The Luckers Official Review.

[A. Pseudonym]

Standardly? Trained social responses. Utilized largely without concious effort. They are also adaptive responses, used with an intuitive understanding of the social situation. Not so with Olver. For him the application of manners is a deductive response. Note his thoughts in reguards to the opening of a letter.

 

Perhaps the intention is to portray him as autistic? It would be very mild, but he does have the repetitive activity/interest in the form of his boardgame.

 

But I would not dismiss the possibility that the peculiar impression Olver gives off is as a result of who is writing him.... Perhaps that is how Sanderson writes a child; oblivious of the "true nature" of interpersonal relationships, as you put it. Immature. Hmm?

 

All he knows is that Setalle told him that letters should be responded to, in her lessons on etiquette, which he didn't give a damn about. Combine this with curiousity as to what Mat found so important about this letter that he carried it around with him but never opened it and you have motivation.

 

He doesn't understand the consequences that the letter represents to the adults and acts as a curious child. Simple.

 

Aside from that, my point is that the understanding of sociality as an exchange of value for value without romanticizing it is a realistic view - but that characterising this realistic view as constituting mental illness is romantic, in that it implies a code of conduct which must not be transgressed should one want to be considered "normal". Whatever that means; the majority view, I suppose.

 

It suggests a fear that one would be used by another and that this other would not be obligated to you beyond what he invested initially in order to get what he wanted. It is a sort of pre-emptive valuation against this sort of behaviour; self-defense.

 

It is, in essence, a fear of one who is not entrapped within the machine of social obligation, but uses it as a tool to his own benefit. And you, a cog in that machine, are nothing to such an individual.

 

Understandable.

 

Olver frowned, turning the small letter over. He had seen Mat carrying it about. Why had he not opened it? That was downright rude. Setalle had worked hard to explain propriety to Olver, and whilst most of what she said made no sense--he just nodded his head so she let him snuggled up to her--he was sure you were supposed to open letters people sent to you, and respond kindly.

 

He does not understand the purpose or use of manners, but percieves their social function, and applies them with intentional care. This is not the function of a normal person--empathy dictates the application of manners, not cold cunning.

 

Seeing the boardgame makes him hurt every time. He does not practise cold cunning. If anything, it seems to be a matter of priorities.

 

It's not really my intent to defend Olver, but as above there is the possibility that he views this as a child - without full understanding of the situation, the people involved and the obligations that social convention puts upon this situation.

 

Yet nevertheless empathy is a function of that same biological imperative.

Actually, 11 is the age of the development of lateral thinking--which is to say the type of deductive reasoning that Olver utilizes. It fits in a mind incapable of empathy.

 

Empathy is the capacity for one to understand the perspective of another. This does not automically imply sympathy for that other or an urge to be good and help them; it is simply a projection of the self into another's situation.

An act of aid may spring from that but they are not interchangeable.

 

Indeed, you are correct so far as you go. Selfishness is a biological imperative... in fact, you might say that sociopathy is the finest manifestation of the selfish biological imperative. Yet nevertheless empathy is a function of that same biological imperative. Taking the cynical view it is a developed response born of the concept of 'pack'. If members of the pack are willing to take harm for another, it increases the chances for the survival of the greater social group. It also enslaves members to that social group, so that the individual serves the species rather than the species serving the individual.

 

That is the danger of sociopathy. It exploits social connections for the service of self--and it is not a normal or productive mindscape. Lacking the empathy directive to match the selfish directive, people become pawns. So it is with Olver.

 

So you would side with the group in preference to the individual?

 

Again, you use words like "normal" and "productive" (the meaning of which is entirely at your whim) to convey a dismissal of the selfish act. As if the only positive is a communal one. And this is all very socially responsible and upstanding and no doubt you will be well-liked for reciting it - but this avoids the fact that all relationships are entered into for selfish benefit, that any relationship not benefiting the self is avoided.

Which is exampled here: you dislike selfish people as you see yourself as a pawn in their eyes and quite selfishly do not wish this to be so. You want the benefit of an exchange of value for value, quite properly, with yourself protected as a person holding rights which theoretically prevent you from being exploited. A give and take.

 

But you do not see the possible benefit of this selfish view if utilized by yourself; as you do not wish to be seen as such by your community... at which point you will become one of Them.

It's like certain behaviour is a no-go area because of how it will affect your position in the group. Which means you are controlled... and not necessarily benefited. At what point is the line drawn between individual limitation and the well-being of the group as a whole? This is a very important question.

 

I might suggest that you idolize the Group and see individuals as expendable pawns of the whole. Turnabout. Which would you choose?

 

Olver does not seek to ask Mat. That is the issue. Olver's conception of the world is such that he looks at exchanges of service. He follows Mat now means that Mat must follow him later. It is not the companionable sharing of duty, it is... well, cause and effect. This is Olver's problem--to him human interaction is a sequence of cause and effect. I do this, he does that. I say this thing, they say that. It is a clinical, objective conceptualisation of human interaction. And it is deeply flawed.

 

But why is it flawed?

However much he likes Mat, avenging his father is clearly more important to him. To the extent that he will abandon the Band in pursuit of it, if necessary.

 

But again, it could be a childish view of the nature of adventure; this time it was Mat's turn to lead, next time it will be Olver's. He could see it like a game.

 

To me, the section reads like a child sulking over being left out of the adventure. And just like a child, he has his hero, Mat, who he's trying to emulate, without quite understanding what Mat does or why, or the possible dangers.

But this does show that he is attached to Mat and wants him to join the play. But not overly so in that he will pursue his vengeance regardless. He has picked up soldier's views of honour, thinking that "warriors do not cry" and that he would get his vengeance "as was proper".

He picks up the letter and reads it, just like a child would, ignorant of the social conventions that prevented Talmanes from doing so.

Much of your points can be attributed to his environment and peergroup, if you like. And his age.

 

With regard to your point of cause and effect, it would lend support to the posibility that vengeance is more important to him than the Band. Or again a child's view of the behaviour of Adults as a game; Turn 1: Mat smiles. Turn 2: Woman bats her eyelids, etc.

He sees that Mat plays a game with women and wants to emulate him. The women seem to think he's cute. Whether he knows that sex is the objective of the game is up in the air.

 

And, to be clear, what he does is not flawed, its how he does it. Seeking vengence is not flawed. The method with which he seeks to draw Mat's aid is. By a similar note a boy seeking to mimic his elders relationships is not flawed, but a boy with a deductive understanding of sexual interaction including a realistic perception of the advent of puberty is. For Olver, the advent of puberty is not the time he starts looking at girls, thereby understanding the game of husband and wife, it is the proscribed time when the causes are correctly in place for him to start looking at girls, which he already understands as a defined form of social interaction.

 

Yes, well, this is why I suggested autism as a possibility as this is sorta how an autistic person views social interaction; as a predictable process of cause-effect which should follow definite, unsentimental steps. A method that is worked out laboriously and then followed religiously.

 

Maybe....

 

Cause and effect. The conceptualisation of people and interactions as a process of cause and effect. This is sociopathy.

 

It's simpler than that. It's just a person who uses and discards people as it suits him/her. Y'know, the evil liars and deceivers who prey upon the weak-minded and credulous. Very Darwinian.

Like I said above, this behaviour is valuated against by the recipients, but the method is not flawed as you put it.

 

It's a good way of burning ones bridges, though.

 

I see sociality like a business venture. One invests properly and gets rewarded. One invests badly and gets punished. The onus is upon the individual to discriminate between a good investment and a bad one, as the individual is the one who must face the outcome of his own choices.

And like business, in sociality there are Looters (in the Randian sense), government bailouts, hostile takeovers, etc. You need to keep your head in a world which is not necessarily your friend.

Unless you suggest that "true" relationships are based upon an ignorance of the consequences of ones decisions, a lack of forethought?

 

But the view that humans are at base "good" and that any aberration is due to some freak spasm of the universe in the form of mental illness, called sociopathy, is quaint indeed.

[Luckers]

Yeah, bud, your making correlations--your saying things like--he's self interested, but thats realistic. He has a sense of priority, but thats normal. A child whose parents died would seek revenge, so his desire to do so is understandable.

 

The problem is anti-social personality disorder is not clear cut madness. You can't draw a line and say 'see, people do that, so he's not mad'. Sociopaths mirror normal human functions. Their methods of doing so, however, are problematic. I hesitate to say abnormal since you seem to reguard the use of that term as purely subjective--me inserting my perceptions of how i think an individual should act--but it is the psychological nomenclature of this sort of mental issue. It is an abnormal mental state.

 

You've used the implication that I think Olver shouldn't be doing what he's doing, that he should subsume to the group and my perception of 'normal'. This is incorrect. Olver seeking revenge, looking to have Mat's aid, thinking about how one day he would woo girls, opening the letter--these are all perfectly normal things a kid his age would do in his circumstances. It's the method of him thinking about these things which is an issue, not him doing so.

 

I'm guessing based on your comments about the romanticisation of normalcy that you've no psychological training? I say this not as a spur, but to inform you that the terminology is not utilized in the same manner in the psychological paradigm. I understand very well the subjectivity involved in the perception of normal behaviour--ask around, there are those who know my history who can explain this to you. But we are not speaking of behaviour, we are speaking of thought patterns. Nothing Olver did was wrong, the way Olver decided to do it was. And there is a very clinical, very objective line between normal and abnormal mental states. Olver crosses those lines in many ways.

[Valsuvious]

Standardly? Trained social responses. Utilized largely without concious effort. They are also adaptive responses, used with an intuitive understanding of the social situation. Not so with Olver. For him the application of manners is a deductive response. Note his thoughts in reguards to the opening of a letter.

 

Perhaps the intention is to portray him as autistic? It would be very mild, but he does have the repetitive activity/interest in the form of his boardgame.

 

But I would not dismiss the possibility that the peculiar impression Olver gives off is as a result of who is writing him.... Perhaps that is how Sanderson writes a child; oblivious of the "true nature" of interpersonal relationships, as you put it. Immature. Hmm?

 

All he knows is that Setalle told him that letters should be responded to, in her lessons on etiquette, which he didn't give a damn about. Combine this with curiousity as to what Mat found so important about this letter that he carried it around with him but never opened it and you have motivation.

 

He doesn't understand the consequences that the letter represents to the adults and acts as a curious child. Simple.

 

Aside from that, my point is that the understanding of sociality as an exchange of value for value without romanticizing it is a realistic view - but that characterising this realistic view as constituting mental illness is romantic, in that it implies a code of conduct which must not be transgressed should one want to be considered "normal". Whatever that means; the majority view, I suppose.

 

It suggests a fear that one would be used by another and that this other would not be obligated to you beyond what he invested initially in order to get what he wanted. It is a sort of pre-emptive valuation against this sort of behaviour; self-defense.

 

It is, in essence, a fear of one who is not entrapped within the machine of social obligation, but uses it as a tool to his own benefit. And you, a cog in that machine, are nothing to such an individual.

 

Understandable.

 

Olver frowned, turning the small letter over. He had seen Mat carrying it about. Why had he not opened it? That was downright rude. Setalle had worked hard to explain propriety to Olver, and whilst most of what she said made no sense--he just nodded his head so she let him snuggled up to her--he was sure you were supposed to open letters people sent to you, and respond kindly.

 

He does not understand the purpose or use of manners, but percieves their social function, and applies them with intentional care. This is not the function of a normal person--empathy dictates the application of manners, not cold cunning.

 

Seeing the boardgame makes him hurt every time. He does not practise cold cunning. If anything, it seems to be a matter of priorities.

 

It's not really my intent to defend Olver, but as above there is the possibility that he views this as a child - without full understanding of the situation, the people involved and the obligations that social convention puts upon this situation.

 

Yet nevertheless empathy is a function of that same biological imperative.

Actually, 11 is the age of the development of lateral thinking--which is to say the type of deductive reasoning that Olver utilizes. It fits in a mind incapable of empathy.

 

Empathy is the capacity for one to understand the perspective of another. This does not automically imply sympathy for that other or an urge to be good and help them; it is simply a projection of the self into another's situation.

An act of aid may spring from that but they are not interchangeable.

 

Indeed, you are correct so far as you go. Selfishness is a biological imperative... in fact, you might say that sociopathy is the finest manifestation of the selfish biological imperative. Yet nevertheless empathy is a function of that same biological imperative. Taking the cynical view it is a developed response born of the concept of 'pack'. If members of the pack are willing to take harm for another, it increases the chances for the survival of the greater social group. It also enslaves members to that social group, so that the individual serves the species rather than the species serving the individual.

 

That is the danger of sociopathy. It exploits social connections for the service of self--and it is not a normal or productive mindscape. Lacking the empathy directive to match the selfish directive, people become pawns. So it is with Olver.

 

So you would side with the group in preference to the individual?

 

Again, you use words like "normal" and "productive" (the meaning of which is entirely at your whim) to convey a dismissal of the selfish act. As if the only positive is a communal one. And this is all very socially responsible and upstanding and no doubt you will be well-liked for reciting it - but this avoids the fact that all relationships are entered into for selfish benefit, that any relationship not benefiting the self is avoided.

Which is exampled here: you dislike selfish people as you see yourself as a pawn in their eyes and quite selfishly do not wish this to be so. You want the benefit of an exchange of value for value, quite properly, with yourself protected as a person holding rights which theoretically prevent you from being exploited. A give and take.

 

But you do not see the possible benefit of this selfish view if utilized by yourself; as you do not wish to be seen as such by your community... at which point you will become one of Them.

It's like certain behaviour is a no-go area because of how it will affect your position in the group. Which means you are controlled... and not necessarily benefited. At what point is the line drawn between individual limitation and the well-being of the group as a whole? This is a very important question.

 

I might suggest that you idolize the Group and see individuals as expendable pawns of the whole. Turnabout. Which would you choose?

 

Olver does not seek to ask Mat. That is the issue. Olver's conception of the world is such that he looks at exchanges of service. He follows Mat now means that Mat must follow him later. It is not the companionable sharing of duty, it is... well, cause and effect. This is Olver's problem--to him human interaction is a sequence of cause and effect. I do this, he does that. I say this thing, they say that. It is a clinical, objective conceptualisation of human interaction. And it is deeply flawed.

 

But why is it flawed?

However much he likes Mat, avenging his father is clearly more important to him. To the extent that he will abandon the Band in pursuit of it, if necessary.

 

But again, it could be a childish view of the nature of adventure; this time it was Mat's turn to lead, next time it will be Olver's. He could see it like a game.

 

To me, the section reads like a child sulking over being left out of the adventure. And just like a child, he has his hero, Mat, who he's trying to emulate, without quite understanding what Mat does or why, or the possible dangers.

But this does show that he is attached to Mat and wants him to join the play. But not overly so in that he will pursue his vengeance regardless. He has picked up soldier's views of honour, thinking that "warriors do not cry" and that he would get his vengeance "as was proper".

He picks up the letter and reads it, just like a child would, ignorant of the social conventions that prevented Talmanes from doing so.

Much of your points can be attributed to his environment and peergroup, if you like. And his age.

 

With regard to your point of cause and effect, it would lend support to the posibility that vengeance is more important to him than the Band. Or again a child's view of the behaviour of Adults as a game; Turn 1: Mat smiles. Turn 2: Woman bats her eyelids, etc.

He sees that Mat plays a game with women and wants to emulate him. The women seem to think he's cute. Whether he knows that sex is the objective of the game is up in the air.

 

And, to be clear, what he does is not flawed, its how he does it. Seeking vengence is not flawed. The method with which he seeks to draw Mat's aid is. By a similar note a boy seeking to mimic his elders relationships is not flawed, but a boy with a deductive understanding of sexual interaction including a realistic perception of the advent of puberty is. For Olver, the advent of puberty is not the time he starts looking at girls, thereby understanding the game of husband and wife, it is the proscribed time when the causes are correctly in place for him to start looking at girls, which he already understands as a defined form of social interaction.

 

Yes, well, this is why I suggested autism as a possibility as this is sorta how an autistic person views social interaction; as a predictable process of cause-effect which should follow definite, unsentimental steps. A method that is worked out laboriously and then followed religiously.

 

Maybe....

 

Cause and effect. The conceptualisation of people and interactions as a process of cause and effect. This is sociopathy.

 

It's simpler than that. It's just a person who uses and discards people as it suits him/her. Y'know, the evil liars and deceivers who prey upon the weak-minded and credulous. Very Darwinian.

Like I said above, this behaviour is valuated against by the recipients, but the method is not flawed as you put it.

 

It's a good way of burning ones bridges, though.

 

I see sociality like a business venture. One invests properly and gets rewarded. One invests badly and gets punished. The onus is upon the individual to discriminate between a good investment and a bad one, as the individual is the one who must face the outcome of his own choices.

And like business, in sociality there are Looters (in the Randian sense), government bailouts, hostile takeovers, etc. You need to keep your head in a world which is not necessarily your friend.

Unless you suggest that "true" relationships are based upon an ignorance of the consequences of ones decisions, a lack of forethought?

 

But the view that humans are at base "good" and that any aberration is due to some freak spasm of the universe in the form of mental illness, called sociopathy, is quaint indeed.

 

oops. Sorry about that. Ok I just wish to point out that I agree partially about the autism statement. I have a child who has a high functioning form of autism so I agree with what you are saying to a degree. Personally I do not see Olver as autistic because too many of the tendencies for autism are not there. I feel he is misguided because he has had how many different men raising him since his parents were killed. Look at it this way; the entire band could be considered a faster parent to this boy. Sociopath is too strong a word for Oliver right now. He has some of those tendencies but she shows flashes of morality in trying to do the right thing. He doesn't partially understand what he does though and I think that plays into what the author wants us to think. Oliver, as stated by RJ, has a part to play and he is in this story for a reason. Just my 2 cents. Great review luckers. I thank you for it.

[Zefram]

Yeah, bud, your making correlations--your saying things like--he's self interested, but thats realistic. He has a sense of priority, but thats normal. A child whose parents died would seek revenge, so his desire to do so is understandable.

 

The problem is anti-social personality disorder is not clear cut madness. You can't draw a line and say 'see, people do that, so he's not mad'. Sociopaths mirror normal human functions. Their methods of doing so, however, are problematic. I hesitate to say abnormal since you seem to reguard the use of that term as purely subjective--me inserting my perceptions of how i think an individual should act--but it is the psychological nomenclature of this sort of mental issue. It is an abnormal mental state.

 

You've used the implication that I think Olver shouldn't be doing what he's doing, that he should subsume to the group and my perception of 'normal'. This is incorrect. Olver seeking revenge, looking to have Mat's aid, thinking about how one day he would woo girls, opening the letter--these are all perfectly normal things a kid his age would do in his circumstances. It's the method of him thinking about these things which is an issue, not him doing so.

 

I'm guessing based on your comments about the romanticisation of normalcy that you've no psychological training? I say this not as a spur, but to inform you that the terminology is not utilized in the same manner in the psychological paradigm. I understand very well the subjectivity involved in the perception of normal behaviour--ask around, there are those who know my history who can explain this to you. But we are not speaking of behaviour, we are speaking of thought patterns. Nothing Olver did was wrong, the way Olver decided to do it was. And there is a very clinical, very objective line between normal and abnormal mental states. Olver crosses those lines in many ways.

 

It might be the way Brandon wrote him, he was probably trying to portray a simplistic view of a child. But I did find his thoughts a bit disturbing considering that he interacted with Aviendha, and she came to care for him greatly, although I don't remember his behaviour toward her at the end. First he hated her because she was Aiel and Aiel killed his father, but then he became completely indifferent.

[Limedust]

I am sorry to say that I think this is the worst of the WOT novels. I awaited it eagerly, finding from The Gathering Storm that I could reconcile differences in style (including diction) and characterization between Jordan and Sanderson. Unfortunately, those differences here were too much and too frequent; this book, from the pacing, the verbal anachronisms, the shameless Matrix-esque elevation of Rand's personality (and the frequent mentions of the brown cloak) overcame my desire to see the narrative finished.

 

No such lengthy contribution to a series can rightly be called fan-fiction . . . but Towers of Midnight is as close as one can get, I do believe. In the hurried passages, the ostensibly earth shattering reveals, and the frantic POV switches, I found not an exciting prelude to a quickly approaching last battle, but rather a hastily assembled, poorly edited piece of WOT celebration. It reminded me of a last minute,interestingly conceived, but poorly executed college paper. All hail to Sanderson for undertaking such a task; but intentions aren't worth as much as good work.

[Jackattack]

Since I've now opened thread requests, I decided it would be alright to exploit my mighty admin powers and create a thread for myself. In any case I did this last time, and people seemed to enjoy it, so hopefully I might provide some fun again. It will contain full spoilers.

 

General Thoughts

 

I loved this book. It was epic and exciting and sad and brilliant and complex and subtle and potent and cohesive and smooth and rough and just plain chock full of awesome. People have been varied about which they like better--the Gathering Storm or Towers of Midnight. I like Towers better--in fact I'd probably say that Towers of Midnight is now my second favourite book in the series, narrowly ahead of 4,5 and 6, and just behind 11. Resolutions and developments I have been waiting for for years now followed one another like blow after blow of pure awesome. From small stuff, like Egwene's plans for the unification of channeling forces--to big stuff like the return of Moiraine--Towers of Midnight is a veritable gold mine of both information and events.

 

 

Content

 

Brandon said several times that this book had a much wider scope than tGS, and boy was he telling the truth. So much happens in this book, not just in terms of plot, but in terms of world-building as well. I said above that I think TofM was a better book than tGS, and this is probably the reason... Whilst tGS had a focus and a drive that led to a massive pay off at the end, TofM has a complexity of woven story that is my personal favourite style of storytelling--Indeed keep in mind that I enjoyed CoT for precisely this reason, and that therefore you may wish to take my position on this with a grain of salt. But yes, I love minutia--small pieces woven into a greater tapestry. And, with one exception which I'll speak of later, Brandon did this with great elegance in Towers of Midnight.

 

Writing Style

 

People have raised the number of typo's in this book, but frankly Typos do not bother me all that much--I'm dyslexic, and thus maybe more sympathetic to the issues inherent in cleansing a book of that size of typos in the time they had. Either way, to each their own, and for me much more important is the flow of the writing, the elegance of the description, and the organic nature of the dialogue. And as far as that goes I think Brandon did an excellent job. This book flowed, and that was something I was concerned about given the greater complexity of the narrative in TofM compared to tGS. But I needn't have worried, the point of views were woven together with a cohesion that matched any of the earlier books, pulling you into the story and preparing you to be awed.

 

I also made the point in my review of The Gathering Storm that characters far too often thought about events earlier in the series, especially when making decisions. I made the point then that this was something a good thing--it showed that Brandon had studied the characters, and knew what informed their actions or decisions, thus resulting in the character being true to themselves--but that we (the reader) did not need to see it as it broke the fourth wall, and took us out of the narative. In Towers of Midnight, however, Brandon seemed to sit more comfortably in the Wheel of Time, and as a result the story benefited. Rather than explain why a character acted a certain way, they simply act, and we are trusted to intuit why--which, so long as Brandon's knowledge of the character was on line, it wasn't a problem... and Brandon was on line. Indeed the only character I feel he truly missed was Cadsuane, and the vast majority of you think I'm delusional in my beliefs about her :-).

 

In any case I saw somewhere that someone thought this was more of a Brandon-book than a Wheel-book, and I couldn't disagree more. This was a Wheel of Time book--and a damn good one at that.

 

The Characters

 

Perrin and Galad

 

This book was very much Perrin's book. And it was incredible--I loved the evolution in his and Faile's relationship, I loved the dream training, the fight with Slayer, the destruction of the dreamspike. The Hammer was awesome, the balefire block--and his response to Egwene's shock--was beyond words in being cool. I loved the development and resolution with Galad--in fact I loved that more than I expected too. Pre-ToM I simply did not care at all about Perrin's angst about the Whitecloaks, and hoped only that it was swiftly resolved, but by the end I was there going 'Yeah! Perrin and Galad are gonna become friends! Awesome!'

 

I did have a problem with Perrin though, and that was with the early parts of his PoV. If you combine the tGS PoV's with his early ones in this book you get the blunt reiteration of his concerns and worries over leadership and the wolf within--which meant that by the time you get to chapters like Shanna'har, the emotional intensity of the scene is undercut by the feeling of 'Meh. I've read this already'. It also made the early scene's feel like filler--like there was a need to see Perrin before he began resolving his issues, but that there was nothing for him to do--which I don't think was an accurate perception--there are things there that needed to be covered, like his new army and the snake Bubble of Evil for instance. But the heavy focus on his concerns as the subject matter of those scenes made them feel a bit... empty. Superflous.

 

I should perhaps say, though, that I read those early scenes one at a time out of a friends book before the release, and that my desperation to read further may have added to the sense of repitition--and to my resulting frustration--but I did find Perrin's early scenes irritating, for all that the laid the foundation of a brilliant pay off.

 

Egwene

 

Egwene was amazing. Her arc in this was so much larger than I expected, and also streamlined, with so many developments and tiny pieces of awesome woven in that the storyline feels like its twice the size it actually was--and when I spoke above of the elegance of the weaving of the story in this book, Egwene's pops first to mind. Some dislike her presumption with Rand's intentions towards the seals, but I didn't--largely because of the way she handles the Wise Ones and the Windfinders... or perhaps more importantly her comments to Yukiri directly afterwards. The Aes Sedai will never stop trying to influence events--and maybe they shouldn't. The concept of a group looking to guide the world to a better place is not necessarily a bad one, it just depends on who does the influencing. My problem with the Aes Sedai doing so is they presume they should, and that their way is always best simply because it is their way.

 

In that meeting however Egwene opens the Aes Sedai to falling under the Wise Ones or Windfinders--she wants the Tower to end up on top, but not because the Aes Sedai should automatically be on top, but because she intends to make the Aes Sedai earn that by actually showing themselves as the best. I think this is the healthiest attitude to find heading a group that is trying to lead the world. The acknowledgement that that role must be earned.

 

Does that make her immediate assumption that Rand is wrong alright? No. It was still an assumption, made without any true understanding of his specific reasons, and with no consideration that he might HAVE specific reasons. But then on the reverse is that Rand made no attempt to convey his reasons to her to begin with. And she does have the wisdom to change her mind, we've seen this. Ultimately, I'd even go so far as to say that based on what she knows that she is right to prepare to stop it, but wrong in not considering the possibility of not stopping it. I think she can get past that.

 

Either way, I'm looking forward to the fight between her and Rand in aMoL. Also, Gawyn--I understand her reasons, but she made mistakes there. A fact I suspect she has realized.

 

Rand

 

I'm not sure what I think of Rand. He was kind of like what I think would happen if Buddha and Jesus had a philosophical love baby that was then raised by King Arthur. At first I thought he was getting too cool for school, especially with his new super-weaving abilities (though those were foreshadowed in Aviendha's children and Min's viewing about their 'oddness'), but the more I think about it the more I wonder if this is not an incredibly subtle trap--Cyndane being the bait. After all now he's a nice guy it's not inconcievable that he will be manipulated on an emotional level.

 

I suppose what I'm worried about is something of a Richard Rahl syndrome--with never a wrong answer, and all the other characters sitting around him gazing at him with the appropriate degree of awe after having opposed him with flimsy arguments that he's easily torn apart. I dunno... maybe it's just me but I don't want a perfect hero, nor to read about Jesus's victory over the Dark One--though I'm certainly not saying he is that in Towers of Midnight--we frankly don't get to see enough of inside his head to know--I'm just concerned that we might. I'll say this also--having characters analyse Rand and decide he is still Rand didn't settle things for me. If anything it made me more inclined to notice discrepencies in his character.

 

So yeah, I'm reserving judgement--but if in aMoL Rand lays Shayol Ghoul to waste with a single sweep of his lazer beam eyes whilst writing poetry and discussing philosophy, I'm gonna be pretty unhappy.

 

Nynaeve

 

I don't have much to say about Nynaeve, except that she was also awesome. She made so many points that the Aes Sedai needed to hear, and the few she missed Rand made about her in turn. I think in many ways Nynaeve's simple existence with bring about many much needed changes within the Tower.

 

Lan

 

I thought his arc was handled a bit too bluntly. In KoD he speaks of marshalling forces for the Blight--yes, he refuses to lead men, but he is not completely ignorent of what would need to be done to actually hold Tarwin's Gap. In ToM, however, he only wishes to ride to the Blight himself--which would achieve nothing.

 

Don't get me wrong, Lan's theme in this book was always going to be learning to accept his role as King of Malkier and I got goosebumps at his challenge at the end, but where I was expecting him to be resisting taking a leadership position of the forces gathering to hold the Gap, it was instead him resisting having anyone else with him at all. That heavy focus came across a bit... well... tactically stupid.

 

Moiraine

 

Love. Love. Love. I was wrong about many things. LOVE! That is all.

 

Mat

 

I really liked Mat--much less witty word play, and much more awesome badassery. Loved the scene with Birgitte, and the taking out of the gholam was equally awesome, as was everything in ToG (poor eye!). About the only part I didn't like was his letter to Elayne. That was over-the-top gimmicky. A cheap laugh--and I did laugh--but one good for one read only. To be clear the idea is not a problem, it was the execution. Something like 'To Your Royal Majesty, stop being a royal pain in the backside and agree to a meeting, Mat.' would have been fine, very Mat... it was the crossing out, the witty wordplay--it was just too over-wrought.

 

Aviendha

 

Wow. Heavy. Gave me chills. Awesomely written. THIS MUST NOT HAPPEN!!!

 

Graendal

 

Didn't achieve much, did she? Aside from dodging epic balefire, I mean. I wonder how much of that Moridin intended--'he will escape you' and all. Still, she's my favourite Forsaken, so I'm hoping the hanky-panky with Shaidar Haren will bring her back to some degree of capability.

 

Olver

 

Creepy little bastard, isn't he. Budding sociopath in my opinion. Well played Brandon, well played.

 

Secondary Characters

 

In tGS a lot of secondary characters seemed to be set up to make the mains look better. Joline for Mat, Adelorna for Egwene, Merise for Rand. Not so in this book. Oh, Joline was still an ass, but that was because Joline is an ass as opposed to being so that Mat could slap her around. Yup, I loved the secondaries this time round. Awesome.

 

Conclusions

 

Loved this book. Not only is it a great addition to the series, it's an excellent lead up to the last book--perhaps especially because it messes up so many of my expectation on what's going to happen. It's going to be agony to wait to see what comes next. So i'll leave you all with some final thoughts of awesome...

 

• 13x13 Tarna – My heart broke and my skin crawled.

• Thor’s Cameo – Seriously. Badass with a hammers in town.

• Creepy Red Aiel Dudes – Like, this stuff ain’t meant for kids.

• Hopper – Awww... :-(

• Slayer – Die now. Die please. Just die. Thank you.

• TAR – Finally control of the dream IS shown to be better than channeling. I was really beginning to think that was a lie.

• Caemlyn – Lions and Trollocs and Bands of Red Hands! Holy FRACK!

• Elaynendred – Laughed out loud at the pink slippers.

• Galad and Berelain – sitting in a tree, K – I – S – S – I – N – G! Their babies will be beautiful.

• Gawyn – Anyone note were he picked up some awesome new bling?

• Elaida – JUST FRACKING DIE ALREADY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

• Nakomi – Hi. I’m Ver-Nakomi. Let me fix the whole world for you.

• Borderlanders – He shall stand before you. The Dragon. You shall spank him.

• Ok I’m done.

 

Excellent review. Only things I would add:

 

Rand: totally earned transformation. He should be almost superhuman in virtue. If there is ANY series where this makes sense, its this one due to the reincarnation and eternal fight against the shadow. Well earned and well written.

 

Moiraine: hated her arc. Hated the depowering and hated the love story. This part was almost anticlimatic after the amazing rescue scene. This seemed like painting by the numbers for me.

 

Overall great review!

 

The only other thing i can add is this: the last two books have made me excited about WOT again. No small feat since I felt the last 3 to 5 five books could have used an aggresive editor.

[Bob T Dwarf]

 

Goodkind is a joke, but the philosophy he pirated is not.

 

While I agree with most of what you said, I have to disagree with ^^ that ^^ statement.

 

As Jordan proved with this series, most people ( nearly everyone, in fact ) are neither smart enough nor self-aware enough to begin to understand what their own enlightened self-interest is. They just want someone else to tell them how to think and what to believe. To feel warm and secure by hiding as a member of a pack.

[TonyMacaroniGlenholmes]

As a budding Lemming of Discord (and trainee life-hater), I don't think Randdatha is capable of turning into Dick Rahl-Palin.

 

My reason being that the last dragon ballsed up the sealing of the bore. Rick Cypher-Miller is incapable of making mistakes as reality is real (or something).

 

Al-Thor apologised for his behaviour when he was ga-ga. Rahl would not apologise, as he is never wrong and would kick a child in the jaw to prove this self-evident fact ( A=A after all )

[Charlz Guybon]

I'm curious as to what your thoughts on Elayne are. Personally I found her POV to be the hardest to read (again).

Elayne never really bothers me. She is overly mercantile, and I suspect Egwene will have something to say about the Kin--but thats it.

You see, I LOVE Elayne. She's my gal. Well, when Rand isn't around. And she wasn't quite herself - in my book.

 

So, is it okay to complain that not enough has happened in ToM? I was waiting for SO much more stuff. Where are the Seanchan? Trollocs only made a few cameos outside the Borderlands (I don't count Caemlyn.

Given the ease with which it seemed one channeler with the proper training was able to transport 50,000 Trollocs to ambush Perrin/Galad, I would have to think that the south is already or soon will be swarming with Trollocs.

[Shard]

I'm curious as to what your thoughts on Elayne are. Personally I found her POV to be the hardest to read (again).

Elayne never really bothers me. She is overly mercantile, and I suspect Egwene will have something to say about the Kin--but thats it.

You see, I LOVE Elayne. She's my gal. Well, when Rand isn't around. And she wasn't quite herself - in my book.

 

So, is it okay to complain that not enough has happened in ToM? I was waiting for SO much more stuff. Where are the Seanchan? Trollocs only made a few cameos outside the Borderlands (I don't count Caemlyn.

Given the ease with which it seemed one channeler with the proper training was able to transport 50,000 Trollocs to ambush Perrin/Galad, I would have to think that the south is already or soon will be swarming with Trollocs.

 

Where did you get that number?

[Charlz Guybon]

I'm curious as to what your thoughts on Elayne are. Personally I found her POV to be the hardest to read (again).

Elayne never really bothers me. She is overly mercantile, and I suspect Egwene will have something to say about the Kin--but thats it.

You see, I LOVE Elayne. She's my gal. Well, when Rand isn't around. And she wasn't quite herself - in my book.

 

So, is it okay to complain that not enough has happened in ToM? I was waiting for SO much more stuff. Where are the Seanchan? Trollocs only made a few cameos outside the Borderlands (I don't count Caemlyn.

Given the ease with which it seemed one channeler with the proper training was able to transport 50,000 Trollocs to ambush Perrin/Galad, I would have to think that the south is already or soon will be swarming with Trollocs.

 

Where did you get that number?

Page 632

Gallene: "The Trollocs are still appearing. I'd guess fifty thousand of the beasts so far."

[A. Pseudonym]

 

Goodkind is a joke, but the philosophy he pirated is not.

 

While I agree with most of what you said, I have to disagree with ^^ that ^^ statement.

 

What exactly are you disagreeing with?

That Goodkind is a joke, or that Ayn Rand is not a joke?

 

I was responding to some other guy who was making a connection between these 2 and the Glenn Beck/Tea Party/Palin stuff.

 

As Jordan proved with this series, most people ( nearly everyone, in fact ) are neither smart enough nor self-aware enough to begin to understand what their own enlightened self-interest is. They just want someone else to tell them how to think and what to believe. To feel warm and secure by hiding as a member of a pack.

 

I know.

 

But I have never been concerned with populism, other than as a learning experience.

 

Goodkind found a flattering perspective of himself in Objectivism and thus enjoyed promoting it because it was a way of promoting himself by extension. He sees himself as a producer like Galt or Dagny, exposing the hypocrisy of the non-productive.

 

He's an ideologue.

[TonyMacaroniGlenholmes]

Less the ideologue, more the demagogue.

[lex]

Mat

 

About the only part I didn't like was his letter to Elayne. That was over-the-top gimmicky. A cheap laugh--and I did laugh--but one good for one read only. To be clear the idea is not a problem, it was the execution. Something like 'To Your Royal Majesty, stop being a royal pain in the backside and agree to a meeting, Mat.' would have been fine, very Mat... it was the crossing out, the witty wordplay--it was just too over-wrought.

 

 

I felt the same way. BS is again trying way too hard to make Mat 'funny'.

 

So, you're telling me that Mat has the knowledge and memories of thousands of other men but he can't spell? Lame.

[FarShainMael]

Why not? He might be dyslexic. (And no, that isn't in the least sarky.)

[capuga]

Mat

 

About the only part I didn't like was his letter to Elayne. That was over-the-top gimmicky. A cheap laugh--and I did laugh--but one good for one read only. To be clear the idea is not a problem, it was the execution. Something like 'To Your Royal Majesty, stop being a royal pain in the backside and agree to a meeting, Mat.' would have been fine, very Mat... it was the crossing out, the witty wordplay--it was just too over-wrought.

 

 

I felt the same way. BS is again trying way too hard to make Mat 'funny'.

 

So, you're telling me that Mat has the knowledge and memories of thousands of other men but he can't spell? Lame.

 

My wife is a very intelligent woman with a doctorate in Pharmacy and good communication skills. She also spells terribly. Without a word processing spell check, her notes wouldn't look any better than Mat's. Good spelling is not necessarily a function of knowledge and intelligence.

[Cyf]

See, I'm not sure but I recall Mat specifically saying he was going out of his way to be sure she knew it was him.

 

Or rather, Mat was /ICly/ being over the top. It seems the sort of thing he'd do, similar to the badger joke. :)

[Bob T Dwarf]

There's a set of folks for whom Mat is the epitome of cool.

 

Anytime they see Mat being anything other than their concept of cool, they're gonna have a hissy fit.

 

That's just how it is, so I'm gonna ignore the venting and just enjoy Mat being funny.

[lex]

There's a set of folks for whom Mat is the epitome of cool.

 

Anytime they see Mat being anything other than their concept of cool, they're gonna have a hissy fit.

 

That's just how it is, so I'm gonna ignore the venting and just enjoy Mat being funny.

 

 

There's a set of fanboys for whom WOT is the epitome of perfection.

 

Anytime they see the slightest criticism, they're gonna have a hissy fit.

 

That's just how it is, so I'm gonna try and ignore the blind adulation and try and get past BS bungling the Mat character again.

[David Selig]

LOL, you should read BoB T Dward's other posts, he's really far from being a WoT fanboy.

 

See, I'm not sure but I recall Mat specifically saying he was going out of his way to be sure she knew it was him.

Yes, he did.

 

And since Elayne doesn't know about his memories and has heard from Nynaeve and Egwene that while in Two Rivers he didn't care much about books, it's not much of a stretch to assume he made those spelling mistakes intentionally.

[MrMatrim]

Now, just for fun, I'm going to play Dark One's Advocate here. Not that I believe this to be true, but just throwing it out there:

 

Other than the last line of Mat's letter in aCoS, the only time we see it is through Mat's own eyes. All the words may have looked just peachy to him, as he might not be aware of his poor spelling, etc.

[Byzantine279]

It is quite possible that Mat did not do all of that intentionally, he Rand and Perrin did not receive any sort of formal education after all. (Perrin is getting something of one from Faile, and Rand remember being LTT, but Mat has no such boon, none of the generals he has in his head gave him childhood memories).

[waffle]

Oh no, Mat can´t spell. Big deal. He can beat you at dice, fighting, philosophy and then he´ll steal your woman too if he so wishes.

[Arani Lepenque Aes Sedai]

Oh no, Mat can´t spell. Big deal. He can beat you at dice, fighting, philosophy and then he´ll steal your woman too if he so wishes.

 

You made my day by saying that. I found Mat a lot more bearable in this book than in the others.

[BlueSun]

Oh and pardon my ignorance, but who is Richard Rahl?

Trust me, you don't want to know. 

 

 

I wish I didn't, that's for sure.

 

Agreed. 2-dimension writing at its best. Had to force-finish a read of the third volume, then promptly dismissed them as viable reads....