Seeing as books are pretty subjective, saying that 'I didn't have a problem with the pace' is just fine.

 

And I already gave you an argument that you did not reply to. In short: The pacing in the last three books was nothing compared with the pace of the earlier books. It was MUCH faster. What you said was 'there are places in the story that will naturally slow down. So what? It doesn't change that the last three had a much faster pace. Much more happened in the last three than in the previous five books combined. 

Subjective or not, "I didn't have a problem with it" just shuts down discussion. If people don't offer some basis for their opinions, what the hell do we talk about? Why didn't you have a problem with it? Other people did have a problem - is that not a valid stance?

 

Also, I did offer an argument - pointing out that the pace was slow at the point where you would expect the pace to be slowest (the middle), and that there were still significant pacing issues when you would expect the pace to be fastest (the end) is a response. Saying "more happened" is meaningless - more was able to happen because the previous books spent a lot of time setting everything up, but because the set up was already done, the pacing issues in the last books are less excusable.

 

 

Pacing was a problem compared to what though? RJ's pace over the majority of the previous 4-5 books? Don't make me laugh.

 

The pacing problems of the middle books and the pacing problems of the last books are different problems. They are not dependant on one another, they do not excuse one another, regardless of which is worse. CoT might be worse than AMoL, but that doesn't mean there isn't a problem with AMoL. And it doesn't mean you can shut down discussion of the problems with AMoL just by pointing to CoT. I'm not saying the pacing of the end was a problem compared to the middle. I'm saying the pacing of the end was a problem, regardless of the pacing in the middle.

[Removed]

Seeing as books are pretty subjective, saying that 'I didn't have a problem with the pace' is just fine.

 

And I already gave you an argument that you did not reply to. In short: The pacing in the last three books was nothing compared with the pace of the earlier books. It was MUCH faster. What you said was 'there are places in the story that will naturally slow down. So what? It doesn't change that the last three had a much faster pace. Much more happened in the last three than in the previous five books combined. 

Subjective or not, "I didn't have a problem with it" just shuts down discussion. If people don't offer some basis for their opinions, what the hell do we talk about? Why didn't you have a problem with it? Other people did have a problem - is that not a valid stance?

Also, I did offer an argument - pointing out that the pace was slow at the point where you would expect the pace to be slowest (the middle), and that there were still significant pacing issues when you would expect the pace to be fastest (the end) is a response. Saying "more happened" is meaningless - more was able to happen because the previous books spent a lot of time setting everything up, but because the set up was already done, the pacing issues in the last books are less excusable.

 

 

 

 

@mr ares,

the two tams confusion was caused by tam being with rand in tom not in tgs and then reappearing

with perrin in tom(perrin part in the gathering stom is negligible,3 chapters only and tam is

mentioned only in 1 of them).

the perrin scenes in tom are set before the rand scenes in tom,and yet,tom chapter 1(apples first)

is about rand post his dragonmount epiphany and only in chapter 30 perrin witness rand struggles

on top of dragonmount.

...Yes, I'm aware of that. It was, in fact, my point - that the split created certain structural issues, of which these were two examples.

 

Maybe two volumes would have been better, but one would have been: 1. far too long & 2. If you cut it down to be a manageable length it would be rushed.

 

I also don't think think that the slowdown failed as much as with G.R.R Martin. At points in was too much, but I think it still worked reasonably well. But Mr. Martin's bog-down.... After finishing the most recent one my reaction was just 'meh'. It was a step down from the excellence which I had come to expect form him. Which is probably why I reacted like that. When you are used to a certain standard, anything less is a Stark (heh) contrast. 

 

@Mr. Ares: The 'Two Tam's thing never was a problem for me, and until you mentioned it, I didn't know it confused anybody.

Most people seem to have got it, but there have been quite a few threads posted here asking for clarification of what's going on, so quite a few people were confused. So I'd say it was certainly an issue even if you personally weren't confused. If the crossover hadn't happened until the timeline were caught up with one another, there wouldn't have been a problem - but that necessitated the Perrin material be moved into TGS. In fact, a lot of ToM should be, because VoG is the turning point - so the material from other storylines in ToM which is set before the turning point is undermined because that point has already been reached by the reader. We've already seen the crisis past. It rips the guts out of ToM, and leaves a lot of stories having to play catch up rather than meaningfully building towards a climax. It's worth noting that RJ's stated reason for only wanting one more book was structural, and that it's the three book structure that causes so many problems for the last volumes.

 

And I'm not saying that the last three books were perfect. I especially didn't like the underutilization of Perrin in AMoL. 

 

'Do you want the plot advancement to slow to a crawl again, all so an arbitrary number of books you can see as enough is reached?

On the contrary, I though the plot was NO WHERE NEAR a crawl. Compared to the rest of the series, the plot was moving at a very high speed in the last three books. You complaints seem to lie with Mr. Sanderson, but because it was too slow for you. How is that logical when RJ's plot moved WWWWWWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAYYYYYYYYYYYYYY slower?

 

 

There are times when it is natural that the plot will slow down, and times when it is natural it will speed up. RJ slowed down when his storylines were at their most numerous and spread out, and the pace began picking up in KoD as the story approached the climax. Brandon's books might not have been as slowly paced, but they were the climax of the series, not putting all the pieces in place for the climax of the series. A midpoint and an endpoint can be judged on different criteria, and what is acceptable in one isn't necessarily acceptable in the other. You can see the same structures being used in individual books in the series - LoC spends a lot of time building up to Dumai's Wells, for example.

 

Actually, if I wasn't confused, the two Tams wasn't an issue.It wasn't an issue for you, or for me. It was still an issue for quite a few people, so it's entirely justified to highlight it as an issue, and "it wasn't an issue for me" is not a valid rebuttal. It was an issue for people because of an underlying structural problem - even if you know what's going on it doesn't detract from there being an underlying structural problem.

 

Also, your rebuttal to my point about the slowdown is not valid. In KoD to ToM the characters are just as spread out if not more so. The changes really come in ToM, after Rand's epiphany. Then he ignores the Dark One's snares and refocuses himself. The change comes for us when it does for Rand. That's what makes it a great story arc. The slowing is when Rand becomes wrapped up in lesser problems that the Dark One throws in his path to distract him from his purpose. After his epiphany, the plot sppeds up. Also because at that time, other sub-plots were coming to an end (Perrin's mission and rescuing Faile, Mat & Tuon, ect.).

In KoD we get the ending to several lingering plotlines - the Succession ends, Mat marries Tuon and is reunited with the Band, Perrin rescues Faile. While the characters might not have joined up, the plotlines that were stopping them from joining up are done with, in many cases (it's worth noting that I said "RJ slowed down when his storylines were at their most numerous and spread out". Storylines, not characters, and numerous as well as spread out - pointing out that KoD ended several plotlines, which you did, only validates my point). Things are moving towards an endgame. However, that momentum is then squandered. Subplots are given far more time than they really warrant, at a time when the series should be (and was) cutting down on those same subplots (look at the economy with which RTJ dealt with Ituralde's plotline in CoT and KoD - a couple of prologue POVs and we here about how his campaign is going from the Seanchan near the end. Then Brandon gives it greater focus and page time, when it didn't need it). RJ had a slow middle, and began picking up the pace as he approached the end - Brandon might have paced his books faster than, for example, CoT, but you're still comparing the pace of the middle to that of the end, rather than just the pace of RJ against that of Brandon. Even if RJ's pace was objectively slower, it was slower at a time when the pace was naturally going to be slower, so it isn't necessarily slower in relative terms.

 

 

I did not have a problem with the pace. And might confusion about the 'two Tams' say more about the reader than the writing? The story sped up in the last three because it needed to, and it did. Brandon was going at a relatively faster pace. I actually though AMoL should be LONGER because we didn't see enough of Perrin. 

 

"I didn't have a problem with it" doesn't constitute a defence. You do actually need to provide an argument. As for the Two Tams, bear in mind that the structure used created the opportunity for confusion. EotW has an incident with a nested flashback, where we apparently have the same scene twice (the second time is actually a flashback to the first time, which is itself shown in flashback) - while a close reading makes clear what's going on (so the reader can be blamed, if one chooses), the author has still chosen to put things across in an unnecessarily confusing way. The same is true here. When the various storylines weren't interacting with one another it didn't matter if they were in sync or if one was rushing ahead. But when you have the storylines crossing over you need to take care. It seemed like they were written to be read a certain way, and then they changed the chapter order around without changing the chapters. So structurally it remains a problem even if it's an intelligible one to most readers.

 

 

@mr ares,

the two tams confusion was caused by tam being with rand in tom not in tgs and then reappearing

with perrin in tom(perrin part in the gathering stom is negligible,3 chapters only and tam is

mentioned only in 1 of them).

the perrin scenes in tom are set before the rand scenes in tom,and yet,tom chapter 1(apples first)

is about rand post his dragonmount epiphany and only in chapter 30 perrin witness rand struggles

on top of dragonmount.

...Yes, I'm aware of that. It was, in fact, my point - that the split created certain structural issues, of which these were two examples.

 

Maybe two volumes would have been better, but one would have been: 1. far too long & 2. If you cut it down to be a manageable length it would be rushed.

 

I also don't think think that the slowdown failed as much as with G.R.R Martin. At points in was too much, but I think it still worked reasonably well. But Mr. Martin's bog-down.... After finishing the most recent one my reaction was just 'meh'. It was a step down from the excellence which I had come to expect form him. Which is probably why I reacted like that. When you are used to a certain standard, anything less is a Stark (heh) contrast. 

 

@Mr. Ares: The 'Two Tam's thing never was a problem for me, and until you mentioned it, I didn't know it confused anybody.

Most people seem to have got it, but there have been quite a few threads posted here asking for clarification of what's going on, so quite a few people were confused. So I'd say it was certainly an issue even if you personally weren't confused. If the crossover hadn't happened until the timeline were caught up with one another, there wouldn't have been a problem - but that necessitated the Perrin material be moved into TGS. In fact, a lot of ToM should be, because VoG is the turning point - so the material from other storylines in ToM which is set before the turning point is undermined because that point has already been reached by the reader. We've already seen the crisis past. It rips the guts out of ToM, and leaves a lot of stories having to play catch up rather than meaningfully building towards a climax. It's worth noting that RJ's stated reason for only wanting one more book was structural, and that it's the three book structure that causes so many problems for the last volumes.

 

And I'm not saying that the last three books were perfect. I especially didn't like the underutilization of Perrin in AMoL. 

 

'Do you want the plot advancement to slow to a crawl again, all so an arbitrary number of books you can see as enough is reached?

On the contrary, I though the plot was NO WHERE NEAR a crawl. Compared to the rest of the series, the plot was moving at a very high speed in the last three books. You complaints seem to lie with Mr. Sanderson, but because it was too slow for you. How is that logical when RJ's plot moved WWWWWWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAYYYYYYYYYYYYYY slower?

 

 

There are times when it is natural that the plot will slow down, and times when it is natural it will speed up. RJ slowed down when his storylines were at their most numerous and spread out, and the pace began picking up in KoD as the story approached the climax. Brandon's books might not have been as slowly paced, but they were the climax of the series, not putting all the pieces in place for the climax of the series. A midpoint and an endpoint can be judged on different criteria, and what is acceptable in one isn't necessarily acceptable in the other. You can see the same structures being used in individual books in the series - LoC spends a lot of time building up to Dumai's Wells, for example.

Actually, if I wasn't confused, the two Tams wasn't an issue.It wasn't an issue for you, or for me. It was still an issue for quite a few people, so it's entirely justified to highlight it as an issue, and "it wasn't an issue for me" is not a valid rebuttal. It was an issue for people because of an underlying structural problem - even if you know what's going on it doesn't detract from there being an underlying structural problem.

Also, your rebuttal to my point about the slowdown is not valid. In KoD to ToM the characters are just as spread out if not more so. The changes really come in ToM, after Rand's epiphany. Then he ignores the Dark One's snares and refocuses himself. The change comes for us when it does for Rand. That's what makes it a great story arc. The slowing is when Rand becomes wrapped up in lesser problems that the Dark One throws in his path to distract him from his purpose. After his epiphany, the plot sppeds up. Also because at that time, other sub-plots were coming to an end (Perrin's mission and rescuing Faile, Mat & Tuon, ect.).

In KoD we get the ending to several lingering plotlines - the Succession ends, Mat marries Tuon and is reunited with the Band, Perrin rescues Faile. While the characters might not have joined up, the plotlines that were stopping them from joining up are done with, in many cases (it's worth noting that I said "RJ slowed down when his storylines were at their most numerous and spread out". Storylines, not characters, and numerous as well as spread out - pointing out that KoD ended several plotlines, which you did, only validates my point). Things are moving towards an endgame. However, that momentum is then squandered. Subplots are given far more time than they really warrant, at a time when the series should be (and was) cutting down on those same subplots (look at the economy with which RTJ dealt with Ituralde's plotline in CoT and KoD - a couple of prologue POVs and we here about how his campaign is going from the Seanchan near the end. Then Brandon gives it greater focus and page time, when it didn't need it). RJ had a slow middle, and began picking up the pace as he approached the end - Brandon might have paced his books faster than, for example, CoT, but you're still comparing the pace of the middle to that of the end, rather than just the pace of RJ against that of Brandon. Even if RJ's pace was objectively slower, it was slower at a time when the pace was naturally going to be slower, so it isn't necessarily slower in relative terms.

@mr ares,

the two tams confusion was caused by tam being with rand in tom not in tgs and then reappearing

with perrin in tom(perrin part in the gathering stom is negligible,3 chapters only and tam is

mentioned only in 1 of them).

the perrin scenes in tom are set before the rand scenes in tom,and yet,tom chapter 1(apples first)

is about rand post his dragonmount epiphany and only in chapter 30 perrin witness rand struggles

on top of dragonmount.

...Yes, I'm aware of that. It was, in fact, my point - that the split created certain structural issues, of which these were two examples.

Maybe two volumes would have been better, but one would have been: 1. far too long & 2. If you cut it down to be a manageable length it would be rushed.

 

I also don't think think that the slowdown failed as much as with G.R.R Martin. At points in was too much, but I think it still worked reasonably well. But Mr. Martin's bog-down.... After finishing the most recent one my reaction was just 'meh'. It was a step down from the excellence which I had come to expect form him. Which is probably why I reacted like that. When you are used to a certain standard, anything less is a Stark (heh) contrast. 

 

@Mr. Ares: The 'Two Tam's thing never was a problem for me, and until you mentioned it, I didn't know it confused anybody.

Most people seem to have got it, but there have been quite a few threads posted here asking for clarification of what's going on, so quite a few people were confused. So I'd say it was certainly an issue even if you personally weren't confused. If the crossover hadn't happened until the timeline were caught up with one another, there wouldn't have been a problem - but that necessitated the Perrin material be moved into TGS. In fact, a lot of ToM should be, because VoG is the turning point - so the material from other storylines in ToM which is set before the turning point is undermined because that point has already been reached by the reader. We've already seen the crisis past. It rips the guts out of ToM, and leaves a lot of stories having to play catch up rather than meaningfully building towards a climax. It's worth noting that RJ's stated reason for only wanting one more book was structural, and that it's the three book structure that causes so many problems for the last volumes.

And I'm not saying that the last three books were perfect. I especially didn't like the underutilization of Perrin in AMoL. 

 

'Do you want the plot advancement to slow to a crawl again, all so an arbitrary number of books you can see as enough is reached?

On the contrary, I though the plot was NO WHERE NEAR a crawl. Compared to the rest of the series, the plot was moving at a very high speed in the last three books. You complaints seem to lie with Mr. Sanderson, but because it was too slow for you. How is that logical when RJ's plot moved WWWWWWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAYYYYYYYYYYYYYY slower?

There are times when it is natural that the plot will slow down, and times when it is natural it will speed up. RJ slowed down when his storylines were at their most numerous and spread out, and the pace began picking up in KoD as the story approached the climax. Brandon's books might not have been as slowly paced, but they were the climax of the series, not putting all the pieces in place for the climax of the series. A midpoint and an endpoint can be judged on different criteria, and what is acceptable in one isn't necessarily acceptable in the other. You can see the same structures being used in individual books in the series - LoC spends a lot of time building up to Dumai's Wells, for example.

 

 

 

 

nor do I remember any bloat that contrasted at all with the earlier books that were written by RJ. 

 

The key to this is where we are in the story arc. Granted the artifical split of AMoL without near enough material to fill it out accentuated the issue, but at the climax of the story things like Dom details below should not be happening:

 

It's appalling how many POVs and pages Brandon has needed to write that story. Typically, we might have gotten one Gawyn shortish POV in Dorlan (typically prologue stuff) where he learned Egwene's captive, and he is thorn, and then nothing until suddenly he interrupted a Siuan/Bryne scene with a sudden arrival, his growing frustration mentioned only via observations of Siuan from then on (we didn't need a Lelaine scene making completely irrelevant and stupid inquiries about orchards in Andor (!) we just needed a reference by Siuan that Lelaine was manipulating Gawyn, until as a last resort Siuan went to him for the rescue. For the rest, we needed one confrontation with Egwene, and one conversation with Elayne or Bryne or Siuan, not three scenes of the same whining and self-pity, with each of them in turn...

 

 

I don't think that the split of AMOL was 'artificial'. I really don't think that the climax of Rand on Dragonmount in TGS could have or should have been in the same book as the last battle. That is the turning point, the end of the slowing. The turning point HAS to happen. And I don't think that after the turning point, there should only have been one book. I think that would have made it seem too easy for our heroes. 

 

I'm not sure how more books makes things appear harder for our heroes. Surely it's the content of the books that does that? Also, is there any particular reason why you don't think that VoG and the Last Battle should be in the same book? The split as it was created certain structural issues. Perrin's scene on Dragonmount, for example, is made redundant by us knowing the outcome. It doesn't change our understanding of what happened, it just lets us know someone was watching. The Two Tams confused a lot of people. That's just two examples off the top of my head. While TGS was well structured as a book, ToM and AMoL weren't.

 

 

So they are being thwarted and played by the Shadow at every turn for 11 books and they somehow turn it around and finish it in one? Ridiculous. That would a ridiculously rushed ending. Also: Two Tams? 

 

Reason is that 1: the ending would have been too rushed and because it was in the same book as the last battle would have detracted from it. It was the climax of book 12 and if it was in AMoL then it wouldn't have gotten its due. 

The Two Tams is the confusion caused by Tam being with Rand in TGS and then reappearing with Perrin in ToM - there have been quite a few posts here asking what was going on, and suspicions of some sort of Darkfriend plot before it was pointed out it was due to the timelines crossing over despite being out of sync (the ToM scenes are set before TGS). Even if most people did get it right, I'm not seeing any benefit to it that would outweigh the confusion it caused to others - it just comes across as bad structure.

Also, that's not really a defence of your point - regardless of the number of books, there are still the same number of plot points, and potentially the same number of words even, between VoG and TG. Do you want the plot advancement to slow to a crawl again, all so an arbitrary number of books you can see as enough is reached? Even though the structure to support those books being separate just isn't there? Let's say, as an experiment, that you cut up the last three books and interspersed the chapters into order, then bound it all together as one book - would it be too rushed? Also, in a one book narrative, VoG would have still been significant as the turning point. You don't have to change one word of it to fit it into a one book finale. How does it detract from it? Many people here list moments other than climaxes as their favourites, so how would it not get its due?

 

 

nor do I remember any bloat that contrasted at all with the earlier books that were written by RJ. 

 

The key to this is where we are in the story arc. Granted the artifical split of AMoL without near enough material to fill it out accentuated the issue, but at the climax of the story things like Dom details below should not be happening:

 

It's appalling how many POVs and pages Brandon has needed to write that story. Typically, we might have gotten one Gawyn shortish POV in Dorlan (typically prologue stuff) where he learned Egwene's captive, and he is thorn, and then nothing until suddenly he interrupted a Siuan/Bryne scene with a sudden arrival, his growing frustration mentioned only via observations of Siuan from then on (we didn't need a Lelaine scene making completely irrelevant and stupid inquiries about orchards in Andor (!) we just needed a reference by Siuan that Lelaine was manipulating Gawyn, until as a last resort Siuan went to him for the rescue. For the rest, we needed one confrontation with Egwene, and one conversation with Elayne or Bryne or Siuan, not three scenes of the same whining and self-pity, with each of them in turn...

 

 

I don't think that the split of AMOL was 'artificial'. I really don't think that the climax of Rand on Dragonmount in TGS could have or should have been in the same book as the last battle. That is the turning point, the end of the slowing. The turning point HAS to happen. And I don't think that after the turning point, there should only have been one book. I think that would have made it seem too easy for our heroes. 

 

I'm not sure how more books makes things appear harder for our heroes. Surely it's the content of the books that does that? Also, is there any particular reason why you don't think that VoG and the Last Battle should be in the same book? The split as it was created certain structural issues. Perrin's scene on Dragonmount, for example, is made redundant by us knowing the outcome. It doesn't change our understanding of what happened, it just lets us know someone was watching. The Two Tams confused a lot of people. That's just two examples off the top of my head. While TGS was well structured as a book, ToM and AMoL weren't.

None of the Forsaken other than Lanfear sound hot. Sorry, but plumply pretty just don't cut it!

That's "plumply pretty when compared to Lanfear". By any other standard, Graendal is supposed to be quite the looker, she's just overshadowed by Lanfear.

 

 

I do not recall Mat becoming a court jester or he being dressed in motley.

 

mb you crack me up mate.

 

What were the exact words of Sanderson's admission?

 It's been quoted numerous times but once again:

 

However, in going back to Mr. Jordan's writing and delving into it, I realized I'd missed large parts of what made Mat into Mat—the tension between what he says and does, the constant little quips in narrative (which tend to be more clever than the actual things he says out loud), the complaining that isn't really complaining. I didn't understand Mat. I tried so hard to make him funny, I wrote the HIM out of him.

 

In my first sentence of the post, I was speaking about the literal sense.

No-one else was.

 

 

WETLANDER

Was Bao the Wyld part of Sharan prophecy? If so, was Demandred co-opting their Dragon prophecies?

BRANDON SANDERSON

"The Wyld" was part of Sharan prophecy; Demandred thinks he co-opted the Sharan version of the "dragon prophecies" but it was actually about him all along.

WETLANDER

(I was surprised to get an answer to this; I expect some of it will show up in "River of Souls" anyway. An interesting follow-on question might be whether this means the Sharans were destined by the Pattern to fight for Team Dark.)

http://www.theoryland.com/intvsresults.php?kwt=%27demandred%27

In AMoL it mentions a couple times that the Sharans are following because their prophecy said that their version of the Dragon would be able to channel without using weaves. So Demanded and (can't remember the female Forsaken) use the TP to trick them into thinking they are the prophesied one.

Except Brandon confirmed that Demandred actually was the Sharan prophesied one - he though he was subverting prophecies about Rand, but he was actually fulfilling prophecies about himself.

Alright credit where credits due, she played a blinder with Rand, IMO some of her antics were unnecessary, but yeah she was brilliant at times, i didnt say i didnt like her, im not one of these Cads bashers, but i still think she went overboard and it all nearly went sour for her at the end.

But lets face it, you (Suttree) make a compelling argument for Cads' treatment of Rand, but she still treats everyone else like their a idiot, except the WO' of course, though she was more often than not in the right the woman had a ego with a capital E that took the shine off her a bit for me.

Actually, Cadsuane treats a number of different people in rather different ways - she offers praise and reinforcement to Samitsu, for example, and is respectful of Verin (and clearly sees through Verin's facade). Those people she does treat like idiots usually are, and those she treats with respect are those deserving of it.

 

 

They are all shown as arrogant, shrewish, self centered, hypocritical, petty, vain, cruel bullies heavily into BDSM.

No, they're not. Especially not the BDSM part - just because a few people get spanked, doesn't mean everyone is into BDSM. If a child is spanked, would you say the child is into BDSM? While they may all display a number of faults, it's simply not fair and not accurate to tar them all with the same brush like this.

 

 

Yes, they are. Into S&M, that is. Every time a novice/accepted/even a sister is punished for anything it always seems to involve corporal punishment of some type, no matter what else is assigned,such as onerous chores or isolation or even exile. Admittedly they are most of them much more heavily into discipline and sadism than bondage or masochism.

 

No, they're not. Corporal punishment and S&M are not the same thing. There's very little sign that any of them enjoy the punishment - either giving or receiving. That means it is neither sadism nor masochism, simply a culture which uses corporal punishment, with no sexual or fetishistic overtones, in their minds at least, to that punishment. That you see it as S&M says more about you than about the AS. It's worth comparing with Therava's treatment of Galina, which has definite elements of domination and sadism, and Semi's sadistic tendencies are noted as well.

 

 

The Aes Sedai are the worst, of course. The oaths they swear against lying and using the Power as a weapon except in self defense are a hypocritical farce. They lie - through omission, misinformation and misdirection - so often that there are folk sayings against believing a word they say. They constantly use the Power to physically punish people for doing something they don't like or saying something they don't like or for not cringing sufficiently when they are given a "look". Their training in the tower seems to mainly consist of instilling overweening arrogance, an unfailing sense of infallibility, a sense of entitlement and a taste for BDSM games in the initiates.

Again, maybe you should look up what BDSM actually means. If anything, a girl's time in the Tower is more likely to be one of heavy to industrial strength lesbianism than anything BDSM related. Also, they do not swear an Oath against lying, they swear one against not speaking the truth. And they do speak the truth - phrased misleadingly, perhaps, but they abide by the letter of their Oaths. And physically punishing someone is not the same as using a weapon. Nor do we see them complain about others using these tricks against them - they are hardly hypocritical. It's true that the Oaths don't really serve any useful purpose, and have helped the AS to lose their way, but just because they are a bad thing doesn't mean that any term for a bad thing can be used to describe them.

 

 

To speak no word that is not true is a prohibition against lying and intentionally manipulating words to make someone believe a lie is lying by any rational sense of morality. Therefore they are both untruthful and liars.

 

But you admit they are not hypocrites? To speak no word that is not true is an Oath against untruth, not against lies. They utter no untruths. The strictures of the Oaths are not moral, they are literal. They swear to speak no word that is not true, and it is to that they are bound. The Oath Rod holds them to the letter, not the spirit. Now, I'll grant that the Oaths are useless and counter-productive, but it's simply untrue to call the AS hypocritical in this matter, and to accuse them of lying is arguable, as they have uttered no untruths. They have been misleading rather than false. You might no see a distinction there, but it exists.

 

 

The extortion racket they run to support themselves seems to have convinced them that Tower law supersedes all other and gives them authority over all other channellers and objects of magic no matter what land they reside in as well as the right to tell anyone, noble or peasant, what to do.

Except that while Tower law dictates all objects of the Power rightfully belong to the Tower, this is not an edict they attempt to enforce. It's a paper claim. When do we ever see them trying to enforce Tower law on those who are not either sworn to the Tower or on the Tower's land?

 

 

Except that they do whenever they can get away with it. Look at how Moraine basically robbed the Aiel at Rhuidean - using they ignorance and the awe they still felt at that time to appropriate the objects. And not just angreal and such. The Aes Sedai feel they have the right to arrest and punish anyone who pretends to be Aes Sedai and they attest to this several times themselves. They also feel that channeling is exclusively their property and that even wilders who have successfully weathered learning on their own had better not channel too openly. Just exactly where does this authority come from - other than there own arrogant presumption.

 

I would say the AS have every right to be protective of their name and their identity - if people go around calling themselves AS and the AS do nothing to stop it, they tacitly admit these women have the right to the name - it's sort of like copyright law. If you don't defend your intellectual property against infringements, you can lose the right to it. And if people get killed or ripped off by AS, you don't think that would reflect badly on the WT, and potentially put the lives of Sisters in danger? It's worth noting that they have known about the Kin all along, and have tolerated them - because the Kin keep their heads down and don't go around pretending to be AS. They don't have a problem with other channelers. Only with perceived threats.

 

 

I've had a hard time deciding which female character I loathe the most - Egwene or Cadsuane. Egwene wants exactly the same things that Elaida wants - unquestioning, instantaneous, blind obedience, White tower rule of the world (under her absolute rule of the Tower, of course), and Rand on a leash as her trained attack dog without any stupid plans of his own.

This is simply not true. Egwene is ambitious, but she has goals far bigger than herself and her own power. She does end up sacrificing herself. Due to the nature of her position, she has to win the support and the obedience of others in the Tower, to convince them to follow her in a way she wouldn't have had to under normal circumstances. She had to reunite the Tower. She shows no interest in "absolute power" as an end in itself, she intends ot use the power she obtains as a means to an end.

 

She's a megalomaniac. I never said she's evil or cowardly or lazy. Her base, that she always comes back to no matter what temporary insecurity, hiccup or setback pops ups, is her unshakeable belief that she always knows best, she is always basically right whatever her desire and everyone should be doing exactly as she thinks they should do. Of course she would deny she wants absolute power, which is why she sublimates it into a desire to make the Tower itself as the strongest power in the world. But since she is the rightful ruler of the Tower - well you do the math. She's eighteen. How is that not pyschopathy?

 

Again, more words you clearly don't understand. She is neither megalomaniacal nor psychopathic. If she truly desired absolute power, why would she relinquish it, by sacrificing her life? Why would she not seek it out, by letting Elayne be the Light's supreme commander? She's ambitious, as I said, but she simply does not fit the profile you're trying to construct for her.

 

 

Cadsuane I hate because she is so stupid. Her stated purpose is to make Rand laugh and cry again - in other words to reclaim humanity. Her brilliant plan? Offer him a little sympathy, a bit of respect, a modicum of trust and maybe a smidgen of gratitude for the sacrifice of his life? Why, no! I'll berate and belittle, embarrass and humiliate, insult, manipulate and deride him and occasionally physically assault him. In public whenever possible. And I'll always derisively call him "boy" rather than use his name or title. Yeah, that'll restore his humanity and help him win Tarmon Gaidon.

Well, up until the Semi incident it was working. She's hardly stupid. It's worth noting that she uses many different ways of dealing with people, and tailors her methods to the person in question. Would Rand have followed her advice if she had offered him trust and compassion? No. He saw AS and thought them out to manipulate him. So Cadsuane swore she wouldn't put the Tower's interests ahead of his own, and was bluntly critical of his mistakes. She did not display the weaknesses that might have led him to steamroller her, but nor did she give the impression of a false friend trying to manipulate him for her own ends. Instead, she was a trusted advisor, someone to be listened to and respected, someone who had his back and who saved his life more than once, but not someone who ever tried to control him, overtly or otherwise. She's not without her flaws, but she still stands as a great example of what an AS should be.

 

 

Except that it wasn't working. The only reason Rand kept her around was because of Min's viewing. He saw her as being out to manipulate him because she was, making her oath a big fat lie. Now it wouldn't have been a lie if she'd said she'd do what she considers his best interests - because she considers controlling him as his best interests. She is absolutely no different than any other AS in this. The only time I can even recall her giving Rand any helpful or valid advice was in Tear and even then she delivered it in the most insulting, humiliating way possible. Do you believe that the best way to treat abuse victims is to slap them until they snap out of it? Her so-called success in turning Rand back to the light had absolutely nothing to do with her and her plan except thru blind, dumb luck. She didn't bring Tam in to provide any kind of catharsis but to try to manipulate and control Rand. When he snapped, he might well have destroyed the world because of her blundering. Only his upbringing from Tam, his sense of duty and the love he felt for those he cared about brought him back from the brink. Cadsuane had zero to do with that.

 

People often bring up Min's Viewing, but I've never seen the relevance. That was a way in, but there's no reason to believe it was her only way in, that she wouldn't have gotten herself attached to Rand regardless. Given that she's capable and adaptable and has Rand's number, if anything it would be rather out of character had she not found another way to get him to trust her. Yes, she was out to manipulate him - is that a bad thing? She wasn't doing it for her own ends, she was doing it to save him, and the world. And it was working. See Suttree's post. She never lied to him. If you can't recall her giving Rand other helpful advice, a re-read may be in order. Consider the following: she Heals him after Fain attacks him, she tells him of Callandor's flaw, she rescues him in Far Madding, she insists that Rand and Nynaeve have back up for the Cleansing. That's two times she has saved his life, and I'm not guaranteeing this list is exhaustive. Her plan involved provoking Rand - note how differently she treats him from other people. She prevents him cutting himself off from his emotions. She has come to the same conclusions as the Wise Ones about the best way to help him, and is actually in a position to make use of these insights. Rand does trust her. Her plans were working up until TGS and the Semi incident. It's worth noting that Brandon has expressed a dislike of Cadsuane, which did not help her characterisation in that book. But even then, the incident which leads to Rand breaking and Cadsuane's exile is not of her making, and was outside her control.

 

Your hyperbole does your argument no favours.

 

Dude, it's the internet. The home of Hyperbole :)

 

That's no excuse.

They are all shown as arrogant, shrewish, self centered, hypocritical, petty, vain, cruel bullies heavily into BDSM.

No, they're not. Especially not the BDSM part - just because a few people get spanked, doesn't mean everyone is into BDSM. If a child is spanked, would you say the child is into BDSM? While they may all display a number of faults, it's simply not fair and not accurate to tar them all with the same brush like this.

Their base emotion towards everyone else seems to be contempt. Everyone they meet is assumed to be an idiot who needs to be bullied and bludgeoned onto the right path - unless, course of, they instantly fall into the properly obsequious attitude in which case they will be treated with the contempt due any lickspittle.

Well, it works for me.

The Aes Sedai are the worst, of course. The oaths they swear against lying and using the Power as a weapon except in self defense are a hypocritical farce. They lie - through omission, misinformation and misdirection - so often that there are folk sayings against believing a word they say. They constantly use the Power to physically punish people for doing something they don't like or saying something they don't like or for not cringing sufficiently when they are given a "look". Their training in the tower seems to mainly consist of instilling overweening arrogance, an unfailing sense of infallibility, a sense of entitlement and a taste for BDSM games in the initiates.

Again, maybe you should look up what BDSM actually means. If anything, a girl's time in the Tower is more likely to be one of heavy to industrial strength lesbianism than anything BDSM related. Also, they do not swear an Oath against lying, they swear one against not speaking the truth. And they do speak the truth - phrased misleadingly, perhaps, but they abide by the letter of their Oaths. And physically punishing someone is not the same as using a weapon. Nor do we see them complain about others using these tricks against them - they are hardly hypocritical. It's true that the Oaths don't really serve any useful purpose, and have helped the AS to lose their way, but just because they are a bad thing doesn't mean that any term for a bad thing can be used to describe them.

The extortion racket they run to support themselves seems to have convinced them that Tower law supersedes all other and gives them authority over all other channellers and objects of magic no matter what land they reside in as well as the right to tell anyone, noble or peasant, what to do.

Except that while Tower law dictates all objects of the Power rightfully belong to the Tower, this is not an edict they attempt to enforce. It's a paper claim. When do we ever see them trying to enforce Tower law on those who are not either sworn to the Tower or on the Tower's land?

I've had a hard time deciding which female character I loathe the most - Egwene or Cadsuane. Egwene wants exactly the same things that Elaida wants - unquestioning, instantaneous, blind obedience, White tower rule of the world (under her absolute rule of the Tower, of course), and Rand on a leash as her trained attack dog without any stupid plans of his own.

This is simply not true. Egwene is ambitious, but she has goals far bigger than herself and her own power. She does end up sacrificing herself. Due to the nature of her position, she has to win the support and the obedience of others in the Tower, to convince them to follow her in a way she wouldn't have had to under normal circumstances. She had to reunite the Tower. She shows no interest in "absolute power" as an end in itself, she intends ot use the power she obtains as a means to an end.

Cadsuane I hate because she is so stupid. Her stated purpose is to make Rand laugh and cry again - in other words to reclaim humanity. Her brilliant plan? Offer him a little sympathy, a bit of respect, a modicum of trust and maybe a smidgen of gratitude for the sacrifice of his life? Why, no! I'll berate and belittle, embarrass and humiliate, insult, manipulate and deride him and occasionally physically assault him. In public whenever possible. And I'll always derisively call him "boy" rather than use his name or title. Yeah, that'll restore his humanity and help him win Tarmon Gaidon.

Well, up until the Semi incident it was working. She's hardly stupid. It's worth noting that she uses many different ways of dealing with people, and tailors her methods to the person in question. Would Rand have followed her advice if she had offered him trust and compassion? No. He saw AS and thought them out to manipulate him. So Cadsuane swore she wouldn't put the Tower's interests ahead of his own, and was bluntly critical of his mistakes. She did not display the weaknesses that might have led him to steamroller her, but nor did she give the impression of a false friend trying to manipulate him for her own ends. Instead, she was a trusted advisor, someone to be listened to and respected, someone who had his back and who saved his life more than once, but not someone who ever tried to control him, overtly or otherwise. She's not without her flaws, but she still stands as a great example of what an AS should be.

Your hyperbole does your argument no favours.

 

 

Elan come on man even I am not that focused on Egwene hate. Mowbray raised some pretty neat points there and you have to grant it. I ave personally strongly disliked ok hated his story arc since LoC but that is why I hated Faile so much. She had destroyed a perfectly good character. I also have to agree wit the characterization aspect. It has been one of the main strengths of the books. On thhe whole a good post.

some characters started off badly in the series and became better and better as it goes on.

 

In perrin's case it's the complete opposite. The first 4 books were very good. It went downhill from there.

 

I have never seen a grown man whinge and moan as much as perrin. 'Oh i dont want to be a leader waah, my beautiful faile, she's gone, the shaido took her waaah etc etc.

 

It was frankly nauseating to read

 

You misunderstand Perrin, I don't think you get his character. I don't know what you mean by 'whinge' but Perrin does not whine. He does not want to be a leader. What is wrong with that. I don't either. He is thrust into a role of leadership that he does not fully understand. He has Berlain on one side who destroys his reputation with the people he grew up with. He has old friends who are bowing and scraping and acting like they don't know him because of this leader role. He just wants to be a normal smith, he would be content to have a quiet life with his wife. The most ignorant of your statements was that he was 'whingeing' :P about Faile being kidnapped. Are you serious? Have you ever loved someone? And know to the depths of you soul that if you lost them you wouldn't be able to bear it? On the contrary, he didn't whine, he pursued. He fought a mini war for her. He killed for her. While trying to find the woman he loved who was taken from him, her clothes cut off, to him it might have looked like possible rape, he disgusted himself by giving into the temptation to torture a captive. He was finally so disgusted at himself and his weapon that he abandoned it. This wasn't a 'whinge and moan' story, this was compelling and I don't know why you didn't see it.    

Whether or not you want to be a leader is beside the point - if you have leadership thrust upon you, how do you react? Part of how Perrin reacted was with a lot of complaining, and many people found it annoying - as the definition provided is "to complain in an annoying way" then Perrin thus fits the definition perfectly.

If you can quote the 'souce' (see what I did there :P)

Misspell source? Not entirely sure that's something to boast about, but go ahead, if it makes you feel better.

Who was responsible for the aiel attack on Demira in the LoC? When she is stabbed walking in the alley.

 

 

LUCKERS

Who was behind the attack on Demira Sedai?

BRANDON SANDERSON

MAFO.

MARIA SIMONS

Padan Fain and his corrupted Whitecloaks.

http://www.theoryland.com/intvsresults.php?kwt='demira'

I am still utterly perplexed over how much the world of WOT seems split over whether the Forsaken are competent or not. I've seen people call them the best villains of all time and actively shunned me for thinking otherwise. Other have done the same except they think they're obviously some of the most pathetic. It bothers me so much that I can't get a straight consensus. Then I could work on reconciling the things that annoy me about them via discussing them with people.

 

but anyway, Robert Jordan called Sammael a mite who didn't deserve any kind of worthy defeat. Why? What made him so much worse than the other Forsaken? I thought he was one of the higher ranking Forsaken? You don't get high in the ranks without being skilled. Graendal even complimented him inside her own head on some things. and the Forsaken hate each other. And he's not even the only Forsaken who became evil due to haivng a beef with Lews. Demandred and Be'lal have that honour as well. So why is HE so bad in particular?

I don't think it's that Sammael is particularly bad, I think he'd say the same of any of them (he said this of the other Chosen who weren't sealed in the Bore: "And soon after their deaths, their names were forgotten, except for what might possibly be discovered in some ancient manuscript fragment that survived the Breaking. A bleak story of people who deserved no better, and not worth telling in any detail."). It's just that Sammael happened to have an underwhelming death - overrun by Mashadar and not even witnessed by Rand, who simply accepts that it must have happened because he didn't have a chance to escape. Of course, Balthamel/Aran'gar suffers two rather inglorious deaths, and Osan'gar is taken out by someone who doesn't even know who he is, simply thinking him a runaway Asha'man, so Sammael isn't even unique in that respect. For dramatic reasons, he has to make them seem dangerous, but I think he considers them all to be scum, albeit capable scum, and none of them deserve a worthy defeat, it's just that some got one anyway.

As for why fandom is so split over the Chosen, I suspect part of it is that they tend to be better at doing stuff off stage - they can take over countries and reduce the world to chaos, have the forces of the Light at one another's throats, but when they actually show up and have to face the good guys in person they lose, frequently fatally. So Demandred, who spent 13 books doing nothing more that occasionally meeting other people on his own side and being vague, ended up popular with fans, and anyone who actually tried to go toe to toe with Rand got beaten. Semi slaughtering the entire Seanchan Imperial family is mentioned, when Semi is seen in action she gets caught. Then she escapes, tortures Rand for a bit, until she gets killed.

i agrea it relay on the ability to bluff.

 

but could the sea folk took the risk ???

 

and is the argument -> "the DO playing with the weather , we need your help to fix it , but if u dont want to help we will try anyway " is really a bluff ???

wasnt the sea folk -> " we dont care about the weather and wont help u unless a+b+c+d+e...." a much bigger and much harder to believe bluff ???

 

i could easily see -> we help u and keep the bowl in return deal.

but we keep the bowl + u give us slave teachers + we get dominion over u and who u sent (like the demand that Nyn will teach and not another AS) + other terms i currently dont remember....  way too much

But they came to the Sea Folk and said "we need your help." That doesn't put you in the most convincing position for then saying "well, we don't need you, I'm sure we can manage without.". Remember, the lives of everyone hang in the balance, and the Sea Folk are the only sure way to fix it. Plus, to their way of thinking, the Bowl already belongs to them. So you enter a bargain with very skilled bargainers who are your best hope for fixing things, after putting yourself in a weaker position in the bargaining process by going to them and saying that you need their help, and the only thing you're really willing to offer them is to give them back something that belongs to them. Also, bear in mind that "slave teachers" wasn't the bargain, just AS teachers - something which is not altogether unreasonable, and so they probably didn't think it too terrible a concession because they didn't realize how the Sea Folk treated their teachers. It's that cultural difference that makes the bargain so bad for the AS - if they were treated in the way the expected, with a degree of respect, it would be a great opportunity for the AS to both learn from the Windfinders, and also to shape the minds of the younger Windfinders - to make them more respectful of AS and more receptive to the desires of the WT. It could have represented a huge opportunity for expanding the AS influence over the Sea Folk. Looked at in that light, the fundamental problems with the bargain are a cultural difference in the correct way to treat teachers, and the mindset of the Sea Folk that their first response to the situation is to try and turn the situation to their advantage (well, advantage beyond "prevent the apocalypse") by making a bargain when offering help freely would not have been unreasonable, more so than any terms of the bargain itself.

this deal bother me as well.

 

as mentioned before Nyn and Elaine KNOW that the bowl was an artifact of GREAT value to the Windfinder.

 

but there another point that ppl ignore that make these deal even more horrible.

 

the sea falk leave ON THE WATER !

they are much more VULNERABLE to bad weather then anyone else

 

all Nyn and Ellaine had to do was to claom : o.k we wil;l try and play with the global wather in a try and error method , what the worst that can happen -> storms ? , Hurican?... it not like we are the ppl who leave on the sea.

Which would rely on their ability to bluff convincingly that they were willing to risk the lives of themselves, the Sea Folk, and everyone else in the world on figuring out the workings of the Bowl in a trial and error fashion. And remember that they went to the Sea Folk - to the Sea Folk way of thinking, that puts them in a weaker position for negotiations. If they didn't feel like they needed the Sea Folk, why would they have come to them? It's a case of "you feel like you need us more than we feel like we need you", regardless of the reality.

 

Androl would be a great character, if he was not in WOT.

why?

Because he feels like a Brandon Sanderson character. Aside from his prominence so late in the story feeling quite odd (Brandon took a bunch of plot points that had to be done and didn't have a specific person to do them and had Androl do them all, rather than share them round or give them to more established characters), he seems like someone who has wandered in from a different story.

Why does the Dark One Refer to Rand as Lews Therin? It makes sense that the Chosen refer to Rand as Lews Therin because that is what they knew him as, but the Dark One has known Rand's incarnation ever since the beginning, and Lews Therin was not the first Dragon. 

The people Shai'tan has most contact with are the Chosen, who refer to him as Lews Therin. Given that He has no attachment to any particular name of the Dragon, why not call him Lews Therin?

A few questions after re-reading tGS:

 

1) How much exactly does linking increase strength? In the attack by the Seanchan, Egwene (who can barely channel due to fork root) links with Nicola and two/three (she lists three other Novices, but later the description says she is linked with Nicola and two others) other of the strongest Novices in the Tower.  Nicola is listed as level 13 on the 13th depository saidar ranking, so I assume the other two would at least be level 10.  Egwene says that while linked to them (prior to getting Vora's sa'angreal) that with the circle she can channel nearly as much saidar as she could normally channel on her own.  On the other hand, in aCoS two linked Black Sisters, Falion and Ispan (both level 8) are able to overpower Nynaeve (level 18).  Is Egwene's circle reduced because she is under the influence of fork root?  Does that limit the overall maximum strength of the circle?

Exactly how much does it increase it? Unknown. All that is known is that some (probably most, certainly not all) of the AS's strength is added to the link. Egwene has little strength to contribute to the link, due to her being dosed with forkroot. Don't get too hung up on "levels" - RJ had a level listing mainly for the purpose of keeping AS hierarchy straight, and 13th Depository's extrapolation is imperfect. We don't know how strength progresses from one level to another.

3) Is it really possible for an Aes Sedai and a Warder to have a proper romantic relationship?  I know we hear about Green Sisters marrying their Warders, but we never get to see inside their heads and the nature of their relationship.  Gawyn's and Egwene's relationship just doesn't seem right to me because they are clearly not equals in it.  Nynaeve's and Lan's at least gets around this a little by making Nynaeve in charge in public and Lan in charge in private.  But seeing Egwene and Gawyn makes me wonder whether without this kind of set-up a 'healthy' relationship is really possible?

Given that romance and equality are not the same thing, I don't see why the inequality is a barrier to a romantic relationship. A relationship can be healthy and unequal.

4) We have the juxtaposition of Rand's killing Graendal's compelled minions with Balefire, and Egwene deliberately targeting raken carrying captured Aes Sedai during the Seanchan raid.  Both characters state something roughly equivalent to 'they're better off dead', but Rand's action comes off as much worse (to me anyway), and I'm not sure why.  Rand's goal is killing a Forsaken he doesn't know how to defeat otherwise; Egwene's is preventing Seanchan from having more damane and from learning Travelling - both good goals, I think.  The people Rand kills are essentially unhealable given that we now know what happens to people when Compulsion is removed, while the Aes Sedai Egwene kills would theoretically (depending on their mindset and length of captivity) be rescuable without too much lasting harm - this makes Egwene's action look slightly worse from a moral perspective.  In terms of results, both of them are only partly successful - Rand drives Graendal away and destroys her power base but doesn't kill her, and Egwene kills many of the Seanchan, but is unable to kill all of the captured Aes Sedai with the result that they learn Travelling anyway.  In terms of mind frame, neither Rand nor Egwene feels bad about what they are doing, they both think they are making the right decision.  So why does Egwene's scene come off as a crowning moment for her, while Rand's makes him seem a monster?

Egwene has been traumatised at the hands of the Seanchan, and so believes that she's saving these women from a fate worse than death. Rand simply doesn't care, he's killing these people not to save them, but merely because it's expedient, because the best way to kill Graendal is to nuke her entire palace and everyone in it. Rand's actions are thus demonstrative of his lack of humanity.

 

 

Is someone killed by Balefire reborn again?  Ir is their thread gone forever?

Yes, and no. Balefire merely kills you in the past, it doesn't destroy your soul.

Are we sure about that?  Killing someone with balefire diallows the DO from bringing them back.  I always understood it as burning their thread completely out of the pattern

We are completely sure. RJ said so. He also said why Shai'tan can't get their souls - He only has a limited window, and so the window is gone before He's aware that He has to grab them.

Is someone killed by Balefire reborn again?  Ir is their thread gone forever?

Yes, and no. Balefire merely kills you in the past, it doesn't destroy your soul.

Good Evening fellow Ladies and Gentleman of the WoT Series.

I have always kept my distance to the Forums of this website, as I have found out on numerous occasions people have died and things have happened that I have not read of. TO be succinct, I am currently reading A Knife of Dreams and I am extremely frustrated at the endless possibilities that could have been put into action to prevent or save a certain someones left body part. Balefire or at least a mention of a Ter'angreal would keep me happy, but I just want to know. Will the DR get this left body part back in future books? 

No. As for the loss of the aforementioned body part, in the scene in which it is lost Rand says that he doesn't care. So he has no strong desire to get it back. He also has a prominent and long standing aversion to killing women, which Semi is. So while balefire might get it back, it would involve doing something he really doesn't want to do in order to get something back that he doesn't really care about.

Why is Rand continuing to entrust the clearly evil megalomaniac with his most powerful group of weapons?

 

Taim emits an AURA OF VIOLENCE when he enters a room!

 

Might as well leave Grand Moff Tarkin in charge of the Rebel Alliance!

 

No joke, Mazrim Taim is the most obviously evil ANYTHING I've ever seen. Lucius Malfoy is more trustworthy than this guy.

Just because someone is evil, doesn't mean they're not on your side. Or at the least, can be used for your benefit.