Jump to content




  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Dbob

  • Birthday 01/01/1

Dbob's Achievements


Collaborator (7/16)

  • Collaborator
  • First Post
  • Conversation Starter
  • Fourteen Years In
  • Thirteen Years In

Recent Badges

  1. Better say which was more tolerable. Egwene, simply because it had more to do with the plot - as improbably as it was. You could have plopped Elayne's Royal Hiny down on the throne with no conflict at all and the plot wouldn't have noticed one little bit.
  2. I also thought it was because of the unraveled weave.
  3. Both Egwene and Elayne are manipulative, but then so are just about every woman and every other man in the books. Such is WOT. Egwene used to really bother me, for general man v. women pointlessness that permeates just about all of the characters. She's just a bit more egregious than most. But she's wasn't my least favorite female Character. That said, I didn't really start to hate on her until her incredibly improbable rise to master of the universe in her own mind. One of my main issues with WOT is the incredibly short span of time in which a few teenagers from the ass end of beyond become world spanning rulers. Rand gets an out, because of the whole Taveren-ancient-genius-in-my-mind thingy; but Egwene doesn't have anything so useful to fall back on. It would have been a lot easier to swallow if the plot had given her more time to mature, and didn't just seem to hand her the tower through a series of events each one more impossible than the last, all the while stacked up against enemies each one more cardboard than the last.I give Elaida a pass, she was set up by the author. Plus Eggy falls hard into every pointless arrogance the AS have been clutching to their collective bosoms these past 3000 years.
  4. Morgase. I mean go to the Whitecloaks? Really? You Tower trained idiot mother of an AS, what did you THINK was going to happen!?! For someone billed as a clever ruler and woman, yeah, just, wow.
  5. You are absolutely right Cadsuanne would have been treated completely differently if she were a man, as a matter of fact, if she were a man, her head would have rolled the moment she struck Rand, and probably no one would have condemned him for it. If she were a man, she wouldn't get any grief at all, because she'd be dead. Being an ass is being an ass no matter the gender. Whether you think she's justified is another argument entirely.
  6. That whole plot line is Jordan at his best.
  7. yeah, I'd also have to say the absolution scene with Ingtar and Rand.
  8. Worst in terms of believability, Rand-Elayne. The whole Rand and his chicas thing is kinda random, with Avi, she grew up with that sort of thing; but the other two – and especially Elayne. OK ladies how many of you brought up to expect monogamy are going to agree to share a man, and you’re not even spoiled princesses. Worst in terms of tediousness, Perrin-Faille. A lot of people excuse a lot of this because “they’re so young,” sure they’re young, but they’re not 12. Faille’s whole kinda bi-polar thing screams mental illness issues; and frankly any woman who goes to those lengths to make you something you’re not, doesn’t really want you. Moiraine-Thome, Egwene-Gawain, random, no real reason for them to be together. Galad-Berelain, special case. OK I thought Galad was gay (smirk,) he should be gay, because there is no man so virtuous that he’s a virgin at 30 unless there’s a lack of interest, or he’s really, really, unattractive in some way or he’s neurotically shy. Plus it took the most beautiful, seductive woman in the world to get his attention. GAY! Anyway aren’t you ladies always saying the best looking ones are always gay? Even knowing that these two were going to get together it didn’t really make sense. How is Sir-extreme-position going to deal with a woman who’s slightly amoral, and definitely a realistic ruler?
  9. You ask some interesting questions I'd like to pursue, but I'm going to have to ask you for patience, I have to get up early and I'm being hounded to bed, so hold that thought.
  10. I think that R.J. probably would have been the first to tell you that if your work isn't being discussed and argued over, it's probably not very good. People don't spend time and thought on things they don't care about. As a matter of fact, the better you are, the more erudite and comprehensive the arguments become, and if you're the very best people get university degrees critiquing your work and you go into the curriculum. So instead of metaphorically hugging R.J. and telling him not to listen to the mean boys, why not metaphorically shake him by the hand and congratulate him for creating a body of work that provokes thought and strong opinion - that's not an easy thing to do. I've never seen anyone in here who hates the books or thinks R.J. is a hack. The people who come in here care enough to think about what he wrote and want to talk about it.
  11. Oh yeah, for me, that chivalric attitude clashes with the more progressive things he writes in.
  12. Well, we're just going to have to disagree that this attitude is confined to Rand, I don't think it is. I don't think it is either. I think large portions of Randland have at least a bit of that "chivalrous" attitude. RJ took a lot of his inspiration for the setting in the world from medival Europe where that type of view was common. There is plenty of sexism in Randland (from both men and women). My point is that there is a difference between saying "Rand is sexist" or "Many cultures in Randland are sexist" and saying "RJ is sexist". Just like there is a difference between saying "Semirhage is a sadist that enjoys hurting people" and "RJ enjoys torturing people because he gave his character a sadistic personality". RJ having sexism in his world is a world building technique (and a realistic one at that seeing as how much sexism there is in the world and especially during the time period in history that corresponds with the culture in Randland) not necessarily a reflection of his own values. Hell, for all we know RJ felt chivalry was ridiculous and put it in the books so that people could see how silly it was. He had Rand take it to the extreme so people would realize how dumb and unnecessary it is to treat women that way. It's not fair to ascribe the attributes of RJ's fictional world and characters to him personally. Well, since I am not R.J. and I didn't live in his head, it is of course possible that this is completely deliberate. I can't speak to that. What I do know for a fact is that the books are his alone. Whatever they are, deliberate or otherwise, they are a product of who he was as a person. That is of course going to affect what is written. The only thing I can speak to is my take on the issue. It didn't appear to me that R.J. was condemning the attitude itself, it's way too pervasive. I suspect that R.J. did believe in that stuff, and that's why I brought up the South (US.) He was a Southern boy, a whole lot of us were taught that same kind of thing, taught to believe it. I'm not saying he was a rabid misogynist, just that perhaps his background predisposed him to certain kinds of blindness on certain issues. And I will admit, that Rand's list annoyed the F*** out of me. But with Rand of course, you always have to play the crazy card. Perrin's epic find Faille saga annoyed the F*** out of me, not because of the story line, but because of his attitude. There are others, but I don't really want to get into quote sniping. I think that the word "sexism," is being interpreted to immediately connote misogynist. I don't mean it that way. Both women and men in all societies have attitudes that are sexist, the situation in all societies is more complex than a simple cut and dried, this side or that side kind of interpretation. There was some other point I wanted to make but it seems I've forgotten what it was. Such is life.
  13. Thanks Mark. I appreciate the heads up.
  14. Well, we're just going to have to disagree that this attitude is confined to Rand, I don't think it is.
  • Create New...