Blood on the rocks

[Sharaman]

The sun could rise twice if there's an eclipse. That's a slightly more likely occurrence than reversing the Earth's rotation.

[Terez]

The sun could rise twice if there's an eclipse. That's a slightly more likely occurrence than reversing the Earth's rotation.

The sun wouldn't actually rise again, though, which really gets into dangerous literary cheat territory. No one refers to the end of an eclipse as 'dawn'. If you present something that appears to be a logical inconsistency, a mystery that spans nearly the entire series, then you can't take the easy way out. I'll buy 'the day' being something longer than a 24-hour period so long as the difficulty of 'the day' dawning twice isn't explained away with something like an eclipse or Dragonmount erupting and making the sky go dark or the Dark Clouds we've already seen. None of those fulfillments quite make the grade.

[Finnssss22]

The sun could rise twice if there's an eclipse. That's a slightly more likely occurrence than reversing the Earth's rotation.

The sun wouldn't actually rise again, though, which really gets into dangerous literary cheat territory. No one refers to the end of an eclipse as 'dawn'. If you present something that appears to be a logical inconsistency, a mystery that spans nearly the entire series, then you can't take the easy way out. I'll buy 'the day' being something longer than a 24-hour period so long as the difficulty of 'the day' dawning twice isn't explained away with something like an eclipse or Dragonmount erupting and making the sky go dark or the Dark Clouds we've already seen. None of those fulfillments quite make the grade.

 

Not an actual eclipse but an eclipse like event shouldn't be off the table.

The first time the bore was opened...

The Shadow Rising chapter 26:

Darkness spread across the sky. Swallowing the sun in unnatural night.

[Terez]

Just because darkness has spread across the sky before doesn't mean that it's a logical or satisfactory fulfillment of the prophecy.

[Finnssss22]

Just because darkness has spread across the sky before doesn't mean that it's a logical or satisfactory fulfillment of the prophecy.

 

Satisfactory...maybe, maybe not, but logical or plausible it is.

 

It IS something that happened before and it IS something that from all accounts IS going to happen again.

[Terez]

Just because darkness has spread across the sky before doesn't mean that it's a logical or satisfactory fulfillment of the prophecy.

 

Satisfactory...maybe, maybe not, but logical or plausible it is.

No, it isn't, because it doesn't have anything to do with dawn, and nothing in the quote you provided suggests that it has anything to do with dawn.

[yoniy0]

For what it's worth, a natural/unnatural eclipse will satisfy me. It's not a literal dawn, but it's close enough. And eclipses have a rich history of being used to symbolize major events in fantasy.

[Terez]

Sure, but RJ does not have a history of failing to meet the challenges he sets himself, nor does he have a history of overshooting or exaggerating his intentions in prophecy.

[ironisles]

Blood on the rocks, ain't no surprise; just pour me a drink and I'll tell you some lies...

[Taryn]

Thanks Elci! Glad you get it too :)

[yoniy0]

Sure, but RJ does not have a history of failing to meet the challenges he sets himself, nor does he have a history of overshooting or exaggerating his intentions in prophecy.

That could be debated. 'The People of the Dragon', for example, was almost a cop-out; Oh, yeah, we're called that. No, no specific reason. Even Breaking-age Da'shain didn't seem to know how they earned it. Then there's the issue of callandor - the reason Rand left it in Tear didn't really have anything to do with 'holding their hearts'; what, would they have forgotten about him more easily if he had a bad-ass sa'angreal with him rather than leaving it behind? Also, I'm not sure Rhuidean was ever lost (wasn't it built for the exact purpose in served?), but surly it was never forsaken. Except in the sense that an empty city is lost and forsaken.

 

Back to 'blood on the rocks', we should be thinking about whether 'day dawns' again after an eclipse, not whether an eclipse qualifies as a dawn. And, I think it could be said that it does (in the same sense that the aforementioned examples are valid).

[Azrayne]

what, would they have forgotten about him more easily if he had a bad-ass sa'angreal with him rather than leaving it behind?

 

You have to admit, nobles in Randland do have an extraordinary capacity for self delusion. If Rand had just bailed with Callandor I wouldn't put it past them to try and just carry on as if he'd never been.

[Terez]

Sure, but RJ does not have a history of failing to meet the challenges he sets himself, nor does he have a history of overshooting or exaggerating his intentions in prophecy.

That could be debated. 'The People of the Dragon', for example, was almost a cop-out; Oh, yeah, we're called that. No, no specific reason. Even Breaking-age Da'shain didn't seem to know how they earned it.

It was never a challenge he set for himself, though. It was made clear enough at the end of TEOTW that the Aiel were the People of the Dragon, when Someshta referred to Rand as such. The explanation eventually given falls in line perfectly with RJ's methods on how such names come into existence. In this case, based on a misunderstanding.

 

Then there's the issue of callandor - the reason Rand left it in Tear didn't really have anything to do with 'holding their hearts'; what, would they have forgotten about him more easily if he had a bad-ass sa'angreal with him rather than leaving it behind?

What makes you think this prophecy has actually been fulfilled? Just because Rand tried to force it doesn't mean he's right about it. The evidence would suggest that he isn't.

 

Also, I'm not sure Rhuidean was ever lost (wasn't it built for the exact purpose in served?), but surly it was never forsaken. Except in the sense that an empty city is lost and forsaken.

The city is forsaken in the sense that no one will live there. The Aiel gave up living in cities altogether. It's lost in the sense that no one is allowed to go there at all, except those wishing to be Wise Ones and clan chiefs.

 

Overall, bad examples.

 

Back to 'blood on the rocks', we should be thinking about whether 'day dawns' again after an eclipse, not whether an eclipse qualifies as a dawn. And, I think it could be said that it does (in the same sense that the aforementioned examples are valid).

It doesn't. Dawn is when the sun rises, end of.

[yoniy0]

You have to admit, nobles in Randland do have an extraordinary capacity for self delusion. If Rand had just bailed with Callandor I wouldn't put it past them to try and just carry on as if he'd never been.

Yes, I do admit that. I just don't think having Callandor still there makes it any more difficult. And, we know that's not why he did it anyway.

 

It was made clear enough at the end of TEOTW that the Aiel were the People of the Dragon, when Someshta referred to Rand as such. The explanation eventually given falls in line perfectly with RJ's methods on how such names come into existence. In this case, based on a misunderstanding.

Yes, RJ had the whole thing in mind when he invented the 'People of the Dragon' prophecy, and yes, that was his clue for us. But That doesn't make it any better incorporated into the story - it's just a name that exists for the sole purpose of making the prophecy obscure. And, I might add, we got no real explanation for it, just the mention of people using it even though it wasn't true:

Jonai winced. That name had caused trouble, no less for not being true. But how many citizens now believed the Da’shain Aiel had once served the Dragon and no other Aes Sedai?

 

The city is forsaken in the sense that no one will live there. The Aiel gave up living in cities altogether. It's lost in the sense that no one is allowed to go there at all, except those wishing to be Wise Ones and clan chiefs.

You're making the same kind of explanation I referred to. Yes, it can work. But it doesn't fit perfectly, just well enough - in a metaphorical way - not to be a stretch. It works as a literary device. So does an eclipse as a second dawn, was what I was aiming at.

 

Dawn is when the sun rises, end of.

And so it is. Only (a) it's still a good metaphor for an eclipse, and (b) nowhere does the noun appear in the prophecy (which is what I said before). As a verb, I think a day may well dawn after an eclipse, especially if the Pattern has just been saved from the Shadow. You're well within your right to disagree, but I still think it has merit.

[Terez]

It was made clear enough at the end of TEOTW that the Aiel were the People of the Dragon, when Someshta referred to Rand as such. The explanation eventually given falls in line perfectly with RJ's methods on how such names come into existence. In this case, based on a misunderstanding.

Yes, RJ had the whole thing in mind when he invented the 'People of the Dragon' prophecy, and yes, that was his clue for us. But That doesn't make it any better incorporated into the story - it's just a name that exists for the sole purpose of making the prophecy obscure.

It wasn't for the purpose of making it obscure at all, though. If it had been, he wouldn't have explained it at the end of the book. We've been waiting to find out about this twice-dawning day for 12 books now.

 

And, I might add, we got no real explanation for it, just the mention of people using it even though it wasn't true:

Jonai winced. That name had caused trouble, no less for not being true. But how many citizens now believed the Da’shain Aiel had once served the Dragon and no other Aes Sedai?

We get more clues than that one. See a post I made recently on the subject at Malazan.

 

The city is forsaken in the sense that no one will live there. The Aiel gave up living in cities altogether. It's lost in the sense that no one is allowed to go there at all, except those wishing to be Wise Ones and clan chiefs.

You're making the same kind of explanation I referred to. Yes, it can work. But it doesn't fit perfectly, just well enough - in a metaphorical way - not to be a stretch. It works as a literary device. So does an eclipse as a second dawn, was what I was aiming at.

Again, it's not a good comparison because there was no logical inconsistency presented in that particular bit of the prophecy. And it's resolved, again, within the same book. We're talking about literary devices here, and there are a number of factors that you don't seem to have taken into consideration.

 

Dawn is when the sun rises, end of.

And so it is. Only (a) it's still a good metaphor for an eclipse

I'm not talking about whether it's a good metaphor. I'm talking about whether it's a literary cheat. Totally different things.

[yoniy0]

If it had been, he wouldn't have explained it at the end of the book.

He didn't, though. With what we know of Aiel now, it's obvious what Someshta meant. At the time "neither now nor then" didn't quite make everything clear. Unless I'm forgetting more information about the Aiel that was revealed in TEotW?

 

We get more clues than that one. See a post I made recently on the subject at Malazan.

Yeah, I don't think wishing your father claimed to work for the Leader of the World instead of a Forsaken counts as a hint of intending to start a rumor. Certainly not one that would spread in the lifetime of a man (there ought to have been people around who still knew what and who the Da'shain served). And that doesn't explain why the Aiel would adopt that name (which they definitely didn't like) and make it part of their most sacred rituals.

 

We're talking about literary devices here, and there are a number of factors that you don't seem to have taken into consideration.

[...]

I'm not talking about whether it's a good metaphor. I'm talking about whether it's a literary cheat. Totally different things.

That's the crux of it. You would feel cheated if it turned out to be an eclipse. That's not because it would make the prophecy self-contradictory (it wouldn't, and I still don't see it as any different from accepting Rhuidean besides, for all that you say I'm ignoring several factors), at least I don't think so. It would just not seem right to you. To which I reply in the only way that seems logical to me - to chime in and say I wouldn't feel that way at all. It's not meant to invalidate your position, just to provide counterweight.

[Terez]

If it had been, he wouldn't have explained it at the end of the book.

He didn't, though. With what we know of Aiel now, it's obvious what Someshta meant. At the time "neither now nor then" didn't quite make everything clear. Unless I'm forgetting more information about the Aiel that was revealed in TEotW?

Only all the hints that Rand was Aiel. It was explained well enough.

 

We get more clues than that one. See a post I made recently on the subject at Malazan.

Yeah, I don't think wishing your father claimed to work for the Leader of the World instead of a Forsaken counts as a hint of intending to start a rumor.

It does, if you don't have a motive to claim otherwise. It's well in line with the way RJ hints at things. He's said many times that he purposefully avoids writing as if his readers were stupid.

 

Certainly not one that would spread in the lifetime of a man (there ought to have been people around who still knew what and who the Da'shain served).

Jonai was sixty years old in his POV, and Coumin (his father) was 16 in his. That's plenty of time for a rumor to take hold. It's the Citizens who believe stupid things, like the one that killed Charn because he claimed the Aiel served Lanfear. The Citizen believed it, didn't he? Or did you miss that?

 

And that doesn't explain why the Aiel would adopt that name (which they definitely didn't like) and make it part of their most sacred rituals.

Why does that need to be explained?

 

We're talking about literary devices here, and there are a number of factors that you don't seem to have taken into consideration.

[...]

I'm not talking about whether it's a good metaphor. I'm talking about whether it's a literary cheat. Totally different things.

That's the crux of it. You would feel cheated if it turned out to be an eclipse.

No, that's not the crux of it at all. The crux of it is that RJ would have felt like he'd cheated. Of course, there's plenty of evidence, as I cited in my first post in this thread, that he took care to fulfill this one properly. You would have been happy with something less challenging to write. But you're not RJ.

 

That's not because it would make the prophecy self-contradictory (it wouldn't, and I still don't see it as any different from accepting Rhuidean besides, for all that you say I'm ignoring several factors), at least I don't think so. It would just not seem right to you. To which I reply in the only way that seems logical to me - to chime in and say I wouldn't feel that way at all. It's not meant to invalidate your position, just to provide counterweight.

Nearly every post you make in response to me is an attempt at 'counterweight'. Just because I'm [insert word here] and you're a Dragonmount moderator doesn't mean that our positions are balanced. Nice try, though..

[Kahsm]

Terez has figured out the RJ formula and can accurately predict where every story line will lead based on her intimate knowledge of what RJ would do.

 

I mean who needs to use actual evidence when you've got that?

[Wantanswers]

It doesn't. Dawn is when the sun rises, end of.

Nothing end of. You're trying to intimidate people with a wrong statement. I once referred on Theoryland to an article on Wikipedia about dawn. You obviously didn't read it, because you still don't know what dawn is..

 

I noticed before that you start with an idea, and than start to shop selective. And finally interpret prophecies, visions, dreams etc. in a way that suites you for your 'theories'. You have also shown that you don't like to use semantics. because it should lead to ridiculous meanings. With that you tell that you don't understand what semantics is. Yes, you know the word but you don't understand what it is and how to use it. To a scholar semantics is a tool, as important as a hammer is to a carpenter or an anvil to a blacksmith. Of course a hammer can be used wrong and semantics can be used wrong as well. That would lead to ridicilous meanings. I suggest you learn how to use semantics, for you used it wrong several several times in you Twice-Dawning Day 'theory'. As I said before, only the parts you copied and pasted are right.

 

Twice dawns the day

By underlining the word 'the' you emphaised it. Here you used semantics and you used it wrong. By emphaising 'the' you suggest that something else but the day can dawn, and that is ridiculous. For your interpretation you should have emphaised the word 'day'.

 

There can be no health in us, nor any good thing grow, for the land is one with the Dragon Reborn, and he one with the land.

In your 'theory' you used only the emphaised part, because only that part suited you. If you had analysed the whole line, you should perhaps have realized that 'the land' is a metaphor for 'life'.

 

Only the Earth's rotation will be reversed

As I said before, you don't understand how balefire works. Rand nor 'the land' caused the turning of the world, so balefiring him wouldn't have any effect on the rotation of the world.

 

It may be that rivers will also revert

An avalanche might reverse.

Did you ever hear of gravity. Or will that be reversed as well. Imagine what will happen. Everything that's not attached to the earth will be flying around. People will drop dead when the situation returns to normal. Your fantasy is bigger as your knowledge.

 

Alivia is probably a red herring, at least to some degree.

Min had a vision about Alivia's help, so it will happen. Not knowing what what a vision means, doesn't make it a red herring. Besides, a red herring to some degree doesn't exist; just as a half full bottle doesn't exist.

 

"Before I let the Dark One have you, I will destroy you myself."

You told us this is a foreshadowing, but you don't have any proof for that. You only assumed it is a foreshadowing!

 

"Perhaps that's how I'll be killed, then."

"You aren't going to be killed," Min said.

"Í"

"You will live through this, sheepherder," she insisted. "I'm going to see that you do."

(ToM, A Storm of Light)

Can you tell me now, what is the foreshadowing and what is the red herring.

 

In post #40 I already gave my interpretation of the two dawns and of the Eelfinn answer about Rand's dying. I don't intend to comment all of your statements, but there is one more I think is important. I give my comment on that one in another thread, because my interpretation will automatically lead to the last battle.

[Terez]

It doesn't. Dawn is when the sun rises, end of.

Nothing end of. You're trying to intimidate people with a wrong statement. I once referred on Theoryland to an article on Wikipedia about dawn. You obviously didn't read it, because you still don't know what dawn is..

Clearly I still understand it better than you do, since you've abandoned the association with sunrise altogether.

 

I noticed before that you start with an idea, and than start to shop selective. And finally interpret prophecies, visions, dreams etc. in a way that suites you for your 'theories'.

On the contrary, what you choose to 'notice' is selective. I'm working from the big picture - all the prophecies and foreshadowings working together - while you're working from your idea of what you think each individual prophecy should mean, out of context completely.

 

With that you tell that you don't understand what semantics is.

lol. Just like I don't understand how balefire works, eh? But you clearly showed in your last post that you're the one that doesn't understand how it works.

 

There can be no health in us, nor any good thing grow, for the land is one with the Dragon Reborn, and he one with the land.

In your 'theory' you used only the emphaised part, because only that part suited you. If you had analysed the whole line, you should perhaps have realized that 'the land' is a metaphor for 'life'.

Now you're the one making shit up to fit your theories again. Nowhere does it say that it's a metphor for life, and nowhere is there evidence that it's a metaphor for life.

 

Only the Earth's rotation will be reversed

As I said before, you don't understand how balefire works. Rand nor 'the land' caused the turning of the world, so balefiring him wouldn't have any effect on the rotation of the world.

And now you're just repeating yourself and making yourself look stupid. I already explained in detail why your argument is stupid; either address my points or shut up about it.

 

It may be that rivers will also revert

An avalanche might reverse.

Did you ever hear of gravity.

Is that a question? Did you ever hear of grammar?

 

Or will that be reversed as well. Imagine what will happen. Everything that's not attached to the earth will be flying around. People will drop dead when the situation returns to normal. Your fantasy is bigger as your knowledge.

Grammar again. But did you have a point with this?

 

Alivia is probably a red herring, at least to some degree.

Min had a vision about Alivia's help, so it will happen. Not knowing what what a vision means, doesn't make it a red herring. Besides, a red herring to some degree doesn't exist; just as a half full bottle doesn't exist.

Of course it's going to happen. Alivia is going to help Rand die, somehow. It's a red herring in the sense that it leads readers to believe her role will be very direct, i.e. that Alivia will actually kill him. I've explained this several times before; I'm not sure why you have so much difficulty comprehending it.

 

"Before I let the Dark One have you, I will destroy you myself."

You told us this is a foreshadowing, but you don't have any proof for that. You only assumed it is a foreshadowing!

Again, it's context, something which you have difficulties with. I didn't randomly assume it was a foreshadowing; there are several reasons why I believe it's a foreshadowing, all of which I have explained in detail before.

 

"Perhaps that's how I'll be killed, then."

"You aren't going to be killed," Min said.

"Í"

"You will live through this, sheepherder," she insisted. "I'm going to see that you do."

(ToM, A Storm of Light)

Can you tell me now, what is the foreshadowing and what is the red herring.

Of course I can. I know how to use context. Try actually reading my posts, and you might understand.

 

I don't intend to comment all of your statements

That's because you don't have any arguments to counter those statements. Unlike you, I don't need to cherry-pick.

[yoniy0]

That is quite enough from everyone. I will have anyone speak their mind who wishes to, but you're only allowed to attack your peers' arguments, not them directly. Their character or worth as a person is not for you to judge, and you will keep it off DM. And, foul language will not be accepted here. If that's not clear, I'll repeat: there will be no swearing on the boards, not when directed at other people, and not when intended to debase or insult them.

 

Since my own performance was under review above, I'll address the issue here for everyone to see, and I'll do so as clearly as I can. I make a point of separating what I post as a moderator of these boards from what I do as a fan of the series. When I debate issues of the Wheel, my post on the site has no relevance. When I moderate a thread, my opinions on the series have just as little bearing. Finally, if someone has reservations on the way I conduct myself as DM staff, the CoC states clearly that those are to be expressed in a private conversation, with me or my supervisor (that would be Luckers, whom you all know). A warning isn't mandated, but you've all been warned nonetheless.

 

This thread will be locked if anyone carries on with this fight.

[Cefwyn]

The Day Dawns Twice and Twice his Blood will be shed...

 

Balefire won't work that leaves mundane and literary measures.

Eclipses are boring so I'm going with either an unravaling of the pattern or portal stone travel.

The portal stone to a time say three hours behind our own would do nicely and with 2 Aveindas we can have 4 kids two sets of health twines....

Unravaling pattern and a reset when shiatan looks to be about to lose only to pull out the final stop and Rand falls again...

I like the portal stone theory better.

 

Please rip this apart on merit of theory not gramar and spelling.

[Sharaman]

RJ tries not to mess with physics too much - he keeps his system of magic consistent.

We don't have an idea of what would happen if the Pattern unravels but this seems too dramatic.

Are you talking of a possible massive use of balefire leading to a "reset" ?

I think we can rule out using balefire on such a scale - the GLoD cannot be Balefird out of the Pattern according to RJ I think.

 

How can the day dawn twice using portal stones? You can be in two different places at sunrise, at best, using portal stones. That doesn't seem to fulfill the terms of prophesy.

It doesn't say his blood will be shed twice - just that his blood will be on the rocks at shayol Ghul on a day when dawn comes twice.

It may not even be shed at SG - maybe it's shed elsewhere, and stored and dropped on the rocks at SG?

It may not even be his blood - maybe it's his relatives?

[Terez]

RJ tries not to mess with physics too much

Not really.

 

I think we can rule out using balefire on such a scale

No great scale is necessary, especially if it's not far past sunrise when Rand is balefired.

 

the GLoD cannot be Balefird out of the Pattern according to RJ I think.

Rand ≠ the Dark One

[Sharaman]

Balefiring Rand wouldn't reset the Pattern - we've never seen the progression of the Earth's/ sun's rotation / revs interfered with, I'd surmise this would take a lot of BF. Admittedly time paradoxes are tricky but we've never seen the sun reset (moving back in the sky and then forward) even when biggish amounts of BF have been used as in doing Halima very close to sunset.