Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

[Minor Spoilers] Robert Jordan book signing

24 views
Skip to first unread message

Brandon A. Downey

unread,
Nov 11, 2000, 3:00:00 AM11/11/00
to

[Spoilers]

S

p

o

i

l

-

o

-

r

a

m

a


I was fortune enough to attend the Robert Jordan book signing at the
Barnes and Nobles in San Jose near where I live in California, and I
figured everyone might be interested to hear what it was like.

RJ was scheduled to appear at 7pm, so, my (much more dedicated
friend who drove 7 hours from LA) went down to get in line around 3pm.
Shortly after he arrived, he called to warn me, "The guy next to me says
that last year, the line wrapped around the building!" So, I took the
afternoon off work and headed down to ye olde book store.

I got there around 4, and about 7 people were in line. Surprisingly,
only three of us had read Winter's Heart, so we went off into the onsite
coffee shop, and had a few hours of hard core Jordan discussion. We went
back and forth on a lot of the issues in Winter's Heart: Demandred (we
really _wanted_ to be convinced that the evidence was inconclusive --
IMHO, RJ is a huge, deceptive tease otherwise), the possibilities for
Slayer as Asmodean's killer (Sure, he really looks like it now -- but
did we really have enough evidence to guess it was him pre-LOC?),
whether Sammael is alive, whether he's directing the slayer, if Moridin
was just sending the Forsaken off to "pay the butcher's bill" rather
than actually stopping Rand, if Olver was Gaidal (this never dies!),
and if a Well explained Verin's delving in the stedding.

Naturally, all this rampant Jordanism led into what questions we would
ask Jordan. I had brought a notebook, and wrote down a few of my
favorites:

-How many more of your books will feature nude women slapping each
other? Is there any possibility they will be illustrated?

-Is it now crystal clear who Asmodean's killer is? [I know what poor
luck Asmodean questions have -- but I figured a quasi-indirect one might
get by].

-What can you tell us specifically about the compulsion used by Aes
Sedai in the warder bond? What effect, if any, does channeling have on
preventing this? Is it sufficient to just be holding saidar/saidin to
avoid this effect?

-Is Machin Shin a result of the dark one's taint on saidin being used in
the creation of the Ways, or a result of some portion of the corruption
of Shadar Logoth creeping into the Ways via the Waygate there? Or is it
something completely orthogonal to both these powers, merely being a
parasite that showed up once the place began to grow dim.

-Were POD and WH originally meant to be one book? Why was the book
jacket changed?

-What does the title dragon mean, historically speaking? Was there some
deeper significance to LTT being named that, or was it because dragons
have always been historically badasses?

-What happens to an Aes Sedai's warder bond if she enters a stedding?
Can she still detect it? What if I tie off a weave, and enter a
stedding? If the weave vanishes, will it reappaear when I leave? If it
won't reappear, why can't shielded/tied channelers such as Asmodean or
Liandrin simply enter a stedding to have their shield dissolved?

---

So, naturally, my friend and I didn't have time to ask all these
questions, but it was quite an event. RJ rolled in at almost exactly 7,
and by that time, the line really did stretch all throughout the store
and outside! RJ nuts of all shapes, sizes, and varying degrees of
hotness were there, and we were having a good time jeering at the girl
in front of us who thought that whoever helped out Rand in Shadar Logoth
was a GOOD guy.

Then, they brought Jordan out, and we all started hopping up and down
excitedly. (Well, not ALL of us.. but the ones that are worth speaking
of. Heh.) Jordan looks a bit like someone's grandfather, except witty,
and if your grandfather happened to be a retired badass. He had his
cane, ring, and glasses, and a charming, witty style of speaking. This
may just be fandom talking, but he seemed like someone you'd genuinely
want to spend an idle evening with, shooting the breeze.

So, being near the beginning of the line, we only had to wait while some
fetching young female types had their picture made with RJ (Mmm..
lechery). After that, my friend got to ask his question, which was the
one about Machin Shin and the Ways:

RJ answered:> "Machin Shin is a function of the DO's taint on the male
side of the force.. er.. source" [we all chuckled, and he mentioned how
much he'd been traveling. :)]
The corruption on Shadar Logoth is a result of an evil specifically
designed to combat the DO's taint. This is why Rand experiences a
resonance while channeling in Shadar Logoth -- the DO's taint is reacing
to the corruption of Shadar Logoth.

Then, I asked my question, which concerned the warder bond and the
stedding:

RJ> No, of course not. An Aes Sedai would still be able to detect her
warder in the stedding.

Then, I asked about going into the stedding with a weave of illusion
tied on you:
RJ> The weave would go away, and would not come back when you left.

Then, of course, I asked: "Why couldn't Asmodean, or Lanfear, or someone
else with a tied off shield go into a stedding and get themselves
freed?"
RJ> No. That's different.

So, that's a confusing set of answers. Why is it that when shielded, the
bond to your warder can become faint enough that you don't notice it,
whereas in the stedding it's just fine? Why is it that weaves that don't
depend on you drawing the one power don't work, but wells do? And, why
do shields (which are a species of a weave) that are tied off not
subject to this constraint?

I had a dinner date, so I didn't stay around for much longer, but I did
get to hear RJ talk about his reading habits (he reads about 2-3 hours a
day, and doesn't watch much TV at all.) Another guy behind me asked if
he felt he was giving the books the level of detail he wanted (and RJ
said yes), then he asked about the one sentence Lan/Toran fight.

RJ said that he had tried writing that scene several ways, but none of
the split POV's worked (and have we even had a Lan POV, outside of "A
New Spring"?) seemed to work out. I chimed in, "Yeah, and Lan is enough
of a badass to ice some punk in one sentence", and RJ said, "Yes, Lan is
very, very good at what he does."

Unfortunately, I had to run after that. I had a great time though, and
felt I was among kindred spirits when surrounded by the RJ fan-o-rama
that was the book signing.

I hope my answers proved helpful to someone out there, as we continue
sifting through the series in search of just one more nugget of detail.

Brandon


Brandon A. Downey

unread,
Nov 11, 2000, 3:00:00 AM11/11/00
to
Thinking about it, I came up with the following theory:

There exists the physical world, Randland. In addition to this world, and
the multiverse of possible worlds we see in the portal stones, there is
also some plane of existence where the one power resides. Maybe this is the
place that channelers go to when they Skim, or maybe it's someplace else,
but we know that the one power is not physically in one particular spot.

We also know that channelers can drow on this power as a result of
something special about their spirit. We know it's unique to their spirit,
since we see that even when a male spirit is reborn in a physically female
body, they maintain their ability to draw on the one power.

What if we hypothesize that the warder bond is a connection between spirits
that exists on whatever plane the one power inhabits? It's not too tenuous
a leap logic, so let's assume it, and see where it leads.

Now, let's consider the nature of a 'tied off' weave. Weaves require the
one power to maintain, so maybe it's the case that tied off weaves are
basically weaves that a channeler has set up to draw their power
automatically from the Source.

Finally, let's think about tied off shields on the one power. Clearly, the
shield is not some physical entity -- rather, it's "between" you and the
source -- think of it as something blocking this channel in the ethereal
place where the One Power exists, like a boulder blocking a tunnel. (If the
tunnel is filled with water, it's hard to block -- if it's empty, it's much
easier.)

So, if a stedding is some place where the one power simply cannot be drawed
upon [but seemingly, can be used if you happen to have it elsewhere, say in
a Well], we can see the following:

(1) If you bring a tied off weave into the stedding, it vanishes, since it
can no longer draw on its automatic contact with the Source.
(2) The warder bond, which exists *on some other plane*, is not affected.
(3) Shields of spirit, which exist *on some other plane* are not destroyed,
since the shield is not physically tied to you -- rather, it's something on
your particular channel to the Source.
(4) Aes Sedai who are shielded do not feel their warder, because these
shields interfere with both the channel to the one Source, and the spirit
link in this ethereal realm to their warder.

All of this may be loopy speculation, or just too much merlot on my part,
but it makes a certain sort of sense, and does explain Jordan's answer to
me.


Brandon

"John S. Novak, III" wrote:

> On Sun, 12 Nov 2000 00:55:22 GMT, Oleg Ozerov
> <Ozzypti...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> >>[Spoilers]
>
> >Because it would screw up the plot. I don't see any other explanation.
>
> I don't even think it would screw up the plot.
>
> Anyone with a tied up shield on them is probably not going to be in
> the best positionto take a hundred mile jaunt to the nearest Stedding,
> after all. Would Rand have let Asmodean out of his sight for that
> long? No.
>
> It sure does sound like a rationalization, though.
>
> The only reasonable explanation is that a disguise is a tied off weave
> but that, for some reason, a tied off shield is not a weave but
> something more akin to the Warder Bond. This doesn't exactly jibe
> with what we know, though, does it?
>
> --
> John S. Novak, III j...@concentric.net
> The Humblest Man on the Net


Oleg Ozerov

unread,
Nov 11, 2000, 7:55:22 PM11/11/00
to

Brandon A. Downey wrote in message <3A0DCBFE...@sprynet.com>...

>
>
>
>
>[Spoilers]
>
>S
>
>p
>
>o
>
>i
>
>l
>
>-
>
>o
>
>-
>
>r
>
>a
>
>m
>
>a
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

>Then, I asked about going into the stedding with a weave of illusion


>tied on you:
>RJ> The weave would go away, and would not come back when you left.
>
>Then, of course, I asked: "Why couldn't Asmodean, or Lanfear, or someone
>else with a tied off shield go into a stedding and get themselves
>freed?"
>RJ> No. That's different.
>
>So, that's a confusing set of answers. Why is it that when shielded, the
>bond to your warder can become faint enough that you don't notice it,
>whereas in the stedding it's just fine? Why is it that weaves that don't
>depend on you drawing the one power don't work, but wells do? And, why
>do shields (which are a species of a weave) that are tied off not
>subject to this constraint?

Because it would screw up the plot. I don't see any other explanation.

O.


John Meyer

unread,
Nov 11, 2000, 9:34:25 PM11/11/00
to
Brandon A. Downey wrote:

> -What does the title dragon mean, historically speaking? Was there some
> deeper significance to LTT being named that, or was it because dragons
> have always been historically badasses?

If you look at the mythological dragons, they have basically been creatures
who were either sleeping or very thirsty with power. The legend that I
have heard is that if a dragon is awake, he will spend all of his time
collecting all of the riches of the world until he is driven mad by lust
for more.
--
John Meyer
Programmer/Web Developer
http://iconoclast.hypermart.net

John S. Novak, III

unread,
Nov 12, 2000, 1:42:38 AM11/12/00
to
On Sun, 12 Nov 2000 00:55:22 GMT, Oleg Ozerov
<Ozzypti...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

>>[Spoilers]

>Because it would screw up the plot. I don't see any other explanation.

I don't even think it would screw up the plot.

Oleg Ozerov

unread,
Nov 12, 2000, 3:00:00 AM11/12/00
to

John S. Novak, III wrote in message ...

>On Sun, 12 Nov 2000 00:55:22 GMT, Oleg Ozerov
><Ozzypti...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>>>[Spoilers]
>
>
>
>>Because it would screw up the plot. I don't see any other explanation.
>
>I don't even think it would screw up the plot.

>Anyone with a tied up shield on them is probably not going to be in
>the best positionto take a hundred mile jaunt to the nearest Stedding,
>after all. Would Rand have let Asmodean out of his sight for that
>long? No.
>
>It sure does sound like a rationalization, though.

That's a better choice of words. I suppose I meant "could, theoretically".

>The only reasonable explanation is that a disguise is a tied off weave
>but that, for some reason, a tied off shield is not a weave but
>something more akin to the Warder Bond. This doesn't exactly jibe
>with what we know, though, does it?


Not at all. I doubt that Jordan had thought on the matter at all before
being asked this question. He just said what he did because he didn't like
the idea that a shielded person can go to a stedding to deshield anymore
than we do. He may have not thought carefully about the first question
either. I myself wondered about the Oaths. Would they hold in a stedding-ish
setting? They _are_ a thing of Power. It would be so much more logical if
the weaves resumed action upon leaving the stedding. So much more...

A side note, those AS that Damer Flinn Healed, does everybody else realize
they are Oath-free now? Strangely there was no hint they themselves knew.

O.

John S. Novak, III

unread,
Nov 12, 2000, 3:00:00 AM11/12/00
to
On Sun, 12 Nov 2000 08:23:02 GMT, Oleg Ozerov
<Ozzypti...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

>>>>[Spoilers]

>Not at all. I doubt that Jordan had thought on the matter at all before


>being asked this question. He just said what he did because he didn't like
>the idea that a shielded person can go to a stedding to deshield anymore
>than we do. He may have not thought carefully about the first question
>either. I myself wondered about the Oaths. Would they hold in a stedding-ish
>setting? They _are_ a thing of Power. It would be so much more logical if
>the weaves resumed action upon leaving the stedding. So much more...

Well, I think the idea here is that the various Bonds and the effect
of the Oath Rod are not maintained because they are weaves of any sort
(neither tied off, nor inverted, nor any kind of weave at all) but
are the results of something fundamental about their objects having
been changed permanently as the result _of_ a weaving.

Consider that someone cut by a whip-thin flow of air does not heal on
entering a Stedding. Someone Healed by the Power does not rewound
when they enter a Stedding. Everything we know about the Oaths
implies to me that they are working some permanent change on the souls
of the women who use it, as well as some permanent change on their
bodies, so that makes sense to me.

It had also sort of seemed that the Warder Bond wasn't a weave either,
if only because it was a weave actively made by Aes Sedai, and the Aes
Sedai do not, as a general rule, know how to invert or tie off weaves.
If the Warder Bonds were tied off, inverted weaves, they should all
have that skill. Therefore, the Warder Bond must be creating some
permanent change-- in this case, a slight correspondance, perhaps-- in
the souls of the Aes Sedai and the Warders. So it makes sense that
this stays intact when one or both is in a Stedding. (As a corollary,
I think it also means that simply stilling a woman does not break the
Warder bond. That also jibes with Min being able to have a bond in
the first place.)

So if Jordan isn't just making this shit up off the top of his head,
then something about a tied off shield is more like a permanent change
in someone's soul, than a tied off weave. But again, that doesn't
jibe with anything we've seen, unless the Forsaken are doing something
very different than the modern channelers when they put a permanent
shield around someone.

Oleg Ozerov

unread,
Nov 12, 2000, 3:00:00 AM11/12/00
to

John S. Novak, III wrote in message ...
>On Sun, 12 Nov 2000 08:23:02 GMT, Oleg Ozerov
><Ozzypti...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>>>>>[Spoilers]


>
>
>


>>Not at all. I doubt that Jordan had thought on the matter at all before
>>being asked this question. He just said what he did because he didn't like
>>the idea that a shielded person can go to a stedding to deshield anymore
>>than we do. He may have not thought carefully about the first question
>>either. I myself wondered about the Oaths. Would they hold in a
stedding-ish
>>setting? They _are_ a thing of Power. It would be so much more logical if
>>the weaves resumed action upon leaving the stedding. So much more...
>
>Well, I think the idea here is that the various Bonds and the effect
>of the Oath Rod are not maintained because they are weaves of any sort

ITYM they are _not_ weaves...

>(neither tied off, nor inverted, nor any kind of weave at all) but
>are the results of something fundamental about their objects having
>been changed permanently as the result _of_ a weaving.
>
>Consider that someone cut by a whip-thin flow of air does not heal on
>entering a Stedding. Someone Healed by the Power does not rewound
>when they enter a Stedding. Everything we know about the Oaths
>implies to me that they are working some permanent change on the souls
>of the women who use it, as well as some permanent change on their
>bodies, so that makes sense to me.

You know it's not permanent. If they are stilled, the Oaths are gone. Yet,
if they are stilled, the Healing done on them 5 seconds prior to stilling
will remain.

However, I tend to agree with what you are saying here. The Oaths do not
seem to be weaves. It's something to do with the bearer and with the
bearer's connection to saidar. Which I view as an extra wire or a transistor
in the brain/soul/spirit. Although I don't believe the ability to speak
comes from that wire, so there has to be some sort of connection between the
speaking center and the saidar embracing center. Perhaps, it's not of the OP
at all, but a change in the physical of spiritual construction of a person.
In that way.

>
>It had also sort of seemed that the Warder Bond wasn't a weave either,
>if only because it was a weave actively made by Aes Sedai, and the Aes
>Sedai do not, as a general rule, know how to invert or tie off weaves.
>If the Warder Bonds were tied off, inverted weaves, they should all
>have that skill. Therefore, the Warder Bond must be creating some
>permanent change-- in this case, a slight correspondance, perhaps-- in
>the souls of the Aes Sedai and the Warders. So it makes sense that
>this stays intact when one or both is in a Stedding.

It does. Agreed.

(As a corollary,
>I think it also means that simply stilling a woman does not break the
>Warder bond. That also jibes with Min being able to have a bond in
>the first place.)

Didn't Siuan lose her Warder connection when she was stilled? I don't
remember, when did she start crying for him, on the way to Salidar or when
Nynaeve Healed her?

Min's bond has to be recognized as different as it involves some WO
sistering weaves. OTOH, most Warders can't channel. I wonder, if a
channeling Warder gets stilled, will the bond remain?

>So if Jordan isn't just making this shit up off the top of his head,
>then something about a tied off shield is more like a permanent change
>in someone's soul, than a tied off weave. But again, that doesn't
>jibe with anything we've seen, unless the Forsaken are doing something
>very different than the modern channelers when they put a permanent
>shield around someone.


I doubt that the Forsaken are that different in that respect. You're right,
it doesn't go along well with saying "weave" outright when the shield is
placed by anybody.

However, I have been wondering for a time wtf is going on when somebody is
shielded and is trying to batter through the shield. I have always had a
problem with them battering against it. With what?! They are cut off the
Power at the moment, what force are the shielded using to bend the shield or
break it? You can't "batter" through a weave of Air that's holding you...
Especially the Dumai Wells story when Rand found those "hard" and "soft"
spots. What exactly was he using to get through them or unravel them?!

In this light your tentative explanation makes sense. If it's just a change
on some physical or spiritual level in _you_ yourself, then you may be able
to alter it. But the language used is still confusing - we know that it is a
weave when it's maintained and it's always said the weave tied off, you
don't say that when you break a leg with Power.

--
O.

Scott Spiegelberg

unread,
Nov 12, 2000, 3:00:00 AM11/12/00
to

How about this: A disguise is a weave that rides on a person, so it can
slide off when the person enters a stedding. A shield is inside the
person, blocking access to the Source, so it doesn't slide off or
disapate.

--
Scott Spiegelberg
Ph.D. candidate Visiting Assistant Professor of Music
Eastman School of Music Valley City State University
spi...@theory.esm.rochester.edu

Laura M. Parkinson

unread,
Nov 12, 2000, 3:00:00 AM11/12/00
to
j...@concentric.net (John S. Novak, III) rhapsodized in blue:

>On Sun, 12 Nov 2000 08:23:02 GMT, Oleg Ozerov
><Ozzypti...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>>>>>[Spoilers]
>

>

>It had also sort of seemed that the Warder Bond wasn't a weave either,


>if only because it was a weave actively made by Aes Sedai, and the Aes
>Sedai do not, as a general rule, know how to invert or tie off weaves.

Sure they do... the tying off part, at least. The Aes Sedai that
shielded Rand before seemed to know how to tie off that weave, at
least. I know that the inverting weaves part was learned through
Moggy, and the Ubergirls picked up how to tie weaves off on their own,
but I didn't get the impression that the Aes Sedai on the whole didn't
know how to tie weaves off.

>If the Warder Bonds were tied off, inverted weaves, they should all
>have that skill. Therefore, the Warder Bond must be creating some
>permanent change-- in this case, a slight correspondance, perhaps-- in
>the souls of the Aes Sedai and the Warders. So it makes sense that

>this stays intact when one or both is in a Stedding. (As a corollary,


>I think it also means that simply stilling a woman does not break the
>Warder bond. That also jibes with Min being able to have a bond in
>the first place.)

Actually, I'd think that Stilling the woman might break the bond.
Non-channelers can have a bond...but only of a Channeler creates the
bond in the first place. And we don't know if two non-channelers can
have a bond as strong as the Warder bond. (Min is bonded to Rand, yes,
but could she be, if Rand were not a channeler? Perhaps she's acting
more like *his* Warder?)


--
-'-,-'-<<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


John R. Heltsley II

unread,
Nov 12, 2000, 3:00:00 AM11/12/00
to
Although this doesn't have anything to do with the ideas presented i
nthis thread, I can't really jusitfy starting a new thread for a simple
comment...

I must say, that I was *extremely* disappointed with my meeting of RJ at
a book signing in San Diego on the 8th.

I got there about 1 hour before he was to start signing books. When I
went inside to purchase my book ahead of time, he was already in there,
and was doing an interview for the local news station. I met a few
people there, and waited for 4:00pm to roll around. We all got in line
(We were assigned numbers in the order we purchased the book - I was
#24.), and waited for our turn to see the man.

Turns out that he was not taking any questions during the signing. He
was also not personalizing any of the books - so "he could get out of
there quicker". (As I was told by a staff member at the book store.) I
was disappointed by this, as I had heard that he usually takes a few
questions during the book signings, and I had heard that he was a
genuinely nice guy. When I got up there, I said "Good Afternoon.", and
held my hand out to shake his hand. He ignored my hand, and asked for my
books. He signed them, and that was it. Not a single word from him at all.

I was miffed, to say the least, so I left right after that. He might
have done something for the fans after all of the books were signed, but
by everyone at the store's, and his, attitude, I doubt it. Maybe he had
an appointment to go somewhere, or his flight was scheduled soon after
the book signings. But regardless, I was extremely put off by his, and
the store's attitudes about this signing.

I'd like to put some of the blame on the store, but I was there when
Terry Goodkind's last book came out for his signing - Mr. Good kind was
extremely nice and talkative, and he took about 5-10 minutes with each
person in line. (I was 5th in line that night, and it took me 45 minutes
to get to him!) Not that I was complaining, though... Therefore, I can't
say that RJ's signing was caused by the store pushing him out of there;
The choice must have been all on RJ's part, and that ticks me off.
Especially since he's my favorite author. I'm not going to stop reading
or anything, I just wanted to throw this out there, and get it off my
chest.

Anyone out there have any experiences similar to this? Or did I just
happen to see him for my first time on a "bad day"?

- John

John S. Novak, III

unread,
Nov 12, 2000, 3:00:00 AM11/12/00
to
On Sun, 12 Nov 2000 19:17:27 GMT, Oleg Ozerov
<Ozzypti...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

>>>>>>[Spoilers]

>>Consider that someone cut by a whip-thin flow of air does not heal on


>>entering a Stedding. Someone Healed by the Power does not rewound
>>when they enter a Stedding. Everything we know about the Oaths
>>implies to me that they are working some permanent change on the souls
>>of the women who use it, as well as some permanent change on their
>>bodies, so that makes sense to me.

>You know it's not permanent. If they are stilled, the Oaths are gone. Yet,
>if they are stilled, the Healing done on them 5 seconds prior to stilling
>will remain.

Work with me here.
If not permanent, then permanent until something happens to change it.
Call it persistent in the absence of a weave. 'Permanent' is a
simpler word.

Remember, non-channelling women cannot be bound by the Oath Rod, so
perhaps whatever part of the soul is damaged by stilling is the part
that maintains the Oaths.

> (As a corollary,
>>I think it also means that simply stilling a woman does not break the
>>Warder bond. That also jibes with Min being able to have a bond in
>>the first place.)

>Didn't Siuan lose her Warder connection when she was stilled? I don't


>remember, when did she start crying for him, on the way to Salidar or when
>Nynaeve Healed her?

Alric was dead before she was stilled, but she only felt the loss of
it after she was Healed.

>>So if Jordan isn't just making this shit up off the top of his head,
>>then something about a tied off shield is more like a permanent change
>>in someone's soul, than a tied off weave. But again, that doesn't
>>jibe with anything we've seen, unless the Forsaken are doing something
>>very different than the modern channelers when they put a permanent
>>shield around someone.

>I doubt that the Forsaken are that different in that respect. You're right,
>it doesn't go along well with saying "weave" outright when the shield is
>placed by anybody.

It should be obvious, by the way, that I'm carrying out this line of
thought more with the purpose of understanding the _other_ effects
(Warder Bond, etc) than defending Jordan, here. If we come up with
some explanation that exonerates Jordan, I'll be very surprised.

If Jordan comes up with some explanation that exonerates himself, I'll
be mildly surprised.

>However, I have been wondering for a time wtf is going on when somebody is
>shielded and is trying to batter through the shield. I have always had a
>problem with them battering against it. With what?! They are cut off the
>Power at the moment, what force are the shielded using to bend the shield or
>break it?

<Shrug>

I didn't have too much of a problem with that.
In the absence of a shield, they're still described as "reaching" for
something. Well now, they're "reaching" for something, but there's
something in the way. In order to reach, there has to be some
activity or motion in the first place, and that shield is resisting
it.

It would appear that the strength with which one can "reach" is
roughly proportional to the strength with which one can channel. Don'
know if that's significant or not.

>In this light your tentative explanation makes sense. If it's just a change
>on some physical or spiritual level in _you_ yourself, then you may be able
>to alter it. But the language used is still confusing - we know that it is a
>weave when it's maintained and it's always said the weave tied off, you
>don't say that when you break a leg with Power.

It would help if we had a viewpoint of a character who had been
shielded by a Forsaken, to compare it and know if they were doing
something different.

Here's a question that may be important: The Forsaken weave shields
that are mobile and active with the target. (Not only that, they're
tuneable, such that Asmodean can not only walk around on his own, but
he is not entirely cut off from Saidin, only mostly cut off.)

I do not recall seeing anyone else weave a shield like that-- the
implication (maybe incorrect implication) is that someone has to be
standing over someone.

I don't know if that's important, either.

Bryon T Wasserman

unread,
Nov 12, 2000, 9:36:20 PM11/12/00
to
On 12 Nov 2000 09:52:29 GMT, j...@concentric.net (John S. Novak, III)
wrote:

>So if Jordan isn't just making this shit up off the top of his head,
>then something about a tied off shield is more like a permanent change
>in someone's soul, than a tied off weave. But again, that doesn't
>jibe with anything we've seen, unless the Forsaken are doing something
>very different than the modern channelers when they put a permanent
>shield around someone.

I'm also not clear, why it was necssary for Lanfear to invert the
shield that she placed on Asmodean, if such shields aren't active
weaves.

Bryon Wasserman
wass...@law.georgetown.edu
Bryon Wasserman
wass...@law.georgetown.edu

Jordan Crain

unread,
Nov 12, 2000, 10:46:23 PM11/12/00
to
j...@concentric.net (John S. Novak, III) wrote in
<slrn90uce...@ts006d48.chi-il.concentric.net>:
>
>Here's a question that may be important: The Forsaken weave shields
>that are mobile and active with the target. (Not only that, they're
>tuneable, such that Asmodean can not only walk around on his own, but
>he is not entirely cut off from Saidin, only mostly cut off.)
>
>I do not recall seeing anyone else weave a shield like that-- the
>implication (maybe incorrect implication) is that someone has to be
>standing over someone.
>
>I don't know if that's important, either.

I was under the impression that what you describe is simply a tied off
shield. The shield is targeted on the person's connection to
saidin/saidar. We've seen several examples of tied-off weaves being
affixed to various and sundry physical objects. This is just a weave
affixed to a slightly more abstract object. I always assumed that if the
object were to move, the weave would move with it. This would apply to the
shielded person as well.

We saw several Aes Sedai tie-off their shields buffering Rand at Dumai's
Wells. Granted, some of the sisters remained behind to maintain their
portion of the shield, but they weren't maintaining ALL of it, just the
part they wove. We even get a nice, long description of how Rand can break
through a tied-off shield through the knot.

Given all this, I would assume that what Lanfear did to Asmodean was tie-
off and invert a slightly leaky shield.


--
Jordan Crain jordancrain@*nospam*.hotmail.com
"In theory, there's no difference between theory and practice;
In practice, there is."

Oleg Ozerov

unread,
Nov 13, 2000, 1:21:19 AM11/13/00
to

John S. Novak, III wrote in message ...
>On Sun, 12 Nov 2000 19:17:27 GMT, Oleg Ozerov
><Ozzypti...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>>>>>>>[Spoilers]

>
>
>


>>>Consider that someone cut by a whip-thin flow of air does not heal on
>>>entering a Stedding. Someone Healed by the Power does not rewound
>>>when they enter a Stedding. Everything we know about the Oaths
>>>implies to me that they are working some permanent change on the souls
>>>of the women who use it, as well as some permanent change on their
>>>bodies, so that makes sense to me.
>
>>You know it's not permanent. If they are stilled, the Oaths are gone. Yet,
>>if they are stilled, the Healing done on them 5 seconds prior to stilling
>>will remain.
>
>Work with me here.
>If not permanent, then permanent until something happens to change it.
>Call it persistent in the absence of a weave. 'Permanent' is a
>simpler word.

Permanent as in not eeding maintenance, but reversible (potentially).

>It should be obvious, by the way, that I'm carrying out this line of
>thought more with the purpose of understanding the _other_ effects
>(Warder Bond, etc) than defending Jordan, here. If we come up with
>some explanation that exonerates Jordan, I'll be very surprised.

Heh.

>If Jordan comes up with some explanation that exonerates himself, I'll
>be mildly surprised.

If Jordan comes up with some explanation that exonerates himself in his
eyes, I'll
not be surprised at all.
If Jordan comes up with some explanation that exonerates himself in our
eyes, I'll
be, well, poleaxed.

>>However, I have been wondering for a time wtf is going on when somebody is
>>shielded and is trying to batter through the shield. I have always had a
>>problem with them battering against it. With what?! They are cut off the
>>Power at the moment, what force are the shielded using to bend the shield
or
>>break it?
>
><Shrug>
>
>I didn't have too much of a problem with that.
>In the absence of a shield, they're still described as "reaching" for
>something. Well now, they're "reaching" for something, but there's
>something in the way. In order to reach, there has to be some
>activity or motion in the first place, and that shield is resisting
>it.

Yeah, butgoing thru or untying the knots?? That's a bit too much for me.

>It would appear that the strength with which one can "reach" is
>roughly proportional to the strength with which one can channel. Don'
>know if that's significant or not.

Perhaps not.

>>In this light your tentative explanation makes sense. If it's just a
change
>>on some physical or spiritual level in _you_ yourself, then you may be
able
>>to alter it. But the language used is still confusing - we know that it is
a
>>weave when it's maintained and it's always said the weave tied off, you
>>don't say that when you break a leg with Power.
>
>It would help if we had a viewpoint of a character who had been
>shielded by a Forsaken, to compare it and know if they were doing
>something different.
>

>Here's a question that may be important: The Forsaken weave shields
>that are mobile and active with the target. (Not only that, they're
>tuneable, such that Asmodean can not only walk around on his own, but
>he is not entirely cut off from Saidin, only mostly cut off.)

I don't see that the shields woven by modern channelers aren't mobile. The
only case where htey stand over is when they are actually maintaining the
shield. Nynaeve shields Moghedien and runs off. Although Moghedien frees
herself, and we know how, Nynaeve doesn't think that her shield dissipated
by itself.

In that respect it's not unlike any other weave. If Rand ties somebody with
Air and ties it off, they'll stay bound whether Rand's there or not.

The Asmodean shield was outstanding, but I don't think Lanfear attended to
it later, it was tied off.

>I do not recall seeing anyone else weave a shield like that-- the
>implication (maybe incorrect implication) is that someone has to be
>standing over someone.

Moghedien's shield over Liandrin was special, too.

--
O.


David Chapman

unread,
Nov 13, 2000, 3:00:00 AM11/13/00
to
"Oleg Ozerov" <Ozzypti...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:zLLP5.9334$mq1.6...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...


> >If Jordan comes up with some explanation that exonerates himself,
I'll
> >be mildly surprised.
>
> If Jordan comes up with some explanation that exonerates himself in
his
> eyes, I'll
> not be surprised at all.
> If Jordan comes up with some explanation that exonerates himself in
our
> eyes, I'll
> be, well, poleaxed.

But he said it at a signing, didn't he? AFAIAA, apart from identifying
the Gars, Jordan has *never* said anything wholly accurate at a signing;
probably because he's rushed for time to answer.

--
"I used to be a pacifist, after a fashion."
"What happened?"
"Expediency."

John W. Schwegler

unread,
Nov 13, 2000, 3:00:00 AM11/13/00
to
John S. Novak, III (j...@concentric.net) wrote:
: On Sun, 12 Nov 2000 19:17:27 GMT, Oleg Ozerov
: <Ozzypti...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

: >>>>>>[Spoilers]

:

[omitted]
: >>So if Jordan isn't just making this shit up off the top of his head,
: >>then something about a tied off shield is more like a permanent change


: >>in someone's soul, than a tied off weave. But again, that doesn't
: >>jibe with anything we've seen, unless the Forsaken are doing something
: >>very different than the modern channelers when they put a permanent
: >>shield around someone.

: >I doubt that the Forsaken are that different in that respect. You're right,


: >it doesn't go along well with saying "weave" outright when the shield is
: >placed by anybody.

: It should be obvious, by the way, that I'm carrying out this line of


: thought more with the purpose of understanding the _other_ effects

: (Warder Bond, etc) than defending Jordan, here. If we come up with
: some explanation that exonerates Jordan, I'll be very surprised.

: If Jordan comes up with some explanation that exonerates himself, I'll
: be mildly surprised.

I did think of one possibility here. The tied off weave will dissipate
if it enters a stedding. However, what is the location of tied-off weave
which blocks a channeler from the Source? One end of the connection to
the Source obviously terminates at the channeler, but the other end has
no particular physical location. It may be that the current location
of the blocked channeler will not affect weaves attached to their
connection to the Source.

Another way of looking at it is that the stedding "blocks off" the
channeler from the Source, but closer to the channeler than the tied-off
weave. The weave, on the far side of the cutoff, can continue to exist.

-John
--
______________________________________________________________________________
John Schwegler - replies to: jo...@flower.aud.temple.edu

Hofstadter's Law: It always takes longer than you expect,
even when you take Hofstadter's Law into account.


Oleg Ozerov

unread,
Nov 13, 2000, 3:00:00 AM11/13/00
to

David Chapman wrote in message ...

>"Oleg Ozerov" <Ozzypti...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
>news:zLLP5.9334$mq1.6...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
>
>> >If Jordan comes up with some explanation that exonerates himself,
>I'll
>> >be mildly surprised.
>>
>> If Jordan comes up with some explanation that exonerates himself in
>his
>> eyes, I'll
>> not be surprised at all.
>> If Jordan comes up with some explanation that exonerates himself in
>our
>> eyes, I'll
>> be, well, poleaxed.
>
>But he said it at a signing, didn't he? AFAIAA, apart from identifying
>the Gars, Jordan has *never* said anything wholly accurate at a signing;
>probably because he's rushed for time to answer.


Let's face it, the guy tried trick Jordan. Jordan assumed the stance "I will
right this damn series the way I damn like". The concept of going to the
stedding to get deshielded is so ridiculous that the answer to it is no, and
if it contradicts something, it's still no. Justification can come later.

O.

Josh Boyette

unread,
Nov 14, 2000, 12:59:16 AM11/14/00
to

King Arthur's last name, Pendragon, meant the Great Dragon. In Marion
Zimmer Bradley's Mists of Avalon, and probably in other Arthurian
series, Pendragon is more of a title than a last name, so he was Arthur,
the Great Dragon.

Josh Boyette

Ha T. Nguyen

unread,
Nov 14, 2000, 8:28:22 PM11/14/00
to
"John R. Heltsley II" wrote:
>
> Although this doesn't have anything to do with the ideas presented i
> nthis thread, I can't really jusitfy starting a new thread for a simple
> comment...
>
> I must say, that I was *extremely* disappointed with my meeting of RJ at
> a book signing in San Diego on the 8th.
>

[snip]

>
> Anyone out there have any experiences similar to this? Or did I just
> happen to see him for my first time on a "bad day"?
>

Well, I saw RJ in Seattle on Sunday and he was nice and answered my
questions. Also, he personalized books if you went twice around
the line. Which I did.

I asked who killed Asmodean, the Hot New Choice (HNC) or Graendal.
RJ said that one day he might answer this question, but, if
people would just analyze where everyone was at the time, it
could be figured out. So, I'm thinking, Graendal, since she
is the only one who had a timeline that could be figured out.

Currently, that is. Unless, someone comes up with one for the HNC.

He is currently writing the next book so, maybe, maybe, next year?

Unfortunately, I couldn't think of any more questions.

--
Ha

Hawk

unread,
Nov 16, 2000, 3:00:00 AM11/16/00
to
Brandon A. Downey <bado...@sprynet.com> shouted:


: I was fortune enough to attend the Robert Jordan book signing at the


:Barnes and Nobles in San Jose near where I live in California, and I
:figured everyone might be interested to hear what it was like.

[...]
:So, being near the beginning of the line, we only had to wait while some


:fetching young female types had their picture made with RJ (Mmm..
:lechery). After that, my friend got to ask his question, which was the
:one about Machin Shin and the Ways:

Originally I was going to skip this signing since I A) didn't finish the
book until Monday and B) have been to so many of these before but Batya
wouldn't stop bothering me until I agreed to go.

While I was one of those near the back of the line (though not quite out
the door), I had a surprising amount of fun. At the store I managed to
bump into someone I know, have some fun debates with the people in line
around me, was introduced to a Discovery Zone book about Dungeons and
Torture for kids, discover that RJ _still_ remembers who I am, and was
able to hang around and listen to RJ speak. Since only one of us in my
group had finished WH, there were very few questions asked about that
book.

Questions asked:

Q: Why was the glossary so short?
A. Normally he solicits opinion from people what should be in there, but
he ran out of time this book. He would have liked it to have been more
fleshed out.

Q: Have you ever seen 'Army of Darkness'? There's a scene in there where
Ash (the protagonist) smashes the mirror and mini dopplegangers come out
of each shard.
A: No. When did the movie come out?

Q: What was the use of Elayne's "rod" in PoD?
A: RAFO and he's surprised at the imaginations of some of the female
fans who mail him - their imaginations are quite vivid.

Q: Was there ever a Purple Ajah?
A: They were going to, but they ran off to New Orleans and started up a
biker bar instead.

Q: There were a lot of fans upset at your decision to sell the Prologue
to S&S as an e-book, and there were other people upset at your "special
introduction", thinking that you were mocking your fans. What was your
intent/how did this come about?
A: People who got upset about the "special introduction" need to "take a
break and get a milkshake." The introduction was definately about mocking
e-books and how it really did feel like selling your soul. S&S came to
him and begged for something - anything - to sell from WH's as an ebook.
He didn't go to them at all.

Q: Do you think you'll ever put the books out in electronic format?
A: When there's a reader that he can "drop in the water, dry with a hair
dryer, and then read" he'll move over to e-books. He's also waiting for
the industry to hash out its standards. He expects that to take another 5
years or so.

Q: How many more books? [no one I was with was stupid enough to ask]
A: At least 3 more.

Nominees for quotes of the evening:

'One time when Harriet asked me what I wanted for dinner, I told her to
read and find out.'

'If you die before the series ends I will desecrate your grave'


All in all, I'm glad I went. The crowd was definately less than previous
years; however, I feel much of that has to do withthe fact that this event
was barely advertised. It did give me a chance to get my book
personalized, at least.

Hawk

--
Do not meddle in the affairs of hawks, for we are fond of raking with our
talons.


Matt Peck

unread,
Nov 16, 2000, 3:00:00 AM11/16/00
to
Josh Boyette <jboy...@sas.upenn.edu> wrote:
> John Meyer wrote:
> >
> > Brandon A. Downey wrote:
> >
> > > -What does the title dragon mean, historically speaking? Was
there some
> > > deeper significance to LTT being named that, or was it because
dragons
> > > have always been historically badasses?
> >
> > If you look at the mythological dragons, they have basically been
creatures
> > who were either sleeping or very thirsty with power. The legend
that I
> > have heard is that if a dragon is awake, he will spend all of his
time
> > collecting all of the riches of the world until he is driven mad by
lust
> > for more.
>
> King Arthur's last name, Pendragon, meant the Great Dragon. In Marion
> Zimmer Bradley's Mists of Avalon, and probably in other Arthurian
> series, Pendragon is more of a title than a last name, so he was
Arthur,
> the Great Dragon.
>
> Josh Boyette
>

I think what he meant was Randland History. I have not seen any
references to dragons within Randland mythology, and don't have the
guide on hand to check there. I'd ask this question at a signing if he
ever came near I live.

--
Matt Peck


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.

Adam Benedict Canning

unread,
Nov 16, 2000, 3:00:00 AM11/16/00
to

John Meyer wrote:
>
> Brandon A. Downey wrote:
>
> > -What does the title dragon mean, historically speaking? Was there some
> > deeper significance to LTT being named that, or was it because dragons
> > have always been historically badasses?
>
> If you look at the mythological dragons, they have basically been creatures
> who were either sleeping or very thirsty with power. The legend that I
> have heard is that if a dragon is awake, he will spend all of his time
> collecting all of the riches of the world until he is driven mad by lust
> for more.

Unless your chinese in which case they are members of the Heavenly
Burocracy and very very wise.

Oh and they fly because of the magic pearls hidden in thier brains.

Adam

David Chapman

unread,
Nov 16, 2000, 3:00:00 AM11/16/00
to
> Josh Boyette <jboy...@sas.upenn.edu> wrote:

> > King Arthur's last name, Pendragon, meant the Great Dragon. In
Marion
> > Zimmer Bradley's Mists of Avalon, and probably in other Arthurian
> > series, Pendragon is more of a title than a last name, so he was
> Arthur,
> > the Great Dragon.

No, he wasn't. What MZB said in her re-write of the myth was her own
business, but it was Arthur's father, Uther, who was named Pendragon.

"Pendragon" also does *not* mean "the Great Dragon". "Pen" just means
"hill", or more often "headland". Most likely, Uther's name was simply
"Uther of Dragon Hill".

My recommendation: throw out your pulp fantasy, and go read T.H. White's
"The Once and Future King". It's far closer to the original source
material and a far superior book.

Magnus Itland

unread,
Nov 16, 2000, 3:00:00 AM11/16/00
to
merha...@NYETsonic.NYETnet (Hawk) wrote:

>Q: Do you think you'll ever put the books out in electronic format?
>A: When there's a reader that he can "drop in the water, dry with a hair
>dryer, and then read" he'll move over to e-books. He's also waiting for
>the industry to hash out its standards. He expects that to take another 5
>years or so.

I think this nicely illustrated the gross stupidity of a contract that
somehow manages to treat written books and spoken books as something
different from e-books.

I am tempted to wait 5 years to buy the next book, then. The WoT
books are exactly where you'd want to be able to quickly locate a name
or a phrase with a few clicks. You can't do that with a hairdryer.
--
itl...@online.no The one and only Magnus Itland.
http://home.online.no/~itlandm/
The Chaos Node: Diary of a sentient humanoid.

jco...@my-deja.com

unread,
Nov 16, 2000, 7:46:19 PM11/16/00
to
In article <3A11E6B6...@boeing.com>,

I was at the same signing (Mysterious Galaxy) and I was 22 in line. I
did ask him if Moiraine was still alive; his reply was "Oh, come on.
Read and find out" Basically, the answer I expected although he could
have thrown in a bone or two for me to chew on.

Jeff

Frank van Schie

unread,
Nov 16, 2000, 7:59:44 PM11/16/00
to

"Brandon A. Downey" wrote:
>
> [Spoilers]
>
> S
>
> p
>
> o
>
> i
>
> l
>
> -
>
> o
>
> -
>
> r
>
> a
>
> m
>
> a
>

> So, that's a confusing set of answers. Why is it that when shielded, the
> bond to your warder can become faint enough that you don't notice it,
> whereas in the stedding it's just fine? Why is it that weaves that don't
> depend on you drawing the one power don't work, but wells do? And, why
> do shields (which are a species of a weave) that are tied off not
> subject to this constraint?

Shields and the Warder bond are all weaves of pure Spirit. Since
basically nothing much else is made entirely of spirit, RJ can make it
credible that that is the deciding factor (tied off weaves of all other
powers dissipate the weave immediately, Spirit endures when tied off.

> I hope my answers proved helpful to someone out there, as we continue
> sifting through the series in search of just one more nugget of detail.

Anyway, Machin Shin is a FUNCTION of the DO's taint. No more taint, no
more Machin Shin? Otherwise, Machin Shin should've kept on growing with
a constant taint.... Well, IMHO :-)
--
Frank

Frank van Schie

unread,
Nov 16, 2000, 8:00:37 PM11/16/00
to

Magnus Itland wrote:
>
> I think this nicely illustrated the gross stupidity of a contract that
> somehow manages to treat written books and spoken books as something
> different from e-books.

Well, the conditions he sets are a bit odd. If I drop a book in the
water, and dry it, I have nice squarish lump of paper mache with some
words on it.

But electronic media don't have enough of a benefit, and too many
drawbacks, I'd think...

> I am tempted to wait 5 years to buy the next book, then. The WoT
> books are exactly where you'd want to be able to quickly locate a name
> or a phrase with a few clicks. You can't do that with a hairdryer.

grep "Choedan Kal" "Winter's Heart"
[skip to found references to Choedan Kal]

Can't do THAT in a book (dead-tree variety) :-)
--
Frank

Joe Goyette

unread,
Nov 16, 2000, 9:29:41 PM11/16/00
to

<snip>
Where do you get this about tied off weaves dissipating immediately?
Are you referring to Avi's gateway that Rand chased her through?
IIRC she made the gateway and let it go, not tied it off. Rand
forced it to stay open and that is the reason it was closing.

I have not seen ANY tied off weaves dissipate unless they were
meant to; i.e. shields that are not meant to be permanent.

John S. Novak, III

unread,
Nov 16, 2000, 11:17:25 PM11/16/00
to
On Fri, 17 Nov 2000 02:00:37 +0100, Frank van Schie
<fv...@hoopyfroods.org> wrote:

>Well, the conditions he sets are a bit odd. If I drop a book in the
>water, and dry it, I have nice squarish lump of paper mache with some
>words on it.

>But electronic media don't have enough of a benefit, and too many
>drawbacks, I'd think...

They're coming along nicely, but they're not quite there, yet.
Softbook has apparently dropped the idea of tying their hardware (the
best-looking ones out there) to their own proprietary publishing
system, so that's good.

They've accepted the idea that if a reader is stolen, they'd better
damn well provide restorations of the works stored there, by allowing
a new reader to download stuff. Since they now have multiple models
available, they're going to find out right quick that they need to
provide an upgrade path that doesn't involve buying all the material
over again.

From there, it will be a short step to realizing that competition
dictates people _will_ upgrade across vendors, and that they will
demand intercompatibility.

A secure borrow/lend mechanism is the only major requirement left to
fill, after that. And it is a solvable problem.

Leigh D. Butler

unread,
Nov 17, 2000, 1:43:32 AM11/17/00
to
Apropos of nothing, on Thu, 16 Nov 2000 09:22:31 GMT Hawk wrote:

<RJ signing>

> Q: Was there ever a Purple Ajah?
> A: They were going to, but they ran off to New Orleans and started up a
> biker bar instead.

Heh.

New Orleans! Whoo hoo!

I do believe I shall .sig this, for the very simple reason that I am
probably the only one who really finds it funny.

--
Leigh Butler dal...@concentric.net
**************************************
"But other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?"

Frank van Schie

unread,
Nov 17, 2000, 3:00:00 AM11/17/00
to

As you can read in the paragraph above mine, it was about weaves in a
stedding, not in the Real World. Apparently RJ said anyone with, say,
Illusion (Air and Fire?) tied off around him walking into a stedding
would look as he does without the weave, and would not come back when
you left the stedding. However, Liandrin for example can't just walk
into a stedding and see herself cleared of her tied-off shield.

So I'm assuming that may be because of the use of solely Spirit in
shields.

--
Frank

han...@teameggroll.com

unread,
Nov 17, 2000, 3:00:00 AM11/17/00
to
> As you can read in the paragraph above mine, it was about weaves in a
> stedding, not in the Real World. Apparently RJ said anyone with, say,
> Illusion (Air and Fire?) tied off around him walking into a stedding
> would look as he does without the weave, and would not come back when
> you left the stedding. However, Liandrin for example can't just walk
> into a stedding and see herself cleared of her tied-off shield.
>
> So I'm assuming that may be because of the use of solely Spirit in
> shields.


This was answered before. Oaths sword on the Oath Rod don't come
undone, probably because they alter a person physically (ie: for an AS
(of the non-DF type ;-) to lie is a physical impossibility: they can't
breathe — refer to tPoD when one of the sisters tells an SAS to admit
her lie, but she hadn't lied, and therefore admitting to a lie would be
a lie in and of itself)

As someone also said, if you are healed with the Power and go into a
Stedding, you don't become un-healed. The Warder bonds are a physical
chenge in the AS and Warder.

As for shielding, the best explanation is (AFAIConcerned) is that the
shield either resides on some sort of "spirit plane" or within the
person themself. In that case the Stedding would not effect any changes
on/inside the person's body. (this would also explain the OR's effects
as well as the un-healing, and also the Warder bond)


hanser

Ken Gerrard

unread,
Nov 17, 2000, 3:00:00 AM11/17/00
to
Leigh D. Butler <dal...@concentric.net> writes:

>Apropos of nothing, on Thu, 16 Nov 2000 09:22:31 GMT Hawk wrote:

><RJ signing>

>> Q: Was there ever a Purple Ajah?
>> A: They were going to, but they ran off to New Orleans and started up a
>> biker bar instead.

>Heh.

>New Orleans! Whoo hoo!

>I do believe I shall .sig this, for the very simple reason that I am
>probably the only one who really finds it funny.

Don't .sig it for that; I found it funny, too.

--
Ken Gerrard
umge...@cc.umanitoba.ca

Young Blandford

unread,
Nov 17, 2000, 3:00:00 AM11/17/00
to
In article <t18p3ks...@corp.supernews.com>,
"David Chapman" <da...@evildeath.madasafish.com> wrote:

> "Pendragon" also does *not* mean "the Great Dragon". "Pen" just means
> "hill", or more often "headland". Most likely, Uther's name was
simply
> "Uther of Dragon Hill".

"Pen" in Welsh means "head". Making Pendragon, "Head Dragon".

--

Young Blandford

Thor

unread,
Nov 17, 2000, 3:00:00 AM11/17/00
to
Ken Gerrard wrote:
>
> Leigh D. Butler <dal...@concentric.net> writes:
>
> >Apropos of nothing, on Thu, 16 Nov 2000 09:22:31 GMT Hawk wrote:
>
> ><RJ signing>
>
> >> Q: Was there ever a Purple Ajah?
> >> A: They were going to, but they ran off to New Orleans and started up a
> >> biker bar instead.
>
> >Heh.
>
> >New Orleans! Whoo hoo!
>
> >I do believe I shall .sig this, for the very simple reason that I am
> >probably the only one who really finds it funny.
>
> Don't .sig it for that; I found it funny, too.

I, however, found it offensive to women and homophobic, not to
mention racist and anti-Semetic. So that's another vote for
.sigging it.

--Thor
up way too early

The Great Gray Skwid

unread,
Nov 17, 2000, 3:00:00 AM11/17/00
to
We leaned closer as Thor <bunn...@earthlink.net> whispered (at 9:38AM):
<snip all>

> --Thor
> up way too early

Boy, at 9:30 I'm already thinking about lunch! Wassup with that!

--
| | |\ | | | ) Theudegisklos "Skwid" Sweinbrothar
|/| |\ |/ | |X| ( SKWID, Vulture V4 pilot ( The Humblest Mollusc
| | | | | | | ) Evan "Skwid" Langlinais ) on the Net
"Cthulhu is my codpiece" http://skwid.home.texas.net

Andrea Leistra

unread,
Nov 17, 2000, 3:00:00 AM11/17/00
to

[_The Mists of Avalon_]

>My recommendation: throw out your pulp fantasy, and go read T.H. White's
>"The Once and Future King". It's far closer to the original source
>material and a far superior book.

It's far superior, sure, but it's not really all that much closer to
Malory (which I presume is what you mean by "the original source"; there
are many sources), particularly in the _The Sword in the Stone_
section.

For something drawing on the historical Arthur as well as on the legends
(the setting and circumstances are more historical, in the same sense that
lots of Kay's stuff is, but the character of the Arthur-equivalent takes a
lot from the legends), read _The King's Peace_ by Jo Walton. Jo swears up
and down that it isn't an Arthur story, and it isn't really, not entirely,
but it does a lot of the same things.

--
Andrea Leistra


David Chapman

unread,
Nov 17, 2000, 3:00:00 AM11/17/00
to
"Young Blandford" <youngbl...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:8v3gd6$i08$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...

> In article <t18p3ks...@corp.supernews.com>,
> "David Chapman" <da...@evildeath.madasafish.com> wrote:
>
> > "Pendragon" also does *not* mean "the Great Dragon". "Pen" just
means
> > "hill", or more often "headland". Most likely, Uther's name was
> simply
> > "Uther of Dragon Hill".
>
> "Pen" in Welsh means "head". Making Pendragon, "Head Dragon".

But AFAIAA, it's "head" as in "geographical feature", not as in "top of
your neck".

David Chapman

unread,
Nov 17, 2000, 3:00:00 AM11/17/00
to
"Andrea Leistra" <alei...@f1n2.u.arizona.edu> wrote in message
news:8v3v2q$4o6$1...@news.ccit.arizona.edu...

> In article <t18p3ks...@corp.supernews.com>,
> David Chapman <da...@evildeath.madasafish.com> wrote:
>
> [_The Mists of Avalon_]
>
> >My recommendation: throw out your pulp fantasy, and go read T.H.
White's
> >"The Once and Future King". It's far closer to the original source
> >material and a far superior book.
>
> It's far superior, sure, but it's not really all that much closer to
> Malory (which I presume is what you mean by "the original source";
there
> are many sources), particularly in the _The Sword in the Stone_
> section.
>

I was actually thinking of "Historia Regum Britanniae", which is *the*
original source; there are no known earlier Arthurian legends.

> For something drawing on the historical Arthur as well as on the
legends
> (the setting and circumstances are more historical, in the same sense
that
> lots of Kay's stuff is, but the character of the Arthur-equivalent
takes a
> lot from the legends), read _The King's Peace_ by Jo Walton. Jo
swears up
> and down that it isn't an Arthur story, and it isn't really, not
entirely,
> but it does a lot of the same things.

I might hunt down a copy if it's in print. Thanks.

Katherine Tait

unread,
Nov 19, 2000, 3:00:00 AM11/19/00
to

I don't think any of our dragon mythology is really relevant. The people
in Randland don't even think of dragons as creatures, there is only The
Dragon, and gradually, his banner came to be associated with the name.
Maybe there was some significance in the Age of Legends, but in the
Third Age, before Rand raised the banner, no one even knew what a
"dragon" was. The creature on the banner is described vaguely as a
many-legged serpent, etc. I think "Dragon" was just a cool name that RJ
thought up for LTT.

-Eva

David Chapman

unread,
Nov 19, 2000, 3:00:00 AM11/19/00
to
"Katherine Tait" <kjt...@magma.ca> wrote in message
news:3A17EC78...@magma.ca...

> I don't think any of our dragon mythology is really relevant. The
people
> in Randland don't even think of dragons as creatures, there is only
The
> Dragon, and gradually, his banner came to be associated with the name.
> Maybe there was some significance in the Age of Legends, but in the
> Third Age, before Rand raised the banner, no one even knew what a
> "dragon" was. The creature on the banner is described vaguely as a
> many-legged serpent, etc. I think "Dragon" was just a cool name that
RJ
> thought up for LTT.

It's no longer relevant for LTT, to be sure, but for discussion of APT
it works.

--
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

Karl-Johan Noren

unread,
Nov 19, 2000, 6:07:12 PM11/19/00
to
David Chapman <anti...@evildeath.madasafish.com> wrote:

> "Andrea Leistra" <alei...@f1n2.u.arizona.edu> wrote:
> > David Chapman <da...@evildeath.madasafish.com> wrote:
> >
> > [_The Mists of Avalon_]
> > >My recommendation: throw out your pulp fantasy, and go read T.H.
> > >White's "The Once and Future King". It's far closer to the original
> > >source material and a far superior book.

Hmmm... "pulp fantasy" just doesn't bend in the way of
_The Mists of Avalon_.

> > It's far superior, sure, but it's not really all that much closer to
> > Malory (which I presume is what you mean by "the original source";
> > there are many sources), particularly in the _The Sword in the Stone_
> > section.
>
> I was actually thinking of "Historia Regum Britanniae", which is *the*
> original source; there are no known earlier Arthurian legends.

Just because there is an older version of something doesn't
mean that that is the original source, or the one most
"true" to the "original". These are written-down oral legends,
and such tends to change both over time and distance.

One can compare Snorre Sturlasson's and Saxo Grammaticus's
treatment of the myth of Balder's death. Saxo wrote his
version earlier, but most scholars in this area agree that
Snorre's version is closer to the original version.

--
Karl-Johan Norén -- kjn...@hem.passagen.se
http://hem.passagen.se/kjnoren/
- To believe people are as stupid as one believes is
stupider than one can believe

David Chapman

unread,
Nov 20, 2000, 3:00:00 AM11/20/00
to
"Karl-Johan Noren" <kjn...@hem.passagen.se> wrote in message
news:1ekcse0.e4...@md46924a5.utfors.se...

> David Chapman <anti...@evildeath.madasafish.com> wrote:
>
> > "Andrea Leistra" <alei...@f1n2.u.arizona.edu> wrote:

> > > It's far superior, sure, but it's not really all that much closer
to
> > > Malory (which I presume is what you mean by "the original source";
> > > there are many sources), particularly in the _The Sword in the
Stone_
> > > section.
> >
> > I was actually thinking of "Historia Regum Britanniae", which is
*the*
> > original source; there are no known earlier Arthurian legends.
>
> Just because there is an older version of something doesn't
> mean that that is the original source, or the one most
> "true" to the "original". These are written-down oral legends,
> and such tends to change both over time and distance.

But apparently, no such legends concerning Arthur are known to have
existed. Geoffrey of Monmouth is reputed to have made much of the
Arthurian stuff in HRB up out of whole cloth.

Young Blandford

unread,
Nov 23, 2000, 3:00:00 AM11/23/00
to
In article <t1cg5l4...@corp.supernews.com>,

"David Chapman" <da...@evildeath.madasafish.com> wrote:
> > > "Pendragon" also does *not* mean "the Great Dragon". "Pen" just
> means
> > > "hill", or more often "headland". Most likely, Uther's name was
> > simply
> > > "Uther of Dragon Hill".
> >
> > "Pen" in Welsh means "head". Making Pendragon, "Head Dragon".
>
> But AFAIAA, it's "head" as in "geographical feature", not as in "top
of
> your neck".
>


It means both: head of the mountain and your
bonce.

David Chapman

unread,
Nov 23, 2000, 3:00:00 AM11/23/00
to
"Young Blandford" <youngbl...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:8vj0er$8uk$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...

> In article <t1cg5l4...@corp.supernews.com>,
> "David Chapman" <da...@evildeath.madasafish.com> wrote:
> > > > "Pendragon" also does *not* mean "the Great Dragon". "Pen" just
> > means
> > > > "hill", or more often "headland". Most likely, Uther's name was
> > > simply
> > > > "Uther of Dragon Hill".
> > >
> > > "Pen" in Welsh means "head". Making Pendragon, "Head Dragon".
> >
> > But AFAIAA, it's "head" as in "geographical feature", not as in "top
> of
> > your neck".
> >
> It means both: head of the mountain and your
> bonce.

OK. But even if that's the case, Pendragon is still not "Head Dragon",
although it may well be "Dragon's Head". This is not an insignificant
difference.

0 new messages