Brisbane signing, better late than never!
Willum
will probably reiterate much of what Joel Gilmore said, but I may
recall something he missed. If I can get a copy of the full transcript,
I will try and post a copy up on a webpage.
Firstly, RJ explained that if person A were to balefire person B, and
person C was to balefire person A, if that balefire was strong enough,
person B would never have been balefired. This seems like common sense.
I asked about what happens to, and were the souls of the Forsaken go
between being killed and resurrected by the DO, and RJ was evasive,
saying that he wasn't going to go that deeply into the theology of the
WoT with us (at the signing, or the whole series?). All he would say is
that the transition from death to resurrection is almost instantaneous.
RJ confirmed that a WoT (or, more correctly, an EoTW) miniseries has
been signed, and the creator of the Merlin miniseries is at the helm,
but there are no other details as of yet.
RJ confirmed that Ishy's strange gateway at the start of TEoTW was due
to his use of the True Power. There is a collectible WoT card game,
ala "Magic: The Gathering" on the way. He considers all proper
approaches for WoT merchandise, mainly because he enjoys playing around
with it. This means that there may be WoT jewellry and the like in the
future, if the right people approach RJ about it.
He listed his favourite 7 authors (Joel Gilmore has all of them on his
tape) but all I can remember at the moment are Twain and Dickens. RJ is
a writeaholic when he gets going, and often skips lunch and writes all
day. He enjoys writing in his garden, and this keeps him away from
Harriet when he is in writing mode.
I had my 1990 Tor hardback version of TEoTW signed, but I was
chargrined to realise that other people were getting two or three books
signed. Oh well.
Finally, I would like to say that RJ seemed like a very polite and
patient man, who was generous with his time. We probably annoyed the
hell out of him asking him questions after the talk, and even though
half the answers were RAFO, he made an attempt to answer each sensible
one.
Harriet sat next to him during the signing, and seemed to me to be a
very polite and forthcoming person. I can believe she is the model for
the better qualities in RJ's female characters, but I had no inkling of
the darker ones, but it was clear that in many matters RJ defers to her
and respects her judgement.
RJ and Harriet had just returned from New Zealand (RJ had been fishing)
and their shcedule seemed pretty hectic. Next stop for them was Lizard
Island, and I assured Harriet that they would have the time of their
lives there.
Apart from the drunk idiot sitting a couple of seats down from Joel and
I during RJ's talk, everything went very well and I think everyone had
a very good evening.
--
Willum,
wjc...@corplink.com.au
"Fiat justitia et ruant coeli."- William Watson 1602 A.D
http://members.xoom.com/greatsword/index.htm
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Daniel P. Baye
>
> RJ confirmed that a WoT (or, more correctly, an EoTW) miniseries has
> been signed, and the creator of the Merlin miniseries is at the helm,
> but there are no other details as of yet.
>
These words leave me filled with a sense of terrible dread and
anticipation...
Daniel Baye
po...@home.com
Matt Fletcher
[snip]
> Firstly, RJ explained that if person A were to balefire person B, and
> person C was to balefire person A, if that balefire was strong enough,
> person B would never have been balefired. This seems like common sense.
>
Consider the simpler case A balefires B. Note that once A balefires B,
B is no longer there, so A does not balefire B, so B is there, so A
balefires B.... I.e. balefire is now internally paradoxical. Also,
this means that RJ hasn't fully thought through all the ramifications of
balefire, so there is no way to predict what will happen when someone is
balefired, because RJ is just sort of winging it.
> I asked about what happens to, and were the souls of the Forsaken go
> between being killed and resurrected by the DO, and RJ was evasive,
> saying that he wasn't going to go that deeply into the theology of the
> WoT with us (at the signing, or the whole series?). All he would say is
> that the transition from death to resurrection is almost instantaneous.
[snip]
Joel said that RJ said the Forsaken were resurrected shortly after their
deaths. Some have argued that this means that a vacuole was needed to
store the *gars after resurrection (they didn't appear until LoC, but
from what Joel seemed to be saying, should have been resurrected back in
the time between EotW and tGH). Are you saying that RJ actually only
said that the transition was short, leaving open the possibility that
the period while dead could be longer (or were there two similar
conversations of which each of you is reporting one). TIA.
--
Fletch
Jean D
>
> I asked about what happens to, and were the souls of the Forsaken go
> between being killed and resurrected by the DO, and RJ was evasive,
> saying that he wasn't going to go that deeply into the theology of the
> WoT with us (at the signing, or the whole series?).
I think - and hope - he means the series. After all, the guy is writing
a fantasy series, he's trying to advance the plot and, although he's
prepared to explore some elements a little further, he's certainly not
interested in writing a bible or in defining a whole cosmological system
that would explore in depth every little detail from the WoT universe.
That would take his whole life, would probably be extremely boring and
would be beside the point of writing the series.
> All he would say is
> that the transition from death to resurrection is almost instantaneous.
Now, _this_ is very interesting and answers some questions. I assume it
means that if we don't see the Forsaken reappear immediately in the
story after their deaths, it is not because there's a waiting period
necessary between the death and the reincarnation or because the DO
can't reincarnate them immediately, but it is only because we don't see
them onstage, although they are already reincarnated and they are there
somewhere.
--
Jean
Nu Killer Bee
Matt Fletcher <fle...@pittsburgh.crosswinds.net> wrote in message
news:37EEFA2A...@pittsburgh.crosswinds.net...
> Willum wrote:
> [snip]
> > Firstly, RJ explained that if person A were to balefire person B, and
> > person C was to balefire person A, if that balefire was strong enough,
> > person B would never have been balefired. This seems like common sense.
> >
> This may seem like common sense, but frankly, it just doesn't work.
> Consider the simpler case A balefires B. Note that once A balefires B,
> B is no longer there, so A does not balefire B, so B is there, so A
> balefires B.... I.e. balefire is now internally paradoxical. Also,
> this means that RJ hasn't fully thought through all the ramifications of
> balefire, so there is no way to predict what will happen when someone is
> balefired, because RJ is just sort of winging it.
>
You are probaly right on this one, that RJ is making things up as he
goes along. But all true magic (by that I mean not illusion magic)
are basically illogical/paradoxical. Hell, the word true magic is an
oxymoron.
--
Nu Killer Bee
"There is no salvation without destruction, no hope this side of death."
Joel Gilmore
Matt Fletcher wrote:
> Willum wrote:
> [snip]
> > Firstly, RJ explained that if person A were to balefire person B, and
> > person C was to balefire person A, if that balefire was strong enough,
> > person B would never have been balefired. This seems like common sense.
> >
> This may seem like common sense, but frankly, it just doesn't work.
> Consider the simpler case A balefires B. Note that once A balefires B,
> B is no longer there, so A does not balefire B, so B is there, so A
> balefires B.... I.e. balefire is now internally paradoxical. Also,
> this means that RJ hasn't fully thought through all the ramifications of
> balefire, so there is no way to predict what will happen when someone is
> balefired, because RJ is just sort of winging it.
>
It makes sense to me.
Because the _memories_ are there, everyone remembers A balefiring B. In
actual fact A didn't, because B wasn't there. He had no need to balefire B,
because B didn't exist at this point. You've got to think about it from a
third person/god perspective. B is just not there. We don't have to worry
about A not balefiring him because he's not there, so he comes back. That
situation _never happened_! They just remember it as happening.
Now consider when C balefires A (far enough back). A is gone, so he never
balefired B. Thus B is back. C never balefired A, because A doesn't exist.
Thus we don't have to worry about the paradox above. B didn't come back
alive, or back from balefire or anything, because he was NEVER balefired.
As RJ said "I know, it's difficult"
Joel Gilmore
Matt Fletcher wrote:
> I asked about what happens to, and were the souls of the Forsaken go
> > between being killed and resurrected by the DO, and RJ was evasive,
> > saying that he wasn't going to go that deeply into the theology of the
> > WoT with us (at the signing, or the whole series?). All he would say is
> > that the transition from death to resurrection is almost instantaneous.
> [snip]
> Joel said that RJ said the Forsaken were resurrected shortly after their
> deaths. Some have argued that this means that a vacuole was needed to
> store the *gars after resurrection (they didn't appear until LoC, but
> from what Joel seemed to be saying, should have been resurrected back in
> the time between EotW and tGH). Are you saying that RJ actually only
> said that the transition was short, leaving open the possibility that
> the period while dead could be longer (or were there two similar
> conversations of which each of you is reporting one). TIA.
>
> --
> Fletch
"The rebirth is pretty much hard on the heels of the death. Not ching-ching,
but close"
That was his quote, which I took to mean that they are reborn pretty much
straight after death.
Joel.
Donald Lowe
Matt Fletcher <fle...@pittsburgh.crosswinds.net> wrote:
>Willum wrote:
>[snip]
>> Firstly, RJ explained that if person A were to balefire person B, and
>> person C was to balefire person A, if that balefire was strong enough,
>> person B would never have been balefired. This seems like common sense.
>>
>This may seem like common sense, but frankly, it just doesn't work.
>Consider the simpler case A balefires B. Note that once A balefires B,
>B is no longer there, so A does not balefire B, so B is there, so A
>balefires B.... I.e. balefire is now internally paradoxical. Also,
>this means that RJ hasn't fully thought through all the ramifications of
>balefire, so there is no way to predict what will happen when someone is
>balefired, because RJ is just sort of winging it.
Well actually, in a question I put to him, balefire appears to be one of the
first ideas he considered in the development of the world. Also, being
reasonably meticulous in his "world creation", and a physicist to boot, I
would guess that he has thought about it and isn't just "winging it".
Paraphrasing, he said that once he considered existence to be a pattern on a
loom, he then considered the idea of having threads burnt away (backwards).
Although I didn't ask specifically about this scenario, as far as I can work
out, the paradox can be (mostly) avoided by considering that the universe is
not simply a single reality, but instead an infinite number of parallel
realities.
In answer to your specific paradox:
1) Consider that A and B both exist. This is called Universe 1.
2) A balefires B back to a certain time. Its as if B hasn't existed since that
time.
3) Therefore, reality develops in a different way. This is called Universe 2.
The question is "What happens to A?"
My speculative answer to this is that A transfers his existence to Universe 2,
at the same moment in time he balefired B in Universe 1. This is deduced from
the fact that A's memory is of Universe 1 only, but other observer's have
definite memory's of Universe 2 and only "ghost" memories of Universe 1. It
also means, that A doesn't exist in Universe 2 until he has stopped balefiring
B in Universe 1. (Otherwise this would be a quick way to make a twin of
yourself :-) ).
I think this avoids your paradox.
However, the complicating factor is the question "What should an outside
observer C, who was there to witness the balefiring, see and remember?"
Under this explanation, I _think_ you expect them to remember vividly watching
A and B, and then A and B wink out of existence (because they are both in
Universe 1 but C is now in Universe 2), followed by the reappearance of A
(when he enters Universe 2). They should then also have ghost memories of the
balefiring incident and other things that happened to them in Universe 1.
Unfortunately, this doesn't appear to happen when Nyn and Moggy watch Rand and
Rahvin. This _might_ be explained away by the strange effects of T'A'R' and
the permanancy of balefire on the memory, but they're admittedly fairly flimsy
excuses. So OK ... this theory isn't perfect, but it does avoid the basic
paradox.
Apologies if I am stealing someone else's thunder. Any comments?
cheers
Don
Taren
Donald Lowe <donal...@DUMMY.tip.csiro.au> wrote in message
news:7ts5jv$17m...@its.csiro.au...
> In article <37EEFA2A...@pittsburgh.crosswinds.net>,
> Matt Fletcher <fle...@pittsburgh.crosswinds.net> wrote:
> >Willum wrote:
I would think that the Relevant bit's (people involved actions taken) would
be copied from a Reality where the balefired individual had died days
before, and pasted over the the current universe, thus creating your
Universe 2. This would also prevent the twin Paradox ;-) The ghost
memories could be because the pasting of the weave is not perfect, and some
part of the origional pattern remains.
> I think this avoids your paradox.
>
> However, the complicating factor is the question "What should an outside
> observer C, who was there to witness the balefiring, see and remember?"
>
> Under this explanation, I _think_ you expect them to remember vividly
watching
> A and B, and then A and B wink out of existence (because they are both in
> Universe 1 but C is now in Universe 2), followed by the reappearance of A
> (when he enters Universe 2). They should then also have ghost memories of
the
> balefiring incident and other things that happened to them in Universe 1.
If you stepped out of Universe 1 (say to T'A'R') before the balefire
incident, and stepped back after, the copy paste effect would not effect
you. This would explain why Moggy and Nyn could watch and remember the
balefire.
> Apologies if I am stealing someone else's thunder. Any comments?
I like the Alternate Universe theory, it meshes well with what we have seen
in the books (ways,T'A'R', Traveling Stones).
All this has probably been mentioned before, but it's just my two cents.
Taren
"It ain't over till it's over, and sometimes not even then"
Stickerboy
Taren <rhet...@sk.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:mizM3.373$ElT.10...@tomcat.sk.sympatico.ca...
Once something is balefired, it no longer exists, no matter who or what else
is balefired. As Moiraine explains it, threads touched by balefire are
burned from the existence of the Pattern. If person A balefires person B,
and person C then balefires person A even further back, then both persons A
and B are gone, permanently. Person A would have been balefired, while
person C would simply cease to exist at a certain point in time - the effect
of balefire, without an observable cause, since person A was balefired to a
time before he balefired person B.
To sum it up, balefire's effect is not dependent on the balefire actually
getting there, once it has occurred. If Aviendha and Mat had been hit by
bolts of balefire instead of lightning in tFoH, it wouldn't have mattered
how strongly Rand had balefired Rahvin - they'd still be gone.
HTH.
Jason Lee
Willum
Stickerboy <jc...@ou.edu> wrote in message
news:JcCM3.494$m4.1...@news.ou.edu...
>
> Taren <rhet...@sk.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> news:mizM3.373$ElT.10...@tomcat.sk.sympatico.ca...
> >
> > Donald Lowe <donal...@DUMMY.tip.csiro.au> wrote in message
> > news:7ts5jv$17m...@its.csiro.au...
> > > In article <37EEFA2A...@pittsburgh.crosswinds.net>,
> > > Matt Fletcher <fle...@pittsburgh.crosswinds.net> wrote:
> > > >Willum wrote:
<Balefire>
> Once something is balefired, it no longer exists, no matter who or what
else
> is balefired. As Moiraine explains it, threads touched by balefire are
> burned from the existence of the Pattern. If person A balefires person
B,
> and person C then balefires person A even further back, then both persons
A
> and B are gone, permanently. Person A would have been balefired, while
> person C would simply cease to exist at a certain point in time - the
effect
> of balefire, without an observable cause, since person A was balefired to
a
> time before he balefired person B.
Err, No. If you go back and reread my initial post, you will see that this
question was put to RJ (by Joel infact) at the Brisbane signing we attended
and RJ said, in plain unambivalent English, that person B would never have
been balefired, because person A has been balefired (providing the balefire
erases enough of the pattern) and thus his actions have been deleted.
Person B cannot have been erased, because if A is balefired he could never
have balefired B in the first place.
Don't think of C's balefire as erasing A's balefire. That is wrong.
Balefire does not undo balefire, but in this case if person A is balefired
then person B was never balefired in the first place.
HTH.
--
Willum,
"One who is a Samurai must, before all things, keep constantly in mind, by
day and by night, the fact that he has to die."
- Daidoji Yuzan -16th C.
http://members.xoom.com/greatsword/index.htm
St. Chucky the Chunderous
wrote:
>Err, No. If you go back and reread my initial post, you will see that this
>question was put to RJ (by Joel infact) at the Brisbane signing we attended
>and RJ said, in plain unambivalent English, that person B would never have
>been balefired, because person A has been balefired (providing the balefire
>erases enough of the pattern) and thus his actions have been deleted.
>Person B cannot have been erased, because if A is balefired he could never
>have balefired B in the first place.
>
>Don't think of C's balefire as erasing A's balefire. That is wrong.
>Balefire does not undo balefire, but in this case if person A is balefired
>then person B was never balefired in the first place.
How does this relate to Forsaken that have been balefired being unable
to be revived and put into new bodies by the Dark One? If He wanted
to, couldn't the Dark One send out some Channeler with a sa'angreal
and balefire Moiraine or Nynaeve, to bring back somebody who has been
balefired? This would be easier than putting them into new bodies,
wouldn't it?
I thought the thing about balefire was that once someone has been
balefired, they are permanently dead - unable to be brought back no
matter what. I guess when another instance of balefire comes into the
equation, all bets are off.
St. Chuck
--
"Expecting kindness is futile." The CMM Collective.
"Lungfish are Irrelevent." 13 of 12, the CMM Collective.
To read my whole signature (and from there, my homepage),
go here - http://www.omen.net.au/~hatboy/signature.htm
Carlton Jenke
> On Tue, 12 Oct 1999 20:05:37 +1000, "Willum" <wjc...@corplink.com.au>
> wrote:
>
> >Don't think of C's balefire as erasing A's balefire. That is wrong.
> >Balefire does not undo balefire, but in this case if person A is balefired
> >then person B was never balefired in the first place.
>
> How does this relate to Forsaken that have been balefired being unable
> to be revived and put into new bodies by the Dark One? If He wanted
> to, couldn't the Dark One send out some Channeler with a sa'angreal
> and balefire Moiraine or Nynaeve, to bring back somebody who has been
> balefired? This would be easier than putting them into new bodies,
> wouldn't it?
>
> I thought the thing about balefire was that once someone has been
> balefired, they are permanently dead - unable to be brought back no
> matter what. I guess when another instance of balefire comes into the
> equation, all bets are off.
>
> St. Chuck
Chuck, stop it!! Here I was, all ready to ignore your posts due to
ones that I prefer not to read, and then you have to go and pull out a
normal post, that is thought out and brings up a valid objection to
someone's theory. ARGH!! Now I guess I have to keep reading you.
And by the way, you are right above. Willum was wrong about the
balefire erasing the previous balefire. Logically it would seem like
it would work that way, but supposedly RJ has said at a signing that
it doesn't.
Oh wait, aren't you one of those who won't accept "RJ said at a
signing" as evidence?
Well, maybe this will help: once a thread has been burned backwards
(by balefire of course), the thread can not regrow. So even if A (the
first balefirer) gets balefired by C past the point when they
balefired B, B's thread cannot regrow, so even if the first balfire
incident gets erased, the thread will still stop at the same place.
Illistration: (not that you need it, I just felt like drawing a graph
of it)
Original Threads of A & B:
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
(both exist in present)
A Balefires B:
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
(B's thread burned back)
C Balefires A:
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
(A's thread burned back, and B's thread unable to regrow)
So as I said above, even if the original point of A balefiring B gets
erased, B's thread will not regrow, leaving it at the burned back
spot.
And as far as the DO being unable to reach them and rebody them, well
that just shows that their essence (soul or whatever) is so far
removed it can not be pulled back. That may be why the thread is
unable to regrow too.
--
Carlton
YNYBRTMRJW ... You actually start to notice
what dress your woman is wearing. - Catbert the Evil
Fredrik Fischer
> hat...@omen.net.au pondered...
> > On Tue, 12 Oct 1999 20:05:37 +1000, "Willum" <wjc...@corplink.com.au>
> > wrote:
(snippety)
> And by the way, you are right above. Willum was wrong about the
> balefire erasing the previous balefire. Logically it would seem like
> it would work that way, but supposedly RJ has said at a signing that
> it doesn't.
Well, since we don't konw if balefire works that way, and RJ hasn't said
anything about this particular matter (at least not AFAIK), we could
assume that we are, for once, right. This leads us to the interesting
speculation as to how far back a person could possibly balefire somebody
else's thread in the Pattern. We know from Rand's and Rahvin's little
tussle in TFOH that Rand, when jamming all the OP he could draw using his
little stone man angreal, balefired Rahvin between fifteen minutes and
half an hour back in time -- there is no more precise specification -- it
could be as little as ten to thirteen minutes, though that doesn't really
matter.
Now, we know that those hyper-sa'angreal in Tremondsien and at Tremalking
are the most effective ones ever created. However, I suppose not even
Rand, even if he were aided by the Tremondsien sa'angreal, could balefire
anyone further back than perhaps one day, and that's quite much, too.
And by the way, has anyone thought of the consequences of balefiring
someone who has been balefired earlier back into time? That would
technically mean that the Pattern had to re-create itself from the moment
that the person was balefired, e.g. if Moiraine was balefired back to the
time when she balefired Bel'al, Bel'al would appear fencing Rand in the
Stone of Tear. He would be very, very lost. That is, if this is even
possible. The thread is burnt by the balefire, so one could really wonder
whether it is possible to go on with it.
> Oh wait, aren't you one of those who won't accept "RJ said at a
> signing" as evidence?
I don't know anything about Chuck, but _I_ accept whatever comes over RJ's
lips about TWOT as canon, since he's the darn Creator behind the whole
thing.
> Well, maybe this will help: once a thread has been burned backwards
> (by balefire of course), the thread can not regrow. So even if A (the
> first balefirer) gets balefired by C past the point when they
> balefired B, B's thread cannot regrow, so even if the first balfire
> incident gets erased, the thread will still stop at the same place.
I notice here that one should always read the complete posting one
comments before one comments it...
--
Fredrik Fischer
St. Chucky the Chunderous
<fis...@tripnet.se> wrote:
>Well, since we don't konw if balefire works that way, and RJ hasn't said
>anything about this particular matter (at least not AFAIK), we could
>assume that we are, for once, right. This leads us to the interesting
>speculation as to how far back a person could possibly balefire somebody
>else's thread in the Pattern. We know from Rand's and Rahvin's little
>tussle in TFOH that Rand, when jamming all the OP he could draw using his
>little stone man angreal, balefired Rahvin between fifteen minutes and
>half an hour back in time -- there is no more precise specification -- it
>could be as little as ten to thirteen minutes, though that doesn't really
>matter.
Haven't you ever heard the phrase, "I'm gonna pound you all the way
back to the Stone Age." ?
Well, this is the source. Myth becomes forgotten, and all that.....
>And by the way, has anyone thought of the consequences of balefiring
>someone who has been balefired earlier back into time?
What????? Balefire makes a person disappear. There is no body to
balefire, and the world does not go back to the point where (say
fifteen minutes when Rand balefired Rahvin) the person's thread got
burned back to. They start from when the balefire was fired, and the
people remember what happened since as foggy images......
>That would technically mean that the Pattern had to re-create itself from the moment
>that the person was balefired, e.g. if Moiraine was balefired back to the
>time when she balefired Bel'al, Bel'al would appear fencing Rand in the
>Stone of Tear. He would be very, very lost. That is, if this is even
>possible. The thread is burnt by the balefire, so one could really wonder
>whether it is possible to go on with it.
Ah, I see. You have re-worded the original question - what if person A
balefires person B and is then balefired by person C. In your example,
Moiraine = A, Be'lal = B and Mystery balefirer = C.
We've just finished establishing that this probably couldn't happen.
Were you listening?
>> Oh wait, aren't you one of those who won't accept "RJ said at a
>> signing" as evidence?
>
>I don't know anything about Chuck, but _I_ accept whatever comes over RJ's
>lips about TWOT as canon, since he's the darn Creator behind the whole
>thing.
That's not the question (I don't mean to start a debate, so I'll just
say this) - Carlton was saying I am not willing to accept SOMEBODY
ELSE saying that RJ said so at a signing.
Yes, I take RJ's word as gospel - he is the only person who knows
anything about WoT for sure. But I do not accept the word of someone
on a newsgroup who said RJ said so. That could just be made up. If I'm
at the signing or I see video footage of him saying it, that's
different. And I would be skeptical of the video footage too.
Clear?
>I notice here that one should always read the complete posting one
>comments before one comments it...
*chortles of glee*
Well look! We both learned the same lesson right here!
Cheers all.
St. Chucky the Chunderous
<carlto...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Chuck, stop it!! Here I was, all ready to ignore your posts due to
>ones that I prefer not to read, and then you have to go and pull out a
>normal post, that is thought out and brings up a valid objection to
>someone's theory. ARGH!! Now I guess I have to keep reading you.
Thanks Carlton, I do try. I could insert a lecture about the risks of
killfiling and missing out on occasional golden threads, but I'd
prefer to just let it drop. Cheers anyway.
>And by the way, you are right above. Willum was wrong about the
>balefire erasing the previous balefire. Logically it would seem like
>it would work that way, but supposedly RJ has said at a signing that
>it doesn't.
I don't know. One point says balefiring a balefirer brings back the
balefired who was balefired by the balefirer, but the second point
says balefire erases lives permanently, and this is backed up by a
couple of instances in the book. Until we actually see someone get
balefired after balefiring someone else, and see that balefired person
come back to life, I don't think we will actually know which balefire
theory RJ himself follows. Until then, we can paradox ourselves
merrily.
And I claim point for the paragraph with the word 'balefire' mentioned
the most times in it.
>Oh wait, aren't you one of those who won't accept "RJ said at a
>signing" as evidence?
I'd accept it if I was there. Or if I had video footage. Otherwise I
could tell you that I was at a signing, and RJ told the crowd that
Demandred was actually Osan'gar, who is none other than Ishamael
reborn, and that is a bit silly, isn't it?
>Well, maybe this will help: once a thread has been burned backwards
>(by balefire of course), the thread can not regrow. So even if A (the
>first balefirer) gets balefired by C past the point when they
>balefired B, B's thread cannot regrow, so even if the first balfire
>incident gets erased, the thread will still stop at the same place.
Agreed. I think that balefiring someone who killed somebody by
convential means will bring that dead person back, because their
thread is still sort of there, chopped but not cauterized. When
balefire meets balefire, it's more complex.
>Illistration: (not that you need it, I just felt like drawing a graph
>of it)
Sorry, I liked the idea of the graphs, can I have a go?
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC
A balefires B
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
BBBBBBBBBBBB
CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC
C balefires A
AAAAAAAA
BBBBBBBBBBBB
CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC
Super cool.
>So as I said above, even if the original point of A balefiring B gets
>erased, B's thread will not regrow, leaving it at the burned back
>spot.
Now the big question is, what happens to B in everybody's memories? Do
they just recall him/her flickering and vanishing? Or do they have
dreamlike memories (I dig the "Tel'aran'rhiod is connected to this"
idea) of the whole multiple-balefiring incident?
>And as far as the DO being unable to reach them and rebody them, well
>that just shows that their essence (soul or whatever) is so far
>removed it can not be pulled back. That may be why the thread is
>unable to regrow too.
This means that Rand will have to balefire every one of the Forsaken,
and that involves finding out exactly which people are Forsaken reborn
now as well. Otherwise the DO will keep bringing them back. Hmm, well,
this is old news. But a bit of a better explanation of why balefired
people can't be resurrected, I suppose.
Joel Gilmore
Willum wrote:
>
> Actually, I think I was right the first time. I think it was Joel's
> question, but I'm not certain now. I need to listen to the tape Joel made
> again.
>
> Peeve: not keeping notes on which of us asked what questions.
>
> Suffice it is to say though, that the question was asked and duly answered
> by RJ.
*grin*
It was me :)
And I'll try to get up off my fat, er, behind, and start putting that
transcript up this week...I hope!
Joel Gilmore
"St. Chucky the Chunderous" wrote:
> On Tue, 9 Nov 1999 09:03:18 -0600, Carlton Jenke
> <carlto...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> I don't know. One point says balefiring a balefirer brings back the
> balefired who was balefired by the balefirer, but the second point
> says balefire erases lives permanently, and this is backed up by a
> couple of instances in the book. Until we actually see someone get
> balefired after balefiring someone else, and see that balefired person
> come back to life, I don't think we will actually know which balefire
> theory RJ himself follows. Until then, we can paradox ourselves
> merrily.
>
Ok, lets clear this up, once and for all. Again. From Mr Jordan's recent
Brisbane signing, which large numbers of people went to see
Balefire DOES remove a persons thread from the pattern. Bang, whappo,
zam. They're gone, never to be seen again. The DO can't revive them,
that's it.
And, all the things they did before their thread got zapped, NEVER
happened. Not undone, not taken back, never happened.
So, person B balefires person A. Right? A's thread is burnt back, and
this should be the end of the story.
However, person C balefires person B. What happens now? B's thread gets
burnt back (and let's assume that B is burnt back ages...), and nothing he
did in the last x minutes happened! He didn't sneeze, cough, fart. Or
balefire.
Therefore A wasn't balefired. And he is now alive.
It wasn't that his thread was healed. His thread was never broken.
I went through this about three times with RJ just to make sure he
understood the question, and the distinction between A being balefired and
killed.
But he was very clear, and began speaking to me in much the same way I'm
speaking to you. Quote: "It's confusing, I know."
Does that clear it up, once and for all? Now, as for your paranoia...
> >Oh wait, aren't you one of those who won't accept "RJ said at a
> >signing" as evidence?
>
> I'd accept it if I was there. Or if I had video footage. Otherwise I
> could tell you that I was at a signing, and RJ told the crowd that
> Demandred was actually Osan'gar, who is none other than Ishamael
> reborn, and that is a bit silly, isn't it?
>
You could, but you'd have to be a sad, sad, person. And despite all the
evidence to the contrary, I am reasonably certain that that is not the
case.
Anyone could claim that, but it would be a waste of their time, our time,
and...someone elses time. I am a fan, both of the books and the newsgroup,
and I can think of no reason why I would bother to forge a hoax like
that. Willum has been here way longer than me, so you should at least
believe him.
And, if necessary, as Willum pointed out, I have a tape recording of the
incident, and if necessary I can send you an mp3 of it (if I an get it to
record right), and you can hear for yourself. By all means, take it to the
FBI - have them check the tape for forgeries, if you're desperate. Perhaps
they can prove that he did say that he would be theoretically finished in
May.
>
> >Well, maybe this will help: once a thread has been burned backwards
> >(by balefire of course), the thread can not regrow. So even if A (the
> >first balefirer) gets balefired by C past the point when they
> >balefired B, B's thread cannot regrow, so even if the first balfire
> >incident gets erased, the thread will still stop at the same place.
>
> Agreed. I think that balefiring someone who killed somebody by
> convential means will bring that dead person back, because their
> thread is still sort of there, chopped but not cauterized. When
> balefire meets balefire, it's more complex.
>
You've just proved my point. We are forced to create new theory, whereby
the thread is cauterized, and not just chopped. Occam's (sp?) Razor: the
simplest explanation is usually the right one.
>
>
> Now the big question is, what happens to B in everybody's memories? Do
> they just recall him/her flickering and vanishing? Or do they have
> dreamlike memories (I dig the "Tel'aran'rhiod is connected to this"
> idea) of the whole multiple-balefiring incident?
>
I'm not going to touch this one.
>
> >And as far as the DO being unable to reach them and rebody them, well
> >that just shows that their essence (soul or whatever) is so far
> >removed it can not be pulled back. That may be why the thread is
> >unable to regrow too.
>
I think it's just that he can't reach back in time to get the thread.
Whereas when they are killed, he just reaches out and snags the thread then
and there. But that's just MHO, and doesn't come from a signing or
anything.
>
> This means that Rand will have to balefire every one of the Forsaken,
> and that involves finding out exactly which people are Forsaken reborn
> now as well. Otherwise the DO will keep bringing them back. Hmm, well,
> this is old news. But a bit of a better explanation of why balefired
> people can't be resurrected, I suppose.
>
Or just reseal the DO...
Willum
Carlton Jenke <carlto...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1291f3ae73e28df29896ce@news...
> hat...@omen.net.au pondered...
> > On Tue, 12 Oct 1999 20:05:37 +1000, "Willum" <wjc...@corplink.com.au>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >Balefire does not undo balefire, but in this case if person A is
balefired
> > >then person B was never balefired in the first place.
<snip>
> And by the way, you are right above. Willum was wrong about the
> balefire erasing the previous balefire.
Eh Carlton, sorry to burst your bubble, but I am RIGHT! This very question
was put to RJ at the Brisbane signing by yours truly, and he answered it
very clearly. Balefire doesn't erase balefire (that was not what I meant)
but when someone is balefired strongly enough, ALL their actions are
erased, including any balefire they used. Thus, they never balefired
anything. The balefire is not erased as such, but the person who used the
balefire is, so that the original balefire never happened.
Logically it would seem like
> it would work that way, but supposedly RJ has said at a signing that
> it doesn't.
He said what I said above, at the Brisbane signing. My exact question was
"If person A balefires person B, and person C balefires perosn A, what
happens to B?" And RJ's response was that if person C's balefire is strong
enough to erase enough of A's thread, then person B is alive and well
because they were never balefired, because A was not there to balefire
them.
Willum
Willum <wjc...@corplink.com.au> wrote in message
news:38289...@newsin2.apacinternet.com.au...
<Balefire>
>This very question
> was put to RJ at the Brisbane signing by yours truly,
Actually, I think I was right the first time. I think it was Joel's
question, but I'm not certain now. I need to listen to the tape Joel made
again.
Peeve: not keeping notes on which of us asked what questions.
Suffice it is to say though, that the question was asked and duly answered
by RJ.
--
Willum
St. Chucky the Chunderous <hat...@omen.net.au> wrote in message
news:382859dd...@news.omen.net.au...
<snip>
> Yes, I take RJ's word as gospel - he is the only person who knows
> anything about WoT for sure. But I do not accept the word of someone
> on a newsgroup who said RJ said so.
That would be Joel Gilmore and myself?
That could just be made up. If I'm
> at the signing or I see video footage of him saying it, that's
> different. And I would be skeptical of the video footage too.
Um, yeah, I imagine that there's lots of people using state of the art
video and audio technology to make up false clips of RJ speaking at
signings to prove false points about balefire.
Yeah, lucky you're the skeptic.
>
> Clear?
Yeah, you don't know what you are talking about. This information was taken
at the Brisbane Carlton Crest signing. Joel Gilmore has RJ's Q and A
session on tape. Anyone who went to the Brisbane signing can verify or
refute this. Infact, this is an open invitation to other Brisbane attendees
to join in and refute me if I'm wrong.
RJ did say it, and I can assure you that, as a reasonably long term poster
to this group, I have nothing to gain and my credibility to lose by making
up things which could be easily refuted by other Brisbane attendees. But I
am coming out here and telling you straight, because I know no-one who
attended the signing will disagree with me, because RJ DID say it.
If that is not enough for you, then keep speculating all you want, but
don't bother trying to pass your _theory_ off as TRVTH when some of us have
the author's own explanation.
Clear?
HTH.
Carlton Jenke
>
>
> Willum wrote:
>
> >
> > Actually, I think I was right the first time. I think it was Joel's
> > question, but I'm not certain now. I need to listen to the tape Joel made
> > again.
> >
> > Peeve: not keeping notes on which of us asked what questions.
> >
> > Suffice it is to say though, that the question was asked and duly answered
> > by RJ.
>
> It was me :)
> And I'll try to get up off my fat, er, behind, and start putting that
> transcript up this week...I hope!
>
>
What's the URL for the webpage with notes from the taping of the
Brisbane signing again? I read it before, but it seems I don't quite
remember it accurately.
St. Chucky the Chunderous
wrote:
>> Yes, I take RJ's word as gospel - he is the only person who knows
>> anything about WoT for sure. But I do not accept the word of someone
>> on a newsgroup who said RJ said so.
>
>That would be Joel Gilmore and myself?
Doesn't matter who says it. If I didn't see it with my own eyes and
hear it with my own ears I am not going to take words on a newsgroup
as truth. I will wait and read it in the book.
<snip faking video footage, as if that was my point>
>Yeah, you don't know what you are talking about.
So I see.
>This information was taken
>at the Brisbane Carlton Crest signing. Joel Gilmore has RJ's Q and A
>session on tape. Anyone who went to the Brisbane signing can verify or
>refute this. Infact, this is an open invitation to other Brisbane attendees
>to join in and refute me if I'm wrong.
Oh good. I wasn't there and nobody sent me the tape. I will continue
to talk the ins and outs of balefire over with any interested parties.
If you feel it is a closed book since RJ told you how it works, then
feel free not to pay any attention to our enjoyable discussion.
>RJ did say it, and I can assure you that, as a reasonably long term poster
>to this group, I have nothing to gain and my credibility to lose by making
>up things which could be easily refuted by other Brisbane attendees. But I
>am coming out here and telling you straight, because I know no-one who
>attended the signing will disagree with me, because RJ DID say it.
Good. I didn't say he didn't say it and I didn't question you or say
"You don't know what you're talking about" - the statement was posed
to me that I am one of those people that do not take the phrase "RJ
said so" as proof of a theory, and I merely agreed to that. Given that
the theory was outlined not by RJ but merely by somebody else with the
words "RJ said so" plastered on the end, I think I am entitled to
skepticism. No matter how 'credible' the person is or how long they
have been here.
>If that is not enough for you, then keep speculating all you want, but
>don't bother trying to pass your _theory_ off as TRVTH when some of us have
>the author's own explanation.
It isn't enough for me, but that is no reflection on you. And I will
keep speculating. And unlike others, I do not try to pass my words off
as "TRVTH". And I never will. I am enjoying the speculation about this
and I will continue to do so.
>Clear?
*chuckle*
St. Chucky the Chunderous
<rah...@mail.flashmail.com> wrote:
>Ok, lets clear this up, once and for all. Again. From Mr Jordan's recent
>Brisbane signing, which large numbers of people went to see
>Balefire DOES remove a persons thread from the pattern. Bang, whappo,
>zam. They're gone, never to be seen again. The DO can't revive them,
>that's it.
Okay, okay. I'm just talking this over because I was never at a
signing and I like to think about alternatives, even if they are never
going to happen. Personally, I think that if Rahvin had balefired
Aviendha, then Rand had balefired Rahvin (well, he did), then she
would still have come back to life. I just think that we haven't seen
a balefire/balefire event happen in the book yet. I think it works
that way, but it would nevertheless be more complicated than
straight-up dead people.
>And, all the things they did before their thread got zapped, NEVER
>happened. Not undone, not taken back, never happened.
Ah, you mean all the things they did in the X minutes before they were
balefired, right? Not their whole life. Sorry, nit-picky. I didn't
read it properly.
>Does that clear it up, once and for all? Now, as for your paranoia...
<snip>
>You could, but you'd have to be a sad, sad, person. And despite all the
>evidence to the contrary, I am reasonably certain that that is not the
>case.
*sigh*
Oh the subtle barbs.....
Forgive my skepticism. If someone told me RJ had said he was never
going to write another book, it wouldn't matter who the person was
that told me. But something like this, yeah, it is the sort of
question you would ask at a signing I suppose, and I am inclined to
believe you. It's certainly the way I would make balefire work if I
was in his place.
>Anyone could claim that, but it would be a waste of their time, our time,
>and...someone elses time. I am a fan, both of the books and the newsgroup,
>and I can think of no reason why I would bother to forge a hoax like
>that. Willum has been here way longer than me, so you should at least
>believe him.
You know, I suspected he had been. I didn't see the two of you start
posting in concord until a little while ago, but even if I had not
been reading for ever and a day, I would be able to tell from his
attitude that he had been here for a fair while longer.
Oh, don't get uptight Willum, I'm joking!
<snip tape recording, MP3 and Occam's Razor, however the Hell it's
spelled>
>> Now the big question is, what happens to B in everybody's memories? Do
>> they just recall him/her flickering and vanishing? Or do they have
>> dreamlike memories (I dig the "Tel'aran'rhiod is connected to this"
>> idea) of the whole multiple-balefiring incident?
>>
>
>I'm not going to touch this one.
Dang.
*grin*
>> This means that Rand will have to balefire every one of the Forsaken,
>> and that involves finding out exactly which people are Forsaken reborn
>> now as well. Otherwise the DO will keep bringing them back. Hmm, well,
>> this is old news. But a bit of a better explanation of why balefired
>> people can't be resurrected, I suppose.
>>
>
>Or just reseal the DO...
Ahh, that'd be too easy!