Dark Prophecy from ToM

[yoniy0]

The problem isn't intention per se. It's the performer of the act. Being said to 'fall and be consumed by the Midnight Towers' is very direct; your downfall was directly orchestrated by the Forsaken. It's enough of a problem having just one of them alone responsible for it; it becomes a much larger problem if they didn't 'consume' you personally, but used an army to kill a whole bunch of people, you included. Because then, it's not them that consumed you as much as the Shadow in general.

[Neophyte]

The problem isn't intention per se. It's the performer of the act. Being said to 'fall and be consumed by the Midnight Towers' is very direct; your downfall was directly orchestrated by the Forsaken. It's enough of a problem having just one of them alone responsible for it; it becomes a much larger problem if they didn't 'consume' you personally, but used an army to kill a whole bunch of people, you included. Because then, it's not them that consumed you as much as the Shadow in general.

 

Um ... direct orchestration, as you're describing it, is inextricably linked with intention ...

 

But hey, the use of the plural "Midnight Towers" already makes it more "the Shadow in general" than any specific person. After all, it didn't say "one of the Midnight Towers" or "the Midnight Tower."

 

Add in the already present distance of the metaphorical references, and in my opinion, if Bashere (or whoever the Broken Wolf turns out to be) is "consumed" (whatever that finally ends up meaning) in even a tangential way by an action related to one of the Forsaken, it would be enough to say "prophecy fulfilled."

 

These prophecies - espeically the Dark Ones - leave so much semantic space in their metaphors that many widely different sequences of events could be interpreted as "fitting", in my opinion.

[yoniy0]

Um ... direct orchestration, as you're describing it, is inextricably linked with intention ...

Hence my use of the phrase per se.

 

But hey, the use of the plural "Midnight Towers" already makes it more "the Shadow in general" than any specific person. After all, it didn't say "one of the Midnight Towers" or "the Midnight Tower."

I disagree. The Midnight Towers are -- according to what little information we have -- the Forsaken themselves, not their minions nor their boss. Now, naturally some new information might come to light, putting a completely different angle on that prophecy, but then that would make a very poor literary device. The whole point of prophecy is to make us think back in retrospect and feel like we've known all along what was going to happen, even if it's not really all that clear before they're fulfilled.

 

These prophecies - espeically the Dark Ones - leave so much semantic space in their metaphors that many widely different sequences of events could be interpreted as "fitting", in my opinion.

Well, I can't really prove anything to you, since you're ultimately right -- they intentionally leave enough space for competing interpretations. I'll just repeat that those prophecies we've heard in the pass that have already been fulfilled make very poetic sense in retrospect, and I don't think having a FS-led army kill anyone would do the same here.

[Neophyte]

Um ... direct orchestration, as you're describing it, is inextricably linked with intention ...

Hence my use of the phrase per se.

 

OK ... my point was that "direct orchestration" does require intent, per se.

 

Anyway, let's just let that one go - I think we're talking past each other there.

 

 

I disagree. The Midnight Towers are -- according to what little information we have -- the Forsaken themselves, not their minions nor their boss. Now, naturally some new information might come to light, putting a completely different angle on that prophecy, but then that would make a very poor literary device. The whole point of prophecy is to make us think back in retrospect and feel like we've known all along what was going to happen, even if it's not really all that clear before they're fulfilled.

 

"The Midnight Towers" could certainly be used metonymically. When people say "The White House got Bin Laden!" that doesn't mean Barak Obama flew to Pakistan with Seal Team Six ...

 

 

Well, I can't really prove anything to you, since you're ultimately right -- they intentionally leave enough space for competing interpretations. I'll just repeat that those prophecies we've heard in the pass that have already been fulfilled make very poetic sense in retrospect, and I don't think having a FS-led army kill anyone would do the same here.

 

Fair enough. I'm OK disagreeing on this.

[yoniy0]

OK ... my point was that "direct orchestration" does require intent, per se.

Yeah, it doesn't matter, but even still: "direct orchestration" requires intent, but my issue isn't with the intent, only the "direct orchestration" it can imply (i.e., other elements may imply 'directness of action', such as their killing someone themselves, whether or not they intended to).

 

When people say "The White House got Bin Laden!" that doesn't mean Barak Obama flew to Pakistan with Seal Team Six ...

Ah, but again, in this particular case President Obama did single Bin Laden out. So, he didn't do the deed himself, but he directly ordered it, making the phrasing valid. However, should the White House have negotiated an oil-pipeline from Russia to China, going through the mountain region of Afghanistan, and said pipeline would've accidentally exploded, causing the unintentional death of Bin Laden, it would be much more awkward to use the phrase "the White House got Bin Laden".

 

I'm OK disagreeing on this.

This seems to happen quite a lot, doesn't it? As always, I'm okay with that. However, I don't feel like we're at an impasse so much as we haven't followed the argument through to its core.

[thisguy]

OK ... my point was that "direct orchestration" does require intent, per se.

Yeah, it doesn't matter, but even still: "direct orchestration" requires intent, but my issue isn't with the intent, only the "direct orchestration" it can imply (i.e., other elements may imply 'directness of action', such as their killing someone themselves, whether or not they intended to).

 

When people say "The White House got Bin Laden!" that doesn't mean Barak Obama flew to Pakistan with Seal Team Six ...

Ah, but again, in this particular case President Obama did single Bin Laden out. So, he didn't do the deed himself, but he directly ordered it, making the phrasing valid. However, should the White House have negotiated an oil-pipeline from Russia to China, going through the mountain region of Afghanistan, and said pipeline would've accidentally exploded, causing the unintentional death of Bin Laden, it would be much more awkward to use the phrase "the White House got Bin Laden".

 

I'm OK disagreeing on this.

This seems to happen quite a lot, doesn't it? As always, I'm okay with that. However, I don't feel like we're at an impasse so much as we haven't followed the argument through to its core.

So, yoniy0, what's your take on this part of the prophecy?

[thisguy]

"and there's something dark in the images I saw around Lord Bashere" quote of Min's viewing of Bashere, minus the ellipses.

 

I don't remember there being anything in the books yet that fulfills this viewing.

[Neophyte]

When people say "The White House got Bin Laden!" that doesn't mean Barak Obama flew to Pakistan with Seal Team Six ...

Ah, but again, in this particular case President Obama did single Bin Laden out. So, he didn't do the deed himself, but he directly ordered it, making the phrasing valid. However, should the White House have negotiated an oil-pipeline from Russia to China, going through the mountain region of Afghanistan, and said pipeline would've accidentally exploded, causing the unintentional death of Bin Laden, it would be much more awkward to use the phrase "the White House got Bin Laden".

 

But a Shadow-led attack on an army led by Bashere won't be an "accident," even if it isn't targeting Bashere personally. And his death, in such a case, would not be an "accident" either.

 

Let's move from real world metaphors to a Randland hypothetical - let's say that Demandred leads an army against an army commanded by Bashere. Demandred is victorious, and Bashere is killed in the battle, with the two of them having never laid eyes on each other. Demandred didn't target Bashere personally - the army was simply in his way. Yet it would be perfectly reasonable for Demandred to report to Moridin that "I engaged Davram Bashere in the field today, and destroyed him."

 

The clashes of armies are often metonymically referred to as duels between the leaders of those armies. Xerxes finally destroyed Leonidas at Thermopylae (even though Xerxes never touched a spear). Lee lost to Meade at Gettysburg (though neither fired a shot ... and Lee kind of beat himself). That's the function of metonymy.

 

Look ... if you want to be totally literal about it, a structural pile of stones in Seanchan would have to in some way absorb a damaged canid to fulfill this prophecy. Since there is obvious symbolism and metaphor involved, an interpretation based on metonymy is not merely plausible, but in this situation, likely.

 

[

 

I'm OK disagreeing on this.

This seems to happen quite a lot, doesn't it? As always, I'm okay with that. However, I don't feel like we're at an impasse so much as we haven't followed the argument through to its core.

 

Meh ... the further we get into the interbook period, the more esoteric and unprovable the arguments become. I find myself, sometimes, arguing points far more strongly than I actually believe them, or arguing minuscule and ultimately meaningless distinctions, just because people get locked into mindsets and don't even seem to see or acknowledge another possibility.

 

I am definitely not saying that's what you and I are doing here. I'm just explaining my occasional reluctance to "follow the argument through to its core," and my relatively willingness to "agree to disagree."

 

The "core" in this case is a different interpretation of a piece of prophecy left deliberately vague. I'm not sure there is a solid "core" to which we may push through.

[yoniy0]

So, yoniy0, what's your take on this part of the prophecy?

What is my position? Well, first of all, I think whoever it is should satisfy the following conditions:

• Being Broken
  
• Being a Wolf in some manner (possibly, he's not broken or a wolf, but rather a broken-wolf; in this scenario, Slayer seems the best bet).
  
• Death has known him. Emphasis being, he didn't know death, but rather Death has known him. Then there's the issue of the capital D. Note how Broken Wolf and Midnight Towers are also capitalized, hinting at the capitalization's implying a pronoun.
  
• His destruction will cause fear and sorrow to 'the hearts of men', and 'shake their very will'. Taken at face value, this means the entire race, although it can also be accepted if it's merely a nation. Believing it to be a single army seems too weak an interpretation to me.
  
• And, of course, he shall fall and be consumed by the Midnight Towers, so we have to accept the prospect of the FS 'consuming' him as likely.
  

The problem is, no one person seems to perfectly fit the bill, which is naturally intentional. So it must be the case that an attribute whichever it turns out being already has, one we've been told about, will receive emphasis in AMoL to the point that the prophecy suddenly makes sense (anything but is too cheap, I think).

 

My assessment is that of all of the contenders, Rand has the strongest case, fitting perfectly in every column but the Wolf one (note that at the moment Rand isn't broken, but if 'all that he is can be seized' then I see a future not too far ahead where he is once more broken). Since I feel like that category is exactly the one a writer might use to throw us off, and one that could be reestablished with the most ease, that's my guess.

 

I could be wrong, though, and in that case, I'll have to go with Slayer, if only the fear, sorrow and the shaking of will could be explained (if, for example, he was mistaken for Rand, which isn't very difficult when he's Luc, for example). Bashere and Ituralde just fail the 'shaking of the will' category under my interpretation, regardless of having some problems with their being wolves (not insurmountable, but as long as we're taking an unconventional approach to lupinity (is that a word?), why not go for someone who better fits the other categories), death knowing them, and the FS singling them out specifically (again, it can all be explained, but it doesn't fit well). Perrin is an obvious wolf, which makes me suspect him the most of being a red-herring. Not to mention death didn't exactly know him (I mean, death did take his entire family, and Moridin definitely knows him, but again it's not perfect). And.. ta'veren or not, he again has problems with shaking the will of enough people to qualify for my interpretation of that line. Lan, well, he better fits those lines that I feel are most important than anyone but Rand and Slayer. If I'd have to pick a third place, it would be him.

 

EDIT:

Look ... if you want to be totally literal about it

[...]

I find myself, sometimes, arguing points far more strongly than I actually believe them, or arguing minuscule and ultimately meaningless distinctions

As for the former, I never advocated a literal approach to these lines. I just argued that the symbolism doesn't work without an aspect of 'directness', not in most uses, and certainly not in a prophecy (the events the prophecy refers to are significant in and of themselves, never an afterthought). Yes, you could say Demandred obliterated Bashere if his army won a battle, regardless of Bashere's fate. But the Midnight Towers consuming Bashere by that act? I think not (precisely because Bashere's personal fate has very little to do with it; if the saying doesn't work without him having been killed, then it doesn't work even if he did die).

And, as for the latter, I know how you feel; I do too.

[thisguy]

So, yoniy0, what's your take on this part of the prophecy?

What is my position? Well, first of all, I think whoever it is should satisfy the following conditions:

• Being Broken
  
• Being a Wolf in some manner (possible, he's not broken or a wolf, but rather a broken-wolf; in this scenario, Slayer seems the best bet)
  
• Death has known him. Emphasis being, he didn't know death, but rather Death has known him. Then there's the issue of the capital D. Note how Broken Wolf and Midnight Towers are also capitalized, hinting at the capitalization's implying a pronoun.
  
• His destruction will cause fear and sorrow to 'the hearts of men', and 'shake their very will'. Taken at face value, this means the entire race, although it can also be accepted if it's merely a nation. Believing it to be a single army seems too weak an interpretation to me.
  
• And, of course, he shall fall and be consumed by the Midnight Towers, so we have to accept the prospect of the FS 'consuming' him as likely.
  

The problem is, no one person seems to perfectly fit the bill, which is naturally intentional. So it must be the case that an attribute whichever it turns out being already has, one we've been told about, will receive emphasis in AMoL to the point that the prophecy suddenly makes sense (anything but is too cheap, I think).

 

My assessment is that of all of the contenders, Rand has the strongest case, fitting perfectly in every column but the Wolf one (note that at the moment Rand isn't broken, but if 'all that he is can be seized' that I see a future not too far ahead where he is once more broken). Since I feel like that category is exactly the one a writer might use to throw us off, and one that could be reestablished with the most ease, that's my guess.

 

I could be wrong, though, and in that case, I'll have to go with Slayer, if only the fear, sorrow and the shaking of will could be explained (if, for example, he was mistaken for Rand, which isn't very difficult when he's Luc, for example). Bashere and Ituralde just fail the 'shaking of the will' category under my interpretation, regardless of having some problems with their being wolves (not insurmountable, but as long as we're taking an unconventional approach to lupinity (is that a word?), why not go for someone who better fits the other categories), death knowing them, and the FS singling them out specifically (again, it can all be explained, but it doesn't fit well). Perrin is an obvious wolf, which makes me suspect him the most of being a red-herring. Not to mention death didn't exactly know him (I mean, death did take his entire family, and Moridin definitely knows him, but again it's not perfect). And.. ta'veren or not, he again has problems with shaking the will of enough people to qualify for my interpretation of that line. Lan, well, he better fits those lines that I feel are most important than anyone but Rand and Slayer. If I'd have to pick a third place, it would be him.

 

I like your thinking. I originally put slayer in as my choice, I think Rand was my other one. As this has been discussed here, I've gone here and there. I never once thought about either Bashere or Ituralde until they were mentioned here.

I thought slayer because he has obviously known death. If the truth of what he is is made clear to people, he could shake the will of many men. A Malkieri royal and and Cairhien/Andorian (Andorean?) royal all in one. I have trouble with it being any of the three Ta'veren because (if I and others are correct) they were name in the preceding stanza of the prophecy, and none of them were called Broken Wolf.

The only person out of.... well, pretty much everyone.... whose destruction could shake the will of most humans would be Rand. So, unless it's him, it has to be someone who would shake up a good number people if destroyed or if the go bad.

[Neophyte]

"Yes, you could say Demandred obliterated Bashere if his army won a battle, regardless of Bashere's fate. But the Midnight Towers consuming Bashere by that act? I think not (precisely because Bashere's personal fate has very little to do with it; if the saying doesn't work without him having been killed, then it doesn't work even if he did die)."

 

This is the crux of our difference, because I think that those ("the Midnight Towers consuming Bashere") words fit the situation you described perfectly. And if he's killed, and he's in command, then his personal fate has very much to do with it.

 

But that's fine. This is the point I was at a few posts ago - clearly we're looking at precisely the same words and seeing different things, on a semantic level that goes beyond our interpretation of the story. Again that's perfectly fine, but there's nowhere to go in a discussion after that point.

 

The only excuse for using words to communicate is that we don't have anything better - words are a terrible way to convey ideas. In some ways, I feel about communicating with words the way that Moridin feels about remembering people who were balefired: it's a wonder we can ever convey anything at all.

[elric]

"

In that day, when the One-Eyed Fool travels the halls of mourning, and the First Among Vermin lifts his hand to

bring freedom to Him who will Destroy, the last days of the Fallen Blacksmith's pride shall come. Yea, and the

Broken Wolf, the one whom Death has known, shall fall and be consumed by the Midnight Towers. And his

destruction shall bring fear and sorrow to the hearts of men, and shall shake their very will itself

"

"

men who spoke these were isolated and held alone. The Light must never know of these words. We know of their

prophecies, but they will never know all of ours."

"But this . . ." she said, rereading the passage. "This says Aybara will die!"

"There can be many interpretations of any prophecy," Moridin said. "But yes. This Foretelling promises that Aybara

will die by our hand. You will bring me the head of this wolf, Graendal. And when you do, anything you ask shall be

yours." He slapped the book closed. "But mark me. Fail, and you will lose what you have gained. And much more.

"

"i think it the broke wolf prophecy they talk about.

u do realise the prohecy had FAILED ? :))

the one eyed foold (obviously Mat) escape the halls of morning (obviously the finn) and it not trapped there as the prophecy proclaim

 

another option is that the broken wolf his Hopper and that he was supposed to turn to an Hell Dog when he die in Dream World

a broken wolf ->checked

Death has known -> checked

consumed by midnight tower -> soul eaten turn to hell dog

death bring fear and sorrow -> hell dog influennce on man kind in general

[yoniy0]

elric, the prophecy hasn't failed. It said nothing of Mat being trapped, only that he'd travel the halls of mourning. And naturally it hasn't failed with Perrin; it was simply misinterpreted.

[fisher80]

Think it's Lan guys, when he dies at the gap will crush all the main players, not to mention borderlanders, Aiel, etc. he's wolfish enough in my book. his pride will be broken at the gap think. Can't be Perrin, too obvious. Rand, I dunno, doesn't feel right. Plus lan and malkier linked to wolves to me, but maybe just bc of isam, or elayas, not sure, someone has prob already said it better, or maybe just a hunch, can't wait to see!

[FarShainMael]

Dark prophecies don't have to favour the Dark.

 

Let's look at this bit:

 

"Yea, and the Broken Wolf, the one whom Death has known, shall fall and be consumed by the Midnight Towers."

 

If the 'Midnight Towers' does mean the Forsaken, as suggested by Egwene's dream in ToM3, this suggests to me that the 'Broken Wolf' may be a Darksider. And 'The one whom Death has known' may well refer to Moridin.

 

Why? Back in WH13, we saw this:

 

"Where is he?" Demandred growled, clenching his fists behind his back. Standing with his feet apart, he was aware that he dominated the room. He always did. Even so, he wished Semirhage or Mesaana were present. Their alliance was delicate - a simple agreement that they would not turn on one another until the others had been eliminated - yet it had held all this time. Working together, they had unbalanced opponent after opponent, toppling many to their deaths or worse.

 

So I'm wondering if one of the FS' agents, such as Taim, fails so badly that he falls prey to them. Taim would be a good candidate as 'one whom Death has known', because of the strong indications of a connection between him and Moridin, which has been commented on at length elsewhere.

 

So, what - if anything - is wolfish about Taim?

 

I can only find a couple of pointers. First off, he's from Saldaea, and the Marshal-General of Saldaea (Davram Bashere) carries a wolf-headed ivory baton (TPoD21). This may be a significant Saldaean emblem.

 

Secondly, Siuan calls him a wolf, just after she has been told he had escaped from his captors where he was being held, near Maradon; and just after she receives a message about Rand taking Callandor:

 

"...I only saw {Rand} once, but even then there was something strange about him. Something more than being ta'veren. Mother, is he so very different from Taim when it comes down to it?"

 

"The difference is that he is the Dragon Reborn, daughter," the Amyrlin said quietly. "Taim is a wolf, and maybe rabid. Rand al'Thor is the wolfhound we will use to defeat the Shadow."

 

I would not be at all surprised to see Taim being soundly defeated by Rand, and punished for it by Moridin and the others.....

 

(And I still think that 'his destruction' may refer to someone other than the Broken Wolf.)

 

(Edited to improve clarity)

[yoniy0]

FSM, doesn't your argument better fit Slayer than Taim?

[FarShainMael]

I don't know about 'better'. But yes, it could fit Slayer. I was focussing on the 'Death == Moridin' part, and all that discussion about the apparent similarities between Moridin and Taim. I know that Moridin seems to be in charge of Slayer (he lent him to Graendal, ToM5); but I feel that's just a bit obvious. JMO.

[thisguy]

Dark prophecies don't have to favour the Dark.

 

Let's look at this bit:

 

"Yea, and the Broken Wolf, the one whom Death has known, shall fall and be consumed by the Midnight Towers."

 

If the 'Midnight Towers' does mean the Forsaken, as suggested by Egwene's dream in ToM3, this suggests to me that the 'Broken Wolf' may be a Darksider. And 'The one whom Death has known' may well refer to Moridin.

 

Why? Back in WH13, we saw this:

 

"Where is he?" Demandred growled, clenching his fists behind his back. Standing with his feet apart, he was aware that he dominated the room. He always did. Even so, he wished Semirhage or Mesaana were present. Their alliance was delicate - a simple agreement that they would not turn on one another until the others had been eliminated - yet it had held all this time. Working together, they had unbalanced opponent after opponent, toppling many to their deaths or worse.

 

So I'm wondering if one of the FS' agents, such as Taim, fails so badly that he falls prey to them. Taim would be a good candidate as 'one whom Death has known', because of the strong indications of a connection between him and Moridin, which has been commented on at length elsewhere.

 

So, what - if anything - is wolfish about Taim?

 

I can only find a couple of pointers. First off, he's from Saldaea, and the Marshal-General of Saldaea (Davram Bashere) carries a wolf-headed ivory baton (TPoD21). This may be a significant Saldaean emblem.

 

Secondly, Siuan calls him a wolf, just after she has been told he had escaped from his captors where he was being held, near Maradon; and just after she receives a message about Rand taking Callandor:

 

"...I only saw {Rand} once, but even then there was something strange about him. Something more than being ta'veren. Mother, is he so very different from Taim when it comes down to it?"

 

"The difference is that he is the Dragon Reborn, daughter," the Amyrlin said quietly. "Taim is a wolf, and maybe rabid. Rand al'Thor is the wolfhound we will use to defeat the Shadow."

 

I would not be at all surprised to see Taim being soundly defeated by Rand, and punished for it by Moridin and the others.....

 

(And I still think that 'his destruction' may refer to someone other than the Broken Wolf.)

 

(Edited to improve clarity)

I think Logain and his ashaman and their AS are going to kill Taim and all the DF Ashaman. But, hey man, that's just like my opinion...

[FarShainMael]

FSM, doesn't your argument better fit Slayer than Taim?

 

I've been thinking about this. And I realised that Slayer isn't actually a 'wolf', broken or otherwise.

 

OK, he's killing wolves in the Wolf Dream, but he doesn't 'go wolf' himself, as Perrin does. He doesn't even have yellow eyes, either while he's in 'Isam' mode (TSR53), or as Luc when he's in the Two Rivers (TSR33).

 

He doesn't even seem to be in charge of the Darkhounds. According to Moiraine in TDR44, Sammael was controlling them at that time. Later, in TFoH6 after the Darkhounds attack Rand, Mat, and Asmo, Lanfear says that Rahvin is controlling them now, and Rand objects, wondering if it might be one of the other FS. No mention of Slayer being involved at all.

[yoniy0]

He doesn't even seem to be in charge of the Darkhounds.

The Dark prophecy from TGH points to a connection between Slayer and the Darkhounds. Of what nature, we don't know, but the connection is definitely there:

Luc came to the Mountains of Dhoom.

Isam waited in the high passes.

The hunt is now begun. The Shadow's hounds now course, and kill.

One did live, and one did die, but both are.3

The Time of Change has come.

[Neophyte]

FSM, doesn't your argument better fit Slayer than Taim?

 

I've been thinking about this. And I realised that Slayer isn't actually a 'wolf', broken or otherwise.

 

OK, he's killing wolves in the Wolf Dream, but he doesn't 'go wolf' himself, as Perrin does. He doesn't even have yellow eyes, either while he's in 'Isam' mode (TSR53), or as Luc when he's in the Two Rivers (TSR33).

 

He doesn't even seem to be in charge of the Darkhounds. According to Moiraine in TDR44, Sammael was controlling them at that time. Later, in TFoH6 after the Darkhounds attack Rand, Mat, and Asmo, Lanfear says that Rahvin is controlling them now, and Rand objects, wondering if it might be one of the other FS. No mention of Slayer being involved at all.

 

Of course, Taim does none of those things either. He's only a "wolf" in the metaphorical sense of being a dangerous person - and that surely fits Slayer as well. At least Slayer has some connection to wolves - it is possible that either Luc or Isam had the potential to be a Wolfbrother and that the Dark One twisted that to make him what he is. If so, he probably fits the description of "Broken Wolf, the one whom Death has known" better than anyone. But that's not even a realistic possibility for Taim.

 

I still think that Bashere is the most likely candidate because I don't think that the destruction of Slayer or Taim would "bring fear and sorrow to the hearts of men, and shake their very will itself." (Of course, you go a different way on the significance of "his destruction" so I won't spend much time on that.)

 

But the case for Taim's wolfyness seems fairly weak. Heck, you tried to establish Taim's wolfyness in part through a connection to Bashere's baton, so I'd think that Bashere is at least as wolfy as Taim. But Slayer seems to be a better fit than either of them, as far as relative wolfyness is concerned.

[ozimandias]

I had been sure when I read it that it referred to Hopper. I had assumed that this passage was the prophecy that Moridin/Graendal had been utterly convinced guaranteed Perrin's death at their hands (and saw it as being imminent).

 

In that day, when the One-Eyed Fool travels the halls of mourning, and the First Among Vermin lifts his hand to bring freedom to Him who will Destroy, the last days of the Fallen Blacksmith's pride shall come. Yea, and the Broken Wolf, the one whom Death has known, shall fall and be consumed by the Midnight Towers. And his destruction shall bring fear and sorrow to the hearts of men, and shall shake their very will itself.

 

Last days of the fallen blacksmith's PRIDE - to me - was about his pack. They all died including Hopper (who I saw as the broken wolf who death has known), which shook Perrin's will and almost made him fall to Luc. So I saw it as already fulfilled, and the reveal at the end of the book was just to show how the Forsaken had been misled by the prophecy, just as Rand and others had been misled/misunderstood their own prophecies.

Obviously a simplistic interpretation, but it worked for me so I'll stick with it.

[thisguy]

I had been sure when I read it that it referred to Hopper. I had assumed that this passage was the prophecy that Moridin/Graendal had been utterly convinced guaranteed Perrin's death at their hands (and saw it as being imminent).

 

In that day, when the One-Eyed Fool travels the halls of mourning, and the First Among Vermin lifts his hand to bring freedom to Him who will Destroy, the last days of the Fallen Blacksmith's pride shall come. Yea, and the Broken Wolf, the one whom Death has known, shall fall and be consumed by the Midnight Towers. And his destruction shall bring fear and sorrow to the hearts of men, and shall shake their very will itself.

 

Last days of the fallen blacksmith's PRIDE - to me - was about his pack. They all died including Hopper (who I saw as the broken wolf who death has known), which shook Perrin's will and almost made him fall to Luc. So I saw it as already fulfilled, and the reveal at the end of the book was just to show how the Forsaken had been misled by the prophecy, just as Rand and others had been misled/misunderstood their own prophecies.

Obviously a simplistic interpretation, but it worked for me so I'll stick with it.

very FRIGGIN interesting. Seriously. Good stuff, whether you are right or wrong.

[Neophyte]

I had been sure when I read it that it referred to Hopper. I had assumed that this passage was the prophecy that Moridin/Graendal had been utterly convinced guaranteed Perrin's death at their hands (and saw it as being imminent).

 

In that day, when the One-Eyed Fool travels the halls of mourning, and the First Among Vermin lifts his hand to bring freedom to Him who will Destroy, the last days of the Fallen Blacksmith's pride shall come. Yea, and the Broken Wolf, the one whom Death has known, shall fall and be consumed by the Midnight Towers. And his destruction shall bring fear and sorrow to the hearts of men, and shall shake their very will itself.

 

Last days of the fallen blacksmith's PRIDE - to me - was about his pack. They all died including Hopper (who I saw as the broken wolf who death has known), which shook Perrin's will and almost made him fall to Luc. So I saw it as already fulfilled, and the reveal at the end of the book was just to show how the Forsaken had been misled by the prophecy, just as Rand and others had been misled/misunderstood their own prophecies.

Obviously a simplistic interpretation, but it worked for me so I'll stick with it.

 

I'm just not sure how Hopper's death brought "fear and sorrow to the hearts of men," or shook "their very will itself." Besides Perrin and Slayer, Faile is the only one who even knows about Hopper's death, and while it brought sorrow to Perrin, it certainly didn't bring fear or shake his will. If anything, his will is stronger since that encounter, expressed in his making of Mjolnir Mah'alleinir.

[thisguy]

I had been sure when I read it that it referred to Hopper. I had assumed that this passage was the prophecy that Moridin/Graendal had been utterly convinced guaranteed Perrin's death at their hands (and saw it as being imminent).

 

In that day, when the One-Eyed Fool travels the halls of mourning, and the First Among Vermin lifts his hand to bring freedom to Him who will Destroy, the last days of the Fallen Blacksmith's pride shall come. Yea, and the Broken Wolf, the one whom Death has known, shall fall and be consumed by the Midnight Towers. And his destruction shall bring fear and sorrow to the hearts of men, and shall shake their very will itself.

 

Last days of the fallen blacksmith's PRIDE - to me - was about his pack. They all died including Hopper (who I saw as the broken wolf who death has known), which shook Perrin's will and almost made him fall to Luc. So I saw it as already fulfilled, and the reveal at the end of the book was just to show how the Forsaken had been misled by the prophecy, just as Rand and others had been misled/misunderstood their own prophecies.

Obviously a simplistic interpretation, but it worked for me so I'll stick with it.

 

I'm just not sure how Hopper's death brought "fear and sorrow to the hearts of men," or shook "their very will itself." Besides Perrin and Slayer, Faile is the only one who even knows about Hopper's death, and while it brought sorrow to Perrin, it certainly didn't bring fear or shake his will. If anything, his will is stronger since that encounter, expressed in his making of Mjolnir Mah'alleinir.

well, just wait until Perrin goes Berserker with the hammer laying into friends and foes alike, letting his 'you killed my wolf' rage tear the place up.