I thought the idea was that there were always rumours about what the Forsaken could do or what was lost from the Age of Legends. So when Lan decided that Moiraine was not acting like a stilled woman (though does this have implications for later story lines?), he thought of a way that he could see if something was off (Logain), tested it, and later rationalised what he had found out. So the discovery was not driven by knowledge of channeling, but by the extensive talks that everyone had with him about stilled women, which I think came up in the series. Once, maybe more often.

Not sure how this answers my post. The author has stated that she is older, the books do not any definitive mention of her age that I know, and whatever her actual age, we have to assume that she is emotionally and intellectually an adult. Because the alternative is? That RJ was advocating child marriages?

But surely this falls under unreliable narrator? It does not say that she compared the years of birth with Ewin, it only says she thought they were the same age. And Perrin did not recognise Ewin because he had aged so much in the year he had not seen him, so one could imagine easily that with his deep voice etc., he could appear older. But the age is not so important, as surely we have to take that whatever the characters literal ages are, that in the books they are emotionally developed enough that we are not partaking of child abuse, and that they are to all intents and purposes, adults fully capable of consent. I really cannot imagine the point of arguing otherwise.

Well, obviously we see things differently. For example, in the books Perrin outright rejects Berelain, and only avoids her due to her persistence. And Faile is also shown that she knows that Perrin is not encouraging it, enjoying it and taking part, so there is no question that she is misunderstanding Perrin's behaviour or considering it suspect. If anything books suggest that Faile is jealous that Perrin will stand up to Berelain, but not to her, which makes no sense as he is not standing up to her but treating her as an unwanted annoyance so seems stretching believability. That is the crux of my problem with Faile, it is not that Perrin is trying to fend off Berelain and Faile misunderstands, it is that the books shows that she does not misunderstand, yet punishes Perrin anyway, as if she had. But anyway, thanks again for your perspective. Though I feel you are reading things into the book which are not there while ignoring other parts that are. No doubt, you feel something similar about me 🙂 It is interesting how people have different takes on so many aspects of the books.

Thanks for your input, it is an interesting perspective. Though age, I think we can see as irrelevant, otherwise we are getting into the area of statutory rape and I don't think that was ever the intention. I think we can safely assume that however young they are, they are sufficiently emotionally developed to have a serious relationship. The alternative does not bear thinking about. However it still seems that the people who are speaking in Faile's defense, as it were, are ignoring that Faile deliberately punished Perrin even though she knew that he had done nothing wrong. Like with Berelain, the situation could make sense from Perrin's point of view, that he is trying to navigate a difficult situation and yet Faile is jealous/hurt despite his best intentions. But we also see it from her perspective, where she knows that Perrin is completely faithful and true, yet continues victimize him anyway. That she fully understands the culture clash, understands simple honest Perrin (so manly 🙂 ), yet does not inform him about anything in her head while continuing to be outright cruel to him. It is not a case of poor communication, Perrin lays his cards openly on the table. Faile refuses to do so, and despite knowing exactly how things are, and takes it out on Perrin. That is why it seems to me to be such a male perspective. It's like we see that Perrin is confused, he is trying to be honest and a loving partner, trying to give Faile what she wants. But the communication is difficult, true to life, emotions confuse things, and up to this point it all seems believable. But then we see Faile, and there is no other side of the story. She sees it exactly the same as Perrin does, that he is honest and well-meaning, and she is contrary and cruel. There is no confusion, no difference in perspective, no misunderstandings. Faile is just Perrin's perspective reversed. So that why, in my little theory, I can see why to some men Faile could appear relatable, as presumably she did to RJ. But it would also be the reason why no woman would ever connect to Faile, not on this issue - obviously there is more to her character than this one aspect.

Aiel misunderstood wetlander customs, just as wetlanders misunderstood Aiel. Aviendha in the books makes several comments about herself and Aiel customs that show she thinks wetlander women, like all wetlanders, are soft, and that they must meekly obey their husbands. Though given the context and Aviendha's personality, these are probably extremems of the Aiel view. In the show, Aviendha misunderstanding wetlander marriage is not so out of place, she likely would misunderstand the roles of either party in a wetlander wedding.

Today is "Penance". Considered the Mistress of Novices study, but being a Novice myself wasn't brave enough. Growing roses on a farm. How peaceful...

Certainly I could be over-reacting, and you are most certainly right that the female perspective would be enlightening. But I have never been able to understand the way that Faile acted. It seemed so deliberate. I get at the beginning, she is a bit stand-offish. Then he tries to leave her behind to go kill himself, so I understand where here competitiveness comes from. But then comes the spanking, now ok, not sure that is really appropriate for the story, but well, sure. Then she is outright cruel and mean to Perrin, for no good reason. I could never get the motivation. And then the whole argument with Berelain, she had no problems speaking frankly with Berelain, and yet refused to speak to Perrin about it. But did happily punish him, even though she knew that he had done no wrong. I did not and do not understand. The OP is my attempt to make some sense of it.

Moving the off-topic to another thread should anyone like to contribute.

Arising from discussion about the show. I was thinking that Faile's character, in particular her demand that Perrin act in the way she wants him to, without telling him what that is, is actually a male conceit. It takes the cliche of male partners not knowing why their female partners are angry or upset, and instead of showing this from the male point of view where Perrin is baffled by Faile's behaviour, the story doubles down on showing that Perrin has done nothing wrong, by also showing from Faile's point of view that she knows he has done nothing wrong and in as much takes full responsibility for her behaviour and the situation as a whole. And this male fantasy, absolves men who through emotional distance or insensitivity cause emotional pain to their partners. Because some women are inherently irrational. That want one thing but say another. And men should never be able to understand that if they forget a birthday or anniversary, and their partner says it is ok, these things happen, then they miss a family dinner because they work late, but that is ok, work is important, and then they cancel a trip away together because their friend can make it to a golfing holiday and you know how difficult it is for Bob to get time off work, and then the woman is for absolutely no reason at all upset. And why? How can any man understand these hormonal psychopaths? Now of course in such a situation there should be a real talk about why the relationship is always being put in second place. Communication is key. But it is also easy to see how when all the problems are symptoms of the male simply not caring/trying, that such a discussion could be daunting, especially if the man being detail obsessed refuses to see a pattern and instead tries to make it into a series of unrelated instances over which the female is over-reacting, and if she is like this all the time, is there any surprise in the fact that he wants to go golfing? The poor guy. So Faile is a construct that lets guys act like jerks, while remaining completely sure that any pain to their partners is caused by the inherent irrationality and contrariness of women in general. Or am I thinking too hard about this?

Not much I can say in return to that. I wonder if any women recognise themselves in Faile, or if this a male perspective thing (seeing as she was written by a man after all).

And Loial is too short... They must have gotten the casting mixed up, Rosamund Pike was meant to be Loial all along.

The Black Ajah could have their own binder or other ter'angreal, but as the effect would the same as the normal Oath Rod, and they would have access to said Oath Rod, I don't see that any assumed other ter'angreal is necessary. Though nor would it be necessary to exclude such a thing.

I'm not sure which option is more terrifying, that you are right or mistaken. It is one thing to want to be appreciated without having to tell someone that you want appreciated, another to know that your partner loves you, means well, would do nearly anything for you, but to punish him for not acting in a way that you want him to, in a way he cannot possibly know that you want him to, and point-blank refuse any communication about it no matter how often he asks, no matter what he tries. Trying to see this as a difference in perspective, but it is really difficult. But obviously we disagree no the extent I don't really think discussion is possible, our views are too far apart. So probably just best to leave it at that.

Faile was a bit toxic really. She expected Perrin to telepathically know why she was annoyed and would not communicate with him about it. She was physically aggressive. She punished him for things, even when she knew he was sincere. She actively tried to circumvent things that he wanted because she knew better, and did not talk to him about any of it. She took ownership of him, none of this Well, if he would be happier with Berelain then I want what is best for him, because she decided what was best for him, what he wanted, and how it was going to happen. Imo, it really detracts from her character.

Is there not also an issue with the timeline? In the show, Siuan and Moiraine are 70, 80 or so. In the books they were just about to be raised to the shawl at the end of the Aiel War. So even the cold opening is a bit dodgy, try to flesh it out more and you just make it painfully obvious the disparate chronology, or you would need to re-write the whole thing and would it not slightly defeat the purpose then of keeping the same story line? Or is this yet another thing I have misunderstood from the show 😄

And today's prompt is "Hunt". I thought about the Horn (dull), wolves hunting (ambitious), hunting in the Waterwood (I'm just having a laugh now), so decided to go for our very own Hunter for the Horn, Faile. Which was a disaster. After looking far too long at photos of attractive Iranians, Japanese and Chinese women, reading about the epicanthic fold, reading about media storms about Chinese models and squirrels, I decided not to use a base model but just wing it. Which obviously is always the best way to go. I have no idea what I managed to do to her nose, the perspective is completely wrong relative to her face, but overall I'm pretty pleased. In the past any time I tried to draw an attractive women they tended to look like a desiccated ninety-year-old man with implants. So this is a step in the right direction, however small.

Of course that could be juxtaposed into many other situations, but I don't think it is so likely. It is a great line though so maybe it will be included in some other format.

That is a thing? I mean, is there club for people that fancied Steffi Graf? Asking for a friend... But yes, a fine Roman nose or a Persian nose would really have been great for Faile, though the actress posted does not look like she will troubling to look at even if she has a small nose. Bloody ashes, now I am wondering if Roman people still have Roman noses, and if not, why not? And if they don't, can you still call them Roman noses? And who does have Roman noses now? I'm going to be thinking about noses all day now *sigh*

I think the show is playing rather loose with who can see what in terms of weaves. While I may be dumbing it down a bit, it seems to me that the idea is that everyone can see everything, unless the show tells you otherwise. Of course now perhaps the male/female division has been put in place, and I think I saw somewhere that damage weaves, I suppose weaves of fire and so are visible to all, but indirect weaves were not visible (though not sure where this information came from). For the difference between Logain and Rand, I think they are just playing on the concept of Logain being the self-taught master and Rand being the beginner-in-denial rather than making any actual distinction in ability. Then again I have shown that I am not exactly keeping up with the show's plot so far, so maybe that is just a bunch of rubbish I have typed 🙂

I saw something similar on Twitter (Light I feel unclean, all these years I have stayed away from Twitter; only to start looking at it for WoT) and made an attempt. I call it "The hawk that would not stay on the page no matter how often I started again, moved it to the middle or made it smaller." Catchy, huh? Even for me this is a degree further of unfinished than usual, but I found I was getting upset at how the fur on its legs was not looking right. So bedtime I think. I had also planned to make it WoT themed somehow more concretely, but it would appear I just need to put this down to a learning effort.

Is it just me or is this totally confusing? Just me, yes probably, but no I did not misremember. I understood this as "Away from [you and] the White Tower, [to] where you'd never be able to see him, where he'd never be able teach you". That is probably because I was expecting her to deny it, but still, it seems unnecessarily ambiguous as I'm sure you guys' interpretation is the right one.

Because that is where she was taking them before the Eye of the World debacle. Was the plan not to stay there initially? I am feeling very uncertain now, did any of this actually happen? Have I been drinking too much of the apple brandy while watching?

Is this not what Lanfear claimed, that Moiraine had set Logain up so Rand could reach him in her home city. But Moiraine (who cannot lie) said that she had moved Logain to keep him away from Rand who she thought would be at the Tower. Or am I misremembering? Or do people just want to believe Lanfear for some reason, as if her smoldering sexual energy is actually a sign of sincerity?

Yes, I think RJ did very well in general with the "magic". Magic is irrational and can be a real issue in stories where it is just so arbitrary. The only thing that caught me while reading was how fashionable it was. When shielding/blocking was introduced, all the battles were about that. Then when another feature was introduced, like undoing fireballs, that was all the rage. I think the books do well, it much less intrusive than I have seen in other fantasy stories. What I did mean though was not new weaves, but clever use of simple weaves, I just felt that sometimes RJ did not want to touch channeling the way he would for example marshalling troops or swordfighting where cunning and craft were equally as important as outright strength. That may be a deliberate choice as it is easier for the reader to think about Rand being more powerful than Liandrin, unless she has some clearly defined ter'angreal for example, as it makes channeling easier to understand as a whole. Because also, channeling has at its base, something of a paradox. On one hand, it is an incredibly complex literal weaving of five powers. The combination of powers, the number of different patterns of weaves, the size of the threads of the power, etc., leads to an unfathomable amount of potential different weaves. The specific skill to to weave this must be immense, like being able to weave every single tartan from memory, and then some, it speaks of massive ability in dexterity, memory and precision. On the other, the One Power is inherently intuitive. Wilders can learn to do things without any training. Rand could empower Bela, making her as strong as a horse (no, wait...) without killing her, or causing a heart attack, or any thing else. An amazingly complex technical weave, handled with amazing dexterity, but entirely by intuition. The story does not work without this aspect, but it does undermine the concept of it being such a technical, near mechanical system. But yes, magic is as magic does, because (*sob*, *sob*), it is not real. Awesome reply, by the way, welcome to Dragonmount, may you always find shade and water, may peace favour your sword, and may you live long and prosper. Wait...