long as he is not holding saidin. It is only whilst 'wrapped in saidin'--as Rand was in that instant--that a man is immune to compulsion [as per Sammael's comment in LoC 6; Threads of Woven Shadow].

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi there! I have a simple question to ask!!!

 

 

I'm re-reading the novels right now in anticipation of the 14th book and I'm on the 3rd book The Dragon Reborn circa chapter 24 I think it was. It's amazing how much I've forgotten and just how far reaching things are from the first couple of novels.

 

Anyhow I'm at the part where Egwene first uses the ring and enters the dream world and wanted to know who Sylvie is - the old ugly woman who appears that tells her a few things and boots her out. At first I thought it may have been Verin helping out a little and then I seemed to remember that either Lanfear or Moghedien have appeared as an ugly old woman. As I said I've forgotten a lot. A little help please!!!!

 

Thanx!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a question about something that took place in LoC. Alannna bonds Rand against his will and then later makes the comment to Verin that she wasn't able to compel him using the bond. Has the reason as to why she couldn't compel him been revealed yet? Did I just miss it?

 

AS can not use the "spirit" weave to compel a strong male channeler like she could a normal warder she is bonded to. The Ashaman bond however allows for compulsion with a thought to those they have bonded. No channeling required. That is the "extra bit" in the weave that Logain could do without.

 

She can, actually, so long as he is not holding saidin. It is only whilst 'wrapped in saidin'--as Rand was in that instant--that a man is immune to compulsion [as per Sammael's comment in LoC 6; Threads of Woven Shadow].

 

What about the RJ "she may have a hard time controlling him" quote? Has that been specified to mean while holding saidin somewhere I haven't seen? It seems to indicate strength is a factor. I thought the spirit weave in the bond and compulsion where separate things, much like the Ashaman "extra bit".

Edited by Suttree

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a question about something that took place in LoC. Alannna bonds Rand against his will and then later makes the comment to Verin that she wasn't able to compel him using the bond. Has the reason as to why she couldn't compel him been revealed yet? Did I just miss it?

 

AS can not use the "spirit" weave to compel a strong male channeler like she could a normal warder she is bonded to. The Ashaman bond however allows for compulsion with a thought to those they have bonded. No channeling required. That is the "extra bit" in the weave that Logain could do without.

 

She can, actually, so long as he is not holding saidin. It is only whilst 'wrapped in saidin'--as Rand was in that instant--that a man is immune to compulsion [as per Sammael's comment in LoC 6; Threads of Woven Shadow].

 

What about the RJ "she may have a hard time controlling him" quote? Has that been specified to mean while holding saidin somewhere I haven't seen? It seems to indicate strength is a factor. I thought the spirit weave in the bond and compulsion where separate things, much like the Ashaman "extra bit".

 

As I recall, the RJ quote says a weak Aes Sedai will have a hard time controlling a strong Male Channeling warder. And, as Luckers said, holding saidin prevent Alanna from using the spirit weave.

 

Perhaps, success with the spirit weave is a function of both strength in the OP and holding saidin, much like attempting to shield. As most of you should recall, shielding someone gets much more difficult if the person is already holding saidin/saidar. Maybe the spirit weave operates the same way. Maybe, an Aes Sedai of strength could use the weave if her male channeling warder is weak with saidin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi there! I have a simple question to ask!!!

 

 

I'm re-reading the novels right now in anticipation of the 14th book and I'm on the 3rd book The Dragon Reborn circa chapter 24 I think it was. It's amazing how much I've forgotten and just how far reaching things are from the first couple of novels.

 

Anyhow I'm at the part where Egwene first uses the ring and enters the dream world and wanted to know who Sylvie is - the old ugly woman who appears that tells her a few things and boots her out. At first I thought it may have been Verin helping out a little and then I seemed to remember that either Lanfear or Moghedien have appeared as an ugly old woman. As I said I've forgotten a lot. A little help please!!!!

 

Thanx!!!

 

Pretty sure it's assumed She is Lanfear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had a response to Sephie's question typed up before, but I'm trying to curttail my rants about negative feelings toward the last two books lately and just let it go. Barid Bel Medar said it in a kinder, more consise way. The first read it was somewhat tolerable, but when it became apparent later that the whole ordeal was pretty much pointless, I began loathing it.

 

Also, did the dice game Mat won in Hinderstap make any sense whatsoever to anybody?

 

The dice game was the only way to get supplies. They didn't want to take gold for the supplies, but they'd make a bet of it. (Seems silly until you consider human nature, they thought they would get to keep their cake and eat it too, an analogy which makes 0 sense to me, who the hell keeps cake and doesn't eat it)

That analogy has been misquoted for years. It should be eat your cake and have it too (or as well). Once eaten you may not still have or keep it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had a response to Sephie's question typed up before, but I'm trying to curttail my rants about negative feelings toward the last two books lately and just let it go. Barid Bel Medar said it in a kinder, more consise way. The first read it was somewhat tolerable, but when it became apparent later that the whole ordeal was pretty much pointless, I began loathing it.

 

Also, did the dice game Mat won in Hinderstap make any sense whatsoever to anybody?

 

The dice game was the only way to get supplies. They didn't want to take gold for the supplies, but they'd make a bet of it. (Seems silly until you consider human nature, they thought they would get to keep their cake and eat it too, an analogy which makes 0 sense to me, who the hell keeps cake and doesn't eat it)

That analogy has been misquoted for years. It should be eat your cake and have it too (or as well). Once eaten you may not still have or keep it.

 

From brutal zombie stories in Hinderstap to cake... i like where this is going

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hinderstap = a bad imitation of So Harbor, in itself a very grinding reading that almost serves no purpose to the story other than showing Perrin's indifference to human suffering.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a question about something that took place in LoC. Alannna bonds Rand against his will and then later makes the comment to Verin that she wasn't able to compel him using the bond. Has the reason as to why she couldn't compel him been revealed yet? Did I just miss it?

 

AS can not use the "spirit" weave to compel a strong male channeler like she could a normal warder she is bonded to. The Ashaman bond however allows for compulsion with a thought to those they have bonded. No channeling required. That is the "extra bit" in the weave that Logain could do without.

 

She can, actually, so long as he is not holding saidin. It is only whilst 'wrapped in saidin'--as Rand was in that instant--that a man is immune to compulsion [as per Sammael's comment in LoC 6; Threads of Woven Shadow].

 

What about the RJ "she may have a hard time controlling him" quote? Has that been specified to mean while holding saidin somewhere I haven't seen? It seems to indicate strength is a factor. I thought the spirit weave in the bond and compulsion where separate things, much like the Ashaman "extra bit".

 

He meant just that. The balance of authority would be skewed--which we've seen already referenced in Merise's conversation with Cadsuane, which, in its particulars, had nothing to do with use the bond to compel.

 

From there, if he was even speaking of the compulsive element--and I'm not sure he was, he spoke only of the control of the Bond--but if he was, then the compulsion of the bond is not hugely strong--as Myrelle makes clear, even just strong emotion can be disruptive... "Delicately she wove Spirit and touched the part of him that contained her bond; it had to be delicate, or he would be aware of it, and only the Creator knew what sort of explosion might result."

 

It effectively relies on the fact that the warder not know, and if they do then the warder CAN cause problems. Oh, I've no doubt in the end the Aes Sedai would get her way, but again--it causes problems, which is precisely what RJ referenced in saying that she 'might have a hard time controlling him'. Because, if the balance of authority shifts between the two and the man starts not being willing to follow orders to unquestioningly then he will begin to start noticing when she uses compulsion, resulting in... well, explosions of an indeterminate nature.

 

So, when you combine these two points here--Merise's concerns about the shifting balance of authority between them due to Narishma's growth in strength, and the realities of the compulsive element of the bond, and you throw in the fact that whenever the man siezes saidin he becomes immune to those elements--yes, a relatively weak Aes Sedai would be in a position where she might have a hard time controlling a relatively strong male channeler warder.

 

But innate strength does not guard against compulsion. Sammael is very clear--only holding saidin does that, and then, just holding it suffices.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi there! I have a simple question to ask!!!

 

 

I'm re-reading the novels right now in anticipation of the 14th book and I'm on the 3rd book The Dragon Reborn circa chapter 24 I think it was. It's amazing how much I've forgotten and just how far reaching things are from the first couple of novels.

 

Anyhow I'm at the part where Egwene first uses the ring and enters the dream world and wanted to know who Sylvie is - the old ugly woman who appears that tells her a few things and boots her out. At first I thought it may have been Verin helping out a little and then I seemed to remember that either Lanfear or Moghedien have appeared as an ugly old woman. As I said I've forgotten a lot. A little help please!!!!

 

Thanx!!!

 

Pretty sure it's assumed She is Lanfear.

 

 

 

awesome, thanks Bub.

 

After reading more and as a result remembering more I was leaning towards her as well. I can't remember exactly where but the waste rings a bell when she assumes a certain form with that trader. Can't remember the name but thanks (starts with a K???, y'all know the one) it sparked a lot of stuff. Can't wait to finish the series again. My memory is horrible.

 

Almost finished TDR, I'm on vacation (at home for a week) and have almost finished it already just on my 4th day, been doing little else. Think I'm addicted or something :P

 

Thanks again!!!!

Edited by Zaladane

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had a response to Sephie's question typed up before, but I'm trying to curttail my rants about negative feelings toward the last two books lately and just let it go. Barid Bel Medar said it in a kinder, more consise way. The first read it was somewhat tolerable, but when it became apparent later that the whole ordeal was pretty much pointless, I began loathing it.

 

Also, did the dice game Mat won in Hinderstap make any sense whatsoever to anybody?

 

The dice game was the only way to get supplies. They didn't want to take gold for the supplies, but they'd make a bet of it. (Seems silly until you consider human nature, they thought they would get to keep their cake and eat it too, an analogy which makes 0 sense to me, who the hell keeps cake and doesn't eat it)

That analogy has been misquoted for years. It should be eat your cake and have it too (or as well). Once eaten you may not still have or keep it.

 

But even so, who wants to have cake and not eat it? What's the point of having cake if you're not going to eat or share it? It's pointless, and thus isn't something a normal person would desire.

 

Now if they said Play with your action figures and keep them perfectly pristine in the box as well, it would make sense. But cake is only for eating.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Specially made cakes can be beautifully or elaborately decorated, like at weddings or extravagant birthday parties. There, the cake can be almost like a work of art to enjoy visually and/or have sentimental value as a reminder of a happy event. Thus, the cake cannot serve both the purposes of a lovely work of art and a tasty desert to enjoy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Specially made cakes can be beautifully or elaborately decorated, like at weddings or extravagant birthday parties. There, the cake can be almost like a work of art to enjoy visually and/or have sentimental value as a reminder of a happy event. Thus, the cake cannot serve both the purposes of a lovely work of art and a tasty desert to enjoy.

 

It's still made to be eaten. It's food and thus pershible. If it wasn't made to be eaten, they'd make one of those fake carboard cakes. Those you can look at. Regardless, even if you just want to look at it (Which no one does) you wouldn't make an edible cake, because it will go bad real quick and thus ruin the point of making a cake simply to look at.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But even so, who wants to have cake

Well, it seems obvious to me that the point is you still get to eat it later on. Therefore, to eat a cake, but still get to have it (so it can be enjoyed all over again) is highly desirable (at least it is to me; I know not everyone makes a big to-do over food). Of course, the phrase was probably minted at a time when obesity and cholesterol weren't as big a concern as it is in modern times (i.e., eating cakes wasn't such an everyday occurrence).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's still made to be eaten. It's food and thus pershible. If it wasn't made to be eaten, they'd make one of those fake carboard cakes. Those you can look at. Regardless, even if you just want to look at it (Which no one does) you wouldn't make an edible cake, because it will go bad real quick and thus ruin the point of making a cake simply to look at.

Here is my answer to that:

fry.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With the admition of guilt from a certain brown, and her ability to freely use compulsion, is not everyone's actions (that she has been in contact with) speculate, from the beginning?

Share this post


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...