Jump to content

DRAGONMOUNT

A WHEEL OF TIME COMMUNITY
Sign in to follow this  
thom_merrilin

Nynaeve, the most arrogant character in WoT?

Recommended Posts

I think Cadsuane is along with Egwene someone who polarises the fans. Those who see her as arrogant, self-centred and smug. You'll have those who only see her bad points, and people who see only her good points, and those who refuse to see their bad points.

Every character has bad points, even Cadsuane, though their are some who will never acknowledge it. Personally I loathe Cadsuane, she even out does Faile in my eyes.

Yes, she has some redeeming features. But not many.

 

 

And I can totally agree with this. It's the same for a lot of characters, Perrin and Eggy are two other key ones that people all have strong emotions about, love or hate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You choose to ignore the his house thing I mentioned. I’m not sure how you can say taking advantage of someone’s hospitality, and then refusing them a simple request for their presence is not rude. If you came to stay at my home, and I asked you to come talk to me and you said no, well bloody hell, why would I allow you to stay there if you can’t come talk to me.

 

Except it wasn't a house, it was a palace--and for that matter it wasn't his. He'd disavowed the crown, so they were both guests.

 

That being said, say it was rude--it's not, technically--we see others refuse invitations for meetings, even to rulers, in New Spring--its permissable and indeed forcing the issue can be seen as impolite--but yes, say it was rude, and I've no doubt it was meant to be abrasive... so what?

 

That was not Cadsuane bullying Rand. Indeed as far as I can tell, what your upset about is Cadsuane not leaping when he snapped his fingers--and I'm sorry, but he had no right to expect that.

 

A king is a ruler of nations, uncrowned, he was ruling those nations. A king in all but name. Didn’t Elayane call him that in the Stone?

 

Tell that to the various President's, Prime Ministers, elected governers, etc. Lol, for that matter telling it to the Queens. Rand was not a King at this point in time.

 

Still rudeness. Rudeness is always unnecessary in my book. (Different opinions on this I suppose, I’ve stated before that I refuse to be rude to anyone, including my worst enemy. It’s just wrong)

 

Had Cadsuane agreed with you, Rand would have self-destructed and the world--time itself--would have been doomed.

 

I guess again here we’re going to have to agree to disagree. In the definiiton of Bully, it doesn’t use blunt. a blustering, quarrelsome, overbearing person who habitually badgers and intimidates smaller or weaker people. It does however use weaker, I’ll give you that. But there’s nothing that says a bully can’t be subtle or calculating. Hmm in fact it doesn’t even mention that they do it to get something, interesting.

 

Alright. Let's look at the descriptions you use.

 

1. 'bluster'. Defined as: "to be loud, noisy, or swaggering; utter loud, empty menaces or protests". Cadsuane NEVER blusters. She is not loud and noisy, she does not swagger. She certainly never utters empty menaces or protests--loud our otherwise.

 

2. 'quarralsome'. Defined as: "inclined to quarrel; argumentative; contentious." Cadsuane is also not this. I cannot think of a single instance where Cadsuane actually permits herself to be drawn into a quarrel. She ends quarrels, with fire. Harine--now there is a quarrelsome women. Look at how Cadsuane reacts.

 

3. 'overbearing'. --This, she is indeed.

 

4. 'badgers'. Defined as: "to harass or urge persistently; pester; nag". Again, Cadsuane does not 'nag'. She may harass persistantly, but never on the one issue, which is what this is speaking to. If she chooses to assert herself, she does it once, sharply, so that its never forgotten. The Balefire-slap is a clear example. She does not badger.

 

5. Intimidates... yes, she does that. And to a degree everyone is smaller and weaker than she is. But it is intereseting to note that she doesn't exploit or ridicule weakness or smallness for the sake of it--which is the truth of this point. Consider the scene in which she bulsters Samitsu's flagging confidence. Even though the woman is irritating her, she doesn't lash out or mock Samitsu, which would be the act of a bully. She reinforces.

 

But the major mistake here--the clear glaring contradiction--'habitually'. Cadsuane does not do anything habitually. A habit is "an acquired behavior pattern regularly followed until it has become almost involuntary". Involuntary... she does this with careful intent.

 

Hence, she is not a bully. She is over-bearing and intimidating, but that is it from the list.

 

Hmm, interesting point on the in her nature vs a tool that she uses to employ. What POVs are you using to claim that she doesn’t bully at times. The few times we’ve seen her not bully, is because she’s smart enough to know it won’t work (I.e. with the wise ones) or because she has no need to actively bully, because her reputation precedes her (Samuista and Darigian, spelling).

 

You see, you're looking at it wrong. Again a fault of you regarding Cadsuane is a bully, and therefore you presuming that bullying is the instinctive natural habitual state for her. THIS is the point I'm speaking against. Her not bullying is no more the result of her being smart than her bullying is. Both are a result of an assesment of the situation and a decision upon the action to take.

 

Because yes, the scene with Sorilea is a scene were she doesn't bully. We don't see her pull herself up and irritably stop the harsh words, we see her carefully analyze Sorilea and decide to offer trust and agree to an alliance. Verin is a clearer example. Cadsuane clearly percieved her as a threat, but rather than crushing her--which she could have--she chose based on her study of Verin to offer her trust and bring her into her confidence, and so doing made an ally of a woman that was planning to kill her.

 

But you act like these are the exception, that her choosing to be abrasive with Rand was not the result of exactly the same careful study and resultant course of action. So yes, you can say that when she doesn't bully its because she's smart enough to know it won't work. By the same note you can say that when she bullies its because she's smart enough to know calm reason wont work--and it wouldn't have, with Rand.

 

Indeed--to bring back Aleis, she is perfectly on the line. Cadsuane had hoped that based on Verin's efforts to make the Council of Far Madding scarred of holdng Rand, reason would work with Aleis. It didn't, so Cadsuane was forced to crush her--but it is very clear that this is not the desire, that Cadsuane wasn't simply bullying because it was her habit. Indeed, she only did it as a last resort, and she regretted it!

 

I said to get what she’s wants, what she wants is for Rand to live to see the last battle, so everything she does goes to that point. Since the two coincide, it can appear that she’s helping someone else, but in reality she’s doing what she wants, getting what she wants. Does that make sense?

 

No. Anyone helping someone else is doing it because they want to. This distinction you are making does not make sense outside of prejudice. You dislike Cadsuane therefore you need to caste even her positive actions in selfish (i.e. negative) forms.

 

If I want to get my mother a new job. And I do all within my power to get it for her, including screwing other people over, blackmailing others, etc, I’d still be selfish even though I’m doing it for someone else, because I’m doing it in the end, to make me feel better. Eh, this is hard to relate into words.

 

Yes, you would be selfish. However that is not what Cadsuane is doing. She is attempting to get your mother a job which would allow her to save the world. And the screwing over those other people, blackmailing them, and whatever you covered in 'etc', does not make that act selfish--indeed, it doesn't even in the 'if i save the world I save me' sense... I mean as far as Cadsuane knows she has maybe five years tops.

 

Back to my dictator analogy. Who is she to decide she knows best? Her mindset is that way, that she KNOWS that she’s correct. Power mad. I stand by that.

 

She is a woman with a three hundred year success rate. Find me someone with a better resume and we can consider it.

 

That being said, her mindset is NOT that way. She does not KNOW she is correct. We have clear evidence of this when she has stood aside even though she had solid objections to an action because she has not had the evidence to dismiss Rand's position.

 

When, based on her (comprehensive) understanding of the evidence at hand she concludes she knows best, she acts. Why does she have that right? Because she has proven she's good at what she does, and because she gives careful consideration before acting and never acts without reason.

 

So, you standing by her being power mad is absurd. If she were power mad she would act without reason, simply because she wanted to. She never, ever does this. She can be wrong when she does act--as with Moiraine in New Spring, and the balefire-slap--but she nonetheless in both cases acted with reason. When she doesn't have reason, even if she disagrees, she DOES NOT ACT. Which means your claim that she is power mad has been proven false.

 

Flawed careful consideration would lead to flawed assumptions and answers. I’ll just leave that at that, because again on this point, we’re going to have to disagree.

 

I cannot think of a single incident were her consideration has been flawed. Not one. Oh, she was ultimately wrong about the balefire and Moiraine, but in each case it was because of facts not in evidence. Her logic was impeccable.

 

I’ve seen 0 valid evidence that she’s not a bully. But, we’re obviously using different definitions of bullies. You seem to think that you can bully everyone except a few choice people and be redeemed. I beg to differ.

 

I'll leave you to consult my disection of your definition of a bully--which I agree with absolutely. I will say that you seem to misunderstand my position--I'm not suggesting Cadsuanes few nice acts redeem her from being a bully. I never thought she was a bully to begin with, for all that she bullies.

 

Also, as to the soldiers, they aren’t murderers, what’s done in war, is not murder. Executioners however are, in my mind, and in the minds of quite a few people. It’s one reason I’m opposed to execution. But then again, that’s for a different discussion.

 

You making that comment was the trap I left in that comment. The value of semantics, don't you see?

 

What was her quote right before Sor gave her travelling? I’ll stand by her until it’s apparent that we have different goals? Contemplating betrayal in my book.

 

Why would Cadsuane breaking an alliance that was only forged on the basis of mutual goals be a betrayal? Oh if she was two-faced about it, endevouring to let Sorilea thing they were still working together when they weren't--but there is none of that. They forged an alliance based on similar goals--if those goals diverged, naturally so too would the alliance.

 

I can almost see that. (The bottom part).

 

Thank you... almost. :P

 

Not nearly as much as Logain (In theory) since he’s just starting to learn, he has potentially a lot more to learn. I mean how many weaves could he really have had when he faced off? Now he has a lot! How many new weaves can someone her age learn? Not nearly as many.

 

Yes, not nearly as many--because she already knew a bucketload. She was a fully trained Aes Sedai, he was a male wilder. He learnt loads... she sharpened the knife.

 

Realistically she still has the experience and training to grind him into dust. They both have the new fancy weaves. That's it.

 

As I stated up top, this makes 0 sense to me. I understand skill vs power and dexterity weaving the flows and what not, but at some point, it becomes a giant vs an ant. I know how it’s written, but seriously it kinda ruins things for me. You have nearly all the advantages, but OMG, Lanfear is old and knows stuff. So she wins. I call BS. It’s just no longer believable at that point, not a direct assault anyway. Once Lanfear attacked, and the weave melted, Alivia should have started a huge counter attack (Since she’s had how many years as a train weapon?) and blown her to bits, weave slicing or not. I mean Lanfear barely kept Rand in check, so let’s use that as an example. Rand was not trying to kill her, so that helped Lanfear, She was trying to kill Rand, that helped Lanfear, and Lanfear was stronger than she is now. So, all those things added up, now same situation, but now Lanfear is weaker, and her opponent, is Stronger than Rand was then (Rand would have been near Lanfear’s power level at the time), immune to direct attacks (So she doesn’t have to cut the weaves like Rand had too) Can see her weaves (Rand couldn’t) and has vastly more experience attacking with the power than Rand did at the time. So all those things, Rand managed to hold Lanfear off that first time, same situation, all points to Alivia and she can’t smash her? Oh come on! Makes no sense!

 

Your too literally minded. This must mean this. That must mean that. There are so many other factors that must be looked at. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Except it wasn't a house, it was a palace--and for that matter it wasn't his. He'd disavowed the crown, so they were both guests.

 

That being said, say it was rude--it's not, technically--we see others refuse invitations for meetings, even to rulers, in New Spring--its permissable and indeed forcing the issue can be seen as impolite--but yes, say it was rude, and I've no doubt it was meant to be abrasive... so what?

 

That was not Cadsuane bullying Rand. Indeed as far as I can tell, what your upset about is Cadsuane not leaping when he snapped his fingers--and I'm sorry, but he had no right to expect that.

 

House, palace, same thing in this context. And he didn't have the crown, but he as staying in the palace, and all within stayed at his blessing. Who's guards are on the doors? Possession is 9/10th of the law, or in this case, all of the law.

 

I'm not saying snapping, he sent a politely worded letter, which giving what you said about her only responding to fools or rude people, she should have responded. Hell, at the very least she could have come in person to turn him down. It's rude.

 

Tell that to the various President's, Prime Ministers, elected governers, etc. Lol, for that matter telling it to the Queens. Rand was not a King at this point in time.

 

You can't compare it to a democracy. He set the taxes (As seen in the stone) he set punishments for the Lords (same) etc. He was a ruler. Even if he didn't call himself a king, he held the lives of all the people in the country in his hands. What else is he?

 

You see, you're looking at it wrong. Again a fault of you regarding Cadsuane is a bully, and therefore you presuming that bullying is the instinctive natural habitual state for her. THIS is the point I'm speaking against. Her not bullying is no more the result of her being smart than her bullying is. Both are a result of an assesment of the situation and a decision upon the action to take.

 

Because yes, the scene with Sorilea is a scene were she doesn't bully. We don't see her pull herself up and irritably stop the harsh words, we see her carefully analyze Sorilea and decide to offer trust and agree to an alliance. Verin is a clearer example. Cadsuane clearly percieved her as a threat, but rather than crushing her--which she could have--she chose based on her study of Verin to offer her trust and bring her into her confidence, and so doing made an ally of a woman that was planning to kill her.

 

But you act like these are the exception, that her choosing to be abrasive with Rand was not the result of exactly the same careful study and resultant course of action. So yes, you can say that when she doesn't bully its because she's smart enough to know it won't work. By the same note you can say that when she bullies its because she's smart enough to know calm reason wont work--and it wouldn't have, with Rand.

 

Indeed--to bring back Aleis, she is perfectly on the line. Cadsuane had hoped that based on Verin's efforts to make the Council of Far Madding scarred of holdng Rand, reason would work with Aleis. It didn't, so Cadsuane was forced to crush her--but it is very clear that this is not the desire, that Cadsuane wasn't simply bullying because it was her habit. Indeed, she only did it as a last resort, and she regretted it!

 

Ok I'll go this route. Every scene, with very few exceptions, we see Cad running over people. Now, you can claim that's not her natural state, but all evidence in the series points to the contrary. Even in New Spring she comes in like that. Hell, even the POVs of other AS point to that being her natural state of being. If you feel differently, I suppose you're entitled to your opinion, but alas, so I am.

 

Yes, you would be selfish. However that is not what Cadsuane is doing. She is attempting to get your mother a job which would allow her to save the world. And the screwing over those other people, blackmailing them, and whatever you covered in 'etc', does not make that act selfish--indeed, it doesn't even in the 'if i save the world I save me' sense... I mean as far as Cadsuane knows she has maybe five years tops.

 

Well, how best she thinks how to save the world. Big difference. She doesn't know if it'll work. Again I point back to power mad.

 

She is a woman with a three hundred year success rate. Find me someone with a better resume and we can consider it.

 

That being said, her mindset is NOT that way. She does not KNOW she is correct. We have clear evidence of this when she has stood aside even though she had solid objections to an action because she has not had the evidence to dismiss Rand's position.

 

When, based on her (comprehensive) understanding of the evidence at hand she concludes she knows best, she acts. Why does she have that right? Because she has proven she's good at what she does, and because she gives careful consideration before acting and never acts without reason.

 

So, you standing by her being power mad is absurd. If she were power mad she would act without reason, simply because she wanted to. She never, ever does this. She can be wrong when she does act--as with Moiraine in New Spring, and the balefire-slap--but she nonetheless in both cases acted with reason. When she doesn't have reason, even if she disagrees, she DOES NOT ACT. Which means your claim that she is power mad has been proven false.

 

Good sir you do me an injustice. You claim I make assumptions, while you make your own. No one said all Power Mad people are unreasonable. Its the same with your bully assumption. The bad ones are unreasonable, the bad ones are stupid. The good ones, the really successful ones, are brilliant, and coldly logical!

 

I cannot think of a single incident were her consideration has been flawed. Not one. Oh, she was ultimately wrong about the balefire and Moiraine, but in each case it was because of facts not in evidence. Her logic was impeccable.

 

Rand not channeling when escaping from the fog comes to mind. Wasn't she opposed to Rand going to meet the borderland leaders (I'm fairly certain, although I'll admit I may be wrong). She was wrong about keeping the domination band, she thought she could keep it (She admitted to being wrong there). Just a few, lemme think some more.

 

Why would Cadsuane breaking an alliance that was only forged on the basis of mutual goals be a betrayal? Oh if she was two-faced about it, endevouring to let Sorilea thing they were still working together when they weren't--but there is none of that. They forged an alliance based on similar goals--if those goals diverged, naturally so too would the alliance.

 

Now maybe this is me reading her character how I don't like her, but it came off as malicious in my mind. Not as, if our goals diverge, I'm going to stab her in the back, not tell her I'm done withis and peacefully part ways.

 

Yes, not nearly as many--because she already knew a bucketload. She was a fully trained Aes Sedai, he was a male wilder. He learnt loads... she sharpened the knife.

 

Realistically she still has the experience and training to grind him into dust. They both have the new fancy weaves. That's it.

 

With the realization that she's immune to direct weaves, yes in my mind there isn't 1 single channeler who she shouldn't be able to grind into dust. But that's another issue I have.

 

 

Your too literally minded. This must mean this. That must mean that. There are so many other factors that must be looked at. :P

 

You call it literal minded, I call it logical. From a logics standpoint, she has all the advantages and very few disadvantages at this point against any single channeler, She should be a walking, talking, sadiar wielding death machine right now. Experience smerience. Nothing should be able to stop her.

 

Think of it in DnD terms. She's got +20 to EVERYTHING! She's HACKS!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why would she not have anything to worry about from anyone? Her ter'angreal still leaves her vulnerable to mundane attacks and indirect channeling - she can't be touched by weaves, but you can use the OP to drop a boulder on her head. And when should it have come into play? She was introduced in book seven, and how many times has she faced off against channelers in that time?

 

Sure they can do that, but in theory she should be able to destroy them while they're still figuring out she's immune to weaves. You weave at her, expect her to die, BAM nothing happens and she counterattacks. I'm not claiming that she has had the opportunity to kill many channelers yet, but my point was, (It's more of an issue with the RJ statement in my head and the assumption of the boards that her Angreal is substansial and puts her on the level of the forsaken) at this point what would stop her from going about slaying forsaken, and indeed whoever with impunity. Nothing! Nothing at all! She'd be the single most powerful force in the world. Sure you can drop a house on her, but her direct weaves still touch you, and that's much faster! It's like you have this story where everyone is struggling against forces that are at least equal if not more powerful than them, to save the world, and you have a freaking GOD on your side who can just go destroy your enemies.

Rand is more powerful than Cadsuane. If there is a god amongst the good guys in the series, it is him. Hell, the laws of chance bend around him. He warps the Pattern by his mere presence. He threatened Cadsuane with the ability to stop her heart, without channeling. Surely you should be objecting to his power level, given that it is so much greater than hers?

 

It's the same issue I have with the idea that the end of the last book, those guys were Aiel male channelers who have been hiding in the waste. That makes 0 sense to me. I understand it's a fantasy world, however I try to apply logic to it. From a logical standpoint, Cad is too powerful (With the RJ statement and the assumption that her Angreal is not really weak) to exist and not be one of the most powerful forces in Randland.
Have you considered that if something makes no sense, there might be a flaw in your logic? After all, many people read the same book, and they don't have a problem. So, either they are, none of them, looking at things logically, or there is a flaw in someone's reasoning. Ours or yours. Cadsuane does not desire great political power, to be a queen or the Amyrlin or some such. Which is why she isn't. She doesn't want to go around randomly murdering people with the OP, which is why she doesn't. I could go out and kill someone now. I have no desire to. I'm sure the same is true of you. She could try fighting a Chosen. Of course, some of them are probably stronger than her even with her angreal, they are much more experienced with hiding their weaves, and can cut any weave Cadsuane throws at them, and that's leaving aside that she doesn't know where most of them are, so it's not like she can just knock on their doors. In a fight between Cadsuane and one of the Chosen, it's not at all hard to see how she might end up on the losing side.

 

 

That sounds like an accurate description of her methods. What bias, dishonesty or injustice does her behaviour display? If there is none, then she is fair.

 

Spanking Dignitaries just because they want to be spoken too with respect, blackmailing people (AS and Ashaman), admitting to herself she is willing to betray Soreila, that's three I can think of off the top of my head.

There is no bias, nor dishonesty there. As for injustice, you may have a point with the last, but what is the context?

 

 

 

Maybe because she doesn't think that mindlessly blasting everyone to death is an appropriate response to most situations. It is still possible for a channeler to take out someone with a ter'angreal like Cadsuane and Mat have. We see Cyndane come face to face with Alivia at the Cleansing, and Alivia is borrowing Nynaeve's. She couldn't be touched by direct weaves, and with the angreal she was stronger than Cyndane - stronger than Lanfear was, even. Yet Cyndane was not "blasted to death". Given that Nynaeve possesses the same advantages of strength and angreal, why isn't she blasting all of her enemies to death. It makes zero sense!

 

Ok, I don't recall hearing Ny's net makes her immune to channeling too. Where did you get this? If I recall correctly Lanfear and Alivia were cutting each other's weaves, and Lanfear had the experience behind her to make up for the difference.

You do not recall correctly. Remember that Nynaeve leant her ter'angreal set to Alivia. You've seen the quote Suttree posted - Cyndane would know the difference between a weave being cut and something else. She concludes Alivia must have a ter'angreal based on the available evidence.

 

 

Driven by her goals. What are her goals. Is she willing to give anything to see that she achieves those goals? Does she care who she runs over or destroys? No. You (and otherSs) have admitted that. It fits your definition, which you just posted. She's done nothing at all in consideration for someone else (Unless you count Rand, which I don't because getting him to the last battle is her goal, thus it's still for her). I admitted the Daigain part. Although she admitted it was only to further her means, because Daigain reports back to her, and she is able to listen in where other's cant because she is so weak in the power.

 

Also, what "textual" evidence have you offered? You want exact quotes? I see none in your statement sir.

Cadsuane's goal is to help Rand. That means that what she does is not to benefit herself, it is to benefit Rand. How does she benefit from Rand getting to the Last Battle? She is putting his victory ahead of her own benefit - that is selfless.

 

Others have provided quotes. I will provide them, if I have the books avaiable and if it is necessary. However, you rely on a recollection which has often been shown to be flawed. What would you like me to back up?

 

Power mad? No, her behaviour indicates no such thing. It indicates confidence, adaptability, an unwillingness to suffer fools, a willigness to put herself second and her mission first, but not a hint of her being mad with power.
All those things you just mentioned, when in excess are qualities of those who are mad with power. Again, perception.
Show evidence of excess.

 

 

Not sure what you mean? I provided a quote showing that it does. Alivia is wearing a Paralis-Net, the weave unravels before it touches her, Cyndane says it must be a terangreal and you think she reversed her flow? They all work the same Cads, Nyn's and Mat's medallion in that they unravel direct weaves. What they don't stop is something thrown by the power or an indirect result of it such as a lightning bolt.

 

You keep saying it makes no sense and people keep explaining and providing more examples. At some point you need to reassess you stance.

 

 

She thought it must be one, althought she had never heard of one that did that. She was alive back when those net's were created (Per Rand/LTT). Yes, in my mind I rationalized it with Alivia cutting the flows with inverted weaves.

And Cyndane not knowing what having her flows cut felt like, and noticing a difference between that and this.

 

Why would I need to reassess my stance? Mat harasses channelers with impunity correct? I understand the idea that indirect channeling is not affected, objects thrown, or lightning called from a storm cloud (Direct lightning should be affected), so on one have you have a character that acts a certain way around channelers because of his protection, Mat, and now you suddenly have 2 new characters who have the same protection (News to me, provided by the RJ quote I was not aware of), so following the storyline, those people should behave in the same way.
Mat's ter'angreal gives him the opportunity to harass channelers with relative impunity, but it is his personality which gives him the desire to. Give the same ter'angreal to someone else, they won't behave the same way. Mat, Nynaeve and Cadsuane have different personalities. If you gave Nynaeve memories of battles, she would still lack the desire to become a general. You should reassess your stance because you fail to take all the evidence into account, and therefore reach inaccurate conclusions.

 

But wait, add in the fact that these two people can channel themselves, and (With Angreal) powerfully, what force can stop them? You direct weaves at someone, in the time it takes for you to find out they don't work, what happens? Well in mat's case he takes control and spanks or approaches women. In Ny/Cad's case, they should attack the channeler and elimnate them, in theory.

Following logic, it makes no sense. In the time it takes someone to learn how to affect someone who is immune ot channeling (How long did it take 4 AS and Aven, 3,4 days?) in a battle situation, you'd lose almost everytime.

You throw weaves at them, they cut them, they call down lightning and fry you. Or maybe they start with the lightning, and so your ter'angreal means nothing. Your logic is flawed, because you do not consider all the relevant information. A ter'angreal such as those possessed by Nynaeve, Mat and Cadsuane is an advantage, but not an insurmountable one. Where the person you are attacking has an advantage of skill and experience, they can act so as to minimise the disadvantage offered to them by the other party possessing a ter'angreal. Again, if the story doesn't make sense to you, it might be because the story doesn't make sense or it might be due to some flaw in your analysis of the story leading you to an incorrect conclusion.

 

You see, you're looking at it wrong. Again a fault of you regarding Cadsuane is a bully, and therefore you presuming that bullying is the instinctive natural habitual state for her. THIS is the point I'm speaking against. Her not bullying is no more the result of her being smart than her bullying is. Both are a result of an assesment of the situation and a decision upon the action to take.

 

Because yes, the scene with Sorilea is a scene were she doesn't bully. We don't see her pull herself up and irritably stop the harsh words, we see her carefully analyze Sorilea and decide to offer trust and agree to an alliance. Verin is a clearer example. Cadsuane clearly percieved her as a threat, but rather than crushing her--which she could have--she chose based on her study of Verin to offer her trust and bring her into her confidence, and so doing made an ally of a woman that was planning to kill her.

 

But you act like these are the exception, that her choosing to be abrasive with Rand was not the result of exactly the same careful study and resultant course of action. So yes, you can say that when she doesn't bully its because she's smart enough to know it won't work. By the same note you can say that when she bullies its because she's smart enough to know calm reason wont work--and it wouldn't have, with Rand.

 

Indeed--to bring back Aleis, she is perfectly on the line. Cadsuane had hoped that based on Verin's efforts to make the Council of Far Madding scarred of holdng Rand, reason would work with Aleis. It didn't, so Cadsuane was forced to crush her--but it is very clear that this is not the desire, that Cadsuane wasn't simply bullying because it was her habit. Indeed, she only did it as a last resort, and she regretted it!

 

Ok I'll go this route. Every scene, with very few exceptions, we see Cad running over people. Now, you can claim that's not her natural state, but all evidence in the series points to the contrary. Even in New Spring she comes in like that. Hell, even the POVs of other AS point to that being her natural state of being. If you feel differently, I suppose you're entitled to your opinion, but alas, so I am.

Well, a great many people disagree with your interpretation. moreover, they present facts to back up their opinions. Instances of her running people over are rare, and never without cause. Rand, Harine, Aleis, Moiraine - when Moiraine and Rand were acting like children, Harine too. She made every effort to avoid cruching Aleis, and did so with great reluctance, only because it was necessary to free Rand. Would you care to provide an example, from the text (not memory), of her bullying someone without just cause?

 

Yes, you would be selfish. However that is not what Cadsuane is doing. She is attempting to get your mother a job which would allow her to save the world. And the screwing over those other people, blackmailing them, and whatever you covered in 'etc', does not make that act selfish--indeed, it doesn't even in the 'if i save the world I save me' sense... I mean as far as Cadsuane knows she has maybe five years tops.

 

Well, how best she thinks how to save the world. Big difference. She doesn't know if it'll work. Again I point back to power mad.

Saying power mad over and over again will not help your case. True, Cadsuane does not know if what she does will work. She could try a different method, but would not know if that would work either. So any action at all is grounds to call her power mad, as she does not know it will work. I think you need to expand on your reasoning. Cadsuane takes actions to save the world. She does not know if her actions will save the world, but she has carefully considered the actions that she takes. Now, this is might be something a power mad person would do, but it seems to me to be a wholly reasonable thing to do. How are her actions unreasonable? In what way are they consistent with her being power mad? It seems like you have decided she is power mad and will therefore cast her every action in a negative light, so as to fit with your theory.

 

I cannot think of a single incident were her consideration has been flawed. Not one. Oh, she was ultimately wrong about the balefire and Moiraine, but in each case it was because of facts not in evidence. Her logic was impeccable.

 

Rand not channeling when escaping from the fog comes to mind. Wasn't she opposed to Rand going to meet the borderland leaders (I'm fairly certain, although I'll admit I may be wrong). She was wrong about keeping the domination band, she thought she could keep it (She admitted to being wrong there). Just a few, lemme think some more.

Escaping the fog, she objected to Rand using balefire. As Luckers stated, the reasoning was sound - balefire is dangerous. Rand should not go around using it without good reason. She thought she could keep the DB, but that was, again, due to facts not in evidence, not due to a flaw in her reasoning process. She had no reason to believe that what happened could be done. Really, you only further Luckers's point - she is wrong due to insufficient information, not due to a flaw in her analysis of what should be done. She makes the right judgements with the facts she has.

 

Your too literally minded. This must mean this. That must mean that. There are so many other factors that must be looked at. :P

 

You call it literal minded, I call it logical. From a logics standpoint, she has all the advantages and very few disadvantages at this point against any single channeler, She should be a walking, talking, sadiar wielding death machine right now. Experience smerience. Nothing should be able to stop her.

Except someone with the knowledge and experience to counter her advantages. Your logic is flawed. I have to say, I do see the assumption that you are the only person being logical to be somewhat rude. Edited by Mr Ares

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

House, palace, same thing in this context. And he didn't have the crown, but he as staying in the palace, and all within stayed at his blessing. Who's guards are on the doors? Possession is 9/10th of the law, or in this case, all of the law.

 

So, he's the biggest dog in the yard and all the others should be grovelling before him? Please. You're being the bully here, on Rand's behalf, and neither Cadsuane nor I care for it.

 

I'm not saying snapping, he sent a politely worded letter, which giving what you said about her only responding to fools or rude people, she should have responded. Hell, at the very least she could have come in person to turn him down. It's rude.

 

Okay, this is not what I said, but... if i had said se only responds to fools or rude people, why then is there an expectation that she should have responded.

 

But that's me being glib. My proper response is, he sent a politely worded letter, she sent a polite response. You say she should have gone in person to turn him down--he didn't go in person to invite her, so why should she go in person to turn him down?

 

You can't compare it to a democracy. He set the taxes (As seen in the stone) he set punishments for the Lords (same) etc. He was a ruler. Even if he didn't call himself a king, he held the lives of all the people in the country in his hands. What else is he?

 

What else is he? A dictator. A conquerer. The Dragon Reborn.

 

Not a king. And yes, I can compae it to a democracy. Democratically elected governments do all those things.

 

Ok I'll go this route. Every scene, with very few exceptions, we see Cad running over people. Now, you can claim that's not her natural state, but all evidence in the series points to the contrary. Even in New Spring she comes in like that. Hell, even the POVs of other AS point to that being her natural state of being. If you feel differently, I suppose you're entitled to your opinion, but alas, so I am.

 

Firstly, you make a big deal out of her the thoughts of her fellow sisters. I agree--they do agree with your point. However, they, like you, are wrong. Or, to quote RJ... "These hair ornaments were considered something of a trademark because she had worn them for as long as anyone could remember. For many sisters, the fact that she had was just one more indication of how set in her ways she was; they thought Cadsuane would never change, could never change. Of course, that was far from true; Cadsuane was remarkably adaptable, as befits someone who survived as long as she."

 

As for your comment about everything in the series contradicting me--as it is I'm the only one offering specifics. I have again and again cited incidences, whereas you just reiterate your vitriol. So, to be perfectly clear, the state of events are--RJ, the text, and me all state that Cadsuane is an adaptive individual who modulates her actions based on her study of the situation at hand.

 

Now you may, if you wish, disagree. But don't presume to let your prejudice speak for the text.

 

Well, how best she thinks how to save the world. Big difference. She doesn't know if it'll work. Again I point back to power mad.

 

No, she doesn't know 100% that it will work. But she has done the research, the legwork, and has prior experience.

 

Good sir you do me an injustice. You claim I make assumptions, while you make your own. No one said all Power Mad people are unreasonable. Its the same with your bully assumption. The bad ones are unreasonable, the bad ones are stupid. The good ones, the really successful ones, are brilliant, and coldly logical!

 

I give you what justice I can, and stand by my statements. Sorry.

 

Rand not channeling when escaping from the fog comes to mind.

 

You must have missed were I previously pointed out your misconceptions about Rand, Cadsuane, and the fog.

 

Now maybe this is me reading her character how I don't like her, but it came off as malicious in my mind. Not as, if our goals diverge, I'm going to stab her in the back, not tell her I'm done withis and peacefully part ways.

 

Yeah, it's you reading her character in the lens of your dislike.

 

With the realization that she's immune to direct weaves, yes in my mind there isn't 1 single channeler who she shouldn't be able to grind into dust. But that's another issue I have.

 

That's not how it works.

 

You call it literal minded, I call it logical. From a logics standpoint, she has all the advantages and very few disadvantages at this point against any single channeler, She should be a walking, talking, sadiar wielding death machine right now. Experience smerience. Nothing should be able to stop her.

 

Think of it in DnD terms. She's got +20 to EVERYTHING! She's HACKS!

 

No, literal minded is not logic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So, he's the biggest dog in the yard and all the others should be grovelling before him? Please. You're being the bully here, on Rand's behalf, and neither Cadsuane nor I care for it.

 

No, not the biggest dog in the yard. He's a ruler. Its his yard, by right of conquest and holding said yard. Someone has to rule, he owes an obligation to those people to rule it fairly, therefore the palace is his to occupy and hold until that rule is passed on. Are we really arguing if the house is his by definition? If the house isn't his, may I ask who's it is at the time? So was Cad just staying at a strangers house? Was the house public property open to anyone who wanted to use?

 

Okay, this is not what I said, but... if i had said se only responds to fools or rude people, why then is there an expectation that she should have responded.

 

But that's me being glib. My proper response is, he sent a politely worded letter, she sent a polite response. You say she should have gone in person to turn him down--he didn't go in person to invite her, so why should she go in person to turn him down?

 

Because it's considered rude not too. But then again, I can't get you to admit that it's his house (palace, home, whatever it;'s Rand's place of residence) so this entire part of the debate be moot. Here maybe this will help: http://www.cozi.com/live-simply/10-rules-being-good-house-guest

 

Cad is a house guest at this point, Rand is the person that she is taking advantage of, staying at his residence, and therefore if you presume to take up an offer of residence, you may not be at the beck and call of said owner, however it is rude to decline a simple request. If Rand asked her not to smoke in his home and she did, she would be rude. He asked her to attend to him, to speak. She declined while staying in his house! If she left the house, ok fine., She stayed. It's rude. I'm not sure if any society would not call that rude.

 

What else is he? A dictator. A conquerer. The Dragon Reborn.

 

Not a king. And yes, I can compae it to a democracy. Democratically elected governments do all those things

 

What democratically elected official has the power of life and death over every citizen in his country. What elected official can strip you of your lands and powers without a court. Huge difference.

 

Firstly, you make a big deal out of her the thoughts of her fellow sisters. I agree--they do agree with your point. However, they, like you, are wrong. Or, to quote RJ... "These hair ornaments were considered something of a trademark because she had worn them for as long as anyone could remember. For many sisters, the fact that she had was just one more indication of how set in her ways she was; they thought Cadsuane would never change, could never change. Of course, that was far from true; Cadsuane was remarkably adaptable, as befits someone who survived as long as she."

 

As for your comment about everything in the series contradicting me--as it is I'm the only one offering specifics. I have again and again cited incidences, whereas you just reiterate your vitriol. So, to be perfectly clear, the state of events are--RJ, the text, and me all state that Cadsuane is an adaptive individual who modulates her actions based on her study of the situation at hand.

 

Now you may, if you wish, disagree. But don't presume to let your prejudice speak for the text.

 

I'm not allowing my prejudice to speak for the text. I'm allowing the text to speak for it's self. Execptions don't make the rule. She's shown not bullying how many people? Of those people you named, and I concured with, 2 did not need to be bullied, as her reputation proceeded her (The Aes Sedai) 1 group (The wise ones) she knew to be formidible by her own admission, and therefore she was smart enough not to attempt to bully them (I never claimed she lacked intelligence) and the last one she was wary of Verin, and at least had an inkling that it wouldn't work on her. So all the other people she walks over in the series in the TEXT are just wrong I suppose? All their opinions are false? Where does it say bullies can't adapt? I'm still waiting for that btw. I supplied a definition and it was never refuted. I asked what definition you were using, and you never suplied one.

 

No, she doesn't know 100% that it will work. But she has done the research, the legwork, and has prior experience.

 

So back to in her opinion or her mind. Ok, I'll leave that alone. We're both rehashing the same points.

 

I give you what justice I can, and stand by my statements. Sorry.

 

No you're doing me a disservice and again you ignored the questions I asked. You have again failed to refute my statements. What texts are you gathering that claim all power mad people are unreasonable, all bullies won't adapt.

 

You must have missed were I previously pointed out your misconceptions about Rand, Cadsuane, and the fog.

 

You pointed out the Balefire. If you would read my two previous statements closely, I said refusing to let him channel at all during that time. The slap that allowed Fain to attack was bad enough, but if he had been allowed to channel, he could have travelled out of that situation. She told him not too. He's on his death bed. I was just pointing out another example of her being wrong.

 

Yeah, it's you reading her character in the lens of your dislike

 

Did you stop and think that you're reading her with your bias? It never crossed your mind? The statement doesn't explain what she meant one way or the other. It can be taken both ways. While I readily admit to that, you deny it and tell me I'm wrong. Interesting.

 

No, literal minded is not logic.

 

Actually depending on the context it can be. Sometimes it's logical to form your opinion based only on evidence and not assumption. I've provided examples, my Lanfearvs Rand vs the Lanfear vs Alivia was a good one. You chose to ignore how that works. Good for you, if that floats your boat fine.

 

Except someone with the knowledge and experience to counter her advantages. Your logic is flawed. I have to say, I do see the assumption that you are the only person being logical to be somewhat rude.

 

Have I stated that anywhere in text? Have I said anything other than it makes no sense to me? Please provide evidence backing your claim or otherwise I must ask that you not sully me with that insult.

 

I haven't insulted you, I don't imply things I say they directly, therefore I humbly request you do the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not allowing my prejudice to speak for the text. I'm allowing the text to speak for it's self.

 

Yet your recollections on certain points have consistently proven to be off. It is far past time you realized the text is not saying what you think it is.

 

You have again failed to refute my statements.

 

That is demonstrably not the case, and everyone can see it except for you. Your bias and assumptions have been disproven over and over in this thread. Other posters have provided examples, author quotes etc. I suggest you start doing the same instead of repeating the same skewed viewpoints and vitriol once again.

Edited by Suttree

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So, he's the biggest dog in the yard and all the others should be grovelling before him? Please. You're being the bully here, on Rand's behalf, and neither Cadsuane nor I care for it.

 

No, not the biggest dog in the yard. He's a ruler. Its his yard, by right of conquest and holding said yard. Someone has to rule, he owes an obligation to those people to rule it fairly, therefore the palace is his to occupy and hold until that rule is passed on. Are we really arguing if the house is his by definition? If the house isn't his, may I ask who's it is at the time? So was Cad just staying at a strangers house? Was the house public property open to anyone who wanted to use?

 

The Palace belongs to Cairhien, as a nation.

 

Okay, this is not what I said, but... if i had said se only responds to fools or rude people, why then is there an expectation that she should have responded.

 

But that's me being glib. My proper response is, he sent a politely worded letter, she sent a polite response. You say she should have gone in person to turn him down--he didn't go in person to invite her, so why should she go in person to turn him down?

 

Because it's considered rude not too. But then again, I can't get you to admit that it's his house (palace, home, whatever it;'s Rand's place of residence) so this entire part of the debate be moot. Here maybe this will help: http://www.cozi.com/...ood-house-guest

 

Cad is a house guest at this point, Rand is the person that she is taking advantage of, staying at his residence, and therefore if you presume to take up an offer of residence, you may not be at the beck and call of said owner, however it is rude to decline a simple request. If Rand asked her not to smoke in his home and she did, she would be rude. He asked her to attend to him, to speak. She declined while staying in his house! If she left the house, ok fine., She stayed. It's rude. I'm not sure if any society would not call that rude.

 

Cadsuane was not staying at the Palace, she was staying at the Lady Arilyn's palace. Residence was not offered, not accepted, on either part. He had no right to expect her to come at his request, she had no responsibility to do so.

 

What else is he? A dictator. A conquerer. The Dragon Reborn.

 

Not a king. And yes, I can compae it to a democracy. Democratically elected governments do all those things

 

What democratically elected official has the power of life and death over every citizen in his country. What elected official can strip you of your lands and powers without a court. Huge difference.

 

What king doesn't have a throne or a crown? You screwed up in calling Rand a King. Let it go.

 

 

Firstly, you make a big deal out of her the thoughts of her fellow sisters. I agree--they do agree with your point. However, they, like you, are wrong. Or, to quote RJ... "These hair ornaments were considered something of a trademark because she had worn them for as long as anyone could remember. For many sisters, the fact that she had was just one more indication of how set in her ways she was; they thought Cadsuane would never change, could never change. Of course, that was far from true; Cadsuane was remarkably adaptable, as befits someone who survived as long as she."

 

As for your comment about everything in the series contradicting me--as it is I'm the only one offering specifics. I have again and again cited incidences, whereas you just reiterate your vitriol. So, to be perfectly clear, the state of events are--RJ, the text, and me all state that Cadsuane is an adaptive individual who modulates her actions based on her study of the situation at hand.

 

Now you may, if you wish, disagree. But don't presume to let your prejudice speak for the text.

 

I'm not allowing my prejudice to speak for the text. I'm allowing the text to speak for it's self. Execptions don't make the rule. She's shown not bullying how many people? Of those people you named, and I concured with, 2 did not need to be bullied, as her reputation proceeded her (The Aes Sedai) 1 group (The wise ones) she knew to be formidible by her own admission, and therefore she was smart enough not to attempt to bully them (I never claimed she lacked intelligence) and the last one she was wary of Verin, and at least had an inkling that it wouldn't work on her. So all the other people she walks over in the series in the TEXT are just wrong I suppose? All their opinions are false? Where does it say bullies can't adapt? I'm still waiting for that btw. I supplied a definition and it was never refuted. I asked what definition you were using, and you never suplied one.

 

What your doing right there is letting your prejudice speak for the text. If she offered the Wise Ones respect it surely must have been because she realised she couldn't bully them, however much she may have wanted to, because she's a bully. She was wary of Verin, and thus didn't bully her because, however much she, a bully, may have wished to.

 

I went into detail about your definition of a bully. I agree with it. It proves my point in ever so many ways. You seem to have conveniently glossed over it, so here it is again...

 

Alright. Let's look at the descriptions you use. "a blustering, quarrelsome, overbearing person who habitually badgers and intimidates smaller or weaker people."

 

1. 'bluster'. Defined as: "to be loud, noisy, or swaggering; utter loud, empty menaces or protests". Cadsuane NEVER blusters. She is not loud and noisy, she does not swagger. She certainly never utters empty menaces or protests--loud our otherwise.

 

2. 'quarralsome'. Defined as: "inclined to quarrel; argumentative; contentious." Cadsuane is also not this. I cannot think of a single instance where Cadsuane actually permits herself to be drawn into a quarrel. She ends quarrels, with fire. Harine--now there is a quarrelsome women. Look at how Cadsuane reacts.

 

3. 'overbearing'. --This, she is indeed.

 

4. 'badgers'. Defined as: "to harass or urge persistently; pester; nag". Again, Cadsuane does not 'nag'. She may harass persistantly, but never on the one issue, which is what this is speaking to. If she chooses to assert herself, she does it once, sharply, so that its never forgotten. The Balefire-slap is a clear example. She does not badger.

 

5. Intimidates... yes, she does that. And to a degree everyone is smaller and weaker than she is. But it is intereseting to note that she doesn't exploit or ridicule weakness or smallness for the sake of it--which is the truth of this point. Consider the scene in which she bulsters Samitsu's flagging confidence. Even though the woman is irritating her, she doesn't lash out or mock Samitsu, which would be the act of a bully. She reinforces.

 

But the major mistake here--the clear glaring contradiction--'habitually'. Cadsuane does not do anything habitually. A habit is "an acquired behavior pattern regularly followed until it has become almost involuntary". Involuntary... she does this with careful intent.

 

Hence, she is not a bully. She is over-bearing and intimidating, but that is it from the list.

 

No, she doesn't know 100% that it will work. But she has done the research, the legwork, and has prior experience.

 

So back to in her opinion or her mind. Ok, I'll leave that alone. We're both rehashing the same points.

 

Methodology counts when judging the validicy of opinion or a persons thought process. But sure, hide from that. You just want to present the image that Cadsuane willfully and thoughtlessly does whatever she wants.

 

I give you what justice I can, and stand by my statements. Sorry.

 

No you're doing me a disservice and again you ignored the questions I asked. You have again failed to refute my statements. What texts are you gathering that claim all power mad people are unreasonable, all bullies won't adapt.

 

You're doing yourself a disservice. You have surgically responded. Respond to all the points I have made and I will reply.

 

You must have missed were I previously pointed out your misconceptions about Rand, Cadsuane, and the fog.

 

You pointed out the Balefire. If you would read my two previous statements closely, I said refusing to let him channel at all during that time. The slap that allowed Fain to attack was bad enough, but if he had been allowed to channel, he could have travelled out of that situation. She told him not too. He's on his death bed. I was just pointing out another example of her being wrong.

 

This point is inutterably absurd. You suggest that her simple command was enough to keep him from channeling? Even though he channeled despite her command. You blame her for Rand's own stupidity.

 

Yeah, it's you reading her character in the lens of your dislike

 

Did you stop and think that you're reading her with your bias? It never crossed your mind? The statement doesn't explain what she meant one way or the other. It can be taken both ways. While I readily admit to that, you deny it and tell me I'm wrong. Interesting.

 

Yes, it did. I considered it very carefully. Do you realise you have not once admitted you are wrong? Even when it has been proven utterly, such with your claims that Cadsuane was rude to Rand because of a desire to attain a meeting with Merana? Or your comment that he was a king in that scene, which you have been unable to let go even though I've provided the loophole for you to do say several times.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not allowing my prejudice to speak for the text. I'm allowing the text to speak for it's self.

And yet many people disagree with what you think the text says. If it is speaking for itself, it is not saying what you want it to.
Execptions don't make the rule. She's shown not bullying how many people?
A fair few. I would say, at a guess, more than those she is shown as bullying. Therefore, as exceptions don't make the rule, she is not a bully.
Of those people you named, and I concured with, 2 did not need to be bullied,
Interesting choice of words. She only bullies those that need bullying. You define it as an action of necessity rather than desire, and admit that she has ways of getting along with people that don't involve bullying. If anything, I think you've harmed your point here.
I supplied a definition and it was never refuted. I asked what definition you were using, and you never suplied one.
No-one disagreed with the definition you provided. Luckers simply demonstrated that it did not apply.

 

No, she doesn't know 100% that it will work. But she has done the research, the legwork, and has prior experience.

 

So back to in her opinion or her mind. Ok, I'll leave that alone. We're both rehashing the same points.

Why do you consider it an important distinction? Everyone acts according to their own opinions and beliefs. Surely the same standard should thus be applied to everyone? Min attempts to help Rand, as does Nynaeve - it is their opinion that Rand needs help and that what they are doing is helpful. Are they power mad too? Is she justified in her beliefs is surely a more important question. Why do you feel that Cadsuane's belief that she is helping is evidence of her being power mad? As opposed to evidence of her having a well considered viewpoint.

 

No you're doing me a disservice and again you ignored the questions I asked. You have again failed to refute my statements.
If you want others to respond to all your points, don't you think it might be wise to extend them that same courtesy?

 

Except someone with the knowledge and experience to counter her advantages. Your logic is flawed. I have to say, I do see the assumption that you are the only person being logical to be somewhat rude.
Have I stated that anywhere in text? Have I said anything other than it makes no sense to me? Please provide evidence backing your claim or otherwise I must ask that you not sully me with that insult.

 

I haven't insulted you, I don't imply things I say they directly, therefore I humbly request you do the same.

I'm not sullying you with an insult, I'm pointing out my perception - that you come across as rude.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Id like to point out that an exact definition of bully was, he said the definition of bully isn't [fill definition]

 

I guess again here we’re going to have to agree to disagree. In the definiiton of Bully, it doesn’t use blunt. a blustering, quarrelsome, overbearing person who habitually badgers and intimidates smaller or weaker people. It does however use weaker, I’ll give you that. But there’s nothing that says a bully can’t be subtle or calculating. Hmm in fact it doesn’t even mention that they do it to get something, interesting.

 

Also, on the point of "king" Rand, he does rule tear, Cairhien, and Andor (kinda). He may not technically have been crowned "king," but he does have thrones and has the power/rights of a king. He does deserve respect.

 

In my own take on cads (from my first read two years ago and my reread halfway through book eight, as well as reading this argument) is that while she isn't one to rely solely on bullying, it is her preferred course of action. She is used to having power, and isn't used to having many people who she isn't of higher rank, which does lead to arrogance. However, she does adapt very well, so this problem doesn't go long unfixed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, let's start the fun shall we.

 

The Palace belongs to Cairhien, as a nation.

 

Absurd. So Rand enforces the laws, ensures taxes are paid and food is distributed as necessary, controls the Palace, his guards allow or bar entry to the palace but you’re still denying he’s ruler of the nation? Really? Cads had to beg entry of who’s guards? (And before you take me out of context yet again, I’m not implying she’ begged for anything, it’s a term) Rands. Who dispenses justice? Hell, if he wasn’t the ruler of the country, who are those nobels rebelling against? This part of this debate is getting asinine, truly. You’re whole premise is that Rand is not the “King” Although he rules every part of that land that is not in open rebellion, and therefore Cads should not be expected to come to him when asked although she’s staying there with his permission. So who’s permission does she have to stay there? The people? Was there a vote in the book I missed or something? Because it appears that Rand can ban her from the Palace when he wishes, yet he allows her to stay because he’s curious and because of Min’s viewing. Obviously if he is allowing her to stay, it’s understood that he controls the palace, since his guards weren’t enough proof for you, which makes Cads what? A guest. And as a guest it’s rude to ignore a simple request of the person home that you are staying at.

 

Cadsuane was not staying at the Palace, she was staying at the Lady Arilyn's palace. Residence was not offered, not accepted, on either part. He had no right to expect her to come at his request, she had no responsibility to do so.

 

So… What was she doing there when Rand came to her? Where did the messenger go? Oh yes, she was in the palace, at the very least spending considerable amount of time there.

 

What king doesn't have a throne or a crown? You screwed up in calling Rand a King. Let it go.

 

Dictionary to the rescue yet again: king   /kɪŋ/ Show Spelled[king] Show IPA

noun

1. a male sovereign or monarch; a man who holds by life tenure, and usually by hereditary right, the chief authority over a country and people.

2. ( initial capital letter ) God or Christ.

3. a person or thing preeminent in its class: a king of actors.

4. a playing card bearing a picture of a king.

5. Chess . the chief piece of each color, whose checkmating is the object of the game; moved one square at a time in any direction.

 

Hmm, no mention of a crown there, nor throne. In fact, it says Chief Authority over a country or a people. Exactly what I said. Also, the dragon throne. Since that means something to you.

 

The first scene with Cads in it, not counting the New Spring book, has Cads being rude to Berelain and Rand.

 

 

The door opened again for Riallin. “An Aes Sedai has come to the see the Car’a’carn” She managed to sound cold and uncertain at the same time. “Her name is Cadsuane Melaidhrin” A strikingly handsome woman swept in right behind her, irongray hair gathered in a bun atop her head and decorated with dangling gold ornaments, and it seemed everything happened at once.

Without a word, Cadsuane swept across the room to the two Asha’Man, dark green divided skirts swishing. Rand was beginning to et the feeling that she always moved in that rushing glide, graceful yet wasting no time and allowing nothing to impede her. Dashiva stared her up and down ,and sneered.

 

Now we have this scene where she comes to see Rand, in his Anteroom, where he receives the high nobles of the land. Obviously a room where a ruler would dispense justice as well. So Cads comes to this room, and instead of paying respect to Rand first, she ignores him. another example of her rudeness, In fact, in the opening scene.

 

She did, turning just her head. “So you are Rand al’Thor, the Dragon Reborn. I’d have thought even a child like Moiraine could have taught you a few manners.”

 

Hmm, coming to a man’s domain, and insulting him. Really? While being hypocritical at the same time, note that she was rude first. In fact she was rude enough to put the maiden’s in edge and cause them to threaten her life.

 

 

When the door closed behind Berelain, Cadsuane said, “It’s always good to see children play, don’t you think Merana?”

 

Calling two rules at once children? That’s great. Not rude at all. (I’m being sarcastic)

Mind you, this is the opening scene. She just entered the books.

 

In fact Annoura noted her rudeness in the next scene.

 

“You might as well have slapped his face,” Annoura put in, and Merana colored

 

“We are bound as one.” And if their targets turned out not to be the same at all? She did not underestimate Sorilea as ally or opponent, but Cadsuane knew which target had to be struck, at any cost”

 

Here we have a scene of Cads taking an oath with someone, and deciding at the very onset of the oath that she would betray her if necessary. Extremely dishonorable.

 

Chapter 13, WH, wonderful news has Cads being rude to dignitaries, who are requesting the return of their people. I’m not going to quote the entire thing, it takes up 4 pages, but in those pages we have her being rude to dignitaries, opening stretching the law to suit her needs, blackmailing a SeaFolk dignitary (I believed you asked for examples of that earlier) and admitting to blackmailing the Asha’Man to get them bonded to Aes Sedai and thus under her control.

 

All the examples I can provide right now, I’m at work. I planned on taking a few hours this weekend and copying pasting directly from my computer, and I will still, many examples of Cads bullying and being rude, since you swear she doesn’t do ether. Oh and her opening scene has Rand noting her “Swagger” since you claimed she doesn’t do that. Also, for your badger definition, you claimed she doesn’t, then your definition went on to prove yourself wrong. May want to reread that.

 

Here I’ll point it out:

4. 'badgers'. Defined as: "to harass or urge persistently; pester; nag". Again, Cadsuane does not 'nag'. She may harass persistantly, but never on the one issue, which is what this is speaking to. If she chooses to assert herself, she does it once, sharply, so that its never forgotten. The Balefire-slap is a clear example. She does not badger

Nag is the synonym here, she does what the definition states, and you admitted it.

 

Also for bluster you left out: To force or bully with swaggering threats.

She does that.

 

For the other part:

2. 'quarralsome'. Defined as: "inclined to quarrel; argumentative; contentious." Cadsuane is also not this. I cannot think of a single instance where Cadsuane actually permits herself to be drawn into a quarrel. She ends quarrels, with fire. Harine--now there is a quarrelsome women. Look at how Cadsuane reacts.

 

So you’re claiming that because you refuse to listen to other sides and always try to claim the last word you’re not argumentative. I submit that’s not true. If you slap someone every time they try to say something in an argument, does that not make it an argument or quarrel? Does the fact that you refuse to let the otherside get a word in edgewise make it less of an argument? No, no it doesn’t. Even if you’re being proven wrong, you can bully your way out of an argument, or end it and still be wrong. Despite the fact that Cads was rudely ignoring them, she was in an argument with the SeaFolk WH chapt 13. She chose to be a jerk and ignore them and their wishes, doesn’t mean there wasn’t a debate going on. They demanded something, she refused, guess what that means? They had a disagreement!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, let's start the fun shall we.

 

The Palace belongs to Cairhien, as a nation.

 

Absurd. So Rand enforces the laws, ensures taxes are paid and food is distributed as necessary, controls the Palace, his guards allow or bar entry to the palace but you’re still denying he’s ruler of the nation?

Funny, but the bit you quoted doesn't actually relate to what you're talking about. And no-one denied he was de facto ruler of Cairhien, merely that his de facto rulership did not make him a king. Not all rulers are kings, after all. Rand is not king of the Aiel, yet he is chief authority. Likewise he had power in Cairhien, but was not a king.
This part of this debate is getting asinine, truly. You’re whole premise is that Rand is not the “King”
And it's not something you're successfully arguing against. Can you show that Rand was ever styled King of Cairhien? That he ever claimed to be the king? That he was a king? His power within Cairhien is not at issue, only his kingship.
Although he rules every part of that land that is not in open rebellion, and therefore Cads should not be expected to come to him when asked although she’s staying there with his permission.
You've not shown that to be true. She was, as Luckers said, staying at Lady Arilyn's palace. Also, Rand was merely staying at the palace as well. It was not his home. Granted, he had the power to take the throne and make himself the king, but he did not exercise that power. Therefore, the palace was not his by right. So Cadsuane has every right to visit the palace and not visit Rand, who is merely a glorified squatter.
So who’s permission does she have to stay there?
Lady Arilyn's, I presume.

 

The first scene with Cads in it, not counting the New Spring book, has Cads being rude to Berelain and Rand.
Yes, but given that she was not being rude because rudeness is her nature, but was being rude in order to provoke Rand to see his reaction, I'm wondering what your point is? Yes, Cadsuane can be rude at times. No-one is denying that. The point at issue is whether she is habitually rude to people, or whether her rudeness is a specific tactic, used against specific people, for a specific purpose. Simply saying that she's rude does nothing to further your point.

 

“We are bound as one.” And if their targets turned out not to be the same at all? She did not underestimate Sorilea as ally or opponent, but Cadsuane knew which target had to be struck, at any cost”

 

Here we have a scene of Cads taking an oath with someone, and deciding at the very onset of the oath that she would betray her if necessary. Extremely dishonorable.

Hardly. Their oath is to work together towards a common goal. If their goals are not in sync, if they are not aiming towards the same goal, then they are surely not bound by an oath.

 

Also for bluster you left out: To force or bully with swaggering threats.

She does that.

When?

 

For the other part:
2. 'quarralsome'. Defined as: "inclined to quarrel; argumentative; contentious." Cadsuane is also not this. I cannot think of a single instance where Cadsuane actually permits herself to be drawn into a quarrel. She ends quarrels, with fire. Harine--now there is a quarrelsome women. Look at how Cadsuane reacts.

 

So you’re claiming that because you refuse to listen to other sides and always try to claim the last word you’re not argumentative. I submit that’s not true.

I submit that is not what anyone is claiming. If you're not in the habit of getting drawn into arguments you're not argumentative. If other people argue at you but you do not argue back, how are you argumentative? Well, you're not.
If you slap someone every time they try to say something in an argument, does that not make it an argument or quarrel?
Doesn't sound like an argument. Sounds more like a fight.
Even if you’re being proven wrong, you can bully your way out of an argument, or end it and still be wrong. Despite the fact that Cads was rudely ignoring them, she was in an argument with the SeaFolk WH chapt 13. She chose to be a jerk and ignore them and their wishes, doesn’t mean there wasn’t a debate going on. They demanded something, she refused, guess what that means? They had a disagreement!
So your point is that people disagree with Cadsuane? Well, that's not in contention. If someone tries to argue with you and you ignore them, are you being drawn into an argument? No, no you're not. You're avoiding being drawn into an argument. And that Cadsuane avoids being drawn into arguments is exactly what was claimed. Other people argue at her, she doesn't argue back. Thus she is not quarrelsome.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Funny, but the bit you quoted doesn't actually relate to what you're talking about. And no-one denied he was de facto ruler of Cairhien, merely that his de facto rulership did not make him a king. Not all rulers are kings, after all. Rand is not king of the Aiel, yet he is chief authority. Likewise he had power in Cairhien, but was not a king.

 

It does.

 

My original comments: A king is a ruler of nations, uncrowned, he was ruling those nations. A king in all but name. Didn’t Elayane call him that in the Stone?

Are we really debating small things like this. Do you know what the original argument was? I’m sure you don’t. I set forth that Cads was rude by ignoring a polite request by Rand to come see him, in his Palace. The Palace was his at the time, as the ruler of the country, and at the time Cads was staying there. Staying there as in she was in the Palace at that point, and spent a considerable amount of time. Whether she slept there or not is moot, she was there daily.

The owner of the place where you are staying, or located at presently, without payment, politely asked you to come see him/her. It is rude to refuse. Extremely rude. That was the debate, since it was apparently forgotten. You, Sultree, Luckers or whoever else is ignoring the obvious here to have a petty squabble about him being crowned or uncrowned. This started because it was claimed that she was not rude. I was providing examples.

 

That paragraph above covers the rest of your whole, where she slept, he wasn’t a “king” etc etc. If you require more explanation, I can provide. I’m sure you will however so I eagerly await.

 

In fact, I’ll break it down now.

Who ruled those countries?

Who’s army controlled those countries?

If Rand did not control those countries, who were those Nobles in rebellion against?

Who controlled access to the palace and the city? Who’s authority did those people submit too?

 

Yes, but given that she was not being rude because rudeness is her nature, but was being rude in order to provoke Rand to see his reaction, I'm wondering what your point is? Yes, Cadsuane can be rude at times. No-one is denying that. The point at issue is whether she is habitually rude to people, or whether her rudeness is a specific tactic, used against specific people, for a specific purpose. Simply saying that she's rude does nothing to further your point.

 

Something that is open to debate now. How are we to know the nature of Cads? What insight do we have into her inner workings? Obviously all we have to go on, since none of us are RJ , are the books and her POVs and the POVs of those dealing with her. I’ve put forth evidence that Cads is rude, and nearly always Rude. Those times when she is not rude, it’s because she has no need because her victims are subtly cowed (With the case of Daigan and her group of AS) or because she understands a power that rivals her own, her dealings with the Wise Ones. How many examples must I provide of her being rude? Want me to break down every single interaction with Cads? Is that what it would take? I mean I can name 10 or 20 right now, easily without resorting to that.

  1. Her entrance into Rand’s presence initially.
  2. Going off of that, her casual dismissal of Berlian (Another ruler)
  3. The way she rides over Merana when she took her from Rand’s presence. Also in that next scene she threatens to spank a few AS. They’re not longer Novices at this point, that’s rude
  4. Her dealing with Dobraine when he was acting on orders from Rand
  5. Her Treatment of Rand in the Tent scene right before the Fain attack, and the slap.
  6. Her kidnapping of a foreign dignitary, who was under the protection of Rand, the ruler of the country she was in and kidnapped the aforementioned dignitary.
  7. Her treatment of foreign dignitaries who came to request their associated be returned to them
  8. Her casual ignoring of those same dignitaries, and subsequent threats of physical violence against them
  9. Knowingly misleading the Asha’man so she could blackmail them and force them into being bonded (I assume so she could increase her power base)
  10. She’s even rude to Nyne after she’s banished from Rands presence and Ny comes to her with news and information. Of all the times to be rude, she has something you needed and held all the cards. At least treat her like an equal. Nope, rude again.

 

Need some more?

 

Hardly. Their oath is to work together towards a common goal. If their goals are not in sync, if they are not aiming towards the same goal, then they are surely not bound by an oath.

 

Common courtesy would be to tell the other party that you need to go different ways, not just tell yourself you’d stab her in the back whenever necessary. Or are you claiming that’s an honorable action?

I submit that is not what anyone is claiming. If you're not in the habit of getting drawn into arguments you're not argumentative. If other people argue at you but you do not argue back, how are you argumentative? Well, you're not.

 

So… If you did nothing wrong, or said nothing wrong, why are they arguing with you? Why are they talking to you? Some action of your own had to precede the “discussion” or else a lot of random crazy people just approach you and yell. I mean, that could be the case. However, given what we’ve seen of Cads, and the examples I’ve given above, we know that’s not the case. She’s bullied, disrespected, blackmailed, etc, causing the situation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since this turned into a Cadsuane tread I’m going to ask this: the reason for her and Rands’ first meeting to end as it had – her not being thrown out, or banished, or whole encounter ending in OP confrontation or some similar disaster is due primary to Rands’ specific cultural conditioning as TR man and both his unwillingness to harm or mistreat (elderly) woman and unwillingness to insist on respecting his position as leader\ruler (which I assume to come from egalitarianism and inexistence of state in his homeland as well as his personality). However it doesn’t seem that she was aware of those constraints of his, so her overbearing entrance comes like quite a gamble on her part; at least to me. Further more, her gambit later on was successful due to number of things she couldn’t possible count on when making her initial plan: Mins’ viewing, help she gave to Rand in the rebel camp, and honestly, quite a big idiot ball RJ gave Rand in their dealings. So, her plans was really faulty, and have worked a much as it did more because authorial fiat of RJ, pardon, Pattern rather than anything else, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since this turned into a Cadsuane tread I’m going to ask this: the reason for her and Rands’ first meeting to end as it had – her not being thrown out, or banished, or whole encounter ending in OP confrontation or some similar disaster is due primary to Rands’ specific cultural conditioning as TR man and both his unwillingness to harm or mistreat (elderly) woman and unwillingness to insist on respecting his position as leader\ruler (which I assume to come from egalitarianism and inexistence of state in his homeland as well as his personality). However it doesn’t seem that she was aware of those constraints of his, so her overbearing entrance comes like quite a gamble on her part; at least to me. Further more, her gambit later on was successful due to number of things she couldn’t possible count on when making her initial plan: Mins’ viewing, help she gave to Rand in the rebel camp, and honestly, quite a big idiot ball RJ gave Rand in their dealings. So, her plans was really faulty, and have worked a much as it did more because authorial fiat of RJ, pardon, Pattern rather than anything else, right?

 

Well...

 

While I agree with most of what you said, she may have known about his treatment of women. While i wasn't common knowledge at that point, certain people who needed to know knew, and assuming she has spies, she could have known with ease. But the rest of what you said is correct.

 

Some of the others have put forth that she is secure in herself because her Paralis-Net protects her from channelling and her Angreal would put her on a level of the forsaken, or Rand. In other words, if it came to a fight, she would have been able to beat him. I find that crazy myself, and a huge plot hole, although I will respect the fact the RJ said it. It just doesn't make sense to me.

 

But yes, I agree, the only excuse she has is her Arrogance, which is what this entire debate was about. She thinks she can, and nothing can stop her, therefore she does.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Funny, but the bit you quoted doesn't actually relate to what you're talking about. And no-one denied he was de facto ruler of Cairhien, merely that his de facto rulership did not make him a king. Not all rulers are kings, after all. Rand is not king of the Aiel, yet he is chief authority. Likewise he had power in Cairhien, but was not a king.

 

It does.

It doesn't. You didn't argue against the palace belonging to Cairhien as a nation, yet that was what you quoted.

 

My original comments: A king is a ruler of nations, uncrowned, he was ruling those nations. A king in all but name. Didn’t Elayane call him that in the Stone?

Are we really debating small things like this.

Yes.
Do you know what the original argument was? I’m sure you don’t.
And you would be wrong about that as well. Not that I expect you to admit it.
I set forth that Cads was rude by ignoring a polite request by Rand to come see him, in his Palace. The Palace was his at the time, as the ruler of the country, and at the time Cads was staying there. Staying there as in she was in the Palace at that point, and spent a considerable amount of time. Whether she slept there or not is moot, she was there daily.
Provide a quote to say she was there daily. And I said that Rand was a glorified squatter. The palace was not his, still less was it his home. That he was occupying it does not make it his. The palace could be considered to belong to either Cairhien as a nation - which Rand is not - or the reigning king or queen - which Rand was not. He might be a king in all but name, but names can be pretty important at times. His de facto rulership might bring with it the powers of a king, but not the rights. He has the power to put guards on the palace, to keep people out, but not the right. So you put forward a flawed premise - that the palace is Rand's. In reality, Rand is staying in the palace but does not own it, and Cadsuane is staying in the palace but does not own it. So you have the rudeness of one guest not wishing to visit another. No rudeness at all. Cadsuane has every right to refuse an audience with the Dragon.

 

Yes, but given that she was not being rude because rudeness is her nature, but was being rude in order to provoke Rand to see his reaction, I'm wondering what your point is? Yes, Cadsuane can be rude at times. No-one is denying that. The point at issue is whether she is habitually rude to people, or whether her rudeness is a specific tactic, used against specific people, for a specific purpose. Simply saying that she's rude does nothing to further your point.

 

Something that is open to debate now. How are we to know the nature of Cads? What insight do we have into her inner workings? Obviously all we have to go on, since none of us are RJ , are the books and her POVs and the POVs of those dealing with her. I’ve put forth evidence that Cads is rude, and nearly always Rude. Those times when she is not rude, it’s because she has no need because her victims are subtly cowed (With the case of Daigan and her group of AS) or because she understands a power that rivals her own, her dealings with the Wise Ones. How many examples must I provide of her being rude? Want me to break down every single interaction with Cads? Is that what it would take? I mean I can name 10 or 20 right now, easily without resorting to that.

The problem is that you focus entirely on action to the exclusion of motive. Given that motive is key to the argument raised against you, you are thus ignoring what has been said. Ignoring the other sides arguments in a debate is something I would consider rude, by the way. (It helps if we have a common understanding of what qualifies as rudeness.) Saying she is very often rude is silly when the very point raised is not that she is never rude, or only very seldom so, but that she is only rude with cause - it is a means to an end, not an end in itself. In fact, your post tacitly acknowledges the truth of that - "Those times when she is not rude, it’s because she has no need". An admission that rudeness is a means to an end. The very foundation of the argument raised against you is that she is only rude as a means to an end, not rude by nature - so the argument you put forward agrees with the points raised against you in the key respects. In other words, you are wrong. Now, granted, you have stated a belief that rudeness is always wrong, but we categorically disagree with your opinion on that point. Given the choice between letting the world burn because you're too busy being polite to be effective and actually doing something, actually doing something has to be seen as the preferable option.

 

Hardly. Their oath is to work together towards a common goal. If their goals are not in sync, if they are not aiming towards the same goal, then they are surely not bound by an oath.
Common courtesy would be to tell the other party that you need to go different ways, not just tell yourself you’d stab her in the back whenever necessary. Or are you claiming that’s an honorable action?
Cadsuane's states that she knows what target must be struck, no matter the cost. She has no desire to betray Sorilea, as she is a woman she respects. And she will not do so without good cause. But her goal is more important than her alliance. If politely telling your opponent that you have to go separate ways undermines your goal - that by doing so, you make it harder to achieve your goal, then your politeness was misguided and counterproductive. Common courtesy has a place, but to place it as an overriding concern, above the safety of the world, is amazingly foolish.

 

I submit that is not what anyone is claiming. If you're not in the habit of getting drawn into arguments you're not argumentative. If other people argue at you but you do not argue back, how are you argumentative? Well, you're not.

 

So… If you did nothing wrong, or said nothing wrong, why are they arguing with you? Why are they talking to you? Some action of your own had to precede the “discussion” or else a lot of random crazy people just approach you and yell. I mean, that could be the case. However, given what we’ve seen of Cads, and the examples I’ve given above, we know that’s not the case. She’s bullied, disrespected, blackmailed, etc, causing the situation.

If I am good at provoking others to argue with me, it does not follow that I am myself argumentative. So it is with Cadsuane. You defined her as quarrelsome, yet cannot back it up. Whether or not her bullying, disrespect and blackmail have caused a situation does not further this point at all. When is she inclined to quarrel? Note that I do not ask when do other people quarrel with her, I ask when she herself quarrels with others.

 

Since this turned into a Cadsuane tread I’m going to ask this: the reason for her and Rands’ first meeting to end as it had – her not being thrown out, or banished, or whole encounter ending in OP confrontation or some similar disaster is due primary to Rands’ specific cultural conditioning as TR man and both his unwillingness to harm or mistreat (elderly) woman and unwillingness to insist on respecting his position as leader\ruler (which I assume to come from egalitarianism and inexistence of state in his homeland as well as his personality). However it doesn’t seem that she was aware of those constraints of his, so her overbearing entrance comes like quite a gamble on her part; at least to me. Further more, her gambit later on was successful due to number of things she couldn’t possible count on when making her initial plan: Mins’ viewing, help she gave to Rand in the rebel camp, and honestly, quite a big idiot ball RJ gave Rand in their dealings. So, her plans was really faulty, and have worked a much as it did more because authorial fiat of RJ, pardon, Pattern rather than anything else, right?

Not really. The purpose of her provoking Rand was to learn about his character. She is an adaptable woman, both by RJ's statements and the evidence in the books.Therefore, on learning of his character she can adapt her method of dealing with him to whatever is required. Unless his response to her is to kill her there and then - itself both unlikely and quite difficult (and the sort of thing that could be learnt about him beforehand) - then she is quite capable of adapting to the situation. You could say that some factors, such as Min's Viewing, made it easier for her to do her job, but by the same token other factors made it much harder. I see no evidence of stupidity here, nor of authorial fiat being the sole - or even significant - reason for her success.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you considering the fact you can be both wrong and right at the same time ?

Rand is not a king , he was crowned in Illian but we have seen next to nothing of is ruling in Illian , he must have set thing right after Samael as an emperor .

He ruled for a time but it was not is objective nor is job is intent was to prepare the world of men to fight the last battle , he then appoint a few ruler knowing he had neither the time nor the liking to thread with pompous foul .

He did a bit of that in Andor but only because of Elayne , he was a leader but not of one nation but off all .

But at the same time you miss a great point while Rand is not a ruler he is a conqueror by right of conquest and by right of prophecies he OWNS everything .

He as Tear because Tear was built to protect Callandor , the whole nation was meant to occupy the Stone and prepare for is arrival , He "saved" Carhien from the shadow and there people acknowledge him as the dragon and those in power , the nobility , submit to is authority .

Illian and Arad Doman are the same story , is authority is beyond that of nobility or appointed ruler because he Is the Dragon Reborn , much like nation pay a yearly tax to the White Tower .

 

The prophecy's specify is authority is kind of absolute , the wetland prophecy mind you , other people have different prophecy for the Aiel he is not the Dragon Reborn but the Carn'a'Carn and Rand acte accordingly to those , remember when Rand ask Lian for permission to enter her roof ?

 

Well as the Coramoor he make a bargain with the Sea folk .

 

And yes Cadsuane is a bully even a fair one but a bully all the same , but the point you are missing is that she is not simply that , she is a bully because it sometime offer her a quick way to deal with foul . What you are missing is that Cadsuane is a woman on a mission for nearly three hundred year , she is in a way much like Moraine , but she know she as very little time .

The first time all she knew about Rand was the few report of is action and the prophecy , witch I think she understand more than much , she knew Rand would have nearly absolute power over those who acknowledge him as the Dragon Reborn .

When you are in the army do you care if your instructor call you names or do you care he instruct you how to survive ?

Well that is the same with Cadsuane , she realized she couldn't cut any slack to him , and she did occasionally save is skin and help him soothe think between is ally . Cadsuane had to prob Rand with a stick to know where he would go first , but then she only snap at him when it is good for him , prior to Rand epiphanies Rand hadn't in him all that was nessecary to assume all the power , duty , and right that was untrusted to him .

Casduane understood a bit of that and act accordingly without her there would not have been any epiphanies .

Most likely Rand would have died cleansing the source of facing Semirhage .

With all the power Rand he need someone who can contradict him openly on all subject , Cadsuane built her image and herself to be that woman , she knew the Amyrlin couldn't do that so she never was one nor did she accept any position of power .

 

I agree with Mr Ares when he say to her nothing matter more then the safety of the world , but it is more then that . To Cadsuane nothing matter more then the Sanity and well been of the Dragon Reborn .

 

Sorry for the pompous speach

 

Edit : and to the thread , Nynaeve is most humble she is like Cadsuane a no nonsense kind of girl she don't care about title nor position not because she think she is better then them , but because she only care about her duty .

Edited by nolirion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Luckers, Mr Ares, Suttree - after reading the last few pages in this thread, just wanted to take a moment to commend your combined patience; though I am beginning to question whether this particular wall should continue to provide a target for your certainly aching heads.

 

Undboubetdly, Ishy/Mor is the most arrogant character in WoT. After all, the dude thinks he's figured it all out and the appopriate course is annihilation of all worlds for all time. Damn dude sure thinks highly of himself. Ishy/Mor I mean : )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I told myself I wouldn't respond anymore, since we are not going to agree. Ever. However I saw this and had to respond:

 

The problem is that you focus entirely on action to the exclusion of motive. Given that motive is key to the argument raised against you, you are thus ignoring what has been said. Ignoring the other sides arguments in a debate is something I would consider rude, by the way. (It helps if we have a common understanding of what qualifies as rudeness.) Saying she is very often rude is silly when the very point raised is not that she is never rude, or only very seldom so, but that she is only rude with cause - it is a means to an end, not an end in itself. In fact, your post tacitly acknowledges the truth of that - "Those times when she is not rude, it’s because she has no need". An admission that rudeness is a means to an end. The very foundation of the argument raised against you is that she is only rude as a means to an end, not rude by nature - so the argument you put forward agrees with the points raised against you in the key respects. In other words, you are wrong. Now, granted, you have stated a belief that rudeness is always wrong, but we categorically disagree with your opinion on that point. Given the choice between letting the world burn because you're too busy being polite to be effective and actually doing something, actually doing something has to be seen as the preferable option

 

Go back and read my posts. I said, there is never an excuse to be rude. By saying she had no need (Since apparently i wasn't clear) I meant that the person who she was dealing with was either, totally under her control meaning being rude would have 0 effect and thus be a waste of effort, or the person was of stronger will than her and thus she knew she couldn't override them. (Pretty sure I stated that, correct me if I'm wrong). I am by no means implying that I believe it is EVER ok to be rude. Because I don't. The time given to rudeness could be better spent being polite.

 

Things that happen during emergencies aren't considered rude. (Since that seems to be your example), if a meteor was heading towards earth and you had to get of the phone to save the planet, that's not rude. If someone is shooting and you're having a discussion, and you duck before saying excuse me, that's not rude. Context sir, context. We're discussing behavior and actions during non emergency situations (All the ones presented none of my examples were life and death situations, with the exception of the slap, and that actually had 0 bearing on the life or death situation since she actually took time out to be rude, thereby putting them all in more danger). Too many people use that time bit to tyr to explain their rudeness, however my personal belief is there is never a time or place for it.

 

So again, my argument supports my statements. Her natural state is a rude ass, however she is bright enough to understand that at times she has no need to put out the effort (Cowed people) or she understands it won't work (Wise ones). At no point did I doubt her intelligence. As to the rest, if you wish to attempt to justify dishonorable actions, that's your choice. But don't call them anything other than dishonorable because you can justify it (In your own mind).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I told myself I wouldn't respond anymore, since we are not going to agree. Ever. However I saw this and had to respond:

 

The problem is that you focus entirely on action to the exclusion of motive. Given that motive is key to the argument raised against you, you are thus ignoring what has been said. Ignoring the other sides arguments in a debate is something I would consider rude, by the way. (It helps if we have a common understanding of what qualifies as rudeness.) Saying she is very often rude is silly when the very point raised is not that she is never rude, or only very seldom so, but that she is only rude with cause - it is a means to an end, not an end in itself. In fact, your post tacitly acknowledges the truth of that - "Those times when she is not rude, it’s because she has no need". An admission that rudeness is a means to an end. The very foundation of the argument raised against you is that she is only rude as a means to an end, not rude by nature - so the argument you put forward agrees with the points raised against you in the key respects. In other words, you are wrong. Now, granted, you have stated a belief that rudeness is always wrong, but we categorically disagree with your opinion on that point. Given the choice between letting the world burn because you're too busy being polite to be effective and actually doing something, actually doing something has to be seen as the preferable option

 

Go back and read my posts. I said, there is never an excuse to be rude.

I know. I even addressed that in the post you quoted: "you have stated a belief that rudeness is always wrong, but we categorically disagree with your opinion on that point". Politeness has a place, but it is not of overriding importance, such that nothing can ever excuse impoliteness. Now, as I said, ignoring what the other side is saying is something I consider to be rude. Demonstrably, you ignored what I said. How do you justify that, if rudeness is always wrong?

 

By saying she had no need (Since apparently i wasn't clear) I meant that the person who she was dealing with was either, totally under her control meaning being rude would have 0 effect and thus be a waste of effort, or the person was of stronger will than her and thus she knew she couldn't override them. (Pretty sure I stated that, correct me if I'm wrong). I am by no means implying that I believe it is EVER ok to be rude. Because I don't. The time given to rudeness could be better spent being polite.
Well, that last point implies rudeness and politeness take up as much time. Which is arguable in many cases, and it is easy enough to provide examples of how time could be saved by being rude. Thus being rude can allow for time to be spent more productively, while time spent being polite is wasted for any practical purpose. Also, saying it would be a waste of effort to be rude to someone somewhat misses the point - your are thus admitting that her rudeness is not a default setting applied to all situations, but a tactic used to gain something. Again, I consider a belief that politeness is more important than anything else to be absurd. Therefore, I accept that impoliteness has a place, and that as we are in agreement on Cadsuane uses impoliteness as a tool, it is surely more appropriate that she uses it when she has good reason to, rather than just using rudeness as a matter of course because she doesn't care about other people.

 

Things that happen during emergencies aren't considered rude. (Since that seems to be your example), if a meteor was heading towards earth and you had to get of the phone to save the planet, that's not rude. If someone is shooting and you're having a discussion, and you duck before saying excuse me, that's not rude. Context sir, context. We're discussing behavior and actions during non emergency situations (All the ones presented none of my examples were life and death situations, with the exception of the slap, and that actually had 0 bearing on the life or death situation since she actually took time out to be rude, thereby putting them all in more danger). Too many people use that time bit to tyr to explain their rudeness, however my personal belief is there is never a time or place for it.
I disagree with your first sentence. Things that happen during emergencies might be considered an acceptable impoliteness, but they are impolite nonetheless. Of course, you cannot accept that, as it undermines your point completely. I accept that there are situations in which one must step outside the boundaries of polite and civilised behaviour, because to do otherwise results in things far worse than a mere social faux pas. You do not accept that it is ever permissible to go beyond the boundaries of politeness, but in an effort to have your cake and eat it you claim that being rude in an emergency doesn't count. Of course, given that we are dealing with the fate of the world - both its possible destruction should Rand fail at TG or the darkness it might fall into should he win but not correct his behaviour - this could well qualify as an emergency, and therefore Cadsuane is not rude because it doesn't count, or it is still rudeness, but it is acceptable because of the state of emergency taking precedence. The slap was, of course, to convince Rand to stop using a weapon that, in the past, came close to destroying the world - therefore it is not rude because, again, it was a matter of life and death. Your argument is full of absurd holes.

 

So again, my argument supports my statements.
Alas, no.
Her natural state is a rude ass, however she is bright enough to understand that at times she has no need to put out the effort (Cowed people) or she understands it won't work (Wise ones).
If her natural state was "a rude ass", surely it would take less effort to go along with her natural tendency to rudeness in situations with "cowed people", where it will make no difference, than to go to the extra effort to not be rude to them? If rudeness is her natural state, then the path of least resistance is to continue being rude, and unless she has a good reason to avoid being rude, she should surely be rude to everyone. As it is, you admit that she takes the time and effort to be polite to people when she has no reason to be rude to them.
As to the rest, if you wish to attempt to justify dishonorable actions, that's your choice. But don't call them anything other than dishonorable because you can justify it (In your own mind).

What dishonourable actions? She didn't actually betray Sorilea. And, further to that, her primary allegiance is to Rand - to fail to take action against Sorilea if she felt Sorilea was acting against Rand's best interests would itself be dishonourable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ok guys everyone knows that I like Cad she is one of better characters in the book, but she is rude, insulting and overbearing without any reason most of the times. one instant that comes to mind immediately is when she goes to Far madding in Winter's Heart. she bullies hr way into making the first counsel invite her to live at heights. "She could not have made her dismissal plainer short of a command, but the Aes Sedai smiled up at the taller woman. It was not an unpleasant smile, exactly, but neither was it in the least amused. "I may not be leaving for a while, Aleis. I thank you for the offer of accommodations, and accept. A palace on the Heights is always preferable to even the best inn." The First Counsel's eyes widened with startlement, then narrowed in determination.

"Cadsuane must stay with me," Harine said, managing to sound no more than half strangled, before Aleis could speak. "Where she is unwelcome, so am I." This had been part of the bargain forced on her, if they were to accompany Cadsuane. Among other things they must go when and where she said until they joined the Coramoor, and include her in any invitations they received. That last had seemed very small at the time, especially weighed against the rest, but plainly the woman had known exactly the reception she would receive". it served no other purpose in the story except in your face. I am doing it because I can. You can all argue as much as you like that Rand was not the king, but Aleis was the ruler and she forced herself on her. Even when she knew that she was not welcome. How else do you define rude?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ok guys everyone knows that I like Cad she is one of better characters in the book, but she is rude, insulting and overbearing without any reason most of the times. one instant that comes to mind immediately is when she goes to Far madding in Winter's Heart. she bullies hr way into making the first counsel invite her to live at heights. "She could not have made her dismissal plainer short of a command, but the Aes Sedai smiled up at the taller woman. It was not an unpleasant smile, exactly, but neither was it in the least amused. "I may not be leaving for a while, Aleis. I thank you for the offer of accommodations, and accept. A palace on the Heights is always preferable to even the best inn." The First Counsel's eyes widened with startlement, then narrowed in determination.

"Cadsuane must stay with me," Harine said, managing to sound no more than half strangled, before Aleis could speak. "Where she is unwelcome, so am I." This had been part of the bargain forced on her, if they were to accompany Cadsuane. Among other things they must go when and where she said until they joined the Coramoor, and include her in any invitations they received. That last had seemed very small at the time, especially weighed against the rest, but plainly the woman had known exactly the reception she would receive". it served no other purpose in the story except in your face. I am doing it because I can. You can all argue as much as you like that Rand was not the king, but Aleis was the ruler and she forced herself on her. Even when she knew that she was not welcome. How else do you define rude?

 

Mudd, the whole episode was planned from the start. All you have done is give an example in which Cadsuane had an end goal and her dealings with Aleis very much served to reach that end. This was one of the more calculated scenes we get to see Cads in and an example of how meticulous her planning is. It is exactly what Luckers, Mr Ares and I have been saying throughout this thread. Not to mention if you are going to use an example try not to pick one in which the other person antagonizes Cads first.

 

WH

"I am Aleis Barsalla, First Counsel of Far Madding." Her mellifluous voice, deep for a woman, seemed to be making a proclamation, and expecting cheers. The sound of her voice bouncing inside the dome gave something like acclamation. "Far Madding gives welcome to Harine din Togara Two Winds, Wavemistress of Clan Shodein and Ambassador Extraordinary for the Mistress of the Ships to the Atha'an Miere. May the Light illumine you and see you prosper. Your coming gladdens every heart in Far Madding. I embrace the chance to learn more of the Atha'an Miere, but you must be weary from the rigors of your journey. I have arranged pleasant quarters for you in my palace. When you have rested and eaten, we can talk; to our mutual advantage, if it pleases the Light." The others spread the skirts of their robes and made half bows.

Harine inclined her head slightly, a hint of satisfaction in her smile. Here, at last, were those who showed her proper respect. And very likely it helped that they did not gape at her and Shalon’s jewelry.

"The messengers from the gates are as quick as ever, it seems, Aleis," Cadsuane said. "Is there no welcome for me?"

 

That is a very significant snub to start off the whole thing. I would define rude in this situation as a council member giving warm welcome to the Atha'an Miere but not their AS companions.

Edited by Suttree

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Come on sutt, are you seriously making this argument? I mean let us see, you do not like someone and you do not want to have him or her in your house. Is it too much to ask? Let us see if we can make a head or tale of it. It is Aleis’s place or palace right, she does not want to see the face of cads, right again. Now, Cads barges her way in and weasels out an invitation for herself. You say, it is not rude! You hate me and I am conniving a way to go live in your home and it is not rude, RGHT! Ok let us continue. You say Aleis was rude to her in her own house or council chamber in this case. It means, she cannot say what she wants to her and yet cads was entitled to mistreating Rand and she was not even rude. As for planning the encounter. This has been the whole point of Varadamus’s argument; he never denied her intelligence or her ability to plan. What he is saying is that she does whatever she wants to increases her power base. Although, I do not quite agree with this sentiment, but in this case that is what she is doing and it has nothing to do with helping Rand or anyone else. She is just doing it to show that she can. A classic trait of a bully. I will say again, I love the character of Cads, but this s her personality quirk. This s the beauty of the series, there are no Mary Sues, well except Eggy but she doesnot count now dos she? :wink:

Edited by muddasssir

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Come on sutt, are you seriously making this argument?

You'd better believe it............

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I disagree with your first sentence. Things that happen during emergencies might be considered an acceptable impoliteness, but they are impolite nonetheless. Of course, you cannot accept that, as it undermines your point completely. I accept that there are situations in which one must step outside the boundaries of polite and civilised behaviour, because to do otherwise results in things far worse than a mere social faux pas. You do not accept that it is ever permissible to go beyond the boundaries of politeness, but in an effort to have your cake and eat it you claim that being rude in an emergency doesn't count. Of course, given that we are dealing with the fate of the world - both its possible destruction should Rand fail at TG or the darkness it might fall into should he win but not correct his behaviour - this could well qualify as an emergency, and therefore Cadsuane is not rude because it doesn't count, or it is still rudeness, but it is acceptable because of the state of emergency taking precedence. The slap was, of course, to convince Rand to stop using a weapon that, in the past, came close to destroying the world - therefore it is not rude because, again, it was a matter of life and death. Your argument is full of absurd holes.

 

I'm not refusing to accept it because it undermines my point, I'm refusing to accept it because it's idiotic. If I'm saving you from drowning and don't introduce myself before I pull you to a safe point, is that rude or impolite? No. Go look up the definition to being rude, as with a lot of things, context comes into play. Generally speaking one is rude on purpose. Is that always the case? No, just most of the time. In the situations we're discussing here, all of those incidents were on purpose, and took place with forethought and malice.

 

If her natural state was "a rude ass", surely it would take less effort to go along with her natural tendency to rudeness in situations with "cowed people", where it will make no difference, than to go to the extra effort to not be rude to them? If rudeness is her natural state, then the path of least resistance is to continue being rude, and unless she has a good reason to avoid being rude, she should surely be rude to everyone. As it is, you admit that she takes the time and effort to be polite to people when she has no reason to be rude to them.

 

No. Your natural state as it refers to your personality doesn't mean no effort is needed, or even that being neutral is not still easier than putting forth the effort to be a jerk. She's good at what she does, that doesn't mean it doesn't take energy and forethought. You're really good at twisting words and presenting one sided situations as the gospel.

 

To be rude on Cad's level takes intelligence and forethought. Why would she waste that on someone she didn't have too? She wouldn't. Thus her treatment of cowed people. I've explained it again and again, you refuse to accept it.

 

The Crux of the argument is this, as I see it. You, Sultree and Luckers claim Cads is not rude, but what? Are you claiming she's a polite individual who employs rudeness when necessary? If so, why haven't we seen it the majority of the time. I provided at least 20 examples during this silly debate of Cads rudeness, and I can provide more. How many exmaples have been harped upon by your cartel? 2. Her treatment of the Wise ones and the AS who are already in her pocket. What else do you have to go on here. If you think she's so polite and civilized, please provide some more examples.

 

 

As to the slap, again the slap lead to Rand almost dying. How easily you forget that huh. My argument is full of holes, yet you claim her assault which nearly caused him his life was a matter of life and death. You sir are delusional.

 

What dishonourable actions? She didn't actually betray Sorilea. And, further to that, her primary allegiance is to Rand - to fail to take action against Sorilea if she felt Sorilea was acting against Rand's best interests would itself be dishonourable.

 

Comtemplating betraying an alliance withing seconds of commiting to them is dishonorable. Also, stop twisting words, she would betray her when she felt Sorilea no longer had the same goals as her. Not just what was actually best for Rand, but what she felt was best. Two different things. Again twisting you now make it seem like she would rescue Rand from the machinations of Sorilea, when in fact he has a lot more trust in the Wise Ones than he has in Cads, this it's absurd what you're implying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...