What annoys/frustrates you about the main characters

[wookiebear]

What annoys me about all characters, both major and minor, is their driving need to keep everything a secret. I really think that what they had for breakfast may be a state secret to some of the characters within these novels...........

 

Other than that I enjoy the story as a whole, just wish that the secrets thing was not so dominating within the story line.

 

So many minor annoyances would be gone if the characters just talked to one another instead of manipulating each other to keep secrets. It is my firm belief that a lot of the online whinging about certain characters would stop if they would just stop and talk to each other, but then again where would be the fun in that

[Ludo]

Egwene and Nynaeve's thought's on wanting to be free of the Oaths, so that they can live a longer life. While Elayne also thought this, the man she loves has the possibility of living as long as she does. It kind of seems greedy on their part.

Is this sarcasm?

No sarcasm at all. I did not say it was unnatural or illogical, it is just something that annoys me.

Before leaving the Two Rivers, Egwene and Nynaeve had no expectation of living a life longer than that of the average Two Rivers female, even though they both would have, if Egwene didn't die in touching the source. They are made aware of the great benefit of the ability to channel. I think they should be perfectly happy with 300 or so years of life instead of 80 or so, to desire more, to me seems greedy.

Plus, more time as queen.

Scratch my exemption of Elayne then, that is greedy, if she is not willing to allow her first born daughter who may not be able to channel, to ascend

(to?) the throne, before her daughter is old and grey, that is greedy.

[RandA lThor]

well, she may not just do it to prevent her daughter from being queen, plus, from two parents who both channel, we don't know if the child will be able to channel, so far we have only seen one channeler parent, plus like Aviendha and Rand's children in the viewing

[Ludo]

I don't mean that she would do it to prevent her daughter from it, but with her being about 20 now, say 80 years old would be the high end of the life span for the mere mortals and around the age some of the monarchs would step down, if she were to stay on past that age (give or take a few years), provided that it is a time of peace and plenty and she does not feel that she needs to guide Andor through some sort of struggle, it would seem greedy to me if it is a non channelling Daugher Heir and she stayed on the throne because she could.

 

Yes there is the possibilty that Elayne and Rand's children will also be freaks like like Aviendha and Rand's, and maybe if Min is able to conceive, she could also have freak children. We don't know if it is just something that comes from Rand, two channelers, or just the perfect genetic mix of Aviendha and Rand.

If Elayne's daughter can channel normally or like Aviendha's children then this Aes Sedai Daughter Heir might prefer to do more Aes Sedai stuff in her life before settling down to be Queen, that would be arranged between Elayne and the daughter, and have her not being greedy.

[Jaedan_edhel]

This isn't restricted to the main characters, and I do wonder if it bugs anyone else, too: this apparent compulsion for the characters to pair up! I rather like Nynaeve and Lan's relationship, to be fair; I didn't object to Egwene and Gawyn (or Galad, if that's the way things had gone). I would have to appreciate that Perrin and Faile's partnership advances the plot significantly. But the whole Mat and Tuon thing irritates me (plot or not) - while Mat is among my least favourite characters, I hate seeing him appear so out-of-character as to allow a woman to address him by the very insulting 'Toy'; and even worse, Moiraine and Thom. That Morgase and the guardsman ended up together just makes Morgase seem like one of these women who has to have a 'someone' and it doesn't much matter who, and Siuan and Gareth seems entirely pointless.

 

Rand and his harem? Three women - now THAT'S greedy! I'd take longer life over three partners any day (actually - I might even take it over one).

[Sephie913]

I don't mean that she would do it to prevent her daughter from it, but with her being about 20 now, say 80 years old would be the high end of the life span for the mere mortals and around the age some of the monarchs would step down, if she were to stay on past that age (give or take a few years), provided that it is a time of peace and plenty and she does not feel that she needs to guide Andor through some sort of struggle, it would seem greedy to me if it is a non channelling Daugher Heir and she stayed on the throne because she could.

 

Yes there is the possibilty that Elayne and Rand's children will also be freaks like like Aviendha and Rand's, and maybe if Min is able to conceive, she could also have freak children. We don't know if it is just something that comes from Rand, two channelers, or just the perfect genetic mix of Aviendha and Rand.

If Elayne's daughter can channel normally or like Aviendha's children then this Aes Sedai Daughter Heir might prefer to do more Aes Sedai stuff in her life before settling down to be Queen, that would be arranged between Elayne and the daughter, and have her not being greedy.

 

keep in mind that in Andor, a queen can give the throne to an heir at any time. Which would mean that Elayne would give up the throne as her non-channeling heir enters majority, and then go on AS adventures.

 

But Elayne is one of my least favorite characters post-PoD. She seems determined to get herself killed. I understand the teenage immortality complex alongside Min's vision seemingly insuring her safety until ___, but she doesn't seem to get that if DO wins, all of Min's viewings don't mean crap.

 

Perrin and Faile should have resolved their issues by now, at least by end of ToM. their lack of communication might have ruined any chance of a rewarding story arch for them. It's getting to the point that someone will need to die for there to be a satisfying resolution. And this is coming from someone who has Faile and Perrin in the top half of WoT characters.

 

communication is the problem in general in WoT, like others have said. while it is necessary in some places for story reasons, in others, it's just annoying.

[Ludo]

keep in mind that in Andor, a queen can give the throne to an heir at any time. Which would mean that Elayne would give up the throne as her non-channeling heir enters majority, and then go on AS adventures.

This is my point though, while she can abdicate when her daughter enters her majority (chanelling or non-channelling), if she is thinking:

Plus, more time as queen.

And goes the route I said or doesn't give it up until she is dead, it would make her greedy.

[Mr Ares]

Egwene and Nynaeve's thought's on wanting to be free of the Oaths, so that they can live a longer life. While Elayne also thought this, the man she loves has the possibility of living as long as she does. It kind of seems greedy on their part.

Is this sarcasm?

No sarcasm at all. I did not say it was unnatural or illogical, it is just something that annoys me.

Before leaving the Two Rivers, Egwene and Nynaeve had no expectation of living a life longer than that of the average Two Rivers female, even though they both would have, if Egwene didn't die in touching the source. They are made aware of the great benefit of the ability to channel. I think they should be perfectly happy with 300 or so years of life instead of 80 or so, to desire more, to me seems greedy.

It's not greedy to want to live forever. Nor to want to avoid throwing your life away for no reason.

 

Plus, more time as queen.

Scratch my exemption of Elayne then, that is greedy, if she is not willing to allow her first born daughter who may not be able to channel, to ascend

(to?) the throne, before her daughter is old and grey, that is greedy.

No it isn't. It is monarchy. She would be somewhat derelict in her duty to give up the throne without good reason. It has been the case in history that monarchs have reigned for along time, with their children having to wait a long time to get the throne, or even dying before they get it. (By this reasoning, Queen Elizabeth is immensely greedy, because she's keeping Charles off the throne.)

 

I don't mean that she would do it to prevent her daughter from it, but with her being about 20 now, say 80 years old would be the high end of the life span for the mere mortals and around the age some of the monarchs would step down, if she were to stay on past that age (give or take a few years), provided that it is a time of peace and plenty and she does not feel that she needs to guide Andor through some sort of struggle, it would seem greedy to me if it is a non channelling Daugher Heir and she stayed on the throne because she could.

 

Yes there is the possibilty that Elayne and Rand's children will also be freaks like like Aviendha and Rand's, and maybe if Min is able to conceive, she could also have freak children. We don't know if it is just something that comes from Rand, two channelers, or just the perfect genetic mix of Aviendha and Rand.

If Elayne's daughter can channel normally or like Aviendha's children then this Aes Sedai Daughter Heir might prefer to do more Aes Sedai stuff in her life before settling down to be Queen, that would be arranged between Elayne and the daughter, and have her not being greedy.

 

keep in mind that in Andor, a queen can give the throne to an heir at any time. Which would mean that Elayne would give up the throne as her non-channeling heir enters majority, and then go on AS adventures.

Any queen who would abdicate as soon as her heir came of age purely to go on adventures is clearly unsuitable for the position.

 

But Elayne is one of my least favorite characters post-PoD. She seems determined to get herself killed. I understand the teenage immortality complex alongside Min's vision seemingly insuring her safety until ___, but she doesn't seem to get that if DO wins, all of Min's viewings don't mean crap.

If Shai'tan wins they are all dead. If He doesn't, Min's Viewing holds true, and therefore she won't die. Saying that the only possible reason she could die in the next few months involves the complete destruction of the universe hardly makes her recklessness look excessive. If anything, you offer a good justification for it.

 

communication is the problem in general in WoT, like others have said. while it is necessary in some places for story reasons, in others, it's just annoying.

And in all cases, it is necessary for thematic reasons.

[Ludo]

It's not greedy to want to live forever.

 

To me it does seem greedy.

 

No it isn't. It is monarchy. She would be somewhat derelict in her duty to give up the throne without good reason. It has been the case in history that monarchs have reigned for along time, with their children having to wait a long time to get the throne, or even dying before they get it. (By this reasoning, Queen Elizabeth is immensely greedy, because she's keeping Charles off the throne.)

 

So, Elayne then rules Andor for 300 years, gets the Oaths removed, rules another few hundred, how many generations since her first daughter? Providing that the her first daughter can not channel, she will be dead and gone by this time, her children the same, unless channellers...and so on. Depending on the situation with Rand and having more children with him, or if she moves on, and has more children with someone else, after 3, 5, 6 hundred years, then lines of Sucession are a bit blurry, sure monarchies are great for keeping track of that thing, but come Elayne's death, say the top tier of candidates to Succeed all have one foot in the grave, and each in turn passes up their right to ascend the throne, and we pass to the second tier...but some ungrateful little bint, from way down the family tree, thinks to herself "I want to be Queen, none of these prancing she-goats deserve to be" And starts having them killed to clear her way to the throne.

While Elayne might do all well and good during her life time, and be one of the best Queens that Andor ever had and will have, staying on for such a time, to me, is greedy. And of the many possible weavings of the Pattern of the time upto and including what I have outlined above, if the above were to happen, it would serve Elayne's legacy right for being greedy.

 

Also in regards to the monarchy of the UK, greedy figurehead, is greedy

Well it is a different situation for the UK, and any other such monarchies, in that they don't excercise any real power over their nation, a few things here and there, but they don't rule.

Although, the length of her reign and the ages of both Queen Elizabeth and Charles are quite close to what I was saying a previous post about if Elayne stayed on past 80, so obviously my own opinion is that of greed on Queen Elizabeths part. But some part of me does not want to see Charles be King.

[Mr Ares]

It's not greedy to want to live forever.

To me it does seem greedy.

In what way? How is it greedy to want to live ones alloted lifespan, rather than having it cut unnaturally short for no good reason?

 

 

No it isn't. It is monarchy. She would be somewhat derelict in her duty to give up the throne without good reason. It has been the case in history that monarchs have reigned for along time, with their children having to wait a long time to get the throne, or even dying before they get it. (By this reasoning, Queen Elizabeth is immensely greedy, because she's keeping Charles off the throne.)

 

So, Elayne then rules Andor for 300 years, gets the Oaths removed, rules another few hundred, how many generations since her first daughter? Providing that the her first daughter can not channel, she will be dead and gone by this time, her children the same, unless channellers...and so on. Depending on the situation with Rand and having more children with him, or if she moves on, and has more children with someone else, after 3, 5, 6 hundred years, then lines of Sucession are a bit blurry, sure monarchies are great for keeping track of that thing, but come Elayne's death, say the top tier of candidates to Succeed all have one foot in the grave, and each in turn passes up their right to ascend the throne, and we pass to the second tier...but some ungrateful little bint, from way down the family tree, thinks to herself "I want to be Queen, none of these prancing she-goats deserve to be" And starts having them killed to clear her way to the throne.

So the problem is that someone might desire to ignore the line of succession and murder their way to the throne? Well, surely that's a problem regardless? I could go out and stage a coup and set myself up as a king.

 

While Elayne might do all well and good during her life time, and be one of the best Queens that Andor ever had and will have, staying on for such a time, to me, is greedy. And of the many possible weavings of the Pattern of the time upto and including what I have outlined above, if the above were to happen, it would serve Elayne's legacy right for being greedy.

So you consider it greedy to put your life on hold to rule a country for a few centuries, quite selflessly, to do a good job, purely because she happens to be good at what she does for an extended period? Now, Elayne's immense life expectancy does put her in a slightly different boat to a non-channeler - abdication is more reasonable for her than for a non-channeler - but I would not consider her greedy to want to remain in her position for an extended period. Greed would lie not in the action but in the motivation. If she maintains power out of a desire for power, that is greedy, if she maintains power out of a desire to help people, rather less so.

 

Also in regards to the monarchy of the UK, greedy figurehead, is greedy

Well it is a different situation for the UK, and any other such monarchies, in that they don't excercise any real power over their nation, a few things here and there, but they don't rule.

Although, the length of her reign and the ages of both Queen Elizabeth and Charles are quite close to what I was saying a previous post about if Elayne stayed on past 80, so obviously my own opinion is that of greed on Queen Elizabeths part. But some part of me does not want to see Charles be King.

It is not greed, it is a desire to do ones duty. A commendable quality, and one that is unfortunately lacking in many these days.

[Ludo]

It's not greedy to want to live forever.

To me it does seem greedy.

In what way? How is it greedy to want to live ones alloted lifespan, rather than having it cut unnaturally short for no good reason?

 

First, considering the quote, I consider it greedier to wan to live forever. In having the desire for immortality, and maybe having the power to get it, one could be greedy and keep it for themselves, to allow for an attempt of domination of all, even with good intentions. If the ability to have immortality, in the Wheel of Time is given to all, and the majority use it, this could eventually lead to over population, reduced birth rates, and war for resources and generally food, now maybe that could just be another Age, but to me it comes across as greed.

 

Second in regards to the Aes Sedai lifespan with the Oaths and without the Oaths, which is what you mean. To wish to live ones alloted lifespan is not in itself greedy, this just comes back to my original reasoning for Egwene and Nynaeve.

 

 

No it isn't. It is monarchy. She would be somewhat derelict in her duty to give up the throne without good reason. It has been the case in history that monarchs have reigned for along time, with their children having to wait a long time to get the throne, or even dying before they get it. (By this reasoning, Queen Elizabeth is immensely greedy, because she's keeping Charles off the throne.)

 

So, Elayne then rules Andor for 300 years, gets the Oaths removed, rules another few hundred, how many generations since her first daughter? Providing that the her first daughter can not channel, she will be dead and gone by this time, her children the same, unless channellers...and so on. Depending on the situation with Rand and having more children with him, or if she moves on, and has more children with someone else, after 3, 5, 6 hundred years, then lines of Sucession are a bit blurry, sure monarchies are great for keeping track of that thing, but come Elayne's death, say the top tier of candidates to Succeed all have one foot in the grave, and each in turn passes up their right to ascend the throne, and we pass to the second tier...but some ungrateful little bint, from way down the family tree, thinks to herself "I want to be Queen, none of these prancing she-goats deserve to be" And starts having them killed to clear her way to the throne.

So the problem is that someone might desire to ignore the line of succession and murder their way to the throne? Well, surely that's a problem regardless? I could go out and stage a coup and set myself up as a king.

 

Yes and no.

Realistically a coup is always possible, but the variable is how successful it is.

Considering that she can Travel, she could quite easily take on an advisory role, realistic..probably not, against the wishes of the White Tower..quite likely. She could even create a new position that she could fill, for diplomacy and whatever else. As I said before, I would find it acceptable, and not greedy, and as such not annoying, if there were matters that she felt that she had to see to herself or if her heir was unfit to rule.

 

 

While Elayne might do all well and good during her life time, and be one of the best Queens that Andor ever had and will have, staying on for such a time, to me, is greedy. And of the many possible weavings of the Pattern of the time upto and including what I have outlined above, if the above were to happen, it would serve Elayne's legacy right for being greedy.

So you consider it greedy to put your life on hold to rule a country for a few centuries, quite selflessly, to do a good job, purely because she happens to be good at what she does for an extended period? Now, Elayne's immense life expectancy does put her in a slightly different boat to a non-channeler - abdication is more reasonable for her than for a non-channeler - but I would not consider her greedy to want to remain in her position for an extended period. Greed would lie not in the action but in the motivation. If she maintains power out of a desire for power, that is greedy, if she maintains power out of a desire to help people, rather less so.

 

That is along the lines of my thinking. Staying on to keep Andor safe, that is ok. Staying on to keep Andorans safe, that is ok. Staying on becasue she can stay on, after a certain point becomes greedy. As I said above, she could take on some form of advisory role.

 

Also in regards to the monarchy of the UK, greedy figurehead, is greedy

Well it is a different situation for the UK, and any other such monarchies, in that they don't excercise any real power over their nation, a few things here and there, but they don't rule.

Although, the length of her reign and the ages of both Queen Elizabeth and Charles are quite close to what I was saying a previous post about if Elayne stayed on past 80, so obviously my own opinion is that of greed on Queen Elizabeths part. But some part of me does not want to see Charles be King.

It is not greed, it is a desire to do ones duty. A commendable quality, and one that is unfortunately lacking in many these days.

As a constitutional monarchy, that duty is muted. The desire to do ones duty, as you say, is commendable.

But in a constitutional monarchy, the duty is just a bauble to be passed on. It is the same as the President in Ireland, just a figurehead, with a few powers, and is just a waste of money.

[Kahsm]

But Elayne is one of my least favorite characters post-PoD. She seems determined to get herself killed. I understand the teenage immortality complex alongside Min's vision seemingly insuring her safety until ___, but she doesn't seem to get that if DO wins, all of Min's viewings don't mean crap.

If Shai'tan wins they are all dead. If He doesn't, Min's Viewing holds true, and therefore she won't die. Saying that the only possible reason she could die in the next few months involves the complete destruction of the universe hardly makes her recklessness look excessive. If anything, you offer a good justification for it.

 

I think the point is, she doesn't have to get to the birth of her kids whole in order to have them -- neither does the kingdom she's responsible for. It was still retardedly stupid, even if death wasn't the goal. There are things that could happen where I bet she'd wish she was dead instead.

 

Also in regards to the monarchy of the UK, greedy figurehead, is greedy

Well it is a different situation for the UK, and any other such monarchies, in that they don't excercise any real power over their nation, a few things here and there, but they don't rule.

Although, the length of her reign and the ages of both Queen Elizabeth and Charles are quite close to what I was saying a previous post about if Elayne stayed on past 80, so obviously my own opinion is that of greed on Queen Elizabeths part. But some part of me does not want to see Charles be King.

It is not greed, it is a desire to do ones duty. A commendable quality, and one that is unfortunately lacking in many these days.

 

^^ This. QE works really hard. Lavish lifestyle, no hardships, genetic lottery, blah blah blah. But I'd take my job over days filled with mind numbing ceremonies and motivational speaches. Of course the problem with a Monarchy is that eventually you'll get to the point where someone decides he only wants to act the billionaire playboy, and it'll be much harder to defend the role. Charles won't be it though, he's already extremely active (maybe too active, and often wrong headed) and neither will William it seems. So that's still a long ways off.

 

As for how this relates to WOT, there's no way Elayne would give up rule until she was dead most likely, or recognized she was in some other way incapable of making sound decisions. Kids are only backups for if the Monarchs die. "The King is dead, long live the King" and all that.

 

 

Also in regards to the monarchy of the UK, greedy figurehead, is greedy

Well it is a different situation for the UK, and any other such monarchies, in that they don't excercise any real power over their nation, a few things here and there, but they don't rule.

Although, the length of her reign and the ages of both Queen Elizabeth and Charles are quite close to what I was saying a previous post about if Elayne stayed on past 80, so obviously my own opinion is that of greed on Queen Elizabeths part. But some part of me does not want to see Charles be King.

It is not greed, it is a desire to do ones duty. A commendable quality, and one that is unfortunately lacking in many these days.

As a constitutional monarchy, that duty is muted. The desire to do ones duty, as you say, is commendable.

But in a constitutional monarchy, the duty is just a bauble to be passed on. It is the same as the President in Ireland, just a figurehead, with a few powers, and is just a waste of money.

 

Last pricing I heard was something like $1 a day per UK citizen. Then some comes from Canada, and I'm sure other Commonwealth Nations fund some of it. But for the UK, $1 a day per citizen for the bazillions of tourist dollars that shit must bring it is likely well worth it. Empty buildings are cool, but wouldn't be anywhere near the same.

 

If the closest we could get to royalty were the Kardashian Klan, I think the world would be a much dimmer place.

[Mats Spare Hat]

In the beginning act of TGH, when we learn Moiraine had completely avoided talking to/helping/explaining/advising/etc. to Rand at all, for a MONTH after the whole:

 

"Oh hey, uh... you're the Dragon Reborn." thing

 

Yeah, that peeves me. Granted it's intentional for the sake of the story but seriously, the hell Moiraine, the hell?

[TristanWebb]

Moiraine's job was finding the dragon reborn. There is a lot about her that says she was ill suited to the task of helping him become it. Her fruitless search for twenty years seems to have forced on her a faith in the pattern, probably a defense mechanism to cope with decades of failure. If she had more experience in dealing with people, TGH and tDR would of been been better for Rand than him running off on his own trying to flounder through the prophecies he hadn't read.

[Sephie913]

 

keep in mind that in Andor, a queen can give the throne to an heir at any time. Which would mean that Elayne would give up the throne as her non-channeling heir enters majority, and then go on AS adventures.

Any queen who would abdicate as soon as her heir came of age purely to go on adventures is clearly unsuitable for the position.

 

Sorry, was trying to be facetious, but forgot emoticons are my only option for that.

 

In all seriousness, Elayne will have reached her full potential by the time her child has reached majority. As long as the child is deemed fit to rule, Elayne would likely be more use studying ter'angreal full-time, or something along those lines. her work over a few hundred years could very well usher in a new AoL(Pattern nonwithstanding). Egwene could probably use some support by then, as well (another Keeper, perhaps?) As long as her heir is capable, Elayne would have very little motivation, other than lust for power, to keep the throne.

 

That was what I was referring to with the word 'adventures'. I used it tongue-in-cheek as a nod to her front-line mentality over the last few books.

 

[Elan Tedronai]

No one of any consequence dies. It can't be that all of these people who have all been in mortal peril many times haven't died. in the scope of this story it only seemes right that someone important should have kicked the bucket and tossed a stock in the wheel

 

 

We know the entire story is about Lews therin telamon and his redemption in the third age. That rules out rand dying. But egwene, mat, perrin and nynaeve all ought to have died some time ago. Can you imagine what would have had happened if egwene was turned by halima or nynaeve was forced to serve the DO in exchange for lan's soul or something?

 

 

We already know for a fact that rand, egwene and mat will not die come the end of AMOL. That leaves perrin and nynaeve. Pretty weak if you ask me

I was just wondering how do we know egwene will not die?

 

trust me she won't. If she does i wont show my face here again.

[RandA lThor]

No one of any consequence dies. It can't be that all of these people who have all been in mortal peril many times haven't died. in the scope of this story it only seemes right that someone important should have kicked the bucket and tossed a stock in the wheel

 

 

We know the entire story is about Lews therin telamon and his redemption in the third age. That rules out rand dying. But egwene, mat, perrin and nynaeve all ought to have died some time ago. Can you imagine what would have had happened if egwene was turned by halima or nynaeve was forced to serve the DO in exchange for lan's soul or something?

 

 

We already know for a fact that rand, egwene and mat will not die come the end of AMOL. That leaves perrin and nynaeve. Pretty weak if you ask me

I was just wondering how do we know egwene will not die?

 

trust me she won't. If she does i wont show my face here again.

 

don't make such a drastic claim Elan, I don't think she will, but the only thing I will say to risk that is if Aviendha kills Rand with his sword and also by using the Tp since she was Moridin all along.

[Maleshub]

don't make such a drastic claim Elan, I don't think she will, but the only thing I will say to risk that is if Aviendha kills Rand with his sword and also by using the Tp since she was Moridin all along.

 

Rand and Moridin slept together?!

[RandA lThor]

It was a very convincing mask of mirrors and moridin used lanfear as a substitute, I don't know, I just meant that I would bet nothing reasonable that would make me go out of DM.

[TheAngryDruid]

Oh, where to begin.

 

Rand: doesn't let anyone help him and thinks he has to do it all alone. Doesn't seem to spend too much time trying to figure out how to win the LB. Kept ignoring Logain's warning's at the BT. Failed (apparently) to help Lan.

 

Egwene. Immersing herself in the viewpoint of whatever position she's in too deeply. 180 on AS taking the oaths. Virtually no focus on how to win the LB. Virtually no help to the Borderlands or Lan. If you aren't agreeing with Egwene, you are disloyal (Gawyn, Rand, Nynaeve, Elayne, etc).

 

Nynaeve: inability to see her own stubborness. Or how she mirrors Moiraine in many ways.

 

Elayne: repeated stupid moves putting self in great danger all becauxse of that viewing that her babies would be OK. And whining about what people give her to drink when the whole world is coming apart.

 

Perrin: "Still, whining, Louie?" Get over it, already.

 

Mat: Almost complete failure to take any responsibility at all for far too long.

 

Faile: silly little girl playing Saldaean games with someone not from Saldaea. Grow up already (finally did).

 

Tuon. Never questions her own belief system despite huge evidence to the contrary, and ignores fact that she is marath'damane.

 

Min, Mo, Thom, and Aviendha: very little bothers me about these characters.

[Mr Ares]

It's not greedy to want to live forever.

To me it does seem greedy.

In what way? How is it greedy to want to live ones alloted lifespan, rather than having it cut unnaturally short for no good reason?

 

First, considering the quote, I consider it greedier to wan to live forever. In having the desire for immortality, and maybe having the power to get it, one could be greedy and keep it for themselves, to allow for an attempt of domination of all, even with good intentions. If the ability to have immortality, in the Wheel of Time is given to all, and the majority use it, this could eventually lead to over population, reduced birth rates, and war for resources and generally food, now maybe that could just be another Age, but to me it comes across as greed.

You haven't really shown that a desire for immortality is inherently greedy. One could be greedy with it, but equally, one might just desire to live longer so one could continue to help people.

 

Second in regards to the Aes Sedai lifespan with the Oaths and without the Oaths, which is what you mean. To wish to live ones alloted lifespan is not in itself greedy, this just comes back to my original reasoning for Egwene and Nynaeve.

I would prefer it if you didn't tell me what I mean. I dare say I know it better than you.

 

 

No it isn't. It is monarchy. She would be somewhat derelict in her duty to give up the throne without good reason. It has been the case in history that monarchs have reigned for along time, with their children having to wait a long time to get the throne, or even dying before they get it. (By this reasoning, Queen Elizabeth is immensely greedy, because she's keeping Charles off the throne.)

 

So, Elayne then rules Andor for 300 years, gets the Oaths removed, rules another few hundred, how many generations since her first daughter? Providing that the her first daughter can not channel, she will be dead and gone by this time, her children the same, unless channellers...and so on. Depending on the situation with Rand and having more children with him, or if she moves on, and has more children with someone else, after 3, 5, 6 hundred years, then lines of Sucession are a bit blurry, sure monarchies are great for keeping track of that thing, but come Elayne's death, say the top tier of candidates to Succeed all have one foot in the grave, and each in turn passes up their right to ascend the throne, and we pass to the second tier...but some ungrateful little bint, from way down the family tree, thinks to herself "I want to be Queen, none of these prancing she-goats deserve to be" And starts having them killed to clear her way to the throne.

So the problem is that someone might desire to ignore the line of succession and murder their way to the throne? Well, surely that's a problem regardless? I could go out and stage a coup and set myself up as a king.

 

Yes and no.

Realistically a coup is always possible, but the variable is how successful it is.

Considering that she can Travel, she could quite easily take on an advisory role, realistic..probably not, against the wishes of the White Tower..quite likely. She could even create a new position that she could fill, for diplomacy and whatever else. As I said before, I would find it acceptable, and not greedy, and as such not annoying, if there were matters that she felt that she had to see to herself or if her heir was unfit to rule.

Again, you haven't shown how a desire on her part to carry out her duty as queen is in any way greedy. Nor have you shown a good reason for her to abdicate.

 

While Elayne might do all well and good during her life time, and be one of the best Queens that Andor ever had and will have, staying on for such a time, to me, is greedy. And of the many possible weavings of the Pattern of the time upto and including what I have outlined above, if the above were to happen, it would serve Elayne's legacy right for being greedy.

So you consider it greedy to put your life on hold to rule a country for a few centuries, quite selflessly, to do a good job, purely because she happens to be good at what she does for an extended period? Now, Elayne's immense life expectancy does put her in a slightly different boat to a non-channeler - abdication is more reasonable for her than for a non-channeler - but I would not consider her greedy to want to remain in her position for an extended period. Greed would lie not in the action but in the motivation. If she maintains power out of a desire for power, that is greedy, if she maintains power out of a desire to help people, rather less so.

 

That is along the lines of my thinking. Staying on to keep Andor safe, that is ok. Staying on to keep Andorans safe, that is ok. Staying on becasue she can stay on, after a certain point becomes greedy. As I said above, she could take on some form of advisory role.

She could become an advisor. By the same toekn, she could continue to rule. You have failed to say why it is greedy, only asserting over and over that it is.

 

Also in regards to the monarchy of the UK, greedy figurehead, is greedy

Well it is a different situation for the UK, and any other such monarchies, in that they don't excercise any real power over their nation, a few things here and there, but they don't rule.

Although, the length of her reign and the ages of both Queen Elizabeth and Charles are quite close to what I was saying a previous post about if Elayne stayed on past 80, so obviously my own opinion is that of greed on Queen Elizabeths part. But some part of me does not want to see Charles be King.

It is not greed, it is a desire to do ones duty. A commendable quality, and one that is unfortunately lacking in many these days.

As a constitutional monarchy, that duty is muted. The desire to do ones duty, as you say, is commendable.

But in a constitutional monarchy, the duty is just a bauble to be passed on. It is the same as the President in Ireland, just a figurehead, with a few powers, and is just a waste of money.

The Queen is not a waste of money - she gives the country more money than she costs. (The Crown has extensive estates, which are administered by the government on her behalf, and the money raised from these estates is larger than the cost of maintaining the monarchy. Unless you confiscate the Crown Estates, the Crown is a money spinner.)

 

keep in mind that in Andor, a queen can give the throne to an heir at any time. Which would mean that Elayne would give up the throne as her non-channeling heir enters majority, and then go on AS adventures.

Any queen who would abdicate as soon as her heir came of age purely to go on adventures is clearly unsuitable for the position.

 

Sorry, was trying to be facetious, but forgot emoticons are my only option for that.

I don't approve of emoticons. They are a clumsy way of expressing emotions. Plus, I prefer people having to make the extra effort to tell if I'm serious or not - I fail to see why I should be any less opaque over the internet than I am in real life. So I don't believe you have any reason to apologise.

 

In all seriousness, Elayne will have reached her full potential by the time her child has reached majority. As long as the child is deemed fit to rule, Elayne would likely be more use studying ter'angreal full-time, or something along those lines. her work over a few hundred years could very well usher in a new AoL(Pattern nonwithstanding). Egwene could probably use some support by then, as well (another Keeper, perhaps?) As long as her heir is capable, Elayne would have very little motivation, other than lust for power, to keep the throne.

Elayne's first duty is to Andor. That's something she's been raised to accept. A study of ter'angreal may or may not generate results that are immesely beneficial to her country, but I don't agree that she should consider this a first priority. I see it as a secondary concern.

[Ludo]

It's not greedy to want to live forever.

To me it does seem greedy.

In what way? How is it greedy to want to live ones alloted lifespan, rather than having it cut unnaturally short for no good reason?

 

First, considering the quote, I consider it greedier to wan to live forever. In having the desire for immortality, and maybe having the power to get it, one could be greedy and keep it for themselves, to allow for an attempt of domination of all, even with good intentions. If the ability to have immortality, in the Wheel of Time is given to all, and the majority use it, this could eventually lead to over population, reduced birth rates, and war for resources and generally food, now maybe that could just be another Age, but to me it comes across as greed.

You haven't really shown that a desire for immortality is inherently greedy. One could be greedy with it, but equally, one might just desire to live longer so one could continue to help people.

You are right, but considering in the Wheel of Time, the only people we know of that have any belief that they will be granted eternal life are the Forsaken (and some darkfriends?). Most of them from their PoV's have expressed some desire to have power over the peoples of the world after the Dark One is free, and all desire to be made Nae'blis. Whether all/most/a few of the Forsaken (including those that did not get sealed by LTT and co) were lured to the Shadow based solely on the promise of eternal life and power over others, it seems that those with a hint of wanting to live forever may be driven to do evil things. Yes this does not show that greed inherently, yes I know that the absence of evidence to the contrary is not proof that the evidence can not exist.

But it supports my thoughts.

 

Second in regards to the Aes Sedai lifespan with the Oaths and without the Oaths, which is what you mean. To wish to live ones alloted lifespan is not in itself greedy, this just comes back to my original reasoning for Egwene and Nynaeve.

I would prefer it if you didn't tell me what I mean. I dare say I know it better than you.

I am so sorry for thinking that you meant the subject that we were on and not something that had not been mentioned.

 

No it isn't. It is monarchy. She would be somewhat derelict in her duty to give up the throne without good reason. It has been the case in history that monarchs have reigned for along time, with their children having to wait a long time to get the throne, or even dying before they get it. (By this reasoning, Queen Elizabeth is immensely greedy, because she's keeping Charles off the throne.)

 

So, Elayne then rules Andor for 300 years, gets the Oaths removed, rules another few hundred, how many generations since her first daughter? Providing that the her first daughter can not channel, she will be dead and gone by this time, her children the same, unless channellers...and so on. Depending on the situation with Rand and having more children with him, or if she moves on, and has more children with someone else, after 3, 5, 6 hundred years, then lines of Sucession are a bit blurry, sure monarchies are great for keeping track of that thing, but come Elayne's death, say the top tier of candidates to Succeed all have one foot in the grave, and each in turn passes up their right to ascend the throne, and we pass to the second tier...but some ungrateful little bint, from way down the family tree, thinks to herself "I want to be Queen, none of these prancing she-goats deserve to be" And starts having them killed to clear her way to the throne.

So the problem is that someone might desire to ignore the line of succession and murder their way to the throne? Well, surely that's a problem regardless? I could go out and stage a coup and set myself up as a king.

 

Yes and no.

Realistically a coup is always possible, but the variable is how successful it is.

Considering that she can Travel, she could quite easily take on an advisory role, realistic..probably not, against the wishes of the White Tower..quite likely. She could even create a new position that she could fill, for diplomacy and whatever else. As I said before, I would find it acceptable, and not greedy, and as such not annoying, if there were matters that she felt that she had to see to herself or if her heir was unfit to rule.

Again, you haven't shown how a desire on her part to carry out her duty as queen is in any way greedy. Nor have you shown a good reason for her to abdicate.

In my original post, I had exempt her until somebody had replied saying

Plus, more time as queen.

that and that alone is the only reason, why I would include her as being annoying. Carrying out her duty as queen is all well and good, there is no greed in her duty. But if her thoughts are to have more time on the roller-coaster, rather than let the next person on, I see it as greed.

 

Also in regards to the monarchy of the UK, greedy figurehead, is greedy

Well it is a different situation for the UK, and any other such monarchies, in that they don't excercise any real power over their nation, a few things here and there, but they don't rule.

Although, the length of her reign and the ages of both Queen Elizabeth and Charles are quite close to what I was saying a previous post about if Elayne stayed on past 80, so obviously my own opinion is that of greed on Queen Elizabeths part. But some part of me does not want to see Charles be King.

It is not greed, it is a desire to do ones duty. A commendable quality, and one that is unfortunately lacking in many these days.

As a constitutional monarchy, that duty is muted. The desire to do ones duty, as you say, is commendable.

But in a constitutional monarchy, the duty is just a bauble to be passed on. It is the same as the President in Ireland, just a figurehead, with a few powers, and is just a waste of money.

The Queen is not a waste of money - she gives the country more money than she costs. (The Crown has extensive estates, which are administered by the government on her behalf, and the money raised from these estates is larger than the cost of maintaining the monarchy. Unless you confiscate the Crown Estates, the Crown is a money spinner.)

Ok, I admit my knowledge in this area only comes from what others have said to me. But can I ask, is the monarchy given money from taxes?

[Durinax]

[in my original post, I had exempt her until somebody had replied saying

Plus, more time as queen.

that and that alone is the only reason, why I would include her as being annoying. Carrying out her duty as queen is all well and good, there is no greed in her duty. But if her thoughts are to have more time on the roller-coaster, rather than let the next person on, I see it as greed.

why shouldn't she be thinking of having more time on the throne. For now there is no successor, and no guarrentee that the future successor will be capable / a very good ruler. If she thought this she would be perfectly justified, up until a suitable successor is found, then its a matter of how long she wants to do it

[Mr Ares]

No it isn't. It is monarchy. She would be somewhat derelict in her duty to give up the throne without good reason. It has been the case in history that monarchs have reigned for along time, with their children having to wait a long time to get the throne, or even dying before they get it. (By this reasoning, Queen Elizabeth is immensely greedy, because she's keeping Charles off the throne.)

 

So, Elayne then rules Andor for 300 years, gets the Oaths removed, rules another few hundred, how many generations since her first daughter? Providing that the her first daughter can not channel, she will be dead and gone by this time, her children the same, unless channellers...and so on. Depending on the situation with Rand and having more children with him, or if she moves on, and has more children with someone else, after 3, 5, 6 hundred years, then lines of Sucession are a bit blurry, sure monarchies are great for keeping track of that thing, but come Elayne's death, say the top tier of candidates to Succeed all have one foot in the grave, and each in turn passes up their right to ascend the throne, and we pass to the second tier...but some ungrateful little bint, from way down the family tree, thinks to herself "I want to be Queen, none of these prancing she-goats deserve to be" And starts having them killed to clear her way to the throne.

So the problem is that someone might desire to ignore the line of succession and murder their way to the throne? Well, surely that's a problem regardless? I could go out and stage a coup and set myself up as a king.

 

Yes and no.

Realistically a coup is always possible, but the variable is how successful it is.

Considering that she can Travel, she could quite easily take on an advisory role, realistic..probably not, against the wishes of the White Tower..quite likely. She could even create a new position that she could fill, for diplomacy and whatever else. As I said before, I would find it acceptable, and not greedy, and as such not annoying, if there were matters that she felt that she had to see to herself or if her heir was unfit to rule.

Again, you haven't shown how a desire on her part to carry out her duty as queen is in any way greedy. Nor have you shown a good reason for her to abdicate.

In my original post, I had exempt her until somebody had replied saying

Plus, more time as queen.

that and that alone is the only reason, why I would include her as being annoying. Carrying out her duty as queen is all well and good, there is no greed in her duty. But if her thoughts are to have more time on the roller-coaster, rather than let the next person on, I see it as greed.

Roller coaster? As if being Queen were all fun and games, rather than a job. A desire to carry on being Queen is not in itself greedy. What would make it greedy is her reason for doing so. As I've already said, greed is more a matter of motivation than action - greed is selfish in nature, so a given action taken for selfless reasons would by definition not be greedy. A desire to live forever is not necessarily greedy, although the manifestations of it in the series are. That said, greed is something Shai'tan highly prizes in His followers. Therefore the greedy and selfish will rise higher in his favour than the selfless, and the Chosen are all people who have risen high in His favour. Wishing to live six hundred years instead of three hundred is not in itself selfish.

 

 

Also in regards to the monarchy of the UK, greedy figurehead, is greedy

Well it is a different situation for the UK, and any other such monarchies, in that they don't excercise any real power over their nation, a few things here and there, but they don't rule.

Although, the length of her reign and the ages of both Queen Elizabeth and Charles are quite close to what I was saying a previous post about if Elayne stayed on past 80, so obviously my own opinion is that of greed on Queen Elizabeths part. But some part of me does not want to see Charles be King.

It is not greed, it is a desire to do ones duty. A commendable quality, and one that is unfortunately lacking in many these days.

As a constitutional monarchy, that duty is muted. The desire to do ones duty, as you say, is commendable.

But in a constitutional monarchy, the duty is just a bauble to be passed on. It is the same as the President in Ireland, just a figurehead, with a few powers, and is just a waste of money.

The Queen is not a waste of money - she gives the country more money than she costs. (The Crown has extensive estates, which are administered by the government on her behalf, and the money raised from these estates is larger than the cost of maintaining the monarchy. Unless you confiscate the Crown Estates, the Crown is a money spinner.)

Ok, I admit my knowledge in this area only comes from what others have said to me. But can I ask, is the monarchy given money from taxes?

It is given money from the Treasury. Taxes are one source of revenues for the Treasury. But, as I already said, HM's estates generate more money for the Treasury than the monarchy is given in return.

[Ludo]

Ah, I was under the impression there was a certain tax, or a certain percentage of a certain tax that generated the money given to the monarchy.