How I would rewrite WoT

[TNine]

Well, Moraine knew that the Dragon was in the Two Rivers, and she knew exactly how old he was. And the bad guys knew the same thing, and figured it out at just about exactly the same time. That was enough to narrow it down to Rand, Perrin, or Mat, and from there it's not hard.

 

We know why both the Moraine and the bad guys knew the age; both Moraine and the Black Ajah heard the Foretelling about the Dragon being reborn. We don't really know how she knew where they were, though. Perhaps it was that "raised by the Old Blood" prophecy, but that seems pretty vague. Maybe there was something else that she figured out based on all the prophecies of the Dragon; she did play her cards really close to her chest. (Plus, you know, Moraine knows everything.)

I'm pretty sure Moiraine spent nearly 20 years searching for the Dragon Reborn, eventually going to Manetherin as a lead. At exactly the same time the Shadow found him, by chance (or more accurately the Pattern).

[Yosarian]

Well, Moraine knew that the Dragon was in the Two Rivers, and she knew exactly how old he was. And the bad guys knew the same thing, and figured it out at just about exactly the same time. That was enough to narrow it down to Rand, Perrin, or Mat, and from there it's not hard.

 

We know why both the Moraine and the bad guys knew the age; both Moraine and the Black Ajah heard the Foretelling about the Dragon being reborn. We don't really know how she knew where they were, though. Perhaps it was that "raised by the Old Blood" prophecy, but that seems pretty vague. Maybe there was something else that she figured out based on all the prophecies of the Dragon; she did play her cards really close to her chest. (Plus, you know, Moraine knows everything.)

I'm pretty sure Moiraine spent nearly 20 years searching for the Dragon Reborn, eventually going to Manetherin as a lead. At exactly the same time the Shadow found him, by chance (or more accurately the Pattern).

 

She did spend 20 years searching for him, true, but I don't really think she just happened to go into some little town in the back end of nowhere and then just happened to give Rand, Mat, and Perrin special One Power-enchanted tracking coins.

 

It's more likely that she was looking for clues for 20 years and finally found some kind of hint as to where to go, not that she was randomly wandering town to town and hoping to find him by chance.

[Whizbang]

There was supposed to be a prequel about Moiraine and Lan's quest to find them, that would fill in these blanks. I think she mentions in the books, however, that she heard of a soldier that found a baby during the battle on TV. She eventually tracked down that this soldier came from the Two Rivers, I suppose (though how she figured that out but not the name of the soldier, I don't know. Tam wasn't just any old soldier.)

[GregerMoek]

 

<text>

unless the half is cut off first(amusing link, considering his arm is lost later in the series, but highly unlikely).

 

<text>

 

 

I think she might have suspected it, but she might not have known for sure until after all the crazy stuff happened at the Green Man's Place (unless you mean that some too-large amount of time passed between this and her announcement. I can't remember if that's the case or not). She may have deliberated over it for some time. She also may not have said anything because of the effect it would have on the others. Men who can channel are not well-liked in Randland, and people definitely had some funny ideas about the Dragon Reborn at first. After some crazy mess like that, there was no point in holding it back any longer.

 

I don't understand what the bolded part means. Could you clarify that a little bit?

 

I mistyped "hand" and somehow put a "half" there instead. My apologies!

 

And well, I mean I think it was 7 days before her announcement to herself that the battle at the Eye happened. The conversation between Egwene/Lan and Rand could very well have happened just after.

Where this instance really teases me though is not that the announcement is late, but that it's announced after it's pointed out that she's listening to the conversation. Of course it doesn't have to mean anything and is just an interesting detail to her jewelry, but to me it acts as an indicator that there was something in the conversation she listened to. Of course, it's a good way to end a book. It's such a tiny thing that it's barely worth mentioning, but every re-read I think about it.

[Sightblinder'sMinder]

I'm now about 1/3rd of the way through Towers of Midnight, and looking back, I suppose I'd probably change the ending for TGS (i.e. Veins of Gold). Don't get me wrong, I knew "All You Need Is Love" was coming. I expected it, and Sanderson did do a good job writing it.

 

But, one of my favorite aspects of WoT was the dual nature of "the Savior". I liked the idea of the Savior/Destroyer all rolled into one. So, I was just a little disappointed when Rand finally had his revelations atop Dragonmount and shed his dark side (not badly, but mildly). Since WoT borrows a lot from Eastern philosophies, I was hoping for more of an Eastern resolution, when in fact, we got the opposite.

 

What I mean by that is this: a central principle in both Hinduism and Buddhism is to "free oneself from attachments". The idea being, the more attached you get to this world and the things in it, the harder it will be when all of it's inevitably ripped away from you. Death and rebirth are inevitable, so why create added misery for yourself in this passing life? That's at least part of what goes into a Buddhist monk's thought process.

 

Yet, Rand reaches the opposite conclusion; he burdens himself with even more attachments, when he knows (or at least, thinks he knows) that death is coming for him. And, now that he's lost his dark edge, he's essentially transformed into a sort of Christian messiah, in which he can heal sick puppies with nothing more than his smile. Perhaps it's just me, but I miss the air of danger that used to surround him.

 

However, if my theory is correct (i.e. the light & dark must unite, like the yin-yang, in order to defeat Padan Fain/Mordeth) then Rand's deliverance was inevitable. If he and Moridin are to merge as one, Rand must be(come) the opposite of Moridin, which he now is. An ambiguous Rand couldn't have pulled that off. So, in any case, I'm probably just nitpicking, but I needed to get it off my chest.

[ArveduiEreinion]

Funny, but I had a thought along the lines of this thread the other day. I wasn't thinking so much about what plot-threads could be deleted or abbreviated so much as a thread I would change. Anyway, I got to thinking about the destruction associated with the Dragon Reborn and how undestructive (so far, for me) that destruction has actually been. Granted, we are seeing increasingly destructive effects of the weakening of the seals on the land in the last few books.

 

So, my idea: I would have tied the cleansing of the male half of the Source to the destruction of the land. About halfway through the series, I would have had Rand cleanse the source but have the cleansing cause devastating collateral effects on the land. Military forces under Rand would be scattered or destroyed. The same would be true for the forces of the dark. Rand would be blamed for the devastation, be filled with doubt and self-loathing, then ultimately unite the disparate forces of the Light, etc.

but that would only make the series longer and less of the main it would have been written by RJ

 

I don't think so but that all depends on the writer. I understand your point, though. RJ could have gotten just as easily derailed describing Rand's attempts to gather the forces of the Light as he did with middle of the actual plot.

[Eichhörnchen]

I would re-write it to have Matrim Cauthon be pulled more deftly into the Seanchan fold earlier. The foretellings do tell of Mat's standard being present among the Seanchan, so he will at some point in the future hold an important station in the Empire. However it would be intriguing if it were more active in the storytelling. A Mat with a shaved head, a Seanchan highseat, an entire household and army at his disposal would add a nice third tier to the story. Mat a leader of the Seanchan, Egwene leader of the Aes Sedai and Rand with his Coalition all in a tense situation with eachother as they try to press the interests of their respective groups.

[ArveduiEreinion]

I'm now about 1/3rd of the way through Towers of Midnight, and looking back, I suppose I'd probably change the ending for TGS (i.e. Veins of Gold). Don't get me wrong, I knew "All You Need Is Love" was coming. I expected it, and Sanderson did do a good job writing it.

 

But, one of my favorite aspects of WoT was the dual nature of "the Savior". I liked the idea of the Savior/Destroyer all rolled into one. So, I was just a little disappointed when Rand finally had his revelations atop Dragonmount and shed his dark side (not badly, but mildly). Since WoT borrows a lot from Eastern philosophies, I was hoping for more of an Eastern resolution, when in fact, we got the opposite.

 

What I mean by that is this: a central principle in both Hinduism and Buddhism is to "free oneself from attachments". The idea being, the more attached you get to this world and the things in it, the harder it will be when all of it's inevitably ripped away from you. Death and rebirth are inevitable, so why create added misery for yourself in this passing life? That's at least part of what goes into a Buddhist monk's thought process.

 

Yet, Rand reaches the opposite conclusion; he burdens himself with even more attachments, when he knows (or at least, thinks he knows) that death is coming for him. And, now that he's lost his dark edge, he's essentially transformed into a sort of Christian messiah, in which he can heal sick puppies with nothing more than his smile. Perhaps it's just me, but I miss the air of danger that used to surround him.

 

However, if my theory is correct (i.e. the light & dark must unite, like the yin-yang, in order to defeat Padan Fain/Mordeth) then Rand's deliverance was inevitable. If he and Moridin are to merge as one, Rand must be(come) the opposite of Moridin, which he now is. An ambiguous Rand couldn't have pulled that off. So, in any case, I'm probably just nitpicking, but I needed to get it off my chest.

 

Glad to hear I wasn't the only one :)

[Mr Ares]

So you have to worry about the lives of the minor characters, not the leads. The big names, the equivalents of Mat and Rand, they survive, while characters more at the level of, say, Nalesean, Verin, Nicola, etc., they are in genuine peril.

Whatever you do, make sure you are wearing the same color as the Captain when you beam down to the surface.

Nah, I'll be wearing the spiffy, new, red shirt I just got.

 

I always wondered, when the forsaken were given the command to "Let the Lord of Chaos Rule" why didn't they do the following:

1)Travel to Random City/Location

2)Use the 1 power to call down a massive burst of lightning strikes

3)Go to step 1

 

I mean, if the goal is to sow chaos what better way than to thoroughly disrupt cities and strike terror into the heart of people at the same time. It would be an almost unstoppable tactic the first time used, if they all went at it together. Afterwards the AS/Asha'man could set wards or something, but by then it would already be too late.

 

*Not complaining, but every time I read it I think "Man, if I was a forsaken I would do this and this and this and..."

What better way? Well, virtually any. You show up, cause a relatively small amount of damage, and then leave and things get back to normal. It's inconvenience more than long term chaos that you would cause. Also, you have to remember that the Chosen began by trying to carve out power bases - let the Lord of Chaos rule was an order from on high. If Shai'tan had wanted massed lightning strikes on cities, he could, of course, have ordered them, but I don't think that would have gained Him what He wanted. Graendal probably caused more chaos in Arad Doman than any other plan could achieve for the same effort - and without being so overt as to place a big red flag to show there is a Chosen involved. When the plan involves turning the Light against itself, acting too overtly is counter-productive, as it highlights that they should not be fighting each other, they should be fighting you.

 

First, this could cause a large amount of damage psychologically to the people. How many people would feel safe in cities if they never know when they might die in their sleep. I understand the Forsaken began to carve out power bases, but all it managed to do was to help Rand find them and kill them, so not very productive. After a few die I figure that the Forsaken should be smart enough to figure out that a plan like Sammael's is not the way to go. I agree Graendal did a great job, but is the plan really to have the Light fighting against itself, or just to "let chaos rule"? I suppose I don't view Chaos in the same way the forsaken do, because taking over as King and then giving people bad dreams in a well structured society doesn't exactly seem like chaos to me. Smashing cities and creating tons of refugees such that it is not feasible to help them since they are so many thus sowing distrust and havoc everywhere seems a bit more chaotic.

Also, it is not as though the DO has any care about massive death. He is perfectly happy with mass starvation due to weevils in book 10.

Just because you are willing to use mass death as a tool, doesn't mean mass death is the goal, or that all applications of it are desirable. Further, Shai'tan is better placed than any of the Chosen to do it. As for taking over places and giving people bad dreams, that was before "let the Lord of Chaos rule" became the order of the day. They carved out power bases on the assumption that this was the best way forward, and that they would be rewarded for it. Be'lal was the first to die in his power base, after specifically inviting Rand in as part of his gambit to get callandor. Then we have Rahvin, who came very close to victory and only lost due to unforeseen outside interference, then Sammael, who had already provoked Rand as part of the FoH storyline involving the gang of four, and who was a general with a talent for defence anyway (so building up a defensible power base makes more sense for him than what you propose). So only three have died as a result of Rand attacking their power base. Compare to Aginor, Balthamel, Ishamael, Aran'gar, Osan'gar and Lanfear all dying away from their power base or not having one. So, which strategy is riskier? And consider that by ruling a country, and having its resources at your disposal, you have more power than your strength in the OP, and are harder to kill (Rand would not have been able to move on Sammael effectively prior to gaining skimming at the very least, same with Rahvin). By having a power base, you can keep Rand way from you, whereas by not having one, you are reliant on keeping away from him. Plus, they had already committed to that strategy before Rand had any armed forces. They had no reason to just smash everything right from the off, especially not as some sort of anti-Rand measure. It was only as time passed and Rand became more powerful that he gained the ability to root them out of their bases. Also, how terrified do you really think the people will be? There are probably more cities than those marked on the map, and definitely more towns, and villages, and farms - what percentage of the population lives in the big cities? How much damage would you have to cause to each one? And people are willing to live in cities under risk of enemy attack. Sounds like you're only gaining a fairly small amount for the effort you put in, with no real upside.

 

Firstly, a lot of people don't like Elayne - say she's dead and you end up with a lot of people experiencing quite the wrong emotion.

But if someone doesn't like Elayne then no scenes she is in is going to be emotionally investing, not in a character-driven drama like this one. There are plenty of times where something that should be dramatic because you like the character ends up falling flat because you don't. That's not relevant to whether or not that character is dead, and Jordan certainly does not avoid it by avoiding death.

The point is that if people don't care about the character, or actively dislike them, then the death is robbed of its power. How much of the power of death in fiction comes from the act and how much comes from the execution? I contend that it is almost entirely in how it is used - and that therefore criticising the author for not using something which is inherently powerless is a bit silly, when you could be criticising him for using it badly on those occasions that he does use it, or for using other dramatic tools badly when he uses them.

 

Killing Elayne wouldn't generate motional investment.

I can say nothing beyond the fact that i believe that this is absolutely false.

You've already admitted that you feel the death of Nalesean is robbed of power because you don't care about him to begin with. Therefore, surely it follows that if a given reader has no emotional investment in Elayne to begin with, the death won't generate any?

 

Further, Mat isn't hugely fond of Elayne. Killing Nynaeve would have had a bigger impact on him. Elayne? Well, he's failed to protect her, but that's the real emotional sting for him.

I think the fact that Mat wasn't really fond of Elayne would actually increase his emotional investment--he would feel that he had bickered with her too much to protect her, and that it was his fault that she died. Suddenly Mat remembers when Elayne was nice instead of a bitch, drama emotions etc.

Or he's just disappointed that he was unable to fulfil his promise, despite his best efforts.

 

How do we know that? Because the author hasn't killed anyone before? That's just silly.

 

We don't, on first reading, have guarantees that anyone will survive, save for the fact that they are still needed by the narrative. Sure, you might think people are safe.

And so far, exceedingly accurate. Jordan won't off important characters, so i don't worry about them. Sure, we don't have guarantees, but that doesn't really make a dent in my confidence of their survival.

So where does your confidence come from? Given that a feeling of confidence about the survival of a given character can exist even in situations where other characters have died, I don't see why it is the mere lack of major character death to a given point that has convinced you they will be safe thereafter. Look at Davos Seaworth - reported dead in AFFC, but many were unconvinced he was actually going to die in ADWD. Martin has managed to off four POV characters (not counting prologue and epilogue characters) in five books, and one of them is the usually forgotten Ser Arys Oakheart, who only got one chapter and died in someone else's POV. Most people seem unconvinced by certain other POVs who were left in bad circumstances in the last book being dead in the next.

 

Yes, he does. Verin and Ingtar being good examples. And pointing out that he could do it more would just be moving the goalposts.

Both of which were darkfriends--i don't criticize Jordan's work with killing antagonists, since he actually has that balance down pretty well--and neither were really "core" characters. Verin was used as an expository character a few times and moved mysteriously, but she was hardly central to any story arch and really her greatest significance to the plot was constantly appearing where she shouldn't be for strange reasons. She's probably the most major character to die though, but her death hardly creates and air of danger for the rest of the cast.

Both Verin and Ingtar were, despite being Darkfriends, protagonists. Both were on the side of the Light, and on Rand's side.

 

I'm talking about characters a little closer to the top--maybe not Rand, but i should certainly feel more fear for Mat/Perrin/Elayne/Min/Nynaeve/Aveindha/Egwene, and i should feel legitimate fear for people like Faile/Birgitte/Gawyn, and characters like the mentors (Lan/Moiraine/Thom) or other leaders (Rhuarc/Siuan/Sorilea/Amys/Melanie/Bashere/Berelain/Dyelin/Cadsuane) should actually be in pretty fair danger. Considering a major theme of the book is the place falling to chaos, having actual people getting taken down would be far better at increasing the idea of impending doom and constant degeneration that must be fought.

Again, I have to say that I feel that even if some of those had died, then people would still be calling for more, because some had obvious deaths but the others were obviously never going to die. It can often look like a no-win scenario for the author. No matter who he kills, it won't be enough, until it's too much.

 

Again, we comeback to the reason for your lack of doubt. You don't know they will continue because no-one has died before. You know they will continue from other evidence. Even had a few died, you would still possess the same certainties, in all likelihood.

No, i really don't think i would. In the later books i stopped worrying at all whether or not characters would die. And a character dying when you thought they would not is a great launching point for drama, anyway--certainly not enough to carry its own, but added shock value can be very effective.

It depends on what you consider the reason for the certainty you and others have for their survival. I consider that as this is a problem so many authors seem to have, even those that do kill prolifically, that it is not a belief rooted in RJ's refusal to use death. Steven Erikson killed a bunch of characters, but many of his fans were sure of the survival of a great number of characters whose fates were left hanging in DoD. "Nah, Quick Ben isn't going to die." Seems to me that if people still express certainty in the survival chances of some or most characters after you've shown a willingness to kill them off in arbitrary and pointless ways with little to no forewarning, then really "I'm not afraid that that character will die" must be rooted in something deeper than just an unwillingness to kill, so it would still be a problem for RJ no matter what he did.

 

Again, I have to disagree that death creates stronger drama. Death used well creates stronger drama than other forms of drama used badly, other dramatic tool used well work better than death used badly. Even comparing death used well to other dramatic tools used well, I'm not convinced that death is inherently more powerful as a dramatic tool.

Yes, shitty things tend to be shittier than nice things. But i think death used well is simply more emotive than almost any other tool in literature, and even when used decently its threat can cause a great increase in emotive investment. It can also drive it away, of course, but that's just crappy writing.

Again, I would say that that comes down to the execution being more important than the act. Death has no inherent power as a literary tool, but it can be used in powerful ways.

 

If anything, ubiquity has robbed it of much power. It has become practically cliché.

That's because death is ubiquitous. Not just in literature. It is not even a possibility, its just a matter of time. The constant danger, not only of "if" but of "when", is an important aspect of life even outside literature. In action-adventure literature, death's continuous threat is an important driving force to drama--they are in danger, and move fast because it can come for them any day.

And yet we succumb to the same tendencies in life as in fiction. "Nah, he's not going to die like that, not today." If millions of years and billions of examples of people being able to die at any time, in any way, without regard to "story arcs", regardless of how dramatic tension has been built up has yet to convince people to accept that death is a constant threat, then I think the problem might be beyond RJ to solve.

 

That might be considered a failure on the author's part to convince that characters are in genuine peril, but it doesn't follow that that lack of peril results from a lack of death.

Considering the convincing of the lack of peril is derived directly from the lack of death, i don't agree with this statement at all. I don't think Elayne is going to die from the Black Ajah because i know that Jordan wouldn't write it that way, because he doesn't use death.

Pick a given book in the series. On first reading, why were you convinced that no-one would die? Because no-one had died before? Well, just because it hasn't happened before, doesn't mean it won't happen now. Just because an author hasn't used something before a certain point is not an indicator that he will continue to not use it. Who died in the first three Harry Potter books? But then we have Diggory's death in the fourth. The rules can change. Something that wasn't necessary before can be now. If you saw Harry and Cedric arrive in the graveyard and were confident they would survive, because Rowling doesn't use death, then you would have been shocked out of your certainty. Now, given that in WoT many character have prophecies that have to be fulfilled, you can say with a degree of certainty that a character won't die until after x has happened, but there is no real reason for the certainty other than that, and the belief that as it hasn't happened before it will continue to not happen.

 

I certainly know people who were none too fussed that she died.

Once again, this is related to the character, not the plot device at all. I didn't find Aveindha's visions at the ends of ToM to be sad at all, since i don't care for her or the Aiel. However, I would find it silly to say that those visions are not dramatic because of that.

I would contend that "dramatic" would be a subjective viewpoint - something that you find dramatic, someone else might not, and vice versa. And thus, I would say that from your viewpoint it could be said to not be dramatic, even if for some it was the dramatic highpoint of the book. Saying that it is related to the character not the plot device merely, I would say, proves my point - the plot device lacks inherent power. Any power it has lies both in how the author uses it, and in how the reader responds to it.

 

So you have to worry about the lives of the minor characters, not the leads. The big names, the equivalents of Mat and Rand, they survive, while characters more at the level of, say, Nalesean, Verin, Nicola, etc., they are in genuine peril.

I think that most people finishing WoT would be hard pressed to remember who all three of those characters are, and i wasn't even quite sure that Nicola died. Those characters are more background characters than "minor" characters. Jaime has a dozen full chapters over two books. I don't find the two to really be equitable.

Nalesean is probably the most forgettable, if only because his death was something that happened at the halfway point of the series - a death that happened a while ago, with a lot happening in the meantime, and a lot of characters doing things, or being around, makes it easier for him to get lost in the shuffle. Compared to Jaime Lannister, himself a major character, or course none of these people is as noticeable. Martin has admitted that he only makes people POVs in order to tell that characters story - being made a POV is a far less notable distinction in WoT and many other series, due to how often that particular honour is thrown around. So with the possible exception of those who don't get POVs under their own names, being a POV is something which marks you as a major character in ASoIaF. So, you're right that they aren't comparable - one is an example of a living major character, the others are examples of dead minor characters. Robert, Lysa and Beric would all be better examples to compare with Verin and co.

 

Suspense is driven by uncertainty, and the belief that a character is going to die is even worse than the belief that a character must survive. The important balance is to make the audience afraid that a character might die.

I think a lot of it has to derive from the characters themselves - the more afraid a character is he might die, the more able it is to be conferred to the audience. How often do the characters believe themselves in deadly danger? How often do we see them feel a sense of peril. Of course, when they do feel imperilled, they can convey that to us. Elayne in KoD felt certain of her survival, despite being a captive. Elayne in ToM got stabbed and was genuinely afraid. Even if we think it unlikely she will die, the more convinced she is that she might, the greater the apparent risk to her, and the greater the suspense to the reader, even if the actual risk is no greater than if she was idly munching a sandwich and not thinking herself in danger of imminent death, despite being faced with a knife wielding maniac. The more unconcerned the character is with the danger they face, the less the suspense, and therefore the drama is lessened. If the character is concerned, the suspense is greater, and so the less need for something like a death.

[muddasssir]

Mr Ares you just love making these long posts and this one is actually very well reasoned out, but I am still at loss what makes our friend here think that death is the worst that can happen to anyone. Remember tEotW prologue! RJ started the story by showing that there are fates much worse than death and death is actually an escape from these fates. Would any one character in the tSoIaF hold candle to LTT. This is the recurring theme of the series dying is easy so you can finally lay down your burdens. Remember that borderland saying,"Duty is heavier than mountain and death lighter than feather". Rj is using opposite of death for drama. He is saying that death is not the ultimate torment, It is an escape from the torment of living.

[Viperswhip]

Brevity...it can be a wonderful thing, but also, not so good for many situations. I loved the sister bonding scene between Elayne and Avi, I love the relationship Avi has with Amys and the Wise Ones. I love the bond between Elayne and Birgitte and how that has developed. I loathe the gaining the throne plot. Time wise, without all of the time they spent together, the sister bonding would not have been as effective. Elayne and Birgitte would not be quite in the same place, but they had longer together. Elayne's totally daredevil approach to life could have been better established earlier, but since you had to do these other things there was time to fit more examples of brave idiocy in as time went on.

 

Perrin's arc was totally, totally useless. He dealt with being a lord how many times? He just accepts it in ToM lol, okay Mr. Emo.

 

There are plotlines that could have been trimmed down, but the depth and richness of the story would suffer. I do not think Cadsuane was necessary, she only increased Rand's mistrust of Aes Sedai, she is ancillary to the story. Just make Rand a little less stupid and take a bunch of the people sworn to him to cleanse the WP. He still gets to the same dark place and maybe Nynaeve grabs Tam on her own initiative to try to turn things around.

 

As much as I skip large chunks of text when reading, on the first go around, there were waypoints in there that required space between them, like the above mentioned sister bonding. I do agree that Perrin would have better served somewhere else. Get rid of Faile's jealousy, it's insane. I guess there are people like that, but unlike Perrin I ignore them.