What I Learned At An RJ Signing
Michael Martin
Most of this has been posted at various times, but I've been
encouraged by a number of people to post them collectively,
so here they go.
I attended a signing at Jospeh-Beth Booksellers in Cincy, OH,
on 10/12/96. The signing was officially for the Fallon series,
but I recall only one or two Fallon books. About 35 fans showed.
1. The Creator's "Inability" To Act On His Creation
Having encountered a similar "theology" in Donaldson's Covenant
series, I have been quite curious _why_ the Creator can't
act on His own world. It didn't seem to make sense, except
as a plot device.
RJ answered this question. His thesis was this: A perfect Creator
should create a perfect creation. To act, miraculously or no,
on this world, would be tantamount to acknowleding imperfection
in Himself. So, when humanity screwed things up, they've been left
on their own to "patch" things up. :-)
This sheds a LOT of light on some things in Randland. First, there
will not be any final expiation of evil (i.e. Book of Revelation in
Christianity). What we have is an infinite cycle ("Wheel") of the
struggle of light and darkness. The best to be hoped for is an
eternal balance, rather than some final, complete victory (for
good). This bothers me on several fronts, not the least that evil
can win and good can't.
Also note that this really helps explain Fel's ramblings in LOC.
The sealing, bore and all that will just cycle endlessly.
2. The VOICE At Tarwin's Gap (EotW)
Since the Creator cannot or will not act in creation, we can
reasonably surmise that it wasn't the Creator's voice Rand
heard when chasing Ishy (I had hoped it was). So, then whose
was it? The DO's "voice" is written in all caps in LoC, but the
voice in EotW is caps _and_ italics. This may just be a change
in how RJ wrote the DO's voice, but it may signify a different
speaker.
3. The Two *gars
RJ admitted outright that they were Aginor and Balthamel, and that
Aginor was the male and Balthamel was the woman. I still feel
that Aginor describing himself as "helping" make the Trollocs
is not consistent, but hey, I didn't write the books. When I asked
him if he was confirming their IDs, RJ said (in a slightly tired
tone), "I"ve never _denied_ it." This was rather surprising to me,
to say the least.
4. Viet Nam/Rand's "No Kill Woman" Thang
RJ vividly described an experience he had in VN where he killed
a female VC. He said he simply spotted a figure holding a weapon
and fired on it, then "acquired the next target." He then realized
that he had killed a woman--the first (and I believe only) time
he's done that. This provides an obvious basis for Rand's
"Achilles' heal." (I thought he should have offed both the Tower AS
in the beginning of aCoS and Lanfear earlier, but I'm rude like
that.)
Sorry about the length, but I've tried to keep this as brief as
possible. Comments and ideas are welcome.
Michael Martin
"I never walk into the light unless I know who turned the switch."
--Dime Store Prophets
<michael...@daytonoh.ncr.com>
Squidboy
Benjamin Adams wrote:
>
> Dave Rothgery wrote:
> >
> > Only Padan Fain, Ishy, and possibly Shadar Haran are interested in
> > Evil for Evil's sake.
>
> Actually, Fain is not quite like that.
> Fain is not really for Evil for Evil's sake. His reasons for doing
> the things he does are more personal.
>
> At first, he was an ordinary DF, acting in his own self-interest.
> The changes that have happened to him over the course of the series
> have left him with an intense personal hatred of both Rand and the DO.
> It is this hatred which motivates him.
>
> I suspect that Fain is going to be an important factor in the victory
> of the Good Guys.
>
> -Ben "Loial" Adams
Fain is RJ's version of Gollum(or Smeagol,or whatever you wanna call
him)
Don HARLOW
>1. The Creator's "Inability" To Act On His Creation
>Having encountered a similar "theology" in Donaldson's Covenant
>series, I have been quite curious _why_ the Creator can't
>act on His own world. It didn't seem to make sense, except
>as a plot device.
>
>RJ answered this question. His thesis was this: A perfect Creator
>should create a perfect creation. To act, miraculously or no,
>on this world, would be tantamount to acknowleding imperfection
>in Himself. So, when humanity screwed things up, they've been left
>on their own to "patch" things up. :-)
>
>This sheds a LOT of light on some things in Randland. First, there
>will not be any final expiation of evil (i.e. Book of Revelation in
>Christianity). What we have is an infinite cycle ("Wheel") of the
>struggle of light and darkness. The best to be hoped for is an
>eternal balance, rather than some final, complete victory (for
>good). This bothers me on several fronts, not the least that evil
>can win and good can't.
>
Actually, depending on your view of the universe, this is exactly the
way things should be. A victory (I am assuming that we are talking
about _ultimate_ victory) by either side would lead to a static
situation in which evil (or good) dominated everything, while good (or
evil) had totally been eradicated. Not really a fun environment,
whichever way you look at it. A dynamic situation -- the one you get
when good succeeds in balancing evil, and vice versa -- is much more
interesting.
Don HARLOW
http://www.webcom.com/~donh/
(English version available at http://www.webcom.com/~donh/dona.html)
Leander
Has anyone here read The Last of the Renshia? I think it is by Mickey Zucker
Reichhart, but that might be wrong. Its a fantasy that incoporates Norse
mythology in. It talks a lot about balence and the series are a pretty good
read.
---L-e-a-n-d-e-r---
---T-r-u-s-t---M-e---
---S-h-e-'-s---w-o-r-t-h---t-h-e---s-w-i-m---
Bob the Soul Crusher
On Fri, 18 Apr 1997 17:59:29 GMT, Michael Martin
<Michael...@Daytonoh.ncr.com> wrote:
>4. Viet Nam/Rand's "No Kill Woman" Thang
^^^^^^^^
Is this something like compleat and froup? Am I missing the point?
Shouldn't Vietnam be one word, not two?
--
"If ignorance is bliss
then knock the smile off my face"
RATM
From the infinetely cluttered desk of Bob, the Soul Crusher.
jbr...@chem.wisc.edu
Leander wrote:
> Has anyone here read The Last of the Renshia? I think it is by Mickey Zucker
> Reichhart, but that might be wrong. Its a fantasy that incoporates Norse
> mythology in. It talks a lot about balence and the series are a pretty good
> read.
Or how about Michael Moorcock? He was writing about the importance of balance 30
years ago. It always amazes me that Elric was his most popular stuff - I think a
fair amount of the stuff he's done is better than Elric.
Jeff
Dave Rothgery
On 21 Apr 1997, John S. Novak wrote:
>On Sun, 20 Apr 1997 17:43:40 -0600, jbr...@chem.wisc.edu
><jbr...@chem.wisc.edu> wrote:
>
>But in the end, when fiction writers hop up on this hobby horse, it
>always strikes me as being a little, well, sophomoric, if the analysis
>is taken too far.
>
[...]
>
>The other bit of sophomoric prestidigitation is that whenever you pull
>off this kind of "Balance is Good!" driving theme, you immediately put
>yourself in the business of just renaming things and presenting a
>different axis.
>
>A stunningly bad example of this kind of writing-- I mean a truly,
>horrendously evil, almost Goodkind-kinda teeth-gnashing experience of
>being beaten on the head with a simple theme-- is the "Gord the Rogue"
>series of books by none other than E. Gary Gygax. Bleah.
>
>He did exactly that-- and once you do that, you have to _demonstrate_
>that "Good" is no better than "Evil" and relabel your axis so that
>"Balance" is "Good" and everything else is "Bad".
>
>Sinec I really think this is only a tangential theme for Jordan, it
>doesn't bother me too much-- which is good, because he's not saying
>anything original about it.
>
That's probably because no one, with the possible exception of Verin,
in the WoT gives a damn about balance. The heroes are doing what they
believe to be good and right, or at least necessary to accomplish this.
Even the not-quite-Evil types (Reds, Whitecloaks) feel the same way.
Most of the Evil types (the Forsaken other than Ishy, BA, misc. DFs) are
presented as acting purely in what they believe to be their own
self-intrest. Whether their actions actually are in their best interest
is somewhat debateable (esp. for those who joined the Shadow for personal
reasons relating to Lews Therin; i.e. Sammael, Demandred).
Only Padan Fain, Ishy, and possibly Shadar Haran are interested in Evil
for Evil's sake.
Dave Rothgery dave...@wpi.edu http://www.wpi.edu/~daveroth/
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
"It has been said that though God cannot alter the past, historians can."
-Samuel Butler
John S. Novak
>Or how about Michael Moorcock? He was writing about the importance
>of balance 30 years ago. It always amazes me that Elric was his most
>popular stuff - I think a fair amount of the stuff he's done is
>better than Elric.
Well, the whole concept of the balance is not a new one.
It is, as you point out, at least as old as Moorcock in the modern
fantasy genre, and probably as old as the Yin and the Yang in the
genre of religious thinking.
But in the end, when fiction writers hop up on this hobby horse, it
always strikes me as being a little, well, sophomoric, if the analysis
is taken too far.
Moorcock is an above average example, as far as Law and Chaos. JMS of
Babylon 5 is perhaps a better one, in that he actually gave his Law
and Chaos archetypes human-understandable _reasons_ why they favored
one over the other.
But in creating these archetypes, whether along the Law/Chaos axis or
the Good/Evil axis, something goes slightly awry to my mind-- we're
presuming the existence of forces incredibly more ancient, wise, and
knowing than mere humanity-- in some cases the creators of humanity
(particularly in fantasy.) But we are given to believe, at the end of
things, that these incredibly ancient and all-knowing beings are quite
content to war for an end result that gives only stasis, of one dismal
sort or another.
There are ways around this-- specifying that the incredibly ancient
beings are really only playing a game, or other ratinalizations
abound, but none of them ring properly in mind.
The other bit of sophomoric prestidigitation is that whenever you pull
off this kind of "Balance is Good!" driving theme, you immediately put
yourself in the business of just renaming things and presenting a
different axis.
A stunningly bad example of this kind of writing-- I mean a truly,
horrendously evil, almost Goodkind-kinda teeth-gnashing experience of
being beaten on the head with a simple theme-- is the "Gord the Rogue"
series of books by none other than E. Gary Gygax. Bleah.
He did exactly that-- and once you do that, you have to _demonstrate_
that "Good" is no better than "Evil" and relabel your axis so that
"Balance" is "Good" and everything else is "Bad".
It's trivial.
Now, this is not to say that this is a _bad_ theme-- on the contrary,
I think it's a very good theme, if done properly. But for every JMS,
who works the theme well and actually adds a new twist to it, there's
a dozen Gygax's who feel the need to write a thousand and a half pages
of turgid prose expressing concepts I had already considered while I
wasn't paying attention to basic math in the third grade.
Sinec I really think this is only a tangential theme for Jordan, it
doesn't bother me too much-- which is good, because he's not saying
anything original about it.
This has been my literary rant for the day.
--
John S. Novak, III j...@cris.com
The Humblest Man on the Net
Devin Ganger
On Sun, 20 Apr 1997 17:43:40 -0600, jbr...@chem.wisc.edu wrote:
> Or how about Michael Moorcock? He was writing about the importance of balance 30
> years ago. It always amazes me that Elric was his most popular stuff - I think a
> fair amount of the stuff he's done is better than Elric.
I think that a fair amount of the stuff that *anyone* has done is
better than Elric.
Shit, I enjoyed "The Eye of Argon" more than I enjoyed Elric.
--
Devin "Lews 'Cutie' Therin" Ganger
The Most Arrogant Fictional Dead Man On The Net
email: lewst at teleport dot com (cut .NO.SOLICITING.HERE from headers)
Unsolicited commercial email will be invoiced for $500
Bob the Soul Crusher
On Sun, 20 Apr 1997 21:59:33 -0400, Dave Rothgery <dave...@wpi.edu>
wrote:
<snip balance>
>Only Padan Fain, Ishy, and possibly Shadar Haran are interested in Evil
>for Evil's sake.
What about Semirhage? Torturing people seems pretty damn evil to me.
Dave Rothgery
On Mon, 21 Apr 1997, Bob the Soul Crusher wrote:
>
>On Sun, 20 Apr 1997 21:59:33 -0400, Dave Rothgery <dave...@wpi.edu>
>wrote:
>
><snip balance>
>
>>Only Padan Fain, Ishy, and possibly Shadar Haran are interested in Evil
>>for Evil's sake.
>
>What about Semirhage? Torturing people seems pretty damn evil to me.
Yes, but she does it for fun. She's interested in her own pleasure, not
the goals of Evil, inc.
Kate Nepveu
Rumor has it that Michael Martin <Michael...@Daytonoh.ncr.com>
said:
>1. The Creator's "Inability" To Act On His Creation
[....]
>RJ answered this question. His thesis was this: A perfect Creator
>should create a perfect creation. To act, miraculously or no,
>on this world, would be tantamount to acknowleding imperfection
>in Himself. So, when humanity screwed things up, they've been left
>on their own to "patch" things up. :-)
Nice guy. I think I prefer the deep metaphysical rationalizations
than the pure ego motive...
Kate
"Most days it's just stumbling around in the dark with the rest
of creation, smashing into things and wondering why it hurts."
--Lois McMaster Bujold, _Shards of Honor_
Paul Ward
>
>On Sun, 20 Apr 1997 21:59:33 -0400, Dave Rothgery <dave...@wpi.edu>
>wrote:
>
><snip balance>
>
>>Only Padan Fain, Ishy, and possibly Shadar Haran are interested in Evil
>>for Evil's sake.
>
>What about Semirhage? Torturing people seems pretty damn evil to me.
She doesn't do it because it's evil. She does it because it gives her
pleasure. Fain, Ishy, and SH would do it because it was evil, and,
possibly, because it gave them pleasure. Evil IS their pleasure.
Paul Ward
pw...@juno.com
---------------------------------------
THIS .SIG FOR SALE!!
If you are interested in buying this
space, inquire at the above address.
---------------------------------------
Christian R. Conrad
> <Michael...@Daytonoh.ncr.com> wrote:
> >4. Viet Nam/Rand's "No Kill Woman" Thang
> ^^^^^^^^
> Is this something like compleat and froup? Am I missing the point?
> Shouldn't Vietnam be one word, not two?
Pure speculation: Not necessarily. The "Viet" bit is the same as in
"Viet Cong", and that's written as two words. Western writing of the
country's name has changed towards the one-word form in the last decade
or two, but back when RJ was there, the two-words form was prevalent.
OK, now somebody who knows, tell me just how wrong I am! :)
But I _do_ recall seing it as "Viet Nam" in older texts... (?)
Christian R. Conrad
Sole owner of all opinions (except quotes) expressed above.
=====================================================================
I refuse to kill said alien creature in the belief it is hostile!
I will kill it just for fun! "Flesh Garden", MAD Magazine, May 1954
Mike Lawson
In article <E8uHz...@falcon.daytonoh.ncr.com>,
Michael Martin <Michael...@Daytonoh.ncr.com> writes:
> I attended a signing at Jospeh-Beth Booksellers in Cincy, OH,
> on 10/12/96. The signing was officially for the Fallon series,
> but I recall only one or two Fallon books. About 35 fans showed.
Amazing that only 35 showed (me being one of them). RJ ate the
local Fiction Top Ten list for breakfast when COS came out, but
hardly anyone showed for the signing (compared to LOC, which had
about 70 or so).
What's scary is that a certain other author with the first name
beginnning with "T" and the last name with "G" probably brought
in more people at his signing a couple of weeks later. (Or so
a friend who went to it told me.)
> 1. The Creator's "Inability" To Act On His Creation
> Having encountered a similar "theology" in Donaldson's Covenant
> series, I have been quite curious _why_ the Creator can't
> act on His own world. It didn't seem to make sense, except
> as a plot device.
>
> RJ answered this question. His thesis was this: A perfect Creator
> should create a perfect creation. To act, miraculously or no,
> on this world, would be tantamount to acknowleding imperfection
> in Himself. So, when humanity screwed things up, they've been left
> on their own to "patch" things up. :-)
>
> This sheds a LOT of light on some things in Randland. First, there
> will not be any final expiation of evil (i.e. Book of Revelation in
> Christianity). What we have is an infinite cycle ("Wheel") of the
> struggle of light and darkness. The best to be hoped for is an
> eternal balance, rather than some final, complete victory (for
> good). This bothers me on several fronts, not the least that evil
> can win and good can't.
>
> Also note that this really helps explain Fel's ramblings in LOC.
> The sealing, bore and all that will just cycle endlessly.
Until TDO actually wins one, that is. I should've asked RJ if the
Dark One winning and breaking the Wheel would be the equivalent of
humanity screwing things up, or the equivalent of exposing the
imperfection of the creation.
I'm not so sure that RJ's thesis would hold water, since (theoretically)
independent minds tinkered with his creation. The net result would be
that the creation is no longer in it's initial (perfect) state; this
change from the initial state is no reflection on the Creator, but
rather on the tinkerers'.
Of course, you could argue that the tinkerers' are a part of the
entire set of the Creation, and that any tinkering performed falls
under the scope of the Creation itself.
> 2. The VOICE At Tarwin's Gap (EotW)
> Since the Creator cannot or will not act in creation, we can
> reasonably surmise that it wasn't the Creator's voice Rand
> heard when chasing Ishy (I had hoped it was). So, then whose
> was it? The DO's "voice" is written in all caps in LoC, but the
> voice in EotW is caps _and_ italics. This may just be a change
> in how RJ wrote the DO's voice, but it may signify a different
> speaker.
Perhaps the Creator doesn't consider a short blurb to be "interfering
with the Creation". It could be equivalent of a celestial referee
reminding the players of the rules at the "two-minute warning".
> 3. The Two *gars
> RJ admitted outright that they were Aginor and Balthamel, and that
> Aginor was the male and Balthamel was the woman. I still feel
> that Aginor describing himself as "helping" make the Trollocs
> is not consistent, but hey, I didn't write the books. When I asked
> him if he was confirming their IDs, RJ said (in a slightly tired
> tone), "I"ve never _denied_ it." This was rather surprising to me,
> to say the least.
As it was for me. I've independently confirmed you on my report (see
Pam's web page at http://student-www.uchicago.edu/users/kor2/WOT/
WOTindex.html for the report), so I guess this can now be officially
updated in the FAQ.
> 4. Viet Nam/Rand's "No Kill Woman" Thang
> RJ vividly described an experience he had in VN where he killed
> a female VC. He said he simply spotted a figure holding a weapon
> and fired on it, then "acquired the next target." He then realized
> that he had killed a woman--the first (and I believe only) time
> he's done that. This provides an obvious basis for Rand's
> "Achilles' heal." (I thought he should have offed both the Tower AS
> in the beginning of aCoS and Lanfear earlier, but I'm rude like
> that.)
I must've missed this after my books got signed; I didn't stick
around too long after. Interesting; it sounds more like the scene
in TDR where Rand offs the female DF and her cronies...
--Mike L.
--
Michael Lawson | "We fight, get beat, rise,
Product Development Engineer - SDRC | and fight again."
e-mail: mike....@sdrc.com | -Nathaniel Greene
Bill E. Brooks
>2. The VOICE At Tarwin's Gap (EotW)
>Since the Creator cannot or will not act in creation, we can
>reasonably surmise that it wasn't the Creator's voice Rand
>heard when chasing Ishy (I had hoped it was). So, then whose
>was it? The DO's "voice" is written in all caps in LoC, but the
>voice in EotW is caps _and_ italics. This may just be a change
>in how RJ wrote the DO's voice, but it may signify a different
>speaker.
>
This appears to be an analysis from you rather than a quote from RJ.
You seem to have disproved your own thesis, since that voice said
"I WILL TAKE NO PART."
Sounds like the Creator to me.
-Bill Brooks
Robert Pfeifer
On Mon, 21 Apr 1997, Dave Rothgery wrote:
}On Mon, 21 Apr 1997, Bob the Soul Crusher wrote:
}
}>On Sun, 20 Apr 1997 21:59:33 -0400, Dave Rothgery <dave...@wpi.edu>
}>wrote:
}>
}><snip balance>
}>
}>>Only Padan Fain, Ishy, and possibly Shadar Haran are interested in Evil
}>>for Evil's sake.
}>
}>What about Semirhage? Torturing people seems pretty damn evil to me.
}
}Yes, but she does it for fun. She's interested in her own pleasure, not
}the goals of Evil, inc.
But Evil, inc. as you so neatly called it is really just another side.
Are, to pick a current comparison, all stormtroopers wicked opressors
because they work for the Empire? No, most of them are just doing a
(hopefully well paid in risk money) job. It's the people that either don't
care about others or enjoy hurting them that strike me as more evil.
Semirhage is a lot more evil than Asmodean (who _did_ work for Evil inc.,
and even then just for the perks - eternal life in which to compose music,
etc., unless... maybe his music was so terrible that subjecting people to
it is almost Semirhagian in cruelty?).
Does it strike you that I'm almost rephrasing you back at you?
Rob
=========================================================================
A new .sig pends. Watch this space...
Robert Pfeifer - mzy...@unix.ccc.nottingham.ac.uk
=========================================================================
Benjamin Adams
Dave Rothgery wrote:
>
> Only Padan Fain, Ishy, and possibly Shadar Haran are interested in
> Evil for Evil's sake.
Actually, Fain is not quite like that.
Robert Pfeifer
On Mon, 21 Apr 1997, Devin Ganger wrote:
}On Sun, 20 Apr 1997 17:43:40 -0600, jbr...@chem.wisc.edu wrote:
}
}> Or how about Michael Moorcock? He was writing about the importance of balance 30
}> years ago. It always amazes me that Elric was his most popular stuff - I think a
}> fair amount of the stuff he's done is better than Elric.
}
}I think that a fair amount of the stuff that *anyone* has done is
}better than Elric.
}
}Shit, I enjoyed "The Eye of Argon" more than I enjoyed Elric.
I missed the rest of this thread, but I must say:
I liked the Jerry Cornelius novels (The Condition of Muzak, The Real
Nature of the Catastrophe, etc.) [as far as I know, there are four] and
the short stories in "The Lives and Times of Jerry Cornelius".
However, something seemed lacking in the only other two Moorcock books I
have read ("The Eternal Champion" and "The Entropy Tango"). I am in two
minds as to whether to read more. Advice, anyone?
James Andrew Welsh
Bill E. Brooks (wrbr...@hcc-uky.campus.mci.net) wrote:
: On Fri, 18 Apr 1997 17:59:29 GMT, Michael Martin
: <Michael...@Daytonoh.ncr.com> wrote:
[RJ says Creator won't participate...provides analysis of VOICE in TEotW.]
: This appears to be an analysis from you rather than a quote from RJ.
: You seem to have disproved your own thesis, since that voice said
: "I WILL TAKE NO PART."
: Sounds like the Creator to me.
I maintain my position that this is the DO informing Rand that the battle
will be handled directly by him (Rand) and Ishy. With the Chosen One
being Ishy, and the "IT IS NOT HERE" being a reference to the Light.
--
JAW
http://www.geocities.com/Tokyo/1482/
"Sanity is a slippery slope, and I'm wearing Teflon shoes."
Dave Rothgery
On Tue, 22 Apr 1997, Robert Pfeifer wrote:
>On Mon, 21 Apr 1997, Dave Rothgery wrote:
>
>}On Mon, 21 Apr 1997, Bob the Soul Crusher wrote:
>}
>}>On Sun, 20 Apr 1997 21:59:33 -0400, Dave Rothgery <dave...@wpi.edu>
>}>wrote:
>}>
>}><snip balance>
>}>
>}>>Only Padan Fain, Ishy, and possibly Shadar Haran are interested in Evil
>}>>for Evil's sake.
>}>
>}>What about Semirhage? Torturing people seems pretty damn evil to me.
>}
>}Yes, but she does it for fun. She's interested in her own pleasure, not
>}the goals of Evil, inc.
>
>But Evil, inc. as you so neatly called it is really just another side.
>Are, to pick a current comparison, all stormtroopers wicked opressors
>because they work for the Empire? No, most of them are just doing a
>(hopefully well paid in risk money) job. It's the people that either don't
>care about others or enjoy hurting them that strike me as more evil.
All the FS, DFs, BA, and even some Whitecloaks and non-Black Reds don't
care about others. But no one except the three I mentioned do evil acts
with no goal but to do evil (it's a contention of mine that no sane entity
does evil just to do evil; he/she/it does evil to accomplish something
else; since the DO is bugfuck crazy (as the Novak so elegantly put it),
and Fain and Ishy are certainly more loony than Rand, the WoT is in
agreement with me here).
>Semirhage is a lot more evil than Asmodean (who _did_ work for Evil inc.,
>and even then just for the perks - eternal life in which to compose music,
>etc., unless... maybe his music was so terrible that subjecting people to
>it is almost Semirhagian in cruelty?).
>
>Does it strike you that I'm almost rephrasing you back at you?
>
obArron: Yes.
More seriously, I'm begining to think Semirhage belongs in category all
her own. She's not completely insane (as per Fain, Ishy, the DO),
completely dominated by an insane entity (as per SH), but does have one
exceedingly disturbing element in her psychological make up. She enjoys
giving others pain. Which makes her a lot more scary than say, Sammael,
who's more dangerous, but would probably just kill you, or Graendal, whose
methods of extracting information are a little different.
But enjoying torture is not doing evil for the sole purpose of doing evil.
I'd be surprised if there isn't at least one non-DF Questioner who enjoys
his work, and thinks his work is necessary in order to find Darkfriends.
He wouldn't think of himself as evil, and probably isn't. But he's just
as sick and twisted as Semirhage, albeit with less power.
Aaron Bergman
In article <Pine.ULT.3.95q.97042...@bigwpi.WPI.EDU>,
Dave Rothgery <dave...@wpi.edu> wrote:
:obArron: Yes.
_Aaron_.
Is that really a spelling? I've never met an Arron in my entire life.
Aaron
--
Aaron Bergman -- aber...@minerva.cis.yale.edu
<http://pantheon.yale.edu/~abergman/>
"Smithers, I believe this dog has been in Skull and Bones."
Dave Rothgery
On Thu, 24 Apr 1997, Aaron Bergman wrote:
>Dave Rothgery <dave...@wpi.edu> wrote:
>
>:obArron: Yes.
>
>_Aaron_.
>
>Is that really a spelling? I've never met an Arron in my entire life.
>
I wasn't thinking clearly. I knew something was wrong, but couldn't place
it. I'd blame lack of sleep, except that I posted that this morning.
Craig A. Bonnes
On Sun, 20 Apr 1997 17:43:40 -0600, jbr...@chem.wisc.edu wrote:
<munch>
>Or how about Michael Moorcock? He was writing about the importance of balance 30
>years ago. It always amazes me that Elric was his most popular stuff - I think a
>fair amount of the stuff he's done is better than Elric.
>
>Jeff
Ok,
The biggest reason I didn't like the Elric Saga was because
in the Eternal Champion multiverse, Elric seemed to have
to do all the interdimensional stuff. I read Elric before reading
any of the other stuff on the Eternal Champion and "Sailor on
the Seas of Fate" threw me for a loop for awhile.
The problem I see a lot of people having with Elric is the same
problem people have problems with Thomas Covenent by
Donaldson. Namely the protagonist isn't good. Face the
truth, of all literature you've ever read, what percentage of
it had the main character as evil, or like Elric, balanced between
Law and Chaos. As a society we're brought up on the fact
that the main characters are good guys, flawed at times, but
still good guys.
Libiamo, libiamo ne' lieti calici,
Che la bellezza infiora.
E la fuggevol oro
S'inebrii a volutta
====----------> end <----------====
May you live in interesting times
-ancient chinese curse
Craig A. Bonnes
vitu...@iastate.edu
Robert Pfeifer
On Thu, 24 Apr 1997, Dave Rothgery wrote:
}On Tue, 22 Apr 1997, Robert Pfeifer wrote:
}>On Mon, 21 Apr 1997, Dave Rothgery wrote:
}>}On Mon, 21 Apr 1997, Bob the Soul Crusher wrote:
}>}>On Sun, 20 Apr 1997 21:59:33 -0400, Dave Rothgery <dave...@wpi.edu>
}>}>wrote:
}>}>
}>}><snip balance>
}>}>
}>}>>Only Padan Fain, Ishy, and possibly Shadar Haran are interested in Evil
}>}>>for Evil's sake.
}>}>
}>}>What about Semirhage? Torturing people seems pretty damn evil to me.
}>}
}>}Yes, but she does it for fun. She's interested in her own pleasure, not
}>}the goals of Evil, inc.
}>
}>But Evil, inc. as you so neatly called it is really just another side.
}>Are, to pick a current comparison, all stormtroopers wicked opressors
}>because they work for the Empire? No, most of them are just doing a
}>(hopefully well paid in risk money) job. It's the people that either don't
}>care about others or enjoy hurting them that strike me as more evil.
}
}All the FS, DFs, BA, and even some Whitecloaks and non-Black Reds don't
}care about others. But no one except the three I mentioned do evil acts
}with no goal but to do evil (it's a contention of mine that no sane entity
}does evil just to do evil; he/she/it does evil to accomplish something
}else; since the DO is bugfuck crazy (as the Novak so elegantly put it),
}and Fain and Ishy are certainly more loony than Rand, the WoT is in
}agreement with me here).
Ishy and Shaidar, act for Evil Inc., simply another side in the battle,
for that side's sake. If you're going to participate, you've got to be on
one side or the other and so pick the one that makes you the best offer /
looks most likely to win in your lifetime.
Semirhage would be evil even if she were on Rand's side because she'd
enjoy all those onerous little chores like finding out what somebody knows
about the opposition's movements. In fact, she'd take time out to find
people to torture to death, odds are.
Asmodean and presumably many other Forsaken don't have this kind of
character flaw. So they may be selfish, but they would probably have
stayed on LTT's side had he offered them eternal life and power beyond
their wildest dreams. They are just working for the side that gave them
the better deal, Evil Inc.
Black Ajah may be a mixture of those seeking the better deal (Evil Inc. if
it can convince them it'll win), those already DFs for whatever reason,
and the mad.
DFs will have either been brought up that way or be twisted individuals
who probably take great joy in gruesome rituals that give the group its
reputation, image, and definition. Only the latter will be really evil.
Whitecloaks: Not evil. Not Evil Inc. either.
Red Ajah: Not evil just dedicated to a worthy (ITO) goal. Not Evil Inc.
Very few people will be evil, not Evil Inc. They will be those who
naturally enjoy killing, maiming and slaughtering, subjecting others to
their unreasonable demands and the like, and feel no need to bow to th
morals of a greater society. Which side they are on is irrelevant.
The evil type tends to be selfish rather than moralistic and so will tend
to the side offering them the best join-up package rather than the ones
with the best goal.
However, this is not always the case. Mashadar was evil working for Good
Inc. because of his moral ground and many naturally non-evil people may be
selfish enough to go over to the DO for the apparent gains (mmainly raised
DFs who are brought up believing the DO will win and so serve him as did
their parents).
}>Semirhage is a lot more evil than Asmodean (who _did_ work for Evil inc.,
}>and even then just for the perks - eternal life in which to compose music,
}>etc., unless... maybe his music was so terrible that subjecting people to
}>it is almost Semirhagian in cruelty?).
}>
}>Does it strike you that I'm almost rephrasing you back at you?
}>
}obArron: Yes.
Ob not ob
Aaron not Arron
Otherwsie, uterrly fien.
}More seriously, I'm begining to think Semirhage belongs in category all
}her own. She's not completely insane (as per Fain, Ishy, the DO),
}completely dominated by an insane entity (as per SH), but does have one
}exceedingly disturbing element in her psychological make up. She enjoys
}giving others pain. Which makes her a lot more scary than say, Sammael,
}who's more dangerous, but would probably just kill you, or Graendal, whose
}methods of extracting information are a little different.
}
}But enjoying torture is not doing evil for the sole purpose of doing evil.
}I'd be surprised if there isn't at least one non-DF Questioner who enjoys
}his work, and thinks his work is necessary in order to find Darkfriends.
}He wouldn't think of himself as evil, and probably isn't. But he's just
}as sick and twisted as Semirhage, albeit with less power.
If he tortured for torturing's sake, I'd call him evil. But no - I doubt
he goes home and starts practising on the family. He restrains his urges
for the sake of his morality. He's not a very nice person but he's not
evil. He's not good, either.
He could quite easily be working for Evil Inc. or Good Inc. instead of
Whitecloaks And Other Associated Confounders Inc.
The correct category for Semirhage is "evil".
The DO is not evil, he just runs Evil Inc. and is ultimately extremely
selfish and at odds to our preferences.
Rob
Oh, and Fain is just wierd. And evil. And Evil Inc. And mad. And he's got
a trace of Mashadar in him, who was evil Good Inc.
Don't even try to classify this nutter.
=========================================================================
"Nietzsche is dead." - God
Devin Ganger
> have read ("The Eternal Champion" and "The Entropy Tango"). I am in two
> minds as to whether to read more. Advice, anyone?
Burn them. Burn them now.
Jeff Vinocur
On Thu, 24 Apr 1997 11:25:56 -0400,
aber...@pantheon.yale.edu (Aaron Bergman) wrote:
:In article <Pine.ULT.3.95q.97042...@bigwpi.WPI.EDU>,
:Dave Rothgery <dave...@wpi.edu> wrote:
:
::obArron: Yes.
:
:_Aaron_.
:
:Is that really a spelling? I've never met an Arron in my entire life.
http://uncecs.edu/~bch/gen/D0008/I854.html
A family tree containing one "Arron Phips." Probably a typo
though.
--
Jeff Vinocur
chi...@ix.netcom.com
http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/3768/
James Andrew Welsh
Jeff Vinocur (chi...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: On Thu, 24 Apr 1997 11:25:56 -0400,
: aber...@pantheon.yale.edu (Aaron Bergman) wrote:
: :In article <Pine.ULT.3.95q.97042...@bigwpi.WPI.EDU>,
: :Dave Rothgery <dave...@wpi.edu> wrote:
: :
: ::obArron: Yes.
: :
: :_Aaron_.
: :
: :Is that really a spelling? I've never met an Arron in my entire life.
: http://uncecs.edu/~bch/gen/D0008/I854.html
: A family tree containing one "Arron Phips." Probably a typo
: though.
Wasn't that the mispelling on Elvis' grave?
Robert Pfeifer
On Sat, 26 Apr 1997, Devin Ganger wrote:
}On Wed, 23 Apr 1997 22:41:36 +0100, Robert Pfeifer
}<mzy...@unix.ccc.nottingham.ac.uk> wrote:
}
}> have read ("The Eternal Champion" and "The Entropy Tango"). I am in two
}> minds as to whether to read more. Advice, anyone?
}
}Burn them. Burn them now.
Thanks. But hasn't he written _anything_ on a par with the early
Cornelius?
Rob
=========================================================================
"Nietzsche is dead." - God
Robert Pfeifer - mzy...@unix.ccc.nottingham.ac.uk
http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/~mzyg142/rj.html
=========================================================================
Paul Tibbit
le...@teleport.com.NO.SOLICITING.HERE (Devin Ganger) wrote:
>On Wed, 23 Apr 1997 22:41:36 +0100, Robert Pfeifer
><mzy...@unix.ccc.nottingham.ac.uk> wrote:
>> have read ("The Eternal Champion" and "The Entropy Tango"). I am in two
>> minds as to whether to read more. Advice, anyone?
>Burn them. Burn them now.
<Chuckle>
Agreed. Torch 'em. Piss on the ashes. While facing _away_ from the
wind.
Paul Tibbit
"I'm not shy, I'm just studying my prey."
Brad Johnson
James Andrew Welsh (ap...@chebucto.ns.ca) wrote:
: Jeff Vinocur (chi...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: : On Thu, 24 Apr 1997 11:25:56 -0400,
: : aber...@pantheon.yale.edu (Aaron Bergman) wrote:
: : :In article <Pine.ULT.3.95q.97042...@bigwpi.WPI.EDU>,
: : :Dave Rothgery <dave...@wpi.edu> wrote:
: : :
: : ::obArron: Yes.
: : :
: : :_Aaron_.
: : :
: : :Is that really a spelling? I've never met an Arron in my entire life.
: : http://uncecs.edu/~bch/gen/D0008/I854.html
: : A family tree containing one "Arron Phips." Probably a typo
: : though.
: Wasn't that the mispelling on Elvis' grave?
no. Elvis's middle name was "Aron." On the gravestone it was
misspelled as "Aaron."
--bradj.
------------------------Nullus Oppidenda Est--------------------------
brad johnson (bgjo...@unix.amherst.edu) 'Disc, God, Country, Pork'
http://www.amherst.edu/~bgjohnso/ 'Chickens! No Cynics!'
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Jouni Karhu
gcla...@sdrc.com (Mike Lawson) wrote:
>I must've missed this after my books got signed; I didn't stick
>around too long after. Interesting; it sounds more like the scene
>in TDR where Rand offs the female DF and her cronies...
It seems to be the consensus that the female merchant and her company
were Darkfriends. They do have a Grey Man amongst them, but does that
make them DF? When I read the passage the first time, I immediately
thought that it was another sign of Rand's impending madness (it seems
like Rand was slipping much faster in the early books, does it not?),
and that he just killed all of them because of the feeling he had from
the Grey Man.
'I have something to say! | 'The Immoral Immortal' \o JJ Karhu
It is better to burn out, | -=========================OxxxxxxxxxxxO
than to fade away!' | kur...@modeemi.cs.tut.fi /o
Jeff Vinocur
On Wed, 07 May 1997 14:51:00 GMT, kur...@modeemi.cs.tut.fi
(Jouni Karhu) wrote:
:gcla...@sdrc.com (Mike Lawson) wrote:
:>in TDR where Rand offs the female DF and her cronies...
:
:another sign of Rand's impending madness (it seems
:like Rand was slipping much faster in the early books, does it not?),
This, perhaps, is a sign that he is nearly mad now.
Consider the graph of y=1/x. It changes height much more
rapidly at the start...because by the end it is nearly at
zero.