Harvard COOP Signing
Tallis
I don't frequent newsgroups anymore, but RJ came by the Harvard
COOP last night and I thought I'd tell you guys what I heard.
Apologies if all this is old news; I've noticed other people have
posted messages about his signings elsewhere, and they're probably a
bit more substantive. Anyway:
* First, he began pronouncing some random names from the books. The
ones I remember: Ice-Sedai; Thal-ah-rhan-rayad (pronounced as though
he was choking on something); Sahn-chan (with the "a" homophonic in
both syllables); Say-deen; Say-dahr.
* RJ then announced that someone had figured out who had killed
Asmodean using only the clues found in the books including and
preceding the character's death. Give me a break; one person figures
it out, and he calls it "obvious" (at least according to the FAQ)?
Agh. I really don't think it's Graendal anymore, considering the
tremendous influx of theories of her culpability in the past X years.
You'd think RJ would have commented on *that* several books/years
ago..?
Other "revelations":
* Saidar would have definitely been tainted had female channelers
participated in the Sealing.
* There are many clues as to Mesaana's identity, enough that we should
figure it out before CoT. He basically said that he'd full-out reveal
her in upcoming books, though: "...and if you still don't know, well,
you'll find out later."
-- Ah, speaking of which: "Two more books."
* Rand has no direct connection with the Creator. The Creator is
completely removed from the world; aside from ... creating ... the
Pattern, he does nothing else whatsoever to influence anything. (I'm
uncertain how this fits with the ending of EotW.)
* RAFO regarding Moraine.
* There are no formal educational systems; everything is -- excuse the
obvious -- informal, but somewhat successful.
All right, take care all.
Jim Mansfield
news:4108f1cf.03011...@posting.google.com:
[snip]
Thanks for the signing debrief!
> Other "revelations":
>
> * Saidar would have definitely been tainted had female channelers
> participated in the Sealing.
How could LTT's One Hundred Companions have linked if there were no
women? I am not sure if we have seen anything about who the One Hundred
Companions are, but I had assumed that it included women.
Sup wit dat?
> * There are many clues as to Mesaana's identity, enough that we should
> figure it out before CoT. He basically said that he'd full-out reveal
> her in upcoming books, though: "...and if you still don't know, well,
> you'll find out later."
We've heard that before ...
> -- Ah, speaking of which: "Two more books."
I wish he would be able to wrap it all up in two more books. That's only
about 25 minutes of real Randland time to get it to the last scene!
-Jim
Dave Rothgery
> TallisT...@hotmail.com (Tallis) wrote in
> news:4108f1cf.03011...@posting.google.com:
>
> [snip]
>
> Thanks for the signing debrief!
> > -- Ah, speaking of which: "Two more books."
>
> I wish he would be able to wrap it all up in two more books. That's only
> about 25 minutes of real Randland time to get it to the last scene!
I have to agree there; if he does enough in book 11 that one can
actually see the end coming, it'll either be a bigger-than-LoC
monstrosity, or the pacing will seem more forced than the conclusion to
tPoD did.
If I could implant instructions on How To Finish the Series into RJ's
brain, I'd suggest that in book 11, finish up the intra-Aes Sedai war,
the Search For Faile, and put Elayne on the throne, with a handful of
Rand or Mat chapters here and there, and cover about a month of 'book
time'. Then start book 12 about eight months of book time later[1] --
and no backtracking after the prologue.
[1] _After_ Rand and Elayne's twins are born; the daily struggles of a
very pregnant Aes Sedai aren't all that intresting, and Elayne's never
going to get a chance to kick ass if she's very pregnant when the last
major battles are happening.
--
Dave Rothgery
Picking nits since 1976
drot...@alum.wpi.edu
http://drothgery.editthispage.com
bruce
>
> How could LTT's One Hundred Companions have linked if there were no
> women? I am not sure if we have seen anything about who the One Hundred
> Companions are, but I had assumed that it included women.
>
> Sup wit dat?
They didn't link. Read about the sealing in 'The Strike at Shayol Ghul'
<http://www.tor.com/shayol.html>. Also in _The World of Robert Jordan's 'the
Wheel of Time'_ (commonly referred to as 'the guide').
--bruce
John S. Novak, III
Jim Mansfield wrote:
>> * Saidar would have definitely been tainted had female channelers
>> participated in the Sealing.
> How could LTT's One Hundred Companions have linked if there were no
> women? I am not sure if we have seen anything about who the One Hundred
> Companions are, but I had assumed that it included women.
> Sup wit dat?
ObVious: They didn't link.
Which is why they wanted the women there to begin with.
>> * There are many clues as to Mesaana's identity, enough that we should
>> figure it out before CoT. He basically said that he'd full-out reveal
>> her in upcoming books, though: "...and if you still don't know, well,
>> you'll find out later."
> We've heard that before ...
We've heard it so often that I'm having a hard time giving a flying
fuck, anymore.
--
John S. Novak, III j...@cegt201.bradley.edu
The Humblest Man on the Net
Jim Mansfield
news:dn4rf-...@ID-92747.user.dfncis.de:
Thanks for the URL. It's been years since I read that ... and also
obviously years since RJ wrote it - it's concise with good, rapid plot
development ;-)
It is kind of strange that the seals could be placed without any
male-female linking, since so much of what we know about the AoL says
that their greatest works were done with both males and females working
together. Nonetheless, obviously no females present at the sealing.
-Jim
Tallis
* He bases his female characters after his wife. (The audience laughed
a bit, and a couple of us wondered just how dense and imperious that
woman must be...)
* I'm sure I misheard, but I could have sworn he talked about writing
*five* prequels. Again, though, I'm uncertain.
* He had always planned on killing Sammael per Mashadar; his death was
not determined after the ambiguous ending of that book. RJ said
something along the lines of: "Yes, I know it wasn't with trumpets and
fanfare [referring to Sammael's death]; but he deserved it. He was a
louse, and he got a louse's death. He was killed by an enemy he wasn't
paying attention to. He lived like a louse, and he died like a louse."
Yes, he said "louse" that many times, if not more. You'd think Sammael
had personally wronged RJ, sheesh -- he sounded pretty impassioned.
Then again, it could simply be his exasperation with people refusing
to accept that Sammael died.
* RJ read the Encylopedia Brittanica numerous times as a child; he
claims that's the crux of his education.
And that is that.
Take care all.
Jim Mansfield
> * I'm sure I misheard, but I could have sworn he talked about writing
> *five* prequels. Again, though, I'm uncertain.
Urk. 5 prequels to set up 2 more books that wrap up the entire series.
Sheesh.
> * He had always planned on killing Sammael per Mashadar; his death was
> not determined after the ambiguous ending of that book. RJ said
> something along the lines of: "Yes, I know it wasn't with trumpets and
> fanfare [referring to Sammael's death]; but he deserved it. He was a
> louse, and he got a louse's death. He was killed by an enemy he wasn't
> paying attention to. He lived like a louse, and he died like a louse."
> Yes, he said "louse" that many times, if not more. You'd think Sammael
> had personally wronged RJ, sheesh -- he sounded pretty impassioned.
> Then again, it could simply be his exasperation with people refusing
> to accept that Sammael died.
I hadn't read the FAQ for a while and was very surprised by RJ stating
outright that Sammael was dead. Okay, now I believe him :-)
But an obvious solution to RJ having to get peeved by people not
understanding that Sammael is dead (or any other item like that) is to
write the damn books in such as way that people *can* understand that
without having to go to a book signing or listen to an author interview
just to clear up things.
If Agatha Christie wrote her mysteries the way RJ writes his books,
she'd never have become popular!
> * RJ read the Encylopedia Brittanica numerous times as a child; he
> claims that's the crux of his education.
Sure. It takes 25 books to get from A to Z. Sounds like the basis for a
series to me ;-)
-Jim
Jean Dufresne
>
> TallisT...@hotmail.com (Tallis) wrote in
> news:4108f1cf.03011...@posting.google.com:
>
> > * I'm sure I misheard, but I could have sworn he talked about writing
> > *five* prequels. Again, though, I'm uncertain.
>
> Urk. 5 prequels to set up 2 more books that wrap up the entire series.
He might be tempted to compensate his promise of "not writing one word
more than necessary" in the "regular" books with an increase in the
number of prequels and other side stories. But I keep hope that he
actually meant 2 regular books + 3 prequels = 5 books.
--
Jean
Michael Hoye
Jim Mansfield <j...@jmansfield.DELETEME.com> wrote:
>TallisT...@hotmail.com (Tallis) wrote in
>news:4108f1cf.03011...@posting.google.com:
>
>
>I wish he would be able to wrap it all up in two more books.
I think that he meant it would take two more books to wrap up
the interview.
--
Mike Hoye
Chucky & Janica
TallisT...@hotmail.com (Tallis) kirjoitti viestissä:
>Hello,
> I don't frequent newsgroups anymore,
Argh!
Hello yourself.
C&J
--
13 & 13b of the CMM Collective
"OK, Angels. Let's show this man what
six collective breasts can do to evil."
- Forsaken_1, "Charlie's Angels".
Now go here: www.afrj-monkeyhouse.org
Chucky & Janica
Mansfield <j...@jmansfield.DELETEME.com> kirjoitti viestissä:
>It is kind of strange that the seals could be placed without any
>male-female linking, since so much of what we know about the AoL says
>that their greatest works were done with both males and females working
>together. Nonetheless, obviously no females present at the sealing.
And the Sealing wasn't what one would call a great work.
It was, in fact, sort of like an abortion that took 3000 years to stop
dripping.
Chucky & Janica
TallisT...@hotmail.com (Tallis) kirjoitti viestissä:
>* RJ read the Encylopedia Brittanica numerous times as a child; he
>claims that's the crux of his education.
Janica has gone that oh-so-familiar shade of Utterly Unsurprised over
here at this end.
Chucky & Janica
Mansfield <j...@jmansfield.DELETEME.com> kirjoitti viestissä:
>But an obvious solution to RJ having to get peeved by people not
>understanding that Sammael is dead (or any other item like that) is to
>write the damn books in such as way that people *can* understand that
>without having to go to a book signing or listen to an author interview
>just to clear up things.
I agree completely! It doesn't even really matter if he *does* say so,
sammael can conceivably still be alive. Of course, he's not. If
anybody gives a damn. I know I don't. Even if he died, he can be
brought back to life so the whole thing is just stucking fupid.
>If Agatha Christie wrote her mysteries the way RJ writes his books,
>she'd never have become popular!
Damn right. Poirot's had all the suspects in one room for, oh, 4000
pages now. And Jordan's telling us it should be obvious that the
halfman did it.
Chucky & Janica
Dufresne <dufr...@globetrotter.net> kirjoitti viestissä:
>He might be tempted to compensate his promise of "not writing one word
>more than necessary"
He made this promise?
Have we got it in .wav format? I want it as my startup noise.
Jean Dufresne
>
> Way back on Sun, 19 Jan 2003 22:53:31 GMT, this dweeb called Jean
> Dufresne <dufr...@globetrotter.net> kirjoitti viestissä:
>
> >He might be tempted to compensate his promise of "not writing one word
> >more than necessary"
>
> He made this promise?
No, actually he did not. That part of the sentence was merely meant as
a short and somewhat humoristic way to refer to RJ's comments which had
already been reported seriously in other threads. However, without the
context, I can see how it may have sounded like I was requoting exact
words. I'm sorry for any confusion this may have caused. To be fair,
RJ didn't use the word "promise" in his, uh... statement about the
words, only in his statement about the number of books.
From what Matthew Julius posted [2003.01.17]:
"he did mention that he's trying to get the series done as quickly as
possible, and that not one extra word would appear if it's not
necessary, or something very close to that. *sigh* He talked about the
three prequels that he will write, but didn't mention when he was
writing them which I guess was fortunate after mentioning "no extra
words"."
From what Tim Kington posted [2003.01.17], RJ said:
"[...] that he will not write a word more than he has to."
From another message by Matthew Julius [2003.01.16], the "promise" bit,
about the number of books, was:
"[...] he stood up and answered it to all: "[Apologizes for taking so
many books to finish] If I can finish it in two more books, I will. I
promise you. [very slight pause as he thinks about that] _IF_ I can do
it in two I will, I promise. Again I apologize."
Which, of course, means that he only promised to try to do it.
> Have we got it in .wav format? I want it as my startup noise.
Hehe.
--
Jean
Chucky & Janica
Dufresne <dufr...@globetrotter.net> kirjoitti viestissä:
>> >He might be tempted to compensate his promise of "not writing one word
>> >more than necessary"
>>
>> He made this promise?
>
>No, actually he did not. That part of the sentence was merely meant as
>a short and somewhat humoristic way to refer to RJ's comments which had
>already been reported seriously in other threads. However, without the
>context, I can see how it may have sounded like I was requoting exact
>words. I'm sorry for any confusion this may have caused. To be fair,
>RJ didn't use the word "promise" in his, uh... statement about the
>words, only in his statement about the number of books.
Right. Let's see.
>From what Matthew Julius posted [2003.01.17]:
>
>"he did mention that he's trying to get the series done as quickly as
>possible, and that not one extra word would appear if it's not
>necessary, or something very close to that. *sigh* He talked about the
>three prequels that he will write, but didn't mention when he was
>writing them which I guess was fortunate after mentioning "no extra
>words"."
>
>From what Tim Kington posted [2003.01.17], RJ said:
>
>"[...] that he will not write a word more than he has to."
>
>From another message by Matthew Julius [2003.01.16], the "promise" bit,
>about the number of books, was:
>
>"[...] he stood up and answered it to all: "[Apologizes for taking so
>many books to finish] If I can finish it in two more books, I will. I
>promise you. [very slight pause as he thinks about that] _IF_ I can do
>it in two I will, I promise. Again I apologize."
>
>Which, of course, means that he only promised to try to do it.
Right. But so much for not writing one extra unnecessary word. I think
we can all agree that *that* was complete bullshit.
Jasper Janssen
>* RJ read the Encylopedia Brittanica numerous times as a child; he
>claims that's the crux of his education.
This explains things, particularly the immense size of the epic. I
shudderingly await the day when WoT eclipses the Britannica in sheer
volume.
Jasper
Tim Kington
> sammael can conceivably still be alive. Of course, he's not. If
> anybody gives a damn. I know I don't. Even if he died, he can be
> brought back to life so the whole thing is just stucking fupid.
No. Sammael cannot be brought back to life because the DO cannot step
outside of time. Even though he was not hit directly with balefire, he
died before the DO had time to react because balefire was involved.
Tim
Chucky & Janica
Kington <tki...@columbus.rr.com> kirjoitti viestissä:
What? He was killed by Mashadar. He can be brought back by the Dark
One. There was balefire in the deaths of several other Forsaken, and
they're back. How long did it take for Aginor and Balthamel to come
back? It can be done.
If I'm missing your point, please explain. I fail to see how Sammael
is irretrievable, simply because it was balefire that led him to be
trapped by Mashadar. If anything stops the Dark One from bringing
Sammael back, it is Sammael's idiocy.
But that never stopped the Dark One before. You can never have too
many idiots in the echelons of darkness.
Therese
> What? He was killed by Mashadar. He can be brought back by the Dark
> One. There was balefire in the deaths of several other Forsaken, and
> they're back. How long did it take for Aginor and Balthamel to come
> back? It can be done.
They weren't bale-fried (I like that typo). Balthamel was killed by the
Nym, and Aginor had an OD of Saidin.
--
Therese Wikström
Jean Dufresne
>
> Way back on Thu, 23 Jan 2003 18:39:03 GMT, this dweeb called Tim
> Kington <tki...@columbus.rr.com> kirjoitti viestissä:
>
> >outside of time. Even though he was not hit directly with balefire, he
> >died before the DO had time to react because balefire was involved.
>
> What? He was killed by Mashadar. He can be brought back by the Dark
> One. There was balefire in the deaths of several other Forsaken, and
> they're back.
What makes you think Be'lal and Rahvin are back? They're the only two
ones who've been balefired (not counting Asmodean, who may have been).
> How long did it take for Aginor and Balthamel to come
> back? It can be done.
What do Aginor and Balthamel have to do with balefire?
> If I'm missing your point, please explain. I fail to see how Sammael
> is irretrievable, simply because it was balefire that led him to be
> trapped by Mashadar.
The DO can't bring back balefired Forsaken. Exactly why he can't do it
is somewhat unclear, but it is likely because he cannot grab their soul
at the moment of death, given that the balefire removed their thread at
some prior point in time. Tim tries to extrapolate that situation to
Sammael's death. Because Rand's balefire could have had the effect that
Mashadar did not move in the direction of the Maiden, but instead it
moved faster in the direction of Sammael. One moment, before the
balefire, Sammael was alive, not yet touched by Mashadar because
Mashadar had not yet reached him, and the next moment, after the
balefire, Sammael was already dead, Mashadar had already touched him at
some point in the past, Sammael had already been killed by Mashadar for
sometime. Indirect effect of balefire, but the DO couldn't act at the
moment of Sammael's death. This reasoning may or may not be correct,
but IMHO it's a moot point anyway, since Sammael is dead and the DO
would probably not bring him back even if he could.
--
Jean
Robert Mee
"Jean Dufresne" <dufr...@globetrotter.net> wrote in message
news:3E3192...@globetrotter.net...
Above and beyond that point, RJ has already made it perfectly clear that
Sammael is toast and won't be back. I can't cite exactly where, but it's in
the FAQ.
Rob
Jean Dufresne
>
> They're the only two ones who [...]
Ouch... I suspect that "two ones" is not quite logical. I hope you got
the point anyway. Blame that sentence construction on my not being a
native English speaker. :)
--
Jean
Edwin Fell
> Way back on Thu, 23 Jan 2003 18:39:03 GMT, this dweeb called Tim
> Kington <tki...@columbus.rr.com> kirjoitti viestissä:
>
>> step outside of time. Even though he was not hit directly with
>> balefire, he died before the DO had time to react because balefire
>> was involved.
>
> What? He was killed by Mashadar. He can be brought back by the Dark
> One. There was balefire in the deaths of several other Forsaken, and
> they're back. How long did it take for Aginor and Balthamel to come
> back? It can be done.
>
> If I'm missing your point, please explain. I fail to see how Sammael
> is irretrievable, simply because it was balefire that led him to be
> trapped by Mashadar. If anything stops the Dark One from bringing
> Sammael back, it is Sammael's idiocy.
>
> But that never stopped the Dark One before. You can never have too
> many idiots in the echelons of darkness.
Well, you've got several misconceptions, as I understand it. First, no
one known to be killed by balefire has been resurrected:
Aginor died from overdrawing the power. The DO resurrected him.
Balthamel killed by Green Man. The Do resurrected him.
Bel'al killed by balefire. The DO did not resurrect him.
Ishy killed by callandor. The DO resurrected him.
Lanfear (presumably) died in 'Finnland. The DO resurrected her.
Rahvin killed by balefire. The DO could not resurrect him.
According
to the DO himself, he could not step outside of time.
Asmodean died (possibly by balefire). The DO says he won't
resurrect him, so this is not a good data point.
Second, Sammael may not have died from balefire, but <because> of
balefire he died several seconds prior to a point when he was still
alive.
THIS is why the DO could not resurrect him. One second he's alive,
the next second he's been dead for five seconds. If the DO can't grab
his soul at the instant of death, he misses his chance.
Again, as I understand it. Besides, "Jordan says he's not coming
back".
Chucky & Janica
<there...@home.se> kirjoitti viestissä:
Sammael wasn't balefired either.
Chucky & Janica
Dufresne <dufr...@globetrotter.net> kirjoitti viestissä:
>> What? He was killed by Mashadar. He can be brought back by the Dark
>> One. There was balefire in the deaths of several other Forsaken, and
>> they're back.
>
>What makes you think Be'lal and Rahvin are back? They're the only two
>ones who've been balefired (not counting Asmodean, who may have been).
Right. Sammael wasn't balefired.
>What do Aginor and Balthamel have to do with balefire?
Sammael doesn't have much to do with balefire himself, you know. He
was killed by Mashadar. If it was because of balefire, that still
doesn't mean his soul is irretrievable. Sheesh, the other Forsaken
have dallied around with balefire an awful lot, and avoided being
killed. And they have been brought back.
>Tim tries to extrapolate that situation to
>Sammael's death. Because Rand's balefire could have had the effect that
>Mashadar did not move in the direction of the Maiden, but instead it
>moved faster in the direction of Sammael. One moment, before the
>balefire, Sammael was alive, not yet touched by Mashadar because
>Mashadar had not yet reached him, and the next moment, after the
>balefire, Sammael was already dead, Mashadar had already touched him at
>some point in the past, Sammael had already been killed by Mashadar for
>sometime. Indirect effect of balefire, but the DO couldn't act at the
>moment of Sammael's death.
I see this. But I don't buy it. Sammael was killed by Mashadar. It was
unnaturally-fast-moving Mashadar, but it sure wasn't balefire.
>This reasoning may or may not be correct,
Hey, it's still good reasoning. It's a good thought and even if I
don't agree with it I can see the logic.
>but IMHO it's a moot point anyway, since Sammael is dead and the DO
>would probably not bring him back even if he could.
As I said the first time.
*copies*
It doesn't even really matter if [Jordan] *does* say so, Sammael can
conceivably still be alive. Of course, he's not. If anybody gives a
damn. I know I don't. Even if he died, he can be brought back to life
so the whole thing is just stucking fupid.
Which doesn't mean he *can't* be, or even that he *hasn't* been. I
don't think he has, and I don't think he will be because he was a
twit. But that never stopped the Dark One before.
Chucky & Janica
Mee" <rm...@gmu.edu> kirjoitti viestissä:
>Above and beyond that point, RJ has already made it perfectly clear that
>Sammael is toast and won't be back. I can't cite exactly where, but it's in
>the FAQ.
Oh good.
But it's also in the books, apparently Sammael died in Mashadar and he
was a failure and a traitor and there's no reason for the Dark One to
bring him back. But hey, at least Jordan might have said so and at
least it's in the FAQ.
Chucky & Janica
Fell" <ef...@earthlink.net> kirjoitti viestissä:
>> But that never stopped the Dark One before. You can never have too
>> many idiots in the echelons of darkness.
>
>Well, you've got several misconceptions, as I understand it. First, no
>one known to be killed by balefire has been resurrected:
You have a misconception that Sammael was killed by balefire.
>Second, Sammael may not have died from balefire, but <because> of
>balefire he died several seconds prior to a point when he was still
>alive.
I see this. And I also know very well that balefire kills people
beyond the reach of the Dark One's resurrection. I just don't think it
counts as being balefired. If Nynaeve drowned in that boat, was she
balefired? Hell no. She drowned. There's a body.
There might not be a body once Mashadar is finished, but I assure you,
Sammael did not dissolve into glowing motes and vanish. He wasn't
balefired.
>THIS is why the DO could not resurrect him. One second he's alive,
>the next second he's been dead for five seconds. If the DO can't grab
>his soul at the instant of death, he misses his chance.
I don't buy that. I buy that balefire removes threads completely from
the Pattern and they can not be brought back by anything. It has
nothing to do with how long the guy was dead for. As we already said,
a lot of these Forsaken have been dead for some weeks before the Dark
One finds a new body for them.
>Again, as I understand it.
Yeah, I see the logic. I personally don't agree. And I don't agree
with the idea that the Dark One must resurrect a person the instant
they die, lest they be forever beyond His reach.
>Besides, "Jordan says he's not coming back".
I'm sure he does. I'd hope so myself, if only for the sake of my own
enjoyment. I'm sick of the same old recycled bad guys over and over.
Kill them, or don't kill them.
Of course, Jordan also says the Asmodean case is simple and
straightforward. He has also said for years that Demandred is not
Taim. But that didn't stop anybody from thinking it.