The Lanfear Appreciation Thread

[Zentari]

That's also called letting other people tell you what to think.

This has gotten ridiculous; the character you are judging is purely a construct of that author so when he says her reasons were those, that is the case.

 

You COULD have a case if her motivations were shady and thus each of us would have his/her own little guesswork as to why she did what she did and thus more reason to sympathize with her.This is not the case here.

[Guest Emu on the Loose]

It's only not the case if you don't let the books speak for themselves.

[MauricXe]

Mierin is my favorite character in the series, but I'm not really interested in the whole "even more flawlessly beautiful than you imagined" angle. (Her most interesting appearances were as Silvie and Keille, I'd say.)

 

[LOTS OF STUFF]

 

The series lost a lot of gas beginning in LoC, and her disappearance is a big part of that. I hope she lives through the end of the series in a positive way. If not, I hope she at least gets a more meaningful death than most of the Forsaken have gotten.

 

Yes.

 

This is it exactly. All of what you said is true.

[SuperFade]

One of the first rules of critical analysis is that the author's intentions must be considered separately from the work itself.

 

This really is the issue here. Robert Jordan explicitly stated that Lanfear was pure evil and never loved Lews Therin aside from the prestige of being his lover. However, without that assertion the text can be interpreted otherwise. I am reminded of Paradise Lost. It's a sure bet that Milton intended to portray Satan as an irredeemably evil tyrant full of hatred and pride, yet many, many critics interpret Satan to be a heroic figure regardless of that. There is a lot of wriggle room in both cases.

[Guest Emu on the Loose]

I think the key distinction to make is the difference between interpreting the author's intent and interpreting the material itself. RJ could say whatever he wanted about his work; he could be as specific and explicit as he liked. These are his books and he was entitled to do so, and to the extent we are interpreting his intent then his word is the highest form of truth, even stronger than canon.

 

But when it comes to appreciating these works for their own sake, it doesn't matter what RJ intended. It doesn't matter what he said. Most here would agree that the WoT series is an artistic work and not merely fiction for the sake of entertainment, and if you accept that then you have to (be prepared for others to) subject WoT to the rigors of artistic analysis.

 

It would be conspicuously silly and unenforceable if a painter told us how we are each supposed to interpret her (or his) painting. What the painter does, instead, is say how she (or he) herself interprets it, and explain what her (or his) inspirations and intentions were. Then we, the thinking audience, make our own judgments about the painting itself. We form our own conclusions.

 

That's true for all forms of art, including books. When appreciating WoT as a work of art rather than as simply an entertaining diversion, it is thoughtless and negligent to abdicate our personal responsibility to interpret the work for ourselves, using the text itself--and not the intentions or preferences of the author--as the ultimate authority.

 

There's plenty of room, like you said, to interpret Mierin broadly, because her character is very nebulous and unexplained in many regards. I've offered my interpretation, and it alternately baffles and amuses me that people get so worked up about it just because they have their own interpretations, or have chosen to have no interpretation of their own and simply hold the positions they think they have been told to hold.

[randsc]

Or, perhaps, people simply find your interpretation unpersuasive, especially as it fails to account for the vicious (and recent) behavior of your favorite character.

 

Also, frankly, the conceit of referring to that character by a name she has not borne for 3000 years, a name she herself abandoned, is what we call, "pretty damn silly."

 

I don't actually disagree with you about statements of the author not being Word of God. Word of God is what is on the printed page.

[Zentari]

There's plenty of room, like you said, to interpret Mierin broadly, because her character is very nebulous and unexplained in many regards. I've offered my interpretation, and it alternately baffles and amuses me that people get so worked up about it just because they have their own interpretations, or have chosen to have no interpretation of their own and simply hold the positions they think they have been told to hold.

And once again your interpretation is wrong.OUTRIGHT wrong as stated by the author himself.While the comparison with a work of art is a nice one it falls flat on it's face, simply because there can be NO different interpretation where motives are concerned.There can be no different position , just like how it happened in the "who's the best swordman" (if I racall the title correctly) thread.

 

Saying that Lanfear did what she did out of jealously or that things could have turned out better for her is a totally valid opinion.The one where she is a tragic heroine who went down the slippery slope when she was denied by her love is not.She was powerhungry.That's all, no ifs or buts.

[Mr Ares]

Zentari, I'm afraid you're not going to have a huge amount of success with that line of argument - after all, what Emu on the Loose is saying is that what is in the books takes precedence over what is outside. RJ has offered his interpretation, but unless he actually writes into the books that Lanfear is irredeemably evil and never loved LTT then his interpretation needn't be considered binding. You would do better to focus your attention on providing quotes from the book to say that LTT never loved Lanfear and that she is irredeemably evil.

[Mr Ares]

.

[Zentari]

Zentari, I'm afraid you're not going to have a huge amount of success with that line of argument - after all, what Emu on the Loose is saying is that what is in the books takes precedence over what is outside. RJ has offered his interpretation, but unless he actually writes into the books that Lanfear is irredeemably evil and never loved LTT then his interpretation needn't be considered binding. You would do better to focus your attention on providing quotes from the book to say that LTT never loved Lanfear and that she is irredeemably evil.

Except that Lanfear is solely his construct , his character and thus his interpretation is automatically binding.YOUR interpretation is solely your opinion while HIS is the basis for the character and thus correct.

 

If your point is that one can see Lanfear as such then yes, one could see her so.That doesn't make it true however and since the author stated that her motivation was only lust for power, her motivation was only lust for power.Don't like it ? Tough luck, write your own story or do a fanfic.As far as canon is concerned , she is just greedy.

 

On a closing note ; burden of proof on me ? For something that is expressively refuted ? While playing the devils advocate is entertaining enough , one must always take care not to come off as a troll.

[bsmnt23]

Lanfear chose to join the Shadow, she walks that path wilingly. There is no punishment sufficient, no death she could suffer enough to cover her crimes. Cover her with honey and toss her to the Mydraal.

[SuperFade]

Except that Lanfear is solely his construct , his character and thus his interpretation is automatically binding.YOUR interpretation is solely your opinion while HIS is the basis for the character and thus correct.

 

If your point is that one can see Lanfear as such then yes, one could see her so.That doesn't make it true however and since the author stated that her motivation was only lust for power, her motivation was only lust for power.Don't like it ? Tough luck, write your own story or do a fanfic.As far as canon is concerned , she is just greedy.

 

On a closing note ; burden of proof on me ? For something that is expressively refuted ? While playing the devils advocate is entertaining enough , one must always take care not to come off as a troll.

 

It's called Death of the Author.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_the_Author

 

It's well established in the field of literary criticism. There is no absolutely correct way of interpreting a literary work, so Emu on the Loose's subsciption to this method is totally valid. You really can't refute what Emu is saying precisely because his method of literary critique is incompatible with your own.

[RyanL24]

Great thread. I think that if RJ had said in an interview that Rand is actually a horse (for example), some people would be here arguing that Rand is a horse. You have to read what the books say, not just what the author tells you.

 

Also, frankly, the conceit of referring to that character by a name she has not borne for 3000 years, a name she herself abandoned, is what we call, "pretty damn silly."

 

Isn't LTT one of those "pretty damn silly" people that refer to her as Mierin? Just sayin'...

[Zentari]

Except that Lanfear is solely his construct , his character and thus his interpretation is automatically binding.YOUR interpretation is solely your opinion while HIS is the basis for the character and thus correct.

 

If your point is that one can see Lanfear as such then yes, one could see her so.That doesn't make it true however and since the author stated that her motivation was only lust for power, her motivation was only lust for power.Don't like it ? Tough luck, write your own story or do a fanfic.As far as canon is concerned , she is just greedy.

 

On a closing note ; burden of proof on me ? For something that is expressively refuted ? While playing the devils advocate is entertaining enough , one must always take care not to come off as a troll.

 

It's called Death of the Author.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_the_Author

 

It's well established in the field of literary criticism. There is no absolutely correct way of interpreting a literary work, so Emu on the Loose's subsciption to this method is totally valid. You really can't refute what Emu is saying precisely because his method of literary critique is incompatible with your own.

I can actually.If you notice at the link you provided it goes : "method of reading and criticism that relies on aspects of the author's identity — his or her political views, historical context, religion, ethnicity, psychology, or other biographical or personal attributes — to distill meaning from the author's work."

 

Also, the most important part : "Barthes notes that the traditional critical approach to literature raises a thorny problem: how can we detect precisely what the writer intended? His answer is that we cannot."

 

Here is the part where your arguments falls flat on it's face and dies: RJ has STATED his intentions,as far as Lanfear is concerned, and thus we can very well detect precisely what he intended.

 

Emu said that Lanfear was just unlucky, I said that, as RJ said, she was powerhungry to the bone.I'm not disputing whether or not the text might make her seem unlucky (disregarding the fact that different people are gonna have different opinions),I'm saying that as far as canon goes Lanfear was just power hungry and never loved LT.Does this make her look shallow ? Certainly , I agree on that part but no one get's to dispute it.

 

Also , way for losing the point Ryan.LT was her husband so a certain familiarity with her is expected.What familiarity does Emu have ? Why does she call a villain by her first name when she has claimed another as hers ? That's all.

[SuperFade]

I see that you still don't understand. Your own argument is the one that falls down and dies because you only focus on one aspect of the Death of the Author method. You claim that since we know what Robert Jordan intended, Emu's interpretation is bunk. You conveniently ignore the fact that Barthes also claims that the author is merely a scriptor and that the 'essential meaning of a work depends on the impressions of the reader'. Under Death of the Author, it doesn't matter what Robert Jordan himself has stated in the past. Even a point blank statement regarding his own work is only another possible interpretation under this theory. It's fine if you disagree with the theory, but unless you can successfully convince the thousands of critics who support that view that they are wrong...

 

It is a very extreme postmodernist method of criticism. I personally don't agree with it, much as I also disagree with Emu's assertions that Lanfear is really a tragic character. Robert Jordan's statement that Lanfear is without redeeming qualities is disappointing, but one I am prepared to take at face value. However, under Death of the Author Emu's views are totally valid, and should not be insulted simply because you don't agree with the philosophy behind them.

[Zentari]

I see that you still don't understand. Your own argument is the one that falls down and dies because you only focus on one aspect of the Death of the Author method. You claim that since we know what Robert Jordan intended, Emu's interpretation is bunk. You conveniently ignore the fact that Barthes also claims that the author is merely a scriptor and that the 'essential meaning of a work depends on the impressions of the reader'. Under Death of the Author, it doesn't matter what Robert Jordan himself has stated in the past. Even a point blank statement regarding his own work is only another possible interpretation under this theory. It's fine if you disagree with the theory, but unless you can successfully convince the thousands of critics who support that view that they are wrong...

 

It is a very extreme postmodernist method of criticism. I personally don't agree with it, much as I also disagree with Emu's assertions that Lanfear is really a tragic character. Robert Jordan's statement that Lanfear is without redeeming qualities is disappointing, but one I am prepared to take at face value. However, under Death of the Author Emu's views are totally valid, and should not be insulted simply because you don't agree with the philosophy behind them.

Said aspect is the main focus of it and since the general point is refuted , so is the argument.

 

Even if that wasn't the case, are you seriously comparing what one fan thinks about a character (with quite a lot of fangirlism about it, to add) and what the author who created said character ?

 

What about other stuff ? If you accept that the text really is an entity independent (it isn't really, but let's just roll with it) of the author does that give me the freedom to dispute anything the author has said ? If yes then silly little things like the Taimandred theory are still on the table or all kinds of silly stuff simply by saying my interpretation can be different than the authors.

[Mrs. Cindy Gill]

I personally think it's sad that Robert Jordan stated point blank that Lanfear was pure evil and never loved Lews Therin and that he never loved her. It would have made her a far more ambiguous and interesting character.

 

 

i'm not recalling this precise quote - do you have it handy?

[Guest Emu on the Loose]

Or, perhaps, people simply find your interpretation unpersuasive, especially as it fails to account for the vicious (and recent) behavior of your favorite character.

I'm not trying to persuade anybody. This is "The Lanfear Appreciation Thread," not the "Make Sure Everybody Thinks The Same Way You Do Thread."

 

Also, frankly, the conceit of referring to that character by a name she has not borne for 3000 years, a name she herself abandoned, is what we call, "pretty damn silly."

"Silly" only if you think that a person only has one correct name at a time, and that it must be the most popular name. But, silly or not, my choice is also practical, since by talking about "Mierin" I can then specifically refer to "Lanfear" and "Cyndane" when I want to, to talk about different eras of her character. The other reason I do it is that Rand does it, and I relate to him.

 

At any rate, it has little if any relevance to anything I've said in this thread, and therefore makes a rather poor rebuttal to my position.

 

 

~~~ ~~~ ~~~

Except that Lanfear is solely [RJ's] construct , his character and thus his interpretation is automatically binding.YOUR interpretation is solely your opinion while HIS is the basis for the character and thus correct.

I don't think you understand what we are talking about.

 

 

~~~ ~~~ ~~~

I see that you still don't understand. Your own argument is the one that falls down and dies because you only focus on one aspect of the Death of the Author method. You claim that since we know what Robert Jordan intended, Emu's interpretation is bunk. You conveniently ignore the fact that Barthes also claims that the author is merely a scriptor and that the 'essential meaning of a work depends on the impressions of the reader'. Under Death of the Author, it doesn't matter what Robert Jordan himself has stated in the past. Even a point blank statement regarding his own work is only another possible interpretation under this theory. It's fine if you disagree with the theory, but unless you can successfully convince the thousands of critics who support that view that they are wrong...

 

It is a very extreme postmodernist method of criticism. I personally don't agree with it, much as I also disagree with Emu's assertions that Lanfear is really a tragic character. Robert Jordan's statement that Lanfear is without redeeming qualities is disappointing, but one I am prepared to take at face value. However, under Death of the Author Emu's views are totally valid, and should not be insulted simply because you don't agree with the philosophy behind them.

That's an interesting perspective and a welcome addition to the thread. However, I don't come at my position from a postmodernist angle at all. What I've been saying is really very simple: There is enough ambiguity and complexity to Mierin's character that my interpretation of that character is defensible inasmuch as it follows from what is in the text. Even RJ's external statements don't throw much water on my interpretation, but they do reveal that his understanding of his own character was one-dimensional and thus they are an impediment to a closer read of the character. RJ was content for Mierin to be a Forsaken, but to his credit he made her more than that.

 

Let me clarify a few things. Some folks are getting caught up on points of contention that I'm not actually contending. I concede and agree that Mierin is power-hungry, ambitious, self-absorbed, arrogant, and jealous to the point of derangement. I just don't find those traits as damning as many other people do. Traits like ambition are inherently good and can only become corrupted by ulterior motives, while traits like the desire for power are neutral and depend on the context of what is being desired. Since we have yet to get a really good insight into Mierin's psyche, all of this stuff is still open to debate. Her arrogance is the mark of a competitive personality. Mierin has many of the qualities of somebody who is the best in her field, and knows it. Of all the traits I mentioned, only her enormous jealousy is an unambiguous character flaw, and that's only because she can't seem to control it.

 

She has other traits which are rather more clearly villainous or pre-villainous. She shows little compassion or empathy for others. In fact to my knowledge she shows none at all except for Rand--a disordered outgrowth of her competitive nature, I think. I think she looks down on just about everybody as "inferiors," and wrongly so. Also, she is emotionally vulnerable, and that's where a lot of villainy comes from--both in her case and in storytelling generally. Between being spurned by LTT and unintentionally drilling the Bore, she went over to the Shadow. That was an understandable choice, but it was hardly the best choice, and indeed she became a Forsaken because of her inability to find a better way to deal with her issues.

 

Like I said earlier, anyone who wants to read Mierin as a one-dimensional villain has plenty of ground to stand on, mostly due to flaws in WoT itself. So does anyone who wants to read Mierin as a more nuanced villain. To an extent, that is how I read her: A big part of her tragedy is that she got caught up in evil when it didn't have to turn out that way. And I don't disagree that she is caught up in evil. She is a villain.

 

What I do disagree with are the unsubstantiated generalizations and cherry-picking. For instance, she killed Kadere while she was temporarily insane, yet people interpret that situational act as a testament to her character. They ignore that she also got herself nearly killed and nearly killed Rand--feats that would have been out of character for her. For another example, people conflate her desire with power with her desire for Rand, usually as a way of arguing that she didn't love him. Such a view completely ignores both the diversity of love as well as Mierin's own internal assertion of sincerity in WH.

 

Also, some folks seem to mistake the fact that I view her as a tragic character, or the fact that I relate to some of her ambitions, or the fact that she is my favorite character, as a kind of declaration on my part that she has done no wrong. While it's true that I don't see her as totally evil, nor as evil for the sake of being evil, I do not think she has done no wrong. She has done wrong.

 

Lastly, some folks--and this is especially a problem in American culture--believe that if you make mistakes in life you should be locked up and have the key thrown away (or that you should be coated in honey and fed to the Fades). I think that's barbaric. While I do think Mierin ought to face justice for her wrongs, I also think the world did a lot of wrong to her in the first place. People rarely do the wrong thing purely on their own volition. You have to look at the context. I think the greater justice would be not to feed her to the Fades, but for society to improve so that people don't fall through the cracks as easily. She has already suffered a great deal, long before the Age of Legends even ended. To desire even more suffering for her would be a rather Shadow-minded mindset.

 

 

~~~ ~~~ ~~~

Said aspect is the main focus of it and since the general point is refuted , so is the argument.

You keep asserting that, but you're not participating in the conversation by repeating yourself. This is one of those cases where you have made your argument, the argument has been refuted, and you just don't realize it. I encourage you to reread the thread and reflect on your position.

 

Even if that wasn't the case, are you seriously comparing what one fan thinks about a character (with quite a lot of fangirlism about it, to add) and what the author who created said character ?

You are making a mistake here. I am in no way claiming that my interpretation is more official or more correct than Robert Jordan's. You are hung up on the perception that somehow I am putting myself above RJ by offering an alternate reading of his work. I am indeed offering an alternate reading, but I am not in any way rejecting or denying his view. The world is big enough for people to have different opinions on the same thing, and WoT is big enough to be interpreted in more than one way.

 

This series is RJ's work and as a writer myself I respect his opinions and intentions even when I don't agree with them. I give RJ a lot of deference. What I don't do is let his interpretations dictate my own. The points you are continually failing to understand are that thinking people will see the same thing in different ways, and stories lend themselves to interpretation.

 

If I were basing my interpretations of Mierin on fluff and smoke, then you could call me out for not having ground to stand upon. But you can't say that my interpretations are wrong because they aren't identical to RJ's. The books themselves have room for his take and my take. You are allowed to have your own take, even if I disagree with it, and you are not allowed to deny that right to others. It is the fundamental right (and responsibility!) of the viewer of an artwork to apply her or his own judgment to it.

 

What about other stuff ? If you accept that the text really is an entity independent (it isn't really, but let's just roll with it) of the author does that give me the freedom to dispute anything the author has said ? If yes then silly little things like the Taimandred theory are still on the table or all kinds of silly stuff simply by saying my interpretation can be different than the authors.

Here your mistake is to conflate interpretations which have a basis in the text with those that are purely speculative or wishful. For instance, I harbor a pet inclination that Bayle Domon is Beidomon reborn, purely because the names are similar. But it's an inclination that has no basis in the text and I don't bother to try asserting it to others. Mierin Eronaile as a tragic, relatable, and enjoyable character, on the other hand, is highly defensible because the events of the books make that interpretation plausible. Indeed, I find it to be a very compelling interpretation, even though it is not a popular one.

 

 

~~~ ~~~ ~~~

I personally think it's sad that Robert Jordan stated point blank that Lanfear was pure evil and never loved Lews Therin and that he never loved her. It would have made her a far more ambiguous and interesting character.

i'm not recalling this precise quote - do you have it handy?

RJ never actually "stated point blank that Lanfear was pure evil and never loved Lew Therin." Never doubt the power of Terez to have answered these kinds of ambiguities preemptively:

 

http://www.theoryland.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=372

 

Click on the "Lanfear/Cyndane" link. Mierin really did love Lews Therin; it's just that Lews Therin never really loved her (or so RJ said), and RJ in turn though very poorly of Mierin's supposed love, calling it "desire" instead. There's a lot in there about Mierin being greedy and "ripe for the plucking" to go over to the Shadow, and how she wouldn't become a do-gooder for Rand's sake, but that's about as close as you'll get to a direct statement by RJ. Meanwhile, that same document contains plenty of the same ambiguities about her overall character that are present in the books.

[Mrs. Cindy Gill]

well, i wasn't really in the mood to go fishing, even in a stocked pond, but i did, so in case any of you are also not in the mood to go fishing, i think this is the referenced quote (though i don't know, as the person i asked may have had something else in mind, and it is within the realm of possibility that not every word spoken by the author is collected in the theoryland database. still. here's what i think some of the posts in this thread reference).

 

 

Letter to Carolyn Fusinato from RJ - 1 February 1994

 

Lanfear holding back and doing good for Rand's sake? Ha! She was psychically fixed on possessing a man who never loved her. Even with that, her desire for Rand was as much a desire for power as for him. To be the one to deliver the Dragon Reborn to the service of the Shadow; that would set her above the other Forsaken. And learning that the access ter'angreal for the two huge sa'angreal were still in existence....Sure, she wanted his love--not least because it had been denied her; Lanfear was a woman who claimed a right to anything she wanted--wanted his devotion, but even more than his body, Lanfear wanted power, the power possibly to replace the Dark One, even to replace the Creator. For Rand's sake? Not a chance.

 

 

i've bolded the date because i think that even if RJ meant what some infer that he meant, he may well have changed his mind.

 

(this is not a comment on the debate above, by the way. carry on.)

[Zentari]

I don't think you understand what we are talking about.

And you are once again mistaken.

 

 

 

Like I said earlier, anyone who wants to read Mierin as a one-dimensional villain has plenty of ground to stand on, mostly due to flaws in WoT itself. So does anyone who wants to read Mierin as a more nuanced villain. To an extent, that is how I read her: A big part of her tragedy is that she got caught up in evil when it didn't have to turn out that way. And I don't disagree that she is caught up in evil. She is a villain.

She is also not a tragic figure but you seem to insist on that fallacy too.

 

What I do disagree with are the unsubstantiated generalizations and cherry-picking. For instance, she killed Kadere while she was temporarily insane, yet people interpret that situational act as a testament to her character. They ignore that she also got herself nearly killed and nearly killed Rand--feats that would have been out of character for her. For another example, people conflate her desire with power with her desire for Rand, usually as a way of arguing that she didn't love him. Such a view completely ignores both the diversity of love as well as Mierin's own internal assertion of sincerity in WH.

Out of character ? She has stated that she will get Rand or no one will.It was not out of character, just as it wasn't for her to throw a "hissy fit" (more like go apeshit) when she suspected that she was given the shove one more time.

 

 

Also, some folks seem to mistake the fact that I view her as a tragic character, or the fact that I relate to some of her ambitions, or the fact that she is my favorite character, as a kind of declaration on my part that she has done no wrong. While it's true that I don't see her as totally evil, nor as evil for the sake of being evil, I do not think she has done no wrong. She has done wrong.

No, what these folks say (myself included) is that you try to find justifications for said actions when they don't exist and that your take is colored heavily by the adoration of that character.

 

 

Lastly, some folks--and this is especially a problem in American culture--believe that if you make mistakes in life you should be locked up and have the key thrown away (or that you should be coated in honey and fed to the Fades). I think that's barbaric. While I do think Mierin ought to face justice for her wrongs, I also think the world did a lot of wrong to her in the first place. People rarely do the wrong thing purely on their own volition. You have to look at the context. I think the greater justice would be not to feed her to the Fades, but for society to improve so that people don't fall through the cracks as easily. She has already suffered a great deal, long before the Age of Legends even ended. To desire even more suffering for her would be a rather Shadow-minded mindset.

Yes , all she ever wanted was a hug ! Lanfear's trial would be akin to the ones the Nazis got after the war.Trolloc feeding camps, torture as well as ripping souls out were a past-time for nearly all of the forsaken.

 

 

If I were basing my interpretations of Mierin on fluff and smoke, then you could call me out for not having ground to stand upon. But you can't say that my interpretations are wrong because they aren't identical to RJ's. The books themselves have room for his take and my take. You are allowed to have your own take, even if I disagree with it, and you are not allowed to deny that right to others. It is the fundamental right (and responsibility!) of the viewer of an artwork to apply her or his own judgment to it.

Yes, it's your responsibility to go against it even if it TOTALLY contradicts the author.Your interpretation is on the same stand with the one who created the whole work.Totally logical [/sarcasm].

 

 

 

Here your mistake is to conflate interpretations which have a basis in the text with those that are purely speculative or wishful. For instance, I harbor a pet inclination that Bayle Domon is Beidomon reborn, purely because the names are similar. But it's an inclination that has no basis in the text and I don't bother to try asserting it to others. Mierin Eronaile as a tragic, relatable, and enjoyable character, on the other hand, is highly defensible because the events of the books make that interpretation plausible. Indeed, I find it to be a very compelling interpretation, even though it is not a popular one.

Actually, BOTH have basis in text and both are similar.What you MIGHT argue is that somehow one is false, and thus ok to have a contradicting opinion, while the other isn't.

 

To which I reply : if you accept that ,when do you draw the line ? You either accept that there is such a thing as cannon (and thus Lanfear is just powerhungry) or you don't and it's all kinds of confusing.Do I get to dispute how the AoL was, based on the books compared to what the author said ?

[Suttree]

Between being spurned by LTT and unintentionally drilling the Bore, she went over to the Shadow.

 

A few things here, first she didn't have pure intentions going into the drilling of the Bore.

 

JordanCon 25 April 2010 - Terez reporting

 

Ishara: Did Mierin drill the Bore out of curiosity, or out of some malevolent desire?

Maria: Mierin was kind of greedy. I don’t think it was a malevolent intent, but it wasn’t all pure and nice.

 

Robert Jordan Answers:

As an aside, for those who think that Lanfear was in some way twisted against her will by being involved in drilling the Bore---I have heard the theory advanced---of all those involved in the project, she was the only major figure to go over to the Shadow. She was ripe for the Shadow's plucking long before the Bore was drilled.

 

As for being spurned by LTT you are putting way too much weight on what essentially was two people "dating" for a short period of time.

 

BWB

 

It is certain that Lews Therin and Mierin were involved with one another for a short time, and that Lews Therin broke off the relationship some years before the drilling of the Bore, partly because she loved her association with the great Lews Therin more than she loved the man, and partly because she saw him as a path to power for herself.

 

Her arrogance is the mark of a competitive personality. Mierin has many of the qualities of somebody who is the best in her field, and knows it.

 

This has been brought up many times in similar threads, her arrogance is a mark of delusion. Other Forsaken have pointed out she has a vastly overinflated opinion of herself. Put quite simply, she wasn't the best in her field. Despite her strength in the OP she never earned the coveted third name, putting her below a number of other AS including LTT.

 

BWB

Born Mierin Eronaile, she was not world-famous or well known, though she was respected by her colleagues.

 

She wasn't the best in her field, her relationship with LTT was "short" and fairly inconsequential and she was ripe for the shadow long before drilling the Bore.

[Guest Emu on the Loose]

Yes, those are all valid interpretations as well, Suttree. Much as I think you are mistaken, I can't say you don't have a ground to stand on. Isn't it fascinating how we can exist in the same universe together? =)

[Suttree]

Yes, those are all valid interpretations as well, Suttree. Much as I think you are mistaken, I can't say you don't have a ground to stand on. Isn't it fascinating how we can exist in the same universe together? =)

 

Just backing up what I believe with quotes, may be helpful if you did the same(you mention evidence in the books supporting your interpretation) instead of relying on opinion so much. At the very least some of these other posters that are getting all riled up would be forced to offer valid refutations.

[Mrs. Cindy Gill]

just curious and not voicing an opinion on the thread's OP, but since the thread is titled, "The Lanfear Appreciation Thread She's hot, she's dangerous, she's everything you need," and the first few posts are pretty much neutral or sort of in agreement with the OP, without any angry seeming objections, is there an objective reason that people seem to start getting angry only with emu's statement of opinion?

 

is it because there are so many words typed, and that gives more things to be anrgy about? is it the way the opinion is phrased? is it because the opinion is posed as an interpretation instead of calling itself an opinion? is it a specific dislike of the poster of the opinion?

 

i'm just having a hard time understanding what kind of quotes could support a personal opinion of a particular character. or how anybody could be forced to offer anything in refutation of someone else's personal opinion? i feel like i'm missing some kind of social interactiony thing here.

[Suttree]

i'm just having a hard time understanding what kind of quotes could support a personal opinion of a particular character. or how anybody could be forced to offer anything in refutation of someone else's personal opinion?

 

Uhmm quotes from the story that helped shape said personnel opinion? You know little things that would back up some of Emu's statements such as...

 

There is enough ambiguity and complexity to Mierin's character that my interpretation of that character is defensible inasmuch as it follows from what is in the text.