Jump to content

DRAGONMOUNT

A WHEEL OF TIME COMMUNITY
Fliggerty

Where did Moiraine go at the beginning of TGH?

Recommended Posts

We know she's essential for the victory of the light over the shadow.
Viewing of a dead and gone woman? To me that talks about a woman that litterally died then returned from death. Would still think that unless the author tells differently.

 

And the event could be sometime before Tarmon Gaidon; and some chance of the Viewing being already fulfilled.

 

Whereas to me that implies that she saw a viewing around Moiraine that pointed to something in her future (her 'failed' viewing that is not so failed) AND she saw a viewing around Rand that he needed Moiraine - and she considered her to be dead and gone. Hence the viewpoint statement.

 

But yeah, to agree with others, I'd believe in Ishamael and Lanfear's redemptions before Moiraine's corruption. YES THAT IS A FAITH STATEMENT :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First off, if we're going to point to vagueness as proof that the "unnamed woman" isn't necessarily Moiraine, then you'd also have to agree that there's absolutely nothing that shows (and something that suggests otherwise) that Min's viewing of the woman was a "Knowledge Viewing" rather than a simple "Unconfirmed Viewing". Most of her viewings are as vague as prophecy.

 

No, I'm saying that the statement than Rand will almost certainly fail without someone being there is a viewing that CANNOT fail. Whether or not the woman is there has absolutely no bearing on the validity of the viewing. The viewing, in essence, is saying that Rand's job will be made easier if a certain woman is there, but it says nothing about whether or not that woman has to be there.

 

Second, the -only- time Min has ever met Lanfear and had a chance to view her was way back after the battle of Falme. You don't think this would have come up sooner?

 

I don't think she saw anything around Lanfear. I think that Min saw this particular viewing around Rand... which, IIRC, is what that scene started with. Furthermore, we do not even know if Min knows the identity of the woman in the viewing.

 

You're suggesting that Min's randomly, with no association whatsoever, referencing two different viewings? You're familiar with the -entire- quote, right?

 

I'm doing a re-read, and I'm about to start on aCoS, so I'm sure I'll get to the scene sooner or later, but thank you for a little more context. Even if Min is associating Moiraine with the 'woman ... dead and gone', which I am not convinced about, that doesn't mean she actually knows that Moiraine is that woman. She has been known to make assumptions about her viewings that may not be correct (case in point, Alivia).

 

More importantly, Moiraine's already got the nod from multiple prophecies regarding Mat giving up half the light of the world to save the world, clearly by way of saving her. It doesn't seem likely that the two women are going to team up to save the world - Lanfear's been fleshed out as a narcissistic psychopath with no redeeming features whatsoever, and it would be completely uncharacteristic for her to change like that, which is why the end sequence of ToM comes off as a blatant trap. That is one scenario that would really shock me, because RJ has not laid down a single clue to suggest that Lanfear is capable of redemption. Think about it - she knows about at least -one- of Rand's women now, possibly two, and the last time she heard about it, she went ballistic and ripped a man straight out of his skin to show her displeasure. Pretty sure a few pregnant ladies would piss her off even further, and after Semirhage, Rand would have to be a raging idiot to trust Lanfear no matter what quaint notions he has on not hurting women.

 

I'm not saying that Moiraine isn't the 'woman ... dead and gone', merely that:

A) Assuming that Min was quoting the actual way she interpreted the viewing, that viewing CANNOT fail, so it cannot be the viewing of Moiraine she references that failed.

B) Following from A, Moiraine was not even dead, so there is little reason to assume that she would interpret the viewing as 'dead and gone' if that was the actual interpretation of her viewing and it actually did refer to Moiraine.

C) For the viewing to have both been about Moiraine and be specifically the viewing that failed, Min would have to be thinking about her viewing in a way heavily colored by her own later assumptions and be unable to phrase a failed viewing in a way that it can actually fail.

 

In other words, quit stating your views as official truth when the text is still quite open to other interpretations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

No, I'm saying that the statement than Rand will almost certainly fail without someone being there is a viewing that CANNOT fail. Whether or not the woman is there has absolutely no bearing on the validity of the viewing. The viewing, in essence, is saying that Rand's job will be made easier if a certain woman is there, but it says nothing about whether or not that woman has to be there.

 

I don't think she saw anything around Lanfear. I think that Min saw this particular viewing around Rand... which, IIRC, is what that scene started with. Furthermore, we do not even know if Min knows the identity of the woman in the viewing.

 

I'm doing a re-read, and I'm about to start on aCoS, so I'm sure I'll get to the scene sooner or later, but thank you for a little more context. Even if Min is associating Moiraine with the 'woman ... dead and gone', which I am not convinced about, that doesn't mean she actually knows that Moiraine is that woman. She has been known to make assumptions about her viewings that may not be correct (case in point, Alivia).

 

I'm not saying that Moiraine isn't the 'woman ... dead and gone', merely that:

A) Assuming that Min was quoting the actual way she interpreted the viewing, that viewing CANNOT fail, so it cannot be the viewing of Moiraine she references that failed.

B) Following from A, Moiraine was not even dead, so there is little reason to assume that she would interpret the viewing as 'dead and gone' if that was the actual interpretation of her viewing and it actually did refer to Moiraine.

C) For the viewing to have both been about Moiraine and be specifically the viewing that failed, Min would have to be thinking about her viewing in a way heavily colored by her own later assumptions and be unable to phrase a failed viewing in a way that it can actually fail.

 

In other words, quit stating your views as official truth when the text is still quite open to other interpretations.

 

Before I address the rest of this, one point to make: I am stating this as my OPINION, not the official truth. That means, I will state it in a way that reflects my views. I am not required to water my opinion down just to reflect an idea I do not even believein . Telling me to quit expressing what is obviously my opinion won't get this discussion anywhere. Were I completely closed to the idea that the viewing isn't as explicit as believed, you might be discussing it now, but you'd be responding to an empty seat.

 

Now, as for that discussion...

 

No, I'm saying that the statement than Rand will almost certainly fail without someone being there is a viewing that CANNOT fail. Whether or not the woman is there has absolutely no bearing on the validity of the viewing. The viewing, in essence, is saying that Rand's job will be made easier if a certain woman is there, but it says nothing about whether or not that woman has to be there.

 

Again, that is not a viewing: it is narration of Min's thoughts about a previous viewing. Nowhere is there text explicitly stating what that viewing was. We know that it was a Truth Viewing, one of Min's viewings that cannot fail or she would not indicate so much knowledge of it. The viewing is clearly past, not present tense, for the following reason: If it were a viewing she had seen on at present on Rand, that he needs a woman dead and gone to succeed, then it would be obvious her interpretation is flawed, because that is a paradox. Not a failure, but a paradox. Dead people don't save the world.

 

This means that "a woman dead and gone" refers to someone she either knew or believed to be dead and gone.

 

Logic-wise: Very shortly thereafter, she ponders the point that Moiraine's is the only viewing that ever failed. Even if we accept your suggestion that this is completely open to interpretation and that this is a random and irrelevant thought... this would make two failed viewings, not one. Moiraine's failed viewing, and the "woman dead and gone" viewing. Inconsistent with the text, and therefore wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You're mistaking narration for one of Min's viewings.

A tiny stab of guilt made her shift her seat on the coverlet. She had not really lied when he asked what viewings she had kept back. Not really. What good to tell him he would almost certainly fail without a woman who was dead and gone? He became bleak too easily as it was. She had to keep his spirits up, make him remember to laugh.

 

Moiraine was the only viewing of hers that had ever failed.

 

Both are from ACoS, ch35. Min is reflecting on the fact that she had a viewing indicating that Rand needed Moiraine's help to save the world. However, since (at that point) everyone believes Moiraine dead and gone, it would mean her viewing was completely wrong.

I doubt that I am mistaken.

I read similar comments in past threads; none of them convinced me.

Only those that have access to the notes would whose right.

 

Whereas to me that implies that she saw a viewing around Moiraine that pointed to something in her future (her 'failed' viewing that is not so failed) AND she saw a viewing around Rand that he needed Moiraine - and she considered her to be dead and gone. Hence the viewpoint statement.
The pages/paragraphs in between change from one topic to another multiple times and there is no indication of there being a return to the Viewing in the later page/paragraph.

 

Like I told in past threads, I take the exact phrase was the Viewing. not a woman believed/thought/etc dead, but a woman literally dead.

For Moiraine to fulfill it, to me she would need to have a return from litteral death.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You're mistaking narration for one of Min's viewings.

A tiny stab of guilt made her shift her seat on the coverlet. She had not really lied when he asked what viewings she had kept back. Not really. What good to tell him he would almost certainly fail without a woman who was dead and gone? He became bleak too easily as it was. She had to keep his spirits up, make him remember to laugh.

 

Moiraine was the only viewing of hers that had ever failed.

 

Both are from ACoS, ch35. Min is reflecting on the fact that she had a viewing indicating that Rand needed Moiraine's help to save the world. However, since (at that point) everyone believes Moiraine dead and gone, it would mean her viewing was completely wrong.

I doubt that I am mistaken.

I read similar comments in past threads; none of them convinced me.

Only those that have access to the notes would whose right.

 

Whereas to me that implies that she saw a viewing around Moiraine that pointed to something in her future (her 'failed' viewing that is not so failed) AND she saw a viewing around Rand that he needed Moiraine - and she considered her to be dead and gone. Hence the viewpoint statement.
The pages/paragraphs in between change from one topic to another multiple times and there is no indication of there being a return to the Viewing in the later page/paragraph.

 

Like I told in past threads, I take the exact phrase was the Viewing. not a woman believed/thought/etc dead, but a woman literally dead.

For Moiraine to fulfill it, to me she would need to have a return from litteral death.

Yeah, no offence but you're wrong.

The viewing is clearly both about Moiraine, and referencing her as a woman who, to Min's knowledge (and it is supposedly certain knowledge) is dead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Moiraine went to the Jersey Shore. Moiraine is SNOOKI! Moiraine Damodred has a name number of 3. Using Snooki's real name, Nicole Polizzi, we also get the name number 3. Proof they are one and the same. Also, if we take the name number for Moiraine we get 8. Both her aliases, Alys and Mari also give the value of 8.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like I told in past threads, I take the exact phrase was the Viewing. not a woman believed/thought/etc dead, but a woman literally dead.

For Moiraine to fulfill it, to me she would need to have a return from litteral death.

 

If you believe that, then the question becomes this: Why would RJ insert a completely random reference to a viewing of Moiraine that never received on-screen time from Min? Min's viewings are heavily documented by interested readers... the reference to the "woman dead and gone" is the only one that has a hint of a connection to Moiraine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello,

 

So this question has plagued me enough now that I finally had to join so I could ask for some thoughts.

 

I am doing an umpteenth read-through in anticipation of AMoL...and something just stood out to me that I never caught before. At the beginning of THG when Rand and Lan are working out, Rand is complaining that Moiraine is ignoring him now. He then mentions that she even left Fal Dara, and Lan tells him that she got back the previous night.

 

We know that Ingtar is a dark friend and left the keep at the same time to go to the meeting that was told through the perspective of "Bors." I'm still near the beginning of this book, but I simply don't recall any explanation for her disappearance in any of my previous reads (and the last was only about a year ago.)

 

So, did Moiraine go to that meeting? Is Moiraine a dark friend? Of course all of her actions and apparent loyalty to Rand say otherwise, but do they really? The Dark Lord prizes ambition and cunning in his followers, so wouldn't it make sense that someone of his would want to get close to the DR and stay as close as possible, even to the extent of destroying other Chosen? Perhaps she thought that she would be killed by the 'Finns and transmigrated as Lanfear was, and her plan didn't work out...who knows, I'm just throwing out ideas here.

 

I have never before considered the possibility. But her unexplained absence is really bugging me. After A New Spring we of course don't want to think that she could have been converted and corrupted, but there's still 20 years that are left untold. And if she did convert, that would explain how the dark learned the precise age of the DR, which they obviously didn't know at the end of ANS.

 

Can someone please put this uneasiness to rest for me so I can sleep well again? Only an explanation of that absence will do the trick I fear.

 

Thanks!

 

 

 

--Fligg

 

 

Well, at first I thought that Moiraine was visiting Adeleas and Vandene. I don't remember how many days she was missing, and I don't remember the distance (they are in Arafel, right). So, I suppose it has to be at least 15 days of missing, considering the time for riding and surely she wouldn't find everything for an hour. So now I think that visiting Blue Eyes and Ears is more likely.

But assuming that she was at the Darkfriend Social is stupid. First of all, we know that RJ had a habit of setting the time moments for the prologues much earlier than the ending moments of the previous book. And in my opinion it is obviously the case with tGH prologue. In my opinion the darkfriend social could be any time after Baerlon (correct me if I'm wrong, I don't have the first several books with me... they always Travel from friend to friend ;) But I got the impression that Baal'Zamon still doesn't know who of the three Ta'veren is the Dragon at the Darkfriend Social

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you believe that, then the question becomes this: Why would RJ insert a completely random reference to a viewing of Moiraine that never received on-screen time from Min? Min's viewings are heavily documented by interested readers... the reference to the "woman dead and gone" is the only one that has a hint of a connection to Moiraine.

 

It is heavily implied that Min saw a viewing of Thom and Moiraine marrying. That could easily be the viewing that "failed".

Edited by Ala Rubra

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah, no offence but you're wrong.

The viewing is clearly both about Moiraine, and referencing her as a woman who, to Min's knowledge (and it is supposedly certain knowledge) is dead.

Those comments seem not much different than the comments I read in the other threads.

Unless either author told those things, I would count those as just opinion.

 

If you believe that, then the question becomes this: Why would RJ insert a completely random reference to a viewing of Moiraine that never received on-screen time from Min? Min's viewings are heavily documented by interested readers... the reference to the "woman dead and gone" is the only one that has a hint of a connection to Moiraine.
The mention of Moiraine in the chapter seems related to the arrival of a character that looks like her.

The earlier Viewing in the chapter technically has not failed yet.

 

Like another poster replied, the "failed" Viewing could be Moiraine's & Thom's wedding. Moiraine seemed to allude to it several times. Moiraine's comment to the Two Rivers folk about Thom being alive while traveling through the Ways; Moiraine's comment to Egwene/Elayne/Nynaeve about knowing the face of her future husban; Moiraine's comment to Thom of him surviving Tanchico.

And Thom's Viewings seem related. White Tower, possibly that he would marry an Aes Sedia; man juggling fire, possibly that he would have a channeling son.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Like another poster replied, the "failed" Viewing could be Moiraine's & Thom's wedding. Moiraine seemed to allude to it several times. Moiraine's comment to the Two Rivers folk about Thom being alive while traveling through the Ways; Moiraine's comment to Egwene/Elayne/Nynaeve about knowing the face of her future husban; Moiraine's comment to Thom of him surviving Tanchico.

 

But none of those possible allusions explicitly mentions Min or her viewings?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Like another poster replied, the "failed" Viewing could be Moiraine's & Thom's wedding. Moiraine seemed to allude to it several times. Moiraine's comment to the Two Rivers folk about Thom being alive while traveling through the Ways; Moiraine's comment to Egwene/Elayne/Nynaeve about knowing the face of her future husban; Moiraine's comment to Thom of him surviving Tanchico.
But none of those possible allusions explicitly mentions Min or her viewings?
Moiraine mentioned Min shortly after the first comment.

Second comment, other members (in past threads) suggested her Accepted test; yet I doubt that.

Third comment, others (in past threads) suggested the Aelfinn; yet I would guess that she did not ask about Thom.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But was it ever rational to believe that Mo was dead? she and Lanfear go thru a doorway. Rational thought process may be, oh she is lost to us on the other side of that doorway cause the doorway is gone. why think she is dead?

 

Mo not DF, reread it says she went south to communicate with Siuan and left Lan in Fal Dara. she took Lan with her when she went to Ande & Vandy's house and the boys were with Verin...

 

Mo not DF or Siuan would be dead, all Black ajah, hunted down every person who heard Gitara's foretelling, also it would be very hard to explain her as a fake Black ajah too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But was it ever rational to believe that Mo was dead? she and Lanfear go thru a doorway. Rational thought process may be, oh she is lost to us on the other side of that doorway cause the doorway is gone. why think she is dead?

 

Because Lan's bond was severed. The only thing to their knowledge that could do that was death.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know, its entirely possible Moiraine went no where during the beginning of tGH, but rather led Rand to this impression as a part of her effort to make him believe she wasn't paying him any attention.

 

Also, the woman dead and gone conversation has it own thread. Keep it there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But was it ever rational to believe that Mo was dead? she and Lanfear go thru a doorway. Rational thought process may be, oh she is lost to us on the other side of that doorway cause the doorway is gone. why think she is dead?

 

Probably because this is the last thing they see of her:

 

In the depths of a shrinking Void, Rand saw Moiraine hurtle seemingly out of nowhere to grapple with Lanfear. The attacks on him ceased as the two women plunged through the doorframe ter’angreal in a flash of white light that did not end; it filled the subtly twisted redstone rectangle as though trying to flood through and striking some invisible barrier. Lightnings arched silver and blue around the ter’angreal, more and more violently; rasping buzzes crackled through the air.- TFoH, ch53

 

Given that the last time Rand saw anything like this, a good number of his friends ended up dead, it's not illogical to reason that someone jumping -right in the middle of it- is incinerated. Then there's Lan's bond, which has been mentioned...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It could be something as simple as her drive to find the Dragon made her use any means necessary. Selling her soul for the completion of the task. Her drive is almost unhealthy, and I can't remember all the terms from psychology right now, but that fixation isn't good. We want to think of Moiraine as being nice and good, but the evidence is gray. She and Siuan obviously regret what they are about to do to him in TGH whatever it is and use him by simply unleashing him on the world. Moiraine is traded for Verin at that time. Moiraine then forces Rand and Co. to remain in the mountains until the pattern forces him to run to Tear in an effort to check things off on the list of prophecy. Siuan also contemplates allowing Matt to die so she can pick someone to sound the horn to attach her strings to.

 

In all other fantasy works prophecies are involved, the hero doesn't run out and start doing the things in them like a checklist, they occur in other ways by happenstance. Just seems like they are forcing him to force the pattern with his taveren nature. That's why there are "crackpots" with theories of Valan Luca as the DR, or Logain as the DR, expecting some big twist at the end and some big reveals.

 

I have my own theories, some of them fall into the crackpot category certainly, but perhaps that is what makes it an awesome story, all the different spin-off theories throughout its progression, the arguing and the moments of awe as we read other people's ideas.

 

One thing is certain; they use a different code of Ethics and Morality. I think RJ was one of those fascinated or baffled by Kant. Guy runs past you and hides, and a murder comes along with knife in hand, asks if you saw the guy he's going to kill. It would be unethical not to point the guy out, as you don't know he's going to murder him for sure, and even if he does it's on the murder and not you. A white lie is unethical. Yah, took me a while to wrap my head around that one, too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But assuming that she was at the Darkfriend Social is stupid. First of all, we know that RJ had a habit of setting the time moments for the prologues much earlier than the ending moments of the previous book. And in my opinion it is obviously the case with tGH prologue. In my opinion the darkfriend social could be any time after Baerlon (correct me if I'm wrong, I don't have the first several books with me... they always Travel from friend to friend ;) But I got the impression that Baal'Zamon still doesn't know who of the three Ta'veren is the Dragon at the Darkfriend Social

Actually, we know that RJ did not overlap timelines like that in the early books. Prior to the end of book six/start of book seven the beginning of one book took place after the end of the last. Of course, we can be sure Moiraine was not at the Darkfriend social because we know she was not a Darkfriend. From 13th Deopsitory's Who is Not a Darkfriend list: Her thoughts regarding Rand:

 

I will not let you go to the Shadow. I have worked too long to allow that. Whatever it takes.

 

-The Shadow Rising, Into the Heart

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will not let you go to the Shadow. I have worked too long to allow that. Whatever it takes.

 

-The Shadow Rising, Into the Heart

 

This is not conclusive, it's kind of like the "liars village / truth-tellers village" puzzle.

 

If Moiraine is Black Ajah, she's been released from the Oaths, and can say this, even though it's a lie.

 

If she is not, she's bound to speak only truth, and can say this, because it's true.

 

The fact that she said it tells you nothing about her status.

 

That said, there's no way Moiraine is a Friend of the Dark. If she had been, she'd have killed all three boys in the first book, when it would have been trivially easy, and likely been raised to Chosen status by the Great Lord immediately. Even Verin, the only ambiguous darkfriend we've seen, had far more evidence for her darkness than has been postulated for Moiraine.

 

--Shannon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Indeed, her saying it wouldn't be proof. However, as was noted in my post, those were her thoughts. It's a mighty odd thing for a Darkfriend to think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But assuming that she was at the Darkfriend Social is stupid. First of all, we know that RJ had a habit of setting the time moments for the prologues much earlier than the ending moments of the previous book. And in my opinion it is obviously the case with tGH prologue. In my opinion the darkfriend social could be any time after Baerlon (correct me if I'm wrong, I don't have the first several books with me... they always Travel from friend to friend ;) But I got the impression that Baal'Zamon still doesn't know who of the three Ta'veren is the Dragon at the Darkfriend Social

 

It also mentions that Ingtar has just returned from somewhere....gone at the same time that Moiraine was. That's the piece of this that caught my attention.

 

It could be something as simple as her drive to find the Dragon made her use any means necessary. Selling her soul for the completion of the task. Her drive is almost unhealthy, and I can't remember all the terms from psychology right now, but that fixation isn't good. We want to think of Moiraine as being nice and good, but the evidence is gray. She and Siuan obviously regret what they are about to do to him in TGH whatever it is and use him by simply unleashing him on the world. Moiraine is traded for Verin at that time. Moiraine then forces Rand and Co. to remain in the mountains until the pattern forces him to run to Tear in an effort to check things off on the list of prophecy. Siuan also contemplates allowing Matt to die so she can pick someone to sound the horn to attach her strings to.

 

This brings to mind a quotation that I read sometime last week or so (not sure where exactly, but most likely somewhere in TGH.) Someone said something like "you blues, willing to lose yourself entirely for your causes." For Moiraine and Suian the end completely justifies the means.

 

If she joined the Black simply to be able to get to the Dragon Reborn first, she wouldn't kill him in The Two Rivers. That would destroy the end she's working for, and then there wouldn't be any rationale for this idea at all. So the fact that she didn't kill them holds up this possibility.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If she joined the Black simply to be able to get to the Dragon Reborn first, she wouldn't kill him in The Two Rivers. That would destroy the end she's working for, and then there wouldn't be any rationale for this idea at all. So the fact that she didn't kill them holds up this possibility.

 

I could see it as holding up the possibility if her status as "darkfriend or not" were based entirely on events in the books up to that point, but I'd say that balefiring one Forsaken and effectively killing another either makes her the real Nae'bliss or a lightfriend.

 

I'm pretty open to possibilities on turncoats in the final battle, but that wouldn't even come across as rational to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...