11 minutes ago, KakitaOCU said:

Because the only reason killing the Whitecloaks matters is because it starts his fear of being an animal and not maintaining his humanity.  The idea that his rage and anger lead to hurting someone important makes it more important to learn that line than killing two people in self defense.

That is not how a lot of readers (and writers, i.e. Jordan himself) view Perrin's relationship with violence.

37 minutes ago, KakitaOCU said:

Where as the evidence for the idea that they're throwing that away?  It seems to boil down to "They didn't specifically use the words Saidin and Saidar in episode."  Which isn't evidence of anything.

Eh, I mean, don't you think you are being a bit dismissive and unwilling to see their point of view?

The evidence is not conclusive, but the argument is that they seem to have gone out of their way not to mention Saidin or a clear separation of the One Power inte male and female halves, when they have had ample opportunity to do so (they did, however, have Latra use the word 'Saidin', which was translated to 'your Power'):

Quote

S1E1 [Liandrin] This Power... it's meant for women... and women alone. And when you touch it... you make it filthy.

S1E4 [Thom] How at the end of the last Age, the Dark One corrupted the One Power... so men couldn't use it without going mad?

 

S1E8 [Latra] You expose the very source of the One Power to Him. If He touches and corrupts it, your Power will be out of control. It will run unchecked.

 

S1E8 [Rand] Will you teach me how to channel? [Moiraine] I can't. Every time you touch the Source, it'll take you closer and closer to the madness.

 

S1E8 [Ishy] Yes. There. Now release everything, everything inside you. Let the Power flow through you like you're an open sieve. Don't fight it!

As I said, it is not conclusive, but it does raise the question of why they would write the above if they intend to keep the dualistic separation into male and female halves.

Anyway, you may not see it, but it frankly is a bit insulting to reduce people's grievances to "it boils down to [something trivial]". Clearly they do not see it that way.

14 minutes ago, Jaysen Gore said:

He is not responsible, and in fact cannot, succeed on his own.

I think you are missing a word in this sentence, or there is a fly in your syntax. I don't believe you wish to say that "he is not responsible".

2 hours ago, Truthteller said:

That so many of the defenders of the series are unwilling to acknowledge that significant changes have been made at all suggests to me that the disagreement has as much to do with what the books are about as it does with the series.

41 minutes ago, KakitaOCU said:

Because last I checked, the issue is more that the changes are not seen a significant because they don't actually affect that narrative as a whole.

While significant, plot and narrative are not the only aspects of a story - for some (including Robert Jordan - see a relevant quote somewhere) not even the most important aspects.

Apart from affecting (or not) the overarching plot, a change can also affect the motivations and integrity (or lack thereof) of characters, the themes of the story, or the cohesion and depth of the world.

Perhaps the difference in willingness to accept certain changes is dependent on what it is about the story that draws us.

9 minutes ago, Gothic Flame said:

You're a little too late for that.

Yeah maybe, though despite the show not bothering with more than paper-thin justifications for certain actions, and definitely has unearned drama and spectacle for the sake of drama and spectacle, I don't think the characters yet have been sacrificed to service the plot as blatantly and to the same extent as happened in the later seasons of GoT.

Though perhaps it hurt more, then, as I think Martin's characters are the best developed in fantasy (except perhaps for FitzChivalry Farseer).

3 minutes ago, Jaysen Gore said:

you misspelt gravy. By like, a lot.

literal lol *sadface*

2 minutes ago, Jaysen Gore said:

Prove to me GRRM isn't done meandering and we can discuss. ? 

Sadly, I think he has drowned in the rivers of his own ridiculous meticulous character integrity.

50 minutes ago, Elder_Haman said:

You mean like Sword of Truth?

How dare you!? Terry Goodkind is not writing about fantasy! It is so frustrating that Terry Goodkind is labelled as a "fantasy writer", when Terry Goodkind writes about important philosophical and human themes, and important human beings, like Ayn Rand! Terry Goodkind is above fantasy. If you think Sword of Truth is similar to Wheel of Time, then you probably aren't old enough to read his books.

(Edit: http://cgi1.usatoday.com/mchat/20030805003/tscript.htm, http://fantasybookcritic.blogspot.com/2007/12/interview-with-terry-goodkind.html)

To get back to Wheel of Time,

a succinct analysis of the failure of Game of Thrones could be that Martin understands that it is the characters that drive the plot, while Benioff and Weiss took the opposite and shorter path.

We had better hope that Rafe & co do not take the same shortcut, even if The Wheel of Time is not A Song of Ice and Fire.

38 minutes ago, Jaysen Gore said:

If you think the WoT slog is bad, let me tell you about Dany's Dornish cousin, the intricacies of Iron Island politics, or Tyrion's adventures with the other dwarfs for a book.

Heh, for all the accusations of meandering plot, FeastDance is quite a bit tighter than Path of Winter's Twilight, isn't it?

24 minutes ago, notpropaganda73 said:

I just didn't understand why everyone in the show seemed to be so enamoured by him. He just sort of becomes the Nights Watch leader and gets Wildlings to follow him... just because.

Because the show uses his plot points without bothering with the character development that is in the books. ? Meh, because it's so cool to do so, the show even subverts his character development sometimes. Oh well.

29 minutes ago, Jaysen Gore said:

let me tell you about Dany's Dornish cousin

Someone always tells.

34 minutes ago, expat said:

These quotes make perfect sense.  Characters in a book are perfectly content with being written out of the story for a couple of books and come back ready to go when needed.  Actors not so much.  Once you let them go because they have nothing to do for a year or two until they turn up in the books again, they aren't likely to come back.  Good actors will be busy on other jobs. Hence, major characters can't disappear for long periods, even if you have to create new stuff for them to do that weren't in the books.  This isn't disrespecting the books by introducing original scenes, it's just a limitation of a visual adaptation. 

Yeah, it makes sense. Hopefully her story in season 2 will strengthen her character and the overall narrative rather than weaken it. She could, perhaps, through strength of character, deal with her situation and continue with her mission despite not being able to touch the Source. It might even be very good.

However, the worst sin, in my view, that season 1 committed, was having Moiraine neglect her lifelong mission in finding and protecting the Dragon Reborn, and in doing so let the fate of the world be in peril - by riding in procession with the other Aes Sedai for a month and lingering in Tar Valon, when the potential Dragons were at large and in danger. Why should we, the audience, believe that things are desperate and that the Shadow are dangerously chasing our protagonists, when not even Moiraine acts as if they are?

Still, if Moiraine's arc in season 2 shows her focused on the Dragon Reborn, the prophecies and the fate of the world, despite her Shield or Stilling, rather than simply elaborating on her relationship with Lan, it has the potential to be good, and could be time well spent.

If @Jaysen Gorewere the showrunner, I would be pretty optimistic.

19 minutes ago, ForsakenPotato said:

Or maybe Moiraine is stilled or shielded partly so more of the Season 2 one power moments go to characters like...the dragon reborn? She's been exiled from the very place Egwene and Nyneave will be so probably won't be featured in their arc, and can't do stuff with the power in any near term battles, and Rand is going off without her and Lan. Why jump to the conclusion that her character is becoming more important instead of less important?

Not making her character more "important" per se, but according to the source, it is a setup to give her and Lan more screentime (https://collider.com/wheel-of-time-season-finale-showrunner-rafe-judkins-interview-season-2/) 

Quote

Obviously, a big consequence of Rand and Moiraine facing off with the Dark One is she has not only blocked the bond between herself and Lan, but now she has been cut off from the Source. She can't tap into the One Power anymore. So how is that consequence going to play out for her and Lan heading into Season 2?

JUDKINS: [In] Book 2 for Moiraine and Lan, they don't have a lot to do in that book. So we try to dig into what is in there and then figure out a way to expand it out. And a lot of what happens in that book between them is this exploration of their relationship that I think is super interesting. And they go way deeper with it than you would expect them to go and you see the dark sides of it, too. And so we wanted to set up a way to really get at that in Season 2, so the way you see them in Season 1 sets them on this course for Season 2 hat really will delve into that relationship and what makes it take.

And (https://www.cbr.com/wheel-of-time-rafe-judkins-interview/) :

Quote

For a moment, I was convinced you might actually kill Moiraine, but I didn't at all expect her to be stilled. What does this mean for her role in the story?
 

[Judkins] Looking at Season 2 and what's to come for us, the characters who have almost nothing to do in Book 2 is Moiraine, and Lan, who are number one and two on the call sheet. You can't really sideline Rosamund Pike and Daniel Henney in a season of television. So we talked about Season 2 and Season 3 and what they look like in the writers' room while we were doing Season 1, so we could set it up correctly in the finale. That was the biggest story we had to figure out how to tell -- what is the Moiraine and Lan story in Season 2? They don't really have anything in the book.
 

So we looked at the chapter that they have, and it really is so much about their relationship. Digging into it, and asking, "What's the core that exists there between the two of them when you really, really dive in?" Hopefully, we set them up in a place at the end of Season 1 that will really take that chapter of what they have to do in Book 2, and make you feel like there's a whole season worth of story of their relationship in there, and Moiraine putting back the pieces of who she really is.

44 minutes ago, Jaysen Gore said:

Moiraine did not come between the Dragon and the Dark One, hence, no issue.

I mostly take issue with the line, the wording of which makes me cringe, and the repeated use of which makes me feel certain it was just a superficial and unearned plot device to make the rest of the party stay in Fal Dara (though Rand wanting to go to the Eye alone with Moiraine to avoid putting his friends in danger is definitely good characterization).

58 minutes ago, Jaysen Gore said:

Only the Great Lord can make use of the dead...In the books, the Forsaken do not generally kill indiscriminately; they want servants and followers - willing or not - not corpses.

Well, they certainly have no qualms doing it either, if the potential corpses are annoying to them. I am sure Ishamael would have killed her if he thought it would increase the chances of Rand turning, and spared her if he thought it would decrease them. Graendal or Rahvin would probably have used compulsion on her, while Be'lal and Sammael would probably have swatted her dead - as Aginor probably would have done, if he didn't have to compete with Rand for the Eye.

Quote

Ishamael is in the process of trying to seduce Rand. Breaking one of his women - and LTT was always soft-hearted - would definitely reinforce him up as an enemy.

Good point!

52 minutes ago, JeffTheWoodlandElf said:

Kind of begs the question of why Ishamael didn't just still her though, doesn't it? He obviously could have. This whole situation just seems like a massive contrivance. 

Or why not even kill her? We even have the subtle (salty sarcasm - the writers are surely not poetic wordsmiths) foreshadowing by Moiraine herself: "Whoever comes between the Dragon and the Dark One will die."

Rant: I wish the writers had used the words of the prophecies more:

Quote

Like the unfettered dawn shall he blind us, and burn us,
yet shall the Dragon Reborn confront the Shadow at the Last Battle,
and his blood shall give us the Light.
Let tears flow, O ye people of the world.
Weep for your salvation.

Instead, we get:

Quote

"The Dragon will either defeat the Dark One or join him."

 

"They say the last Dragon broke the world, but the next one will save it."

 

"They forget the Dragon is just as likely to save the world as break it."

It comes across as oh so clunky. Whatever the writers may be, they are not accomplished prose stylists.

23 minutes ago, Cauthonfan4 said:

well the argument was that all the big changes were done "#BecauseCovid, #OnlyHad8Hours, or #BarneyJumpedShip" and yet you have been given a list of changes that weren't impacted by covid.

 

so the argument that this is the reason all the big changes were done because reasons above is complete crap.

I understand that you are disappointed, and I am too, but this does sound a bit like arguing against a strawman, don't you think? Most, if not all, of the posters here, even the most positive ones, acknowledge that there are problems with the writing in the show that aren't directly attributable to covid/8hours/barney, even if some posters think that some problems are. But accusing every poster who isn't explicitly supercritical of the show of somehow sweeping everything negative under the carpet (even if I agree that some posts might downplay aspects that I might find problematic) isn't particularly helpful if you want to have a reasonable debate.

23 minutes ago, Cauthonfan4 said:

because literally stepin got more development then any of the boys.

Do you think this is literally true? I don't, while I agree that the show spent too much time on Stepin, and failed to develop especially Perrin and Rand sufficiently. Still, hyperbole doesn't usually do much except increase polarization and establish trenches.

For what it's worth, I think the show mishandled Moiraine's character more than Rand's.

24 minutes ago, Jaysen Gore said:

This is an interesting example, since between Nynaeve having her block removed in Ebou Dar and the end of the book, she doesn't grow at all (her character arc is over), and while she has some great moments ("Will he ride alone", the cleansing, aiding Rand, and healing Faile) that's about it for her. So she will definitely take a back seat to Mat and Perrin over the last third of the series

Arguably her character arc culminates in and after her test to become Aes Sedai in Towers of Midnight, when she refuses to conform, holding to her core and core ideals more than to the rules of the Tower or "what an Aes Sedai should be". At the very least it is a capstone and testament to her integrity.

Quote

Towers of Midnight, chapter 20:

 

Nynaeve began to walk toward the star. Calm. Measured. That was stupid. An Aes Sedai had to be calm. She knew that. But an Aes Sedai also needed to be able to act, to do what was needed to help those who needed it. It didn't matter what it cost her personally. These people needed her. So she started to run.
...
"You failed, child" Barasine said, regarding Nynaeve with an emotionless stare. "You did not show proper decorum."
...
"My goal in this test was to prove that I deserve to be Aes Sedai. Well, then I could argue that the lives of the people I saw were more important than gaining that title. If losing my title is what would be required to save someone's life—and if there were no other consequences—I'd do it. Every time. Not saving them wouldn't be serving a higher good; it would just be selfish."

...

"We must discuss the forbidden weave you used," Saerin said, stern. "...We want you to swear that you will never use that weave again."
...
"I won't do that," Nynaeve said tiredly. ... "If you're going to raise me," Nynaeve said, "then you'll just have to trust my judgment on balefire. If you don't trust me to know when to use a very dangerous weave and when not to, then I'd rather you not raise me."

19 minutes ago, EmreY said:

 

It adds zero complexity.  ("I have three apples in my hand, one of which is rotten" versus "I have five apples in my hand, one of which is rotten" does not raise complexity.  To raise complexity, you'd need to say "two are rotten.")

I think Deviations means the possibility of a non-tainted-saidin-channeler being the saviour/breaker of the world, and what that would entail, not the number of contestants.

Personally, I'd much rather they had skipped this "who is the Dragon" mystery altogether, especially since they didn't really do much to establish anything about the Dragon, and focused instead on the suspense of the Shadow and the Dark One hunting our main characters (including Nynaeve and Egwene, or perhaps only Egs; Nyn. is probably better shown to be a protector). If they wanted mystery, the mystery could be why they were being hunted at all - which would have the added bonus of Moiraine not breaking character by showing many of her cards for no reason.

As it is, the Shadow came (at least to me) across as rather bland and fleeting - and unthreatening enough to leave the characters alone for an uneventful month of trekking.

36 minutes ago, Sir_Charrid said:

In the Books Nyn is a master healer, that is why she helps Rand both cleanse the taint and seal the bore, because she is needed to help heal the power/weave.

I would say the primary reason is not that Nynaeve is a healer, but that she cares and is trustworthy and that Rand trusts her (with his life and that of the world) - even when he is at peak madness and suspects almost everyone else.

19 minutes ago, CanisNoir said:

 

While I don't see the Fridging as being the Perrin Character Killer you do, I do think it was a bad choice to make it his wife, and this is the best argument I've heard expressing why I felt it was a bad choice.

 

Well said.

Thank you!

25 minutes ago, Ralph said:

That is not accelerated character development, as I see it, merely a change in how it comes about. 

Accelerated his development completely off the road and over a cliff, maybe. (Sorry, am not fond of this at all - and it does not inspire me with confidence that they have a very deep understanding of his character.)

To quote myself quoting Jordan above:

Quote

"There's also the difficulty in deciding how far you can go in fighting evil. I like to think of it as a scale. At one end you hold purely to your own ideals no matter what the cost, with the result that possibly evil wins. At the other end, you do anything and everything to win, with the result that maybe it doesn't make much difference whether you've won or evil has won."

Yes, Perrin struggles with violence and with his own strength. But making his struggle stem from a deep trauma from killing his own wife drastically reduces the moral significance of that struggle:

Refraining from violence because of fear (edit: and guilt) rooted in trauma is not the same as refraining from violence because of the ethical question of whether the violence is right or not, whether the violence makes you more evil or not.

Relating to the Way of the Leaf as a means of protecting your ego from having to kill your wife again, is not the same as relating to it as a beautiful but, in Perrin's view, too idealistic philosophy that he has to let go of [though he wishes the world was different enough to support it] - not because he has overcome his wife-killing trauma, but because he finds an answer to Jordan's question above.

42 minutes ago, Elder_Haman said:

47 minutes ago, ashi said:

Maybe technically true

That's the best kind of true.

Indeed, though many kinds of truth can be great.

42 minutes ago, Elder_Haman said:

But the whole point of the Wheel of Time is the deconstruction of heroic fantasy tropes.

One of the points, maybe. Personally, I find that statements like "the whole point of X" often can be a bit reductionistic. There are a lot of other points, too. (Edit: rather, any discrete set of points will be reductionistic, though some sets more than others, perhaps.)

Quote

Jordan:

 

"There are a number of themes that run through the series. There's the good old basic struggle between good and evil, with an emphasis on the difficulty in recognizing what is god[sic] and what is evil. There's also the difficulty in deciding how far you can go in fighting evil. I like to think of it as a scale. At one end you hold purely to your own ideals no matter what the cost, with the result that possibly evil wins. At the other end, you do anything and everything to win, with the result that maybe it doesn't make much difference whether you've won or evil has won. There has to be some sort of balance found in the middle, and it's very difficult to find.

 

Another recurring theme is lack of information, and the mutability of information. No one knows everything. [...] Characters learn more about the truth as time goes on, and sometimes found out that what they knew before was only the first layer of the onion. That's a major theme, really, in the whole series, that changeability—the way something starts out seeming to be one simple thing, and slowly it is revealed to have a number of very complex layers.

 

But for all the grand events and great hoop-la and whoop-de-do going on, the things that really interest me more than anything else are the characters themselves. How they change. How they don't change. How they relate to each other. The people fascinate me."

But maybe it [the deconstruction of heroic fantasy tropes] is a starting-point. Or maybe: 

"The deconstruction was not the point. There are no points to the Wheel of Time. But it was a point."

17 minutes ago, CanisNoir said:

He wanted to deconstruct "The Chosen One" trope and cast his hero's as exactly what you said they should not be. People who don't want to go on the adventure, don't trust Gandalf and really just want to go home. 

Maybe technically true, but the emphasis was on the struggle with the (terrible) responsibility of saving the world and being fated to go mad and die - not so much preferring farming and family life to adventure.

Quote

Robert Jordan (paraphrased by Brandon Sanderson)

 

"At its essence, this series is about what it's like to be told that you need to save the world, and that it's probably going to cost your life."