RJ signings
crai...@my-deja.com
signings lately, but the "offical" web site said he wasn't on tour last
time I checked. If he is, is there a list of where he'll be?
Thanks
Craig
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Fairfax Sheild McCandlish IV
<crai...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8vvffl$1ih$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> Is Robert Jordan on a signing tour? I've seen a few posts about
> signings lately, but the "offical" web site said he wasn't on tour last
> time I checked. If he is, is there a list of where he'll be?
>
to a signing, ask about Sammael.
Pat O'Connell
Go to:
http://www.tor.com
and there will be a link to Author Appearances on that page.
--
Pat O'Connell
Take nothing but pictures, Leave nothing but footprints,
Kill nothing but vandals...
Matt Peck
http://www.tor.com/author_apps.html
Search for Robert Jordan
11/29 Little Professor - Charlotte, NC
11/30 Waldenbooks - Fayetteville, NC
12/1 Fort Knox PX - Ft Knox, KY
12/2 Fort Campbell PX - Ft Campbell, KY
12/3 That Bookstore In Blytheville, Blytheville, AR
12/4 Davis-Kidd Booksellers, Memphis, TN
12/5 Chapter 11, Atlanta GA
By the way, I'm going to the signing on the 30th, any questions
weighing heavily on your minds?
--
Matt Peck
James Huckaby
> Pat O'Connell wrote:
> > http://www.tor.com
> >
> > and there will be a link to Author Appearances on that page.
>
> http://www.tor.com/author_apps.html
> Search for Robert Jordan
>
> 11/29 Little Professor - Charlotte, NC
> 11/30 Waldenbooks - Fayetteville, NC
> 12/1 Fort Knox PX - Ft Knox, KY
> 12/2 Fort Campbell PX - Ft Campbell, KY
> 12/3 That Bookstore In Blytheville, Blytheville, AR
> 12/4 Davis-Kidd Booksellers, Memphis, TN
> 12/5 Chapter 11, Atlanta GA
>
> By the way, I'm going to the signing on the 30th, any questions
> weighing heavily on your minds?
Get a confirmation on the "Sammael is toast" reply that he
gave some other guy.
--
James Huckaby
ja...@raveller.com
http://www.raveller.com
"Share our perfect opinion, it's the ideal ideal."
Built to Spill - Sick & Wrong
Matt Lewis
<snip>
>By the way, I'm going to the signing on the 30th, any questions
>weighing heavily on your minds?
Ya ask if the twisting of time between the real world and TAR is enough to
allow the possibility of Gaidal being reborn many (9) years before he
disappeared from the world of dreams. Or if you don't want to get a RAFO say
a hero bound to the wheel instead of Gaidal.
Matt
--
Posted from [24.22.209.113] by way of oe33.law4.hotmail.com [216.33.148.26]
via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
James Huckaby
mha...@hotmail.com ("Matt Lewis") wrote:
> > Matt Peck <val...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> <snip>
> >By the way, I'm going to the signing on the 30th, any questions
> >weighing heavily on your minds?
>
> Ya ask if the twisting of time between the real world and
> TAR is enough to allow the possibility of Gaidal being
> reborn many (9) years before he disappeared from the world
> of dreams. Or if you don't want to get a RAFO say a hero
> bound to the wheel instead of Gaidal.
Instead of that ask if an old soul can be spun out into a
child's body like Birgitte suggests or if she was delusional.
James Huckaby
> mha...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > > Matt Peck wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> > >By the way, I'm going to the signing on the 30th, any questions
> > >weighing heavily on your minds?
> >
> > Ya ask if the twisting of time between the real world and
> > TAR is enough to allow the possibility of Gaidal being
> > reborn many (9) years before he disappeared from the world
> > of dreams. Or if you don't want to get a RAFO say a hero
> > bound to the wheel instead of Gaidal.
>
> Instead of that ask if an old soul can be spun out into a
> child's body like Birgitte suggests or if she was delusional.
But first and foremost get a confirmation of the "Sammael is
toast" question.
John S. Novak, III
>Yeah, try to get confirmation on the Sammael Is Toast issue.
>Also ask why Nynaeve demonstrating the use of Wells to Rand went
>unnoticed by the Watchdogs.
And if the Eye was a Well, or a variant of a Well.
--
John S. Novak, III j...@concentric.net
The Humblest Man on the Net
Matt Peck
> By the way, I'm going to the signing on the 30th, any questions
> weighing heavily on your minds?
>
I'm going to have to recruit an associate, I don't think I can get away
with asking all these questions. Here's a summary of what I've seen
posted here and in other threads. You got a few more hours to post
more if you want them.
Is Sammael really dead?
We know that the world of dreams has a skewed sense of time in relation
to the "real" world, days pass in one when a single day passes in the
other, and vice versa. Can this effect be strong enough that several
years can go by in a relatively short period of time? (As vague as I
can get it and still ask the question)
Why did Nynaeve's use of the well in Far Madding go unnoticed by the
Watchers?
Was the Eye of the World a well/variant of a well?
Did Noal really go to Shara?
--
Matt Peck
Matthew Hackell
>
> > By the way, I'm going to the signing on the 30th, any questions
> > weighing heavily on your minds?
> >
> <snip all questions so far>
>
> I'm going to have to recruit an associate, I don't think I can get away
> with asking all these questions. Here's a summary of what I've seen
> posted here and in other threads. You got a few more hours to post
> more if you want them.
You may not, so prioritize.
> Is Sammael really dead?
Definitely ask this one. If he's giving info like this, it's very
unusual--only the "bowl-strangness connection" and the
"Osan'gar/Aran'gar" answers even come close, and both of those can at
least be determined from the books with enough work.
> We know that the world of dreams has a skewed sense of time in relation
> to the "real" world, days pass in one when a single day passes in the
> other, and vice versa. Can this effect be strong enough that several
> years can go by in a relatively short period of time? (As vague as I
> can get it and still ask the question)
It'll be a RAFO. Ask it if you can, sure, but don't waste a question on
it.
> Why did Nynaeve's use of the well in Far Madding go unnoticed by the
> Watchers?
Ask this one too, after the Sammael one. If it's a RAFO, we'll have more
Far Madding action in the future. But it may not be.
> Was the Eye of the World a well/variant of a well?
Can't imagine what he'll say to this. Make this the third question.
> Did Noal really go to Shara?
RAFO. No way he'll answer this.
--
Matt
Poetry is the continuation of warfare by other means.
Michael Cook, NES 333
Matthew Hackell
> > > Is Sammael really dead?
> >
> > Definitely ask this one. If he's giving info like this, it's very
> > unusual--only the "bowl-strangness connection" and the
> > "Osan'gar/Aran'gar" answers even come close, and both of those can at
> > least be determined from the books with enough work.
>
> went on to say that wasn't it cooler to just say RAFO and have
> something to look forward to. I think he was just sick of being asked
> this one, so he spilled the beans on it. I didn't ask about a
> reincarnation, and he didn't say. I think thats a RAFO anyway.
I don't like it, and I wish he'd kept his big mouth shut, but that's
two, and unless someone with a longer posting history posts a
refutation, I guess that's it. I can't imagine that the DO wouldn't
bring him back, however; he's done much better than, say, Aginor,
Balthamel, and Lanfear did, and if he's not exactly a team player, a
cour'souvra will solve that problem.
[snip]
> > > Why did Nynaeve's use of the well in Far Madding go unnoticed by the
> > > Watchers?
> >
> > Ask this one too, after the Sammael one. If it's a RAFO, we'll have
> > more Far Madding action in the future. But it may not be.
>
> I didn't ask this one either.
A shame. Next signing, people?
> > > Was the Eye of the World a well/variant of a well?
> >
> > Can't imagine what he'll say to this. Make this the third question.
>
> I did ask this one. He said that it was similar, but different.
> Similar in the sense that it it held the One Power, but its not a
> ter'angreal. They are also created in different ways. The Eye was a
> one-time use, where a well can be refilled. He went on a little
> further, but I forget a little of his explanation. But no earth-
> shakers here, just a little clarification of what we already knew.
Good to know. It'd be interesting to know what it was, if not a
ter'angreal, but the fact that he answered this means that he'll never
tell us in the books. No big deal.
> > > Did Noal really go to Shara?
> >
> > RAFO. No way he'll answer this.
>
> Didn't ask this either. I did ask one question that I thought of
> later. I asked that as the Wheel turned, each time an Age rolls
> around, is the Pattern exactly the same each time, or does it change?
> He seemed to like this question. He likened it to a tapestry. When
> seen from a distance, each Third Age (to make it easy to track) has
> exactly the same pattern as the previous Third Age. However, when seen
> up close, there are differences. Threads are different, different
> nations exist, geography is different, different personalities rise to
> prominence.
>
> These changes, while minute in the grand scale of the Pattern, affect
> the Pattern enough so that while two iterations of an Age are almost
> the same, the first "Third Age" may be wildy different from the
> hundredth "Third Age".
That IS good to know. It gives a more interesting twist to the cosmology
of Randland, IMO.
> (My interpretation)
> Thus while some point out that since the Wheel keeps turning, there
> can't be anything new under the sun, in fact the "Age Lace", as its
> referred to, is going somewhere. It may be that this really will be
> a "Final Battle", if the Age Lace is at this crux point and the DO
> wins. The DO says He'll break the wheel and finally rule all time or
> whatever. This may be possible, however, it probably requires very
> specific victory conditions, as has been mentioned elsewhere. Other
> conditions may require more turning.
>
> But if the Light wins, it probably keeps turning.
I think this is unnecessary--all this means is that RJ's world no longer
requires predestination.
Thanks, Matt. Very helpful.
Matt Peck
Matthew Hackell <mhac...@princeton.edu> wrote:
> From the book of Matt Peck:
> > I'm going to have to recruit an associate, I don't think I can get
away
> > with asking all these questions. Here's a summary of what I've seen
> > posted here and in other threads. You got a few more hours to post
> > more if you want them.
>
> You may not, so prioritize.
There was more time for questions then I thought. It was well
attended, but few die-hard fans were there, and the line was clear by
8, leaving time for plenty of discussion. I didn't ask them all
anyway, because I thought he might like to chat about something not-
directly related to the books for a little. But anyway...
> > Is Sammael really dead?
>
> Definitely ask this one. If he's giving info like this, it's very
> unusual--only the "bowl-strangness connection" and the
> "Osan'gar/Aran'gar" answers even come close, and both of those can at
> least be determined from the books with enough work.
In the words of the Creator, "Sammael is toast. The man is dead." He
went on to say that wasn't it cooler to just say RAFO and have
something to look forward to. I think he was just sick of being asked
this one, so he spilled the beans on it. I didn't ask about a
reincarnation, and he didn't say. I think thats a RAFO anyway.
> > We know that the world of dreams has a skewed sense of time in
> > relation to the "real" world, days pass in one when a single day
> > passes in the other, and vice versa. Can this effect be strong
> > enough that several years can go by in a relatively short period of
> > time? (As vague as I can get it and still ask the question)
>
> It'll be a RAFO. Ask it if you can, sure, but don't waste a question
on
> it.
I didn't ask.
> > Why did Nynaeve's use of the well in Far Madding go unnoticed by the
> > Watchers?
>
> Ask this one too, after the Sammael one. If it's a RAFO, we'll have
> more Far Madding action in the future. But it may not be.
I didn't ask this one either.
> > Was the Eye of the World a well/variant of a well?
>
> Can't imagine what he'll say to this. Make this the third question.
I did ask this one. He said that it was similar, but different.
Similar in the sense that it it held the One Power, but its not a
ter'angreal. They are also created in different ways. The Eye was a
one-time use, where a well can be refilled. He went on a little
further, but I forget a little of his explanation. But no earth-
shakers here, just a little clarification of what we already knew.
> > Did Noal really go to Shara?
>
> RAFO. No way he'll answer this.
Didn't ask this either. I did ask one question that I thought of
later. I asked that as the Wheel turned, each time an Age rolls
around, is the Pattern exactly the same each time, or does it change?
He seemed to like this question. He likened it to a tapestry. When
seen from a distance, each Third Age (to make it easy to track) has
exactly the same pattern as the previous Third Age. However, when seen
up close, there are differences. Threads are different, different
nations exist, geography is different, different personalities rise to
prominence.
These changes, while minute in the grand scale of the Pattern, affect
the Pattern enough so that while two iterations of an Age are almost
the same, the first "Third Age" may be wildy different from the
hundredth "Third Age".
(My interpretation)
Thus while some point out that since the Wheel keeps turning, there
can't be anything new under the sun, in fact the "Age Lace", as its
referred to, is going somewhere. It may be that this really will be
a "Final Battle", if the Age Lace is at this crux point and the DO
wins. The DO says He'll break the wheel and finally rule all time or
whatever. This may be possible, however, it probably requires very
specific victory conditions, as has been mentioned elsewhere. Other
conditions may require more turning.
But if the Light wins, it probably keeps turning.
Anyway, hope this sheds some light on everything. And someone else ask
the questions I didn't.
--
Matt Peck
John S. Novak, III
>> > Is Sammael really dead?
>In the words of the Creator, "Sammael is toast. The man is dead." He
>went on to say that wasn't it cooler to just say RAFO and have
>something to look forward to. I think he was just sick of being asked
>this one, so he spilled the beans on it. I didn't ask about a
>reincarnation, and he didn't say. I think thats a RAFO anyway.
I'm surprised he answered, but it confirms the speculation about Moridin's
Nine. I'm more pissed that the man just keeps killing all the
Forsaken who show a little style. And since Rand likely killed him
with balefire, there will be no reincarnation.
And as far as I'm concerned, this makes Taim the main contender for
Slayer's current contractor.
>> > Was the Eye of the World a well/variant of a well?
>I did ask this one. He said that it was similar, but different.
>Similar in the sense that it it held the One Power, but its not a
>ter'angreal. They are also created in different ways. The Eye was a
>one-time use, where a well can be refilled. He went on a little
>further, but I forget a little of his explanation. But no earth-
>shakers here, just a little clarification of what we already knew.
Good enough for me.
I consider the distinction between one-shot and re-useable to be
artificial unless there's some deeper reason, but whatever. It proves
my main point, which is that something like a Well had been
seen well before WH, and that once again Moiraine is _not_ the fount
of all knowledge-- some things _do_ have the One Power.
>Didn't ask this either. I did ask one question that I thought of
>later. I asked that as the Wheel turned, each time an Age rolls
>around, is the Pattern exactly the same each time, or does it change?
Too bad, 'cause we know the answer to that one.
It changes slightly and diverges as time goes by.
Hell, that's in one of the Glossaries.
John Nowacki
news:9074fe$939$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>
> In the words of the Creator, "Sammael is toast. The man is dead." He
> went on to say that wasn't it cooler to just say RAFO and have
> something to look forward to. I think he was just sick of being asked
> this one, so he spilled the beans on it. I didn't ask about a
> reincarnation, and he didn't say. I think thats a RAFO anyway.
Thanks. It was understandable to want confirmation, I suppose.
--
John A. Nowacki
jano...@earthlink.net
John S. Novak, III
<mhac...@princeton.edu> wrote:
>I don't like it, and I wish he'd kept his big mouth shut, but that's
>two, and unless someone with a longer posting history posts a
>refutation, I guess that's it. I can't imagine that the DO wouldn't
>bring him back, however; he's done much better than, say, Aginor,
>Balthamel, and Lanfear did, and if he's not exactly a team player, a
>cour'souvra will solve that problem.
Psst!!
Balefire!
TSignus
Mashadar got him or the balefire did. And if Mashadar got him, I don't think
it kills fast enough to kill him before Rand balefired the whole plaza. After
all, we know from Liah that Mashadar does not kill instantaneously. If Sammael
is dead (And I now believe all the people that reported RJ confirming this,
although I intend to ask on the CNN chat just to get it on an official
transcript), then it had to have been from balefire.
-TS
James Huckaby
> Matt Peck wrote:
> > In the words of the Creator, "Sammael is toast. The man
> > is dead." He went on to say that wasn't it cooler to
> > just say RAFO and have something to look forward to. I
> > think he was just sick of being asked this one, so he
> > spilled the beans on it. I didn't ask about a
> > reincarnation, and he didn't say. I think thats a
> > RAFO anyway.
> Thanks. It was understandable to want confirmation, I suppose.
You always want more than one witness to a murder.
RIP Sammael. Oh wait, he sold his sold to Shai'tan. Nevermind.
Thanks to both you guys for your valiant signing efforts.
--
James Huckaby
ja...@raveller.com
http://www.raveller.com
"Share our perfect opinion, it's the ideal ideal."
Built to Spill - Sick & Wrong
enm...@my-deja.com
This makes to sense to tie out another discussion, many have asked what
Terangreal Elayne will creat that will be so important...Well since the
pattern repeats but slightly skewed...what if there is to be a Second
Strike at Shayol Gheol (sp I know)... Elayne redoes the seals with the
help of a link...since the seals did not work completely since they
were made with only the male half....she redoes the link with ohh maybe
Logain....the second strike is TG and the DO is completely resealed by
Elayne's seals ... while Rand dies while holding him off..
Matt Peck
enm...@my-deja.com wrote:
> This makes to sense to tie out another discussion, many have asked
what
> Terangreal Elayne will creat that will be so important...Well since
the
> pattern repeats but slightly skewed...what if there is to be a Second
> Strike at Shayol Gheol (sp I know)... Elayne redoes the seals with the
> help of a link...since the seals did not work completely since they
> were made with only the male half....she redoes the link with ohh
maybe
> Logain....the second strike is TG and the DO is completely resealed by
> Elayne's seals ... while Rand dies while holding him off..
>
The Pattern repeats itself, but only with each new iteration of an
age. Each age is itself very different from the previous and next
age. I do not believe there will be a Strike at Shayol Ghul to end
this age, not like the one that ended the Age of Legends.
Darrell
> And as far as I'm concerned, this makes Taim the main contender for
> Slayer's current contractor.
I am going to put in a vote for Moghedien. She certainly wants
Nynaeve dead, and I doubt she has Ishmael's permission, which explains
the disguise.
Darrell
Matthew Hackell
> On 1 Dec 2000, John S. Novak, III wrote:
>
> > Slayer's current contractor.
>
> Nynaeve dead, and I doubt she has Ishmael's permission, which explains
> the disguise.
"His patron of the moment was waiting for him. A man, he was sure of
that much."
Not Moghedien.
Bryon T Wasserman
wrote:
>On Thu, 30 Nov 2000 22:22:09 -0500, Matthew Hackell
><mhac...@princeton.edu> wrote:
>
>>I don't like it, and I wish he'd kept his big mouth shut, but that's
>>two, and unless someone with a longer posting history posts a
>>refutation, I guess that's it. I can't imagine that the DO wouldn't
>>bring him back, however; he's done much better than, say, Aginor,
>>Balthamel, and Lanfear did, and if he's not exactly a team player, a
>>cour'souvra will solve that problem.
>
>Psst!!
>Balefire
When does he get Balefired? I seem to recall Rand deciding to kill
him, but changing his mind because of Cadsuane's warning and using
that laser-type weaving instead.
Bryon Wasserman
wass...@law.georgetown.edu
Ben Goodman
>
> >> > Was the Eye of the World a well/variant of a well?
>
> >I did ask this one. He said that it was similar, but different.
> >Similar in the sense that it it held the One Power, but its not a
> >ter'angreal. They are also created in different ways. The Eye was a
> >one-time use, where a well can be refilled. He went on a little
> >further, but I forget a little of his explanation. But no earth-
> >shakers here, just a little clarification of what we already knew.
>
> Good enough for me.
>
> I consider the distinction between one-shot and re-useable to be
> artificial unless there's some deeper reason, but whatever. It proves
> my main point, which is that something like a Well had been
> seen well before WH, and that once again Moiraine is _not_ the fount
> of all knowledge-- some things _do_ have the One Power.
>
One other difference between the Eye of the World and a ter'angreal
(well) is the physical form. The Eye was "liquified" saidin. Wells have
some physical structure independent of the One Power. The Eye couldn't
have been a ter'angreal (because it was pure One Power) any more than a
tied-off weave can be considered a ter'angreal. It amounts to same
function different mechanism.
John Johnson
"Matthew Hackell" <mhac...@princeton.edu> wrote in message
news:MPG.1491e7768...@news.princeton.edu...
> From the book of Darrell:
> > On 1 Dec 2000, John S. Novak, III wrote:
> >
> > > Slayer's current contractor.
> >
> > Nynaeve dead, and I doubt she has Ishmael's permission, which explains
> > the disguise.
>
> "His patron of the moment was waiting for him. A man, he was sure of
> that much."
>
> Not Moghedien.
The quote you provided really doesn't say much one way or the other. How
does Slayer know that it's a man, and not a woman? If whomever it is uses
the TP, it could easily be Moghedien disguising herself. (Not that I
necessarily believe it.)
--
John Johnson
Matthew Hackell
> "John Johnson" <jo...@idf.centerpartners.com> rhapsodized in blue:
>
> >
> >"Matthew Hackell" <mhac...@princeton.edu> wrote in message
> >news:MPG.1491e7768...@news.princeton.edu...
> >> From the book of Darrell:
> >> > On 1 Dec 2000, John S. Novak, III wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > Slayer's current contractor.
> >> >
> >> > Nynaeve dead, and I doubt she has Ishmael's permission, which explains
> >> > the disguise.
> >>
> >> "His patron of the moment was waiting for him. A man, he was sure of
> >> that much."
> >>
> >> Not Moghedien.
> >
> >The quote you provided really doesn't say much one way or the other. How
> >does Slayer know that it's a man, and not a woman?
It's RJ's writing style. Slayer makes two assertions:
1) It's a man. He's sure of that much[, but little else]
2) It's a Forsaken. No one else would dare contact him[, would they?]
Now, obviously we're meant to doubt the second one, but the existence
and phrasing of the second makes the first far more certain, to my eye.
It's rather subjective, but I think it's beyond reasonable doubt based
on the style of the entire series.
> >If whomever it is uses the TP,
...it is Moridin. Only he is allowed to use it (cf. Demandred's POV)
> >it could easily be Moghedien disguising herself. (Not that I
> >necessarily believe it.)
Don't. It's a man, and although Moridin can't be ruled out 100% (Sammael
can, more's the pity), it's Taim.
> If Slayer thinks that he is "sure of that much," even though he knows
> the person is disguised, I'd suspect that it probably *is* a man,
> although I suppose it isn't conclusive.
That's sort of the point, I guess. It involves reading between the
lines, a little, but it's clearly written there.
> More to the point, however, Slayer has been instructed to kill Rand
> and Min, not Lan and Nynaeve.
More to the point, it's Rand "and the wench." The girl is an
afterthought--with Moghedien it would be the other way around.
Matthew Hackell
> John S. Novak, III wrote:
> >
>
> > >> > Is Sammael really dead?
> >
> > >In the words of the Creator, "Sammael is toast. The man is dead." He
> > >went on to say that wasn't it cooler to just say RAFO and have
> > >something to look forward to. I think he was just sick of being asked
> > >this one, so he spilled the beans on it. I didn't ask about a
> > >reincarnation, and he didn't say. I think thats a RAFO anyway.
> >
> > I'm surprised he answered, but it confirms the speculation about Moridin's
> > Nine.
>
> speculations remain just as they were. Btw, if anyone has the
> opportunity, there's still a good question to be asked at a signing to
> clarify those nine once and for all. Or has it already been asked in
> the recent signings or chat sessions?
Moridin
Demandred
Messaana
Moghedien
Semirhage
Graendal
Osan'gar
Aran'gar
Cyndane
Nine.
> > I'm more pissed that the man just keeps killing all the
> > Forsaken who show a little style. And since Rand likely killed him
> > with balefire, there will be no reincarnation.
>
> Rand's balefire never even came near Sammael. If one thing is certain,
> it is that Rand did not kill Sammael. And, as far as we can tell, he
> wasn't killed by anyone else's balefire either.
It's questionable. "Toast" sounds like he won't be back. But I'm not
convinced of that. Still, there's no way he's back soon enough to oroder
Slayer.
> > And as far as I'm concerned, this makes Taim the main contender for
> > Slayer's current contractor.
>
> Why Taim and why not Demandred? After all, both of them had already
> ordered Kisman & co. to kill Rand.
Not clever enough. There's clear irony in Slayer's statement that "only
the Chosen would dare call him." Also, why would Demandred hide himself?
Sammael would have had a reason; so would Taim. Moridin is nuts, so
asking for reason is fruitless. But what motive would Demandred have for
hiding his face, when the Forsaken have never done so before.
Jean D
>
[Someone, somewhere, somehow, wrote:]
> >> > Is Sammael really dead?
>
> >In the words of the Creator, "Sammael is toast. The man is dead." He
> >went on to say that wasn't it cooler to just say RAFO and have
> >something to look forward to. I think he was just sick of being asked
> >this one, so he spilled the beans on it. I didn't ask about a
> >reincarnation, and he didn't say. I think thats a RAFO anyway.
>
> I'm surprised he answered, but it confirms the speculation about Moridin's
> Nine.
What particular speculation would that confirm? It seems to me that the
speculations remain just as they were. Btw, if anyone has the
opportunity, there's still a good question to be asked at a signing to
clarify those nine once and for all. Or has it already been asked in
the recent signings or chat sessions?
> I'm more pissed that the man just keeps killing all the
> Forsaken who show a little style. And since Rand likely killed him
> with balefire, there will be no reincarnation.
Rand's balefire never even came near Sammael. If one thing is certain,
it is that Rand did not kill Sammael. And, as far as we can tell, he
wasn't killed by anyone else's balefire either.
> And as far as I'm concerned, this makes Taim the main contender for
> Slayer's current contractor.
Why Taim and why not Demandred? After all, both of them had already
ordered Kisman & co. to kill Rand.
--
Jean
Laura M. Parkinson
>
>"Matthew Hackell" <mhac...@princeton.edu> wrote in message
>news:MPG.1491e7768...@news.princeton.edu...
>> From the book of Darrell:
>> > On 1 Dec 2000, John S. Novak, III wrote:
>> >
>> > > And as far as I'm concerned, this makes Taim the main contender for
>> > > Slayer's current contractor.
>> >
>> > I am going to put in a vote for Moghedien. She certainly wants
>> > Nynaeve dead, and I doubt she has Ishmael's permission, which explains
>> > the disguise.
>>
>> "His patron of the moment was waiting for him. A man, he was sure of
>> that much."
>>
>> Not Moghedien.
>
>The quote you provided really doesn't say much one way or the other. How
>does Slayer know that it's a man, and not a woman? If whomever it is uses
>the TP, it could easily be Moghedien disguising herself. (Not that I
>necessarily believe it.)
If Slayer thinks that he is "sure of that much," even though he knows
the person is disguised, I'd suspect that it probably *is* a man,
although I suppose it isn't conclusive.
More to the point, however, Slayer has been instructed to kill Rand
and Min, not Lan and Nynaeve.
--
-'-,-'-<<0 Trickster 0>>-'-,-'- lpark...@mindspring.com
http://lparkinson.home.mindspring.com
"Be cunning and full of tricks and your people shall never be
destroyed." -Richard Adams, Watership Down
Jean D
>
> On 1 Dec 2000 05:23:54 GMT, j...@concentric.net (John S. Novak, III)
> wrote:
>
> ><mhac...@princeton.edu> wrote:
> >
> >>I don't like it, and I wish he'd kept his big mouth shut, but that's
> >>two, and unless someone with a longer posting history posts a
> >>refutation, I guess that's it. I can't imagine that the DO wouldn't
> >>bring him back, however; he's done much better than, say, Aginor,
> >>Balthamel, and Lanfear did, and if he's not exactly a team player, a
> >>cour'souvra will solve that problem.
> >
> >Psst!!
>
> When does he get Balefired? I seem to recall Rand deciding to kill
> him, but changing his mind because of Cadsuane's warning and using
> that laser-type weaving instead.
Rand did use balefire, it's just that he didn't use it on Sammael at
all. Rand believes Mashadar killed Sammael. And in the light of the
recent signing comments, it would appear that Rand was right after all,
as unlikely as it seemed.
--
Jean
John S. Novak, III
>Rand did use balefire, it's just that he didn't use it on Sammael at
>all. Rand believes Mashadar killed Sammael. And in the light of the
>recent signing comments, it would appear that Rand was right after all,
>as unlikely as it seemed.
I could have sworn that Rand nailed him with balefire in a blind shot,
but a check shows that he carefully stopped the balefire _before_ it
hit the wave of Mashadar that rolled over Sammael's position--
probably in order to keep from resurrecting Sammael or undoing any
harm that Mashadar did to him.
What I don't understand is why Mashadar lingered killing Liah, but a
much tougher and more able to defend himself big badass Forsaken stud
like Sammael went down without a whimper or a struggle. No
channeling, no hint of channeling, and we know Sammael doesn't deal
with the True Power. That's why I had originally thought he was
balefired.
If it's all due to Mashadar being more tuned to Sammael (because of
his connection to the Shadow) than Liah, that makes Sammael one of the
biggest putzes of the series: Brilliant war leader, no one wards a
box better than he, and he chooses to make his last stand at the worst
possible location on planet, metaphysically speaking? Bah.
The other explanation is that Ishamael whacked him with the True Power
when he wasn't looking. Bet he's regretting _that_ move.
(One interesting thing I did note, though-- When Rand tells Dashiva
that Sammael is definitely dead, Dashiva was visibly and audibly
relieved. It's obvious why Dashiva-as-Dashiva would be relieved, but
that's obviously Aginor's relief showeing through. Wonder why? Was
he afraid he'd have to go toe to toe with Sammael? That Sammael would
blow his cover?)
Matthew Hackell
> On Sat, 02 Dec 2000 03:08:51 GMT, Jean D <dufr...@globetrotter.net> wrote:
>
> >Rand did use balefire, it's just that he didn't use it on Sammael at
> >all. Rand believes Mashadar killed Sammael. And in the light of the
> >recent signing comments, it would appear that Rand was right after all,
> >as unlikely as it seemed.
>
> I could have sworn that Rand nailed him with balefire in a blind shot,
> but a check shows that he carefully stopped the balefire _before_ it
> hit the wave of Mashadar that rolled over Sammael's position--
> probably in order to keep from resurrecting Sammael or undoing any
> harm that Mashadar did to him.
>
> What I don't understand is why Mashadar lingered killing Liah, but a
> much tougher and more able to defend himself big badass Forsaken stud
> like Sammael went down without a whimper or a struggle. No
> channeling, no hint of channeling, and we know Sammael doesn't deal
> with the True Power. That's why I had originally thought he was
> balefired.
Maybe Mashadar enjoys torment, but knows that if it doesn't kill Sammael
quickly, it may not be able to. Thus, it takes its time with Liah (and
is foiled by Rand as a result) but rushes through its meal of Sammael.
> If it's all due to Mashadar being more tuned to Sammael (because of
> his connection to the Shadow) than Liah, that makes Sammael one of the
> biggest putzes of the series: Brilliant war leader, no one wards a
> box better than he, and he chooses to make his last stand at the worst
> possible location on planet, metaphysically speaking? Bah.
>
> The other explanation is that Ishamael whacked him with the True Power
> when he wasn't looking. Bet he's regretting _that_ move.
May seem likely. If so, the DO isn't resurrecting him on Moridin's say-
so. Interesting relationship, there.
> (One interesting thing I did note, though-- When Rand tells Dashiva
> that Sammael is definitely dead, Dashiva was visibly and audibly
> relieved. It's obvious why Dashiva-as-Dashiva would be relieved, but
> that's obviously Aginor's relief showeing through. Wonder why? Was
> he afraid he'd have to go toe to toe with Sammael? That Sammael would
> blow his cover?)
It suggests, as does the "toast" comment, that Sammael had gone
renegade, and that he therefore won't be resurrected. Now, sure, he
wasn't taking orders from Demandred, and had certainly set up his own
camp, but it wasn't as if he'd rebuffed Moridin--he hadn't had a chance.
There wasn't real evidence that he'd gone totally renegade. Besides,
Lanfear clearly did, and she's still around.
If he's not coming back, my guess is Ishamael never cared for him, and
probably did him in (as Moridin, of course) in SL. Whether it was
balefire or not, he intimated to the DO that he'd rather Sammael not be
returned to life. And the DO listened.
Delbert Hart
> It suggests, as does the "toast" comment, that Sammael had gone
> renegade, and that he therefore won't be resurrected. Now, sure, he
> wasn't taking orders from Demandred, and had certainly set up his own
> camp, but it wasn't as if he'd rebuffed Moridin--he hadn't had a chance.
> There wasn't real evidence that he'd gone totally renegade. Besides,
> Lanfear clearly did, and she's still around.
There was his claim of being Naeblis, and the lurker's comment at the
time about how risky that was. Perhaps, the Dark One/Moridin thought he
was getting a bit out of line. At the end of ACOS it seemed pretty clear
that Moridin preferred Rand living to Sammael living.
--
Del
John S. Novak, III
<mhac...@princeton.edu> wrote:
>> What I don't understand is why Mashadar lingered killing Liah, but a
>> much tougher and more able to defend himself big badass Forsaken stud
>> like Sammael went down without a whimper or a struggle.
>Maybe Mashadar enjoys torment, but knows that if it doesn't kill Sammael
>quickly, it may not be able to. Thus, it takes its time with Liah (and
>is foiled by Rand as a result) but rushes through its meal of Sammael.
Mashadar is mindless.
>> The other explanation is that Ishamael whacked him with the True Power
>> when he wasn't looking. Bet he's regretting _that_ move.
>May seem likely. If so, the DO isn't resurrecting him on Moridin's say-
>so. Interesting relationship, there.
I swear to Christ, if it takes me fifty years, I will write an epic
fantasy where the bad guys are all, each and every one of them,
ruthlessly intelligent and inter-cooperative. And their first rule
will be, "The Prophesied One is more important than our internal power
struggles. First we will try to kill him. Then we will settle our
rivalries."
>> (One interesting thing I did note, though-- When Rand tells Dashiva
>> that Sammael is definitely dead, Dashiva was visibly and audibly
>> relieved. It's obvious why Dashiva-as-Dashiva would be relieved, but
>> that's obviously Aginor's relief showeing through. Wonder why? Was
>> he afraid he'd have to go toe to toe with Sammael? That Sammael would
>> blow his cover?)
>
>It suggests, as does the "toast" comment, that Sammael had gone
>renegade, and that he therefore won't be resurrected.
Huh?
David A. Rothgery
> On Sat, 2 Dec 2000 02:49:48 -0500, Matthew Hackell
> <mhac...@princeton.edu> wrote:
>
> >> What I don't understand is why Mashadar lingered killing Liah, but a
> >> much tougher and more able to defend himself big badass Forsaken stud
> >> like Sammael went down without a whimper or a struggle.
>
> >quickly, it may not be able to. Thus, it takes its time with Liah (and
> >is foiled by Rand as a result) but rushes through its meal of Sammael.
>
> Mashadar is mindless.
>
> >> when he wasn't looking. Bet he's regretting _that_ move.
>
> >so. Interesting relationship, there.
>
> I swear to Christ, if it takes me fifty years, I will write an epic
> fantasy where the bad guys are all, each and every one of them,
> ruthlessly intelligent and inter-cooperative. And their first rule
> will be, "The Prophesied One is more important than our internal power
> struggles. First we will try to kill him. Then we will settle our
> rivalries."
Can we hope that for the good guys, one can
s/Prophesied One/Evil Overlord/ ?
--
Dave Rothgery
Picking nits since 1976
drot...@myrealbox.com
http://drothgery.editthispage.com
John Johnson
"John S. Novak, III" <j...@concentric.net> wrote in message
news:slrn92hdk...@ts016d10.chi-il.concentric.net...
> What I don't understand is why Mashadar lingered killing Liah, but a
> much tougher and more able to defend himself big badass Forsaken stud
> like Sammael went down without a whimper or a struggle. No
> channeling, no hint of channeling, and we know Sammael doesn't deal
> with the True Power. That's why I had originally thought he was
> balefired.
Could it be that Mashadar had developed it's strength since it killed Liah?
Maybe the weakening of the seals had some type of feedback reaction on
Mashadar.
> The other explanation is that Ishamael whacked him with the True Power
> when he wasn't looking. Bet he's regretting _that_ move.
I think that this is the most likely explanation. It would be like Ishamael
to seize the opportunity to eliminate one of his strongest opponents,
without much risk to himself. I think that at that point in the story,
Sammael was Ishy's chief rival.
> (One interesting thing I did note, though-- When Rand tells Dashiva
> that Sammael is definitely dead, Dashiva was visibly and audibly
> relieved. It's obvious why Dashiva-as-Dashiva would be relieved, but
> that's obviously Aginor's relief showeing through. Wonder why? Was
> he afraid he'd have to go toe to toe with Sammael? That Sammael would
> blow his cover?)
Maybe Aginor had heard that Sammael had gone renegade? He could be worried
that Sammale was lurking in the corners picking off the other Forsaken one
by one.
--
John Johnson
Pat O'Connell
>
> From the book of Jean D:
> > John S. Novak, III wrote:
> > >
> > > On Fri, 01 Dec 2000 03:04:16 GMT, Matt Peck <val...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > [Someone, somewhere, somehow, wrote:]
> >
> > > >> > Is Sammael really dead?
> > >
> > > >In the words of the Creator, "Sammael is toast. The man is dead." He
> > > >went on to say that wasn't it cooler to just say RAFO and have
> > > >something to look forward to. I think he was just sick of being asked
> > > >this one, so he spilled the beans on it. I didn't ask about a
> > > >reincarnation, and he didn't say. I think thats a RAFO anyway.
> > >
> > > I'm surprised he answered, but it confirms the speculation about Moridin's
> > > Nine.
> >
> > What particular speculation would that confirm? It seems to me that the
> > speculations remain just as they were. Btw, if anyone has the
> > opportunity, there's still a good question to be asked at a signing to
> > clarify those nine once and for all. Or has it already been asked in
> > the recent signings or chat sessions?
>
>
> Demandred
> Messaana
> Moghedien
> Semirhage
> Graendal
>
> Osan'gar
> Aran'gar
> Cyndane
>
> Nine.
>
> > > Forsaken who show a little style. And since Rand likely killed him
> > > with balefire, there will be no reincarnation.
> >
> > Rand's balefire never even came near Sammael. If one thing is certain,
> > it is that Rand did not kill Sammael. And, as far as we can tell, he
> > wasn't killed by anyone else's balefire either.
>
> convinced of that. Still, there's no way he's back soon enough to oroder
> Slayer.
>
> > > Slayer's current contractor.
> >
> > Why Taim and why not Demandred? After all, both of them had already
> > ordered Kisman & co. to kill Rand.
>
> the Chosen would dare call him." Also, why would Demandred hide himself?
> Sammael would have had a reason; so would Taim. Moridin is nuts, so
> asking for reason is fruitless. But what motive would Demandred have for
> hiding his face, when the Forsaken have never done so before.
Lanfear and Messana have definitely changed and hidden their
appearances, respectively.
There's a clue in that section: whoever ordered Slayer around gated
after the murder to a "snowy forest glade," which probably rules out
Moridin. It could be that Aran'gar/Balthamael still appears in TAR as
a man; he certainly channels saidin. Demandred can't be ruled out,
either.
--
Pat O'Connell
Take nothing but pictures, Leave nothing but footprints,
Kill nothing but vandals...
Jean D
>
>
> >Rand did use balefire, it's just that he didn't use it on Sammael at
> >all. Rand believes Mashadar killed Sammael. And in the light of the
> >recent signing comments, it would appear that Rand was right after all,
> >as unlikely as it seemed.
>
> I could have sworn that Rand nailed him with balefire in a blind shot,
> but a check shows that he carefully stopped the balefire _before_ it
> hit the wave of Mashadar that rolled over Sammael's position--
> probably in order to keep from resurrecting Sammael or undoing any
> harm that Mashadar did to him.
Exactly.
> What I don't understand is why Mashadar lingered killing Liah, but a
> much tougher and more able to defend himself big badass Forsaken stud
> like Sammael went down without a whimper or a struggle. No
> channeling, no hint of channeling, and we know Sammael doesn't deal
> with the True Power. That's why I had originally thought he was
> balefired.
It probably has to do with the manner in which Mashadar happens to touch
each of them. Liah was touched on the leg by a small tendril.
Consequently, she can still scream and move, and be heard and seen by
Rand. OTOH, Sammael is surprised by a big wave of Mashadar quickly
falling on him from above and covering him entirely before he can do
anything.
> If it's all due to Mashadar being more tuned to Sammael (because of
> his connection to the Shadow) than Liah,
Naw. It's just fate. It could happened the other way around, I
supposed, but it happened like that.
> that makes Sammael one of the
> biggest putzes of the series: Brilliant war leader, no one wards a
> box better than he, and he chooses to make his last stand at the worst
> possible location on planet, metaphysically speaking? Bah.
Agreed. Bah.
> The other explanation is that Ishamael whacked him with the True Power
> when he wasn't looking.
In theory, it could be so. It could make sense too. But unless we can
see a particularly compelling reason to adopt such a speculation, I'd
rather stick with the obvious, for now. No need to overkill Sammael
with the TP if Mashadar is already hanging two inches above his head.
> Bet he's regretting _that_ move.
>
> (One interesting thing I did note, though-- When Rand tells Dashiva
> that Sammael is definitely dead, Dashiva was visibly and audibly
> relieved. It's obvious why Dashiva-as-Dashiva would be relieved, but
> that's obviously Aginor's relief showeing through. Wonder why? Was
> he afraid he'd have to go toe to toe with Sammael? That Sammael would
> blow his cover?)
Yes, those are all good and possible reasons. Or it's Rand incorrectly
interpreting the sigh as a sign of relief. More likely, at that point,
Osan'gar is probably supposed to watch Rand and make sure he stays
alive. He'd rather see a competitor Forsaken die than fail in his own
mission.
--
Jean
Scott Spiegelberg
> John S. Novak, III <j...@concentric.net> wrote:
> >
> > I swear to Christ, if it takes me fifty years, I will write an epic
> > fantasy where the bad guys are all, each and every one of them,
> > ruthlessly intelligent and inter-cooperative. And their first rule
> > will be, "The Prophesied One is more important than our internal power
> > struggles. First we will try to kill him. Then we will settle our
> > rivalries."
>
> Can we hope that for the good guys, one can
> s/Prophesied One/Evil Overlord/ ?
Yes! A story where everyone important is competent and reasonable,
perhaps even incredibly competent. Of course, for the bad guys to be
reasonable, they must have good reasons to be on the evil side. Most
often the bad guys were led to the evil path through fundamental
character flaws, like jealousy, greed, or sadism. And usually those flaws
create unreasonable thinking patterns that prevent the bad guy from
working well with others. They are too paranoid, or too jealous, or too
greedy.
So I think a good epic would have warring factions in which both sides
believe that they are the good side. For example, Randland
vs. Seandar. The Seanchan could make a good set of bad guys,
with the goal of leashing every channeling person in the world. They are
competent and work well together, but their goals seem horrendous to us.
As to whether the author makes it obvious which side is the good side, I
could see a good yarn in either decision. I love ambiguity and plot
twists, like in _The Magic Flute_, where at the beginning it seems clear
that Sarastro is the villain who kidnapped the Queen of the Night's
daughter, but slowly we realize that the Queen is a tyrant and Sarastro is
a wise sage who leads the daughter and the hero to the path of
enlightenment. Even with the obvious Masonry symbolism prevalent, this is
a kickass Singspiel. But I would also enjoy an epic where it is clear
which side is bad, as long as they think they are good.
For a good evil that knows it is evil, this will only work with a single
entity who can have underlings that work hard out of absolute fear or
brainwashing. The underlings won't be as competent, but that can be okay
as long as the primary bad dude is really powerful (like Sauron). This is
basically the case with WOT, except the DO is still very limited in his
interactions with the world, so he has to rely too much on his
underlings. And these underlings don't fear the DO enough to stay focused
on his agendas, perhaps because of his apparent blind spots (Demandred
thinks this in LoC prologue).
--
Scott Spiegelberg
Ph.D. candidate Visiting Assistant Professor of Music
Eastman School of Music Valley City State University
spi...@theory.esm.rochester.edu
John S. Novak, III
<jo...@idf.centerpartners.com> wrote:
>Could it be that Mashadar had developed it's strength since it killed Liah?
>Maybe the weakening of the seals had some type of feedback reaction on
>Mashadar.
No.
Because Mashadar did not kill Liah.
Mashadar started to kill Liah in aCoS, seemed to be taking its sweet
time about it, and then Rand balefired her to prevent the agony. A
mercy killing. At the same time, it apparently killed Sammael. Or at
least Rand thinks so.
Matthew Hackell
> Matthew Hackell wrote:
> >
> > From the book of Jean D:
[A little snipping wouldn't kill you]
> > > > And as far as I'm concerned, this makes Taim the main contender for
> > > > Slayer's current contractor.
> > >
> > > Why Taim and why not Demandred? After all, both of them had already
> > > ordered Kisman & co. to kill Rand.
> >
> > Not clever enough. There's clear irony in Slayer's statement that "only
> > the Chosen would dare call him." Also, why would Demandred hide himself?
> > Sammael would have had a reason; so would Taim. Moridin is nuts, so
> > asking for reason is fruitless. But what motive would Demandred have for
> > hiding his face, when the Forsaken have never done so before.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
i.e., disguised themselves when contacting Slayer
> Lanfear and Messana have definitely changed and hidden their
> appearances, respectively.
Of course, and for good reason. Lanfear was trying to seduce Rand, or
fool the White Tower, and Messana was hiding in the WT. But Slayer says,
in a POV, that the Forsaken never bother to disguise themselves around
him. Why would Lanfear or Messana do so now?
> There's a clue in that section: whoever ordered Slayer around gated
> after the murder to a "snowy forest glade,"
Not much of one. The whole world is in the heart of winter (doesn't
anybody in this movie read the fucking title?). Certainly, a snowy
forest glade allows for Andor--near the Black Tower.
> which probably rules out Moridin.
Why? He could be going to a part of the world that's snowy for some
reason. What makes him unlikely is that he used a gateway to move around
in TAR. He's a dreamwalker--he has no need to Travel in the Unseen
World.
> It could be that Aran'gar/Balthamael still appears in TAR as
> a man; he certainly channels saidin.
This one I grant you. We don't know if Balthamel had any dreaming
skills, and this would make Slayer's POV doubly ironic. But I doubt it--
it's hard to explain why, but this really doesn't fit the style of the
passage, IMO. Besides, if she has no problem using TAR for something
like this, she's probably been there often enough to know how to move
around.
> Demandred can't be ruled out, either.
Not conclusively, but close enough. Demandred has NO REASON to disguise
himself for a TAR meeting with Slayer. None whatsoever. Taim does, a
very good one, and Taim is the only one who would almost certainly not
know that you can move around TAR without Travelling.
John Johnson
"John S. Novak, III" <j...@concentric.net> wrote in message
news:slrn92j26...@ts006d19.chi-il.concentric.net...
> On Sat, 2 Dec 2000 10:16:04 -0700, John Johnson
> <jo...@idf.centerpartners.com> wrote:
>
> >Could it be that Mashadar had developed it's strength since it killed
Liah?
> >Maybe the weakening of the seals had some type of feedback reaction on
> >Mashadar.
>
> No.
> Because Mashadar did not kill Liah.
>
> Mashadar started to kill Liah in aCoS, seemed to be taking its sweet
> time about it, and then Rand balefired her to prevent the agony. A
> mercy killing. At the same time, it apparently killed Sammael. Or at
> least Rand thinks so.
There's something not quite right here then. Why does Rand think that
Mashadar got Sammael then? He's got no evidence that such was the case. No
corpse is left, no screams of agony, no One Power fights. As you pointed out
earlier, it seems unlikely that Sammael would go that easily.
This would seem to leave Ishy as the prime candidate for Sammael's demise.
--
John Johnson
Frank van Schie
Matt Peck wrote:
> [snip]
> > > Was the Eye of the World a well/variant of a well?
> >
> > Can't imagine what he'll say to this. Make this the third question.
>
> I did ask this one. He said that it was similar, but different.
> Similar in the sense that it it held the One Power, but its not a
> ter'angreal.
Huya! Take that, you sons of goats! Err.. I'm taking this way too
seriously :-)
Glad to see I was right though. :-)
> They are also created in different ways. The Eye was a
> one-time use, where a well can be refilled.
Wow, I was on a roll ;-)
> (My interpretation)
> [snip]
> But if the Light wins, it probably keeps turning.
... until the final, inevitable day that the Great Lord wins, for all
time.
> Anyway, hope this sheds some light on everything. And someone else ask
> the questions I didn't.
Agreed, them's interesting questions.
--
Frank
Thor
> fantasy where the bad guys are all, each and every one of them,
> ruthlessly intelligent and inter-cooperative. And their first rule
> will be, "The Prophesied One is more important than our internal power
> struggles. First we will try to kill him. Then we will settle our
> rivalries."
This will be very, very difficult for three main reasons.
1) Assuming that the bad guys are as competant and intelligent
and organized as the good guys, but, being evil, are not bound by
conventions, rules, or common decency, gives the bad guys a
possibly insurmountable advantage. With this as your core
assumption, the good guys simply cannot win, not even if it takes
generations. It's like matching up two equally skilled and
equally sized wrestlers--one who is blindfolded, and the other
with an Uzi in each hand.
2) Creating characters who possess the many virtues of
cooperation, responsibility, consistancy, patience, vision,
trust, and whatever else is needed to mount a successful venture,
yet who are also devoted to evil deeds will be a hard sell. What
we consider as "evil" is in all cases a short-sighted and
impatient attempt to fulfill some form of appetite regardless of
cost or consequence. These desires (wrath, lust, greed, vengence,
control, etc.) are by nature emotional, irrational, and deeply
felt. Feeding these appetites is the first priority for
evil-doers, and expecting a group of the most evil people to all
perfectly sublimate their hungers for an extended, rule-bound
period is asking a lot.
3) Let's assume that everything is coordinated and perfect.
Ultimate victory for the evil-doers is nigh. At this point, the
whole evil effort will almost certainly be derailed by jockeying
for position. After all, these evil people did not sublimate
their appetites through all of this just to be low fiend on the
totem pole when it was all over. Evil is unchecked desire, and no
evil-doer will want to allow any more checks on their desires
than is absolutely necessary. Having people with more power than
you, or having power over you causes restrictions to indulging
appetites. The evil-doers will take chances--small at first, but
quickly escalating--to make sure that they wind up closer to the
top, which includes sabotaging the positions of others, and
defending yourself against the sabotage of others. Seeing as how
each evil-doer will want to be the first one to take a shot at
the others, the question is not "Can they keep it all together
until their goal is met, and truce is called off?" but rather
"Which Evil-doer will see what looks like a risk-free opportunity
to strike at the position of the others?" It would take an almost
inconceivable amount of restraint for a type of person who
normally eschews restraint to resist defending themselves from
being attacked _now_ in order to maintain focus on a goal in the
non-immediate future.
--Thor
Maia
>
> "John S. Novak, III" wrote:
>
> > I swear to Christ, if it takes me fifty years, I will write an epic
> > fantasy where the bad guys are all, each and every one of them,
> > ruthlessly intelligent and inter-cooperative. And their first rule
> > will be, "The Prophesied One is more important than our internal power
> > struggles. First we will try to kill him. Then we will settle our
> > rivalries."
We'll be waiting for it eagerly, John. BTW, one author whom you
dislike does write intelligent and competent villains :). As you go
about it, maybe you'll write the first ever fantasy where "bad guys"
win? That would be very refreshing, indeed, seriously.
> This will be very, very difficult for three main reasons.
No, I don't think so. Morever, it has already been done, at least in
part and IMHO proved to be much more interesting than run-of-the-mill
stock stupid villains.
> 1) Assuming that the bad guys are as competant and intelligent
> and organized as the good guys, but, being evil, are not bound by
> conventions, rules, or common decency, gives the bad guys a
> possibly insurmountable advantage. With this as your core
> assumption, the good guys simply cannot win, not even if it takes
> generations. It's like matching up two equally skilled and
> equally sized wrestlers--one who is blindfolded, and the other
> with an Uzi in each hand.
And yet it wasn't Nazi Germany that won the World War II... There is
something to be said for conventions, rules, and common decency,
because they make it more likely that the opponent will consider
surrendering rather than than fighting to the last drop of blood. Of
course, in order to win in such situation, the good guys can't allow
themselves to be terminally stupid or to indulge in ceseless war of
the sexes and sniffing orgies, or even
to keep their own hands snowy-white. Hard choices will have to be
made.
> 2) Creating characters who possess the many virtues of
> cooperation, responsibility, consistancy, patience, vision,
> trust, and whatever else is needed to mount a successful venture,
> yet who are also devoted to evil deeds will be a hard sell. What
> we consider as "evil" is in all cases a short-sighted and
> impatient attempt to fulfill some form of appetite regardless of
> cost or consequence. These desires (wrath, lust, greed, vengence,
> control, etc.) are by nature emotional, irrational, and deeply
> felt. Feeding these appetites is the first priority for
> evil-doers, and expecting a group of the most evil people to all
> perfectly sublimate their hungers for an extended, rule-bound
> period is asking a lot.
I think that the greatest and most common motive of a big-scale
evildoer is ambition. Also, some great RL villains were known to take
a long view, so "short-sighted" isn't exactly it, either.
> 3) Let's assume that everything is coordinated and perfect.
> Ultimate victory for the evil-doers is nigh. At this point, the
> whole evil effort will almost certainly be derailed by jockeying
> for position. After all, these evil people did not sublimate
> their appetites through all of this just to be low fiend on the
> totem pole when it was all over. Evil is unchecked desire, and no
> evil-doer will want to allow any more checks on their desires
> than is absolutely necessary. Having people with more power than
> you, or having power over you causes restrictions to indulging
> appetites. The evil-doers will take chances--small at first, but
> quickly escalating--to make sure that they wind up closer to the
> top, which includes sabotaging the positions of others, and
> defending yourself against the sabotage of others.
I think that rather than discussing such things in the abstract you
should look at RL examples. Historical monsters, such Ghengis-Chan,
Tamerlane, Stalin, etc. didn't lack for followers and minions. And
they were pretty good at keeping those minions in line and usefully
cooperating, too.
IMHO, it is a shame that fantasy doesn't mold its villains after RL
examples - they'd be far more complelling and less irritating this
way.
Matthew Hackell
> > "John S. Novak, III" wrote:
> >
> > > I swear to Christ, if it takes me fifty years, I will write an epic
> > > fantasy where the bad guys are all, each and every one of them,
> > > ruthlessly intelligent and inter-cooperative. And their first rule
> > > will be, "The Prophesied One is more important than our internal power
> > > struggles. First we will try to kill him. Then we will settle our
> > > rivalries."
>
> We'll be waiting for it eagerly, John. BTW, one author whom you
> dislike does write intelligent and competent villains :). As you go
> about it, maybe you'll write the first ever fantasy where "bad guys"
> win? That would be very refreshing, indeed, seriously.
I assume you mean GRRM (because singing the praises of Eddings' villains
seems rather disingenuous). But the villains in Martin don't practice
teamwork--they're more competent and successful because they're more
ruthless at following the Evil Overlord Rules(TM). Still, they don't
really "play well with others."
David A. Rothgery
> Thor schrieb:
> > 1) Assuming that the bad guys are as competant and intelligent
> > and organized as the good guys, but, being evil, are not bound by
> > conventions, rules, or common decency, gives the bad guys a
> > possibly insurmountable advantage. With this as your core
> > assumption, the good guys simply cannot win, not even if it takes
> > generations. It's like matching up two equally skilled and
> > equally sized wrestlers--one who is blindfolded, and the other
> > with an Uzi in each hand.
>
> And yet it wasn't Nazi Germany that won the World War II...
Well, there is the option of giving the good guys superior firepower, at
least in the long run. But then you get into a situation where the
_villains_ are counting on incompetence, a miracle, or some obsucre
weakness on the part of the heroes to win. And that just doesn't work.
Scott Spiegelberg
> "John S. Novak, III" wrote:
>
> > I swear to Christ, if it takes me fifty years, I will write an epic
> > fantasy where the bad guys are all, each and every one of them,
> > ruthlessly intelligent and inter-cooperative. And their first rule
> > will be, "The Prophesied One is more important than our internal power
> > struggles. First we will try to kill him. Then we will settle our
> > rivalries."
>
> This will be very, very difficult for three main reasons.
>
> 1) Assuming that the bad guys are as competant and intelligent
> and organized as the good guys, but, being evil, are not bound by
> conventions, rules, or common decency, gives the bad guys a
> possibly insurmountable advantage. With this as your core
> assumption, the good guys simply cannot win, not even if it takes
> generations. It's like matching up two equally skilled and
> equally sized wrestlers--one who is blindfolded, and the other
> with an Uzi in each hand.
A good point, one I hadn't considered. This does seem like a fixable
problem, by creating a flaw in the Death Star/Fortress of Pain that wasn't
seen by the bad guys early enough to fix. John wants competent bad guys,
not necessarily omniscient bad guys.
> 2) Creating characters who possess the many virtues of
> cooperation, responsibility, consistancy, patience, vision,
> trust, and whatever else is needed to mount a successful venture,
> yet who are also devoted to evil deeds will be a hard sell. What
> we consider as "evil" is in all cases a short-sighted and
> impatient attempt to fulfill some form of appetite regardless of
> cost or consequence. These desires (wrath, lust, greed, vengence,
> control, etc.) are by nature emotional, irrational, and deeply
> felt. Feeding these appetites is the first priority for
> evil-doers, and expecting a group of the most evil people to all
> perfectly sublimate their hungers for an extended, rule-bound
> period is asking a lot.
I pointed this out in my earlier post as well (though not as
elegantly). I also suggested that this can be fixed by stretching the
boundaries of what we consider to be evil. Religious or political
fanatics can have goals that we would call evil, like locking up anyone
different than us, or forcing fertile women to gestate babies that are
then raised by the sterile people in power. Slavery, rape, genocide,
these are all evil things that could be the goals of people who consider
themselves reasonable and moral. It's a more frightening evil, as it is
often more realistic. The bad guys don't even have to be fanatics. They
could be part of a society that has morals so foreign to ours that they
might as well be considered evil (e.g. *finns).
I think this condition would answer your objection #3 below as well.
> 3) Let's assume that everything is coordinated and perfect.
> Ultimate victory for the evil-doers is nigh. At this point, the
> whole evil effort will almost certainly be derailed by jockeying
> for position. After all, these evil people did not sublimate
> their appetites through all of this just to be low fiend on the
> totem pole when it was all over. Evil is unchecked desire, and no
> evil-doer will want to allow any more checks on their desires
> than is absolutely necessary. Having people with more power than
> you, or having power over you causes restrictions to indulging
> appetites. The evil-doers will take chances--small at first, but
> quickly escalating--to make sure that they wind up closer to the
> top, which includes sabotaging the positions of others, and
> defending yourself against the sabotage of others. Seeing as how
> each evil-doer will want to be the first one to take a shot at
> the others, the question is not "Can they keep it all together
> until their goal is met, and truce is called off?" but rather
> "Which Evil-doer will see what looks like a risk-free opportunity
> to strike at the position of the others?" It would take an almost
> inconceivable amount of restraint for a type of person who
> normally eschews restraint to resist defending themselves from
> being attacked _now_ in order to maintain focus on a goal in the
> non-immediate future.
If the motivation of the bad guys is not individual greed/envy/desire/etc,
but rather a cultural/societal goal, they are not likely to start
jockeying for position, at least not until the goals have been met.
So John could create an epic where a society of Gnostics decide that the
world has become too evil and ignorant, and must be awakened at any cost,
including destroying the world (dum dum DUM!)
Pekka Savola
>> >
>> > > I swear to Christ, if it takes me fifty years, I will write an epic
>> > > fantasy where the bad guys are all, each and every one of them,
>> > > ruthlessly intelligent and inter-cooperative. And their first rule
>> > > will be, "The Prophesied One is more important than our internal power
>> > > struggles. First we will try to kill him. Then we will settle our
>> > > rivalries."
>>
>> dislike does write intelligent and competent villains :). As you go
>> about it, maybe you'll write the first ever fantasy where "bad guys"
>> win? That would be very refreshing, indeed, seriously.
>
>I assume you mean GRRM (because singing the praises of Eddings' villains
>seems rather disingenuous). But the villains in Martin don't practice
>teamwork--they're more competent and successful because they're more
>ruthless at following the Evil Overlord Rules(TM). Still, they don't
>really "play well with others."
As Thor pointed out in 3), the "evil" people are usually not very good
team players. I find this rather natural. Assuming things seem to be
going rather well, and the ultimate victory seems to be at hand sooner
or later, I can certainly imagine them thinking like:
"I'm way more fit to lead than my Evil Boss. If I undermine him just
right, my status will be elevated greatly and my dreams come true.
Why should I settle for less?"
Being power-hungry and very ambitious, this happens so much with the
evil guys.
If the situation for the baddies is going very badly on larger scale,
they usually either switch sides or begin to co-operate. But as
baddies don't usually fare too badly until at the very end, they can
be mean to each other the whole time...
Pekka Savola pekkas at netcore dot fi
---
Across the nations the stories spread like spiderweb laid upon spiderweb,
and men and women planned the future, believing they knew truth. They
planned, and the Pattern absorbed their plans, weaving toward the future
foretold. -- Robert Jordan: The Path of Daggers
Pat O'Connell
>
> On Sun, 3 Dec 2000, Thor wrote:
>
> >
> > > I swear to Christ, if it takes me fifty years, I will write an epic
> > > fantasy where the bad guys are all, each and every one of them,
> > > ruthlessly intelligent and inter-cooperative. And their first rule
> > > will be, "The Prophesied One is more important than our internal power
> > > struggles. First we will try to kill him. Then we will settle our
> > > rivalries."
> >
> > 2) Creating characters who possess the many virtues of
> > cooperation, responsibility, consistancy, patience, vision,
> > trust, and whatever else is needed to mount a successful venture,
> > yet who are also devoted to evil deeds will be a hard sell. What
> > we consider as "evil" is in all cases a short-sighted and
> > impatient attempt to fulfill some form of appetite regardless of
> > cost or consequence. These desires (wrath, lust, greed, vengence,
> > control, etc.) are by nature emotional, irrational, and deeply
> > felt. Feeding these appetites is the first priority for
> > evil-doers, and expecting a group of the most evil people to all
> > perfectly sublimate their hungers for an extended, rule-bound
> > period is asking a lot.
>
> I pointed this out in my earlier post as well (though not as
> elegantly). I also suggested that this can be fixed by stretching the
> boundaries of what we consider to be evil. Religious or political
> fanatics can have goals that we would call evil, like locking up anyone
> different than us, or forcing fertile women to gestate babies that are
> then raised by the sterile people in power. Slavery, rape, genocide,
> these are all evil things that could be the goals of people who consider
> themselves reasonable and moral. It's a more frightening evil, as it is
> often more realistic. The bad guys don't even have to be fanatics. They
> could be part of a society that has morals so foreign to ours that they
> might as well be considered evil (e.g. *finns).
A good example of this happening in WoT is the Whitecloaks, who as a
group see themselves as being on the side of the Light, often descend
into "fanatical evil" because of their Questioner methods. Nevermind
that Carradin is a Darkfriend; the Questioners appear to have been
using torture for a long time.
Whitecloaks also pursue the "Aes Sedai witches" (and presumably any
other channeler) even if the channelers are on the side of the Light.
RL examples of this sort of evil would be the Inquisition (Nooobody
expects, etc. etc.), the fanaticism of Christians during the Crusades,
and religious intolerance that leads to the sort of butchery seen
recently in Yugoslavia (where there were very few good guys, if any),
Northern Ireland, and East Timor.
[snip 3 as well]
Marc Zappala
John Johnson wrote in message <90c4sl$khfa$1...@ID-53489.news.dfncis.de>...
I tell you, Liah was Sammeal in disguise! What Rand thought was Sammeal was
just a decoy made with the saidin. Ok I'm not the first one to post it, but
the first post I saw on it got no response except for my own, so I will try
this again. (I may be wrong in a few of my facts, as I don't have the book
on me, but from what I recall):
There is considerable evidence that Sammeal was killed with balefire.
First, there is Rand's heel suddenly 'healing' right after the incident by
the waygate. Then, there is Allana's statement that he was hurt, and then
not, but not healed by a sister (I think she would have felt a healing by an
Ashaman). Finally, we have RJ's comment that he's toast, and we can
speculate forever that Ishy convinced the dark one not to reincarnate him,
or he had gone renegade, or whatever, but we know for a fact that if you get
balefired, you are toast.
Now think of the time sequence. "Sammeal" is standing by the waygate, all
in the open and such. Mashadar is not too close too him. Rand is about to
attack, when he hears a scream. He turns towards Liah in the distance, sees
a tiny thread of mashadar at her ankle, and balefires her out of existence.
Then he turns back to Sammeal, and suddenly, Mashadar is all over the
square. This brings up all sorts of questions, like how did Mashadar
suddenly get past Sammeals wards, and why didn't Sammeal go down fighting,
and what the hell was the point of Liah, and so on.
The only theory that answers all of those questions is this: Sammeal made
an illusion of himself to draw Rand's attention, then disguised himself as
Liah and made a stake out. He knew about Liah from previous trips to Shadar
Logoth (perhaps he even abducted her) and knew that he would be safe
disguised as a woman. Sammeal warded the illusion of himself from Mashadar
for obvious reasons, but didn't permenantly ward himself from Mashadar
because if Rand had spotted 'Liah' just standing admist all this Mashadar
with none of it coming near her, he might have gotten suspicious. INstead,
Sammeal was using less concrete means to keep Mashadar back. But he slipped
up at just the wrong moment, a thread got through and touched his ankle. He
screamed, Rand balefired him, thinking he was putting Liah out of her
misery. Sammeal's illusion and his wards dissapeared retroactively, and
suddenly mashadar was all over the square. Rand's heel was healed.
The only questions this theory raises is whether or not Liah was Liah the
first time Rand saw her. I think she was, because Sammeal wanted to be sure
that Rand knew Liah was running around. It would have made Rand more
careful. Sammeal wouldn't have been safe disguised as a woman if Rand was
throwing balefire around whenever he saw human movement.
I mean really mashadar didn't kill sammeal because we have Rand's heel
suddenly healing, and Alanna's comment. Moridin didn't kill Sammeal because
he said he wasn't going to. So Rand had to have killed him, and with
balefire. We see Rand killing someone with balefire, and because it doesn't
look like Sammeal we all assume it's not. Sheesh. Besides, Sammeal using
Liah in such a manner makes him pretty crafty, and it's about time the
forsaken did something crafty.
Marc
Marc Zappala
Jean D wrote in message <3A2AF1...@globetrotter.net>...
>Marc Zappala wrote:
>>
>> I tell you, Liah was Sammeal in disguise! What Rand thought was Sammeal
was
>> just a decoy made with the saidin. Ok I'm not the first one to post it,
but
>> the first post I saw on it got no response except for my own, so I will
try
>> this again.
>
>
Hmmmm... (Getting a bad feeling)
>>(I may be wrong in a few of my facts, as I don't have the book
>> on me, but from what I recall):
>>
>> There is considerable evidence that Sammeal was killed with balefire.
>
>I'm prepared to read any speculations with an open mind, but please do
>not confuse them with evidence.
My Bad.
>
>> Now think of the time sequence. "Sammeal" is standing by the waygate,
all
>> in the open and such.
>
>Hiding behind the columns of the building, actually, but Rand sees him
>from his position.
Like I said.
>
>> Mashadar is not too close too him.
>
>Right above him, falling on him.
Oh.
>
>> The only theory that answers all of those questions is this: Sammeal
made
>> an illusion of himself to draw Rand's attention, then disguised himself
as
>> Liah and made a stake out.
>
>Yeah, and the illusion turned its head towards Liah when it heard her
>scream. Sure.
(Wince)
>
>> We see Rand killing someone with balefire, and because it doesn't
>> look like Sammeal we all assume it's not.
>
>How irrational can we get, eh?
Yeah allright I should have kept my big mouth shut until I got my hands on
that book. Hunh. Still I can't help thinking that there's more to this
scene than meets the eye. Maybe Liah's balefiring affected Sammeal's
position somehow, and landed him plop in the middle of Mashadar elsewhere in
the city. I mean, are we supposed to buy that Sammeal just let the fog
sneak up on him?
Marc
Matthew Hackell
> > From the book of Jean D:
[Do please snip what you aren't responding to]
> > > > And as far as I'm concerned, this makes Taim the main contender for
> > > > Slayer's current contractor.
> > >
> > > Why Taim and why not Demandred? After all, both of them had already
> > > ordered Kisman & co. to kill Rand.
> >
> > Not clever enough. There's clear irony in Slayer's statement that "only
> > the Chosen would dare call him." Also, why would Demandred hide himself?
> > Sammael would have had a reason; so would Taim. Moridin is nuts, so
> > asking for reason is fruitless. But what motive would Demandred have for
> > hiding his face, when the Forsaken have never done so before.
>
> Moridin believes Slayer's current orders are to take care of Fain.
> Demandred thinks that perhaps Moridin can be gotten rid of, and soon.
> Whoever is controlling Slayer, he is giving him orders that are not "Kill
> Fain" but in fact "Kill Rand and the wench", and furthermore after doing so
> Slayer doesn't go back to killing Fain, he goes back to killing wolves!
>
> Demandred and Taim both want Rand dead so it could be either of them,
> but Demandred has just as great a chance of it.
Yes, this is Demandred's perfectly valid motive for having Rand killed.
But that wasn't my question. Why would he hide his face--Slayer would
have taken his orders if he saw Demandred. Not so with Taim, hence the
disguise.
Repeat: Why would Demandred disguise himself?
Steven Cooper
wrote:
>From the book of Jean D:
>> What particular speculation would that confirm? It seems to me that the
>> speculations remain just as they were. Btw, if anyone has the
>> opportunity, there's still a good question to be asked at a signing to
>> clarify those nine once and for all. Or has it already been asked in
>> the recent signings or chat sessions?
>
>Moridin
>
>Demandred
>Messaana
>Moghedien
>Semirhage
>Graendal
>
>Osan'gar
>Aran'gar
>Cyndane
>
>Nine.
Jean is right that this new information about Sammael doesn't change the
problem of Moridin's nine _shah'rah_ players. There's no way the TPOD
prologue can be after the battle at Shadar Logoth, not without RJ being
totally inconsistent with his timelines. So Sammael was definitely still
alive when Moridin was brooding over his _shah'rah_ board.
I remember this being discussed ad nauseam when the TPOD prologue came out.
The FAQ offers a number of possibilities, some of which are ruled out by
information in WH (such as Cyndane being a Third Age chaneller rather than
Lanfear). I think the three most likely explanations remaining are:
- Moridin was not including himself in the nine (i.e. he really meant
"only nine OTHER people even remembered the game").
- Moridin didn't know about the 'gars at this time (although he certainly
knows about them in WH) and the nine includes Sammael and LTT.
- Moridin's comment can be interpreted more loosely as "only nine people
remembered how to play the game" rather than "only nine people
remembered the game's existence". In this case, we could assume that
one of the Forsaken simply wasn't a _shah'rah_ player.
None of these explanations are wholly satisfactory, but certainly the fact
that we now know Sammael died in Shadar Logoth doesn't help to choose among
them.
--
Steven Cooper | "I'm entitled to my opinion!"
Melbourne, Australia. | "It is your assumption that we are entitled
saco...@ozemail.com.au | to it as well that is irritating."
Maia
>
> From the book of Maia:
> > We'll be waiting for it eagerly, John. BTW, one author whom you
> > dislike does write intelligent and competent villains :). As you go
> > about it, maybe you'll write the first ever fantasy where "bad guys"
> > win? That would be very refreshing, indeed, seriously.
>
> I assume you mean GRRM (because singing the praises of Eddings' villains
> seems rather disingenuous). But the villains in Martin don't practice
> teamwork--they're more competent and successful because they're more
> ruthless at following the Evil Overlord Rules(TM). Still, they don't
> really "play well with others."
Mm... Lord Tywin was served by lesser villains, i.e. Ser Gregor and
Ser Amory Lorch, and well served. We don't know how evil Ser Kevan is,
but he did serve his evil brother faithfully and well, ergo Pycelle,
who persuaded Aerys to open the gates. Etc. It is only the Brave
Companions who betrayed him, but they were only mercenaries anyway.
Tywin is certainly an example of good "team chef", i.e. he assembled
the team of minions who served him capably and well despite (some) of
them being villains. "A task for every tool and tool for every task".
Littlefinger is also served by more or less villainious minions, etc.
Certainly, some of GRRM's greater villains are team players in a way,
they just assume the chef role and manage to keep their minions
faithful and efficient. A feat the Forsaken and other RJ's baddies
seemed consistently
unable to duplicate...
"Teamwork" isn't just "separate but equal" working together...
Jean D
>
> I tell you, Liah was Sammeal in disguise! What Rand thought was Sammeal was
> just a decoy made with the saidin. Ok I'm not the first one to post it, but
> the first post I saw on it got no response except for my own, so I will try
> this again.
It's because nobody thought you were serious.
>(I may be wrong in a few of my facts, as I don't have the book
> on me, but from what I recall):
>
> There is considerable evidence that Sammeal was killed with balefire.
I'm prepared to read any speculations with an open mind, but please do
not confuse them with evidence.
> Now think of the time sequence. "Sammeal" is standing by the waygate, all
> in the open and such.
Hiding behind the columns of the building, actually, but Rand sees him
from his position.
> Mashadar is not too close too him.
Right above him, falling on him.
> The only theory that answers all of those questions is this: Sammeal made
> an illusion of himself to draw Rand's attention, then disguised himself as
> Liah and made a stake out.
Yeah, and the illusion turned its head towards Liah when it heard her
scream. Sure.
> We see Rand killing someone with balefire, and because it doesn't
> look like Sammeal we all assume it's not.
How irrational can we get, eh?
> Sheesh.
Indeed.
--
Jean
Fairfax Sheild McCandlish IV
> >> (One interesting thing I did note, though-- When Rand tells Dashiva
> >> that Sammael is definitely dead, Dashiva was visibly and audibly
> >> relieved. It's obvious why Dashiva-as-Dashiva would be relieved, but
> >> that's obviously Aginor's relief showeing through. Wonder why? Was
> >> he afraid he'd have to go toe to toe with Sammael? That Sammael would
> >> blow his cover?)
> >
> >It suggests, as does the "toast" comment, that Sammael had gone
> >renegade, and that he therefore won't be resurrected.
>
> Huh?
Graendal apparently misslead Sammael as to their true orders about Rand.
She clearly tries to bait him into attacking Rand (which is against the
rules). As to how Sammael died, well, Moridin said "I'm not going to kill
Sammael for you" or some such. On the other hand, it's a lot more likely
than Mashadar..
Fairfax Sheild McCandlish IV
> > >
wrote:
> >
> > [Someone, somewhere, somehow, wrote:]
> >
> > > >> > Is Sammael really dead?
> > >
> > > >In the words of the Creator, "Sammael is toast. The man is dead."
He
> > > >went on to say that wasn't it cooler to just say RAFO and have
> > > >something to look forward to. I think he was just sick of being
asked
> > > >this one, so he spilled the beans on it. I didn't ask about a
> > > >reincarnation, and he didn't say. I think thats a RAFO anyway.
> > >
> > > I'm surprised he answered, but it confirms the speculation about
Moridin's
> > > Nine.
> >
> > speculations remain just as they were. Btw, if anyone has the
> > opportunity, there's still a good question to be asked at a signing to
> > clarify those nine once and for all. Or has it already been asked in
> > the recent signings or chat sessions?
>
> Moridin
>
> Demandred
> Messaana
> Moghedien
> Semirhage
> Graendal
>
> Osan'gar
> Aran'gar
> Cyndane
>
> Nine.
>
> > > Forsaken who show a little style. And since Rand likely killed him
> > > with balefire, there will be no reincarnation.
> >
> > Rand's balefire never even came near Sammael. If one thing is certain,
> > it is that Rand did not kill Sammael. And, as far as we can tell, he
> > wasn't killed by anyone else's balefire either.
>
> It's questionable. "Toast" sounds like he won't be back. But I'm not
> convinced of that. Still, there's no way he's back soon enough to oroder
> Slayer.
>
Fairfax Sheild McCandlish IV
Steven Cooper <saco...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
news:99ok2tkljdu272utt...@4ax.com...
You're thinking too strictly in terms of timeline, when RJ's prologues
progressively tend to bounce around more and more loosely book by book. This
scene very likely takes place after Sammael's death.
delightful me
"Marc Zappala" <yng...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:90f49j$ioi$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
> >>
> >> I tell you, Liah was Sammeal in disguise! What Rand thought was
Sammeal
> was
> >> just a decoy made with the saidin. Ok I'm not the first one to
post it,
> but
> >> the first post I saw on it got no response except for my own, so I
will
> try
> >> this again.
> >
> >It's because nobody thought you were serious.
> >
>
>
>
> >> on me, but from what I recall):
> >>
> >> There is considerable evidence that Sammeal was killed with
balefire.
> >
> >I'm prepared to read any speculations with an open mind, but please
do
> >not confuse them with evidence.
>
>
>
> >
> >> Now think of the time sequence. "Sammeal" is standing by the
waygate,
> all
> >> in the open and such.
> >
> >Hiding behind the columns of the building, actually, but Rand sees
him
> >from his position.
>
>
>
> >
> >> Mashadar is not too close too him.
> >
> >Right above him, falling on him.
>
>
>
> >
> >> The only theory that answers all of those questions is this:
Sammeal
> made
> >> an illusion of himself to draw Rand's attention, then disguised
himself
> as
> >> Liah and made a stake out.
> >
> >Yeah, and the illusion turned its head towards Liah when it heard her
> >scream. Sure.
>
>
>
> >
> >> We see Rand killing someone with balefire, and because it doesn't
> >> look like Sammeal we all assume it's not.
> >
> >How irrational can we get, eh?
>
>
hands on
> that book. Hunh. Still I can't help thinking that there's more to
this
> scene than meets the eye. Maybe Liah's balefiring affected Sammeal's
> position somehow, and landed him plop in the middle of Mashadar
elsewhere in
> the city. I mean, are we supposed to buy that Sammeal just let the
fog
> sneak up on him?
As must as we would all like to demonstrate our undying faith in RJ's
prowess as a writer by concocting all sorts of wonderfully intricate and
interesting reasons why Sammy appeared to die so easily..... we may just
have to bite and admit that RJ ended the book with a lame watered down
anti-climactic scene. Maybe it just is what it is.
Steven Cooper
<argo...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>Steven Cooper <saco...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
>news:99ok2tkljdu272utt...@4ax.com...
[snip - Moridin's nine and Sammael]
>> None of these explanations are wholly satisfactory, but certainly the fact
>> that we now know Sammael died in Shadar Logoth doesn't help to choose
>among
>> them.
>>
>You're thinking too strictly in terms of timeline, when RJ's prologues
>progressively tend to bounce around more and more loosely book by book.
As a matter of fact, they don't. In all of the books, the action in the
prologue takes place entirely before the first chapter opens. (Or at
least, this is true of those bits that can be precisely dated, and there is
no logical reason to suppose that the rest are any different.)
>This scene very likely takes place after Sammael's death.
Not unless Moridin's appearance in chapter 2 of TPOD takes place *before*
his scene in the prologue -- with *absolutely no indication* of this
disruption in the narrative sequence. (Just to be clear, that chapter 2
appearance takes place on the same day the Seanchan arrive in Ebou Dar,
which happens two days before Sammael dies in Shadar Logoth.)
Adam Benedict Canning
Matthew Hackell wrote:
>
> From the book of Fairfax Sheild McCandlish IV:
> >
> > Demandred and Taim both want Rand dead so it could be either of them,
> > but Demandred has just as great a chance of it.
>
> Yes, this is Demandred's perfectly valid motive for having Rand killed.
> But that wasn't my question. Why would he hide his face--Slayer would
> have taken his orders if he saw Demandred. Not so with Taim, hence the
> disguise.
>
> Repeat: Why would Demandred disguise himself?
To avoid having Rand Come after him if he captures and interrogates
Slayer.
Adam
Frank van Schie
delightful me wrote:
>
> As must as we would all like to demonstrate our undying faith in RJ's
> prowess as a writer by concocting all sorts of wonderfully intricate and
> interesting reasons why Sammy appeared to die so easily..... we may just
> have to bite and admit that RJ ended the book with a lame watered down
> anti-climactic scene. Maybe it just is what it is.
I would seriously, seriously doubt it. It's bound to have some
significance. He wasn't exactly subtle with Rahvin, or Be'lal, or
Ishamael, or Lanfear), and I don't see why he would be here. Certainly
not for lack of imagination (I'm sure he could've made Rand sweep the
entire area with balefire or something)
--
Frank
Michelle Haines
> delightful me wrote:
>>
>> As must as we would all like to demonstrate our undying faith in RJ's
>> prowess as a writer by concocting all sorts of wonderfully intricate and
>> interesting reasons why Sammy appeared to die so easily..... we may just
>> have to bite and admit that RJ ended the book with a lame watered down
>> anti-climactic scene. Maybe it just is what it is.
> I would seriously, seriously doubt it. It's bound to have some
> significance. He wasn't exactly subtle with Rahvin, or Be'lal, or
> Ishamael, or Lanfear), and I don't see why he would be here. Certainly
> not for lack of imagination (I'm sure he could've made Rand sweep the
> entire area with balefire or something)
Now, see, I've half convinced myself that he intended Sammael's death
to be a cover-up and that he would bring him back, then decided, "Nah,
it'll take to long to introduce another plot line." and decided to
declare him dead, instead. :)
Michelle
Flutist
John Johnson
"Adam Benedict Canning" <siu9...@rdg.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:3A2B87F2...@rdg.ac.uk...
>
>
> Matthew Hackell wrote:
> >
> > From the book of Fairfax Sheild McCandlish IV:
> > >
>
them,
> > > but Demandred has just as great a chance of it.
> >
> > But that wasn't my question. Why would he hide his face--Slayer would
> > have taken his orders if he saw Demandred. Not so with Taim, hence the
> > disguise.
> >
> > Repeat: Why would Demandred disguise himself?
>
> To avoid having Rand Come after him if he captures and interrogates
> Slayer.
Rand wouldn't need any additional motivation to come after Demandred. The
man's a Forsaken; that's all the reason Rand needs.
--
John Johnson
Matthew Hackell
>
>
> Matthew Hackell wrote:
> >
> > From the book of Fairfax Sheild McCandlish IV:
> > >
>
> > > but Demandred has just as great a chance of it.
> >
> > But that wasn't my question. Why would he hide his face--Slayer would
> > have taken his orders if he saw Demandred. Not so with Taim, hence the
> > disguise.
> >
> > Repeat: Why would Demandred disguise himself?
>
> To avoid having Rand Come after him if he captures and interrogates
> Slayer.
Sure...
Rand captures and kills Slayer, who admits that some male Forsaken sent
him. "Knowing" that Demandred is the only living male Forsaken, Rand
naturally says, "Well, I can't prove it, so I guess I'll have to let him
go."
Christopher Tong
"John S. Novak, III" wrote:
<snip>
> >With this as your core
> >assumption, the good guys simply cannot win, not even if it takes
> >generations. It's like matching up two equally skilled and
> >equally sized wrestlers--one who is blindfolded, and the other
> >with an Uzi in each hand.
> So who says they have to be equally skilled and equally sized?
> And who says the good guys have to be Nice?
If nobody's nice, why bother calling the two sides good and evil? Why
not call them something else? (I personally favour Us and Them).
Although I doubt the reader could empathize with either side in that
case...
Chris
delightful me
"Michelle Haines" <mha...@Io.NANC.com> wrote in message
news:nEPW5.216$t4.1...@petpeeve.ziplink.net...
RJ's
> >> prowess as a writer by concocting all sorts of wonderfully
intricate and
> >> interesting reasons why Sammy appeared to die so easily..... we may
just
> >> have to bite and admit that RJ ended the book with a lame watered
down
> >> anti-climactic scene. Maybe it just is what it is.
>
> > significance. He wasn't exactly subtle with Rahvin, or Be'lal, or
> > Ishamael, or Lanfear), and I don't see why he would be here.
Certainly
> > not for lack of imagination (I'm sure he could've made Rand sweep
the
> > entire area with balefire or something)
>
> Now, see, I've half convinced myself that he intended Sammael's death
> to be a cover-up and that he would bring him back, then decided, "Nah,
> it'll take to long to introduce another plot line." and decided to
> declare him dead, instead. :)
>
Precisely! At this rate, the recycled Forsaken thing is quickly becoming
passe.
Whenn RJ intends something to be a cover up, there is always SOMETHING
to clue us in though, and with Sammael there just wasn't anything there.
John S. Novak, III
>> I swear to Christ, if it takes me fifty years, I will write an epic
>> fantasy where the bad guys are all, each and every one of them,
>> ruthlessly intelligent and inter-cooperative. And their first rule
>> will be, "The Prophesied One is more important than our internal power
>> struggles. First we will try to kill him. Then we will settle our
>> rivalries."
>This will be very, very difficult for three main reasons.
>1) Assuming that the bad guys are as competant and intelligent
>and organized as the good guys, but, being evil, are not bound by
>conventions, rules, or common decency, gives the bad guys a
>possibly insurmountable advantage.
And you know what?
SM Stirling has demonstrated that you _can_ write a series where the
bad guys win, and have it sell. The Draka are all ruthlessly
intelligent and inter-cooperative, and while it's a close thing, they
actually manage to kick the Americans right off the planet in the
third book. While it was close, they won an almost unconditional
victory. If that's the only way to do it, then that's the way I'll do
it.
Beyond that, though, I'm not averse to giving the Forces of Merciless
Evil some human failings, but if I do that, then by God I'm not going
to trump them up as the biggest threat since Lucifer fell only to have
them stumbling around in total confusion like the Forsaken did in WH
toward the end. That's just disappointing.
When my Forces of Merciless Evil decide to flex their muscles and
teach someone a lesson, then by God people are gonna die, because my
FoME are playing for keeps.
>With this as your core
>assumption, the good guys simply cannot win, not even if it takes
>generations. It's like matching up two equally skilled and
>equally sized wrestlers--one who is blindfolded, and the other
>with an Uzi in each hand.
So who says they have to be equally skilled and equally sized?
And who says the good guys have to be Nice?
--
John S. Novak, III j...@concentric.net
The Humblest Man on the Net
Matt Peck
> > >assumption, the good guys simply cannot win, not even if it takes
> > >generations. It's like matching up two equally skilled and
> > >equally sized wrestlers--one who is blindfolded, and the other
> > >with an Uzi in each hand.
>
> > So who says they have to be equally skilled and equally sized?
> > And who says the good guys have to be Nice?
>
> not call them something else? (I personally favour Us and Them).
> Although I doubt the reader could empathize with either side in that
> case...
I think that almost everybody would agree that America was the "good
guys" in World War II. Yet America is the _only_ nation in the world
to use atomic bombs of any sort within the context of war, that is,
against another nation. Was it nice? No. Did it win the war for us?
Most would agree that it did.
But even aside from that, we bombed the living crap out of both German
and Japanese industry. Thousands of (innocent) civilians died in these
attacks. Nice? Whatever. Does that make us the bad guys?
--
Matt Peck
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
EDL
"John S. Novak, III" <j...@concentric.net> wrote in message
news:slrn92hks...@ts016d10.chi-il.concentric.net...
> I swear to Christ, if it takes me fifty years, I will write an epic
> fantasy where the bad guys are all, each and every one of them,
> ruthlessly intelligent and inter-cooperative. And their first rule
> will be, "The Prophesied One is more important than our internal
power
> struggles. First we will try to kill him. Then we will settle our
> rivalries."
Unfortunately those two things aren't necessarily compatible. What
individual nearly consumed by their own self-interest (which likely
describes a significant majority of those along the 'naughty' side of
the bell curve) can resist the opportunity to try and take out a rival
in an opportune moment?
Shucks, this is prolly more true in the WOT where the baddies
(especially early in the series) tended to think of themselves as
demigods who could deal with anything the current world populace could
throw at them, but in almost any situation in which I could imagine
myself as a 'criminal mastermind' the temptation to rub out a few
competitors on the way to killing the White Knight would be tough to
eschew.
First and foremost, bad people are BAD. They've already sullied their
honor in one or a hundred different ways, so a "Let's work together'
mantra isn't worth the posterboard it's printed on... especially to
other people who are as bad as them and realize this.
It's important to keep in mind, too, that most of these baddies are
being directed in some way or another by the DO, and we can only
tangentially reference what the DO's prime motivations might be. Any
type of cohesion among high-level naughti-Knights would have to be
imposed from a 'higher' source.
E.
Adam Benedict Canning
Matthew Hackell wrote:
>
> From the book of Adam Benedict Canning:
> >
> >
> > Matthew Hackell wrote:
> > >
> > > From the book of Fairfax Sheild McCandlish IV:
> > > >
> >
> > > > Demandred and Taim both want Rand dead so it could be either of them,
> > > > but Demandred has just as great a chance of it.
> > >
> > > Yes, this is Demandred's perfectly valid motive for having Rand killed.
> > > But that wasn't my question. Why would he hide his face--Slayer would
> > > have taken his orders if he saw Demandred. Not so with Taim, hence the
> > > disguise.
> > >
> > > Repeat: Why would Demandred disguise himself?
> >
> > To avoid having Rand Come after him if he captures and interrogates
> > Slayer.
>
> Sure...
>
> Rand captures and kills Slayer, who admits that some male Forsaken sent
> him. "Knowing" that Demandred is the only living male Forsaken, Rand
> naturally says, "Well, I can't prove it, so I guess I'll have to let him
> go."
Your missing the point. The Forsaken seem to think that Rand prioritises
killing them based on who attacks him, See the entire
Sammeal/Rahvin/Grendal/Lanfear conspiracy. And his response to Gedwin,
Kinsman etall.
Thus Demandred would rather that his name does not come to Rands
attention as someone who is out doing bad things, because rand will then
go looking for him.
Adam
David Chapman
news:3A2C8F6A...@polbox.com...
>
>
> "John S. Novak, III" wrote:
> > So who says they have to be equally skilled and equally sized?
> > And who says the good guys have to be Nice?
>
> If nobody's nice, why bother calling the two sides good and evil? Why
> not call them something else? (I personally favour Us and Them).
> Although I doubt the reader could empathize with either side in that
> case...
How about "gay" and "straight", then? The gays could even be the
"heroes"; they're massively outnumbered and facing persecution, after
all. <grin>
I'm going to point you now at Harry Turtledove's Worldwar and
Colonisation novels. The basic plot: it's 1942, WWII is in full swing -
and at that point, an alien fleet arrives to conquer the world. They're
well worth reading, and there are both sympathetic and evil characters
on all sides.
--
And the thing about failure is
It happens when you're out of time
You don't know you've lost the race
Until you cross the finish line
Matthew Hackell
[snip]
> I'm going to point you now at Harry Turtledove's Worldwar and
> Colonisation novels. The basic plot: it's 1942, WWII is in full swing -
> and at that point, an alien fleet arrives to conquer the world. They're
> well worth reading, and there are both sympathetic and evil characters
> on all sides.
I agree with Chapman on something! ::looks outside window:: Damned if
that isn't a flying pig out there!
I'll recommend anything by Turtledove, and that includes his translation
of Theophanes' Chronicle from the Greek.
Fairfax Sheild McCandlish IV
>
fact
> >> that we now know Sammael died in Shadar Logoth doesn't help to choose
> >among
> >> them.
> >>
> >You're thinking too strictly in terms of timeline, when RJ's prologues
> >progressively tend to bounce around more and more loosely book by book.
>
> prologue takes place entirely before the first chapter opens. (Or at
> least, this is true of those bits that can be precisely dated, and there
is
> no logical reason to suppose that the rest are any different.)
Well, in PoD we see the BA hunt get under way, and in the prologue of WH
it's progressed by the amount of time it takes to gank or go to the binding
chair, but all sorts of more time consuming events have happened between
those two events (in PoD).
> >This scene very likely takes place after Sammael's death.
>
> Not unless Moridin's appearance in chapter 2 of TPOD takes place *before*
> his scene in the prologue -- with *absolutely no indication* of this
> disruption in the narrative sequence. (Just to be clear, that chapter 2
> appearance takes place on the same day the Seanchan arrive in Ebou Dar,
> which happens two days before Sammael dies in Shadar Logoth.)
Yes I know, and I believe it's entirely possible that the prologue is
presented out of order.
Fairfax Sheild McCandlish IV
> From the book of Fairfax Sheild McCandlish IV:
> >
> > news:MPG.14921e25f...@news.princeton.edu...
> > > From the book of Jean D:
> > > > John S. Novak, III wrote:
>
>
for
> > > > > Slayer's current contractor.
> > > >
> > > > Why Taim and why not Demandred? After all, both of them had already
> > > > ordered Kisman & co. to kill Rand.
> > >
> > > Not clever enough. There's clear irony in Slayer's statement that
"only
> > > the Chosen would dare call him." Also, why would Demandred hide
himself?
> > > Sammael would have had a reason; so would Taim. Moridin is nuts, so
> > > asking for reason is fruitless. But what motive would Demandred have
for
> > > hiding his face, when the Forsaken have never done so before.
> >
> > Moridin believes Slayer's current orders are to take care of Fain.
> > Demandred thinks that perhaps Moridin can be gotten rid of, and soon.
> > Whoever is controlling Slayer, he is giving him orders that are not
"Kill
> > Fain" but in fact "Kill Rand and the wench", and furthermore after doing
so
> > Slayer doesn't go back to killing Fain, he goes back to killing wolves!
> >
> > Demandred and Taim both want Rand dead so it could be either of
them,
> > but Demandred has just as great a chance of it.
>
> But that wasn't my question. Why would he hide his face--Slayer would
> have taken his orders if he saw Demandred. Not so with Taim, hence the
> disguise.
>
> Repeat: Why would Demandred disguise himself?
I'll simplify: Demandred wouldn't want Moridin to know he's subverting
Slayer.
Amy Gray
mhac...@princeton.edu says...
> From the book of David Chapman:
>
> [snip]
>
> > I'm going to point you now at Harry Turtledove's Worldwar and
> > Colonisation novels. The basic plot: it's 1942, WWII is in full swing -
> > and at that point, an alien fleet arrives to conquer the world. They're
> > well worth reading, and there are both sympathetic and evil characters
> > on all sides.
>
> I agree with Chapman on something! ::looks outside window:: Damned if
> that isn't a flying pig out there!
>
> I'll recommend anything by Turtledove, and that includes his translation
> of Theophanes' Chronicle from the Greek.
weeks ago I picked up a stripped copy of _Household Gods,_ cowritten by
him and Judith Tarr. It was very likely the worst thing I've ever read
all the way through. I would have stopped after my obligatory hundred
pages, but I was seized by some bizarre masochistic impulse to finish
the thing. I thoroughly despised the main character.
I'd been meaning to read Turtledove, based on various recommendations,
and since this one was free, I thought I'd give it a try. Is it in any
way representative of his work, or was it Tarr's influence that made me
hate it? I liked Judith Tarr when I was much younger, but then I think
I would have liked this book had I read it at the age of 12 or so, too.
My real question is, should I try something else by Turtledove alone?
--
Amy Gray
gr...@friends.edu
UIN: 91047322
John Johnson
"Fairfax Sheild McCandlish IV" <argo...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:ArbX5.48528$nh5.3...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
<snip>
> > Yes, this is Demandred's perfectly valid motive for having Rand killed.
> > But that wasn't my question. Why would he hide his face--Slayer would
> > have taken his orders if he saw Demandred. Not so with Taim, hence the
> > disguise.
> >
> > Repeat: Why would Demandred disguise himself?
>
> I'll simplify: Demandred wouldn't want Moridin to know he's subverting
> Slayer.
Why does it matter who Slayer's hired out to? From his POV it's clear that
he's a contract killer, and has had his services used by other clients.
There is absolutely no indication that Moridin is his sole client, and
Demandred would know this.
--
John Johnson
Matthew Hackell
>
[The question of Slayer's patron]
> > Repeat: Why would Demandred disguise himself?
>
> I'll simplify: Demandred wouldn't want Moridin to know he's subverting
> Slayer.
I'll refute: Slayer doesn't seem to think it at all odd that he is
receiving orders from this person. Either he has no job from Moridin at
the moment, or he's quite used to having simultaneous contracts.
Matthew Hackell
> In article <MPG.149701495...@news.princeton.edu>,
> mhac...@princeton.edu says...
> > From the book of David Chapman:
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > > I'm going to point you now at Harry Turtledove's Worldwar and
> > > Colonisation novels. The basic plot: it's 1942, WWII is in full swing -
> > > and at that point, an alien fleet arrives to conquer the world. They're
> > > well worth reading, and there are both sympathetic and evil characters
> > > on all sides.
> >
> > I agree with Chapman on something! ::looks outside window:: Damned if
> > that isn't a flying pig out there!
> >
> > I'll recommend anything by Turtledove, and that includes his translation
> > of Theophanes' Chronicle from the Greek.
>
> I've never read anything that was exclusively by him, but a couple of
> weeks ago I picked up a stripped copy of _Household Gods,_ cowritten by
> him and Judith Tarr. It was very likely the worst thing I've ever read
> all the way through. I would have stopped after my obligatory hundred
> pages, but I was seized by some bizarre masochistic impulse to finish
> the thing. I thoroughly despised the main character.
I read the back cover of _Household Gods_ and decided to put it aside
against a time when I'd read everything else on my list--I like
alternate history, but I don't like the "I don't think we're in Kansas
anymore...we're in Ancient Rome" variant...at least not when the Dorothy
figure is the protagonist.
> I'd been meaning to read Turtledove, based on various recommendations,
> and since this one was free, I thought I'd give it a try. Is it in any
> way representative of his work, or was it Tarr's influence that made me
> hate it? I liked Judith Tarr when I was much younger, but then I think
> I would have liked this book had I read it at the age of 12 or so, too.
> My real question is, should I try something else by Turtledove alone?
Yes. It's not fantasy, however[1]--although the books are fun, there is
a serious historical bent that makes them more enjoyable
His name-maker is _Guns of the South_, in which mysterious strangers
travel back in time to give weapons to the Confederacy. This avoids the
Dorothy complex by focusing on Robert E. Lee and a few others, rather
than the time-travellers.
If you're interested in Byzantine History, _Agent of Byzantium_ is the
story of a detective (or sorts) operating in the Byzantine world of the
eleventh or twelfth century...in a world in which Mohammed became a
Christian saint instead of founding Islam. Thus, Byzantium is still the
dominant power in the Eastern Mediterranean (this book demands a re-read
on my part).
_Departures_ is a collection of alternate-history short stories on
widely varying topics.
_Worldwar/Colonization_ are a pair of series in which aliens invade
during World War II (approximately during the battle of London).
However, the aliens (who last looked in on Earth in the age of
chivalry) are now only about 60 years ahead of the Great Powers of the
War, and the humans are catching up quickly. _Colonization_ is set
twenty years later, as the surviving human nations and alien colonies
are getting used to the status quo...but now a long-expected planetary
colonization fleet comes, with millions more settlers. Great reads, and
great interpretations of historical characters and situations.
_The Great War_ series (and its prequel, _How Few Remain_) assume aa US
that lost to the Confederacy during the Civil War. _How Few Remain_ is
the story of the next war between the two, twenty years later, with more
destructive technology, and _Great War_ tells the story of World War I,
with the USA and CSA on opposite sides.
[1] He has one other series that I am aware of, whose title escapes me.
This one is the story of a World War in a fantasy world. I've only read
the first book (of two so far) and I don't think he has the same knack
for it as he does for alternate history, but it isn't bad.
One last book, ironically the first Turtledove I read, is a fun romp in
a magical (rather than technological) Southern California. Called _The
Case of the Toxic Spell Dump_, it's a light read, and enjoyable, but not
at all in the style of his other works.
There are others, but I haven't read them and therefore will have to
pass on commenting on them.
Fairfax Sheild McCandlish IV
> From the book of Fairfax Sheild McCandlish IV:
> >
>
> [The question of Slayer's patron]
>
> > > Repeat: Why would Demandred disguise himself?
> >
> > I'll simplify: Demandred wouldn't want Moridin to know he's
subverting
> > Slayer.
>
> I'll refute: Slayer doesn't seem to think it at all odd that he is
> receiving orders from this person. Either he has no job from Moridin at
> the moment, or he's quite used to having simultaneous contracts.
Moridin wonders if Slayer will manage to kill the other vermin, Fain. He
doesn't wonder if he should tell Slayer to kill Fain. And then after Slayer
fails to kill Rand and Min, he doesn't go back to his previous job, he goes
and does something else entirely. I find that rather odd. His orders from
Moridin seem to have been nixed by his new "contractor".
Jean D
>
> Steven Cooper <saco...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>
> > "Fairfax Sheild McCandlish IV" <argo...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >
> > >You're thinking too strictly in terms of timeline, when RJ's prologues
> > >progressively tend to bounce around more and more loosely book by book.
> >
> > prologue takes place entirely before the first chapter opens. (Or at
> > least, this is true of those bits that can be precisely dated, and there
> > is no logical reason to suppose that the rest are any different.)
>
> Well, in PoD we see the BA hunt get under way, and in the prologue of WH
> it's progressed by the amount of time it takes to gank or go to the binding
> chair, but all sorts of more time consuming events have happened between
> those two events (in PoD).
Note that this perfectly respects the rule RJ has been reliably
following: everything in the prologue of a given book happens before the
events in the numbered chapters of that same book. Actually, this is a
good illustration of the rule. See how those events you refer to in the
WH prologue bring the reader back to the timeline of TPoD. Placing them
in the WH prologue precisely allows RJ to obtain exactly the effect you
mention.
> Yes I know, and I believe it's entirely possible that the prologue is
> presented out of order.
Chapters are just not thrown into a book in random order. There's a
reason why some events appear in chapters specifically named prologues.
The events in any prologue in the WoT series always take place either
during the time since the last book or during the timeline of the
chapters of the preceding book. Never do they take place during the
timeline of the numbered chapters of the same book. In fact, it seems
that this is precisely why they would be called _prologues_, as opposed
to the numbered chapters. You might try to argue that RJ has decided to
violate the rule and made an exception in this particular case. Myself,
I think that the probability of it is infinitesimal.
--
Jean
Christopher Tong
David Chapman wrote:
>
> "Christopher Tong" <ct...@polbox.com> wrote in message
> news:3A2C8F6A...@polbox.com...
<Don't know how two nasty sides can be good/evil>
> I'm going to point you now at Harry Turtledove's Worldwar and
> Colonisation novels. The basic plot: it's 1942, WWII is in full swing -
> and at that point, an alien fleet arrives to conquer the world. They're
> well worth reading, and there are both sympathetic and evil characters
> on all sides.
Thanks for the recommendations.
Chris
Christopher Tong
Matt Peck wrote:
> In article <3A2C8F6A...@polbox.com>,
> Christopher Tong <ct...@polbox.com> wrote:
> > "John S. Novak, III" wrote:
<snip>
> > > So who says they have to be equally skilled and equally sized?
> > > And who says the good guys have to be Nice?
> > If nobody's nice, why bother calling the two sides good and evil? Why
> > not call them something else? (I personally favour Us and Them).
> > Although I doubt the reader could empathize with either side in that
> > case...
> I think that almost everybody would agree that America was the "good
> guys" in World War II. Yet America is the _only_ nation in the world
> to use atomic bombs of any sort within the context of war, that is,
> against another nation. Was it nice? No. Did it win the war for us?
> Most would agree that it did.
My impression was that the atom bomb was used because the alternative
was fighting a land war in Asia - more specifically in Japan where nigh
onto every man, woman and child was determined to take out as Americans
as they could before they went down. With the advent of the atom bomb,
the ratio of American casualties to Japanese casualties went down to
zero, so they surrendered. The alternative was _worse_.
The bomb was a deterrent. Note that they did not use it on Tokyo
immediately, which they could very well have done. My personal opinion
was that the atom bomb was one of the less evil ways the Americans could
have ended that part of the war. Many, many Japanese would disagree with
me strenuously on that.
> But even aside from that, we bombed the living crap out of both German
> and Japanese industry. Thousands of (innocent) civilians died in these
> attacks. Nice? Whatever. Does that make us the bad guys?
I think that's an oversimplification. There's nasty and there's Nasty.
Keeping within certain bounds is supposed to be what separates the good
guys from the bad in a situation of war. That's why there are such
things as "war crimes tribunals". If both sides commit atrocities
neither side really is "good" then is it? Cases in point: Somalia,
Northern Ireland, Sri Lanka, India-Pakistan.
Chris
Amy Gray
mhac...@princeton.edu says...
> From the book of Amy Gray:
[Harry Turtledove]
> > I've never read anything that was exclusively by him, but a couple of
> > weeks ago I picked up a stripped copy of _Household Gods,_ cowritten by
> > him and Judith Tarr. It was very likely the worst thing I've ever read
> > all the way through. I would have stopped after my obligatory hundred
> > pages, but I was seized by some bizarre masochistic impulse to finish
> > the thing. I thoroughly despised the main character.
>
> I read the back cover of _Household Gods_ and decided to put it aside
> against a time when I'd read everything else on my list--I like
> alternate history, but I don't like the "I don't think we're in Kansas
> anymore...we're in Ancient Rome" variant...at least not when the Dorothy
> figure is the protagonist.
Yeah. It sucked. Read it if you must, but be prepared to hurl it
across the room.
> > I'd been meaning to read Turtledove, based on various recommendations,
> > and since this one was free, I thought I'd give it a try. Is it in any
> > way representative of his work, or was it Tarr's influence that made me
> > hate it? I liked Judith Tarr when I was much younger, but then I think
> > I would have liked this book had I read it at the age of 12 or so, too.
> > My real question is, should I try something else by Turtledove alone?
>
> Yes. It's not fantasy, however[1]--although the books are fun, there is
> a serious historical bent that makes them more enjoyable
That's why I thought I'd like him, since I enjoy reading historical
fiction, even when it's not (quite) real history. I'll read one of the
ones you recommended as soon as the scars from _Household Gods_ fade.
Douglas Coulter
John Johnson wrote:
> "
> > Matthew Hackell <mhac...@princeton.edu> wrote in message
>
> <snip>
>
> > > Yes, this is Demandred's perfectly valid motive for having Rand killed.
> > > But that wasn't my question. Why would he hide his face--Slayer would
> > > have taken his orders if he saw Demandred. Not so with Taim, hence the
> > > disguise.
> > >
> > > Repeat: Why would Demandred disguise himself?
> >
> > I'll simplify: Demandred wouldn't want Moridin to know he's subverting
> > Slayer.
>
> Why does it matter who Slayer's hired out to? From his POV it's clear that
> he's a contract killer, and has had his services used by other clients.
> There is absolutely no indication that Moridin is his sole client, and
> Demandred would know this.
>
> --
> John Johnson
For what its worth, Sammel would have ample reason to disguise himself too,
and to want to kill Rand. Demandred isn't the only candidate for the
forsaken in disguise. Hes just the leading candidate, mostly because we know
he is still alive.
Doug
Matthew Hackell
>
> > From the book of Fairfax Sheild McCandlish IV:
> > >
> >
> > [The question of Slayer's patron]
> >
> > >
> > > I'll simplify: Demandred wouldn't want Moridin to know he's
> subverting
> > > Slayer.
> >
> > receiving orders from this person. Either he has no job from Moridin at
> > the moment, or he's quite used to having simultaneous contracts.
>
> Moridin wonders if Slayer will manage to kill the other vermin, Fain. He
> doesn't wonder if he should tell Slayer to kill Fain. And then after Slayer
> fails to kill Rand and Min, he doesn't go back to his previous job, he goes
> and does something else entirely. I find that rather odd. His orders from
> Moridin seem to have been nixed by his new "contractor".
Slayer isn't the most stable guy in the world. Maybe he doesn't know
where Fain is, so he takes a wolf-slaying break until someone tells him.
Maia
>
> "John S. Novak, III" wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > >assumption, the good guys simply cannot win, not even if it takes
> > >generations. It's like matching up two equally skilled and
> > >equally sized wrestlers--one who is blindfolded, and the other
> > >with an Uzi in each hand.
If the "good guys" are defending themselves against aggression, they
could prevail nevetheless, history shows us as much. Apparently,
defence of one's own land taps into hitherto unknown reservoirs. And
rank-and-file agressor "knows" that he is wrong and isn't ready to
sacrifice as much as the defender. You do need capable and
charismatic leader(s), and mountains and/or severe weather conditions
help, but it can and has been done ;).
> > So who says they have to be equally skilled and equally sized?
> > And who says the good guys have to be Nice?
>
> If nobody's nice, why bother calling the two sides good and evil? Why
> not call them something else? (I personally favour Us and Them).
> Although I doubt the reader could empathize with either side in that
> case...
People manage to empathize with such exteremely contraversial figures
as Alexander the Great, Caesar, Richard Lionheart, Napoleon, etc. for
centuries and millenia. Neither of those guys was what you'd call
"nice" (in fact none of historical great rulers and leaders was that)
yet people certainly enjoyed and enjoy reading about them as literary
characters. I don't see why they wouldn't want to read about a
skillfully written fantasy character of similar disposition.
Maia
>
> "John S. Novak, III" <j...@concentric.net> wrote in message
> news:slrn92hks...@ts016d10.chi-il.concentric.net...
>
> > I swear to Christ, if it takes me fifty years, I will write an epic
> > fantasy where the bad guys are all, each and every one of them,
> > ruthlessly intelligent and inter-cooperative. And their first rule
> > will be, "The Prophesied One is more important than our internal
> power
> > struggles. First we will try to kill him. Then we will settle our
> > rivalries."
>
> Unfortunately those two things aren't necessarily compatible. What
> individual nearly consumed by their own self-interest (which likely
> describes a significant majority of those along the 'naughty' side of
> the bell curve) can resist the opportunity to try and take out a rival
> in an opportune moment?
Then why does it work in RL? Not always, I'll grant you and murderuous
intrigues are a concern, but it did and does work in many cases. Of
course, it does require that one of the baddies make himself a boss
and keep the others in line. It is a pure fantasy cliche that it can't
work and effectively at that. History teaches us better, though.
Another fantasy cliche is that the "good guys" are immune to jealousy
themselves...
> Shucks, this is prolly more true in the WOT where the baddies
> (especially early in the series) tended to think of themselves as
> demigods who could deal with anything the current world populace could
> throw at them, but in almost any situation in which I could imagine
> myself as a 'criminal mastermind' the temptation to rub out a few
> competitors on the way to killing the White Knight would be tough to
> eschew.
Yes, but N'aeblis worthy of his title should be able to control them
and play on their jealousies and ambitions to make them more
effective, not less.
> First and foremost, bad people are BAD. They've already sullied their
> honor in one or a hundred different ways, so a "Let's work together'
> mantra isn't worth the posterboard it's printed on... especially to
> other people who are as bad as them and realize this.
Well, as I pointed above, it is universally true for fantasy and SF
only ;). RL baddies do work together in one way or other. Those
completely unable to cooperate either don't amount to anything much or
get snuffed pretty soon.
Maia
> >This will be very, very difficult for three main reasons.
>
> >1) Assuming that the bad guys are as competant and intelligent
> >and organized as the good guys, but, being evil, are not bound by
> >conventions, rules, or common decency, gives the bad guys a
> >possibly insurmountable advantage.
>
> And you know what?
>
> SM Stirling has demonstrated that you _can_ write a series where the
> bad guys win, and have it sell. The Draka are all ruthlessly
> intelligent and inter-cooperative, and while it's a close thing, they
> actually manage to kick the Americans right off the planet in the
> third book. While it was close, they won an almost unconditional
> victory. If that's the only way to do it, then that's the way I'll do
> it.
Yay! Besides which I see 3 other possibilities:
1. Baddies win, but it is nothing like what they have forseen. Could
apply to works were baddies concentrate their efforts on some enormous
technological or magical undertaking. I really hoped that Williams
would take this route in his MS@T, but he chickened out instead ;).
2. Positive concequences of the conquest for the conquered - lifted
straight out of history ;).
3. Both sides have feasible reasons for what they do - it is just a
conflict of interest where blame can't be easily allocated.
>>With this as your core
>>assumption, the good guys simply cannot win, not even if it takes
>>generations.
Of course, in Arthurian mythos and all books based on it, the good
guys didn't win. In other myths fantasy borrows from, the good guys
also often fail. Ultimately and after heroic deeds, but still. I am
not sure whence the assumption that the good guys _should_ reliably
win in any damned SF/fantasy book ;).
TSignus
>and to want to kill Rand. Demandred isn't the only candidate for the
>forsaken in disguise. Hes just the leading candidate, mostly because we know
>he is still alive.
Sammael would have a reason to hide himself if it wasn't for the fact that he
was dead...
-TS
David Chapman
> [1] He has one other series that I am aware of, whose title escapes
me.
> This one is the story of a World War in a fantasy world. I've only
read
> the first book (of two so far) and I don't think he has the same knack
> for it as he does for alternate history, but it isn't bad.
You're not thinking of the Videssos Cycle, are you? If so, you've
managed to bring the thread around full circle; the villains in that are
pretty clever and don't fuck around.
Adam Benedict Canning
More so if he is dead and still walking around. Slayer does have some
predudices against Grey Men for example.
Adam
Matthew Hackell
> news:MPG.14971a9bb...@news.princeton.edu...
>
> > [1] He has one other series that I am aware of, whose title escapes
> me.
> > This one is the story of a World War in a fantasy world. I've only
> read
> > the first book (of two so far) and I don't think he has the same knack
> > for it as he does for alternate history, but it isn't bad.
>
> You're not thinking of the Videssos Cycle, are you? If so, you've
> managed to bring the thread around full circle; the villains in that are
> pretty clever and don't fuck around.
I haven't read Videssos yet. No, I'm thinking about the one where a
world with magic-based armies that resemble allegories of WWII more than
any true fantasy world. Dragons for air power, behemoths for tanks,
etc...I can't remember the name, though.
Courtenay Footman
Matthew Hackell wrote:
>> "Matthew Hackell" <mhac...@princeton.edu> wrote in message
>> news:MPG.14971a9bb...@news.princeton.edu...
>>
>> > [1] He has one other series that I am aware of, whose title escapes
>> me.
>> > This one is the story of a World War in a fantasy world.
>
>I haven't read Videssos yet. No, I'm thinking about the one where a
>world with magic-based armies that resemble allegories of WWII more than
>any true fantasy world. Dragons for air power, behemoths for tanks,
>etc...I can't remember the name, though.
There is no reason to. Turtledove recreates the history of WW II,
leaving out all the ideology that drove various nations to make the
decisions they made.
--
Courtenay Footman I have again gotten back on the net, and
c...@lightlink.com again I will never get anything done.
(All mail from non-valid addresses is automatically deleted by my system.)
John S. Novak, III
>There is no reason to. Turtledove recreates the history of WW II,
>leaving out all the ideology that drove various nations to make the
>decisions they made.
So you're saying it's basically just as horrid as it looks on the
cover? Turtledove started sucking as soon as he hit it big.
--
John S. Novak, III j...@concentric.net
The Humblest Man on the Net
Matthew Hackell
> In article <MPG.14981cb1c...@news.princeton.edu>,
> Matthew Hackell wrote:
> >> "Matthew Hackell" <mhac...@princeton.edu> wrote in message
> >> news:MPG.14971a9bb...@news.princeton.edu...
> >>
> >> > [1] He has one other series that I am aware of, whose title escapes
> >> me.
> >> > This one is the story of a World War in a fantasy world.
> >
> [snip]
> >I haven't read Videssos yet. No, I'm thinking about the one where a
> >world with magic-based armies that resemble allegories of WWII more than
> >any true fantasy world. Dragons for air power, behemoths for tanks,
> >etc...I can't remember the name, though.
>
> There is no reason to. Turtledove recreates the history of WW II,
> leaving out all the ideology that drove various nations to make the
> decisions they made.
I don't think so. The weaponry was similar to WWII, I think (I don't
really remember), but the political allegory was more like World War I,
which was a war nobody intended to fight, started in a small,
meaningless country, and a war without ideology. I'll read it when I've
caught up with everything else, not before. But I'm pretty sure it makes
more sense as a WWI analogy.
Matthew Hackell
> On 7 Dec 2000 00:57:48 -0500, Courtenay Footman <c...@adore.lightlink.com> wrote:
>
> >There is no reason to. Turtledove recreates the history of WW II,
> >leaving out all the ideology that drove various nations to make the
> >decisions they made.
>
> So you're saying it's basically just as horrid as it looks on the
> cover? Turtledove started sucking as soon as he hit it big.
Not quite. Almost, perhaps. But it's the exception, not the rule, and
for that reason I'm willing to give it a second chance (hell, I'm about
to give Dune a third).
Fairfax Sheild McCandlish IV
> From the book of Fairfax Sheild McCandlish IV:
> >
> > > From the book of Fairfax Sheild McCandlish IV:
> > > >
> > >
> > > [The question of Slayer's patron]
> > >
> > > > > Repeat: Why would Demandred disguise himself?
> > > >
> > > > I'll simplify: Demandred wouldn't want Moridin to know he's
> > subverting
> > > > Slayer.
> > >
> > > I'll refute: Slayer doesn't seem to think it at all odd that he is
> > > receiving orders from this person. Either he has no job from Moridin
at
> > > the moment, or he's quite used to having simultaneous contracts.
> >
> > Moridin wonders if Slayer will manage to kill the other vermin,
Fain. He
> > doesn't wonder if he should tell Slayer to kill Fain. And then after
Slayer
> > fails to kill Rand and Min, he doesn't go back to his previous job, he
goes
> > and does something else entirely. I find that rather odd. His orders
from
> > Moridin seem to have been nixed by his new "contractor".
>
> Slayer isn't the most stable guy in the world. Maybe he doesn't know
> where Fain is, so he takes a wolf-slaying break until someone tells him.
>
wildcard like Fain around.. Rand leaves clues for people to find him, but
nobody realizes that Fain might be one of the people to go after him.
Fain could've just followed his Rand-sense, of course. It's a shame that
Ishy didn't give that ability to anybody else, eh?