I think it was a pretty powerful depiction of what losing the power feels like. Setting up as a point of comparison for actual stilling, which we’ve yet to see. It also gave the viewers a true sense of the level of Moiraine’s dedication. I can understand why people feel like it was underwhelming or boring, but I do think it contributed to the show.

So Harriet has that in her contract, but Brandon does not?

I am reading. In context. By all means, explain how your comments about Harriet’s contract has anything to do with the conversation unless you’re trying to say that it prevents her from offering criticism. As for the motte and bailey style of argument, look it up.

I read what you typed. Words have no meaning if they are devoid of context. I’m not going to play the motte and bailey game where you come out making an argument that heavily implies something, then retreat to “but I didn’t actually say that” when you’re called out on the implication. If you weren’t trying to argue that Harriet is contractually bound to refrain from criticizing the show, fine. Then your posts are meaningless observations, irrelevant to the conversation at hand. You can’t have it both ways.

You heavily implied it. I pointed out that Harriet’s involvement in the series suggests that she doesn’t find it to be some sort of abomination that insults her husband’s legacy. You responded that her public comments were tepid and then brought up her contractual obligations to Amazon. What difference does the existence of those obligations make to your argument if not to imply that they preclude her from making negative statements about the show? Why talk about how difficult it would be to get her name removed from the project if not to imply that she is forbidden to do so by way of contract?

You are claiming that there is a written agreement that she not say anything bad about the series. I am asking you to prove that. Obviously there is a written agreement between Harriet (or whatever corporate entity represents her) and Amazon. That is a far different thing from a contract that restricts her ability to offer her opinion. I don't understand what point you think you're making. She was unafraid to protect the IP when she felt it needed protecting. Clearly, she did not feel any trepidation about handing the reins over to Amazon. Do you honestly believe she didn't have any idea what direction the show intended to go before doing that? The sheer audacity to think that you can speak to her personal feelings boggles the mind.

but... ...you did agree?

About which part?

I'm not saying he wasn't an 'established character', I'm saying that his personality wasn't fully formed by this point in the books. RJ was still trying to figure out what to do with him. To your point about where he was 'by this point in the books': We have seen him being an avid gambler and carouser. And we've seen him go through some of his arc with the dagger. He 'escaped' Tar Valon here too. So all we are missing is 'masterful quarterstaff user' and 'humorous post-healing eating sequence'. So it doesn't seem like we're too far off. And that's before acknowledging that we lost 3 episodes of Mat content when Barney Harris left the show.

I know this is the case with RoP. But I have seen no such thing with WoT. Can you point me to it?

I could. But, nah.

Prove it. You have exactly zero idea whether there is a contract, much less what that contract says. It does not. It makes it. She had no problem calling out something she believed was an affront to her husband's work. Prove it. Once again, you have no idea about any contract that Harriet has or doesn't have. You said that you've never heard of anyone getting 'jumped on' for saying 'positive things' about someone else's work. That remarkably obtuse in today's day and age. People are publicly 'jumped on' on a daily basis for merely agreeing with someone who holds an unpopular or controversial opinion. You have no idea what you're talking about. Literally none. But go right ahead and continue putting words in her mouth and continue to pretend that you know exactly what Robert Jordan would have thought of the show.

It is the reaction you'll get when you suggest that you can speak for Robert Jordan and put words in Harriet's mouth. I have zero problem talking about the 'bait and switch' as you call it. It's valid criticism and a subject that is entirely worth discussing. What I despise is when people resort to saying that RJ 'would be rolling over in his grave' or pretending that they can arbitrate what 'deserves' to be called the Wheel of Time. And that is what I'm referring to as gatekeeping in this context.

Has anyone claimed that? Harriet has publicly endorsed the series, has signed on as a consultant to it. She has given interviews and been on set with the cast and crew. The question is not whether she has been effusive with her praise. No one is arguing that the show is without flaw or that it hasn't made major changes to book canon. Literally no one is arguing that. On the other hand, a bunch of self-appointed gatekeepers and white knights - who have absolutely no connection to the author - ride in to tell everyone else that the show is absolute trash and doesn't deserve to be called the Wheel of Time. When we point to Harriet, we are telling you that if your overheated, holier than thou, pronouncements about what deserves to be called the Wheel of Time and what does not were true, Harriet would not have associated herself with the project at all. Or maybe she's just a private person who isn't interested in causing controversy. There are people who simply do not want to garner the kind of attention that impolitic comments draw in fandoms like these. You've got to be kidding me. I don't know what world you live in, but it certainly isn't the real one. Guilt by association is all the rage on both sides of the political aisle these days.

What’s your point?