Musing on the nature of the three oaths

[Sabio]

Since Elaida isn't BA, the question would come down to could she torture and kill with the power?  Its clear Shara and Mistress Elward were killed so could someone not of the BA torture with the power and then kill the victim and witness, both who clearly were not darkfriends?  this wasn't using the power to punish for breaking a tower law etc..  This was clearly torture, I don't see why Elaida would resort to torture and murder.  She could show up intimidate and bully, but why kill everyone on the farm?  But Mesaana would want her identity to remain a secret or someone like Alviarin and both could easily torture and kill with the power.  But I agree with ud, there just isn't enough evidence to know for sure.

[damandred]

cannot remember if what happened on the farm happen before Elaida joined with Alviarian or before.

[Sabio]

 Good question, I couldn't remember so I just checked.  Elaida met with Alviarian in Chapter 1, the incident on the farm happened in chapter 17.  I would love to see what RJ had for notes regarding the incident at the farm.

[Aoife Mac'alar]

 

Sahra jumped at the sharp voice, but it was not Mistress Elward.

 

The Aes Sedai moved closer, not caring that her skirts dragged through the dirt of the vegetable patch. Despite the summer warmth of the morning, she wore a cloak, the hood pulled up to shadow her face.

 

“Tell me everything that you heard or saw, girl, from the moment you took the woman in charge. Everything.”

 

 Pain racked her, digging her toes into the dirt, arching her back; the spasm lasted only moments, but it seemed eternal. Struggling for breath, she realized her cheek was pressed to the ground, and her still trembling fingers dug into the soil.

 

“Everything, girl,” the Aes Sedai said coldly.

 

She began to weep in earnest, sure that was not enough to satisfy this woman. She was right.

 

 

Insufficient evidence. IMO.

 

 

Hm...we know of another instance where a particular member of the BA didn't care what her skirts dragged through. That's Verin, dragging her hem through straw, blood and human viscera while inspecting the bloody writing on the wall after gruesome attack on the keep at Fal Dara in TGH.

 

However, I would add that I always thought it was Liandrin or Mesaana, before this conversation provided other suggestions.

[Sabio]

I thought Liandrin also, but after looking back through the book trying to fins out when the farm happened I discovered she was down in Tanchico.  That's why I assumed Alvirian, she was in the tower and after talking to Eladia would of had reason to be suspicious of Min, also she would of known Min was friends with Elayne, Nyn, and Egwene.

[Magicana]

I always assumed that was Alviarian trying to get enough evidence to bring Elaida to push for the de-chairing of Siuan.

[Barid Bel Medar]

 

INTERVIEW: Apr 17th, 2011

Driving Mr. Sanderson - Terez (Verbatim)

TEREZ (CALLANDOR)

Who killed Sahra Covenry?

BRANDON SANDERSON

Bob Kluttz made a guess at this on the Encyclopaedia [The Shadow Rising 17] and he was correct. [bob noted that the most popular choice was Alviarin.]

 

[Magicana]

 

INTERVIEW: Apr 17th, 2011

Driving Mr. Sanderson - Terez (Verbatim)

TEREZ (CALLANDOR)

Who killed Sahra Covenry?

BRANDON SANDERSON

Bob Kluttz made a guess at this on the Encyclopaedia [The Shadow Rising 17] and he was correct. [bob noted that the most popular choice was Alviarin.]

 

 

 

Well that clears that up. On top of that, we have numerous POV's indicating that Elaida isn't black, and her own POV dismissing Sahra as having anything useful to say.

[Sabio]

I think that is key, Elaida isn't BA and twist the oaths however one might, torturing with the power and then killing the victim and any witness who clearly aren't darkfriends seems a bit much.

[mb]

The killer could not have been Liandrin; nor any of the Blacks that went with her.

In Dragon Reborn, they were at Tear; Shadow Rising, Tarabon; Fires of Heaven, Amadicia.

 

Edit::

Of the Blacks in the Tower during Shadow Rising, Alviarin would probably make most sense.

She was probably most likely to have seen the novice in Chapter 1.  And she was scheming with Elaida.

 

About Elaida, I do not recall any of her POVs mentioning Sahra; at least by name.

[Magicana]

The killer could not have been Liandrin; nor any of the Blacks that went with her.

In Dragon Reborn, they were at Tear; Shadow Rising, Tarabon; Fires of Heaven, Amadicia.

 

Edit::

Of the Blacks in the Tower during Shadow Rising, Alviarin would probably make most sense.

She was probably most likely to have seen the novice in Chapter 1.  And she was scheming with Elaida.

 

About Elaida, I do not recall any of her POVs mentioning Sahra; at least by name.

 

I don't have the reference handy, but after Min is delivered to Siuan by Sahra, Elaida does ask her for her name. Upon hearing it was Sahra, she thinks to herself that she wouldn't remember anything but the Prince's (Gawyn) smile.

[udbabor520]

Hm...we know of another instance where a particular member of the BA didn't care what her skirts dragged through. That's Verin, dragging her hem through straw, blood and human viscera while inspecting the bloody writing on the wall after gruesome attack on the keep at Fal Dara in TGH.

 

Thanks! I am not a superfan (I never see anything important, I don't see connections etc.), but that's why I bolded skirt part.

[mb]

 

The killer could not have been Liandrin; nor any of the Blacks that went with her.

In Dragon Reborn, they were at Tear; Shadow Rising, Tarabon; Fires of Heaven, Amadicia.

 

Edit::

Of the Blacks in the Tower during Shadow Rising, Alviarin would probably make most sense.

She was probably most likely to have seen the novice in Chapter 1.  And she was scheming with Elaida.

 

About Elaida, I do not recall any of her POVs mentioning Sahra; at least by name.

 

I don't have the reference handy, but after Min is delivered to Siuan by Sahra, Elaida does ask her for her name. Upon hearing it was Sahra, she thinks to herself that she wouldn't remember anything but the Prince's (Gawyn) smile.

 

read the scene somewhat recently.

exact words::

 

It was doubtful she knew anything more than Elaida had already seen and heard--or remembered much more than Gawyn's smile, for that matter.

[DemandredFO]

It was colonel mustard with a power wrought wrench

[Mr Ares]

Finally, and also FWIW, I wish we'd had a chance to see a White trying to come to grips with a Liar's Paradox. Actually, come to think of it, the first oath is even more vulnerable than the second: it specifies that the speaker will not speak a word that is untrue. If the Whites are as good at logic as they claim, then they should immediately realize that words can have no truth-value: truth is a property of propositions, not words. Oops. That means that every Aes Sedai can lie as much as she wants. The first oath isn't just full of loopholes, it's a nonsense oath. That's what you get for making promises using flowery language instead of cutting straight to the point.

Actually, you have that backwards: the Oath is not to speak no word which is untrue, but to speak no word which is not true; they are prevented from speaking an absence of truth, not a falsity. If an AS convinced themselves that words have no truth value, she'd thus be unable to speak at all, because any and every word word she spoke would not be true.

[mb]

If the Whites are as good at logic as they claim, then they should immediately realize that words can have no truth-value: truth is a property of propositions, not words.

"proposition" could be one interpretation of the term "word".

[Goaswerfraiejen]

 

 

Finally, and also FWIW, I wish we'd had a chance to see a White trying to come to grips with a Liar's Paradox. Actually, come to think of it, the first oath is even more vulnerable than the second: it specifies that the speaker will not speak a word that is untrue. If the Whites are as good at logic as they claim, then they should immediately realize that words can have no truth-value: truth is a property of propositions, not words. Oops. That means that every Aes Sedai can lie as much as she wants. The first oath isn't just full of loopholes, it's a nonsense oath. That's what you get for making promises using flowery language instead of cutting straight to the point.

Actually, you have that backwards: the Oath is not to speak no word which is untrue, but to speak no word which is not true; they are prevented from speaking an absence of truth, not a falsity. If an AS convinced themselves that words have no truth value, she'd thus be unable to speak at all, because any and every word word she spoke would not be true.

 

 

Aha. If that's the way the oath is framed (and I think you're right, come to think of it), then you're absolutely correct: Aes Sedai should not be able to speak at all.

 

 

If the Whites are as good at logic as they claim, then they should immediately realize that words can have no truth-value: truth is a property of propositions, not words.

"proposition" could be one interpretation of the term "word".

 

 

Unfortunately, no. That's not the case in logic and the philosophy of language. The use of "proposition" is pretty strictly regimented. But Mr. Ares (above) is right: if the oath is to speak no word that is not true (rather than untrue), then the problem is worse: they can't speak at all (since, again, truth is not a property of words).

[Mr Ares]

 

 

 

Finally, and also FWIW, I wish we'd had a chance to see a White trying to come to grips with a Liar's Paradox. Actually, come to think of it, the first oath is even more vulnerable than the second: it specifies that the speaker will not speak a word that is untrue. If the Whites are as good at logic as they claim, then they should immediately realize that words can have no truth-value: truth is a property of propositions, not words. Oops. That means that every Aes Sedai can lie as much as she wants. The first oath isn't just full of loopholes, it's a nonsense oath. That's what you get for making promises using flowery language instead of cutting straight to the point.

Actually, you have that backwards: the Oath is not to speak no word which is untrue, but to speak no word which is not true; they are prevented from speaking an absence of truth, not a falsity. If an AS convinced themselves that words have no truth value, she'd thus be unable to speak at all, because any and every word word she spoke would not be true.

 

 

Aha. If that's the way the oath is framed (and I think you're right, come to think of it), then you're absolutely correct: Aes Sedai should not be able to speak at all.

Well, they would only be unable to speak if they convinced themselves that that was the correct interpretation, which would be a very foolish thing to do. The AS could accept the point as being logically valid without really believing it was true (in a way not too dissimilar to some arguments, where one person can't refute the logic of a position but still disagrees with it).