Hello Jermaine, I hope you will enjoy your stay here. It is an experience to discuss the books with those that know and love it as much as yourself, other people's ideas even when blatantly wrong can trigger off all sorts of ideas in your own head, and there is definitely no shortage of clever people with great ideas and theories on here.

Dude, while I would love to continue discuss this, I doubt I could manage to do so while respecting the rules of the forum, so please enjoy having the last word.

And clearly the answer is not to try and improve the system, but is to offer children no protection at all. I think the record of the US police towards victims of sexual crimes is well documented, however I can see that this means that government intervention in such areas is more needed rather than less. It is nice to see that you are refusing to back down from your indefensible position. The government must protect those that cannot protect themselves, because as your example shows, there is no one else. But sure I agree with you, governments are bad, enemies of the people. Boo hiss.

I could not comment, as this is not my experience of government. Nor would I think that these types of personalities would have much to do with the inner workings of the departments and services that protect children. And if you had any experience with the horrors that children daily go through from their own parents and the only possible help that they will ever get is from the government, I would question whether you would be making such glib comments about the dangers of government control, which you appear to be suggesting is worse or a bigger danger than parental child abuse. It kind of makes me feel sick to my stomach, actually. Maybe you could read up on stories from foster parents regarding the state of the children they have to take care of after the big bad government has rescued them from their home situation. You might find it educational, or it might help you resist making such comments in public.

If it follows the book's lore, will stick it in a spoiler in case anyone wants not to know,

Rand using the Eye of the World at Tarwin's Gap was just an arbitrary deus ex machina, to me at least it did not make a lot of sense. I never saw in anyway that it showed he was powerful. Nynaeve and Mat, bear no relation to each other. I thought Nynaeve being so chummy with the warders was a bit weird, but I guess that was meant to be her inroad to Lan and show how uncomfortable she was with the Aes Sedai. Mat has been on a different arc and not had the opportunity to have such a scene as in the book, which has already been used in the origin series (a lot of the context and dialogue anyway) so is unlikely to be used in the same format in the series. This is really grasping at straws to tie these two issues together. And the Aiel are killing machines, Perrin is a farmboy with a blacksmith's muscles and no training whatsoever. Of course Perrin would be playing a lesser role to Aviendha, the fact that he could help at all is hugely impressive and slightly nonsensical, but he does have plot armour. I think a lot of the unnecessary changes are a bit dodgy, and re-watching the end of season 1 I can only think Mat was meant to have a fairly large role, because so much of it seems so, well, bad and difficult to understand. But when people try so hard to make it seem like every change is somehow aimed at men... Well, my mind is boggled, that anyone can take Perrin, the least likely warrior in the book, with the most questionable skills, and then argue he should be on par with the Aiel at the beginning of the story. Boggled, I tells ya.

I was not attempting to turn it into a competition 🙂 What I was trying to point out that most of what we see concretely is about Nattie, but yes it is a good bit of story-telling, in a very succinct scene, it tells a long and depressing story about their relationship and personalities. And yes, this is TV, of course there is coming back from it. I personally dislike when stories take these kind of relationships and pretend they can be fixed, but they could do that, though it would be better if we saw that they broke up and found healthy lives apart imo, while caring for the kids. Or you could even have the burning house metaphor made real, the kids are trapped in a house fire and Abel keeps going back in until the house falls on top of him, which lets Mat know that no matter what personality flaws you have, you can still be a hero when it is needed. I should be writing this stuff 🙂 What I was referring to is the classic cherry picking of the misandrist argument. Mat's parents have been made awful, yet I think you would find it not so easy to find a post complaining about that on these forums, whereas people complaining about "honourable" Abel can be found in every thread that even slightly touches upon the subject. And cherry picking come from unconscious or deliberate bias, and why would anyone be biased against the show?

That is not how I saw it, but there was not a lot of material to base it on. But Abel appeared to be carousing with another woman, which is not exactly the worst character trait in the world, though shocking in Emond's Field 🙂 Nattie was uncontrollably drunk, a bad mother to the girls, unbelievably cruel to Mat, and the motivation we have for this is that her man is not faithful. Oh Light, how could a woman manage to cope if her man does not worship her, no wonder she falls to pieces. Does not say a lot for the moral fortitude of this particular woman. Which seems strange in a show that holds up that female characters are empowered and make characters denegrated to the point it is actually misandry. And Mat had to leave because of the trollocs, you cannot hold that one against him. But nice to be discussing the show instead of the showrunner.

Respectfully, I described what it is. What it means. It is like being concerned about the environment, some people might want to do things to protect the environment that you don't agree with, but that does not make protecting the planet a bad thing by definition. Some people that call themselves feminists are misandrists, but that does not made feminism bad. And there are definitely those out there, that see feminism as misandry as they are so threatened by it. But that is why I would recommend not discussing the showrunner, or the motivations that they may have, and actually discuss the show.

Good explanation, though I don't quite see what a lot of the characters you list have to do with any specific spin on the story. Like for instance, you bring up Abel, without mentioning Nattie, who I would say gets a far more cutting treatment in the show, so really it is not Abel that is changed, but Mat's parents. So I do not see how that is directed at any particular slant.

Hi Angelo, Welcome to the forums! I can say this with all authority of someone that has been here nearly two weeks 🙂 But always nice to see a new face. Even if you cannot see the face.... er.... You're not a Myrddral, are you?

Perhaps I am mistaken, but I think I covered fairly succinctly what feminism actually is, in the post you quoted. Perhaps you can elucidate where you think opinions come into it?

Yes, the prophecies are dealt with somewhat inconsistently, sometimes called things that will announce something, sometimes being a version of Foretelling so it is definitely going to happen, just perhaps it is not fully understood what it is, and other times that it is a possibility only. The real crux of the matter is the last battle as that where it really matters, anything else you could write off as a mistake or continuity error. And I am not sure I am up to re-reading it again so soon, aMoL was not that a pleasant experience for me, though I guess that should mean it can only be better once it is not a surprise....

Being a decent human being is not political. Feminism is the promotion of the equality of the sexes and the equality of traditional "masculine" and "feminine" traits (it was once mainstream psychological theory that male traits were superior to female, and were more advanced, so that women, and men that displayed feminine traits had been unable to develop their psyche fully. As if being female and nurturing, sharing and caring was actually a form of mental disease). That does not mean all ideas tagged feminist are good, or actually productive, but it does mean that anyone who is anti-feminist is against equality. It is what the words mean, who cannot just add your own definitions in to suit yourself. And nor can you pretend that by adding "modern" or "third-wave" or any other adjective that you are making any other type of argument. Updating the Wheel of Time to be more modern and to deal with genders more realistically, and to help one of the greatest stories of all time appeal to more people is not an artistic (well, not in one sense at least) nor a political decision. However, having feminist or any other motivations for making changes does not make them good or bad. You have judge the changes in and of themselves. It might help if you understood what feminism is, and stopped being so terrified of it.

Yes, the predestination is kind of tricky, as it is really what undermines the whole book. Without the prophecy of the Dragon, well, we are in whole different ball game. The in-book descriptions of prophecy are pretty dodgy, I think a lot comes down to the culmination at the Last Battle, where really the win-lose criteria should be laid out. I'll need to re-read it again, as I think I blocked most of it out first time round as it is a bit of the cliche of how can a mortal man beat an all-powerful immortal force of evil? By coming out better in a conversation. Theory for the end-game twist:

Aww. No I think there are just a lot of scenes where they are foreshadowing things, or giving background/red herrings, or other perspectives. Or I am so slow I did not even notice that I was not understanding. Could be that 😄

I presume they have some sort of guidelines, and it is not entirely left down to the whims of individuals 🙂 I am not an expert but I would hazard a guess that this relates to the historical situation where the Netherlands did not have surnames pretty late in the day for that kind of thing. Until Napoleon (actually, probably the French Revolutionary Republic, so slightly before Napoleon, who would later install his brother as King) took over here in the name of liberté fraternaté and er, croissants, iirc, Dutch people had names like Jaap Jansen (son of Jan, in other words). The most famous coffee brand here is Douwe Egberts, named after one of the most famous owners of the company, though it was actually started by his father, Egbert Douwes. The efficient French republic was having none of this however and insisted everyone have a surname. The Dutch people to a great extent thought that this would just be passing thing and before you know it, it would be back to business as usual. However, given the benefits to the gathering of taxes when everyone has proper names and can be traced, the system never was gotten rid of. Which left a lot of Dutch people with the names they chose in protest or as a joke, such as Mr. Pisspot or other more obscene or vulgar names. I think this has given the Dutch people the collective idea that really, you just cannot trust people to choose names for themselves. Though I am not Dutch, maybe I am misunderstanding the culture 🙂

Of course, it is interpretation, and definitely not saying that mine is superior to any one else's. But take for example, Mat planning to let a trapped badger out onto the green, and telling made-up stories to younger kids and flouring Master Luhan's dogs to back-up the story of ghost hounds in the books with the show, and I would say we are really talking about an order of magnitude of difference in life experience, and then some. But course, no reason for you to see it in the same light.

How do you feel this has changed? Because I very much feel this vibe. I think this changed quite a bit, there is still a vibe about them being from the Two Rivers which is a backwater, but they no where near as young, or inexperienced, or innocent as RJ made them. Which I don't think is a bad thing, even the books have them maturing pretty quickly, Mat being a case in point that suddenly he is a drinker, smoker and gambler, who likes cornering willing serving girls in quiet corners. Where as before they were as pure as driven snow and had zero experience outside farming/blacksmithing.

Ah, the W word. Is there any more hated and derided term? While there is obviously a big debate going on in our society at the moment about some pretty important issues, it is a huge mistake to try and simplify it down to them against us. It does no one any favours, and completely stops the discussion and allows us to be manipulated, as it is very easy two push someone's buttons if we all only have two. Like that Hitman game, quite a few years back now, don't remember now which one. But it was really unpopular, with new mechanics and a different playstyle and I remember reading one review that complained that mostly your missions were to find ways to pass through doors, not to assassinate people, to the extent the reviewer thought the game really should be called Doorman instead. The fans hated it. So what happened? Marketing came up with a campaign that included trailers showcasing sexy lingerie wearing nuns being gunned down bloody graphic violence with great focus on how sexy they were. A facebook app was released where you could "kill" your friends, who would get a message they had been assassinated with the reason you chose including no one likes you and your boobs are too small. The app was pulled minutes after release. But lots of these stunts manipulated those who lean towards the left to come up in arms, online bullying groups, feminist groups, etc, which then had the effect that the more right-siding gaming community pushed back. And then supporting this game - that fans of the series liked less than anyone else - became a badge of standing up to SJWs. And so everyone was manipulated in doing exactly what the marketing company wanted, because as Vic Reeves used to say, we just couldn't let it lie. We had to be triggered, and respond like a reflex. Rather than just seeing the whole for what it was, a seedy marketing trick.

Perhaps it is a bit much to pin it on Hawkwing's hate, as while Luthair's only access to the One Power was Aes Sedai, the Aryth Ocean kind of stopped making that link very useful, and an Aes Sedai advisor or two would have been unlikely to be help much. But Luthair was an invader, without even the Seanchan's claim of returning to old claims to justify his invasion. And are we just to accept wholesale the Seanchan justification of slavery? You don't think their histories might be a bit biased? Your view appears to be somewhat trusting that first, the Seanchan never really wanted to enslave the channelers, they were forced to do it reluctantly (secretly they are not bad guys), and second, that they are going improve themselves, given a better example to follow (secretly they are not bad guys). This is why it would seem that you were shocked by the graphic display in the show, because it attacks your belief that secretly, they are not bad guys. But they are, despite however much good they have going for their state, culture and government. I think you are meant to be conflicted about them, not see them sympathetic and essentially good-natured.

Que? Hawkwing's hatred for Aes Sedai caused it, it made them the bad guys then and it makes them the bad guys now. It would be like Rand enslaving the world to fight in the armies for the last battle. Just no, especially not in a world with literal concepts of the Light and the Shadow. Using the a'dam as a punishment for crimes, I can see an argument for, though even that is pretty dark. Using a'dam so that your centralized state has a monopoly on the One Power, which you use to subjugate the entire world is not justifiable, imho.

I would disagree, the Seanchan are troubling in the books. While a lot of the inhumanity is implied in the books, it is absolutely apparent. They are invaders, but they don't necessarily displace existing leaders, or native populations. There is no sign they are economic colonizers. They feed and protect the people far better than their own leaders were doing. Outside of the Darkfriends and the competition for political power amongst the elite, the Seanchan are an honourable people, within their own standards. Well, except for the near deification of Artur Hawkwing and the "rights" that they derive from this. But undermining all this is the damane, the source of the throne's power. This is what makes them the bad guys, and yet was mass starvation "better"? It was a huge unresolved problem that the show is only picking up on from the books. Hopefully in the future they will emphasize the good features of the Seanchan so the viewers can feel that conflict. Suroth and her court make them just seem like comic-book villains so far.

Well, we have to learn somewhere eventually...

Unfamiliar accents can be tricky, indeed it is amazing we can understand the as well as we do. To me anyway. Some accents for me sound completely foreign until it clicks *oh, you're Welsh* and then I can understand fine. I mean if a Scottish person says "burd", someone from the south of England says "bahd" and a New Yorker says "boyd". How do we know what they are saying? (Ok, I guess it is consistency with the vowel sounds, which allows you to "tune in" but still...).