Am I the only one who is pissed over the anticlimactic end to Fain's story?

[Mr Ares]

 

 

He was someone Rand thought about 'dealing with' but had other priorities. Fain thought he was a serious threat, but everyone else put him to the back of their minds a bit, so it was quite fitting that it was Mat - who hasn't interacted with him since the Eye of the World I think- that killed him.

 

The problem with this line of thinking is the way Fain was handld by the author. If that was the case why even build him up with evolving powers and end him with a cliff hanger in ToM, if you are only going to kill him off with two pages of screen time in AMoL? It's poorly set up and feels very rushed.

 

 

 

 

It's a perfect ending for a character who's been an afterthought for most of the series.

That doesn't really address the issues with how it was set up however. If it was a "perfect ending" care to break down how and  why in relation to the cliffhanger and increased powers we saw in ToM? I know you have tired of the critique around here but I just can't believe you truly think this was handled well.

 

 

 

 

In Sanderson's defence the choice made with Fain in ToM was an excellent one, it brought Fain back to the story and revealed that he had some great and creepy powers, I certaintly found it fascinating and wanted more. The problem was that he failed to employ Fain properly for the finale.

 

But that is the point. One does not use a cliffhanger set up in ToM if the ending is going to be rushed/inconsequential as it was in AMoL. It is poor execution.

 

 

 

Counting the straw men and watching the continuous arguing of points that were never brought up was getting rather amusing however.

 

Uh huh

 

Basically, if you believe it was an actual Cliffhanger then you have a point.

If, like me, you don't believe it an actual Cliffhanger, then you do not have a point.

 

All I do know is that "Eht Slat Meit" has been one of the few that has actually tried to provide some kind of real evidence that it should be considered an actual Cliffhanger. I don't think he's going to convince me of it as I really just don't think there's enough evidence to be had for it, nor do I think he even believes it to be a Cliffhanger now either but at least he made an effort.

Which is far more than you have tried to do. All you keep doing is trying to switch it to a quality discussion without ever proving the actual substance of the posts I just quoted here.

 

Strawman indeed, just not of MY making eh

 

Quibbling over whether or not it is a "cliffhanger" is attempting to use semantics to avoid constructively addressing the point. As I said earlier: "So what would you call it then? An update? Fine." The terminology is unimportant, because the point is substantively the same regardless of whether or not it's a cliffhanger - hence no need to prove that it is (and trying to prove that it is would merely validate an irrelevant point). If the term "cliffhanger" was dropped in favour of "thingy", the point wouldn't change: "One does not use a cliffhanger thingy set up in ToM if the ending is going to be rushed/inconsequential as it was in AMoL. It is poor execution." Identical point, different terminology. As for turning this into a quality discussion, it's right there in the opening post (even the thread title). This was always a quality thread. Stop trolling. Address the point. Or slink away.

 

Addressing your questions/arguments:

 

1. "Fain's" status in ToM is not an update or a power-up. It's a picture of a creature in degenerative transition. I'm not sure how that would be painted in psychological terms, but basically both personalities in his head are dead. The WoT equivalent is killing LTT and Rand off while leaving the body alive. At this point he is essentially an unnamed Shaisam.

Fain's appearance in ToM is absolutely an update - we're checking in the condition of a character who we've not seen for a while. We are given an update on his whereabouts, status, and current plans. And yes, it is a power up, given that his power has grown, for all that his sanity has deteriorated, since last we saw him.

 

3. "Changed a lot" The last time Fain changed was between WH and ToM. Between ToM and AMoL there is almost no change; he's still a creature of madness, both Fain and Mordeth are dead, and he still has his killer fog powers.

Fain started out as a human. In WH he was human. In ToM he was still human. While he was increasingly possessed of powers beyond the merely human, and his sanity had long since crumbled, he was still a human. By AMoL, he isn't. He's a sentient fog, capable of possessing and controlling Shadowspawn and humans - his drones. The body of Fain is "the mortal form that walked at the centre of his mind". To go from "human with killer fog powers" to "fog, with human shell at the centre" is a vast change, more so than any we've previously seen from Fain - by ToM he'd left the last of his sanity behind, by AMoL he's left the last of his humanity behind. He's no longer mad, he's no longer human. He has been reborn.

 

4. Where is he? He's the Walking Dude, because he's got no Waygates. No Gates. No Fades. In short, he's taking the long road from whatever Waygate still survives deepest in the Blight and getting there "ahead" of Rand is in question.

But that doesn't really address the point - we should have some sort of updates in AMoL to show how close he is getting, how he is changing.

 

6. "Abrupt death" - Agreed. It felt very lusterless; Fain is on foot, walking his way through armies of Light and Dark and should be wreaking some kind of havoc as he goes. Some sense of that would be nice; and the ambush would not have been sacrificed. Basically we agree on quality, but for different reasons. I don't consider ToM a cliffhanger in any way anymore. It is a statement of a character's transitional process that has been ongoing throughout the books and before the books.

Cliffhanger or not is irrelevant.

 

7. "Then he dies" - You say it doesn't follow, but I disagree completely on this. It's follows and is completely in sych with Fain's story arch throughout the books. Why? Because if we look at "Fain" as more than just a label, it isn't Fain. It's Mordeth the Counseller. It's Mordeth the Spectre. It's Fain. It's Fain the Shadow's Hound. It's Ordeith the Wormwood, a bitter mix of Fain and Mordeth. It's Jeraal Mordeth the Counsellor again, tracking Rand with Fain's powers and manipulating encounters into being.  Fain and Mordeth die, and it's become Shaisam the Unnamed Mashadar. And in the end, it was all three again, pieces of each, a creature with many identities, all of them dead and still alive, ended at the stroke of its own knife.

 

Looking at Fain as one creature is a mistake.

One creature or not, we still have abrupt off screen shifts to take him from being one thing to another. You're not explaining how it does follow.

[False Dragon1991]

OP - Yes and No.

 

I felt that just the sheer mental image of Mashadar pouring suddenly down into the valley and drowning these two vast armies as this unstoppable force was a very strong image. I suppose the threat wasn't embellished enough but if Matt hadn't stopped him then quite simply nothing would and he could well have killed both Rand n the Dark One. Plus, he technically did kill Matt. Just fresh from Egwenes death and having won the great battle it was not inconceivable to me that he might die with his role having been fulfilled. Especially since Perrin who had a grudge against Fain was also there and might have done the deed (red herring on the reveal about his parents BTW)

 

But Yes, I do agree with a lot of what others say. A longer passage could have done it justice. Or, he should have been killed as a threat long before. Frankly I found him a bit too much of a golem character and struggled to take him seriously for most of the series. But the idea of him being this other cthulu monster/force of nature to the DO was a neat idea.  

[threadnecromancer]

I don't think anyone has posted on this but BS basically admitted he screwed up,

Daniel Egonsson

Was there anything in A Memory of Light you wished you could have changed?

Brandon Sanderson

I might have done more with Fain if I'd had the time and the pages.

 

 

I don't really see why the book could not have been 30 or so pages longer to tie him up, but I am not that familiar with publishing and then there is that slippery slope...

 

EDIT: Found some more BS responses on the issue:

 

Brandon Sanderson

No, no deleted scenes here. I did Mashadar the way I did because of the small amount of information in the notes about it or Fain, and I felt that going with what little I did have was better than exploring widely without knowing where RJ wanted to go. In some other cases, I did extrapolate when we didn't have much from RJ, but here it felt better to go with the "less is more" idea.

There was a big danger in these books in me taking over too much and driving the books far from RJ's original vision. I had to pick and choose carefully which parts I extrapolated, and I did it based more on my own instincts and talents than anything else. For example, I felt very comfortable with Perrin as a character—he'd always been my favorite, and I felt like I knew him very well and could write him strongly. So, in Towers of Midnight where we had very little direction on what to do with Perrin, I felt that the right move was to expand his part and develop a sequence on my own.

However, for Mat in the Tower of Ghenjei, RJ had been planning this sequence for years and years. He wrote or outlined a good portion of it before he died. It was a small sequence, however, only a couple of chapters worth. I realized fans would be expecting more from this sequence, but my instincts said that it would be wrong to develop it into something much larger. That would not only go against RJ's wishes, but would risk messing things up royally. RJ had laid careful foreshadowing and groundwork for the scenes, and had a specific vision for this sequence. Perhaps if he'd lived, he would have expanded it in additional directions, but it would have been the wrong place for me to add.

Fain through my three books feels very similar to me. It wasn't as strict here as it was with the Mat/Ghenjei sequence—I COULD have expanded, and perhaps I would have, given more time. However, at the same time, there is an argument to be had that RJ wanted Fain to have a lesser-than-expected place in the Last Battle, and expanding him would undermine this.

 

[Finnssss22]

 

Fain through my three books feels very similar to me. It wasn't as strict here as it was with the Mat/Ghenjei sequence—I COULD have expanded, and perhaps I would have, given more time. However, at the same time, there is an argument to be had that RJ wanted Fain to have a lesser-than-expected place in the Last Battle, and expanding him would undermine this.

 

^This is the key here.

That despite any build up, or perceived build up by either author, Fain was going to go out with more of a whimper than a scream.

[Mr Ares]

 

Fain through my three books feels very similar to me. It wasn't as strict here as it was with the Mat/Ghenjei sequence—I COULD have expanded, and perhaps I would have, given more time. However, at the same time, there is an argument to be had that RJ wanted Fain to have a lesser-than-expected place in the Last Battle, and expanding him would undermine this.

 

^This is the key here.

That despite any build up, or perceived build up by either author, Fain was going to go out with more of a whimper than a scream.

Which is still not addressing the point, because it's not that people wanted Fain to have more of a scream and less of a whimper, but how that whimper was handled. We didn't get Fain, we got Shaisam. So Fain not only went out with a whimper, he did so off screen, to be replaced by Shaisam, who also went out with a whimper, after accomplishing less than Fain ever did.

[Finnssss22]

 

 

Fain through my three books feels very similar to me. It wasn't as strict here as it was with the Mat/Ghenjei sequence—I COULD have expanded, and perhaps I would have, given more time. However, at the same time, there is an argument to be had that RJ wanted Fain to have a lesser-than-expected place in the Last Battle, and expanding him would undermine this.

 

^This is the key here.

That despite any build up, or perceived build up by either author, Fain was going to go out with more of a whimper than a scream.

Which is still not addressing the point, because it's not that people wanted Fain to have more of a scream and less of a whimper, but how that whimper was handled. We didn't get Fain, we got Shaisam. So Fain not only went out with a whimper, he did so off screen, to be replaced by Shaisam, who also went out with a whimper, after accomplishing less than Fain ever did.

 

 

You'll have to remind what exactly the point is again then, because it sure sounds like you're talking about writing quality again which is not what this thread was supposed to be about nor what the OP was asking.

[Finnssss22]

Fain was a central villain for much of the series.  He tormented the main characters, in many ways.  He was not only against the main characters, but against the Dark One as well.  He was being pushed as a villain among villains, and his mediocre ending was a complete letdown. 

 

What the hell happened?  Did RJ just not have time to come up with a good ending before he died?  Did BJ have to make one up at the last minute?

 

 

 

This was the original question asked.

 

Then there was some talk about some cliffhanger that really wasn't one and then of course when that didn't fly, it once again, like a broken record, became about writing quality.

 

Whether Fain's end should have been written better was never the question here, it was whether his end should have been grander or served a bigger purpose. 

[Mr Ares]

 

 

 

Fain through my three books feels very similar to me. It wasn't as strict here as it was with the Mat/Ghenjei sequence—I COULD have expanded, and perhaps I would have, given more time. However, at the same time, there is an argument to be had that RJ wanted Fain to have a lesser-than-expected place in the Last Battle, and expanding him would undermine this.

 

^This is the key here.

That despite any build up, or perceived build up by either author, Fain was going to go out with more of a whimper than a scream.

Which is still not addressing the point, because it's not that people wanted Fain to have more of a scream and less of a whimper, but how that whimper was handled. We didn't get Fain, we got Shaisam. So Fain not only went out with a whimper, he did so off screen, to be replaced by Shaisam, who also went out with a whimper, after accomplishing less than Fain ever did.

 

You'll have to remind what exactly the point is again then, because it sure sounds like you're talking about writing quality again which is not what this thread was supposed to be about nor what the OP was asking.

Wrong. This was always a quality thread, as you've continually been told. The OP does bring up issues of quality. And I already reminded you of the point, that we didn't get Fain at the end at all. A guy who was a lingering threat for the entire series is absent in the last book, dead and replaced with Shaisam, off screen and with virtually no build up.

[Finnssss22]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Fain through my three books feels very similar to me. It wasn't as strict here as it was with the Mat/Ghenjei sequence—I COULD have expanded, and perhaps I would have, given more time. However, at the same time, there is an argument to be had that RJ wanted Fain to have a lesser-than-expected place in the Last Battle, and expanding him would undermine this.

 

^This is the key here.

That despite any build up, or perceived build up by either author, Fain was going to go out with more of a whimper than a scream.

Which is still not addressing the point, because it's not that people wanted Fain to have more of a scream and less of a whimper, but how that whimper was handled. We didn't get Fain, we got Shaisam. So Fain not only went out with a whimper, he did so off screen, to be replaced by Shaisam, who also went out with a whimper, after accomplishing less than Fain ever did.

 

You'll have to remind what exactly the point is again then, because it sure sounds like you're talking about writing quality again which is not what this thread was supposed to be about nor what the OP was asking.

Wrong. This was always a quality thread, as you've continually been told. The OP does bring up issues of quality. And I already reminded you of the point, that we didn't get Fain at the end at all. A guy who was a lingering threat for the entire series is absent in the last book, dead and replaced with Shaisam, off screen and with virtually no build up.

 

 

Nope, that's not what was asked, as I have pointed out numerous times now.

Just because the thread was hijacked 2 posts in to be made about quality by the usual suspects (Mark D and Suttree) doesn't mean that was what it was supposed to be about.

 

I just provided the original question for pete's sake, he is clearly talking about the nature of Fain's demise, not how good or how badly it was written and that original question is the one I have repeatedly answered.

[Suttree]

How it was handled is central to the question being asked. It's disingenuous to suggest otherwise.

 

It's clear by this point that when Finnnssss doesn't have an actual argument he quibbles over terminology(many v. half, cliffhanger v. thingy etc.) or complains about literary discussion. I mean he actually tried to waive away the power increase/evolution earlier by comparing defeating a worm or animating zombies to being able to "take down shadowspawn". That really says it all in that he won't even admit a transformation took place with the character. As Mr Ares said earlier:

 

Quibbling over whether or not it is a "cliffhanger" is attempting to use semantics to avoid constructively addressing the point. As I said earlier: "So what would you call it then? An update? Fine." The terminology is unimportant, because the point is substantively the same regardless of whether or not it's a cliffhanger - hence no need to prove that it is (and trying to prove that it is would merely validate an irrelevant point). If the term "cliffhanger" was dropped in favour of "thingy", the point wouldn't change: "One does not use a cliffhanger thingy set up in ToM if the ending is going to be rushed/inconsequential as it was in AMoL. It is poor execution." Identical point, different terminology. As for turning this into a quality discussion, it's right there in the opening post (even the thread title). This was always a quality thread. Stop trolling. Address the point. Or slink away.

[Finnssss22]

 

How it was handled is central to the question being asked. It's disingenuous to suggest otherwise.

 

It's clear by this point that when Finnnssss doesn't have an actual argument he quibbles over terminology(many v. half, cliffhanger v. thingy etc.) or complains about literary discussion. I mean he actually tried to waive away the power increase/evolution earlier by comparing defeating a worm or animating zombies to being able to "take down shadowspawn". That really says it all in that he won't even admit a transformation took place with the character. As Mr Ares said earlier:

 

Quibbling over whether or not it is a "cliffhanger" is attempting to use semantics to avoid constructively addressing the point. As I said earlier: "So what would you call it then? An update? Fine." The terminology is unimportant, because the point is substantively the same regardless of whether or not it's a cliffhanger - hence no need to prove that it is (and trying to prove that it is would merely validate an irrelevant point). If the term "cliffhanger" was dropped in favour of "thingy", the point wouldn't change: "One does not use a cliffhanger thingy set up in ToM if the ending is going to be rushed/inconsequential as it was in AMoL. It is poor execution." Identical point, different terminology. As for turning this into a quality discussion, it's right there in the opening post (even the thread title). This was always a quality thread. Stop trolling. Address the point. Or slink away.

 

 

 

*Sigh*

 

Again...the OP wasn't asking if it felt rushed or if it was written poorly.

He was asking if anyone else felt letdown by Fain's death relative to the PLOT!

He specifically refers to Fain being a main villain and protagonist throughout, only to meet his end so quickly and easily at Mat's hands.

 

As I said earlier, we all, at some point, bought into Fain's insanity that he was more than what he actually was.

Was he going to actually play a part in Rand's fight with the DO...no, he was not.

Was he going to show up and cause mayhem...definitely.

 

At the end of the day, no matter how powerful he thought himself to be, no matter the powers he commanded, he was, at the heart still just a man in a weak mortal body. And a vastly overconfident one at that allowing himself to get so close to Mat to meet his end.

Even he realised this at the end, not sure why you can't.

 

 

And I'm sorry but I was the one staying on point, the PLOT points. The "quibbling" came when you couldn't address the PLOT points and then decided to go down the quality road, your bread and butter and what 99.99% of your posts revolve around. 

[Suttree]

Do you just make this stuff up as you go? First read the op's first post again, he brings up quality from the start. Second look at the order of responses and specifically how consistent my take has been. It started in my very first post in thread so not sure why the odd insistence that I changed my argument(other posters even pointed out to you that you didn't understand the point).

Bottom line, plot and execution are inexarobly linked with this topic.

Also imagine that...discussing literary quality on a website dedicated to...a series of books. Shocker. The funny thing is your knee jerk reaction to any perceived slight towards Brandon is what derails threads at this point. If you cant differentiate between Mark D's brand of anti-BS fervor and people discussing both the good and bad of what has been written, it essentially places you on the same level of those few who have taken it too far. You just sit on the opposite end of the trolling spectrum.

[BFG]

Ok, this discussion is just going round in a circle.  If you want to continue the 'first post included quality or not' discussion, could you please take it to PM?

 

Thanks,

BFG

[Rob Hammers]

 

(At the risk of losing access to DM, I didn't care that much about Bela either

 

+1

 

 +2  I don't have an eye for horseflesh.  

[Rob Hammers]

I always thought of Fain as Gollum.  Everyone knew Frodo would throw the ring in the lava but did not expect to be because Gollum bit his finger off.  Most, I assume, expected Gollum to show back up after the fight with Shelob, but I would argue that his intervention that saved the world was totally unexpected.  That's what I kind of expected.  Fain split after getting away from the attack on Rand with Mashadar in Cairhein.  He started heading north and becoming one with Mashadar.  He had the dagger that bound and corrupted shadowspawn. I almost expected Rand to kill the DO and for Fain to take his place as Shaisam outside the pattern.   That being said, I loved how Mat just killed him.  Pwned.  

 

At the end of the day, I was disappointed that Fain's story ended without a major twist to the outcome but was very glad to see him get killed by Mat with the dagger that linked them. 

[BFG]

I always thought of Fain as Gollum.  Everyone knew Frodo would throw the ring in the lava but did not expect to be because Gollum bit his finger off.  Most, I assume, expected Gollum to show back up after the fight with Shelob, but I would argue that his intervention that saved the world was totally unexpected.  That's what I kind of expected.  Fain split after getting away from the attack on Rand with Mashadar in Cairhein.  He started heading north and becoming one with Mashadar.  He had the dagger that bound and corrupted shadowspawn. I almost expected Rand to kill the DO and for Fain to take his place as Shaisam outside the pattern.   That being said, I loved how Mat just killed him.  Pwned.  

 

At the end of the day, I was disappointed that Fain's story ended without a major twist to the outcome but was very glad to see him get killed by Mat with the dagger that linked them. 

 

I think one of the reasons Fain didn't make it as far as Rand is precisely because RJ/BS/TJ (team Jordan) wanted to avoid similarities between LotR and WoT, especially given the similarities back at the beginning of the Eye.

[Rob Hammers]

I get that.  When I read EotW, I called my buddy who recommended it and asked if it ended with Rand throwing the ring in the pit of doom.  But, I did expect Fain to be a wildcard that had some memorable part to play.  I may have felt a pang of disappointment that he didn't end up with a more memorable resolution, but I loved how he died.  

[Nikonis]

 

I always thought of Fain as Gollum.  Everyone knew Frodo would throw the ring in the lava but did not expect to be because Gollum bit his finger off.  Most, I assume, expected Gollum to show back up after the fight with Shelob, but I would argue that his intervention that saved the world was totally unexpected.  That's what I kind of expected.  Fain split after getting away from the attack on Rand with Mashadar in Cairhein.  He started heading north and becoming one with Mashadar.  He had the dagger that bound and corrupted shadowspawn. I almost expected Rand to kill the DO and for Fain to take his place as Shaisam outside the pattern.   That being said, I loved how Mat just killed him.  Pwned.  

 

At the end of the day, I was disappointed that Fain's story ended without a major twist to the outcome but was very glad to see him get killed by Mat with the dagger that linked them. 

 

I think one of the reasons Fain didn't make it as far as Rand is precisely because RJ/BS/TJ (team Jordan) wanted to avoid similarities between LotR and WoT, especially given the similarities back at the beginning of the Eye.

 

Great, now I can only think of Fain holding the dagger and calling it "My Precious"!

[BFG]

I get that.  When I read EotW, I called my buddy who recommended it and asked if it ended with Rand throwing the ring in the pit of doom.  But, I did expect Fain to be a wildcard that had some memorable part to play.  I may have felt a pang of disappointment that he didn't end up with a more memorable resolution, but I loved how he died.  

 

And to be fair, Fain 'replacing' the DO would be a twist on the ending, if completely contradicting the theme of the series. 

 

 

 

I always thought of Fain as Gollum.  Everyone knew Frodo would throw the ring in the lava but did not expect to be because Gollum bit his finger off.  Most, I assume, expected Gollum to show back up after the fight with Shelob, but I would argue that his intervention that saved the world was totally unexpected.  That's what I kind of expected.  Fain split after getting away from the attack on Rand with Mashadar in Cairhein.  He started heading north and becoming one with Mashadar.  He had the dagger that bound and corrupted shadowspawn. I almost expected Rand to kill the DO and for Fain to take his place as Shaisam outside the pattern.   That being said, I loved how Mat just killed him.  Pwned.  

 

At the end of the day, I was disappointed that Fain's story ended without a major twist to the outcome but was very glad to see him get killed by Mat with the dagger that linked them. 

 

I think one of the reasons Fain didn't make it as far as Rand is precisely because RJ/BS/TJ (team Jordan) wanted to avoid similarities between LotR and WoT, especially given the similarities back at the beginning of the Eye.

 

Great, now I can only think of Fain holding the dagger and calling it "My Precious"!

 

 

The unexpected perils of the book boards

[jedman67]

 

 

I always thought of Fain as Gollum.  Everyone knew Frodo would throw the ring in the lava but did not expect to be because Gollum bit his finger off.  Most, I assume, expected Gollum to show back up after the fight with Shelob, but I would argue that his intervention that saved the world was totally unexpected.  That's what I kind of expected.  Fain split after getting away from the attack on Rand with Mashadar in Cairhein.  He started heading north and becoming one with Mashadar.  He had the dagger that bound and corrupted shadowspawn. I almost expected Rand to kill the DO and for Fain to take his place as Shaisam outside the pattern.   That being said, I loved how Mat just killed him.  Pwned.  

 

At the end of the day, I was disappointed that Fain's story ended without a major twist to the outcome but was very glad to see him get killed by Mat with the dagger that linked them. 

 

I think one of the reasons Fain didn't make it as far as Rand is precisely because RJ/BS/TJ (team Jordan) wanted to avoid similarities between LotR and WoT, especially given the similarities back at the beginning of the Eye.

 

Great, now I can only think of Fain holding the dagger and calling it "My Precious"!

 

despite the many similarities between various archetypes/characters in LotR and WoT, i never once felt that i was reading or seeing LotR characters in WoT. 

Although now i'm wondering why Rand didn't have to save the cheerleader in order to save the world....

[Mr Ares]

 

How it was handled is central to the question being asked. It's disingenuous to suggest otherwise.

 

It's clear by this point that when Finnnssss doesn't have an actual argument he quibbles over terminology(many v. half, cliffhanger v. thingy etc.) or complains about literary discussion. I mean he actually tried to waive away the power increase/evolution earlier by comparing defeating a worm or animating zombies to being able to "take down shadowspawn". That really says it all in that he won't even admit a transformation took place with the character. As Mr Ares said earlier:

 

Quibbling over whether or not it is a "cliffhanger" is attempting to use semantics to avoid constructively addressing the point. As I said earlier: "So what would you call it then? An update? Fine." The terminology is unimportant, because the point is substantively the same regardless of whether or not it's a cliffhanger - hence no need to prove that it is (and trying to prove that it is would merely validate an irrelevant point). If the term "cliffhanger" was dropped in favour of "thingy", the point wouldn't change: "One does not use a cliffhanger thingy set up in ToM if the ending is going to be rushed/inconsequential as it was in AMoL. It is poor execution." Identical point, different terminology. As for turning this into a quality discussion, it's right there in the opening post (even the thread title). This was always a quality thread. Stop trolling. Address the point. Or slink away.

 

 *Sigh*

 

Again...the OP wasn't asking if it felt rushed or if it was written poorly.

He was asking if anyone else felt letdown by Fain's death relative to the PLOT!

He specifically refers to Fain being a main villain and protagonist throughout, only to meet his end so quickly and easily at Mat's hands.

 

As I said earlier, we all, at some point, bought into Fain's insanity that he was more than what he actually was.

Was he going to actually play a part in Rand's fight with the DO...no, he was not.

Was he going to show up and cause mayhem...definitely.

 

At the end of the day, no matter how powerful he thought himself to be, no matter the powers he commanded, he was, at the heart still just a man in a weak mortal body. And a vastly overconfident one at that allowing himself to get so close to Mat to meet his end.

Even he realised this at the end, not sure why you can't.

Actually, he isn't. He is no longer a man, for all that he is still, for the time being, attached to the weak mortal body. Again, that's part of the problem - it wasn't Fain, it was Shaisam. It's not just a name change, it's a different being.

 

And we did not all buy into Fain's insanity and belief in his own importance - the nature of Fain's death fits very closely with what I've been predicting for years. It has always been clear that Rand has bigger problems that just Fain - for all Fain clearly had a role to play, he was not the primary source of conflict. But just because the character isn't that important in the wider scheme of things, doesn't mean that you can't give the character a decent send off. Brandon didn't do right by Fain, and that's not because he didn't have Fain face off against Shai'tan, but because he had Fain replaced by Shaisam off screen, and then killed off Shaisam in an ignominious way. It made the whole thing feel pointless, and so people were annoyed. Fain didn't cause any chaos or havoc in the last book. Fain didn't do anything. Fain was replaced, and to no end. So even if we accept your "He was asking if anyone else felt let down by Fain's death relative to the PLOT!", you're still not addressing the point, because Fain was still disappointing in that respect. It was a disservice to the character, and not because of some false belief in the importance of the character, but simply because the plot betrayed that character and gave him less than he was due, even though he wasn't due a lot. An unimportant character died a less important death than he deserved is the problem, not that an unimportant character was wrongly believed important and disappointment springs from the unimportant death he received. Whether or not this thread is one of quality is therefore irrelevant - your point doesn't hold water either way.

[Finnssss22]

 

 

How it was handled is central to the question being asked. It's disingenuous to suggest otherwise.

 

It's clear by this point that when Finnnssss doesn't have an actual argument he quibbles over terminology(many v. half, cliffhanger v. thingy etc.) or complains about literary discussion. I mean he actually tried to waive away the power increase/evolution earlier by comparing defeating a worm or animating zombies to being able to "take down shadowspawn". That really says it all in that he won't even admit a transformation took place with the character. As Mr Ares said earlier:

 

Quibbling over whether or not it is a "cliffhanger" is attempting to use semantics to avoid constructively addressing the point. As I said earlier: "So what would you call it then? An update? Fine." The terminology is unimportant, because the point is substantively the same regardless of whether or not it's a cliffhanger - hence no need to prove that it is (and trying to prove that it is would merely validate an irrelevant point). If the term "cliffhanger" was dropped in favour of "thingy", the point wouldn't change: "One does not use a cliffhanger thingy set up in ToM if the ending is going to be rushed/inconsequential as it was in AMoL. It is poor execution." Identical point, different terminology. As for turning this into a quality discussion, it's right there in the opening post (even the thread title). This was always a quality thread. Stop trolling. Address the point. Or slink away.

 

 *Sigh*

 

Again...the OP wasn't asking if it felt rushed or if it was written poorly.

He was asking if anyone else felt letdown by Fain's death relative to the PLOT!

He specifically refers to Fain being a main villain and protagonist throughout, only to meet his end so quickly and easily at Mat's hands.

 

As I said earlier, we all, at some point, bought into Fain's insanity that he was more than what he actually was.

Was he going to actually play a part in Rand's fight with the DO...no, he was not.

Was he going to show up and cause mayhem...definitely.

 

At the end of the day, no matter how powerful he thought himself to be, no matter the powers he commanded, he was, at the heart still just a man in a weak mortal body. And a vastly overconfident one at that allowing himself to get so close to Mat to meet his end.

Even he realised this at the end, not sure why you can't.

Actually, he isn't. He is no longer a man, for all that he is still, for the time being, attached to the weak mortal body. Again, that's part of the problem - it wasn't Fain, it was Shaisam. It's not just a name change, it's a different being.

 

And we did not all buy into Fain's insanity and belief in his own importance - the nature of Fain's death fits very closely with what I've been predicting for years. It has always been clear that Rand has bigger problems that just Fain - for all Fain clearly had a role to play, he was not the primary source of conflict. But just because the character isn't that important in the wider scheme of things, doesn't mean that you can't give the character a decent send off. Brandon didn't do right by Fain, and that's not because he didn't have Fain face off against Shai'tan, but because he had Fain replaced by Shaisam off screen, and then killed off Shaisam in an ignominious way. It made the whole thing feel pointless, and so people were annoyed. Fain didn't cause any chaos or havoc in the last book. Fain didn't do anything. Fain was replaced, and to no end. So even if we accept your "He was asking if anyone else felt let down by Fain's death relative to the PLOT!", you're still not addressing the point, because Fain was still disappointing in that respect. It was a disservice to the character, and not because of some false belief in the importance of the character, but simply because the plot betrayed that character and gave him less than he was due, even though he wasn't due a lot. An unimportant character died a less important death than he deserved is the problem, not that an unimportant character was wrongly believed important and disappointment springs from the unimportant death he received. Whether or not this thread is one of quality is therefore irrelevant - your point doesn't hold water either way.

 

 

This has got to be one of the most nonsensical posts that I have read in quite a while, even for you, this is out there.

 

You don't get it do you? Fain/Shaisam/Mordeth were never supposed to exist outside of Shadar Logath in the first place and were supposed to be destroyed when saidin was cleansed. The evil created there was PROVIDED by the pattern. was NEEDED for Rand to cleanse saidin.

Fain or whatever name you want to give him was a side effect, an anomaly that the pattern hadn't caught up to or fully attempted to correct yet, not until a taveren (Mat) did so. Even that was something that the pattern set up a loooong time ago in Mat waaaaay back in Book 1.

This why RJ cited Fain as a "Wildcard" and "side stepping the Pattern".

 

By the end of Book 9, Fain was done. He was no longer useful nor did he present much of a real threat anymore. Rand chased him away with his tail securely between his legs.

Sure, he was going to back for one last effort but, just like everything else he attempted to accomplish, it was either going to fall short in a grand way or simply be left unfinished.

 

 

There is no evidence or prior precedent to indicate or even hint that Fain deserved a more meaningful or more deserving ending than what he got.

Other than his own insanity fueled ramblings that is. 

[clutzyninja]

I think the argument can basically be boiled down to "I'd rather not see Fain at all than see him as we got him." 

I'm not really on either side here, but I do kind of wonder what the point of even having him show up at all was.

I liked the book, but that part did feel a little like "Oops, forgot Fain, lemme just cram in a few pages towards to end to wrap that up..."

[Mr Ares]

 

 

 

How it was handled is central to the question being asked. It's disingenuous to suggest otherwise.

 

It's clear by this point that when Finnnssss doesn't have an actual argument he quibbles over terminology(many v. half, cliffhanger v. thingy etc.) or complains about literary discussion. I mean he actually tried to waive away the power increase/evolution earlier by comparing defeating a worm or animating zombies to being able to "take down shadowspawn". That really says it all in that he won't even admit a transformation took place with the character. As Mr Ares said earlier:

 

Quibbling over whether or not it is a "cliffhanger" is attempting to use semantics to avoid constructively addressing the point. As I said earlier: "So what would you call it then? An update? Fine." The terminology is unimportant, because the point is substantively the same regardless of whether or not it's a cliffhanger - hence no need to prove that it is (and trying to prove that it is would merely validate an irrelevant point). If the term "cliffhanger" was dropped in favour of "thingy", the point wouldn't change: "One does not use a cliffhanger thingy set up in ToM if the ending is going to be rushed/inconsequential as it was in AMoL. It is poor execution." Identical point, different terminology. As for turning this into a quality discussion, it's right there in the opening post (even the thread title). This was always a quality thread. Stop trolling. Address the point. Or slink away.

 

 *Sigh*

 

Again...the OP wasn't asking if it felt rushed or if it was written poorly.

He was asking if anyone else felt letdown by Fain's death relative to the PLOT!

He specifically refers to Fain being a main villain and protagonist throughout, only to meet his end so quickly and easily at Mat's hands.

 

As I said earlier, we all, at some point, bought into Fain's insanity that he was more than what he actually was.

Was he going to actually play a part in Rand's fight with the DO...no, he was not.

Was he going to show up and cause mayhem...definitely.

 

At the end of the day, no matter how powerful he thought himself to be, no matter the powers he commanded, he was, at the heart still just a man in a weak mortal body. And a vastly overconfident one at that allowing himself to get so close to Mat to meet his end.

Even he realised this at the end, not sure why you can't.

Actually, he isn't. He is no longer a man, for all that he is still, for the time being, attached to the weak mortal body. Again, that's part of the problem - it wasn't Fain, it was Shaisam. It's not just a name change, it's a different being.

 

And we did not all buy into Fain's insanity and belief in his own importance - the nature of Fain's death fits very closely with what I've been predicting for years. It has always been clear that Rand has bigger problems that just Fain - for all Fain clearly had a role to play, he was not the primary source of conflict. But just because the character isn't that important in the wider scheme of things, doesn't mean that you can't give the character a decent send off. Brandon didn't do right by Fain, and that's not because he didn't have Fain face off against Shai'tan, but because he had Fain replaced by Shaisam off screen, and then killed off Shaisam in an ignominious way. It made the whole thing feel pointless, and so people were annoyed. Fain didn't cause any chaos or havoc in the last book. Fain didn't do anything. Fain was replaced, and to no end. So even if we accept your "He was asking if anyone else felt let down by Fain's death relative to the PLOT!", you're still not addressing the point, because Fain was still disappointing in that respect. It was a disservice to the character, and not because of some false belief in the importance of the character, but simply because the plot betrayed that character and gave him less than he was due, even though he wasn't due a lot. An unimportant character died a less important death than he deserved is the problem, not that an unimportant character was wrongly believed important and disappointment springs from the unimportant death he received. Whether or not this thread is one of quality is therefore irrelevant - your point doesn't hold water either way.

 

 

This has got to be one of the most nonsensical posts that I have read in quite a while, even for you, this is out there.

 

You don't get it do you? Fain/Shaisam/Mordeth were never supposed to exist outside of Shadar Logath in the first place and were supposed to be destroyed when saidin was cleansed. The evil created there was PROVIDED by the pattern. was NEEDED for Rand to cleanse saidin.

Fain or whatever name you want to give him was a side effect, an anomaly that the pattern hadn't caught up to or fully attempted to correct yet, not until a taveren (Mat) did so. Even that was something that the pattern set up a loooong time ago in Mat waaaaay back in Book 1.

This why RJ cited Fain as a "Wildcard" and "side stepping the Pattern".

 

By the end of Book 9, Fain was done. He was no longer useful nor did he present much of a real threat anymore. Rand chased him away with his tail securely between his legs.

Sure, he was going to back for one last effort but, just like everything else he attempted to accomplish, it was either going to fall short in a grand way or simply be left unfinished.

 

 

There is no evidence or prior precedent to indicate or even hint that Fain deserved a more meaningful or more deserving ending than what he got.

Other than his own insanity fueled ramblings that is. 

You're still talking gibberish. Characters are introduced for a reason. They are kept around for a reason. That reason can be big, it can be small, it can be seen miles off or wholly unexpected. Once they have no more purpose to serve, why are they kept around? You don't keep trying to tell a character's story after it's done, because it's done, because there's nowhere for it to go. Even if a character's story is done, they can still serve a purpose in furthering the story of another character. At the end of book 9, how is Fain's story closer to completion? SL is gone, but SL was never required for the continuation of Fain's story - it served as a catalyst to break Fain's chains to Shai'tan, but after that their stories diverged. ToM included a promise that Fain's story was drawing to a close, that he was going to the Pit of Doom to wait for Rand. He went on to serve no purpose. It's senseless. It has nothing to do with Fain's rantings, nothing at all, so stop pretending that that has even the vaguest relevance to the topic. Fain's ending was a let down, was an anti-climax, not because he didn't do what he set out to do, but because he didn't do anything. Because he served no purpose within the narrative. He was tossed in at the last minute, and he wasn't even Fain. For all that Fain never succeeded in his goals, he often served as a catalyst for further conflict - he drew the Whitecloaks to the TR, and the Shadow came to kill Fain, and Perrin came back, leading to Perrin's ascension to a leadership position. He didn't do what he set out to do, but his actions had major repercussions. Now Fain was never going to kill Rand, nor was he ever going to become the new Shai'tan. But just because he was going to fail in his main goal, regardless of that, he could still play a major role, even in failure, even in death. But he didn't. He died in a tacked on, pointless and anticlimactic fashion, and you've never really addressed that. It wasn't an anticlimax (and that is the topic of the thread, remember, so don't try to pretend that I'm derailing it by making it about quality) because people believed Fain's hype. It wasn't because he failed. It was because he served no purpose. It's not that he failed, it's that he was insignificant. That's not something he's been before. Before he's been a nuisance with the ability to have a major impact, albeit mainly indirectly.

 

I think the argument can basically be boiled down to "I'd rather not see Fain at all than see him as we got him." 

I'm not really on either side here, but I do kind of wonder what the point of even having him show up at all was.

I liked the book, but that part did feel a little like "Oops, forgot Fain, lemme just cram in a few pages towards to end to wrap that up..."

Indeed. That's exactly the problem. For Fain to fail to accomplish what he sets out to do is in keeping. For him to do nothing and die makes his being alive seem pointless. If he had just been left as a loose end after WH, that would have been more satisfying.

[Finnssss22]

 

 

 

 

How it was handled is central to the question being asked. It's disingenuous to suggest otherwise.

 

It's clear by this point that when Finnnssss doesn't have an actual argument he quibbles over terminology(many v. half, cliffhanger v. thingy etc.) or complains about literary discussion. I mean he actually tried to waive away the power increase/evolution earlier by comparing defeating a worm or animating zombies to being able to "take down shadowspawn". That really says it all in that he won't even admit a transformation took place with the character. As Mr Ares said earlier:

 

Quibbling over whether or not it is a "cliffhanger" is attempting to use semantics to avoid constructively addressing the point. As I said earlier: "So what would you call it then? An update? Fine." The terminology is unimportant, because the point is substantively the same regardless of whether or not it's a cliffhanger - hence no need to prove that it is (and trying to prove that it is would merely validate an irrelevant point). If the term "cliffhanger" was dropped in favour of "thingy", the point wouldn't change: "One does not use a cliffhanger thingy set up in ToM if the ending is going to be rushed/inconsequential as it was in AMoL. It is poor execution." Identical point, different terminology. As for turning this into a quality discussion, it's right there in the opening post (even the thread title). This was always a quality thread. Stop trolling. Address the point. Or slink away.

 

 *Sigh*

 

Again...the OP wasn't asking if it felt rushed or if it was written poorly.

He was asking if anyone else felt letdown by Fain's death relative to the PLOT!

He specifically refers to Fain being a main villain and protagonist throughout, only to meet his end so quickly and easily at Mat's hands.

 

As I said earlier, we all, at some point, bought into Fain's insanity that he was more than what he actually was.

Was he going to actually play a part in Rand's fight with the DO...no, he was not.

Was he going to show up and cause mayhem...definitely.

 

At the end of the day, no matter how powerful he thought himself to be, no matter the powers he commanded, he was, at the heart still just a man in a weak mortal body. And a vastly overconfident one at that allowing himself to get so close to Mat to meet his end.

Even he realised this at the end, not sure why you can't.

Actually, he isn't. He is no longer a man, for all that he is still, for the time being, attached to the weak mortal body. Again, that's part of the problem - it wasn't Fain, it was Shaisam. It's not just a name change, it's a different being.

 

And we did not all buy into Fain's insanity and belief in his own importance - the nature of Fain's death fits very closely with what I've been predicting for years. It has always been clear that Rand has bigger problems that just Fain - for all Fain clearly had a role to play, he was not the primary source of conflict. But just because the character isn't that important in the wider scheme of things, doesn't mean that you can't give the character a decent send off. Brandon didn't do right by Fain, and that's not because he didn't have Fain face off against Shai'tan, but because he had Fain replaced by Shaisam off screen, and then killed off Shaisam in an ignominious way. It made the whole thing feel pointless, and so people were annoyed. Fain didn't cause any chaos or havoc in the last book. Fain didn't do anything. Fain was replaced, and to no end. So even if we accept your "He was asking if anyone else felt let down by Fain's death relative to the PLOT!", you're still not addressing the point, because Fain was still disappointing in that respect. It was a disservice to the character, and not because of some false belief in the importance of the character, but simply because the plot betrayed that character and gave him less than he was due, even though he wasn't due a lot. An unimportant character died a less important death than he deserved is the problem, not that an unimportant character was wrongly believed important and disappointment springs from the unimportant death he received. Whether or not this thread is one of quality is therefore irrelevant - your point doesn't hold water either way.

 

 

This has got to be one of the most nonsensical posts that I have read in quite a while, even for you, this is out there.

 

You don't get it do you? Fain/Shaisam/Mordeth were never supposed to exist outside of Shadar Logath in the first place and were supposed to be destroyed when saidin was cleansed. The evil created there was PROVIDED by the pattern. was NEEDED for Rand to cleanse saidin.

Fain or whatever name you want to give him was a side effect, an anomaly that the pattern hadn't caught up to or fully attempted to correct yet, not until a taveren (Mat) did so. Even that was something that the pattern set up a loooong time ago in Mat waaaaay back in Book 1.

This why RJ cited Fain as a "Wildcard" and "side stepping the Pattern".

 

By the end of Book 9, Fain was done. He was no longer useful nor did he present much of a real threat anymore. Rand chased him away with his tail securely between his legs.

Sure, he was going to back for one last effort but, just like everything else he attempted to accomplish, it was either going to fall short in a grand way or simply be left unfinished.

 

 

There is no evidence or prior precedent to indicate or even hint that Fain deserved a more meaningful or more deserving ending than what he got.

Other than his own insanity fueled ramblings that is. 

You're still talking gibberish. Characters are introduced for a reason. They are kept around for a reason. That reason can be big, it can be small, it can be seen miles off or wholly unexpected. Once they have no more purpose to serve, why are they kept around? You don't keep trying to tell a character's story after it's done, because it's done, because there's nowhere for it to go. Even if a character's story is done, they can still serve a purpose in furthering the story of another character. At the end of book 9, how is Fain's story closer to completion? SL is gone, but SL was never required for the continuation of Fain's story - it served as a catalyst to break Fain's chains to Shai'tan, but after that their stories diverged. ToM included a promise that Fain's story was drawing to a close, that he was going to the Pit of Doom to wait for Rand. He went on to serve no purpose. It's senseless. It has nothing to do with Fain's rantings, nothing at all, so stop pretending that that has even the vaguest relevance to the topic. Fain's ending was a let down, was an anti-climax, not because he didn't do what he set out to do, but because he didn't do anything. Because he served no purpose within the narrative. He was tossed in at the last minute, and he wasn't even Fain. For all that Fain never succeeded in his goals, he often served as a catalyst for further conflict - he drew the Whitecloaks to the TR, and the Shadow came to kill Fain, and Perrin came back, leading to Perrin's ascension to a leadership position. He didn't do what he set out to do, but his actions had major repercussions. Now Fain was never going to kill Rand, nor was he ever going to become the new Shai'tan. But just because he was going to fail in his main goal, regardless of that, he could still play a major role, even in failure, even in death. But he didn't. He died in a tacked on, pointless and anticlimactic fashion, and you've never really addressed that. It wasn't an anticlimax (and that is the topic of the thread, remember, so don't try to pretend that I'm derailing it by making it about quality) because people believed Fain's hype. It wasn't because he failed. It was because he served no purpose. It's not that he failed, it's that he was insignificant. That's not something he's been before. Before he's been a nuisance with the ability to have a major impact, albeit mainly indirectly.

 

 

 

 

And you really don't understand why he no longer served a purpose, why he became insignificant? 

 

Fain's ability to affect people, the Pattern, the story was based on being able to sow chaos, induce paranoia and fear.

As we got closer to the end, the Threads of the Pattern (the people) were tightened up, converged and focused on The Last Battle. Fain's ability to affect these tightened Threads became more and more singular, his overall impact became less and less.

 

Do I think that if RJ had have lived to finish the books, that he would have been able to better convey this in the end? For sure but the thing is that RJ had ALREADY set this up and shown us this path by the end of Winter's Heart.

All BS had to do was finish him off "In a less than expected way", which is exactly what he did.

 

So quit yer whinnin and complaining that BS screwed Fain's ending up, he didn't. He finished him the way RJ had already set him up to finish.

It's all there, you just have to open your eyes.