Jump to content

DRAGONMOUNT

A WHEEL OF TIME COMMUNITY

Did they ever explain how Olver was able to sound the horn?


Recommended Posts

Hardly pedantic when it's supposed to be used to conclude an ACT or to factor heavily in a climax. Just say you made a mistake and that I provided the correct definition or don't say anything at all.

 

:rolleyes:

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 110
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

@finnssss,

just a matter of curiosity,did you manage to figure out the chekhov's gun in book three?

the only thing i could think of is callandor itself.

 

Not sure to be honest. Could be Callandor.

It was also the first time Egwene had ever actually seen Balefire and she never saw it again until the Last Battle if I'm not mistaken.

Some interesting things that Perrin overheard between Ishy and Lanfear.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Chekhov's Gun is a term for a storytelling device where things are introduced before they are needed, and are not included unless they are needed. It's named for Russian writer Anton Chekhov, who outlined the principle: "Remove everything that has no relevance to the story. If you say in the first chapter that there is a rifle hanging on the wall, in the second or third chapter it absolutely must go off. If it's not going to be fired, it shouldn't be hanging there." In this case the link between Rand and Moridin was introduced, and should therefore have been introduced for a reason. If it is the means by which a body swap is able to occur, then it has served a purpose - the gun has been fired.

You got this off Wiki and it's wrong.

It's supposed to be ACT not Chapter. That's a huge difference.

 

Not really. It's a minor and pedantic point, and the meaning was got across anyway. 

 

Either way, the mention of Chekhov's Gun in the series was due to BS's twitter comments below. It was about something introduced in tDR, it was not in reference to the Balefire bond between Rand and Moridin which didn't happen until aCoS. 

I also wouldn't classify that "bond" as a Chekhov's Gun as it was not introduced and then forgotten about. It was referenced many times through the books leading up to the swap.

No, Brandon mentioned an instance of Chekhov's Gun. That does not make it the only one in the series - in point of fact, the series has often made use of them. I was not referring to Brandon's comment. And Chekhov's Gun doesn't require that it be forgotten about, it requires that things not be introduced without significance. The bond was introduced, but had not yet been significant to the plot, despite being referenced. It therefore fits the criteria.

 

 

Hardly pedantic when it's supposed to be used to conclude an ACT or to factor heavily in a climax. Just say you made a mistake and that I provided the correct definition or don't say anything at all.

 

No. You're being pedantic. I defined the term on my own without the quote from Wiki. I don't know how accurate Wikipedia's quote is, but it's scarcely relevant - it would only matter in the event of outright contradiction between what I wrote and the quote, which doesn't exist. You're free to offer pedantic corrections if you like, but people will seldom thank you for it, especially when you're so bad at it, and have such an attitude problem.

 

And IMO the Bond doesn't fit the criteria. It IS used in significant plot issues throughout the books prior to the body swap. From Rand being able to visit Moridin's Shard, to Rand being able to use the TP to free himself from the male a'dam and to kill Semirhage, to Moridin using it to stab his own hand so Rand would drop Callandor.

Was it confirmed that it was the link that allowed Rand access to the TP? The others are scarcely plot critical - neither Moridin's chats with Rand nor Moridin stabbing his own hand changed anything. It was still an element that was unresolved, despite seeing some use - it being used more than once does not preclude it being Chekhov's Gun.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

Chekhov's Gun is a term for a storytelling device where things are introduced before they are needed, and are not included unless they are needed. It's named for Russian writer Anton Chekhov, who outlined the principle: "Remove everything that has no relevance to the story. If you say in the first chapter that there is a rifle hanging on the wall, in the second or third chapter it absolutely must go off. If it's not going to be fired, it shouldn't be hanging there." In this case the link between Rand and Moridin was introduced, and should therefore have been introduced for a reason. If it is the means by which a body swap is able to occur, then it has served a purpose - the gun has been fired.

You got this off Wiki and it's wrong.

It's supposed to be ACT not Chapter. That's a huge difference.

 

Not really. It's a minor and pedantic point, and the meaning was got across anyway. 

 

Either way, the mention of Chekhov's Gun in the series was due to BS's twitter comments below. It was about something introduced in tDR, it was not in reference to the Balefire bond between Rand and Moridin which didn't happen until aCoS. 

I also wouldn't classify that "bond" as a Chekhov's Gun as it was not introduced and then forgotten about. It was referenced many times through the books leading up to the swap.

No, Brandon mentioned an instance of Chekhov's Gun. That does not make it the only one in the series - in point of fact, the series has often made use of them. I was not referring to Brandon's comment. And Chekhov's Gun doesn't require that it be forgotten about, it requires that things not be introduced without significance. The bond was introduced, but had not yet been significant to the plot, despite being referenced. It therefore fits the criteria.

 

 

Hardly pedantic when it's supposed to be used to conclude an ACT or to factor heavily in a climax. Just say you made a mistake and that I provided the correct definition or don't say anything at all.

 

No. You're being pedantic. I defined the term on my own without the quote from Wiki. I don't know how accurate Wikipedia's quote is, but it's scarcely relevant - it would only matter in the event of outright contradiction between what I wrote and the quote, which doesn't exist. You're free to offer pedantic corrections if you like, but people will seldom thank you for it, especially when you're so bad at it, and have such an attitude problem.

 

And IMO the Bond doesn't fit the criteria. It IS used in significant plot issues throughout the books prior to the body swap. From Rand being able to visit Moridin's Shard, to Rand being able to use the TP to free himself from the male a'dam and to kill Semirhage, to Moridin using it to stab his own hand so Rand would drop Callandor.

Was it confirmed that it was the link that allowed Rand access to the TP? The others are scarcely plot critical - neither Moridin's chats with Rand nor Moridin stabbing his own hand changed anything. It was still an element that was unresolved, despite seeing some use - it being used more than once does not preclude it being Chekhov's Gun.

 

 

The point is that it doesn't matter if some of the uses were plot critical or not, the point is that it was used throughout the story. You even admit this.

A true Checkov's gun is shown once and not mentioned again until it's finally used. It's supposed to be a completely passive thing until then. It is not taken down to be cleaned later on or moved so one can dust the spot its in or used to take some target practice. It's not mentioned at all period!

Edited by Finnssss
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Was it confirmed that it was the link that allowed Rand access to the TP? The others are scarcely plot critical - neither Moridin's chats with Rand nor Moridin stabbing his own hand changed anything. It was still an element that was unresolved, despite seeing some use - it being used more than once does not preclude it being Chekhov's Gun.

 

 

 

 
I think it was.  Brandon was once asked about this and he gave the very Jordanesque answer, "You have to have the DO's permission to use the TP and Rand didn't have it."  Seems to imply that it was, in fact, Rand's link with Moridin that allowed him to use the TP.  However, one thing we have to remember is that the body swap was definitely Jordan's idea as it was in his ending.  Rand using the TP may or may not have been Jordan as it very well could have been Sanderson's invention.  Therefore, it is possible that Jordan was using the bond as a Chekhov's gun alluding to the the body swap despite Rand's use of the TP.  We will not know for sure until Brandon reveals which parts were him and which were Jordan, if Harriet ever allows him to so do.
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Was it confirmed that it was the link that allowed Rand access to the TP? The others are scarcely plot critical - neither Moridin's chats with Rand nor Moridin stabbing his own hand changed anything. It was still an element that was unresolved, despite seeing some use - it being used more than once does not preclude it being Chekhov's Gun.

 

 

 

 
I think it was.  Brandon was once asked about this and he gave the very Jordanesque answer, "You have to have the DO's permission to use the TP and Rand didn't have it."  Seems to imply that it was, in fact, Rand's link with Moridin that allowed him to use the TP. 

 

 

Actually he later clarified what he meant there:

 

Question
Is Rand's access to the True Power via his link with Moridin, created at Shadar Logoth?
Brandon Sanderson

No one may channel the True Power without the Dark One's permission, and Rand doesn't have that.

Footnote—Terez

This answer was challenged by another person who was at the Q&A, though Freelancer said later his question was asked at the signing table. Link broken.

Writo

Oy,

I was at that signing, I was literally right next to Brandon as he answered this question, and that is far from his exact wording.

The response was more accurately something like: So far as we know, no one may channel the True Power without the Dark One's permission. Semirhage certainly seemed to think she was betrayed.

There was never a comment about Rand not having permission.

Footnote—Terez

After this came to light, Matt Hatch asked Brandon about it, and he said that he never said Rand didn't have permission. Later I asked him if one normally has to visit Shayol Ghul to get permission, and he said yes. Freelancer responded thus:

Freelancer

Brandon's later answer has to take precedence. He says that he didn't specify directly whether Rand did or did not have the Dark One's permission. That is what everyone must operate by, as his word is now canon. That does not change what I wrote down as my questions were being answered.

As to Writo's comments, I can only offer this. The comment by Brandon about Semirhage believing she had been betrayed was definitely in response to someone else's question. It did not come up with mine, but I do remember hearing it.

 

 

Edited by Suttree
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

Chekhov's Gun is a term for a storytelling device where things are introduced before they are needed, and are not included unless they are needed. It's named for Russian writer Anton Chekhov, who outlined the principle: "Remove everything that has no relevance to the story. If you say in the first chapter that there is a rifle hanging on the wall, in the second or third chapter it absolutely must go off. If it's not going to be fired, it shouldn't be hanging there." In this case the link between Rand and Moridin was introduced, and should therefore have been introduced for a reason. If it is the means by which a body swap is able to occur, then it has served a purpose - the gun has been fired.

You got this off Wiki and it's wrong.

It's supposed to be ACT not Chapter. That's a huge difference.

 

Not really. It's a minor and pedantic point, and the meaning was got across anyway. 

 

Either way, the mention of Chekhov's Gun in the series was due to BS's twitter comments below. It was about something introduced in tDR, it was not in reference to the Balefire bond between Rand and Moridin which didn't happen until aCoS. 

I also wouldn't classify that "bond" as a Chekhov's Gun as it was not introduced and then forgotten about. It was referenced many times through the books leading up to the swap.

No, Brandon mentioned an instance of Chekhov's Gun. That does not make it the only one in the series - in point of fact, the series has often made use of them. I was not referring to Brandon's comment. And Chekhov's Gun doesn't require that it be forgotten about, it requires that things not be introduced without significance. The bond was introduced, but had not yet been significant to the plot, despite being referenced. It therefore fits the criteria.

 

 

Hardly pedantic when it's supposed to be used to conclude an ACT or to factor heavily in a climax. Just say you made a mistake and that I provided the correct definition or don't say anything at all.

 

No. You're being pedantic. I defined the term on my own without the quote from Wiki. I don't know how accurate Wikipedia's quote is, but it's scarcely relevant - it would only matter in the event of outright contradiction between what I wrote and the quote, which doesn't exist. You're free to offer pedantic corrections if you like, but people will seldom thank you for it, especially when you're so bad at it, and have such an attitude problem.

 

And IMO the Bond doesn't fit the criteria. It IS used in significant plot issues throughout the books prior to the body swap. From Rand being able to visit Moridin's Shard, to Rand being able to use the TP to free himself from the male a'dam and to kill Semirhage, to Moridin using it to stab his own hand so Rand would drop Callandor.

Was it confirmed that it was the link that allowed Rand access to the TP? The others are scarcely plot critical - neither Moridin's chats with Rand nor Moridin stabbing his own hand changed anything. It was still an element that was unresolved, despite seeing some use - it being used more than once does not preclude it being Chekhov's Gun.

 

 

The point is that it doesn't matter if some of the uses were plot critical or not, the point is that it was used throughout the story. You even admit this.

A true Checkov's gun is shown once and not mentioned again until it's finally used. It's supposed to be a completely passive thing until then. It is not taken down to be cleaned later on or moved so one can dust the spot its in or used to take some target practice. It's not mentioned at all period!

 

All these quotes within quotes are getting confusing. I've already lost the Chekov's Gun definition. What was it again? (Sorry). 

Mr Ares, I was attempting to paraphrase Stargate Atlantis: "This place looks like Area 51, circa 1910." "I don't think Area 51 was there in 1910." "The area was." I am sure there are top secret installations run by my government, and I would not be surprised if one of them was actually named 'Area 51'. It is a perfectly American-esque name, functional, but utterly non-descript. By referring to it as an 'agency' , I was talking about it's legend as the research into Roswellian technology. I admit, I cut a corner by doing that. What they actually do there, I refuse to speculate, for I don't want to know.

I don't know if anyone confirmed that the link let him use the Toilet Paper, (TP) but I am sure that's why Moridin sacrificed Sammael and Semirhage, so Rand would reach the Breaking point (literally) and break the Wheel.

 

 

"Chekhov's Gun is a term for a storytelling device where things are introduced before they are needed, and are not included unless they are needed. It's named for Russian writer Anton Chekhov, who outlined the principle: "Remove everything that has no relevance to the story. If you say in the first chapter that there is a rifle hanging on the wall, in the second or third chapter it absolutely must go off. If it's not going to be fired, it shouldn't be hanging there." In this case the link between Rand and Moridin was introduced, and should therefore have been introduced for a reason. If it is the means by which a body swap is able to occur, then it has served a purpose - the gun has been fired."

 

Is this still correct? That is, is this the definition?

Edited by Asgard Thorin
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

Chekhov's Gun is a term for a storytelling device where things are introduced before they are needed, and are not included unless they are needed. It's named for Russian writer Anton Chekhov, who outlined the principle: "Remove everything that has no relevance to the story. If you say in the first chapter that there is a rifle hanging on the wall, in the second or third chapter it absolutely must go off. If it's not going to be fired, it shouldn't be hanging there." In this case the link between Rand and Moridin was introduced, and should therefore have been introduced for a reason. If it is the means by which a body swap is able to occur, then it has served a purpose - the gun has been fired.

You got this off Wiki and it's wrong.

It's supposed to be ACT not Chapter. That's a huge difference.

 

Not really. It's a minor and pedantic point, and the meaning was got across anyway. 

 

Either way, the mention of Chekhov's Gun in the series was due to BS's twitter comments below. It was about something introduced in tDR, it was not in reference to the Balefire bond between Rand and Moridin which didn't happen until aCoS. 

I also wouldn't classify that "bond" as a Chekhov's Gun as it was not introduced and then forgotten about. It was referenced many times through the books leading up to the swap.

No, Brandon mentioned an instance of Chekhov's Gun. That does not make it the only one in the series - in point of fact, the series has often made use of them. I was not referring to Brandon's comment. And Chekhov's Gun doesn't require that it be forgotten about, it requires that things not be introduced without significance. The bond was introduced, but had not yet been significant to the plot, despite being referenced. It therefore fits the criteria.

 

 

Hardly pedantic when it's supposed to be used to conclude an ACT or to factor heavily in a climax. Just say you made a mistake and that I provided the correct definition or don't say anything at all.

 

No. You're being pedantic. I defined the term on my own without the quote from Wiki. I don't know how accurate Wikipedia's quote is, but it's scarcely relevant - it would only matter in the event of outright contradiction between what I wrote and the quote, which doesn't exist. You're free to offer pedantic corrections if you like, but people will seldom thank you for it, especially when you're so bad at it, and have such an attitude problem.

 

And IMO the Bond doesn't fit the criteria. It IS used in significant plot issues throughout the books prior to the body swap. From Rand being able to visit Moridin's Shard, to Rand being able to use the TP to free himself from the male a'dam and to kill Semirhage, to Moridin using it to stab his own hand so Rand would drop Callandor.

Was it confirmed that it was the link that allowed Rand access to the TP? The others are scarcely plot critical - neither Moridin's chats with Rand nor Moridin stabbing his own hand changed anything. It was still an element that was unresolved, despite seeing some use - it being used more than once does not preclude it being Chekhov's Gun.

 

 

The point is that it doesn't matter if some of the uses were plot critical or not, the point is that it was used throughout the story. You even admit this.

A true Checkov's gun is shown once and not mentioned again until it's finally used. It's supposed to be a completely passive thing until then. It is not taken down to be cleaned later on or moved so one can dust the spot its in or used to take some target practice. It's not mentioned at all period!

 

It's not a requirement of Chekhov's Gun that it not be mentioned, or even not be used, before it is finally put to use. You are inventing definitions.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chekhov's Gun is a term for a storytelling device where things are introduced before they are needed, and are not included unless they are needed. It's named for Russian writer Anton Chekhov, who outlined the principle: "Remove everything that has no relevance to the story. If you say in the first chapter that there is a rifle hanging on the wall, in the second or third chapter it absolutely must go off. If it's not going to be fired, it shouldn't be hanging there." In this case the link between Rand and Moridin was introduced, and should therefore have been introduced for a reason. If it is the means by which a body swap is able to occur, then it has served a purpose - the gun has been fired.

You got this off Wiki and it's wrong.

It's supposed to be ACT not Chapter. That's a huge difference.

 

Not really. It's a minor and pedantic point, and the meaning was got across anyway. 

 

Either way, the mention of Chekhov's Gun in the series was due to BS's twitter comments below. It was about something introduced in tDR, it was not in reference to the Balefire bond between Rand and Moridin which didn't happen until aCoS. 

I also wouldn't classify that "bond" as a Chekhov's Gun as it was not introduced and then forgotten about. It was referenced many times through the books leading up to the swap.

No, Brandon mentioned an instance of Chekhov's Gun. That does not make it the only one in the series - in point of fact, the series has often made use of them. I was not referring to Brandon's comment. And Chekhov's Gun doesn't require that it be forgotten about, it requires that things not be introduced without significance. The bond was introduced, but had not yet been significant to the plot, despite being referenced. It therefore fits the criteria.

 

 

Hardly pedantic when it's supposed to be used to conclude an ACT or to factor heavily in a climax. Just say you made a mistake and that I provided the correct definition or don't say anything at all.

 

No. You're being pedantic. I defined the term on my own without the quote from Wiki. I don't know how accurate Wikipedia's quote is, but it's scarcely relevant - it would only matter in the event of outright contradiction between what I wrote and the quote, which doesn't exist. You're free to offer pedantic corrections if you like, but people will seldom thank you for it, especially when you're so bad at it, and have such an attitude problem.

 

And IMO the Bond doesn't fit the criteria. It IS used in significant plot issues throughout the books prior to the body swap. From Rand being able to visit Moridin's Shard, to Rand being able to use the TP to free himself from the male a'dam and to kill Semirhage, to Moridin using it to stab his own hand so Rand would drop Callandor.

Was it confirmed that it was the link that allowed Rand access to the TP? The others are scarcely plot critical - neither Moridin's chats with Rand nor Moridin stabbing his own hand changed anything. It was still an element that was unresolved, despite seeing some use - it being used more than once does not preclude it being Chekhov's Gun.

 

 

The point is that it doesn't matter if some of the uses were plot critical or not, the point is that it was used throughout the story. You even admit this.

A true Checkov's gun is shown once and not mentioned again until it's finally used. It's supposed to be a completely passive thing until then. It is not taken down to be cleaned later on or moved so one can dust the spot its in or used to take some target practice. It's not mentioned at all period!

 

All these quotes within quotes are getting confusing. I've already lost the Chekov's Gun definition. What was it again? (Sorry). 

Mr Ares, I was attempting to paraphrase Stargate Atlantis: "This place looks like Area 51, circa 1910." "I don't think Area 51 was there in 1910." "The area was." I am sure there are top secret installations run by my government, and I would not be surprised if one of them was actually named 'Area 51'. It is a perfectly American-esque name, functional, but utterly non-descript. By referring to it as an 'agency' , I was talking about it's legend as the research into Roswellian technology. I admit, I cut a corner by doing that. What they actually do there, I refuse to speculate, for I don't want to know.

I don't know if anyone confirmed that the link let him use the Toilet Paper, (TP) but I am sure that's why Moridin sacrificed Sammael and Semirhage, so Rand would reach the Breaking point (literally) and break the Wheel.

 

Well, I don't watch Stargate, so any reference to it will probably be lost on me. As for cutting corners, well, it can lead to confusion too often, or so I find. As for Moridin sacrificing Sammael and Semi, he did betray Sammael, but Semi is more arguable - as seen by the quotes Suttree has posted, Brandon has been tight-lipped as to whether Rand getting the TP was via the link with Moridin or directly from Shai'tan. If it did come through the link, we don't know that that was why they created the link or whether it was just a genuine accident. As I said before, Moridin seems unclear as to the full extent of the link, so he might have created it on orders without knowing what he was letting himself in for, or he might have done it by accident. He has reason enough to be there even without the link. One does have to be careful when theorising, as one can easily get too attached to a theory and overlook other theories because of it. It's a trap none of us are above.

 

"Chekhov's Gun is a term for a storytelling device where things are introduced before they are needed, and are not included unless they are needed. It's named for Russian writer Anton Chekhov, who outlined the principle: "Remove everything that has no relevance to the story. If you say in the first chapter that there is a rifle hanging on the wall, in the second or third chapter it absolutely must go off. If it's not going to be fired, it shouldn't be hanging there." In this case the link between Rand and Moridin was introduced, and should therefore have been introduced for a reason. If it is the means by which a body swap is able to occur, then it has served a purpose - the gun has been fired."

 

Is this still correct? That is, is this the definition?

Yes. Specifically, the bolded says it best. Bear in mind that many writers use it, and so audiences can use it to make predictions about what will happen. And those writers who don't use it can often be criticised for focusing on irrelevant details. Going into AMOL, it was a point that was still in need of resolution - that resolution didn't have to come in the form of a body swap, but it needed come in some form.

Edited by Mr Ares
Link to post
Share on other sites

I presume that Moridin sacrificed them both for he wanted to die, to end his own suffering (I take Rand's view on this to heart). Else why would the DO recycle him and make him Naeblis? Ishy was the only Forsaken to truly grasp what the DO's winning would have meant. Therefore, I presume that Sammael and Semirhage were deliberate sacrifices, and that the dream where Rand met Ishy-Reborn was an actual ploy by Moridin to get Rand to Break the Wheel with the Choedan Kal. Else why did the LB begin the instant (or near enough) that Rand Broke the last Choedan Kal? Why else was there a Prophecy of the Dragon, saying the Dragon must be slain if he fails the test? Yet I admit I only have that evidence and the logic of the story to affect (and effect) my presumption. Yet ultimately, that must begin to satisfy people, methinks. All this looking up on-line of 'what-did-the-author-mean?' rather defeats the purpose of the Books themselves. I doubt RJ would have wanted so much revealed when he was a RIAFO-maniac. That is also part-and-parcel-and-participle to my stance that no BBS actually occurred; I doubt RJ would have said it, one way or another. Of course, I could be wrong.... Mayhap Brandon doth be tight lipped for not knowing? Or could RJ have forbidden certain revelations?

 

You don't watch Stargate? Well, whatever are differences I must chide thee for this(okay, enough of the Shakespearean English!) I must highly recommend it, particularly SG-1. Atlantis was killed too soon, but had become a bit repetitive, though I loved it, and SGU was killed just when it actually started getting good. One warning about SGU, though. It has no intro music and no title sequence, just that annoying thing from Battlestar Galactica where the intro evolved into each episode so that there was no name of the episode (in BSG at least) and which was one of the reasons why BSG sucked sooooooooooo much. (That, and the fact it was as plotless as Dune). Yet of SG-1 I can best say it by quoting the advertisements for it: "The longest running sci-fi adventure in American television history."

There is a reason for this.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I presume that Moridin sacrificed them both for he wanted to die, to end his own suffering (I take Rand's view on this to heart). Else why would the DO recycle him and make him Naeblis? Ishy was the only Forsaken to truly grasp what the DO's winning would have meant. Therefore, I presume that Sammael and Semirhage were deliberate sacrifices, and that the dream where Rand met Ishy-Reborn was an actual ploy by Moridin to get Rand to Break the Wheel with the Choedan Kal. Else why did the LB begin the instant (or near enough) that Rand Broke the last Choedan Kal?

Given the timeline situation in the last three books, we cannot say with any degree of reliability that it happened to the instant. But even if we accept that premise, it doesn't tell us anything useful. Moridin could have created the plan on the fly, realising that Rand was on the edge, and so held back from launching his attacks in the hopes that Rand would break. Killing Semirhage - did he take advantage of an opportunity, did Shai'tan take advantage without Moridin knowing, was it a pure accident? It could go any number of ways. Certainly, it would have been to the Shadow's advantage had she not died, and had she brought Rand to Shayol Ghul under the control of the Domination Band. (But Moridin does claim to be playing both sides...) For Sammael, bear in mind Rand was there to kill him, and was unlikely to give up. Getting rid of Sammael might be seen as the easiest solution (especially if Rand dies in the fight instead - it's win/win). You don't need to invent complex plots and master plans.

Why else was there a Prophecy of the Dragon, saying the Dragon must be slain if he fails the test? Yet I admit I only have that evidence and the logic of the story to affect (and effect) my presumption. Yet ultimately, that must begin to satisfy people, methinks. All this looking up on-line of 'what-did-the-author-mean?' rather defeats the purpose of the Books themselves. I doubt RJ would have wanted so much revealed when he was a RIAFO-maniac. That is also part-and-parcel-and-participle to my stance that no BBS actually occurred; I doubt RJ would have said it, one way or another. Of course, I could be wrong.... Mayhap Brandon doth be tight lipped for not knowing? Or could RJ have forbidden certain revelations?

I'm not relying on statements from either author, though. The body swap is a conclusion most people here came to, and they did so based on the text. There are a number of indications that Rand now looks like Moridin, and none of them carry with them a hint, so far as I can see, that this is an illusion. (There are revelations Brandon cannot make, and there are even things in the notes that don't even have an explanation, so Brandon doesn't know the answer himself - Rand lighting his pipe at the end is one such.)

 

You don't watch Stargate? Well, whatever are differences I must chide thee for this(okay, enough of the Shakespearean English!) I must highly recommend it, particularly SG-1. Atlantis was killed too soon, but had become a bit repetitive, though I loved it, and SGU was killed just when it actually started getting good. One warning about SGU, though. It has no intro music and no title sequence, just that annoying thing from Battlestar Galactica where the intro evolved into each episode so that there was no name of the episode (in BSG at least) and which was one of the reasons why BSG sucked sooooooooooo much. (That, and the fact it was as plotless as Dune). Yet of SG-1 I can best say it by quoting the advertisements for it: "The longest running sci-fi adventure in American television history."

There is a reason for this.

Well, I found Battlestar Galactica to be very good, especially in its early seasons. (As for long running, I'm a Doctor Who fan - fifty years and counting. The longest running sci-fi adventure in world television history - there is a reason for this.)

Edited by Mr Ares
Link to post
Share on other sites

"For Sammael, bear in mind Rand was there to kill him, and was unlikely to give up. Getting rid of Sammael might be seen as the easiest solution (especially if Rand dies in the fight instead - it's win/win). You don't need to invent complex plots and master plans." I would still count this as a sacrifice. 

Given the timeline situation in the last three books, we cannot say with any degree of reliability that it happened to the instant. But even if we accept that premise, it doesn't tell us anything useful." I must respectfully disagree. This is a definite shift-gears moment. We don't ever really get the whole of Rand's plan ever laid out for us (though Book 14 does layout the last of it entire) but that does not mean Rand didn't have one. Moridin/Ishy would have had them too. He wasn't just winging it. Now he may have adapted his plans on the fly, but he still had them. Also, getting rid of the other Forsaken, in case they found out, once the DO gave him approval, would have been a strategic necessity. I can't really argue that having Rand collared would have done the DO intentions a disservice, but then a captured Dragon would not have guaranteed his victory. A turned one however.... he'd buy that for a dollar!

 

Fifty years? But, BBC America only came up with the show ten years ago! (Sucks his thumb, winks). I meant it was a continuous series, Stargate SG-1 ran for ten years. No other sci-fi series generated in America (not meaning my country with that usage; I don't look at Canadians as foreigners, just as a slightly different kind of American, one with less baggage. On the downside for them, they have to use the metric system) has lasted that long. Not Star Trek, not TNG, Farscape, Babylon Five, none of them. X-Files went eleven, but half the time was hardly sci-fi. Some episodes of BSG were okay, but the series had no logic to it. It was a bunch of unconnected stories using the same characters. I gave up on it after Baltar was elected and the Cylons found them. I think the Robot Chicken spoof was pretty accurate; the guy just threw darts at a dartboard to come up with his Cylons (did they ever explain why how and who left that note in Adama's office in the miniseries? There's a glaring plot flaw!)

Ten years for a Sci-fi series in the US? That's unprecedented, and ain't no comparison given my countrymen's short attention span...what were we talking about? (Ya' shouldn't joke about Americans 'cept iff'n ya're one...and I are one)

Link to post
Share on other sites

"For Sammael, bear in mind Rand was there to kill him, and was unlikely to give up. Getting rid of Sammael might be seen as the easiest solution (especially if Rand dies in the fight instead - it's win/win). You don't need to invent complex plots and master plans." I would still count this as a sacrifice.

"Given the timeline situation in the last three books, we cannot say with any degree of reliability that it happened to the instant. But even if we accept that premise, it doesn't tell us anything useful." I must respectfully disagree. This is a definite shift-gears moment. We don't ever really get the whole of Rand's plan ever laid out for us (though Book 14 does layout the last of it entire) but that does not mean Rand didn't have one. Moridin/Ishy would have had them too. He wasn't just winging it. Now he may have adapted his plans on the fly, but he still had them. Also, getting rid of the other Forsaken, in case they found out, once the DO gave him approval, would have been a strategic necessity. I can't really argue that having Rand collared would have done the DO intentions a disservice, but then a captured Dragon would not have guaranteed his victory. A turned one however.... he'd buy that for a dollar!

Yes, Ishydin had plans. They involved a massive military build up and full scale invasion, as well as various attempts to corrupt, kill or manipulate the Dragon. It's easy enough to hold back the invasion, at least for a little while, to see if Rand breaks. The invasion would have taken more time to prepare, and more resources. Corrupting Rand with the TP could be a happy (from the Shadow's perspective) accident or a plan going back to Shadar Logoth, or something Shai'tan did by Himself. Was Semi's death intended by Moridin? By Shai'tan? Or was it just an example of their opportunism? Did Moridin want Sammael to die? Or did he just see no way to save him? Was the link a part of the plan, or just something that happened?

 

 

Fifty years? But, BBC America only came up with the show ten years ago! (Sucks his thumb, winks). I meant it was a continuous series, Stargate SG-1 ran for ten years. No other sci-fi series generated in America (not meaning my country with that usage; I don't look at Canadians as foreigners, just as a slightly different kind of American, one with less baggage. On the downside for them, they have to use the metric system) has lasted that long. Not Star Trek, not TNG, Farscape, Babylon Five, none of them. X-Files went eleven, but half the time was hardly sci-fi. Some episodes of BSG were okay, but the series had no logic to it. It was a bunch of unconnected stories using the same characters. I gave up on it after Baltar was elected and the Cylons found them. I think the Robot Chicken spoof was pretty accurate; the guy just threw darts at a dartboard to come up with his Cylons (did they ever explain why how and who left that note in Adama's office in the miniseries? There's a glaring plot flaw!)

Ten years for a Sci-fi series in the US? That's unprecedented, and ain't no comparison given my countrymen's short attention span...what were we talking about? (Ya' shouldn't joke about Americans 'cept iff'n ya're one...and I are one)

In terms of Americans' short attention spans, it's worth noting that your series tend to run to over twenty episodes, while ours are commonly 6-13 episodes long. Your networks expect to keep your attention for half a year, ours about a month and a half. Much is made of shorter attention spans today, and I'm not entirely convinced. (Classic Doctor Who lasted 26 years, by the way.) BSG was hardly a bunch of unconnected stories - it had pretty clear plot and character arcs. The problems with the show only really caught up to it after you stopped watching - they were unable to satisfactorily resolve a number of their plot threads, there was a lot of wheel spinning, and so on.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"In terms of Americans' short attention spans, it's worth noting that your series tend to run to over twenty episodes, while ours are commonly 6-13 episodes long. Your networks expect to keep your attention for half a year, ours about a month and a half. Much is made of shorter attention spans today, and I'm not entirely convinced. (Classic Doctor Who lasted 26 years, by the way.) BSG was hardly a bunch of unconnected stories - it had pretty clear plot and character arcs. The problems with the show only really caught up to it after you stopped watching - they were unable to satisfactorily resolve a number of their plot threads, there was a lot of wheel spinning, and so on."

Sheesh! Thanks for shooting down my jokes! How often are you going to have an American be self-deprecating?  :rolleyes:  :wink:  Yes, there was a lot of wheel spinning. Overall, BSG was trying to get to Earth, but the individual stories had little to do with that. They were despite the story arcs, what happened to the characters, it seemed to me, though its been a long time. The episode where Billy was shot finally killed all my fan-ness for the series, but the last episode I really enjoyed was the one where Starbuck and a Cylon shot each other down. By Baltar's election, the series was just rambling on, iimho. The goal was the same, but what we saw were just stories of people existing. That's why I say they were unconnected.

Twenty-six years? That's impressive.

It still might have been a plan from the beginning, since there was a prophecy to prep the Light for failure by testing theDragon. If he failed, they were to kill him, and let the final days have their storm 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Pleased to hear of a fellow Doctor Who fan Ares!!!! My favourite show on t.v, and one I would watch over anything else, Game of Thrones include. The Doctor is the longest due to other mediums, such as novels and especially audio tapes. These are all canon according to the BBC and equal to the small screen.

 

I agree that it as Rah in killing Mat that allowed Oliver to blow the Horn. I honestly do not think Mat could have handled the Last Battle half as well if he had had that Horn. Demandred would have been even worse then.

Edited by wotfan4472
Link to post
Share on other sites

"In terms of Americans' short attention spans, it's worth noting that your series tend to run to over twenty episodes, while ours are commonly 6-13 episodes long. Your networks expect to keep your attention for half a year, ours about a month and a half. Much is made of shorter attention spans today, and I'm not entirely convinced. (Classic Doctor Who lasted 26 years, by the way.) BSG was hardly a bunch of unconnected stories - it had pretty clear plot and character arcs. The problems with the show only really caught up to it after you stopped watching - they were unable to satisfactorily resolve a number of their plot threads, there was a lot of wheel spinning, and so on."

Sheesh! Thanks for shooting down my jokes! How often are you going to have an American be self-deprecating?   :rolleyes:  :wink:

I know, self-deprecating Americans are as rare as hens teeth or sober Irishmen.

Yes, there was a lot of wheel spinning. Overall, BSG was trying to get to Earth, but the individual stories had little to do with that. They were despite the story arcs, what happened to the characters, it seemed to me, though its been a long time. The episode where Billy was shot finally killed all my fan-ness for the series, but the last episode I really enjoyed was the one where Starbuck and a Cylon shot each other down. By Baltar's election, the series was just rambling on, iimho. The goal was the same, but what we saw were just stories of people existing. That's why I say they were unconnected.

Well, that's how most TV shows work. To say they are unconnected is silly - they are most definitely connected, following the same people, with stories following on from one another - what's that if not connected? They still had an ultimate goal, and they continued to work towards it.

 

Pleased to hear of a fellow Doctor Who fan Ares!!!! My favourite show on t.v, and one I would watch over anything else, Game of Thrones include. The Doctor is the longest due to other mediums, such as novels and especially audio tapes. These are all canon according to the BBC and equal to the small screen.

Doctor Who doesn't have a canon policy, and few people would claim that the non-TV stuff was equal to the TV stuff.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"Well, that's how most TV shows work. To say they are unconnected is silly - they are most definitely connected, following the same people, with stories following on from one another - what's that if not connected? They still had an ultimate goal, and they continued to work towards it."

 

In all the episodes I remember, the characters were overwhelmed with the moment, the act of forcing themselves to exist. I suppose that was realistic, but it was not pleasant. Each episode focused on different characters, and it was not like they were making progress on the goal, they were just treading water and marking time. Granted, there were episodes where progress must have happened, but I missed those, I last saw a complete episode in the second season, maybe, and the last episode I enjoyed was the one where Starbuck was flying a Cylon Raider. Nor did I enjoy the constant waffling by the Cylons (why did they fight them on one hand, and act like they were conducting a scientific experiment on the other, observing their test subjects?) So, that is why I say they weren't connected. Each story just focused on all these different people battling severe depression. Realistic, perhaps, but certainly not pleasant. That was my point of view. Yours obviously is a different point of view. More power to you. I didn't like the series. And did they ever explain who how and why that note about human-form Cylons was left in Adama's office? And why was that canon and not disinformation?

Link to post
Share on other sites

And did they ever explain who how and why that note about human-form Cylons was left in Adama's office? And why was that canon and not disinformation?

I've not seen it in years, so no idea.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@finnssss,

just a matter of curiosity,did you manage to figure out the chekhov's gun in book three?

the only thing i could think of is callandor itself.

 

I have settled on The Last Hunt first mentioned in tDR-43

All the Darkhound packs hunting and working together as one, not trying to kill each other. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

@finnssss,

"all the darkhound packs hunting and working as one,"

that's an interesting thought.i will have to reread the third book again,

unfortunately,the dragon reborn is my least favorite from the first six.

 

as a side note,is mat your favorite character?

Link to post
Share on other sites

about the original topic; maybe the characters were mistaken about the Horn being bound to 1 sounder.  The prophecy says "let whosoever sounds me think not of glory, but only of salvation".  Maybe anyone that fits that prophecy would be able to make the Horn work.

Just speculating there.

 

Or if the Horn is bound to 1 sounder, balefire does not change all things back.  Rand's balefire on Semirhage (Gathering Storm) is one example.

Link to post
Share on other sites

But Rand also didn't use much balefire on Semirhage, things might be different had he used the amount that he did on Rhavin.  My guess is once the link is broken to the horn only resounding it can reestablish the link, so Balrefire can bring Mat back, but the link is gone for good.  So I assume if Moraine died when Lan was her warder and you balefired her killer that the warder bond wouldn't return.  Maybe the link to the horn has something to do with the power.

Link to post
Share on other sites

He got killed by ravin then brought back when ravin got balefired. That is explained clearly in aMoL. The link with the horn was broken i think this is one of the few things in WoT that makes sence

Link to post
Share on other sites

I could have missed it, but I do not remember anything that explained the change.  Mat was still alive at the end, and the last time I checked the only time someone other than the original sounder may sound the horn, and it will work, is if the original sounder were dead.  Was it some connection between Mat and Olver? 

 

Was this just an unexplained rewrite?  Or was there something in the series that explained how Olver could sound it with Mat still alive? 

It was explained in the last book when Mat talks to John Henry...I mean, "Hend the Striker" and the female hero chimes in about how Mat lives at Rand's forbearance and that he shouldn't complain so much about Rand and his madness.  Mat brings up being hung in the tree and Hend tells him that it was another time, one with which he cannot remember, alluding to the lightning hit in Rand's attacking Caemlyn that was undone when Rhavin was balefired by Rand.  The problem with this is that with Balefire, Rhavin was killed to the point that he never existed, and any actions that he had taken were undone, hence Mat and others were brought back and never killed in the first place, thus Mat had never died and the link had never been broken, yet somehow it has been.  

 

People argue a lot of things; the mystery of the Horn as it was ancient and from another time even in the Age of Legends.  Some think that due to its nature of being a Ter'angreal or "something" from another age that the natures of real-time Randland physics don't apply, or for its nature of being tied to T'A'R, the death is somehow counted.  Due to the brief and confusing scene of balefire with the Aes Sedai being hit and channelers they had killed and soldiers coming back as if they had never died ending up among them, other sisters died and so forth.  Hard to write much less think of.  All the problems could have been gotten around by leaning more heavily on the misinformation that the Aes Sedai and others know about the horn or at least thought that they knew, the fear of the shadow blowing really having no effect as it would call the heroes to fight for the Dragon Reborn so long as his banner (presence) was there on the battlefield.

 

On a side note, everyone knows Olver isn't going to toss the horn any time soon, not when he can blow it and play snakes and foxes nightly with Noal. :wink:     

Link to post
Share on other sites

@finnssss,

"all the darkhound packs hunting and working as one,"

that's an interesting thought.i will have to reread the third book again,

unfortunately,the dragon reborn is my least favorite from the first six.

 

as a side note,is mat your favorite character?

 

It seems to be the only thing that fits and the only thing that is mentioned but is not used until most of the way into aMoL (BS was 60-70% into his first draft of aMoL when he tweeted it.)

 

Yes, Mat is my favourite character but it was a long time coming. It wasn't until Book 3 that I even began liking him at all and it took until Book 5 after he killed Couladin that he started pulling ahead of the others.

Perrin was originally my fav previous to this and was still a favourite up and till RJ lost touch (I'm being generous here) with him through books 7-10. It was actually the way BS wrote him that brought Perrin back into my good books.

For all the bad BS gets around here, he sure did a hell of a job with Perrin. To be honest, I think BS wrote Perrin better than RJ himself did but obviously BS's Mat was definitely not on the same level as RJ's.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...