First Time Reading the First Book

[Threepy]

But we are here. This is the story being told. One gender is in charge and they can't solve the world's problems. They need a man. They literally need a man to bring balance back, to set things right. The first book was about a female wizard trying to find a male wizard to fix the world because women can't do it alone.

 

The world needs the Dragon. This story isn't about an organisation of women who can't remove the lid from a jar of jam. Equally you could say the first book is about a female wizard protecting three male characters.

 

Would the book be less sexist if it was about a male organisation seeking a female to save the world because men can't do it alone? No, because then it could equally be argued that women are needed to get anything done. Except, in reality it wouldn't. The story would still be about the world needing their saviour, regardless of gender. The fact that the Dragon is male in the series is irrelevant. If the roles were reversed, sexism could still be read into the series if people were looking hard enough. But for some reason sexism only seems to exist when it is against women.

[MasterAblar]

I don't think anyone is arguing that what Perrin did was lawful or right in what he did. However, Perrin obviously didn't do it out of desire to kill, and he certainly doesn't like killing, or violence. Fact is that he obviously wasn't in his right mind when he did this. If he had been he certainly would not have reacted in such a manner.

 

Also, it's hardly as if Perrin attacked a couple harmless children who were just playing. It was whitecloaks, who were trying to order him around, which they had no right to be doing. They even threatened him in fact. Perrin attacked first which is why he is condemnable for it. However I don't think it's fair to just stop at "Perrin killed 2 whitecloacks". You have to take in the full circumstances, and while they don't free Perrin of any guilt, I don't believe they paint the picture of a vicious murderer who is out for blood. I think they paint the picture of a very trouble 19 year old boy who was in a bad place at a bad time, and who, for various reasons, not all of which can be rationably explained, reacted in a violent and unfortunate way, and commited an act which he cannot simply be forgiven for. I hardly think that's a reason to hate the guy. Dissapointement? Sure. Dislike what he has done? Of course. Mad at him for not keeping his cool? Fair enough. But hate seems strong.

Lastly, we happen to know, even at this point in the book, that it's out of character for Perrin, who has been described by both Rand and Perrin himself, as gentle and unwilling to use force. That doesn't change what he did, but I do think it should change how you feel about what he did.

[Byzantine279]

Once you get to TOM you will understand why they need Rand. It isn't because he is a man, it is because he is the most important person in the world, his entire job in life is to stop the DO and save the world.

 

See? Even Perrin supporters define him as an animal, terrified and backed into a corner. If squirrels do it then it's okay for people to do it, too. And it's okay to kill Whitecloaks, too. Are they human beings? Yes? But does that matter? They felt wrong. What does that even mean? Are they truly wrong or is this another wolf-sense that is confusing Perrin? Imagine this in the real world. Seriously, even if Hopper was a human being and really close to Perrin, do you think Perrin would be found not guilty of murder if he went to trial? If you heard this story on the evening news (without being in Perrin's head, of course) then would you automatically jump on the Justified Homicide bandwagon?

 

Besides, look at Egwene. She was trapped in a corner like a terrified rat. She didn't fight back. Why not? If one argues that fighting back is natural then Egwene isn't acting naturally. If one argues that we can act naturally in more than one way then we have to ask why Perrin acted the way he did instead of acting the way Egwene did.

 

Really, how can you say I'm too closed minded to consider other opinions when I get this deep into one tiny part of one chapter? I think we are confusing closed-mindedness with coming to the same conclusion as before even after careful consideration of new evidence.

 

No, I wasn't. I was saying what he did is ingrained in people, in his situation there are three actions people can take, they can fight, hide, or run. Running wasn't really an option because they were surrounded. Egwene chose to hide, but she didn't have the same connection to what was going on as Perrin did, she saw a wolf die, to her that meant nothing, in fact is probably simply made her want to hide more. On the other hand Perrin saw a friend die, and he had reason to believe the whitecloaks would do the same to him if they found him. And that isn't an unreasonable assumption, whitecloaks are known to cause trouble and kill people as darkfriends with little evidence, Perrin has yolden eyes, that would have been enough to convict him in most of their minds, he couldn't possibly have known their commander was one of the few whitecloaks who wouldn't instantly jump the conclusion he was a Darkfriend just because of his eyes.

 

And yes, I would. The whitecloaks aren't just any group of people, they are a group of thugs with a reputation for killing people on a minor suspicion. I don't see why after watching a friend get killed Perrin is supposed to assume they wouldn't do the same to Egwene and him when they found them. In most states that fits the definition of self-defense perfectly, a reasonable belief that you or someone else is in immediate danger, in this case of being killed. His response was reasonable after what he has heard and seen the whitecloaks do. Finally, don't forget if they found out Egwene could channel they would have killed her on the spot as a darkfriend.

 

 

 

The Breaking was not caused by the incompetence of women, it was caused by the chaos and power that thousands of men going mad, many with little to no warning, and then turning on the world around them. The fact of the matter is had the female Aes Sedai of the time been less capable the men would have managed to destroy the world completely. You have the understand, it isn't just that men are stronger normally, but that 68? of the most powerful male channelers in the world survived the Strike, and each and ever one appears to have had at least a moderately powerful angreal, and many probably had Sa'angreal.

[Suttree]

So when women were put in charge of magic the world went to hell. In Seth Baker's vision of feminism, the women were given the keys to the world car and proceeded to crash it into today's hellhole.

 

Actually it is the exact opposite. First off without the female Aes Sedai taking a stand and refusing to join the guys in sealing away the DO the world would already be destroyed. Second it was the male aes sedai, insane from the taint that tore the world apart. One of the most heroic things in the history of this world is the female aes sedai pulling the world back from the brink and leading it out of the breaking.

 

But no one has mentioned "balance" in the first book.

 

Actually balance is mentioned, and held up as the only possible way to truly accomplish great things.

 

tEoTW

 

Male Aes Sedai and female together...the greatest wonders of the Age of Legends were done in that way, saidin and saidar together.

[Agitel]

Spoilers ahoy, again.

 

And I can't agree with all the opinions above, either. Again, dominance, dominance, dominance. Sigh...

 

So much I can't talk about yet, either. Keep reading. There are plenty of women in dominant positions, as the dominant ones in relationships (though I do think there's a bit of a misreading still in the role of the Women's Circle and Nynaeve (it was only the village idiots who themselves weren't respected how didn't respect the Wisdom and Women's Circle) and of women in their relationships). Hell, given the way one could read, many would argue that it's the WOMEN who are the dominant one's in Emond's Field in their personal relationships. Many people walk out of Emond's Field seeing women who have no qualms with taking charge or countermanding men, women who believe that they can and will do it better. You don't see much of the Women's Circle in the first go, but it's not to difficult to put the puzzle pieces together.

 

 

lol, another tangent on my part.

 

It will be a lot easier to have full conversations about gender dominance after six or seven books, at the least. There will be many dominant women in the series, even in the way you read it.

[SethBaker]

Spoilers ahoy, again.

 

And I can't agree with all the opinions above, either. Again, dominance, dominance, dominance. Sigh...

 

So much I can't talk about yet, either. Keep reading. There are plenty of women in dominant positions, as the dominant one in relationships (though I do think there's a bit of a misreading still in the role of the Women's Circle and Nynaeve (it was only the village idiots who themselves weren't respected how didn't respect the Wisdom and Women's Circle) and of women in their relationships). Hell, given the way one could read, many would argue that it's the WOMEN who are the dominant one's in Emond's Field in their personal relationships.

 

Bah, bah, aklfkladdkfj

 

It's frustrating not being able to talk about things.

 

Read on.

 

That's how I read Emond's Field. An absolute equality of the sexes, with the added qualifier, that "if mamma ain't happy, ain't nobody happy."

[UGAShadow]

Sorry it took me so long to get back on here, folks. I've had a busy, busy time these last few days. I'll try to keep this post short, too. I suppose I could respond to everybody, you know? But that would mean a lot of reading for you all and writing for me. Instead, I'll try to hit the highlights. Okay? Great!

 

That's not to say Perrin doesn't have an internal conflict in that area, but 'murderous loser'? Going back to that encounter with the Children of Light he was swept up in a tide of foreign emotions from the wolves, he saw Hopper's death through Hopper's eyes, through the eyes of all the wolves around, and their emotional response overwhelmed him. He had never had to deal with an onslaught of foreign emotions pouring directly into his mind before, he was unprepared for it. And if you can't read it from his reactions, his brooding, etc... he's pretty horrified by what happened to him and what he did. He's the guy who's always been aware of his size and strength and aware of the damage he could cause without even trying and so did things slow and methodically so as not to break anything. The whole incident scared him. The same goes for the more aggressive thoughts he's had at other times as well, all of it is strange and foreign to him.

 

You've complained that it doesn't seem as if I'm considering other people's differing opinions. I do consider them. Take what you wrote here. It makes a good case and it has the potential to change my mind. So I read it, think about it, and come to the conclusion that while you're right in what is going on inside Perrin's mind you're way off on how I should judge him because of it. Yes, Perrin has an unnaturally strong attachment to Hopper. Yes, Perrin feels Hopper's death in his very soul. Yes, this stirs up feelings inside of him that he doesn't understand. How does that excuse him from killing the two Children of the Light? Hopper attacked first, remember? Hopper, if he's supposed to be a real person with real feelings (enough that I'm supposed to treat his death as I would a person close to me) then I'll hold Hopper to the same standards as I would a real person. Not a human, but a person. The same I would for Loial or E.T. or a Vulcan or Legolas (all non-human persons). So Hopper attacked a Whitecloak, killed him, and died as a result. Then Perrin, messed up in the head, killed two more. There was no violence when this encounter started. Everyone was standing around and talking. Then Hopper jumped in and then Perrin jumped in. If Perrin isn't arrested for murder then he should be arrested just to keep him from losing control again. Will he go apeshit every time a wolf dies near him? How are the Whitecloaks supposed to know? How is Perrin supposed to know? Is Egwene safe around him? He deserves to be locked up for any number of reasons (I still say for murder, though).

 

See, it isn't that I don't have an open mind. It isn't that I ignore what everyone else is saying. It's that what they say doesn't follow through with what I read. Am I supposed to think that Perrin is a gentle guy who has some sort of brand new mental defect that will cause him to enter a bloody rage whenever he feels threatened? And I'm suppose to cheer on this guy when he kills people 'cause, gosh darn it, he doesn't mean to kill? I mean, look:

 

If you back a terrified animal into a corner it will lash out viciously. A human being will do much the same, so what Perrin did is entirely natural and not murderous at all, he was a kid who was scared for his life against people who just seemed wrong to him,

 

See? Even Perrin supporters define him as an animal, terrified and backed into a corner. If squirrels do it then it's okay for people to do it, too. And it's okay to kill Whitecloaks, too. Are they human beings? Yes? But does that matter? They felt wrong. What does that even mean? Are they truly wrong or is this another wolf-sense that is confusing Perrin? Imagine this in the real world. Seriously, even if Hopper was a human being and really close to Perrin, do you think Perrin would be found not guilty of murder if he went to trial? If you heard this story on the evening news (without being in Perrin's head, of course) then would you automatically jump on the Justified Homicide bandwagon?

 

Besides, look at Egwene. She was trapped in a corner like a terrified rat. She didn't fight back. Why not? If one argues that fighting back is natural then Egwene isn't acting naturally. If one argues that we can act naturally in more than one way then we have to ask why Perrin acted the way he did instead of acting the way Egwene did.

 

Really, how can you say I'm too closed minded to consider other opinions when I get this deep into one tiny part of one chapter? I think we are confusing closed-mindedness with coming to the same conclusion as before even after careful consideration of new evidence.

 

 

I do agree though, I think a great deal of the drama, for lack of a better word, is from some of those misunderstandings, and it certainly makes her appear intractible.

 

I've been trying to keep my opinions based upon where the blog is. For example, in Book 2 we learn that Moiraine is in some sort of conspiracy with the Amyrlin Seat that the rest of the White Tower wouldn't approve of if they knew about it. I ignore all of that in these discussions because it doesn't matter to my opinion of Moiraine here in Book 1. But Perrin doesn't get any better in Book 2 and neither does Mat (in fact, Mat backslides since he got better from his Dagger sickness but still acts like a dick) so it helps that my opinion of him here, in Book 1, is about the same as Book 2.

 

(It's sexist that Perrin's riding Bela off-screen, and Egwene is riding her on-screen?)

 

Yes, it is. We don't know what happens off camera. We have to imagine it for ourselves. And how can we imagine Perrin on the horse if we've never seen him on it. We've never seen the menfolk shave but we assume they do (no mention of Rand's scratchy beard, for example). But I get increasingly bothered when it is never mentioned. The same with clean clothes and free food. I was frustrated that Perrin never got on that horse, that I had to imagine it. Why? Why did I have to imagine that one thing? I came up with the idea that Robert Jordan didn't want to write a scene where Perrin was on the horse, relaxing, while Egwene was struggling along in her skirt next to him. There may be many reasons for it coming out this way, though. Maybe scenes were edited out. But I judge the story by what happens in it, not what was edited out.

 

 

The men of the Wheel of Time can do nothing right, in Sunny's eyes, so long as they have any skill that surpasses women, or ever presume to have any sort of authority, even if that authority is not tied to his chromosomes and plumbing.

 

That is just not true. Lan, for example, is obviously a master swordsman. That doesn't mean I hate him because there are no women just as good or better than him. I don't hate Moiraine because there are no men more powerful than her! And I don't hate it when men have authority. Look at Tam. He's a dad and in the Village Council. He has authority and I like him. I like Bran al'Vere, too, and he's top dog! Other men in authority, like the various innkeepers and Whitecloaks, are not hated by me, either. I don't have a problem with men being in positions of power over women.

 

The problem comes when there are no women in positions of power over men. Moiraine is a big one. She's in charge of Lan and the Two Rivers Boys. But Nynaeve was supposed to be the Wisdom, the Mayor's equal, but no one respected her. Yes, her age. I understand that argument but to me it doesn't matter that they all have good reasons to ignore her. What matters is that Robert Jordan wrote a character that was supposed to be respected, made up reasons for her not to be, made that a character a woman, and then said everything was balanced between genders in Emond's Field.

 

But other than Nynaeve and Moiraine? What other woman has authority over a man? Queen Morgase. Yes, she's in charge of a kingdom. I've got nobody to compare her to in this book (no other monarchs!) so I can't tell if she's got more power than your average ruler, less power, or is about average. I just don't know. I do know that her kingdom is in an uproar over bad winters. There's folks in the mines west of Baerlon abandoning their jobs to the cold and the wolves to come cause a ruckus in town. I know that there is an almost-riot in her capital city. I know that she has a tenuous grasp on the throne and a puppet behind her pulling her strings. So that's three women in this book with real authority over men. One is awesome, one isn't respected, and one is about to be thrown into a civil war. This is balanced?

 

I will say this: if the Wheel of Time were perfected for Sunny, such that women always excel over men and command them, rather than the opposite; if no one ever killed, and the Trollocs were safe from the genocidal wrath of the al'Qaeda Aes Sedai, it would be the shortest, most boring, most unsatisfying read ever. Rand, properly meek when going to Emond's Field, would come back. When the Trollocs busted in, they would attempt to carry on a conversation with them, perhaps ask them why they were trespassing, be kidnapped, and eventually killed.

 

Again, this isn't really true. I don't want women to always excel over men. I want them to be given a chance to excel. I want some to be better and some to be worse. I want some to be at the top of their fields and some to screw up so royally that it'll take years to clean up their mess. I want them to be in charge of men and I want them to take orders from men. I want male generals to send female soldiers on suicide missions and I want female Aes Sedai to order their Warders to stay behind and die to buy time for their escape.

 

What do you want, Seth Baker? Are you saying that unless there is mass killings and men in charge of women that the story will be boring and unsatisfying? How is it a bad thing for me to want things to be more equal but a great thing for things to be out of whack? I like lots of killing in my fiction so we can agree on that, at least!

 

 

It might seem idyllic for there to be a world where women don't rely on men at all, no men have any skills that are superior to women, and men always listen to/obey women, but I wonder how Sunny would react to the opposite. The sheer fact that the opposite would generate an epic rant is proof that it's not an egalitarian philosophy that Sunny's talking about - it's distinctly pro-woman (and anti-man).

 

Oh, you almost got it there. More than "might seem," it would be idyllic for there to be a world where women don't rely on men at all. But the rest? You start to lose it when you say that no men have any skills that are superior to women. That's not right. It's okay for some people to be better than other people in some things. All women don't have to be better than men. Just like all men don't have to be better than women. What matters is that, overall, all genders are represented at the top levels of all skills. There should be male and female chefs, admirals, engineers, janitors, IT techs, and painters. There should not be only male generals and only female knitters (especially if you want to say the world is "balanced").

 

Then you kinda/sorta got back on the right track with that third part of your statement. Yes, an idyllic world would have men always listening to women. And women would always listen to men. There would be lots of communication between everyone, everyone being heard, in this utopia. But obey? Only if the woman was in charge. A mayor wouldn't obey the farmer no matter what the genders are.

 

But after that point you set up a straw man. You assume what I'd say if the roles were reversed and they you attack what you assume I'd say. The best way to argue would be for you to ask me what I'd think if the roles were reversed and then attacked that view. But my idyllic world (which isn't the real world and isn't the Wheel of Time world) would definitely be pro-woman. But anti-man? That's absurd! It'd be pro-man, too!

 

 

Finally, this last bit seems to be in everyone's posts. So instead of quoting everything I'll sum it up: The magic system is based upon equal parts male and female. Individually, the genders can only go so far. But together, they can do truly amazing things. So I am wrong when I say that women need men when it comes to magic.

 

Far enough. But I should explain things a little better. One, this is all fake. None of this is real. So everything in here must be thought up out of thin air by the author. Everything here, then, comes from the same biases and world view. All the magic and characters and conflict and problems in this story come from the same source and were chosen for a reason (whatever that reason may have been). Basic stuff, right? I just wanted to make sure ya'll know that everything is artificial. Nothing about the world can be said to be "natural," especially the magic. Okay.

 

Now, this is a universe that needs balance. Male magic and female magic working together can achieve great things. But three thousand years ago the male half was tainted and the men died off/were killed off. Then in today's world there is only female magic (for the most part). Follow me so far? We are all agreed that the world was better when there was men and women working together, right?

 

So when women were put in charge of magic the world went to hell. In Seth Baker's vision of feminism, the women were given the keys to the world car and proceeded to crash it into today's hellhole. Robert Jordan could have written a story that took place anywhere and in any time in this balanced Wheel of Time universe. But he choose the one moment women were in charge and when the world was screwed up. Why?

 

But we are here. This is the story being told. One gender is in charge and they can't solve the world's problems. They need a man. They literally need a man to bring balance back, to set things right. The first book was about a female wizard trying to find a male wizard to fix the world because women can't do it alone.

Yes, men can't do it alone either. I agree with that. I see that. But this isn't a story about a male wizard organization looking for a woman to save the world. That is not the story being told. The story being told is of women looking for a man. In a deliberate decision Robert Jordan made a world with women in charge of magic and that the only way they can fix the world is to get a man to help them. He made a backstory and magic system (all artificial, nothing natural here) to make that story logical.

 

So you see? Yes, balance between genders is something that would save the world. It is something I want in this story, too! It is something Seth Baker thinks would make this story boring and short. But no one has mentioned "balance" in the first book. I don't think "balance" was mentioned in Book 2, either. It's all been about getting the Dragon so he can fight the Dark One. Nothing about fixing the male half of magic. Nothing about bringing male wizards back to Tar Valon. I gather that this changes later in the series but right here, right now, that is not the story I'm reading.

 

Anyway, there was some other stuff I wanted to say but this has gotten to be pretty long as it is. I've got enough chapters remaining for two more Eye of the World posts. So this book gets wrapped up on Friday. I won't lie, either, I was confused as all get out by the climax. You'll see when you read about it! So until then, readers! Thanks for following this far.

 

 

First Bold:

 

 

Mat did not get well from the Dagger in book 2. He was actually getting worse.

 

Second Bold.

 

First off, the world didn't go to hell because only women could channel. In fact women were the only reason the world isn't destroyed right now. They have been basically driving a car with two flat tires yet they've kept everything going.

 

Second, the Dragon wasn't spun out to fix the world. His only need is to eventually lead the fight against the Dark One. Anything he does to bring balance to the world is a side effect. Fixing the world isn't going to take one person to do.

[RelentlessAttack]

I've never seen anyone interpret the breaking of the world the way you did Sunny, feminist or otherwise. Besides, I thought it abundantly clear that in WoT, Jordan chose to reverse the story of eden. In RJ's story, men sin and their failure results in civilizations the fall from grace (destruction of the age of legends). He didn't depict it this way because he wanted to show that women were incapable of ruling or solving the worlds problems, but rather because he wanted to invert that particularly sexist aspect of the christian creation myth. It's not like he's saying men are needed here because they're so much more awesome than women, its more a story of men needing to be redeemed for their colossal failures while women have been a stabilizing, steady force of preservation, single-handedly keeping humanity strong enough for the last battle. I personally feel that women are depicted in a much better light than men in the story of the breaking, and I guess our differing interpretations are testament to how different the same text can look to two different people.

 

That brings me to another point, which is that your posts often seem to suggest that RJ chose to construct the world and story the way he did because he is inherently sexist. However, while gender cooperation is a theme that is obviously important to RJ, there are many other reasons why he constructed the story the way he did besides gender issues. You seem to spend way too much time looking at gender issues and not enough time looking at some of the other things the story attempts to develop.

 

Jordan's main theme with the WoT seems to be that in a world in which time is circular, events of our time become the myths and legends of other ages, and vice versa. As a result many of the choices he made in choosing character traits, abilities, physical attributes, and actions are guided by the particular mythological figures or events he wanted to draw parallels too. Aside from the obvious parallels to Christianity's messiah story, RJ draws a great deal of influence from Nordic, Indian, Slavic, and Native American mythology and legends. If you miss most of this because you're busy looking for every little thing that could somehow be twisted to seem sexist, you're missing out on the richest part of the series.

[Aquarius]

We will have to consider the fact that Sunny just enjoys trolling as much as he/she can and seeing us all falling for it. Pretty funny actually. The reasonning used is so much **not** in the books, so much from our world, that I can't even imagine the difficulty of actually coming up with such ideas. Well done indeed, so many people take a ridiculous amount of time showing you what's really in the text instead of what you pretend to understand.

[Always Sunny]

Would you REALLY want or encourage someone with only beginner video game experience to go fight in a war when their lack of training could result in their death and fellow solders via friendly fire?

 

No, of course not. I don't want Perrin or Rand or Nynaeve or Mat or Egwene to go rushing into a such one-sided battle. But if they do go rushing into a battle like that, I want them all to go in together, as friends and comrades. That's not what happened. Rand was working against the group. He tackled Egwene thereby knocking out two good guys from the fight. I would love it if they found some other clever way of defeating the Forsaken (I dunno, maybe TNT to blow up the cave and bury them in there). But if they have to fight then I hope they all fight together and die together, if necessary.

 

Nynaeve needed to be a young woman to fulfill her role in the story.

 

Maybe this comes up later in the series. But I don't see why she couldn't be a forty or fifty year-old woman. I mean, she's getting with Lan and he's an old dude. She doesn't need magic training in her youth since she got over that deadly hump on her own. If some wizard woman managed to avoid the Aes Sedai for four decades would the witches just let her go on her way or would they still try to bring her into the Tower? Or is there something I'm missing from the future that simply would not work if Nynaeve were older? Maybe there is and I can accept that. But so far? Not really.

 

You're calling that sexist, but I'm responding by saying that it's plain sense.

 

Ha, I'm sure I could use that quote for a lot of things. It does you no favors, though, I'm afraid.

 

Your reaction to the Breaking and the role of female Aes Sedai is another example of how you take neutral facts and claim they're indicative of sexism.

 

Here you have a point. Several other share it, too. And the fault is mine, of course.

 

I didn't mean to say that women caused the Breaking. No, men did that. The male half of the Aes Sedai went crazy and destroyed the world. Though I'm 100% certain that there is an Eve or Lilith character in there somewhere, tempting a man into doing something that ruins the world. In my gut I just know that women were somehow made responsible for the Breaking, but that's my gut and not in the story so we can all feel free to ignore it.

 

So, yes, the men Broke the world. That wasn't what I was talking about. I was talking about the three thousand years after that Breaking. Those years saw the fall of kingdoms and empires, the loss of groves and ancient things, the expansion of the Blight, all sorts of good stuff like that. Stuff that didn't happen when and women worked together. It was only when women were alone did things fail. However you slice it, without men the Aes Sedai can't maintain the world. And the Aes Sedai aren't helping, either, what with the Reds doing their hunting and killing.

 

And, no, it's NOT sexist to mention Perrin's riding off camera. You do know what happened, because a third person omniscient narrator told you what happened.

 

This never happened. It would have been bad but I would have accepted it. But Perrin never got on that horse off camera. Egwene said they'd share, Perrin agreed, and Egwene kept riding the horse. The narrator, remember, is Perrin. He never said that he rode the horse. He was always walking next to it. One could infer that he rode it during the Nynaeve or Rand POV chapters. I didn't infer. I waited for him to get on that horse. Even if it were a "I've ridden this horse too much already today, Egwene. You take your turn" would have been fine. But nope. Never happened.

 

The world needs the Dragon. This story isn't about an organisation of women who can't remove the lid from a jar of jam. Equally you could say the first book is about a female wizard protecting three male characters.

 

If what the other posters say about the Dragon only being a man then you're basically saying the world needs a man. The story is about an organization of women who can't keep the lid on a jar of Dark One. And I could say that the first book is about a female wizard protecting three male characters. I would agree with that.

 

The fact that the Dragon is male in the series is irrelevant.

 

You can't do that, I'm afraid. Well, you can, but it renders the whole conversation pointless. I'm trying to discuss gender and how the world treats men and women differently. Therefore you can't just say that gender is irrelevant. Otherwise what are we talking about? Besides, how can you strip a character of part of their identity? Take away their gender? Might as well take away the fact that he's a kid, or that he's straight, or that he's half-Aiel, or that he believes in the Light, or that he's from Emond's Field, or that he's a wizard, or any other aspect of who he is.

 

Besides, in a setting where women are in control and hunt down male wizards, how can the gender of the savior be irrelevant?

 

But for some reason sexism only seems to exist when it is against women.

 

Yes. I've tackled this before in this thread. Sexism exists when it is one gender over another gender. Across the entire organization/culture/world. One instance of equality doesn't negate the rest of the world. Here, wait a second. Do-to-do. Okay, I've did a little google search. I'm pretty sure most people here either won't click on it, or if they do read it, or if they do agree with it, or if they do thinks it applies to the Wheel of Time. But I might as well try, no? This is a link to a piece about reverse sexism. Do with it what ya'll will!

 

Once you get to TOM you will understand why they need Rand. It isn't because he is a man, it is because he is the most important person in the world, his entire job in life is to stop the DO and save the world.

 

So the women need someone to fight the Dark One. He just happens to be a man. And he can never be a woman in any other Turning of the Wheel because the Dragon is always a man.

 

The whitecloaks aren't just any group of people, they are a group of thugs with a reputation for killing people on a minor suspicion.

 

This is just plain awful. Whitecloaks aren't "just any group of people?" Their organization's reputation is all that it takes to feel good about killing them? "I killed them, officer, but they were [insert ethnic group here] so it's okay. They probably deserved to die." I remember being this pissed off at the Star Wars movie when Darth Vader killed those sand people when he was a kid. We can't say that because the Whitecloaks have a bad reputation it's more okay to kill them than people with a better rep. There is no justice there.

 

Actually balance is mentioned, and held up as the only possible way to truly accomplish great things.

 

tEoTW

 

Male Aes Sedai and female together...the greatest wonders of the Age of Legends were done in that way, saidin and saidar together.

 

I stand corrected. Though I doubt I can be blamed for thinking this one line has nothing to do with the book's theme. I mean, mention after mention of the Wheel and the Pattern and the Threads and the Weave and the Turning. But the real theme was balance? And we know this because of one line? If I were writing this story I would have made balance show up a little earlier and a little more prominently.

 

I've never seen anyone interpret the breaking of the world the way you did Sunny, feminist or otherwise. Besides, I thought it abundantly clear that in WoT, Jordan chose to reverse the story of eden.

 

I really have no idea about what the Breaking was. All I know is that the Aes Sedai did it. Then later we learn that only the male Aes Sedai did it. What was the Breaking? I have no idea. The Eye of the World prologue makes it look like a war of some sorts. It could be like the story of Eden but I don't know enough about it to know for sure.

 

But I like guessing! So let me guess. Eden. Age of Legends. A time of happiness and peace and plenty. But then Eve wanted to eat from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. That means the men in the Wheel of Time (probably the male Aes Sedai) wanted knowledge. Maybe the men were getting into super-science or super-magic. Maybe they metaphorically dug too deep and the men released the Dark One from his prison (this would be Adam eating the apple, finally knowing evil). Then the men tried to give this knowledge to the female Aes Sedai and they ate/learned/whatevered. Then the world fell apart, the men went crazy, and then we have today's world. That sounds pretty cool.

 

Again, though, nothing like this has been mentioned in the books so far. At least, I don't remember reading it.

 

He didn't depict it this way because he wanted to show that women were incapable of ruling or solving the worlds problems,

 

Well, just because he didn't want to doesn't mean he didn't do it. I didn't mean to cause such a dustup with my blog but here we are.

 

but rather because he wanted to invert that particularly sexist aspect of the christian creation myth.

 

The best invert of that is the Epic of Gilgamesh. In fact, you could say that the Christian creation myth is an inversion of the Epic (seeing as how the Epic was written earlier!)

 

We will have to consider the fact that Sunny just enjoys trolling as much as he/she can and seeing us all falling for it. Pretty funny actually. The reasonning used is so much **not** in the books, so much from our world, that I can't even imagine the difficulty of actually coming up with such ideas. Well done indeed, so many people take a ridiculous amount of time showing you what's really in the text instead of what you pretend to understand.

 

I wouldn't say that I enjoy trolling. I am completely honest in my views here. I won't lie to you all just to get a rise, you know? But I'll admit I'm not above stating my case in colorful language.

 

If it helps, I'm taking this book apart the same I would the other books I read. You've got to see the details, see where the writer is coming from, see how little facts here relate to little facts there. In non-fiction this just leads to questioning the research skills of the writer. Here in the Wheel of Time it just hints at inconstancies in the fictional universe and biases of the author. That's just how I read, I guess.

 

Anyway, it's time to get on with the story! You'll probably be unhappy with today's two posts but I don't know what to tell ya. The story has gotten fuzzy. Lots of weirdness going on. Well, you'll see. Just read on.

 

Against the Shadows and There is Neither Beginning or End

[csarmi]

Maybe this comes up later in the series. But I don't see why she couldn't be a forty or fifty year-old woman. I mean, she's getting with Lan and he's an old dude. She doesn't need magic training in her youth since she got over that deadly hump on her own. If some wizard woman managed to avoid the Aes Sedai for four decades would the witches just let her go on her way or would they still try to bring her into the Tower? Or is there something I'm missing from the future that simply would not work if Nynaeve were older? Maybe there is and I can accept that. But so far? Not really.

 

It has already come up at TGH (or at least it was strongly hinted) so it isn't a spoiler:

 

The tower does not accept over-aged novices.

The fact that they do accept Nynaeve (and at Accepted level for a start) is already something unheard of (because she's already quite overaged).

If she was older? No way? Also, if she was older, she would be even more stubborn and much less open to learn and all that. So yes, being young serves a point.

There is something more that I'd rather not discuss yet, because it's spoilerish. Honestly, it's not that big of a spoiler and only gives some flavour for the story so we can tell you, if you so wish, it's up to you.

 

A good advice: read the glossary at the end of the book. Should be safe enough once you've read it.

As for the end of the first book, honestly, I didn't understand any of that for the first read and still don't understand half of it. I think it isn't written well.

[UGAShadow]

I think most of your confusion could have been avoided by a simple glance at the Glossary. Without it you'd have had exposition every page instead of every other.

 

 

Robert Jordan stated the Dragon has a female counterpart.

 

Now off to the blog.

[Threepy]

That's not what happened. Rand was working against the group. He tackled Egwene thereby knocking out two good guys from the fight.

 

Knocked out 'two good guys' from a slaughter actually. Lan got owned, the best swordsman in the book. Egwene running in was suicide. He knocked her from the fight to save her life.

 

If what the other posters say about the Dragon only being a man then you're basically saying the world needs a man. The story is about an organization of women who can't keep the lid on a jar of Dark One.

 

The Last Battle is prophecy; the series isn't about Aes Sedai failing to keep a lid on the jar of the Dark One. It's about preparations for the Last Battle. Yeah, the world needs the Dragon, a man. But the Dragon also needed Moiraine to save him. Aes Sedai failed at nothing.

 

But I like guessing! So let me guess. Eden. Age of Legends...

 

A man and a woman went searching for a new power that both men and women could channel. They drilled into the Bore, which freed the Dark One.

 

Yes. I've tackled this before in this thread. Sexism exists when it is one gender over another gender. Across the entire organization/culture/world. One instance of equality doesn't negate the rest of the world.

 

So lets reverse the roles in the book. It's a story of a male organisation tracking down a female, the Dragon, who is necessary to save the world? Would that be a sexist story to you? I imagine it would, and I can imagine it now - only male wizards are allowed, all female witches are hunted down and taken care of.

 

 

Sexism can be found in anything if you look hard enough, and you are hunting it down. Diesregard the huge power the female-only organisation of Aes Sedai are, forget about Queen Morgase being in power, forget that the one guiding the Dragon (and saving his life) is female. Because none of those indicate a gender bias (not sexism, just a gender bias) as much as the Dragon being male.

 

Anyway, I'll go read your latest Chapter posts now, I do enjoy them. :)

[Agitel]

So, yes, the men Broke the world. That wasn't what I was talking about. I was talking about the three thousand years after that Breaking. Those years saw the fall of kingdoms and empires, the loss of groves and ancient things, the expansion of the Blight, all sorts of good stuff like that. Stuff that didn't happen when and women worked together. It was only when women were alone did things fail. However you slice it, without men the Aes Sedai can't maintain the world. And the Aes Sedai aren't helping, either, what with the Reds doing their hunting and killing.

 

And you think that somehow this is biased against women? Look to our own real world, how many three thousand year old empires do you see in what's come out of a patriarchal society? You're seeing the world changing from the Age of Legends, not the failure of women, in there. It's very much implied that if saidar had been tainted and the only Aes Sedai left were men you'd have gotten the same result. Not to mention we have a dark god literally touching the world during this time period. You're digging deep with this one, too deep. It's not a matter of women being unable to do what men could do, as it's something men wouldn't be able to do, either.

 

If what the other posters say about the Dragon only being a man then you're basically saying the world needs a man. The story is about an organization of women who can't keep the lid on a jar of Dark One. And I could say that the first book is about a female wizard protecting three male characters. I would agree with that.

 

It's beyond the scope of the series (a turning of the Wheel's way too long for any character to figure this out), but there is a female Champion that would be used if necessary. With saidin tainted, the balance shifted towards women, and so the Wheel weaves out a man. Jordan was inspired to create a world where only women were allowed to do magic after he read a book in which the reverse were true (not the only motivation for the book, but something that was important to him in building it). If saidar had been tainted and the One Power institution was completely male-centric, it would have likely woven out a woman instead. Rand's soul is always the male soul used for this situation.

 

Yes. I've tackled this before in this thread. Sexism exists when it is one gender over another gender. Across the entire organization/culture/world. One instance of equality doesn't negate the rest of the world. Here, wait a second. Do-to-do. Okay, I've did a little google search. I'm pretty sure most people here either won't click on it, or if they do read it, or if they do agree with it, or if they do thinks it applies to the Wheel of Time. But I might as well try, no? This is a link to a piece about reverse sexism. Do with it what ya'll will!

 

I agree with the article, but it speaks of a world dominated by male institutions.

 

"If you go by the feminist definition, sexism is predicated on having institutional power over a group"

 

If men have no institutional power over women, then there's no sexism in the books. Many, deep into the series, tend to see women having institutional power over men throughout the WoT world. I disagree with that, but Jordan always claimed that people seeing it that way was telling about their own internal biases.

 

So the women need someone to fight the Dark One. He just happens to be a man. And he can never be a woman in any other Turning of the Wheel because the Dragon is always a man.

 

I've already covered the latter part, it very well can be a woman, though it may be better to refer to them as Champions, as I'm pretty sure the male champion IS the Dragon who is Rand, but it's not always the Dragon that's needed, yes? And again, I have to counter what some people are saying. The Dragon needs women just as much. I think this is self-evident as you get into the series, particularly in the story of what exactly led to the Breaking, and in what will need to be done. The world needs the Dragon to right an imbalance, among what ever other reasons led to the Wheel spinning out a man for this fight instead of its female champion. While we need to look into the fact that it is a man, after looking at it I don't see this as evidence of sexism. It's not a matter of needing men, it's a matter of needing balance. If the reverse were in place, it would be the same. The reason you're hung up on it is because you see it as being the same way society is now just because Rand's a man.

 

Well, just because he didn't want to doesn't mean he didn't do it.

 

Did he? You really think women have been shown to be incompetent in this series? More so than men? You're reading things that aren't there. The women play a large role in why the world didn't go to hell. I don't see any "men could've done it better" message implied in here anywhere.

 

If it helps, I'm taking this book apart the same I would the other books I read. You've got to see the details, see where the writer is coming from, see how little facts here relate to little facts there. In non-fiction this just leads to questioning the research skills of the writer. Here in the Wheel of Time it just hints at inconstancies in the fictional universe and biases of the author. That's just how I read, I guess.

 

Nothing wrong with that. In fact, I was hoping to see Jordan's biases exposed. Again, I don't think many here would claim that Jordan's free of bias and that it didn't show up at all in his writing, just that they feel you're stretching and on somewhat of a witch hunt for sexism. Does his bias go away? I don't know. I do think it gets less and less over the decades he wrote.

 

Anyway, it's time to get on with the story! You'll probably be unhappy with today's two posts but I don't know what to tell ya. The story has gotten fuzzy. Lots of weirdness going on. Well, you'll see. Just read on.

 

Yay! I'm not really in disagreement with you. The ending was confusing and fuzzy.

[Terez]

I admit I haven't been following this thread at all and I've only skimmed through some of the arguments. I don't think that Sunny is necessarily trying to make a big deal out of little things like Egwene on the horse so much as she's trying to show that RJ was not as egalitarian as he believed himself to be. This is undoubtedly the product of RJ being conditioned in an older generation (not to mention in the Southern US). It's not an incredibly huge deal because he did much better with the females than most of his generational peers, by a long shot. But if you make it all the way through WoT without noticing these little gender biases, then it's probably a sign of your own cultural conditioning - a sign that things are still a bit off. It ties into the gay thread in a lot of ways.

 

I realize that an exegesis such as this one can be annoying for many people to read, but I get the impression from her early posts that Sunny's WoT-fan friends wanted her to read WoT for two reasons: 1) to see if she could figure out where the story was going, or notice all those wonderful foreshadowings that are common knowledge on the message boards, and 2) to give her feminist perspective on it, especially on the idea that RJ claimed to have created a gender-balanced world. That means that she's going out of her way to analyze it not because she's got some kind of chip on her shoulder necessarily, but because there is a particular point here to be considered.

 

As for the debate about Perrin and the Whitecloaks...there are a few points, and I'm not sure if they've been raised. The Whitecloaks had a particular smell, like rabid dogs, and that made them dangerous. From a wolf's perspective, a rabid dog is dangerous and needs to be dealt with whether or not it has attacked yet. Also, it's not necessary to anthropomorphize the wolves any more than RJ already did to justify their feelings for one another.

 

Is it justification for killing the Whitecloaks, though? That's an entirely different story, and a complex question. I'm enjoying Sunny's comments on a sort of meta-level.

[Agitel]

I admit I haven't been following this thread at all and I've only skimmed through some of the arguments. I don't think that Sunny is necessarily trying to make a big deal out of little things like Egwene on the horse so much as she's trying to show that RJ was not as egalitarian as he believed himself to be. This is undoubtedly the product of RJ being conditioned in an older generation (not to mention in the Southern US). It's not an incredibly huge deal because he did much better with the females than most of his generational peers, by a long shot. But if you make it all the way through WoT without noticing these little gender biases, then it's probably a sign of your own cultural conditioning - a sign that things are still a bit off. It ties into the gay thread in a lot of ways.

 

I agree with this. The Perrin/Egwene/Bela thing is a great example of Jordan's own biases. And it's not the only one.

[Terez]

Yes, it's a very small example. But the little things add up.

 

Again, the biases didn't make WoT unenjoyable for me - far from it. They are small things for the most part, and very much expected for a writer in RJ's generation. Again, he did better than most.

[RelentlessAttack]

Yeah RJ definitely has an obvious gender bias that becomes apparent in a lot of small situations that add up as you say. I think the worst examples actually come later in the series when we look more in depth at the Aes Sedai and the Aiel, and with the treatment of female villains. I only object in this thread at times when I think sunny has picked up something that isn't sexist and tries to make it so. Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think it's sexist the Dragon in this turning is male. Sure the world needs their messiah, and he's a male, but as we know he would have failed horribly on so many different occasions if not for the various women in the series. If this were a story about an organization of men looking for a female channeller, wouldn't that also be a problem since in that case it would be a fairly typical epic fantasy world where men hold the major positions of power? I suppose he could have avoided the problem by making Rand a hermaphrodite. Gender balance ftw

[dobraine]

One thing I like about this series is that he showed the good and bad regardless of gender.

He showed stereotypes and tropes and would manage to subvert or invert them elsewhere.

We have strong and weak men and women. I like that we see a world in a constant struggle,

two sides in struggle that make the world go round. I love that he decided that the

"Age of Legends" was men and women working together. I like that the ideal is men and

women working together in harmony. That being said that is not the case in the current time.

The ideal was broken and we see the effects. People are less than perfect.

To me showing men and women as different while striving for equality was an admirable

goal in this world.

 

The imperfection was something that drove these books. I like that when men and women

do not work together things get broken. Magic being divided between the genders

seemed rather smart to me. Men being generally stronger in the power women weaker.

(It seems to me in a pinch the real decider is wit not brute force.)

The five powers being divided feels poetic. The five needed to make great wonders

needing to be used in harmony, being accomplished when men and women act as one.

Men and women must act equally to bring about Legends.

 

That's how it should be and true to imperfection not how it usually works out.

No the series is definitely not perfect, but I enjoyed it. And you don't

seem to enjoy at as much as I did. That does make me a little sad.

I like people to enjoy things that I enjoyed. But I am glad you're reading

them. And in some-places your PoV is quite enjoyable.

 

Just the way I saw it. I read people messing things up but trying anyway and

that rang true to me. I saw heroes go dangit I did that wrong now I've got

rebuild the darn thing. Tbh those parts make me smile.

 

Just my humble opinion.

[mdnyttokr]

First of all, WELCOME TO THE WHEEL OF TIME! Yes, we LOVE LOVE LOVE new readers!! It's like we get to read the series again for the first time through you. Many of us have read the entire series a dozen times (some much more!), but nothing ever quite compares to the first time, does it?

 

Yeah, Mat is full of piss and wind, but by the end of Book 3, I promise, you'll absolutely love the guy.

 

The first few chapters can take some determination to get through. I won't give you spoilers, but suffice to say the series really takes off when Rand and Tam go home for the night after their delivery and after you (the reader) meet all the important characters. There will be a moment (and you will know it immediately) when the series goes from slow to fast REALLY quickly. If Rand and Tam are still in Emmond's Field, then you have not reached that moment yet. In the paperback, I think it was somewhere between pages 60 and 70.

 

My memory of my first reading was that I had a hard time keeping straight who were the important characters I needed to remember, and who I could simply disregard as a "filler" character. So let me help you with that right now. You need to focus on the following characters, in no particular order:

 

Rand

Mat

Perrin

Egwene

Nynaeve

Moiraine

Lan

Thom

Padan Fain

 

 

A few others will turn up later in the series, such as Tam, Bran, Abell, and Master Luhan and his wife. For these characters, just remember that they are mostly related to the major characters, and you will see most of them again later in the series. But the first list, above, are the major characters, along with a few more you will meet along the journey.

 

There is one other thing I can advise you on: after you reach the end of each book, go back and re-read the prologue to book 1 (Dragonmount). I found that it made SO much more sense after the completion of each book in the series.

 

So congratulations for starting the best epic fantasy series there is (as far as most of us are concerned). Welcome to the community, and let those loony theories fly whenever you think of them! Around here, we LOVE loony theories!

[lilltempest]

That's the thing, though - Sunny's critiques are not centered in the context of the story. Sunny's criticizing RJ for crafting a story where strong female characters need a man.

 

It might seem idyllic for there to be a world where women don't rely on men at all, no men have any skills that are superior to women, and men always listen to/obey women, but I wonder how Sunny would react to the opposite. The sheer fact that the opposite would generate an epic rant is proof that it's not an egalitarian philosophy that Sunny's talking about - it's distinctly pro-woman (and anti-man).

 

I'm almost tempted to do a WOT reread and blog about all the places that women are portrayed as better than men. That would really bring the hypocrisy home.

 

I've been tempted to do the same - and I'm a woman! I began reading the series six months after CoT came out and finished reading the entire series in two weeks (despite dropping tFoH on the floor in anger, refusing to read for three days before someone told me what happened later regarding Lan and Nyn, then throwing LoC against the wall when Rand was treated so horribly), and I spent the entire two weeks thinking the women were a bunch of arrogant jerks who needed a good punch in the face. That Sunny finds everything so sexist against women makes me laugh. What doesn't make me laugh is that the man-hating is so extreme that the WoT men can NOT win, no matter what they do. If they help Egwene (her favorite character), they're sexist pigs for not letting her get her face bashed in. If they don't help her, they're sexist pigs for not caring about her. WTF? It's a clear case of "damned if they do and damned if they don't".

 

The whole sexism thing is on my last nerve anyway. I've noticed in other threads that the Egwene worshipers use that to attack anyone who dares voice a negative opinion of the biggest Mary Sue ever (she makes Bella Swan seem more believable by comparison). As far as I'm concerned, that argument should be included with Godwin's Law (losing an argument because you bring up Hitler). In other words, accuse someone of sexism for disliking Egwene and you lose by default.

[Byzantine279]

Taking one of my sentences out of context and ignoring the rest of what I said is not polite, Sunny. It is also not an argument.

 

The fact that Rand is a man is truly irrelevant to what i am referring to, but it is something that he, and he alone, has been shown capable of.

[icspots]

Again' date=' this isn't really true. I don't want women to always excel over men. I want them to be given a chance to excel. I want some to be better and some to be worse. I want some to be at the top of their fields and some to screw up so royally that it'll take years to clean up their mess. I want them to be in charge of men and I want them to take orders from men. I want male generals to send female soldiers on suicide missions and I want female Aes Sedai to order their Warders to stay behind and die to buy time for their escape.[/quote']

 

If those are the things you want to see then I think you'll be happy with some of the rest of the series.

 

That said I can't imagine any Aes Sedai ordering a Warder to play rear guard when they know it will kill them. I imagine many Warders would freely offer to put themselves in that position but no Aes Sedai would. It goes into the nature of the Warder bond, which at this point you don't know much about so I won't comment on it at this point.

[Suttree]

I really have no idea about what the Breaking was. All I know is that the Aes Sedai did it. Then later we learn that only the male Aes Sedai did it. What was the Breaking? I have no idea. The Eye of the World prologue makes it look like a war of some sorts. It could be like the story of Eden but I don't know enough about it to know for sure.

 

Here is a short story RJ wrote that lays out the events leading up to the breaking.

 

http://www.drosi.de/wot/wt_shayo.htm

 

As for balance not being a big theme in the first book...just keep in mind it is a very long series. Much more to come on this, truly the greatest achievements are only possible with both sides of the power working together. Still enjoying the blog Sunny, keep it up!

[Agitel]

I can only imagine the potential discussion that talking about the particulars of what led to the Breaking may provoke. We'd probably have to discuss characters we haven't met or seen yet. It may be better, Always sunny, if said discussion was put on hold for now. At least until after book four, if not until later (six or seven), even.