|
Eh, it's probably one of the most popular theories. They were flirting with each other in book 1, only in the background, and the way RJ set it up you're paying more attention to Lan and Nynaeve in the foreground. You also regularly see Thom speak more or less admiringly of Moiraine despite his professed attitude towards all Aes Sedai. In book 4 when they were laying their cards out before going their separate ways (Tanchico, Rhuidean) it should be completely obvious. And then of course there's Min's viewing.
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2014 04:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 17:00 |
|
|
Between this and the horrible relationships RJ set up elsewhere it's almost like he doesn't understand how long-term non dom/sub bonds occur.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2014 12:46
|
|
|
Xillah posted:Thanks, it just seemed to be shoved in there ....because. There are a few subtle hints but they're not the sort of thing you pick up on a first read.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2014 16:36
|
|
|
I think it comes during the conversation in Tear they have. There's relatively little interaction between the characters beyond that. But it seems apparent when they do this that both have them have gone into needless detail snooping into each other's lives. Far beyond what both of them would know to be necessary. It's in lairs and lairs of subtext, but it's effectively a declaration that they like each other. Thom then doing what Moraine asks is confirmation. He's not doing it because of Elayne as much as because he genuinely trusts Moraine with Rand. At least I think so...
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2014 17:11
|
|
|
So..the series's ending?
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2014 05:05
|
|
|
amuayse posted:So..the series's ending? What is that? A Lame?
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2014 01:17
|
|
|
Chim.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2014 05:43
|
|
|
Okay, did I miss something? [last book spoilers] The sharans appeared in the final book out of nowhere. I don't even remember hearing of them before and the book apparently assumes you know all about them because it doesn't do any sort of recap about who they are. I had to go look at the wheel of time wiki to even get an inkling of who they loving where. Am I a retard or did they not build up to them at all?
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2014 07:48
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:Okay, did I miss something? [last book spoilers] The sharans appeared in the final book out of nowhere. I don't even remember hearing of them before and the book apparently assumes you know all about them because it doesn't do any sort of recap about who they are. I had to go look at the wheel of time wiki to even get an inkling of who they loving where. They were being built up in the form of rumors, but everyone in Randland dismisses the Sharans as uninvolved in the conflict. Which is ridiculous when you think about it, the whole world is at stake here, and the Forsaken took their shot at the Seanchan homeland already.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2014 07:52
|
|
|
Graendel spent some time loving around with them, but that's like in 1-2 scenes with her in the middle of the series (after the fact). There's the cut chapter from Demandred's PoV that got released in that other book, which would have presumably spoiled the surprise and got cut. Didn't woo me on the whole idea when reading it even if there were some technically cool things there (but Demandred of all people going Native like some half-assed WoT Colonel Kurtz... ehhh).
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2014 17:18
|
|
|
amuayse posted:So what was the Creator doing the whole series? Writing it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2014 20:56
|
|
|
So I'm guessing that the cycle will just repeat over and over until eventually someone really important gets blasted by balefire and is wiped from the pattern and can't be reborn which then causes Rand to loose right? I mean that has to be the eventual outcome of the wheel since the Dark One just has to win once to win forever.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2014 02:58
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:So I'm guessing that the cycle will just repeat over and over until eventually someone really important gets blasted by balefire and is wiped from the pattern and can't be reborn which then causes Rand to loose right? I mean that has to be the eventual outcome of the wheel since the Dark One just has to win once to win forever.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2014 03:02
|
|
|
How long has the Wheel already been turning? Were Lews Therin and Rand, say, the 14th iteration of the Dragon, or more like the 4,753rd?
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2014 05:16
|
|
|
Nihilarian posted:Or we keep winning forever and ever. Given an infinite amount of time every non-zero chance event must occur. If the shadow never wins than it was literally impossible for him to win and the whole story was pointless. If he can win, than he must win at some point in the future. Interestingly if Rand kills the Dark One it would make the Dark One winning an impossible event and if Rand killing the dark one is a non-zero chance event then it must happen eventually. The two are mutually exclusive of course, so as I see it, the state the wheel is in is a sort of "false vacuum." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_vacuum One of those events must eventually occur, creating a stable wheel either with the Dark One winning or without him at all.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2014 06:39
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:Given an infinite amount of time every non-zero chance event must occur. If the shadow never wins than it was literally impossible for him to win and the whole story was pointless. If he can win, than he must win at some point in the future. I was under the assumption that the dark one pretty much can't win, based on the whole Ta'veren sort of thing. Also, there was the one point where the borderland kings get together and asked Rand a question and if he had answered wrong, they would have killed him. Some sort of failsafe mechanism in place to keep the dark one from actually winning. "Bad Rand" wouldn't have been able to set him free. I also thought that Fain would have become the dark one if Rand decided to kill the dark one. As soon as Rand decided to not kill the dark one, Fain no longer had a purpose and just died. Maybe that's a little far-fetched. I didn't think the dark one wanted to destroy everything anyway and just wanted to be free to influence the pattern since he said the "compromise" was to destroy everything. Unless, I didn't understand the whole conversation at the end?
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2014 08:09
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:Given an infinite amount of time every non-zero chance event must occur. If the shadow never wins than it was literally impossible for him to win and the whole story was pointless. If he can win, than he must win at some point in the future. I wouldn't say this makes it pointless. If it's impossible for the Shadow to win, this is due to Rand's choices and hence his personality (and that of everyone fighting, and thus human nature in general). Plenty of good fiction is based on events which are presented as the inevitable consequence of the characters' personality and/or human nature. For instance the entire genre of classical tragedy. Zarfol posted:I didn't think the dark one wanted to destroy everything anyway and just wanted to be free to influence the pattern since he said the "compromise" was to destroy everything. Unless, I didn't understand the whole conversation at the end? Well, his goal was to destroy the Light and turn everyone into sociopaths as per the example he showed. Not destroy the world but whatever, it's about as bad. McNerd fucked around with this message at 15:00 on Feb 21, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2014 14:47
|
|
|
Although this is a series of fantasy novels about dresses, it also alludes to actual philosophical dilemmas such as whether anything not inevitable is futile. It is good to think about it, even if you wish the books had given you the answer.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2014 15:12
|
|
|
Bongo Bill posted:Although this is a series of fantasy novels about dresses You're doing the series a great disservice. It's also about drinking tea. And girls being spanked.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2014 16:12
|
|
|
The Lord Bude posted:You're doing the series a great disservice. It's also about drinking tea. And girls being spanked.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2014 18:20
|
|
|
Neurosis posted:Between this and the horrible relationships RJ set up elsewhere it's almost like he doesn't understand how long-term non dom/sub bonds occur. Robert Jordan got all his knowledge about human relationships from stand up comics. Or maybe high school
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2014 00:27
|
|
|
rypakal posted:Robert Jordan got all his knowledge about human relationships from stand up comics. Or maybe high school I've just started this series recently I'm about halfway through book 9 right now and I am wondering are there any spoiler freeish that analyze Jordan's view on women? I mean there was already hundreds of bossy catty women characters and then they bring in the Kin and Seafolk, it feels like no two women can have a relationship or even conversation without paragraphs about which one is controlling the other or has the secret upper hand, the women's treatment of Mat/Rand really is insane as well. Nyneave/Elaine were treating Mat like a little boy(who leads a giant army and has personally killed like dozens of dudes) then Nyneave gets two of those men killed on the river and doesn't even want to tell him because she is too busing fawning over Lan.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2014 21:33
|
|
|
socialsecurity posted:I've just started this series recently I'm about halfway through book 9 right now and I am wondering are there any spoiler freeish that analyze Jordan's view on women? I mean there was already hundreds of bossy catty women characters and then they bring in the Kin and Seafolk, it feels like no two women can have a relationship or even conversation without paragraphs about which one is controlling the other or has the secret upper hand, the women's treatment of Mat/Rand really is insane as well. Nyneave/Elaine were treating Mat like a little boy(who leads a giant army and has personally killed like dozens of dudes) then Nyneave gets two of those men killed on the river and doesn't even want to tell him because she is too busing fawning over Lan. Would you bat an eye if you read all of this in another fantasy series but the sexes of the characters were switched? RJ tried to ask that question. We have a lot of really weird and awkward rituals and poo poo surrounding our existing power structures in the real world. A lot of the more brow-raising ones in the series actually have analogues (though most of them involve often celibate men). VAGENDA OF MANOCIDE fucked around with this message at 23:29 on Mar 14, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2014 23:27
|
|
|
api call girl posted:Would you bat an eye if you read all of this in another fantasy series but the sexes of the characters were switched? RJ tried to ask that question. Seriously? Yes. If the men in his novels acted like the women in his novels you'd have people getting up in arms over his sexist tendencies. His women are absolutely terrible creations and in the majority of cases are the same character with different names and backgrounds. I'm not sure what question Jordan was trying to ask, but it might have been, 'Can anyone help me write a non terrible female character?'
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2014 17:06
|
|
|
Habibi posted:Seriously? Yes. If the men in his novels acted like the women in his novels you'd have people getting up in arms over his sexist tendencies. Given the state of the rest of the genre? I mean even today. RJ started WoT ~25 years ago. Just saying man, you can look at a typical popular series today and it's filled with so much toxic co-dependency and creepy misogyny and it's like "yeah that's what things were like back then" and then you look at WoT and suddenly it's double-sexist. VAGENDA OF MANOCIDE fucked around with this message at 17:22 on Mar 15, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2014 17:19
|
|
|
api call girl posted:Given the state of the rest of the genre? I mean even today. RJ started WoT ~25 years ago. This is kinda my take (if I understand you correctly). I think Jordan was honestly trying to write more gender-aware, gender-balanced fiction where women and men had roughly comparable roles and there were women who were leaders and who had thoughts and goals of their own and weren't just arm candy. Unfortunately, the dude had his own set of gender issues and I think as a result he fell kinda short of his goal (to put it mildly). But if you compare to the rest of the mainstream fantasy genre in the early 90's, WoT was a major step forward, just for things like passing the Bechdel test or replacing the standard Gandalf-style mentor with a female character that has her own goals and isn't just a buxom accessory to the male lead. The other side of this argument though is that comparing him to early '90's fantasy is a very low bar. There's a reason one of the jacket quotes for Eye of the World is from Piers Anthony: at the time he was considered a major, big-name fantasy writer. This comparison isn't really a justification or defense, it's just an excuse -- it doesn't make the problems with Jordan go away, it just puts them in perspective.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2014 17:36
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:This is kinda my take (if I understand you correctly). I think Jordan was honestly trying to write more gender-aware, gender-balanced fiction where women and men had roughly comparable roles and there were women who were leaders and who had thoughts and goals of their own and weren't just arm candy. I don't think gender balance was really his goal at all. He went straight for the status quo reversal, flipping balance where possible, adjusting and tweaking where not. That he's praised for being more gender-aware and gender-balanced, both being true relatively, is that drat near everyone around him were still worse at both. That people have honed in on things that are problematic, I agree that they are. But they're definitely, definitely, definitely things that are still largely given a pass for even today if the genders of the characters involved were reversed. To put it simply, there's a problem of reverse sexism and double standards, and a lot of pedestals involved. To try to put it even more clearly--you're meant to be somewhat discomfited by certain things, like Tylin and Mat. But not 4 books previous you would have simply rolled your eyes and moved on when the Highlords of Tear talked about tumbling the maids in the Stone. It's that difference that RJ was intentionally really good at picking at. VAGENDA OF MANOCIDE fucked around with this message at 18:02 on Mar 15, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2014 17:55
|
|
|
e: ^^^ I can't really think of another fantasy world where 90% of the men are all hopeless assholes who treat their fellow men like they were women so I don't really buy this 'he flipped around' and 'others get a pass' business. api call girl posted:Given the state of the rest of the genre? I mean even today. RJ started WoT ~25 years ago. Habibi fucked around with this message at 18:08 on Mar 15, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2014 18:02
|
|
|
Habibi posted:I personally feel this is comparing apples and oranges. It's not that the women in WoT are misogynists (though many are), it's that they're terrible characters, period. In most cases, they are just as awful and unreasonable amongst themselves as they are with the men. The argument I've often heard that the fear of male channelers led to the evolution of a female-dominant society with subservient males might have some validity if the women weren't just as insufferable around each other as they were around men. On top of that, the disorder is widespread and affects the vast majority of the female characters in the book, perhaps even more prominently among significant characters. If anything, I might even argue that Jordan's portrayal was one of the most sexist treatment of women in the genre because it evinced a view that (1) all women were the same and (2) they were all bi-polar narcissists. Or, to put it from the angle I'm coming from, you are now putting women in the very unreasonable position of having to be explicitly better than men who are, as a staple of the genre and of fiction in general and in fact real life, being total dickbrained shitheads to women and amongst themselves. That's what I'm saying. RJ postulated that that wouldn't change if women were in charge. quote:e: ^^^ I can't really think of another fantasy world where 90% of the men are all hopeless assholes who treat their fellow men like they were women so I don't really buy this 'he flipped around' and 'others get a pass' business. It's basically the root of all man vs. man conflict. Dickwaving contests are the most prevalent engines for change and progress/regress in human society. VAGENDA OF MANOCIDE fucked around with this message at 18:10 on Mar 15, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2014 18:08
|
|
|
api call girl posted:To try to put it even more clearly--you're meant to be somewhat discomfited by certain things, like Tylin and Mat. But not 4 books previous you would have simply rolled your eyes and moved on when the Highlords of Tear talked about tumbling the maids in the Stone. It's that difference that RJ was intentionally really good at picking at.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2014 18:11
|
|
|
api call girl posted:Or, to put it from the angle I'm coming from, you are now putting women in the very unreasonable position of having to be explicitly better than men who are, as a staple of the genre and of fiction in general and in fact real life, being total dickbrained shitheads to women and amongst themselves. That's what I'm saying. RJ postulated that that wouldn't change if women were in charge. Well, I think you're grossly exaggerating the conventions Jordan apparently tried to overturn. As I said, I have yet to read a fantasy book or series in which the men were with very few exceptions all terrible archetypes who couldn't stop measuring their dicks with one another long enough to come off as real people, and that is more or less the problem with Jordan's women. It's not how they treat men or each other or how they act, it's how endemic that particular personality is throughout the world. I understand what Jordan may have been trying to do, I just think that separate from that he was awful at writing good and believable female characters (which actually exist among men in conventional fantasy). When Sanderson took over, many of the women suddenly became interesting and multidimensional characters while still retaining the reversed conventions of dominance. Jordan just sucked at writing women. quote:It's basically the root of all man vs. man conflict. Dickwaving contests are the most prevalent engines for change and progress/regress in human society. If there were as many assholes, in proportion, in human society as there are bitches in Jordan's, we would probably have left behind a dead world by now.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2014 18:35
|
|
|
Habibi posted:If there were as many assholes, in proportion, in human society as there are bitches in Jordan's, we would probably have left behind a dead world by now. It's not like that wasn't explicit in the text itself either--the world had ended 3000 years ago and is careening towards yet another apocalypse. RJ even straight out says repeatedly Demandred and Sammael turned to the Shadow because Lews Therin was being a gigantic dick. Most of the actual conflict in the series is, after all, man vs. man. VAGENDA OF MANOCIDE fucked around with this message at 19:22 on Mar 15, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2014 19:19
|
|
|
api call girl posted:It's not like that wasn't explicit in the text itself either--the world had ended 3000 years ago and is careening towards yet another apocalypse. quote:RJ even straight out says repeatedly Demandred and Sammael turned to the Shadow because Lews Therin was being a gigantic dick. quote:Most of the actual conflict in the series is, after all, man vs. man. Give me a break. And if the female Aes Sedai had accompanied Lews in the first place then all that Shadow stuff may have been irrelevant, so maybe if we just look at it through whichever lens is convenient to us at the moment we'll arrive at whatever conclusions we want. And Jordan will still be terrible at writing women.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2014 19:30
|
|
|
Are you deliberately misunderstanding? Man vs. man isn't a term that means male vs. male.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2014 19:42
|
|
|
api call girl posted:Are you deliberately misunderstanding? Man vs. man isn't a term that means male vs. male. Fair enough, generally speaking. But, technically, it could, and given the context of the conversation and that response in particular, it may have helped to draw a finer distinction by saying something like 'human vs human.'
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2014 20:56
|
|
|
api call girl posted:Are you deliberately misunderstanding? Man vs. man isn't a term that means male vs. male.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2014 21:50
|
|
|
I think Jordan might of been trying to change standard gender roles but he ended up changing them to "every woman is incredibly controlling to where everyone else is afraid to talk to them because they will bitch endlessly until they get their way, except of course to their man who they dream about wearing sexy clothes for and melt and need to be complete" I just think the combination of Mat's treatment in Ebu Dar(excuse my spelling I'm audiobooking this and googling names is spoiler city) at the same time Catsuane and the seafolk are having competitions to see who can be the most obtuse controlling rear end in a top hat to each other is just draining. The characters literally go "ugh men" like once a chapter. The Tylan/Mat stuff is sorta fine as it reverses many of his advances he does but he was like literally raped through threat of violence by someone way higher ranking then him that he can't refuse, nobody would be ok with it if the roles were reversed either. The nobles in the Stone of Tear are chastised for what they did by the main characters right away and Rand even passes a creed forbidding them from doing it further. Even then the gender roles are typical male power fantasy the main character gets 3 exotic/sexy/powerful women who all are ok with boning him at the same time after having like one conversation with him(looking at you Elaine) which is kinda refreshing after I expected some awful love square infighting crap. socialsecurity fucked around with this message at 22:04 on Mar 15, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2014 21:56
|
|
|
Nihilarian posted:Given that you were just discussing gender it's easy to misunderstand. No it's not. Man vs. man is an incredibly basic building block term in discussing literary conflict. You learn this in middle school for chrissakes.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2014 23:07
|
|
|
api call girl posted:No it's not. Man vs. man is an incredibly basic building block term in discussing literary conflict. You learn this in middle school for chrissakes. The discussion was about conflict between women and your point was that men also had conflict with one another. So it shouldn't surprise you that using the term "man vs. man" was misunderstood. Within the context of the conversation, conflict between men specifically was a valid interpretation of the term. Nihilarian fucked around with this message at 15:45 on Mar 16, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2014 23:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 17:00 |
|
|
api call girl posted:No it's not. Man vs. man is an incredibly basic building block term in discussing literary conflict. You learn this in middle school for chrissakes. This is a particularly dense statement.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2014 09:08
|
|