Jump to content

DRAGONMOUNT

A WHEEL OF TIME COMMUNITY

Dark Prophecy


jradkin
 Share

Recommended Posts

'and his destruction' is followed by 'shall fall and be consumed by the Midnight Towers'

 

Actually, 'fall and be consumed' precedes 'his destruction':

 

In that day, when the One-Eyed Fool travels the halls of mourning, and

the First Among Vermin lifts his hand to bring freedom to Him who

will Destroy, the last days of the Fallen Blacksmith's pride shall come.

Yea, and the Broken Wolf, the one whom Death has known, shall fall and

be consumed by the Midnight Towers. And his destruction shall bring

fear and sorrow to the hearts of men, and shall shake their very will itself.

 

On the meaning of 'his destruction' bringing 'fear and sorrow', try this:

 

Yet one shall be born to face the Shadow, born once more as he was born before and shall be born again, time without end. The Dragon shall be Reborn, and there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth at his rebirth. In sackcloth and ashes shall he clothe the people, and he shall break the world again by his coming, tearing apart all ties that bind. Like the unfettered dawn shall he blind us, and burn us, yet shall the Dragon Reborn confront the Shadow at the Last Battle, and his blood shall give us the Light. Let tears flow, O ye people of the world. Weep for your salvation.

Later..

 

I've changed my mind about the 'Broken Wolf' being Slayer. From context (insofar as we can trust context when it comes to prophecies!) it sounds like a Light-side character who has been 'consumed' by the Midnight Towers/Forsaken. I'm wondering if it's Davram Bashere.

 

Kudos to whoever it was who spotted the wolf connection with Bashere..

 

When Rand first sees him, he is described as having 'what appeared to be an ivory rod capped with a golden wolf's head thrust behind his sword belt'. (TFOH 56)

 

He could be said to be 'broken' in the sense of having seriously annoyed Tenobia. (Is he still effectively exiled from Saldaea?)

 

And Min's viewing about him has not yet come to pass, about something 'dark' in the images she saw. She is concerned that Bashere may turn against Rand, or die.

 

BTW.. What is that ivory rod? Surely not a binding rod..

Edited by FarShainMael
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 162
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

BTW.. What is that ivory rod? Surely not a binding rod..

If I remember correctly, it's a signature of his station as Marshall-General(?) of Saldea. It's kind of like the royal orb and scepter of some monarchies. I think it even has a name, but I can't remember it off hand.

 

I doubt it's a binding rod. An Aes Sedai would have noticed for sure.

Edited by Sleeper
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
In that day, when the One-Eyed Fool travels the halls of mourning, and the First Among Vermin lifts his hand to bring freedom to Him who will Destroy, the last days of the Fallen Blacksmith's pride shall come.

 

Yea, and the Broken Wolf, the one whom Death has known, shall fall and be consumed by the Midnight Towers.

 

And his destruction shall bring fear and sorrow to the hearts of men, and shall shake their very will itself.

 

I've split this up because I'm wondering if they are three separate (or at least only loosely connected) prophecies.

 

I can't think who else the first paragraph might refer to other than the three ta'veren, so I'll take that as a given.

 

The 'Broken Wolf' may refer to any of those three (though Mat is the least likely) or to someone else entirely, a fourth person closely connected with the Three. Possibilities include Slayer, Bashere, Taim, Ituralde, etc.

 

The next statement, about 'his destruction', might refer to any of the possibly four people mentioned in the first two statements - or to a fifth person. And that's before we start considering whether it's destruction of him or by him.

 

If it's destruction by him, then judging by the reaction of Birgitte and Elayne when the cannon are being tested, it could well be Mat's destruction (=destruction caused by Mat) that this refers to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The next statement, about 'his destruction', might refer to any of the possibly four people mentioned in the first two statements - or to a fifth person. And that's before we start considering whether it's destruction of him or by him.

Grammatically it has to refer to the Broken Wolf.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The next statement, about 'his destruction', might refer to any of the possibly four people mentioned in the first two statements - or to a fifth person. And that's before we start considering whether it's destruction of him or by him.

Grammatically it has to refer to the Broken Wolf.

 

In normal grammar, yes certainly. But this is a prophecy. Moreover it's one we haven't witnessed on-screen (as we did for Gitara on the birth of Rand, for example), only second-hand from the person who collected that set of prophecies. Though I admit that's a bit of a stretch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

In normal grammar, yes certainly. But this is a prophecy. Moreover it's one we haven't witnessed on-screen (as we did for Gitara on the birth of Rand, for example), only second-hand from the person who collected that set of prophecies. Though I admit that's a bit of a stretch.

Far too much of a stretch. This would really be brutalizing the grammar. Nothing like this was ever done in any of the books in the series and I see zero reason to believe it would start now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I first read the prophecy I immediately thought of Taim.

The whole being consumed by the Midnight Towers made me think of Taim being turned. And with the descriptions of the happenings of the Black Tower in the same book, the destruction he will cause was on my mind.

I have no idea why he would be called the Broken Wolf though.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the parsing of this prophecy reminds me of a lot of OT commentaries. one of the main difficulties with OT commentary lies in the problem of correctly translating biblical hebrew to any other language, including modern hebrew. it is almost impossible to draw any conclusions based on the grammar of translated material, because so much is lost or altered in the translation. the subtle linguistic nuance is gone.

 

while it may seem that the grammar of the dark prophecy directs a specific interpretation, the true meaning could well be lost in translation.

 

(um, i don't mean this post to be religiously divisive, but if it seems to be, please delete it mods, thanks)

Edited by cindy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

In normal grammar, yes certainly. But this is a prophecy. Moreover it's one we haven't witnessed on-screen (as we did for Gitara on the birth of Rand, for example), only second-hand from the person who collected that set of prophecies. Though I admit that's a bit of a stretch.

Far too much of a stretch. This would really be brutalizing the grammar. Nothing like this was ever done in any of the books in the series and I see zero reason to believe it would start now.

 

Consider this prophecy:

 

"He shall hold a blade of light in his hands, and the three shall be one."

 

Grammar would suggest that 'he' has three hands. Common sense would suggest otherwise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the parsing of this prophecy reminds me of a lot of OT commentaries. one of the main difficulties with OT commentary lies in the problem of correctly translating biblical hebrew to any other language, including modern hebrew. it is almost impossible to draw any conclusions based on the grammar of translated material, because so much is lost or altered in the translation. the subtle linguistic nuance is gone.

 

while it may seem that the grammar of the dark prophecy directs a specific interpretation, the true meaning could well be lost in translation.

 

(um, i don't mean this post to be religiously divisive, but if it seems to be, please delete it mods, thanks)

 

A valid point, and no offence taken - I've often thought the same myself, when reading some interpretations of the Bible (despite doing some parsing myself :wink: ) My position on that is that one should always bear context in mind*. Trouble is we don't have much context to work with here.

 

*As an RC I first take the Holy Spirit into account.

Edited by FarShainMael
Link to comment
Share on other sites

the parsing of this prophecy reminds me of a lot of OT commentaries. one of the main difficulties with OT commentary lies in the problem of correctly translating biblical hebrew to any other language, including modern hebrew. it is almost impossible to draw any conclusions based on the grammar of translated material, because so much is lost or altered in the translation. the subtle linguistic nuance is gone.

 

I disagree with this logic. We are not talking about real life translation from an ancient language. We are talking about a work of fiction intended for modern readers. Implying that translation from the OT may have completely changed the meaning of the prophecy and its grammatical structure would make all the prophecies that we've seen in the books totally meaningless. and it would be very unfair to the readers too. No reasonable writer would do it this way. We've seen a number of prophecies and while they may have been obscure to begin with none of them totally changed their meaning on the excuse of mistranslation from the OT.

 

 

BTW, we don't even know that the original dark prophecy was in the OT. It may have but the date when it was made is never mentioned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I disagree with this logic. We are not talking about real life translation from an ancient language. We are talking about a work of fiction intended for modern readers. Implying that translation from the OT may have completely changed the meaning of the prophecy and its grammatical structure would make all the prophecies that we've seen in the books totally meaningless. and it would be very unfair to the readers too. No reasonable writer would do it this way. We've seen a number of prophecies and while they may have been obscure to begin with none of them totally changed their meaning on the excuse of mistranslation from the OT.

 

 

BTW, we don't even know that the original dark prophecy was in the OT. It may have but the date when it was made is never mentioned.

 

i don't think it makes them meaningless, i think it makes them difficult to interpret. obscure. not completely changed in meaning, but not as obvious as they would seem at first glance.

 

(i meant old testament, btw, not old tongue, but it actually works both ways :smile: )

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I disagree with this logic. We are not talking about real life translation from an ancient language. We are talking about a work of fiction intended for modern readers. Implying that translation from the OT may have completely changed the meaning of the prophecy and its grammatical structure would make all the prophecies that we've seen in the books totally meaningless. and it would be very unfair to the readers too. No reasonable writer would do it this way. We've seen a number of prophecies and while they may have been obscure to begin with none of them totally changed their meaning on the excuse of mistranslation from the OT.

 

 

BTW, we don't even know that the original dark prophecy was in the OT. It may have but the date when it was made is never mentioned.

 

i don't think it makes them meaningless, i think it makes them difficult to interpret. obscure. not completely changed in meaning, but not as obvious as they would seem at first glance.

 

obscure and difficult to interpret, sure. but you specifically mentioned changed grammatical structure which I assume was in relation to the following passage which was being discussed right before that

Yea, and the Broken Wolf, the one whom Death has known, shall fall and

be consumed by the Midnight Towers. And his destruction shall bring

fear and sorrow to the hearts of men, and shall shake their very will itself.

Grammatically, "his destruction" in the second sentence definitely refers to the Broken Wolf from the first sentence. Saying that it might not because the prophecy may have been mistranslated is not a credible argument IMO. Obfuscating the meaning in such a way would break the basic rules of English grammar and be unfair to the readers, the vast majority of whom are not geeks like us hanging around on boards such as this one. In hindsight, a prophecy must make clear sense to a random reader. This has been the case will all the prophecies that we've seen thus far of which there was a fair number. I fully expect the same to be true here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

obscure and difficult to interpret, sure. but you specifically mentioned changed grammatical structure which I assume was in relation to the following passage which was being discussed right before that

Yea, and the Broken Wolf, the one whom Death has known, shall fall and

be consumed by the Midnight Towers. And his destruction shall bring

fear and sorrow to the hearts of men, and shall shake their very will itself.

 

actually, funny story, heh, i was referring (in my own mind) to genesis 1:1. but it's way too off topic and difficult to explain, so i generalized. but i was actually generalizing about the old testament and then inferring (sorry 'bout that) that there may be a similar difficulty in interpreting any prophecy in the WOT.

 

re fairness to the reader. . . i never got the feeling that RJ was willing to dumb anything down for us, or even to make anything particularly obvious or easy to interpret.

 

but i cannot match your intensity, so i'm dropping it now. :mellow:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

but i cannot match your intensity, so i'm dropping it now. :mellow:

sorry, I didn't mean to be overbearing. I apologize. :rolleyes:

I certainly agree with your comments about translating the bible or any other ancient texts for that matter. I just think that the analogy about changing grammar is misapplied in the case of the prophecies in WOT.

Edited by herid
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Look, cindy, you managed to take herid down with you (regarding the use of capital letters, I mean). Nevertheless, he's right. It's really isn't fair for RJ to put things in his books that are simply wrong, and then later claim that the original meaning was merely lost in translation. That kind of thing would only work from a character's PoV (someone stating a belief that we as readers have to take with a grain of salt), not the way this prophecy is presented.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@yoniy0

 

bwahahahahahah! i shall not be satisfied until all capitalizers are turned to the minimal keystroke side. . .

 

(as your own nick is not capitalized, i believe you may have leanings thataway. . . we shall see. . .)

 

again, i don't think the prophecies are wrong. i think they're difficult to interpret, in part because they are ancient. while not, perhaps, mistranslated, i do not think we can assume very much from the grammar, or syntax.

 

(i also think RJ was at times deliberately misleading. red herrings we might call them. or AS phrasing, saying one thing which is in all its parts true, but nonetheless implies something that is not true.)

 

zeh lo fair, but it's the way it is.

 

'k, now pretty please stop trying to make me more argumentative, because you're too good at it. i cannot debate you, please don't poke me :smile: i cry uncle!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Totally disregarding your request there :wink:

zeh lo fair

It took me a fair amount of time to get that.

 

To the point, though, I knew "wrong" was the wrong word (:smile:) for what I was going for, just couldn't think of a better one. See, it doesn't make sense for RJ to quote a faulty translation (assuming this whole book is 'translated' into English) in a prophecy, because that's not something any of us could ever have suspected (evidence to the contrary notwithstanding). By the same token, you might say that any part of the books hasn't truly happened the way we think it has, it just looks that way because we read them in English. That's not a game I think he would've played with us.

As I mentioned, I think it's different from a character's PoV - we know these guys are fallible, and that translation mistakes happen between OT and Randlandish. Not so when he directly quotes a prophecy the way he did here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:ohmy:

 

'k, now i call shenanigans for your disregard of my cry of uncle.

 

you are right, i am wrong. imagine that said and typed in every possible way. now imagine me passively resisting further conflict by dropping to the ground. thud. ouch.

 

i offer no further response that might counter your arguments.

 

please, for the love of little kittens, let it be. :smile:

 

(that was my smiley face of giving up.)

 

don't make me use baby talk, now. it would demean us both.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not true - dark prophecies will be fulfilled too.

 

How do we know that?

a prophecy is a prophecy. Prophecies in WOT are simply foretellings made by channelers who have the gift. A dark prophecy is one that was made by a darkfriend but otherwise there is no difference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do dark prophecies necessarily have to come from dark friends? By the way Moridin told it, he just locked away any one with the talent of foretelling he could find. At least, that's the impression I got when asked on it by Graendal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...