Who *are* you, Nakomi? (Full spoilers)

[MauricXe]

I disagree with the previous. Brandon said that RJ wrote that particular scene in the epilogue.

 

I guess someone will just have to ask him.

[LewsTherin10]

I can't remember the family tree but who's Rand's grandmother.  Perhaps it's her.  Or her ghost. Or an aspect of the Creator in her form.  I do believe that Aviendha thinks Nakomi looks familiar.

Edited February 14, 2014 by LewsTherin10

[Guest matfan]

We got very little in the way of hints about Nakomi in AMoL, but their location make this thread full-spoilers by necessity.

 

So, let's have it. Did anyone glean anything about Nakomi that we didn't know before AMoL?

 

PS

If you want another poll-option, let me know.

I thought she was the ghost of Tigraine, Rand's real mother.  That wasn't an option in the poll, though.

Edited February 17, 2014 by matfan

[Bannakaffalatta]

She is a old Aiel woman who is dead. The Pattern is unraveling more and more, instead of the dead just appearing, they can interact, and that who Nakomi is. Problem solved. She is nobody

[damandred]

I think she was some sort time traveler jenn, who foresaw Aviendha' arrival, like rand was forseen, and as they took steps to ensure Rand saved mankind, they also took steps to nudge Avi through the pillars again and save the Aiel.

[InfinLuminous]

The evidence put forth in this thread strongly points to Nakomi being an avatar of the Creator. The argument against is rather flimsy, and really only consists of a single quote from Jordan about the Creator's general noninvolvement, which I think several people have misconstrued. Even taking Nakomi out of the equation, we have seen passive involvement of the Creator through his voice at the end of The Eye of the World and in A Memory of Light when Rand is about to enter Shayol Ghul. Some people have claimed that Nakomi was thrown in randomnly without real purpose to simply add an unanswered question to the mix. I think this is an extraordinary claim that needs evidence to be taken seriously.

[Suttree]

And I've got a sinking feeling on this one...but I'll play it straight.

 

The evidence put forth in this thread strongly points to Nakomi being an avatar of the Creator.

What evidence would that be? Care to summarize?

 

The argument against is rather flimsy, and really only consists of a single quote from Jordan about the Creator's general noninvolvement, which I think several people have misconstrued.

Sorry but RJ has given a number of different answers on this topic over the years and he has always said the exact same thing about the Creator not getting involved. Check out the Theoryland database if you're interested to read more. It is far more than a single quote.

 

Some people have claimed that Nakomi was thrown in randomnly without real purpose to simply add an unanswered question to the mix. ]

Nakomi's purpose was what exactly?

 

Even taking Nakomi out of the equation, we have seen passive involvement of the Creator through his voice at the end of The Eye of the World and in A Memory of Light when Rand is about to enter Shayol Ghul.

I would recommend doing a bit of searching through old threads. There has always been a good deal of debate in the WoT fandom about who exactly the voice is.

Edited March 24, 2014 by Suttree

[InfinLuminous]

Nakomi's purpose was to illustrate the Creator's concern for his/her creation. If you're claiming that Nakomi had no purpose, then as I said that's an extraordinary claim that needs to be supported to be taken seriously.

 

Care to summarize the debate on "the voice?" Looking through the threads myself, the weight of the evidence and the argument appears to land very strongly on the side that the voice was the Creator. Who do you think it was? If someone is going to rely on Jordan's misconstrued quotes about the Creator's involvement to try to sink the Nakomi/Creator theory, then they need to deal with the voice.

Edited March 24, 2014 by InfinLuminous

[Suttree]

 If you're claiming that Nakomi had no purpose, then as I said that's an extraordinary claim that needs to be supported to be taken seriously.

 

That's not how it works, you're attempting to shift the burden of proof here. Please expand on what Nakomi's purpose was as an (no the creator showing concern is not a purpose). Additionally tell us what "evidence" you see that "strongly supports" Nakomi being an avatar of the Creator.

 

RJ was very clear on this point and attempts to claim the quotes are somehow 'misconstrued' in a situation this cut and dry fall flat.

[InfinLuminous]

Why is the Creator showing concern for his or her creation not a valid purpose, in your view? I don't understand your position here. Are you saying you just wouldn't like it if that were Nakomi's purpose in the narrative? You are certainly free not to like it, but that doesn't change the fact that this was her purpose. It was also pointed out several times in the thread that Nakomi helped to put Aviendha in the right frame of mind before her last trip to Rhuidean. Plus, Sanderson clearly stated that Nakomi is not just theory fodder with no purpose.

 

No one is trying to shift any burden of proof. The arguments have been made over the span of 16 pages of posts on this thread, but your sole response seems to be relying on Jordan's quotes regarding the Creator. However, that attempted refutation has already been dealt with by pointing out the voice. Your position seems to be that Jordan's quotes negate the possibility that the voice was the Creator. It's fine if you want to make that argument, but you still need a reasonable explanation for the voice if you want that argument to stand at all.

 

So, who was the voice in The Eye of the World, and who was the voice in A Memory of Light?

Edited March 24, 2014 by InfinLuminous

[InfinLuminous]

And, just to be clear, I am not asking about what others have argued about the voice, I am asking you what you think about the voice.

[Suttree]

The theory being put forth is Nakomi is an avatar of the Creator. Hence the burden of proof lies with those making that claim. That is how debates work. 

 

You have said the evidence strongly points to it despite multiple claims from the author himself, yet you refuse to give any to back the claim. We have seen a good deal of opinion in this thread, but evidence...no not in the slightest.

 

Edit: One other thing to note. Say the voice is the creator and not the DO or just an ewotism or any other of the things that have been argued. It's a huge leap to go from that to actively creating an avatar to sit down and have a chat over tea with Avi. Lastly I'm curious as to how you know that the "over whelming" opinion sides with the voice being the creator(not that ad populum would help settle anything). If you just looked through the threads please link to places that show that to be the case. Or are you saying you've been following the arguments here for years without joining and that is the general sense you got?

Edited March 24, 2014 by Suttree

[InfinLuminous]

I never made an ad populum argument, nor would I. Many have pointed out that the powers that Nakomi appears to possess are those powers that we would expect the Creator to have, since she seems to demonstrate control over the Pattern itself. Other posters have pointed out the symmetry between Dark One/Shadar Haran and the Creator/Nakomi If you need more detail, please go back through this thread. It's all there if you would like to try to address it. The evidence has been presented multiple times, yet has not been addressed.

 

Instead, you have claimed on this thread that Nakomi was just theory fodder, and seem to maintain that view despite direct comments from Sanderson to the contrary. THAT is the extraordinary claim here, and it has already been refuted. Peter even called you out on this thread re: misinterpreting statements made by Sanderson on this point.

 

Are you contending that the voice was the DO or an ewotism (even though it also appeared in AMoL)? If so, which one, and why?

Edited March 24, 2014 by InfinLuminous

[Suttree]

So again none of  that is evidence, it qualifies as opinion. There is nothing Nakomi did that was unique/couldn't have happened in Tar. You still have not come remotely close to having her serve a purpose as well. Further the symmetry claim can not be taken seriously given the RJ quotes. You seem to maintain that view despite direct comments from Jordan to the contrary.

 

It's not my claim but I lean towards Luckers interpretation. As for Peter, he gave an AS response and nothing more. It's kind of his mo. I've seen the "evidence" and it's not compelling in the slightest. All of this trying to shift the burden of proof gets tiresome as well. Put a theory together to support your assertion if you want it to be considered, that is how things work around these parts. Regardless it seems clear neither of us are going to budge on this. Cheers and welcome back to DM. Hope the stay is a bit longer this time around.

Edited March 24, 2014 by Suttree

[InfinLuminous]

If it's just an opinion, then you wouldn't even try to refute it with a throwaway line about TAR, which doesn't explain anything. Sanderson shot down Luckers' interpretation, and then Peter show you down when you attempted to resurrect it. Since you are choosing to completely ignore the voice question (which refutes your interpretation of Jordan's quotes about the Creator) I would say it does appear that this debate is indeed over.

[Suttree]

 Since you are choosing to completely ignore the voice question (which refutes your interpretation of Jordan's quotes about the Creator) I would say it does appear that this debate is indeed over.

 

Ermmm

 

Edit: One other thing to note. Say the voice is the creator and not the DO or just an ewotism or any other of the things that have been argued. It's a huge leap to go from that to actively creating an avatar to sit down and have a chat over tea with Avi. Lastly I'm curious as to how you know that the "over whelming" opinion sides with the voice being the creator(not that ad populum would help settle anything). If you just looked through the threads please link to places that show that to be the case. Or are you saying you've been following the arguments here for years without joining and that is the general sense you got?

 

A voice that is unconfirmed as the creator refutes  the multiple RJ quotes which are from well after eWoT was released? Lol...ok.

 

For the last time. If you wish to continue put together a theory and back it up. End of.

Edited March 24, 2014 by Suttree

[InfinLuminous]

Just because the voice was not confirmed as the Creator does not mean it is not the Creator. No one has offered a logical theory about the voice being anyone other than the Creator. RJ never said that the voice was not the Creator, and if there was any doubt at all, the voice's reappearance in aMoL eviscerated any other argument.

[Suttree]

No one has offered a logical theory about the voice being anyone other than the Creator.

Lastly I'm curious as to how you know that the "over whelming" opinion sides with the voice being the creator(not that ad populum would help settle anything). If you just looked through the threads please link to places that show that to be the case. Or are you saying you've been following the arguments here for years without joining and that is the general sense you got?

[InfinLuminous]

And since we're talking about Jordan quotes, the following Jordan quote doesn't refute the Creator-as-voice as all, and it also supports my argument that part of Nakomi's purpose was to show the Creator's concern for mankind. (Takes a bow).

 

"Paul Ward: Possible question: Is the Dark One pure True Power? Why does the Creator ignore Randland except to talk to Rand at the end of The Eye of the World?

 

Robert Jordan: No, the Dark One is not pure True Power. Who says the Creator takes little interest in the activities of mankind? And I will neither confirm nor deny that the Creator spoke to Rand."

 

 

[Guest SnowmanSam]

First post for me here, and this thread caught my eye. I personally think that Nakomi is one of Aviendha's daughter's or at the very least a decedent visiting from the future. A few little things in the conversation/scene with Aviendha make me think this. The deepearth roots that Aviendha's mother always cooked (she would have shared this with her children), the interest in her relationship with Rand veiled as questions about the Car'a'carn and her amused reaction to Aviendha's insistence that Rand is in fact the Car'a'carn. Also her comments about being far from her roof, yet not far at all. And rand did tend to ramble as well.

 

But most especially was the how the fire got so warm and suddenly there seemed to be more coals in the fire, also the food had cooked rather quickly from Aviendha's point of view. To me this is reminiscent of Rand's ability to light the pipe with only thought. If she had inherited these abilities, then she could do things without actually needing the One Power to do so, and Aviendha would then not sense the one power in her.

 

Also....after asking Bair about the name "Nakomi", discussion leads to Aviendha chainging the name of one of her children....perhaps Aviendha found she liked the name Nakomi?

 

Though, who knows, maybe she was really Rand "Ascended" in disguise traveling back along the pattern after acquiring his reality bending powers.

 

Speculation everywhere......

[Suttree]

(Takes a bow).

For copy/pasting a well known quote that has already been provided and discussed in thread? Uhhmm...bravo?

Edited March 25, 2014 by Suttree

[InfinLuminous]

You never bothered to address the quote even though it's incredibly damaging to your argument and supportive of the avatar theory, as well as my point regarding Nakomi's purpose in aMoL. Still waiting on that, as well as your theory about the voice. I am also interested as to whether you're conceding that Luckers' "theory fodder" theory cannot be the answer due to it's debunking by Sanderson and Peter.

[Suttree]

Mate, there is no common ground to even begin this discussion. The leaps in logic you are making are approaching Grand Canyon size levels.

 

Cheers and welcome back to DM.

Edited March 25, 2014 by Suttree

[InfinLuminous]

There could be plenty of common ground, you just need to stop supporting a theory that was directly debunked by the author and for which you were chastised on this thread by someone in the know. If you are willing to move the discussion past that, there might be finer points to debate and explore.

[Suttree]

Could you be any more disingenuous(as has been the case in all of your incarnations) with some of the declarative statements and your revisionist history of how this conversation has played out?

This is simply your interpretation of what Brandon said.

@kil

 

That isn't correct. The concept was based on something found deep in the notes. The character and scenes were all Brandon. RJ never wrote any of her parts.

That is a rather AS statement. Please clarify then if I am incorrect. Are you confirming RJ created the character named Nakomi? Thanks.

Lol. Chastised...

 

1. The above had nothing to do with Luckers theory.

 

2. Saying the RJ quote = proof of the Creator's involvement takes some truly astonishing mental gymnastics. As does leaping from the voice of the Creator(if indeed that is the case) = proof of the Creator being willing to use an avatar.

 

3. The creator does not act "miraculously or no"...pretty black and white. Plus:

The Creator is completely removed from the world; aside from...creating...the Pattern, he does nothing else whatsoever to influence anything.

All your doing is trying to avoid having to offer any evidence for your own theory. Again the burden of proof lies squarely with those making the Nakomi = Avatar claim.

Edited March 25, 2014 by Suttree