Thisguy's Topic on Brandon's Work

[skalors3]

@Fionwe That is a complaint about presentation, not probability. People are saying that Cads wouldn't do that, you're complaining about how an author presented it when compared to the original.

 

Let us contemplate this parable :

 

Two men rented the same house at different times. The first man who lived in that house lived there for ten years and he smoked inside of the house for the entire time. Upon leaving the house, he paid a 500 dollar smoking fee to rid the house of the smell and left.

 

The man who followed into that house was not a smoker. When he moved into the house, it did not smell like smoke to him. No one who ever visisted this house commented that the house smelled like smoke. Until he went to move out.

 

You see, the owner had overly sensitive senses. He still smelled the smoke from the first occupant. He didn't originally smell the smoke because of the cleaning chemicals still drifitng through the house.

 

So he charges the second occupant the smoking fee.

 

Who is at fault here? God (if you believe in him) for making him overly sensitive? The man for not covering the smell? Or is it simply the fault of the situation?

 

The owner has what he believes is objective evidence. The rentee has only the truth, which is objective to him, but subjective to the owner. Nonetheless, the owner will not listen.

 

At the end of the day though, the rentee has an unnecessary loss while the owner is unjustly enriched. Simply because the owner is overly sensitive.

 

In this day and age of entitlement, we see this everywhere, hence why we deal with the PC BS. It doesn't make it right.

[fionwe1987]

@Fionwe That is a complaint about presentation, not probability.

So? This is not the first time I'm complaining about the presentation. I've been doing so for the past several pages of this thread.

 

 

People are saying that Cads wouldn't do that, you're complaining about how an author presented it when compared to the original.

I'm not "people". Address what I said in my posts. While I agree with several of the "people" I'm not them, and my opinions are distinct from theirs.

Let us contemplate this parable :

 

Two men rented the same house at different times. The first man who lived in that house lived there for ten years and he smoked inside of the house for the entire time. Upon leaving the house, he paid a 500 dollar smoking fee to rid the house of the smell and left.

 

The man who followed into that house was not a smoker. When he moved into the house, it did not smell like smoke to him. No one who ever visisted this house commented that the house smelled like smoke. Until he went to move out.

 

You see, the owner had overly sensitive senses. He still smelled the smoke from the first occupant. He didn't originally smell the smoke because of the cleaning chemicals still drifitng through the house.

 

So he charges the second occupant the smoking fee.

 

Who is at fault here? God (if you believe in him) for making him overly sensitive? The man for not covering the smell? Or is it simply the fault of the situation?

 

The owner has what he believes is objective evidence. The rentee has only the truth, which is objective to him, but subjective to the owner. Nonetheless, the owner will not listen.

 

At the end of the day though, the rentee has an unnecessary loss while the owner is unjustly enriched. Simply because the owner is overly sensitive.

 

In this day and age of entitlement, we see this everywhere, hence why we deal with the PC BS. It doesn't make it right.

I'm failing to see the relevance here. Something about everyone having different tastes, so lets not ever critique anything? It is an unrealistic parable, if so, since it is hardly impossible to prove that you don't smoke. What you've shown here once again is that you forget about things like evidence, and resort to an emotional argument about the pathos of a man having sensitive olfactory receptors. Ahh, the despair of a strong nose! Ahh, the unfairness of it all! What is one to do in the face of such tragedy? 

[Suttree]

On the topic of probability one side has already provided a fair amount of textual evidence for why she wouldn't and shown how her character has been changed. The other side has provided zero evidence to back their view and keeps repeating "well even though it's not in her character anything is possible, she snapped". At that point presentation very much comes into the equation, one has to show that she was out of sorts enough to snap. The proof for that argument is very much lacking and I find it interesting despite numerous calls to do so, no one has even tried to make that case based on how it is described.

[KakitaOCU]

Because they can't. I'm actually on the side of having no issue with Cadsuane's action, nor finding it out of character. But then I also see a natural evolution in Aviendha using "rand" alone. And I think Mat's shortening to Bloody Ashes matches very well with my own experience that my cursing has grown into shorter statements as I've gotten older.

 

That said, these are all my opinions and all just an issue of my easily having answers for such behavior springing to mind. I wouldn't dream of claiming Sanderson supported any of those choices, merely that I didn't have issue with them or find them off.

 

Maybe that's what one side of this particular debate needs to do. Accept that they didn't find issue but accept that they can't prove their side and so let it go, heaven knows I do that often enough.

[yoniy0]

Let's not go too far. In Moiraine they do have an example of an experienced AS getting so frustrated that she resorts to physical punishment with the Power. She didn't do that to a defenceless individual, true, but still. This is certainly evidence that AS in general are not immune to that, if somewhat weak (it doesn't take into account the differences in Moiraine's and Cadsuane's personalities, and the sheer volume of the difference in their life experience).

 

In short, I don't think you get to demand that the evidence they provide be directly related to Cadsuane's character. It could be circumstantial, and that doesn't negate it. Nor does it need to constitute proof to be considered supporting evidence.

 

That said, Tam is not the object of Cadsuane's frustration, and I don't believe this is something she would do, not ever (well, anything is possible, so let's not deal in absolutes). But even if she would, that doesn't mean that scene fits into tWoT, for reasons fionwe admirably explained.

[skalors3]

@Suttree. There is plenty of stuff out there. WH CH 13 comes to mind. That entire chapter is pure aggression from Cads. Everything about that chapter shows her contempt for foolishness and how she wants to treat it.

 

She doesn't though. She has an agenda, she can "endure what she must." Yet it shows what a cranky, angry woman Cadsuane really is too. She is a bully but she doesn't act on it. She is also mad at Rand and it affecting her overall demeanor.

 

" She was too angry with them to care how that was done, and it might as well begin now as later. No, she was angry with the boy, but she could not lay hands on him yet."

 

The biggest glimpse we get of her is here: "She could look back on her life and recall failures, some bitterly regretted, and mistakes that had cost lives, but she could not afford mistakes or failure here. Most definitely not failure."

 

She fears failure. This entire scene of anger and aggression is all because Rand is avoiding her. She states it in the chapter.

 

So we have a woman fearing failure and accepting insult because she must.

 

Fast forward to TGS

 

Here we have her in the same situation but Rand is self destructing. She has the same calm demeanor, maybe even the same annoyance towards other characters. She endures it because she needs them, even though she wants to stand them on their toes. She is frustrated at Rand, and that is her true aggression. Yet her last ditch effort is with Rand now and it will be ok.

 

Tam enters, tells her it was a failure, and starts railing at her. She is angry, frustrated and a failure and Tam is insulting her. She doesn't need to stand for this, she doesn't need Tam anymore and *pop*

 

We see plenty of evidence for her aggressive nature in every POV she has. She tolerates what she does because she has too, because it will hurt her plan, not because she wants to. She makes it very clear what she wants to do.

[KrisAnton]

That's certainly justifiable logic. I will look into it when I get there in my reread after AMOL. I'm on TSR so it'll be awhile but I will keep that in mind. 

 

I did the same thing with Talmanes' behavior in the beginning chapter of AMOL. I took his brash and comical behavior to be a by product of the Thakandar blades. They were affecting him in a way that hasn't really been shown. I could have just said, "oh well, my favorite character is being written by someone else and thus it sucks", but I decided that it was within my right to interpret the author's intent in that way. 

[The Fisher King]

I really enjoyed the Talmanes sequence - EXCEPT for the blatant 4th wall break. Felt too much like authorial indulgence to make a point.

 

 

Fish

[KrisAnton]

We are approaching the end of time for some of these characters, many of whom we've grown up with for years. We feel like we know these guys like dear friends. They are now facing extinction and personality defects could be magnified in many of them but it's going to come out wonky because we all know RJ died and didn't write every word. I know there are some very detailed and important issues regarding how this finale has been handled, I wouldn't dare discredit the opinions of people who have put hours and hours of work into these forums. Some of you guys are so professional in regards to WoT that it's almost intimidating coming up with theories or clues from the books. To those people, I hope that AMoL isn't as bad as you fear it's going to be and that you find some enjoyment from seeing this series come to a close. I have decided to ignore small parts of my brain in regards to the pace or story telling because I would have enjoyed reading new books by RJ for the NEXT 20 years. He could have drug this out for another decade and I'd buy every single book. 

[Suttree]

Pulling a chapter that highlights Cads' restraint in the face of much greater provocation from the windfinders which were the main reason for her annoyance here? You really are grasping now...

 

The situations are not remotely similar and suggesting that because one gambit didn't work Cads would blow her entire ability to utilyze Tam because it is part of her character to bully someone telling her the truth is laughable. She never, not once in the entire series takes joy from bullying or does it because "she wants to". In fact we see her regret at being forced to do so highlighted such as the scene in Far Madding with Aleis. Again she uses the correct tool for the job, over 300 years she has become a master of adaptability. She has already faced the end of the world without blinking and as many others have pointed out the evidence for her being out of sorts enough to snap is very much lacking.

[Viperswhip]

I wonder what Tam would say to Alanna lol

 

I think the whole Cadsuane story line has become a victim of expediency. There is no room to teach the Ashaman laughter and tears and she had nothing really to do with Rand's discovery of how he is motivated by love other than by throwing a torch onto bundle of dry grass. I am sure that RJ had great plans for her and to address many of our concerns through a greater revelation of her character but that necessary edits to the ever expanding nature of the tale has stunted her character development and growth.

 

I do not know that I will be as sad when WoT ends as I have been at the end of other works, despite knowing for sure that nothing more will come, because I have waited so long for the end. This, GRRM, and Alan Bradley (Flavia DeLuce) are the only series I am following while still being written. Generally I wait until a series is done to start reading. That would not have been practical in the case of WoT. I am sure I will be mad because the Seanchan will survive the story and even if the damane are released I cannot be sure there is an afterlife where good deeds are rewarded and wicked punished in WoT nor sadly in real life.

 

I think the whole book would have surely been out by now if RJ had been writing it. There would have been no need for rereads or beta readers or meetings and that malarkey, so even though he wrote more slowly and more complete narratives than BS, he nevertheless would have finished it by this point.

[KrisAnton]

You have this opinion because you know every nuance of the character. To a casual fan like myself, the previous poster's logic was sound to me and until I come across something that suggests other wise in future rereads, cadsuane's behavior is explained.

[KrisAnton]

You have this opinion because you know every nuance of the character. To a casual fan like myself, the previous poster's logic was sound to me and until I come across something that suggests other wise in future rereads, cadsuane's behavior is explained.

[skalors3]

@Suttree It is the purpose behind the restraint. The whole chapter makes that very clear. I would quote examples, but it is nearly the whole chapter.

 

In fact it parallels the chapter in question very nicely. The only difference is the end result.

 

If she were truly in control of herself she would never have those thoughts at all. The fact that she has those thoughts shoes us how she views other people.

 

Aleis is a different situation and a different person. Even if you can argue that they are the same, you cannot ignore the overwhelming evidence that Cadsuane is an aggressive person with an aggressive personality. Even people like that are prone to have compassionate feelings.

 

Lastly, I don't understand how I am grasping at straws. If she were truly the shining example of restraint and calculating action you coin her to be she would not be having those thoughts to begin with. It seems to me that she struggles harder at not lashing out.

[fionwe1987]

@Suttree. There is plenty of stuff out there. WH CH 13 comes to mind. That entire chapter is pure aggression from Cads. Everything about that chapter shows her contempt for foolishness and how she wants to treat it.

 

She doesn't though. She has an agenda, she can "endure what she must." Yet it shows what a cranky, angry woman Cadsuane really is too. She is a bully but she doesn't act on it. She is also mad at Rand and it affecting her overall demeanor.

 

" She was too angry with them to care how that was done, and it might as well begin now as later. No, she was angry with the boy, but she could not lay hands on him yet."

 

The biggest glimpse we get of her is here: "She could look back on her life and recall failures, some bitterly regretted, and mistakes that had cost lives, but she could not afford mistakes or failure here. Most definitely not failure."

 

She fears failure. This entire scene of anger and aggression is all because Rand is avoiding her. She states it in the chapter.

 

So we have a woman fearing failure and accepting insult because she must.

 

Fast forward to TGS

 

Here we have her in the same situation but Rand is self destructing. She has the same calm demeanor, maybe even the same annoyance towards other characters. She endures it because she needs them, even though she wants to stand them on their toes. She is frustrated at Rand, and that is her true aggression. Yet her last ditch effort is with Rand now and it will be ok.

 

Tam enters, tells her it was a failure, and starts railing at her. She is angry, frustrated and a failure and Tam is insulting her. She doesn't need to stand for this, she doesn't need Tam anymore and *pop*

 

We see plenty of evidence for her aggressive nature in every POV she has. She tolerates what she does because she has too, because it will hurt her plan, not because she wants to. She makes it very clear what she wants to do.

Make up your mind, skalors3. Is Cadsuane a cranky bully, or is she someone who is usually not one, but resorts to it when stretched to the limit?

 

And no, her thoughts don't prove she's a bully. We apply terms like bully to people who act by bullying. By your standard, a person who thinks I could kill him, is homicidal. By your standard, Nynaeve is a great big coward since she keeps thinking she is. Throughout this (and many other) thread, there have been times when I've been so frustrated by someone or the other making a reply that I perceived as moronic that I've imagined myself throwing something at an imaginary head with a great deal of force. This does not make me a violent person, since I have never thrown something at someone when I've argued with them in person, and been equally frustrated.

 

You need to learn to separate the judging of a character based on their thoughts, and based on their action. Based on Nynaeve's thoughts, she's a ninny with no head for danger. Based on her actions, Nynaeve is an incredibly courageous person who doesn't give up. Ever. You tell me which is the correct analysis of her character.

 

True control is not about never having thoughts of losing your cool. True control is about having those thoughts and not acting on them. Just as true bravery is not about never being afraid, but about carrying on despite being scared shitless.

 

ETA: I also want to make a note about people saying that Cadsuane lost her cool here because it was an especially stressful situation. It isn't as simple as that. By learning to respond to smaller stresses, you expand your capacity to take on tougher situations, just like exercise with particular weights make you capable of lifting heavier weights. Cadsuane has had 300 years of practice at this. At this point, saying "she's only human" makes no sense. The Aes Sedai don't go senile, don't have dementia. Which means she's had a pristine brain getting better and better at dealing with stress for 300 years. She is, simply put, not "just" human, at that point. This doesn't mean she's incapable of slipping. It just means the bar is set higher. I think it is entirely possible to write this scene in a way to make it convincing that she was really really stressed. Brandon could have laid the groundwork for it before Tam even appears on the scene. Just like RJ did with Moiraine, we could have gotten small clues to Cadsuane's state of mind, even if the PoV character (Min) herself was not. And the final act, and its immediate aftermath could also be handled much better than it does currently, where it amounts to "bully got owned".

[skalors3]

@Fionwe We have evidence that she acts on those aggressive feelings. She smacks Rand around (with no introspect as to her state of mind besides logical conclusions) she spanks rulers, and we have notes from RJ stating she is prone to violence towards people, especially those she finds silly.

 

All we have from Nynaeve is bravery. Yet, people could argue that RJ has been alluding to a cowardly act by Nynaeve (which I am not saying at all) . Just like if RJ wrote this scene we would be discussing how he has laid hints throughout the books that foreshadowed this.

[yoniy0]

You're completely misrepresenting what fionwe said as well as the background material about Cadsuane. No one suggest Nynaeve is a coward, just as no where was it said that Cadsuane hits people for the sake of it. She'll fight silliness wherever she encounters it, and wouldn't hesitate to lay her hands on someone to get the message across, is what you were told.

[Finnssss22]

Just the fact that we can have such a debate referencing different examples of Cads previously to BS taking over just shows me how tough of a character she is to pin down.

I fully understand when BS said she was a hard character for him to write.

[Drakkon]

So we are not upset that Cad acted out of character, we are upset that the characters did not interpret for us that Cad acted out of character?

 

There's a ton of stuff I want to come back to later, but for now I'll just address this...

I just disagree with that assessment. People do things out of character, and its remarkable precisely BECAUSE its out of character. Remember when Moraine flicks Rand's ear with the power and he assumes its one of the wonder girls because it was something Moraine would never do? (Back in, what Foh?)  Who 'possessed' Moraine to do that? What evidence is there that Cadsuane is not subject to human emotion or a rare outburst that comes with it?  This is like proving a negative- Cadsuane would never do that. Well, how could you know that? We know very little about here, how many scenes, a dozen? 20? And from that you can conclusively say she would NEVER bind a man with the power in a moment of extreme stress? For what its worth, I'd list Cadsuane high on the list of characters that would absolutely do that. And I'm a Cadsuane fan.

 

Ahh but see... that's exactly the difference. When Moiraine did something out of character, we got several comments on it being out of character. 

 

 

Of course, a stick across the shoulders was not Moiraine's way; she found other means of chastising, more subtle, usually more painful in the end. Yet even sure that it must have, been Egwene, he did nothing.

 

That's Rand's first thought on it.

 

Then we have this:

 

 

"So it was you," he snapped, but to his surprise she half-shook her head before catching herself. It had been Moiraine, after all. If the Aes Sedai was showing that much temper, something must be wearing at her terribly. Him, no doubt. Perhaps he should apologize. I suppose it wouldn't hurt to be civil. Though he could not see why he was supposed to be mannerly to the Aes Sedai while she tried to lead him on a leash.

 

 

You see how, from Rand's introspection during the scene, Moiraine's actions become clearer? We even have more hints on what was wearing her:

 

 

So we are not upset that Cad acted out of character, we are upset that the characters did not interpret for us that Cad acted out of character?  So it impacts immersion?

[skalors3]

@Yon No I am not. You completely forget the evidence.

 

" She had a reputation for taking direct action, even to the point of violence, slapping faces, boxing ears, and more (especially when faced with what she considered stupidity), with high as often as low, or rather, more often. She also had a reputation for not caring whether she dented somebody�s pride, if she thought it necessary."

 

The seperation shows that she didn't like denting pride unless it was necessary, it is very specific to that thought. It does not deal with her violence at all. It also goes as far as saying "and more."

 

In addition, if you want to use this quote as evidence, she acted out of character by caring for what she did to Aleis, since it was necessary.

[skalors3]

The above post is a perfect example as to how having context to her actions is important as well. Since we see her from Mins POV we are missing that.

[Viperswhip]

Rand knows Moiraine well enough to introspectively look into her motivations. Tam doesn't know Cadsuane at all and also probably has the same mistrust of Aes Sedai we have seen from most of the non Tar Valon/Borderlands people of Randland.

 

Min was shocked as well, and she probably doesn't overly love Cadsuane to begin with, neither does Nynaeve, they work with her because she was the only real option when Rand went a little overboard.

 

Unless we got a Cadsuane pov that regretted her actions in that moment, which well, we did get a Cadsuane pov, but we didn't get even an internal apology for snapping at the wrong moment. I think if Brandon really was trying to correct an earlier mistake (her using the power on Tam in the first place) he maybe could have put something in that chapter.

 

I guess the problem we have relative to all the Moiraine and Rand stuff is that we don't get any internal dialogue from the actors involved here at all. I am sure Tam would be gracious enough to forgive Cads if she said, "okay, sorry, that was out of line of me, but you basically just told me the world was going to end and then launched into a diatribe about Aes Sedai, and I snapped".

 

We never got that.

[The Fisher King]

Ok - I just found another example of what some of us here are referring to as Cadsuane's ''traditional'' behavior. It is from Chapter 23 of COT. Cadsuane finds herself in yet another confrontational situation - this time with Elza. Before just going off on Elza, she methodically and calmly goes silently through what I like to call the ''Cadsuane Encyclopedia'' - reviewing Elza's standing in the Power, the possible reasons behind Elza's behavior (desire for Rand, which she discounts due to Min's presence) etc...she is pondering how best to deal with the sithation when she is saved from having to do so by Alivia.

 

THIS is Cadsuane. Yes, characters CAN act out of character but they are still who they are and there are almost always reasons shown WHY they acted OOC. At least when written well.

 

As I said before:

 

I am in nooo way saying that Cadsuane had never shown tendencies that could be called ''Bullying.'' I think a big part of the problem is understanding fine differences between Bullying and Anger and recognizing that there is such a thing as Righteous Anger. I also think - for me at least - the thing with Cadsuane and when she ''goes off'' is much about HOW she does it, WHEN she does it and WHY she does it - as well as how it is **portrayed**, authatorially-speaking. And this goes back, I am sad to see, to a word that has been done to death in larger issues here and that word is ''Subtle.'' - I don't see many people here denying any longer that Brandon Sanderson just is not quite as skilled as Mr Jordan at depicting characterization *subtley.* - Unfortunately, that problem probably would be most exposed in Mat, Nynaeve and Cadsuane - IMHO. What is odd - though I am happy about it - is that I feel Sanderson did a fine job with Nyn. Cads and Mat - not so much. Now, regarding ''The Scene'' with Cadsuane Melaidhrin:

We get three big examples of her ''going off'' and I feel the first two are great example of why the third is indeed ''off'' or out of character.

1 When she ''breaks'' Aleis in WH that could be seen as ''Bullying'' - but look at WHY she does it. It is NECESSARY. They are holding captive the saviour of the world. And - read the text - she nicely ASKED first. She gave Aleis CHANCES. She resorted to her BIG BAD CADSUANE act as a LAST resort.

2 - In WH with that Windfinder. Cadsuane sat there and took it and took it and tok IT. When she had finally had enough, and only after the Windfinder touched her without permission, did Cads go off. And she only threatened. She did not actually DO anything to the WF physically.

3 With Tam, it was not NECESSARY, she had not been pushed and pushed and pushed, the world wasn't ending, she did not go through her mental encyclopedia of who she was dealing with FIRST - as she has done with Verin, Rand, Aleis, Dobraine etc and (as Suttree pointed out) Samitsu.

She just out of nowhere went all Bully. It was very disapointing. She is far too much the intellectual for that and has a history of handling things far differently.

The Cadsuane Melaidhrin that I knew since Book 7 would have been DISGUSTED at ANY Sister who couldn't comport themselves well enough to not use the Power against a man like Tam Al Thor. She would have that Sister back in Novice White if she had to drop everything else to do it.

 

This conversation is more and more seeming to come down to how Cadsuane is...presented...and, in a book, ''presented'' means ''written.''

 

And, I'm sorry. I am SORRY, but I just don't find Brandon Sanderson to be the writer that Robert Jordan is.

 

At LEAST, to be fair - on WOT. Someone recently posted something from another Sanderson book on here and I couldn't believe it! Im not saying it was a masterpiece but it was far superior to anything I have seen out of the guy. I couldn't believe the sample posted and TOM were written by the same guy. The sample had depth, subtely and thoughts and atmosphere telling the story rather than cheesy, childish dialogue. Just shows how tough writing someone ELSE's stuff can be, I guess.

 

 

Fish

[Suttree]

@Yon No I am not. You completely forget the evidence.

 

" She had a reputation for taking direct action, even to the point of violence, slapping faces, boxing ears, and more (especially when faced with what she considered stupidity), with high as often as low, or rather, more often. She also had a reputation for not caring whether she dented somebody�s pride, if she thought it necessary."

 

The seperation shows that she didn't like denting pride unless it was necessary, it is very specific to that thought. It does not deal with her violence at all. It also goes as far as saying "and more."

 

In addition, if you want to use this quote as evidence, she acted out of character by caring for what she did to Aleis, since it was necessary.

Yes you did and Yoniy0 didn't forget anything. At this point it's clear that you will not only ignore the facts but twist them to say what they don't. It's honestly laughable that you would take a scene like the one with Aleis where it quite convincingly shows her reluctance to go that route except when necesary(when she does it totally pre-meditated even in a very stressful situation, and she regrets the need to do so. That does not line up with her enjoying it and being aggresive as a default in the slightest) and call it totally different, while at the same time trying to use the Mogi scene as proof to back your case. On top of this you have presented a couple logical fallacies for good measure. Feel like this debate hasn't progressed in a few pages, maybe it really is time to move on...

[skalors3]

@Fisher I don't think you can compare the two as writers. You also have 20 years of experience seperating them.

 

I also think that Brandon could have added some perspective to the scene. Might as well crap in one hand....

 

I however don't understand where people get that Cadsuane only does what is necessary. That is a misinterpretation of her character. She endures what she must to meet her own agenda. That is far different than only acting out of necesssity. If RJ meant her to be like that he would have put in a blanket statement in his personal notes that said "she only does what is necessary."

 

She endured the windfinders to not push Rand away from her and upset Corele's work. What must be examined is what she would have done if she didn't have to endure them to meet her goals.