So... no intelligent opposition... whatsoever...? I'm just gonna have to put up with books upon books of the main characters being awesome? :(

Most of what you see are the main characters having to deal with dumbasses and people who won't fall in line. Sammael does some good damage when Rand and the Aiel fight the Shaido at Cairhien. But, yeah, the good guys get away with plenty.

 

(rubs temples stressfully)

 

Didn't we have this discussion last week? Super VIllians are always idiots! That's life. Name a Super Villian in a series, or life, and I'll show you how dumb he/she was.

 

There has to be some exceptions, I really hate speaking in definites, but I can't think of any. :(

 

Well, I can't accept that, Vard. You ALSO said that they succesfully manage to threaten the main cast. My LIFE is based around villains. They are what I care about. They are what I enjoy. I... I... grrrrr

Lol. I feel your pain good sir! It kills me how villians are cast into the foolish bumbling idiot roll! Villians have feelings too! They need to win occasionally. You'd think if they were so idiotic they would have been stopped before they reached the supervillian level, alas they aren't.

So... no intelligent opposition... whatsoever...? I'm just gonna have to put up with books upon books of the main characters being awesome? :(

Most of what you see are the main characters having to deal with dumbasses and people who won't fall in line. Sammael does some good damage when Rand and the Aiel fight the Shaido at Cairhien. But, yeah, the good guys get away with plenty.

 

(rubs temples stressfully)

Didn't we have this discussion last week? Super VIllians are always idiots! That's life. Name a Super Villian in a series, or life, and I'll show you how dumb he/she was.

There has to be some exceptions, I really hate speaking in definites, but I can't think of any. :(

I guess I'm just bitter that Bel'al is specificallysaid to be intelligent and cunning yet we don't really see it in action. It's a phenomenon called an informed ability. He took control of Tear, sure, but all of the Forsaken appear quite capable of attaining high positions in cities. I thought he specifically stood out above the rest. Guess I was wrong.

 

His ultimate strategy of "Getting Callandor by giving it to Rand then beating him and taking it from him" seemed a bit ill thought out for a supposedly cunning schemer

He spread those rumors. He also spread about that he was the hotness, and ladies loved him.

Can you blame him? I mean, if you were evil and used compulsion freely, you wouldn't make a Rep for yourself? Pshhh I would.

Btw, when Ba'al was cornered by Rand, he cried out for the Dark One to help him. A ball of darkness then fell into his hands and Ba'al suddenly looked triumphant.

 

... then Rand stabs him.

 

Was there a purpose to that ball of darkness? Why include mention of it if he didn't do anything with it?

That was Balz (Ishy) not Be'lal. And IDK to be honest he just calls for aid, not necessarily to the DO. . Maybe TP?

... are we thinking about the same character?

Crap. No. I see we aren't, lol reading comprehension fail on my part. Be'Al wanted Callandor, Balz is just crazy.

Ba'alzamon wanted Callandor? But he started firing lightning at Rand BEFORE Rand even made a move for Callandor IIRC

Cause he's dumb! He was trying to scare him into taking it. He missed Rand on purpose. He wasn't patient enough to wait in the shadows, he wanted to make sure Rand would grab it.

It's all a little confusing it you look too deep into it. Be'al assumed (for some reason) that Rand wouldn't grab the sword (When Rand paused) so he went to scare him into taking it by making him think he had no choice. Thus the fake attack. I suppose we're supposed to think Be'Al was worried about the AIel taking the stone or something and thus running out of time? IDK.

Wait, why did Ba'alzamon NEED Calandor out of it's enclosure? I thought he just wanted Rand dead?

Only Rand's hand could remove Callandor. It's the way the weave was set up. So he wanted it, and thus needed Rand to remove it first before he killed him.

Question: Why did Ba'alzamon wait for Rand to be RIGHT next to Callandor before swooping in to try and kill him. Couldn't he have rocked out of the shadows at any time and caved Rand's skull in with a folding chair?

Nope. He had to wait for Rand to actually touch it, or reach through the barrier.

But yea, you would have thought he'd have waited quietly until he touched it then BAM blast him from behind.

But remember, evil villians, they have to do stupid things. Tell you their plans, approach you before they should so you "realize your death." Pride, it brings about their downfalls.

I doubt Be'lal knew exactly how events went down at the Eye of the World, if he even knew of it at all.

He knew they were dead, and his spy network should have told him Rand was there. A good Villian should be prepared.

What exactly was Bel'al's plan? How was he planning to get Callandor from Rand after he picked it up? Use the Wonder Girls as hostages? Use the black Ajah to shield Rand from the power then take Callandor from him?

 

No. Just kick his arse once Rand touched it. Rand only had to breach the shield and it was broken, so when rand touched it, BAM, blow him up before he draws through it.

 

All in all, not a very smart plan.

 

Beating an untrained, slightly mad youth who can't even grasp saidin at will or see his own weaves? That actually sounds pretty easy, if still a bit of a risk. Be'lal and the Forsaken still had no real knowledge of ta'veren and the effects they can have. There's comments that LTT seemed lucky at times, but the idea of it actually being a real attribute is entirely new. Be'lal also couldn't have anticipated that any modern, "primitive," Aes Sedai would even know the weave for balefire, let alone have the will to use it.

Untrained but he already killed a forsaken. He knew he could at least grasp Saiden, he couldn't know how often he was able too. But we know it doesn't take long to pull thru an Angreal, seconds, so I guess he thought he'd have time to form a weave while he tried to control it. it seems really really risky to me is all I'm saying. Not the way I would have played it out.

I'd have had a wonder girl or two with me held hostage, right beside me, telling him to grab it or else they die, slowly, one at a time.

@Vard The Joker in The Dark Knight. He lost RIGHT at the end because he didn't understand people as well as he thought he did. Not because the technicals of his plans were off.

 

Mostly, I just want the villains to actually BE a threat. So I have a reason to care about what's going on

Oh they're threats, it's not as bad as that.

The Joker was a threat, you're correct, but he still kept his pride, he could have done so much more. He talked too much.

So there are no smart villains in this series? :(

 

the friend who reccomended this to me lied to me

Umm...

Ishy isn't too dumb. The rest all have their flaws that they ignore because they think they're too powerful. So i guess it depends on how you define smart.

I mean it's a great series, but what villian in what series was smart? (I honestly can't think of one). It's just life, I didn't mean to turn you off of anything sir, I was just tossing out random thoughts.

Most people aren't criminal masterminds. That's why they're caught. Then you have lines like:

 

"The successful criminal brain is always superior. It has to be!" - Dr No

 

I don't think a villain NEEDS to be stupid. They can have flaws which are exploited which leads to their defeat, but they can be otherwise highly intelligent.

 

If the villain isn't a threat then there's no tension, ergo, no reason to give a damn

Most people aren't, because they don't try. But that's what depressing about it. At least when someone is good and they screw up, it's usually blamed on them sacrificing themselves for the greater good. If you're evil, you don't sacrifice, so what's you excuse. You don't have compunctions about doing whatever needs to be done, so your plans can be better more powerful, you should never lose.

Also, if what you say is true, then there's no way I can enjoy ANY series.

 

... sigh

Pretty much. Although when I read, I just think of what I would have done differently, and it amuses me.

Dammit, can't ONE villain be smart in this damn series? (who isn't Lanfear, I can't stand Lanfear)

Brah, think about any book. VILLIANS ALWAYS SUCK! It pisses me off, and confused the hell out of me until I sat and thought about RL, every criminal or villian in RL does dumb stuff too. I look at bank robberies and think how much easier they could have made things with a few alterations. Same with murders, kidnappings, etc.

All in all, it's a good thing most criminals are so stupid, or we would kill ourselves off (faster than we are now).

It's a rather depressing thought once you get deep down into it. Ponder on it for a while, you'll get depressed rather quickly. Being evil means you have to be stupid. /sigh

What exactly was Bel'al's plan? How was he planning to get Callandor from Rand after he picked it up? Use the Wonder Girls as hostages? Use the black Ajah to shield Rand from the power then take Callandor from him?

No. Just kick his arse once Rand touched it. Rand only had to breach the shield and it was broken, so when rand touched it, BAM, blow him up before he draws through it.

All in all, not a very smart plan.

Recently I've been re-reading The Shadow Rising, and something kind of caught my attention.

 

The passage in question comes in chapter 42 A Missing Leaf. Perrin notices the waygate in T'A'R is missing one of the leaves, and gets ambushed by Slayer. Slayer tries to draw him out into the open after he hides by talking to him.

 

"It was only a few hundred to begin, Goldeneyes. Just enough to keep those fool Whitecloaks off balance and see that the renegade died." Slayer's voice became angry. "The Shadow consume me if that one doesn't have more luck than the White Tower."

 

He's talking about Fain, of course, but what does he mean by 'more luck than the White Tower'? Why the White Tower, of all things?

If he's hanging around with the forsaken a lot, one would assume he's picked up some of their habits, disdain at these so called AS would be one of them. So maybe he just mean lucky to still be alive.

Now I am hungry for some cake.

Yea I may bake one today, not to eat, but for someone else to eat. Damn thread.

Ah, I see the source of your confusion now. It's because Anglophones are silly ( ). The original was "eat it and have it too", which (unlike the reverse) isn't chronologically possible.

It still doesn't explain why you want to just "Have cake."

Yon: I know. I did not mean to sound that way:)

 

Vard: if I understand you, it is the opposite. You cannot eat it now (the whole thing) and keep it for later to eat it. Maybe I just misunderstood you.

Oh no you got me right. I just wonder who wants to have cake if you're not going to eat it. However if the saying is supposed to imply have your cake now, and eat it later, it would make more sense, although it's still a bad saying to use to imply people are being greedy.

"You can't have your cake and eat it too"

Well what else would I do with cake that I had? Eat it right? Or share it with others who eat it. To say I can't have my cake and eat it too implies I want to do something else with the cake besides eat it right? (The context of the sentence), Thus my question is, what the heck else would you do with a cake? Look at it? Teast people with it? It's going to go bad soon, so you may as well eat it or give it away.

So the saying is supposed to mean have some cake now, and then save some for later?

No, I don't think that's what it's about. The very phrase 'have some cake' implies that eating a cake is as simple as going down to a bakery. Obviously, that's not how things used to be. You'd be lucky to get a cake once in, like, ever (a saying by Louis XVI's wife comes to mind). So, assuming you do have one, being able to eat it and still have some cake around must've been very cool. Regardless, what do I know. I've never studied English in any serious manner.

Marie Antoinette never said "let them eat cake."

Another misquote of history.

 

The saying means you can't have it both ways. You cannot eat your cake (now) and have it too (keep the lovely cake for later).

We're debating why you would want to save cake? The only thing you can do it eat it. Unless the message is, eat your cake now, and eat some later, which would make more sense I suppose. But you only have cake to eat it, so why would you want to eat it and have it?

I especially like the one about flour. As anyone who ever seen wet flour would know, that's patently wrong

(I do doubt whether you'd be able to blow in the first place, after having filled your mouth with flour, though)

 

EDIT:

Meltdown, that's okay. My argument in no way leaned on her actually having said that.

What's the flour one?

Ok, I just read the Wiki about it. It explained NOTHING! It just says where it came from, it does nothing to explain how stupid the saying is. However it did provide other sayings form other countries which made a lot more sense than our saying:

Various expressions are used to convey similar idioms in other languages:

• Bulgarian: И вълкът сит, и агнето цяло - Both the wolf is full, and the lamb is whole.
  
• Czech: Aby se vlk nažral a koza zůstala celá - The wolf is full and the goat stayed whole.
  
• Chinese: 又要马儿跑，又要马儿不吃草 (pinyin: Yòu yào mǎ'er pǎo, yòu yào mǎ'er bu chī cǎo.) - To want a horse that both runs fast and consumes no feed; or 魚與熊掌不可兼得 from Mencius - You cannot have both the fish and the bear's paw (as a rare delicacy) at the same time.
  
• Danish: Man kan ikke både blæse og have mel i munden - You cannot both blow and have flour in your mouth.
  
• Dutch: Je moet kiezen of delen - is based on card games such as Bridge or Whist] where one can either pass or choose a game. In case you're the last, you have to choose a game or the cards are discarded and redealt. In case your hand is just not good enough, you have to choose to play a game and potentially lose it, or discard a potentially winning hand. Both are impossible, you can't have it both ways.
  
• French: Vouloir le beurre et l'argent du beurre - to want the butter and the money from (selling) the butter. The idiom can be emphasized by adding et le sourire de la crémière (and the smile of the female buttermaker).
  
• German:, 'wasch' mich, aber mach mich nicht naß! - please wash me, but don't get me wet!.
  
  • Switzerland: Du chasch nit dr Füfer und s Weggli ha - you can't have the five cent coin and a Swiss bread roll.
    

  [*]Greek: Κaι την πίτa ολόκληρη κaι τον σκύλο χορτάτο - you want the entire pie and the dog full.

  [*]Hebrew: אי אפשר לאכול את העוגה ולהשאיר אותה שלמה - you can't eat the cake and keep it whole

  [*]Italian: Avere la botte piena e la moglie ubriaca - to have the barrel full and the wife drunk.

  [*]Nepal: dubai haat ma laddu, which means having laddu (a sweet candy) in both your hands.

  [*]Papiamentu: Skohe of lag'i skohe - choose or let choose

  [*]Persian: هم خر را خواستن و هم خرما را - wanting both the donkey and the (sugar)dates

  [*]Polish: Wilk syty i owca cała - The wolf is full, and the lamb - whole.

  [*]Portuguese: Querer ter sol na eira e chuva no nabal - wanting the sun shine on the threshing floor, while it rains on the turnip field.

  [*]Russian: Тяжело усидеть на двух стульях - it's hard to have a seat on two chairs at once.

  [*]Serbian: Не можеш да имаш и јаре и паре - You can't have both goatling and money.

  [*]Spanish: Querer estar en misa y en procesión - wishing to be both at Mass and in the procession and nadar y guardar la ropa - swimming and keeping an eye on the removed clothes).

  • Argentina: la chancha y los veinte - the pig and the twenties. It comes from the old piggybanks for children that used to contain coins of 20 cents. The only way to get the coins was to break the piggybank open -- hence the phrase. This can be emphasized by adding y la máquina de hacer chorizos - and the machine to make sausage.
    

We fail! Lol.

http://www.bbc.co.uk...cake_page.shtml

 

 

 

.........what was that about the inter-book void.......

But that just goes to prove my point. I understand what the saying is supposed to mean, but I'm say it's a silly saying. There's only one purpose for cake, to eat it! Yoni, I guess I understand what you're implying, cake was a status symbol. To show off to your friends, like "Hey look, I'm cool cause I have cake" and if you ate the aforementioned cake you couldn't show it off. My counter is, did people really show off cake back then? Was cake a status symbol? IF so, what a scary world in which we live.

But even so, who wants to have cake

Well, it seems obvious to me that the point is you still get to eat it later on. Therefore, to eat a cake, but still get to have it (so it can be enjoyed all over again) is highly desirable (at least it is to me; I know not everyone makes a big to-do over food). Of course, the phrase was probably minted at a time when obesity and cholesterol weren't as big a concern as it is in modern times (i.e., eating cakes wasn't such an everyday occurrence).

So the saying is supposed to mean have some cake now, and then save some for later? But they'd still be eating it! I guess that makes more sense than just wanting to stare at a cake.

@ Sid, Lol. Sorry, seriously I've always hated that phrase, since I was a youngin, like 6 years old when my grandmother first said it to me. I'm pretty sure I got punished for getting smart back when I said what else would you do with cake besides eat it.

Specially made cakes can be beautifully or elaborately decorated, like at weddings or extravagant birthday parties. There, the cake can be almost like a work of art to enjoy visually and/or have sentimental value as a reminder of a happy event. Thus, the cake cannot serve both the purposes of a lovely work of art and a tasty desert to enjoy.

It's still made to be eaten. It's food and thus pershible. If it wasn't made to be eaten, they'd make one of those fake carboard cakes. Those you can look at. Regardless, even if you just want to look at it (Which no one does) you wouldn't make an edible cake, because it will go bad real quick and thus ruin the point of making a cake simply to look at.

I had a response to Sephie's question typed up before, but I'm trying to curttail my rants about negative feelings toward the last two books lately and just let it go. Barid Bel Medar said it in a kinder, more consise way. The first read it was somewhat tolerable, but when it became apparent later that the whole ordeal was pretty much pointless, I began loathing it.

 

Also, did the dice game Mat won in Hinderstap make any sense whatsoever to anybody?

 

The dice game was the only way to get supplies. They didn't want to take gold for the supplies, but they'd make a bet of it. (Seems silly until you consider human nature, they thought they would get to keep their cake and eat it too, an analogy which makes 0 sense to me, who the hell keeps cake and doesn't eat it)

That analogy has been misquoted for years. It should be eat your cake and have it too (or as well). Once eaten you may not still have or keep it.

But even so, who wants to have cake and not eat it? What's the point of having cake if you're not going to eat or share it? It's pointless, and thus isn't something a normal person would desire.

Now if they said Play with your action figures and keep them perfectly pristine in the box as well, it would make sense. But cake is only for eating.

Hi there! I have a simple question to ask!!!

 

 

I'm re-reading the novels right now in anticipation of the 14th book and I'm on the 3rd book The Dragon Reborn circa chapter 24 I think it was. It's amazing how much I've forgotten and just how far reaching things are from the first couple of novels.

 

Anyhow I'm at the part where Egwene first uses the ring and enters the dream world and wanted to know who Sylvie is - the old ugly woman who appears that tells her a few things and boots her out. At first I thought it may have been Verin helping out a little and then I seemed to remember that either Lanfear or Moghedien have appeared as an ugly old woman. As I said I've forgotten a lot. A little help please!!!!

 

Thanx!!!

Pretty sure it's assumed She is Lanfear.