Jump to content

DRAGONMOUNT

A WHEEL OF TIME COMMUNITY

navahgar

Member
  • Posts

    61
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by navahgar

  1. The Dark One is actually a force for good, attempting to escape the unjust prison that his douchebag brother, the Creator, tricked him into.
  2. By the way, let me point out a few scenes in the last few books that I really enjoyed: 1.) The scene in tGS where Rodel Ituralde meets Rand for the first time. 2.) The dream conversation between Rand and Moridin in tGS. 3.) The Tuon chapter Gambits in tGS. 4.) The Nynaeve and Rand scene in ToM where she tries to heal him and he asks her to be with him at Shayol Ghul. 5.) The scene in one of those books where Rand talks to Cadsuane (and others) about knowing the faces of the Forsaken, and chides Cadsuane for wanting to dance with the Dragon Reborn. I'd love to find out whether any of these were authored by Robert Jordan, or whether they were all Brandon Sanderson.
  3. Hey nav...just want to point out that I don't think you will find anyone who has ever said BS is too subtle. The man has strengths as an author but subtlety has never been mentioned as one. I don't want to presume to speak for Mark but I would guess that isn't what he meant. Fair enough. I can't speak to what he meant either. I highlighted those two points in that way because I felt the two criticisms were effectively saying opposite things.
  4. Hello all. I've been on the forums for a few years, and posted infrequently about various things. I don't dare wade into this heated argument about the quality of Brandon Sanderson's work, but one point jumped out at me, as I was perusing the comments, that I'd like to hear addressed by some of you (namely Luckers, Suttree, and Mark D). Hopefully you're still checking this, and still remember those comments made early on in this thread. I apologize for arriving late to the discussion, and also if this question has been raised before. The question arises from contrasting two quotes: Well yeah, if it was just that one line it wouldn't really be a big deal. But as you will soon find out it happens constantly. As for the second part you don't think "That name has been discarded," Moridin said. "Just as each of us, upon being Chosen, discarded what we were and the names men called us. From this moment on, this man shall be known only as M'Hael" is saying he is chosen? Come on. You're telling me I'm the only one who does stuff like that in real life or in meetings to get their point across? I do it quite often. All the time. Daily... And unfortunately so does Brandon, consistently throughout TGS and ToM. There is a pattern of not trusting his own writing to convey or the readers to unerstand subtlety, so we are consistently sledge hammered with repition. It is a very real issue in his work and one that takes little effort to point out. It comes down to what one prefers in their writing I guess. I don't like to be lead by the hand, if you don't agree that is fine but there is no reason to pretend the issue doesn't exist. I understand this comment from Suttree to be suggesting that Brandon Sanderson is heavy-handed in his writing style. This accusation of a lack of subtlety is something that I've seen leveled in multiple threads. Cf.: The big deal is that it would only take one line in the entire book to confirm that she changed and feels more comfortable with calling Rand by his first name only now and that line just isn't there. Why isnt it there? Why isn't there a line that says she feels more comfortable with referring to him as Rand in front of others now? Why not put that in when there are plenty of lines to the contrary showing how she is very uncomfortable referring to him by his first name. The lack of this simple line in the entire writing means there is no transition and suddenly it is extremely out of character and jarring. It doesn't matter that BS wrote this, if RJ had wrote it like this it would also have jarred us. If it wasn't a mistake then a single sentence could have completely corrected the entire thing and it would become a seamless part of the story. That sentence wasn't there and that is why this irritates people. This is a comment from Mark D. referring to an earlier comment of his where he laments Sanderson's characterization of Aviendha in a scene where she refers to Rand as 'Rand', and not 'Rand al'Thor'. His point, if I may presume to paraphrase him, is not that Aviendha should not have used just 'Rand', but that if Sanderson was attempting to portray a character progression, he should have been clearer in doing so. (See also Clouded's post regarding the progression of Aviendha's attitude toward names). I know that you are two different people, with different criticisms of Sanderson, but I compare these two quotes to highlight a potential issue in that criticism. The first point was that Sanderson was too blunt; the second that he was too subtle. Note that I am not making any comment on the quality of Sanderson's work directly, although I will say that I've enjoyed both Sanderson books for their plot developments, while having some issues with them for their characterizations. I can, if asked, point to areas of the last few books that I have specifically enjoyed, although I must defer to others on these forums (Luckers in particular) with respect to whether those scenes were authored by Robert Jordan or Brandon Sanderson. In any case, please discuss how you both reconcile this potential contradiction (which you may do by showing that there isn't a contradiction, and I don't know what I'm talking about). Thanks!
  5. I agree with a lot, if not all, of what you are saying here. I'm not going to retype or repost my previous thoughts, because they are already laid out at length earlier in this topic, but I appreciate the extra textual evidence that you provide here (of Moridin, Lanfear, Rand the philosopher, etc. all thinking Rand is LTT). With respect to Mr Ares' comments, I'm not going to link to all of them, and I appreciate your right to have a different opinion. But I think that you are, at times, purposefully misinterpreting comments that I, and others on this topic, make. I don't want this to devolve into personal attacks, so I won't go into it, but I think the discussion would be healthier if everyone tried to assume those on the other side weren't stupid, as opposed to trying to find any slight gap (left often because I/we assumed certain things to be understood) in reasoning to 'win'. My thoughts are there for anyone who cares to go back and read them. With respect to Kael Pyralis, I completely agree with you about the whole third person perspective, and the reliability of various characters. In fact, I guess the only thing we differ on is the conclusion that Rand and LTT aren't the same person. Other than that, what you said.
  6. This. But this is not what happened to Rand. And if you have a reborn person in a new body (Rand) with his traits and quirks and personality when all of LTT.s memories are downloaded into Rand he doesn´t become LTT. He is still Rand, with acces to his older memories from a diff life-time that is LTT. So they are not the same person. What would be the point? If they are the same person then Rand´s upbringing can´t mean squat. With respect to the first part of what you were saying, I think the difference is just a question of wording. You say that Rand has access to older memories of LTT that he didn't before, so Rand Sedai is Rand with a few more memories. Others may say that LTT has access to newer memories of Rand that he didn't have before (and a not-so-shiny new body), so Rand Sedai is LTT with a few more memories. I think both approaches are accurate. With respect to the part that I bolded, why does Rand and LTT being the same person imply that Rand's upbringing can't mean squat. Are you the same person as you were 20 years ago? You are, except you have 20 years of experience. To say that you are that same person doesn't mean that the last 20 years of your upbringing mean nothing. You're the same person with a more mature personality thanks to 20 years of learning and experience. Same with Rand.
  7. Interesting. That still makes sense within the parameters I described before. When a person normally dies they fear that death, even though their soul will be reborn, because when their soul is reborn, it will do so without their memories. This, I think, is the key point. Very, very, very few people in the Wheel of Time universe are reborn with the memories of a previous life. As far as I can tell it's only the Dragon, and anyone the Dark Lord transmigrates, and maybe a few other male channellers affected by the taint. This quote by RJ doesn't conflict with what I said, because I agree that when a soul is reborn in a new body without its old memories, that is a new person. The old person has ceased to exist.....unless and until all of their memories are downloaded into this new person with their soul. At which point they become the same person. An unlikely event that has occurred only once as far as we know.
  8. Fair enough. I think there are a lot of people who agree with you. That makes sense to me too. I'm not saying Rand has been usurped by LTT and should now be referred to as LTT. I'm basically saying Rand is LTT, and you could call him Rand or LTT, or RTT if you want.
  9. As I said before, I don't think that Robert Jordan's quote from the Crossroads of Twilight book tour conflicts with what I'm saying at all. He was saying that the reincarnation of souls does not mean the reincarnation of personalities. This is exactly in line with my evaluation. What we are talking about here is what the meaning of LTT's reintegration into Rand's mind is. That is not the question that was before RJ, and, given the other reintegrations we've seen in the series, I think it means that Rand IS LTT. Rand and LTT were separate people. They're not anymore.
  10. Fair enough. I accept that nobody remembers everything that happened to them. I also accept that part of experience comes from how you reflect on your memories. But, where does how you reflect on your memories come from? You use your current wisdom to reflect on memories, and turn them into experiences, that then inform and expand your wisdom. Your current wisdom is in turn derived from previous experience and memories. Once something is past, it is past, and all that exists of it is your memory (and the real world consequences of whatever it was). If Rand has all of the memories of LTT that LTT had (by that I take your point about LTT not remembering every detail of his life), then how does he not have the same wisdom and experience? You may say that he looks on a memory now and views it differently from how LTT did (in fact I would definitely say that). But isn't that the same as 27-year-old-me looking back at something that happened to 7-year-old-me and viewing it differently than 17-year-old-me did? The reason I'm trying so hard to keep this working, is that I instinctively think of Moridin as Ishamael, and I want to have a framework in which to maintain that belief. With respect to your dreams. They sound largely awesome. Flying and dragons and whatnot.
  11. Because RJ says it is, this is the cosmology that he created. Birgitte makes that clear when she says she "had no right" to previous memories. I think you're referring to this quote: Time in TAR doesn't change this and the cosmology is the same regardless of who you are. If so, then I don't think it conflicts with what I'm saying. I describe personality as something derived from the combination of soul, body and memories. I agree that Rand and Lews Therin, especially at that point, had very different personalities. In fact, I also think that Rand Sedai and Lews Therin have different personalities. But now that Rand Sedai remembers all of his life as Lews Therin, I think he is the same person, albeit one with a more mature personality developed from 20 extra years of good care.
  12. This is not a fair analysis of what was being said. You say 'you happen to have some of his memories'. I'm saying, if you have ALL of his memories. Once an experience has happened, all it is is a memory. If you have all of the memories of a person, then you have all of the experiences and wisdom of that person. In that case I'd say you are that person. If you have all of the memories of that person, plus some of your own, then you're that person, but you've learned a bit more. In the real world there's no such thing as a soul, so, just having all the memories of a person is slightly different. With you're talk of happening to have mere fragments of the King Tut, you're talking more about the Mat situation than the Rand one. If this is true then I'd have to rethink my conclusions. My understanding was that he has all of LTT's memories. But if he just has 'a bit of LTT' then maybe you're right. However, like I said, I read it as Rand integrating all of LTT. Its relevance to the matter at hand is, however, entirely up for debate. After all, every person has a soul, but every soul has many people attached to it, so the mere fact of two people sharing a soul says nothing - absoutely nothing - about whether or not they are the same. I think that goes too far. I agree that having merely the same soul doesn't make two people the same. That's what I explained in Cases C and D in my post. But having the same soul doesn't say absolutely nothing about whether two people are the same. It is a factor, just like having the same body, or having the same memories. In a universe where there are definitely souls, and these souls are spun out into existence over and over again, it has to be the case that the soul has some relevance to the person. Otherwise, why not just destroy a soul after each life and create a new one for each new life. The very existence of the soul implies its relevance. As I said, it's not the only factor, but it is a factor. Given that having the same soul is not a relevant consideration, if sharing memories alone is enough, then Mat must be considered these people. He remembers these lives as if they were his own, not as if they were someone elses. Again, how is having the same soul COMPLETELY irrelevant to this discussion. If, as you seem to insist, having the same soul is never a relevant consideration, then what is the point of a soul? You would argue the soul into nonexistence. Because souls exist, they must be taken into some consideration. My point is that if you combine the same soul with the same memories, then you get the same person, regardless of body. Without the soul being a consideration, the only things you have left are a body and memories, and there's no way to distinguish Ishamael-Moridin from Mat, other than method. It is not completely different. As I laid out in my post. The differences are that Rand has 20 years worth of memories in his body that have not been erased (that is exactly the correct way to describe it because Moridin's body had it's own memories that were erased), and that Rand already had the same soul (so that didn't need to be erased). My point is that 20 years worth of memories are personality changing, but not person changing. You only reach this conclusion because you ignore the soul. This is exactly where the soul IS relevant. Note that this doesn't make the soul the only relevant thing, or even necessarily the most important thing. It simply means that when all the other factors are the same (which, they actually are not since Mat only has fragments of memories), then sameness of soul is a deciding factor in sameness of person. Exactly. But only because they shared the same soul. If you did all of that without transferring the soul, you'd just have a clone of LTT. Can the clone be held responsible for LTT's actions? That's an interesting philosophical question in the real world, but the existence of souls in the Wheel of Time world makes it moot. We KNOW that one of them (the one with the soul) is the real thing, and the other is just a copy. Now, the actual characters in the book don't know that for sure, since they aren't privy to all the information we have. So that raises interesting questions about how they would/should react to some of these people. But we, with the benefit of virtual omniscience, can make the distinction. The added factor with Rand is his own 20 years of memories. But as I've said elsewhere, addition of memories is personality changing, not person changing. If Rand lives another 20 years, he'll have another 20 years of memories, but he'll still be Rand (and still be LTT!). No. No. Fair enough, I guess you haven't changed over the course of your life. I certainly think about some of the things I did as a teenager, and laugh at myself for my naivete or my decisions. And I definitely think that if 27-year-old-me were in 17-year-old-me's body, I would act differently. And I have to restate my disagreement with this point: she is not any of those people, though they are a part of her. She didn't do the things they did. I respect your right to disagree, but all you've done here is state that disagreement. My conclusion about Birgitte was based on the zany, but coherent, philosophy I explained regarding the interplay between souls, bodies and memories. That combination is the only consistent and comprehensive way that I can explain not hating Mat for his memories, but hating Moridin for his. If you think she isn't any of those people, even the instant she got dragged into the real world, then was she any of those people when she was in T'A'R? What do you mean 'no other lives'? What about Ishamael? Are you saying that Moridin and Ishamael are living the SAME life. I don't think that's true. Ishamael died. Quite dramatically. Then the Dark Lord took his soul and memories and put them in another body - Moridin. If the Dark Lord had accidentally forgotten to wipe that body of its memories, then Moridin would be EXACTLY like Rand. The difference between them is not one of lives, but of additional memories. Mat and Birgitte are different because there are multiple other lives in their cases. But, Birgitte differs from Mat in that all of her memories are from people she shares a soul with, so while she remembers their lives, she is the same as those people. I grant that Birgitte's is a wacky and confusing case. But isn't that appropriate, since she (as far as we know) is the only person ripped into existence outside of the Pattern's will? Would you accept that it is all right for someone to get away with murder simply because they no longer remember committing it? That's an interesting question. I think it depends on how much they've forgotten. If the only thing they've forgotten is the actual commission of the murder, then I'd be less inclined to let them get away with it. I might still, but I'd have to think long and hard about it, and I'd want to know why they'd forgotten. If, on the other hand, they've forgotten the last 5 years of their life, for example, then I'd be more comfortable with it. If they had total amnesia, then I'd be even more comfortable. Lest you think I'm a mentalist, let me point out that the law (at least in America) also may forgive them. The defense of temporary insanity is an acceptable, albeit difficult to prove, defense for murder in American courts. Leaving aside the connotations that go with the name 'temporary insanity', the practical upshot of it may be the defendant explaining what happened up to a point, and then claiming, 'I blacked out and when I came to I was standing there with a bloody knife in my hands and my wife dead. I don't know how it happened. I'm very sorry.' In other words, one method of proof for temporary insanity is effectively that you do not remember committing the murder. Now, you might be skeptical about a man who claims not to remember committing murder. But that skepticism is that you don't believe him when he says he doesn't remember. In this case, we are told as a fact that he does not remember. So that skepticism is unwarranted, and we have to deal with the consequences of the memory loss. All of this should be read with the understanding that the real world is different from the Wheel of Time world in a few ways. First, we are told of the definite existence of souls in the Wheel of Time world. Second, we accept as mundane fact that a person's soul and memories can be transferred into another body (a completely fantastical thing in the real world). Given those circumstances, I think my philosophy and conclusions are appropriate. What does this mean? Too long; didn't read. It's a summary for people who didn't want to read my irritatingly long post. I agree with you about Mat and the Forsaken, but not about Rand and only partially about Birgitte.
  13. I've just spent the last hour or so reading through all of the posts in this thread, and this is what I've wanted to say since halfway through. Thank you so much for saying it. To all of the people on the other side of this discussion, really think about what this sentence means. We can all agree that in RJ's universe there is such a thing as a soul. This is beyond debate. There are also a few other things that any character has: a body, memories. It is the combination of these three characteristics that create and shape a character's personality. What about experiences, I hear you say? Well what is an experience, if not a memory? Case A: If two different characters had the same soul, body, and memories, they wouldn't be two different characters, he/she would be the same character. This is obvious. Rand is Rand. Elayne is Elayne. Rodel Ituralde is Rodel Ituralde. The more interesting (and relevant) question, is what happens when two different characters have only some of those three qualities in common. The first thing to note is what it means when two characters share a soul, a body, and memories, but one of the characters has additional memories. This is just a character growing older and developing. Elayne from Towers of Midnight as opposed to Elayne from The Shadow Rising. We still consider the later Elayne to be the same person as the earlier Elayne, and the later Elayne is still responsible for the actions of the earlier Elayne. This is obvious, and I point it out not to be churlish, but to emphasize a few things. First, when I say 'share memories', I mean 'have exactly all of the same memories'. Second, and conversely, when I say 'do not share memories', I mean 'have exactly none of the same memories'. Third, a character's personality changes through the addition of memories, but that does not (I think) mean that that character has become a different person, or (importantly) that that character is not responsible for his/her previous actions. Case B: If two characters share a soul, and memories, but not a body, what then? This is the case of Ishamael/Aginor/Balthamel the instant before death and Moridin/Osan'gar/Aran'gar, respectively, the instant after revival. There appears to be widespread agreement that in this case, we should consider these characters to be the same person. Furthermore, Aran'gar is responsible for Balthamel's actions, and it can coherently be claimed that Osan'gar created Trollocs. Case C: If two characters share a soul, and a body, but not memories, what then? Remember, this means the two characters have exactly none of the same memories. This is the case of someone suffering from total amnesia. I can't think a case of this scenario in the books. Regardless, would these two characters be the same person? I'm not sure what people would conclude here, but I would say that it is initially appropriate to call them the same person, but dubious whether the character post-amnesia should be held accountable for the actions of the character pre-amnesia. The longer time goes on, and the post-amnesia character develops new memories exclusive of the pre-amnesia character (and therefore a more coherently different personality) the less comfortable I would be holding him accountable for the pre-amnesia character's actions, and in fact the less comfortable I would be calling the two the same person. Luckily this is not a scenario before us. Case D: If two characters share a soul, but not a body, or memories, what then? This is the case for almost every living character in the Wheel of Time universe, when related to their previous incarnations. In this case, I believe (and I read many on this thread as agreeing), these two characters are not the same person, and whichever character exists after the other cannot be held responsible for the other's actions. What about the other cases (share body and memories, not soul; share body, not memories or soul; share memories, not body or soul)? I don't believe that any of these cases arise in the Wheel of Time universe, and indeed they are a bit painful to think about. Now, what about the interesting subjects of this thread: Mat, Birgitte, and Rand? If two characters share only some of the same memories, but not a body, or a soul, what then? This is basically the case of Mat and the memories he's gained from the Finns. He has the same memories as the people that actually lived them, but he does not share a body or a soul with any of those people. In this case, I don't think he can be said to be the same person as those other characters. And I think I'm on pretty firm ground in making that assertion. Furthermore, I don't think he can be held accountable for any of those people's actions. I think many people here agree with that, but maybe we've found it difficult to explain exactly why that is. I think it's because responsibility attaches only when there is a concurrence of memories and soul. So what about Rand after Veins of Gold? I apologize for taking so long to get here, but my goal was to lay down the groundwork for this question. What do Rand and Lews Therin share? Body - no. Soul - yes. Memories - kind of. If Rand forgets everything that happened to him since his current body was born, then he and Lews Therin share exactly all of the same memories. This means that, in that case, he would be in exactly the same position as Ishamael-Moridin or Aginor-Osan'gar. Some people keep making a big deal out of the fact that Lews Therin died 3000 years before the transfer, whereas Balthamel, for example, died at most weeks before the transfer. But what difference does that make? Sure, it makes a difference to the world around them, but it has (almost by definition) no effect on the personalities of the people involved. Also, in this regard, it's important to remember that these new bodies that Moridin et al. have were not created in a laboratory. Presumably each of those bodies had its own soul and memories before those were wiped for Aran'gar et al. to take residence. Therefore, this example of an amnesiac Rand being inherited by all of his soul's previous memories is virtually indistinguishable from the Forsaken cases. Obviously, however, when Lews Therin's memories completely suffused Rand's body, he didn't forget all of his own. So what does that mean then? Well look at it from his perspective. He has 400 odd years of memories, then 20 odd years of different memories. This is exactly what I mentioned before when talking about the addition of new memories. It's almost the same as Elayne from Towers of Midnight compared to Elayne from the Shadow Rising. The differences are: First, that the first group of memories (~400 years) occurred in one body (LTT), whereas the second group of memories (~20 years) occurred in another (Rand). But we're okay with that happening, because that'd be just like Moridin living for another 20 years. We've already talked about that scenario and are confident that Moridin is responsible for Ishamael's actions, and, for all intents and purposes, IS Ishamael. Second, the second group of memories happened during a time when the first group were forgotten. This might raise a significant problem....but the first group of memories has now been remembered! While Rand didn't remember Lews Therin's memories he was just like Case D, and therefore could appropriately be called a different person, and not be held accountable for Lews Therin's actions. But now, he does remember everything. Now, he's more like Case B. He's a Case B who's lived another 20 years of memories. Of course he doesn't have exactly the same personality as Lews Therin, that would be like claiming Perrin in Towers of Midnight had the same personality as Perrin in Eye of the World. (And before you point out that it wouldn't, because Rand and Lews Therin do not share a body, we've already covered how that's not important to us....if it is, then you have to change your position on Aran'gar's guilt.) The Perrin example is not idly chosen. In Towers of Midnight Perrin is put on trial for his actions from Eye of the World, even though he has so clearly grown and changed since then. That was not inappropriate, but remember Morgase's conversation with Galad about the nature of punishment, and the efficacy of judging a good man who made mistakes and learned from them. All of this finds support in Rand's conversation with Min about how he is the same person now as he was when he was Lews Therin, only he feels more himself now than he ever did then. Of course that's true, because now he has all of his other memories to shape him as well. When you look back on yourself 10 years ago, don't you feel like you're more yourself now than you were then? Don't you sometimes question why you acted like you did? So my conclusion is that Rand is Lews Therin and is responsible for Lews Therin's actions, and can claim Lews Therin's achievements as his own...because they are his own. He is the one who was the First Among Servants, he is the one that, along with Bel'al made swords cool again, he is the one that led the strike on Shayol Ghul, he is the one that killed his family and everyone dear to him. He's changed since then, grown thanks to Tam, and Nynaeve, and Min, etc., but he still did all those things and is responsible for those actions. Having said all that, I don't think he has any authority to claim leadership of the White Tower. I agree with the many on this thread who liken it to a former President, and point out the institutional changes, and dubious descent of the current organization that calls itself Aes Sedai (would a Senator from Ancient Greece be allowed a seat in the US Congress if he returned from the dead?). What about Birgitte? When she was first dragged into the real world, she shared a soul and memories, but (probably) not a body, with each of her past lives. Therefore, at the moment that she came into existence, I would argue that she is exactly like Moridin, and should be considered the same person as each one of her previous lives (though interestingly and confusingly, none of those previous lives are the same person as each other). As she lived, she gained more memories, but also lost memories from those previous lives. I think this means that as she loses those memories, she loses the sameness that she initially had. She, effectively, is transitioning from Case B to Case D. Right now she's somewhere in between, but once she completely forgets everything, she'll be Case B, and can no longer be held accountable for any previous Birgitte's actions. Also, Birgitte after she forgets her previous lives, will be an example of Case C, with all the interesting complications that come with that. Lesson: try her now, while she's still guilty. TL;DR - Rand is Lews Therin and is responsible for Lews Therin's actions because they share a soul and memories (except for those Rand adds), Mat is not responsible for the actions of the people in his memories because they share only some memories, Birgitte was her previous selves and responsible for her previous lives' actions but as she loses those memories, she loses that sameness and responsibility.
  14. Fair enough. I can see where you're coming from, and you might be right. I'm still not convinced. I take your point about prophecies and the like starting with 'And', but that's not my point about that line. It's not the 'And' that makes me think that it's referring to the previous line. It's the fact that it uses the possessive pronoun ('his'). I think that the subject established in reading the sentences together is the Broken Wolf. However, I guess what you mean is that maybe I shouldn't be reading the sentences together. I'll tell you this much. If you are right, then I hope that we discover your correctness by someone showing us the full unadulterated section that that line comes from, and I hope in that there is a preceding sentence that establishes an appropriate subject. In any case, at least we can agree that destruction may not refer to the subject's death, rather his actions.
  15. I see what you mean about the different sentences referring to different things, but I'm not sure about this being one of them. The book says these are 'from The Prophecies of the Shadow' but does that mean that this is a compilation? Or that this is a section taken out of them? Although that citation can infer what you've concluded about this being a selection of prophecies, I think that this is rather a section of prophecy from a larger cycle, much like other ones we've seen from the Karatheon cycle throughout the series. Also, I think that the second sentence is too dependent to be divorced from the previous one. To me, it would be clumsy for 'And his destruction shall bring fear and sorrow to the hearts of men, and shall shake their very will itself' not to be associated with 'Yea, and the Broken Wolf, the one whom Death has known, shall fall and be consumed by the Midnight Towers'. Otherwise, why just put 'And his'? Why not spell out the object like every other sentence does? Having said that, I'm glad you agree about the destruction bit.
  16. I'm not going to try and explain who I think the Broken Wolf might be, because I think there have been many words typed on that subject. I've read a lot of the theories, and I'm not entirely sure what's right. What I want to say is that maybe 'destruction' doesn't mean what everyone seems to think it means. Many appear to be interpreting 'And his destruction shall bring...' as meaning 'And his death shall bring...'. They then use that in arguments for why a certain character's death would not be impactful enough. But what if 'And his destruction shall bring...' means 'And the destruction he wreaks shall bring...'? If that's the case then Perrin, or Slayer, or Lan could easily be the Broken Wolf, because the prophecy could refer to the Dark Lord having broken one of them and causing him to wreak destruction upon the forces of Light.
  17. Alright, so everyone seems focused on the first oath as a means of rooting out Black Ajah. I'm thinking, why not use something else? At various times in the series the good guys have captured and controlled Moghedien, Semirhage, and now Mesaana. I don't think Egwene was there for the Semirhage part, but she was clearly integrally involved with Moghedien. Also, she's directly faced Mesaana, and so knows about her mannerisms and attitude. Why not use the oath rod to remove her own oaths, change her appearance to look like Mesaana, take along the fluted rod sa'angreal, then appear to Aes Sedai one at a time pretending to be Mesaana and requiring obedience. Those who are not Black Ajah would not know what's going on, be scared, and probably fight back. Being much more powerful than them due to the sa'angreal, and unrestricted in action due to not being constrained by the oaths, she can quickly and relatively harmlessly subdue them. Then explain and recruit them. Those who are Black Ajah might resist initially, but if the impersonation is good enough (which based on the scenes we've seen just requires appearing ethereal, powerful, and arrogant enough, and maybe lie or praise the Great Lord a little) they will bow before the Chosen and praise the Great Lord. Sorted.
  18. It seems a lot of you are convinced that Rand Sedai can now see anyone's soul and recognize them. That was actually one of the possibilities I thought about, but I wanted to make the Dragon-Lanfear connection work, so I explained away some of the other evidence. One thing that I'd point out is that, if he's now (presumably since the epiphany at Dragonmount) able to recognize souls, then why did it take him so long to do it in this scene with Cyndane? He initially doesn't recognize her, claims he doesn't know her, then only after staring into her eyes for a while does the revelation dawn on him. Assuming this wasn't just a neat (clumsy?) plot device to bring Rand up to speed with the reader, it seems like he has to work through the process of recognition, and is surprised by that recognition as well. I (reading far too much into a 10 line section) see this as evidence that he hasn't been able to do it with others, because if he had he would be more practiced and less surprised about it. But let's say for argument's sake that I'm wrong, and Rand now does have this ability to recognize people's souls. What does that mean for all of his interactions throughout Towers of Midnight, and into Memory of Light? When he has his conversation with Egwene in the Tower, is he seing her as Latra Posae Decume (presuming this is her reborn)? Does that color his attitude towards her, and explain why he doesn't give her more information? Does he recognize Min, or Rodel Ituralde, or Davram Bashere, or any of the myriad other characters who he has come across, that we here on these boards have speculated may be certain people reborn, as reborn souls? Or is his recognition limited to Heroes (and Villains per se) of the Horn? He's got to be able to recognize Birgitte instantly, but is he going to reveal Gaidal Cain? Or who Mat and Perrin might be? If we accept that he can now recognize souls, we have to countenance that he is reacting to that recognition in all of his interactions.
  19. {A disclaimer to begin with: I haven't been on these boards in a few months, and, although I tried to leaf through and check, it's possible this has been discussed ad nauseum already.} I was randomly re-reading parts of The Shadow Rising (my favorite book in the series) today and I noticed something that reminded me of the end of Towers of Midnight, and led me to question the whole connection between Lews Therin/Dragon/Rand and Mierin/Lanfear/Cyndane. At the end of Towers of Midnight Rand Sedai stumbles upon Cyndane in his dream. Obviously her face is different, but he recognizes her: From what I remember of the discussion on this, obviously pivotal, scene, most people seem to be focused on the whys and wherefores of Lanfear appearing in Rand's dream and whether her remorse is genuine. Instead I'd like to focus on the fact that Rand apparently recognizes her soul. I think I saw somewhere that someone might have thought this had to do with a compulsion or something like that, but I'd like to suggest something deeper. At no other point in the series (to my recollection) has Rand ever recognized anyone in a new body as being the same person he had known in a previous body (including Lanfear who has disguised herself as Selene and Keille). This can be explained partially by Rand spending most of the series in a mental block, not recognizing or acknowledging his own personality. However, after he has the epiphany at Dragonmount, I believe that something has changed and he has now awoken to a full understanding of himself and his role. It is difficult to tell whether Rand Sedai is recognizing old souls reborn throughout Towers of Midnight, because it is not until the epilogue that we see his perspective. Even so, I would argue that he does not. Why? because I feel like it. So if Mierin's is the only soul he recognizes, what does that mean. This is where the scene I was reading from The Shadow Rising comes in: If Lanfear is to be believed (which in this instance I will) then she also is able to recognize Lews Therin's soul, even though it is in a different body. This is a pretty unique and amazing trait, since even Ishamael couldn't tell whether Rand was the Dragon until the end of Eye of the World, and for large parts of that book thought it might be Mat or Perrin. So Mierin recognizes Lews Therin, even in a new body, and Lews Therin recognizes Mierin, even in a new body. It appears that they have some ethereal connection that no one else does in the entire world.* This new factor added to list of things that connect them: (1)she is apparently the strongest possible female channeller and he is apparently the strongest possible male channeller, (2)they are linked in the dark prophecy from The Great Hunt, (3)they were lovers before her initial descent into darkness, (4)she is the one that drilled the bore into the Dark One's prison and he is the one that sealed the bore, (5)other things I can't think of off the top of my head, and (6)they recognize each other at a real soulful level. Taking all those factors into consideration, I don't know what to conclude. Are they two the most important figures in this struggle? If so, what about Moridin? Are they actually 'supposed' to be together and Ilyena actually just screwed it up for everyone? Is she maybe the counterpoint to the Dragon, as saidar is the counterpoint to saidin and only through both working together can the Dark One be actually defeated? That last one is the one that most intrigues me. There are parallels between saidin, saidar, and the True Power on one hand, and Lews Therin, Mierin, and Moridin on the other. I've rambled and I've rumbled and I haven't come to any real discrete conclusions. I hope the more astute minds on here can help me out and shed some more light on this, or alternatively tell me I'm a mentalist. * I say noone else has that kind of connection, but Birgitte and Gaidal Cain might. They seem to be connected in every birth to each other. The difference there is that when both are born normally, neither actually recognizes that connection. It's only when they're Heroes of the Horn that they know about the connection. So I don't think it counts as the same thing. The unique thing about the Dragon and the Lanfear is that they recognize each others souls while they're alive.
  20. Interesting, so you're saying that it wasn't actually possible for Slayer to have entered the ToG? Or is it possible that that rule that Robert Jordan made could somehow be construed to not apply to Slayer, since Slayer is a bit of an anomaly? I ask, not to be rude, but because I don't have the same awareness or comprehension of Jordan's quotes as you do. So you don't think there's any connection between Slayer and ToG? Fair enough. But if that's the case, then what do you think Moridin asked the Finns for, if anything? Also, if he was not created by the Finns, is there some understanding of how Slayer was created, and what gives him such a control over TAR? Maybe Isam is a hero of the horn, so the fusing of the souls retains that 'dead' soul's facility with TAR?
  21. Does anyone have any theories on Slayer's connection to the Tower of Ghenjei ("ToG")? I just randomly realized that I've never asked myself why Slayer is associated with the ToG. I suggest that he's connected to ToG because a few times when Perrin is chasing him he appears to run to ToG and disappear into it. I understand that Slayer is a creation of the Dark One that somehow combines Luc and Isam's souls. This combination apparently gives him a simultaneous presence in the real world and Tel'aran'rhiod ("TAR"), or maybe just a deeper control of TAR when he's in it. But how is that connected to the ToG? From some of the Birgitte scenes before she gets 'reborn' there appears to be some deeper connection between the nature of ToG and TAR. Beyond that however, why should Slayer have any ability to enter the ToG (and thereby the Finn world)? I don't really have many good ideas, I just wanted to see what other, smarter, people thought. One thought I have is that maybe Slayer was created by a request to the Finns. We know that Moridin went to Finnland to recover Lanfear. Assuming that retrieving Lanfear was one of his requests, and being allowed to leave was another, maybe his third was that they fuse the souls of Luc (alive) and Isam (dead) to create Slayer and grant him some freedom in their world? Thoughts?
  22. I was re-reading ToM recently, and I remembered an excellent section before Rand's meeting with the Borderlanders where he tells Cadsuane she can call him Rand Sedai because he is the only male Aes Sedai still alive who was properly raised and never turned to the shadow. The relevant part here is that he says he was properly raised. Keep in mind this is in the same book that we see the raising of Nynaeve (the only raising we see in the books). Does this juxtaposition suggest that the raising is the same now as it was before? So maybe the 100 weaves are something they knew / practiced in the Age of Legends, so it's nothing to do with sealing the breach.
  23. Dangerous topic. I think you'll find the fandom has very disparate views on this subject. If you ask me, I think RJ did a great job of placing women in important roles, and avoiding the inherent male bias in fantasy, but also has too many gratuitous, awkward naked women scenes.
×
×
  • Create New...