Random thought: why does my autocorrect offer the options of "So", "I" and "Cucumber" to start? On topic: you really don't have a clue, do you? Unreliable narrator is hard coded into the story, the Prophecy, the in-world stories based on real events, becoming legends, fading to myths... It is explicitly mentioned throughout the books, over and over again. Ideological agenda? I see obviously missed that gender relations was also a major theme in the books. And you take it upon yourself to be the true voice of the all fans of the books. Making an adaption of the books is hateful? That is so nonsensical. You are the guy that claims Jordan did a disservice to his fans by cashing in and churning out pointless filler instead of finishing the book when he was terminally ill. And you call other people hateful just because they don't align with your narrow and inflexible view of the world. Absolutely charming.

Thank you. And you are more than welcome to your opinions, and I apologise if I am misreading your posts, but very often you appear to be stating your opinion as fact. That the books you don't like as much are objectively bad, rather than that being your opinion. That characters you don't like are awful and should have been scrapped. Like I hate the end. It amazes me that so many people love it, or parts of it, but I don't think that I am right and they are wrong in some objective way. Wot is such a complicated story that we all take different things out of it, different takes on characters, different themes and different priority to those themes. As I say I apologise if this is not how you mean it, but you are coming on a little strong.

What is you guys' problem? Why do you repeatedly present your opinions as fact and claim that anyone that disagrees with you as saying that Jordan is the perfect writer? The opinions on this forum are varied. There are many people that love the first three books, there are many people that hated them and very nearly did not continue reading (often only doing so as the books were on the shelves of a family member). There are those that hate the slog, there are those that find those the best books in the series. There are those that disown the Sanderson books, there are those that think his input lead to a great improvement. There are those that think the Forsaken are two-dimensional and unbelievable and those that absolutely love the Chosen. I could go on and on. There is even one person that claims that Faile and Perrin's relationship is the most realistic they have ever seen in literature. Takes all sorts. Many of us have grown up with the books and the characters have been our constant companions throughout our lives. The fact that you think that you are the sole arbiters of the one true truth about the Wheel of Time is hilarious.

It is classic fantasy. That the fantasy scene has arguably matured (or changed depending on your perspective) since WoT, does not in my opinion mean that this changes WoT to YA. Though I would have to question why anyone would care about an arbitrary label.

One of the main themes, if not the main theme, of the books is unreliable narrator. Moiraine thinking that the Dragon could be a woman changed nothing. The implications for Egwene and Nynaeve are something else, but as Rand was the still the Dragon nothing fundamental changed with respect to that. Again people are desperate to claim that there was an objective reason to hate the show. Why is your confidence in your own opinion so low that you have to pretend that it is a fact?

I'd imagine it was just for simplicity's sake. Having Ajah guild houses in every country let alone every population centre would split up the story line something awful. And you would have the possibility of the Black taking them over, and the Tower would have a huge presence in every corner of the land which would really affect story lines involving the Forsaken and the main characters. Think of all the extra characters and political manouverings. In world the reason would be that the rulers and populaces did not trust the witches and Artur Hawkwing penned them all in on their island that his successors found appropriate. Remember most rulers who had an advisor kept it secret and those who didn't suffered political resistance because of it. The Tower is more a concept, in my opinion. The Ajahs don't make any sense if you examine them too closely. A lot of the political infighting doesn't either, why would the heads of the Ajahs risk the fall of the Tower just to pull a it more power away from the elected Amyrlin? That seems odd as they are not rivals or enemies. The world of WoT is just too large to fully flesh out everything, IMHO.

Again your post addresses nothing that I said.

But you think twisting words is helpful in discussions? I fully clarified what I meant in that post, with clear arguments about what was objective and subjective. Nothing you have said in anyway contradicts what I wrote. That there were deviations from the source material is fact, as I clearly agreed. However this says nothing about the quality, necessity or how they affected someone's enjoyment of the series. These are subjective concepts, and yet many try to wriggle out of that by claiming deviations are objectively bad. They aren't. I don't see that preempting any discussion about the show is helpful. If the show was "objectively" too far from the source for you to enjoy it, that is a shame. But don't pretend that isn't a subjective opinion or that anyone that disagrees with you is objectively wrong.

There is a bit of dialogue about the badger at another point in the story, too, "I wonder what Dav did do with that badger". Or was that the same scene, lol, could have been, hehe. My favourite joke wasn't really that funny (though I did like how Jordan strung out the "Good Night's Ride" joke), all the way back in Eye of the World. Egwene (innocently): Who is Elayne, Rand? Rand: She is the Daughter Heir of Andor. Egwere (angrily): Well, if you won't be serious for one moment... storms off Rand: I wish was Mat or Perrin.... Not that funny at all but it tickled me as a teenager. Shame it didn't make it to the show, and they didn't carry on a bit of silly humour like "ooo, Mat, the hero who didn't wear a coat when it was slightly chilly". Mat's letter as well, Thom and Mat were a good pairing, Mat and anyone was good, but too often his partner had too much of an advantage over him (like Tuon, Alludra, etc) but Thom was pompous enough that he sometimes over did it and Mat's quick mind and quick fingers could get revenge.

Too much of the romances were driven by Foretelling, which skipped the whole building the relationship stage. Even with Aviendha, where there was groundwork it was just her trying to get away and then giving into her womanly passions. I don't think the way Rand is portrayed is love is particularly convincing either. It just seemed to me Jordan didn't have, or want to give at least, the pages to develop proper romances. He had the three women at his funeral pyre but then never found the room to properly develop the idea.

Agree with your list. Alanna being torn up with grief at the death of her warder just seemed to mean that she was constantly irrational which did not lead to great characterisation. Though I guess that was a deliberate choice. I'd add Silvianna and Anaiya to the list of favourites, it was nice to have Aes Sedai that had admirable qualities.

Personally I like all the characters, nearly. I don't understand how Faile doesn't blame Perrin for the Berelain thing yet does punish him for it. I thought the dynamic made sense from Perrin's POV but when we see Faile's POV, I just don't get it at all. I like Mat, though I don't like the gambler who never loses trope, if you don't lose you aren't a gambler. Minor quibble. I would have drowned Olver at birth. And Cadsuane. Yet I can also see that many other people love these characters, that shows they are not "bad" characters, but is rather a sign that the characters are realistic and diverse, and we react to them like we do real people. And real people aren't all likeable. That said no one will ever be able to convince me that any eleven year old boy should be so obsessed with bosom. That is just so uber creepy.

Someone said elsewhere on the forum there was no mystery but he left to act in a different project but I have never seen anything confirming this. Not, admittedly, that I have tried very hard to find anything recently.

Yeah that felt a bit odd. It was like Jordan was wanting to show her becoming her own woman, but did so by bullying Nynaeve and then instead of graciously admitting her own faults she kept a rather deceptive superiority over her, turning the tables rather than finding equality. Egwene's mix of being a goody two-shoes and completely single-minded in her own advancement (while having good motivations generally) always seemed an odd mix to me. But I suppose it does make her interesting and not two-dimensional.

I still feel that they had to accept Egwene as the head of the rebels, and accept that Elaida had broken the law. Them sticking an Accepted into the Amyrlin Seat because Elaida disappeared without actually addressing any of the issues would seem to me to be a bit of an anticlimax and a bit nonsensical. Egwene had no right to be Amyrlin, unless you accepted the rebels had the authority to raise her. Her actions against the Seanchan in and of themselves had nothing to do with it.

Plus to the Tower Egwene was not even an Aes Sedai. Why would they accept her as Amyrlin because of her heroics? And the situation with the rebels had not been resolved either, to put it down entirely to Elaida's personality seems a bit superficial.

I presumed the "surrender to the river, don't fight it, and then you can control" was a foreshadowing of the One Power - or was meant to function like Tam's Flame and the Void - that the girls from the Two Rivers would have already mastered the techniques needed to channel the One Power. The voice over as she floats down is far too specific to be coincidence, imho.

I don't really follow what you are saying so I'll have to make some assumptions. My apologies if these assumptions are wrong. I'm assuming that you are saying that faithfulness to the source material is an objective quality and that the characters in the show are objectively deviating from the characters in the book. I think this a twisting of the truth to state subjective opinion as fact. This is not to say that your opinion that the show differs too greatly from the book for you to enjoy it is wrong: it is just that, an opinion. The show could never follow the books one to one: changes were inevitable and unavoidable. However, the way an individual views each change is a subjective opinion. Whether despite the changes the show managed to keep the same broad themes and atmosphere, is a subjective opinion. And if the sum total of all the different aspects of the show amount to something enjoyable or not is a subjective opinion. There are objective facts about the show, but in themselves they are meaningless without subjective judgement. For example, Min's character was objectively changed a lot. Whether the change was good is subjective, and whether that "ruins" the show or not, or what effect it has on the whole show is subjective. If that isn't what you meant, again I can only apologise.

Ah, thanks for your condescion. I mean, I'm a Scotsman that lives in the Netherlands, but you know, obviously not relevant. My point is that anyone who has argued about lack of quality yet crows about politics when it is cancelled is obviously a hypocrite, not that all critics of the show are. Whether we enjoyed the show or not is subjective. You didn't enjoy the show from what I have seen from your posts: I did. Neither of us is "objectively correct", nor are either of us wrong. We just have different opinions.

I'd just like to point out the hypocrisy of anyone that has argued the show has struggled with poor writing or any other "objective" criticism, only to summarize the demise of the show as "go woke, go broke". You are letting your bigotry show.

Had Lews Therin balefired himself his soul would have been ripped from the Pattern and Rand could not have been born, if I understand the lore correctly. On a non-canon point, it would an interesting idea, death by self balefire. As this would remove you from the pattern in the past... Meaning you would not have balefired yourself. Would this create a temporal paradox like killing your own grandparents in the past? Or in the case cited, would LTT and his soul be removed from the Pattern and Ilyena and the others be restored to life? Could he have undone the attack on Shayol Ghul? I guess undoing something like that would destroy the Pattern quicker than destroying whole cities as the Age Lace is woven around such important events. To be fair, I think Jordan kept his magic system soft to avoid such paradoxes. I feel Sanderson would be the kind of author to explore the implications this would cause in a hard magic system, like he did with Gateways in his books.

Welcome to Dragonmount, Samarah. Hope you enjoy your time here, and I look forward to seeing you about on the forum.

Or it could be something inbetween that the wilders are a different lineage and that it is random. In the Two Rivers, "the old blood ran strong" and there were many wilders (or women dying as they could not control the Power) and many that be taught. So wilders could just be end of the bell curve. So depending on if the sul'dam reproduce the situation maybe similarish. (you would assume they must, otherwise they would have bred the lineage out nearly immediately, only male non-wilders would pass their lineage on). The Seanchan collar all their wilders. No offspring. In the Westlands, most wilders die (75%) and a portion go to the White Tower (no offspring). Most channelers continue reproduce in both cases. So if there are more channelers in the Westlands, this may have more to do with the old blood running strong (a more pleasant way of saying inbred? Or just a different gene pool perhaps) than any systemic difference.

Interesting question. My take would no, and yes. While of course the Oaths are open to interpretation and are flawed (in the sense that "speak no word that is not true" can only mean what the individual thinks is true), I cannot see how any Aes Sedai would not understand the Third Oath to mean to defend herself, not to save herself. She could of course channel if she was in extreme peril, but that would be a bit counter-productive as a damane. So I would say that no, she could not rationalize that she was saving her life. At least not without a caveat. Also, a pedantic point, the Third Oath makes no mention of Darkfriends. Which is a confusing point as we are told repeatedly that it does through the story, but the only time we directly see the Oaths (to the best of my knowledge) rather than a summary of what they are or a paraphrasing is in New Spring when Moraine and Suian are raised and they do not mention Darkfriends. Which has always been a very confusing point for me, as for example, Sheriam does specifically tell Egwene (I think) in The Great Hunt that Darkfriends are included in the Oath. This seems to point to the fact that to an Aes Sedai, this is assumed in the name Shadowspawn, which hardly seems satisfactory. But I digress. The caveat is that what would happen to an Aes Sedai that was insane? Who was suffering from psychosis? That was so traumatically damaged by the sul'dam that she no longer knew what was real? Who had been convinced that only the word of the sul'dam was true? I suppose we can only speculate, but in that case, just like the Matrix defense used in the New York sniper case (if I recall correctly) individuals can reject reality and believe a persuasive individual as due to mental disorders everything feels unreal and false, so when someone tells them it is the only Matrix and they alone know the truth, that rings true to their experience as they are the only ones that confirm the sick person's daily reality. It would seem a wasteful and dangerous experiment to conduct on a damane, but I guess the Seanchan probably wouldn't be too bothered about that.

Oooh, that could be good. With no memory of who we are? That could be interesting to see what it comes up with for our eventually revealed identity.