Biggest inconsistencies in WOT?

[DemandredFO]

Since this has been brought up, Does it say anywhere or did Jordan say anything about what Mordeth is? Is he just a man or is he a creation of Ishamael’s that went rogue? I would think he is more than a man because he controls or at least creates Mashadar.

[SinisterDeath]

Since this has been brought up, Does it say anywhere or did Jordan say anything about what Mordeth is? Is he just a man or is he a creation of Ishamael’s that went rogue? I would think he is more than a man because he controls or at least creates Mashadar.

 

It was in Eotw I believe. Mordeth was the man who started the movement in the city that we know as Shadar Logoth to fight fire with fire *Aka, to defeat the shadow, become more evil* Escentially he is still 'alive' and still 'leads' that 'cloud' in sahdar logoth... Think of the cloud as an unthinking being that goes around just killing anything in its path.

Mordeth is the sentient thing composes of simlar 'matter' but he can 'control' it.. He wanted to 'leave' shadar logoth, and one explanation about mordeth and fain could be he used fain as a 'vessel' since he couldn't leave shadar logoth much the same reason why that giant mydraal can't stay away from the do's closet for to long.

[DemandredFO]

I phrased my question badly. I know about Aridhol and how mordeth destroyed but I meant did RJ say anywhere what mordeth was that he created Mashadar. I mean like was he modified by Ishamael to create Mashadar from Aridhol's hate and suspition but modified him little too much.

[SinisterDeath]

Where are you getting this 'modified by ishmael' thing from?

[Thor]

I phrased my question badly. I know about Aridhol and how mordeth destroyed but I meant did RJ say anywhere what mordeth was that he created Mashadar. I mean like was he modified by Ishamael to create Mashadar from Aridhol's hate and suspition but modified him little too much.

 

You say you know about Aridhol and the nature of Mordeth, so why you asking anything about Ishamael?

[Draven]

dude did you read my post? Your signature is the most retarded thing i've ever seen. i've even wasted oh...around 7 mintues now trying to see any sense in it but it is TOTALLY PATHETICALLY STUPID! So stupid in fact that if you don't explain to us what it actually means' date=' my (and other fellow sane people) head(s) will explode and it will be all your fault. Don't think its funny, cos not explaining it makes you just as stupid as your sig.[/quote']

 

Sadly, his "explanation" regarding my topic isn't any smarter, either...Or maybe I failed to understand it because that stupid signature had made me dumber? Ah, well, I've said my bit. I guess the statement "To those who understand no exlanations are necessary; to those who CAN'T none will do." - or something like that. :D

[Effete]

Necroing a dead thread again cos I don't want to start a new one.

 

In chapter 25 of Path of Daggers, Elaida signs a bunch of edicts that Alviarin later crumbles up and disgards. But then we get this excerpt (emphasise mine):

 

Alviarin sighed impatiently. "You haven't forgotten your catechism, have you? Say it for me, as I taught you."

Elaida's lips compressed of their own accord. One pleasure in the woman's absence-not the greatest, but a very real pleasure-had been not being forced to repeat that vile litany every day. "I will do as I am told," she said at last, in a flat voice. She was the Amyrlin Seat! "I will speak the words you tell me to speak, and no more." Her Foretelling ordained her triumph, but, oh, Light, let it come soon! "I will sign what you tell me to sign, and nothing else. I am . . ." She choked over the last. "I am obedient to your will."

 

If she had to repeat this catechism everyday, wouldn't the Three Oaths bind her to it, and she wouldn't have (couldn't have) signed those edicts?

 

I'm calling this a goof.

[Elendir]

When she repeted this catechism, she believedit it is true. No more connection is there with three oaths.

[Effete]

19 hours ago, Elendir said:

When she repeted this catechism, she believedit it is true. No more connection is there with three oaths.

 

But that's what I'm saying. The truth of the statement dictates her actions. If she believes it's true she won't sign anything without express permission, she won't.

 

What you're saying makes absolutely no sense. It would mean the Third Oath could just simply be ignored as long as the sister "believes it" when she says it. That's not the case; the Oath dictates action (or inaction, as it is in these cases).

 

No... Elaida signing papers without Alviarin's permission is a blatant inconsistancy.

[Sabio]

It's how you interpret it.  had Eladia of taken it so literally then she would never of been able to speak unless Alviran told her what to say. 

[Effete]

6 hours ago, Sabio said:

It's how you interpret it.  had Eladia of taken it so literally then she would never of been able to speak unless Alviran told her what to say. 

Yeah, but no.

The context matters, and maybe RJ just worded it poorly, but that's what makes it an inconsistency.

 

"I will speak the words you tell me to speak, and no more." This can be interpretted as not speaking at all until given permission, but the sentence structure more strongly suggests that Elaida is forbidden from repeating what Alviarin says unless Alvi expressly allows it. This is supported by the rest of the narrative, when Elaida enlists Seaine's help, but gives her very little information on what to look for.

 

But the next part, "I will sign what you tell me to sign, and nothing else," only has one interpretation: she cannot sign anything unless Alviarin tells her to. There is no ambiguity there; it's quite clear.

[02ranger]

5 hours ago, Effete said:

Yeah, but no.

The context matters, and maybe RJ just worded it poorly, but that's what makes it an inconsistency.

 

"I will speak the words you tell me to speak, and no more." This can be interpretted as not speaking at all until given permission, but the sentence structure more strongly suggests that Elaida is forbidden from repeating what Alviarin says unless Alvi expressly allows it. This is supported by the rest of the narrative, when Elaida enlists Seaine's help, but gives her very little information on what to look for.

 

But the next part, "I will sign what you tell me to sign, and nothing else," only has one interpretation: she cannot sign anything unless Alviarin tells her to. There is no ambiguity there; it's quite clear.

 

The way I interpret that second part is that it is true when she says it and given how she means it. She doesn't say that she will always sign only what Alviarin tells her to sign so I took it as her having a sort of unspoken way to wriggle out of it due to the way she actually means it. I agree it seems contradictory but I think it's the kind of hair splitting they use when they use a fake name, "You may call me Alys," although not as obvious in the difference. Same thing as them swearing not to use the One Power as a weapon and then spanking, pinching, and otherwise disciplining novices with the OP. Some people might interpret that as a weapon, but all that matters is that the Aes Sedai doesn't see it that way. I hope I explained that well enough and am not just rambling aimlessly......

[Effete]

6 hours ago, 02ranger said:

 

... but all that matters is that the Aes Sedai doesn't see it that way. I hope I explained that well enough and am not just rambling aimlessly......

 

Nah, you did good ?

The way the Aes Sedai skirt the Three Oaths is used cleverly most of the time, which is why this (and a few other cases) sticks out.

 

Another example of this "contradiction" is in The Dragon Reborn when the girls, Verin, and sick Mat are confronted by Whitecloaks, and Egwene causes the ground to burst around their feet. No one is hurt (at least no worse than pinching or switching would cause), but Verin freaks out anyway and says something to effect that they mustn't do that and that the Three Oaths would sort them out. I don't think the intent was to hurt the Whitecloaks, just frighten them and warn them to back off. Yet Verin seems to see it as a violation of the Third Oath.

 

A third example is on the road to Ebou Dar, where Mat is being harassed because he won't give up his medalion. Adeleas uses the Power to fling horse dung at him. The "intent" was not to hurt Mat, so you can make the argument it's not being used as a "weapon," but the action is still an unwarrented assault against Mat (he does not want, nor expect, to be hit by dung), and any civilized society would consider the action to be an attack. So Adeleas, who undoubtedly is familiar with societial expectations and laws, is using the Power as a weapon, if perhaps indirectly... that's not unlike Egwene causing the ground to explode to frighten the Whitecloaks.

 

I'm not saying such things ruin the enjoyment of the story, I'm just pointing out they are inconsistent with what we are led to believe. If the Oaths are so pedantic that sisters can simply rationalize their way around them, then really they are bollocks, meaningless except for (as Suane points out) a common bond between sisters. And perhaps that is the greater point, but it jives with other scenes... like Dumai's Wells, where the AS were unable to use the Power to strike back at the Aiel until one of them was actually killed. Pedantry would dictate that if fireballs and lightning were being flung at you, you're life is in danger; it doesn't take a death to finally confirm it.

Edited April 2, 2020 by Effete

[02ranger]

14 hours ago, Effete said:

 

Nah, you did good ?

The way the Aes Sedai skirt the Three Oaths is used cleverly most of the time, which is why this (and a few other cases) sticks out.

 

Another example of this "contradiction" is in The Dragon Reborn when the girls, Verin, and sick Mat are confronted by Whitecloaks, and Egwene causes the ground to burst around their feet. No one is hurt (at least no worse than pinching or switching would cause), but Verin freaks out anyway and says something to effect that they mustn't do that and that the Three Oaths would sort them out. I don't think the intent was to hurt the Whitecloaks, just frighten them and warn them to back off. Yet Verin seems to see it as a violation of the Third Oath.

 

A third example is on the road to Ebou Dar, where Mat is being harassed because he won't give up his medalion. Adeleas uses the Power to fling horse dung at him. The "intent" was not to hurt Mat, so you can make the argument it's not being used as a "weapon," but the action is still an unwarrented assault against Mat (he does not want, nor expect, to be hit by dung), and any civilized society would consider the action to be an attack. So Adeleas, who undoubtedly is familiar with societial expectations and laws, is using the Power as a weapon, if perhaps indirectly... that's not unlike Egwene causing the ground to explode to frighten the Whitecloaks.

 

I'm not saying such things ruin the enjoyment of the story, I'm just pointing out they are inconsistent with what we are led to believe. If the Oaths are so pedantic that sisters can simply rationalize their way around them, then really they are bollocks, meaningless except for (as Suane points out) a common bond between sisters. And perhaps that is the greater point, but it jives with other scenes... like Dumai's Wells, where the AS were unable to use the Power to strike back at the Aiel until one of them was actually killed. Pedantry would dictate that if fireballs and lightning were being flung at you, you're life is in danger; it doesn't take a death to finally confirm it.

 

I think the second example could be seen as Verin interpreting that action as breaking the Third Oath because of what she believes was Egwene's intent, regardless of Egwene's actual intent. 

 

Your third example is actually harder to justify because I agree it counts as a weapon by most definitions, but again I think it all comes back to how Adeleas sees her own intent. She probably views it as a teaching tool or at worst a prank. Mental gymnastics could get her around the Three Oaths in this instance.

 

In my opinion, Dumai's Wells is the best example of the possible inconsistency with the Three Oaths, because I'm pretty sure they don't have to wait for one of their number to be injured/killed to defend themselves any other time. We could probably come up with some sort of justification, but I don't think anything will sound believable.

 

Personal interpretation of your own actions and the intent behind them is everything to the Three Oaths and I think that actually does make the Three Oaths worthless. Only the Aes Sedai, of all the channelers we meet in various societies, are seen as scheming and untrustworthy, and the Three Oaths are the main reason. I think that must have been Jordan's intent with the Three Oaths, to show that following the letter of the law rather than the spirit, or even having a personal moral code that you hold yourself to, is not good enough and will ultimately lead to efforts to circumvent your own laws. Perhaps that's why he included these seeming inconsistencies, to highlight the flaws in that system. Then again, he could have just had a hard time applying the Three Oaths consistently. It would be hard enough to live like that, imagine having to write a story where a huge chunk of your characters have these rules they absolutely cannot break. Limitations are good and make a story interesting, but I imagine the Three Oaths were a nightmare to write around...

[Effete]

1 hour ago, 02ranger said:

Personal interpretation of your own actions and the intent behind them is everything to the Three Oaths and I think that actually does make the Three Oaths worthless. Only the Aes Sedai, of all the channelers we meet in various societies, are seen as scheming and untrustworthy, and the Three Oaths are the main reason.

My thoughts exactly!

At some point in the story, one of the Aes Sedai (I forget who) balks at the way people are now treating them and says the Aes Sedai must always "stand apart" from the rest of humanity and maintain an air of "mystery." I read that and I'm like: but don't they see that that looks like the Aes Sedai have a superiority complex (which they certainly do!) and can breed distrust as often as it does awe?

 

It's the main reason I have so much difficulty liking the AS on the whole. They are written very two-dimensionally. They're presented as having this ageless wisdom and experience, but they're always dropping their jaws or bulging their eyes when someone backtalks them; or fainting and vomiting when things surprise them or don't go their way. It shows a considerable lack of self-control from people who expect (if not demand) self-control and civility from everyone else.

 

I suppose that's an intentional flaw the readers are supposed to see in them, but I just don't like the way it's presented. The term "Aes Sedai serenity" is used frequently, and everytime it reminds me of "Bene Gesserit stoicism." But unlike the Bene Gesserit, this "Aes Sedai serenity" is easily shattered by things that their multiple decades of experience should be accustomed to. The impression I gleen from it is that the Aes Sedai are deluded by their own self-importance, having grown complacent by a world that has cowtowed to them out of some misplaced reverence because of what they represent, not because of what they have accomplished. The modern-day Aes Sedai are simply riding the coat tails of their predecessors, but (from what I've seen) have done very little to add to that legacy. So when people start treating them as equals, rather than the demi-goddesses they apparently think they are, the mask slips and they reveal that they are really nothing more than simpering, spoiled brats.

____

 

But back on topic...

Yeah, I think you may be right. The Three Oaths seem to be more like "guidelines" than a strict set of tenets. Jordan may have wanted to concentrate more on developing the interactions between characters than worrying about the minutea of technicalities. However, I don't think the goal was to send some messege about the dangers of constraint, as that doesn't come through as a theme. As I said before, it doesn't ruin the story, since the inconsistencies are largely inconsequential, but because I'm a pedant these things tend to bother me. ?

[Elendir]

The three oaths are not subject to the inconsistency of the narrative on the contrary. RJ is subconsciously very consistent here. Rather, they are the inconsistencies of the As Sedai inner values. What is something different.

[Papa Schu]

On 10/30/2006 at 4:12 PM, Kadere said:

Your first point is not true. Rand experiences the after effects when he's in Barleon and is spotted by the White Cloaks. That's why he has the reaction of smiling at them and then total dizziness.

 

Your second point is also untrue, as Rand can tell were all of his women are, Elayne, Avi, and Min can all tell where Rand is, Lan tracks down that one Aes Sedai from his bond, and a bunch of other places.

 

And your final point is techincally true, because Bayle doesn't recognize Thom in the first edition of the book, yet in the paperback addition he does. He shows no surprise at seeing a gleeman.

Also, when the bond is passed to her  Nynave(sp?) is able to track Lan down while he's traveling in the north. 

[PaigeJohnson]

My favorite inconsistency will always be in the first book, when they are traveling through the ways and Robert Jordan makes a comparison to a treadmill, which as far as I know (correct me if I am wrong) was definitely not a thing since there is no electricity.

[2RiversFan]

I think RJ wasn't referring the anything like the modern day treadmill as you are thinking of @PaigeJohnson, he was likely referring to the type the Romans used to power the lifting of a crane boom (think: water mill wheel).

 

In that context, his usage of treadmill isn't anachronistic and not an inconsistency.

 

While trying but failing to find a good example online of how the Romans used them, I did find this article showing that the first treadmills weren't electric: Prison Treadmills

 

These more modern ones were invented in 1818 according to the linked article, which would be too recent for WoT.

Edited April 25, 2020 by 2RiversFan

[PaigeJohnson]

Oooohhhh that makes sense?