AMYRLIN SEAT BREAKS FIRST OATH! ACOS Spoilers
Timothy Bruening
AMYRLIN SEAT BREAKS FIRST OATH! Details below. Spoilers for A Crown of
Swords up to Chapter 12, and for the Shadow Rising, Chapter 47:
I believe I have caught Siuan Sanche telling an outright lie, at a time when
she was still bound by the Three Oaths. In tSR, Chapter 47, Elaida springs
her infamous coup. Elaida and her supporters walk into Siuan's office and
Shield her from the OP as Elaida calmly removes Siuan's stole and informs
her that she has been removed from the Amyrlin seat. Elaida then binds
Siuan with Air. On page 766 of the paperback tSR, Siuan angrily tells
Elaida that "There has never been a rebellion inside the Tower". However,
at the bottom of page 247 in Chapter 12 of ACOS, Egwene thinks to herself
that there have been six mutinies in the White Tower's history, hidden away
in the Tower's secret histories. The secret histories are accessible only
to the Amyrlin, Keeper, Sitters, and a few librarians. I believe that
Amyrlin Siuan would have had access to the secret histories and thus would
have known about the six mutinies. Therefore, I believe that Siuan lied when
she said that there had never been a rebellion in the Tower, at a time when
Siuan was still bound by the First Oath (she hadn't been Stilled yet). Here
are the sources of my belief that Amyrlin Siuan knew about the rebellions in
the hidden records:
On page 25, Amyrlin Elaida thinks about the ancient rebellions buried in the
secret records open only to Amyrlin, Keeper, and Sitters. If Amyrlin Elaida
knows about those rebellions, then so did Amyrlin Siuan. On pages 156, 212
and 246 are indications that Siuan was familiar with the Tower's secret
history. On page 156, Egwene muses to herself that Siuan had told her
secret details of some of the odd things that have happened in the Tower.
On page 212, in the last paragraph, Egwene comments that she doubts that
anyone has ever been raised Amyrlin without first being a full Aes Sedai,
and thinks to herself that that comment should have elicited a comment from
Siuan about the Tower's hidden records. At the top of page 246, Siuan says
that there is nothing in the secret records about Amyrlins demanding oaths
of fealty.
--
Timothy S. Bruening (tsbr...@wheel.dcn.davis.ca.us)
Davis Community Network
Gary Greenbaum
tsbr...@wheel.dcn.davis.ca.us (Timothy Bruening) wrote:
spoiler space inserted. Incidently, um, isn't your subject, which I
have edited, a bit revealing?
All depends on how Siuan, in her mind, defined the term "rebellion."
It may well be that Siuan did not consider those mutinies to be
rebellions.
I like your analysis. But Siuan was always slippery with a word.
She may be trying to shame the rebels back in their place by using a
word which is not used in the Tower, even among those in the know, to
describe the incidents. Wasn't Elaida a sitter for the White, by the
way?
Do we associate the term "rebellion" with the Civil War? If I said,
"There has not been a rebellion in the US in over 150 years", am I
necessarily lying or speaking a word that is not true?
I think RJ, with over 5600 pages to his credit, is running into
inconsistancies . . .
Gary Greenbaum
Michael Sabia
_inside_ the tower
Michael sabia
Empath1646
Amyrlin breaks first oath. Film at 11.
Yes, either it was "outside" the tower or it was a mis-step.
-------------------------------------------------
Daln deYannos
The opinions expressed therein, thereout, etc., are my opinions are your
opinions are everyone's. We are all one, although some suspect we are all
six and two thirds.
--------------------------------------------------------
"How did you DO that?"
"WHY did you do that?"
- Mystery Science Theater 3000
James R. Moore
No, Elaida was neither White nor a sitter. She was/is Red and has spent
the last 15+ years in Caemlyn as advisor to Morgase.
Lara Beaton
so sayeth tsbr...@wheel.dcn.davis.ca.us (Timothy Bruening) :
>AMYRLIN SEAT BREAKS FIRST OATH! Details below. Spoilers for A Crown of
>Swords up to Chapter 12, and for the Shadow Rising, Chapter 47:
>I believe I have caught Siuan Sanche telling an outright lie, at a time when
>she was still bound by the Three Oaths. In tSR, Chapter 47, Elaida springs
>her infamous coup. Elaida and her supporters walk into Siuan's office and
>Shield her from the OP as Elaida calmly removes Siuan's stole and informs
>her that she has been removed from the Amyrlin seat. Elaida then binds
>Siuan with Air. On page 766 of the paperback tSR, Siuan angrily tells
>Elaida that "There has never been a rebellion inside the Tower". However,
>at the bottom of page 247 in Chapter 12 of ACOS, Egwene thinks to herself
>that there have been six mutinies in the White Tower's history, hidden away
>in the Tower's secret histories. The secret histories are accessible only
>to the Amyrlin, Keeper, Sitters, and a few librarians. I believe that
>Amyrlin Siuan would have had access to the secret histories and thus would
>have known about the six mutinies. Therefore, I believe that Siuan lied when
>she said that there had never been a rebellion in the Tower, at a time when
>Siuan was still bound by the First Oath (she hadn't been Stilled yet). Here
>are the sources of my belief that Amyrlin Siuan knew about the rebellions in
>the hidden records:
Were the six mutinies in the past necessarily _within_ the White
Tower? She says "there has never been a rebellion _inside the Tower_"
(emphasis mine). She could be skirting close to telling a lie, but if
they didn't take place inside the walls of the Tower itself, she
didn't lie.
========================================================================
Lara Beaton
The opinions expressed are not those of Hughes Aircraft or General
Motors, nor are they probably opinions at all.
"I dreamt about you last night, and I fell out of bed twice."
Dylan Flynn Alexander
In article <4qcosv$1...@sol.rutgers.edu>, sa...@sol.rutgers.edu (Michael
Sabia) wrote:
}_inside_ the tower
Oh, please. It's obvious Jordan only made up the Seecrit Rekurds later
in the series.
--
Dylan Flynn Alexander
dy...@tamu.edu
Curtis Collier
I tried to tell folks that the other day on this newsgroup that Suian had
something funny going on because she wasn't surprised to be able to
lie.....
Curt
Timothy Bruening
Gary Greenbaum (ga...@clark.net) wrote:
: tsbr...@wheel.dcn.davis.ca.us (Timothy Bruening) wrote:
:
: spoiler space inserted. Incidently, um, isn't your subject, which I
: have edited, a bit revealing?
No, since (Spoilers for Chapter 47 of The Shadow Rising below):
the incident in which I believe Siuan told an outright lie occured during
the Tower coup in tSR, and is thus not an ACOS spoiler.
: >AMYRLIN SEAT BREAKS FIRST OATH! Details below. Spoilers for A Crown of
: >Swords up to Chapter 12, and for the Shadow Rising, Chapter 47:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
Munch of my analysis of why I believe Siuan lied outright when she said in
tSR (page 766 of paperback version) that there had never been a rebellion
inside the Tower, when in fact there had been six rebellions or mutinies.
: All depends on how Siuan, in her mind, defined the term "rebellion."
: It may well be that Siuan did not consider those mutinies to be
: rebellions.
:
: I like your analysis. But Siuan was always slippery with a word.
: She may be trying to shame the rebels back in their place by using a
: word which is not used in the Tower, even among those in the know, to
: describe the incidents. Wasn't Elaida a sitter for the White, by the
: way?
I have found one person who uses the term "rebellion" to descibe those
incidents: Elaida (a Red sister not in the Hall, not a White Sitter), who
on page 25 of ACOS thinks about the ancient "rebellions" buried in the
secret records.
Munch of Gary's question of whether the American Civil War is considered to
be a "rebellion".
Timothy Bruening
Michael Sabia (sa...@sol.rutgers.edu) wrote:
Spoilers below for tSR, Chapter 47:
:
: _inside_ the tower
Please don't munch the entire message you are responding to.
I assume that you are referring to my statement about Siuan telling
Elaida's rebels on page 766 of the paperback tSR that there had never
been a rebellion "inside the Tower". What makes you think that all the
previous rebellions occured outside the grounds of the White Tower? I
have seen nothing to support such an conclusion.
James Lloyd Hill
dy...@tamu.edu (Dylan Flynn Alexander) writes:
>In article <4qcosv$1...@sol.rutgers.edu>, sa...@sol.rutgers.edu (Michael
>Sabia) wrote:
>}_inside_ the tower
>Oh, please. It's obvious Jordan only made up the Seecrit Rekurds later
>in the series.
While I liked ACoS, I came to a conclusion reading it: When RJ sat down
to crank out the book, he had somewhere between 3500 and 4000 pages of
previously written stuff to keep straight. Now, even the gonzos on
thisyere froup forget details now and again and I seriously question
RJ's ability to ensure that every past prophecy and throwaway crack
doesn't come back to haunt him. I'm already convinced he botched the
Galad/Gawyn, um, thing, and the "she didn't want to know me" from Thom
in re: Aludra's presence at Valan Luca's is an obvious response to
"Oh Shit! Thom _was_ there when Aludra bumbled into and out of Mat's life.
Bloody buttered onions! What to do, what to do?"
The man, long may he write, is coming dangerously close to writing himself
into a corner he can't get out of short of _Deus Ex Machina_. He's
already gone to the "anything can happen, they're ta'veren" well ten
times too often, and the finding of the Bowl via "Need" ranks down with
finding Someshta and the Eye via "Need": a fucking cop-out.
Bruening has, like it or not, put his finger on another foulup. At the
time of Siuan's deposition, it was a good line to remark that there had
_never_ been such a thing. That illustrated just what a horrific act the
splitting of the Tower was. Now, with the need to have Egwene forced to
walk softly...and Elaida forced to kowtow to her Keeper/the Sitters,
suddenly he introduces "secret records" which reveal that this sort of
thing happens a bunch. Siuan didn't _lie._ The mutinies didn't happen
_outside_ the Tower. RJ fucked up. And that's all she wrote. It's going
to happen more and more often as the series arrives at its now
seemingly-ever-postponed end.
Finish, RJ. Finish well, and finish soon. Before you completely blow
it.
Jim
--
j-h...@coewl.cen.uiuc.edu http://www.cen.uiuc.edu/~j-hill5/
"He said `I'm lookin' for the king a 42nd Street; he drivin' a drop-top
Cadillac.'" Get that outta yer head
Timothy Bruening
Dylan Flynn Alexander (dy...@tamu.edu) wrote:
: In article <4qcosv$1...@sol.rutgers.edu>, sa...@sol.rutgers.edu (Michael
: Sabia) wrote:
:
: }_inside_ the tower
:
: Oh, please. It's obvious Jordan only made up the Seecrit Rekurds later
: in the series.
I believe you have mispelled "secret records".
P.T. Korda
In article <4qddc7$l...@mark.ucdavis.edu>,
Timothy Bruening <tsbr...@wheel.dcn.davis.ca.us> wrote:
>Dylan Flynn Alexander (dy...@tamu.edu) wrote:
>: In article <4qcosv$1...@sol.rutgers.edu>, sa...@sol.rutgers.edu (Michael
>: Sabia) wrote:
*THWACK!*
I like that.
SPOILERS, people.
Use Protection. This does contain ACOS spoilers, even though it is
nigh-content-free.
>: Oh, please. It's obvious Jordan only made up the Seecrit Rekurds later
>: in the series.
>
>I believe you have mispelled "secret records".
Ah, Timmy.
Timmy, we LUV U!
I'll let Ken extend the Purple Rod of Love, if he so desires...
-pam
Dylan Flynn Alexander
In article <4qddc7$l...@mark.ucdavis.edu>, tsbr...@wheel.dcn.davis.ca.us
(Timothy Bruening) wrote:
}Dylan Flynn Alexander (dy...@tamu.edu) wrote:
}: In article <4qcosv$1...@sol.rutgers.edu>, sa...@sol.rutgers.edu (Michael
}: Sabia) wrote:
}:
}: }_inside_ the tower
}: Oh, please. It's obvious Jordan only made up the Seecrit Rekurds later
}: in the series.
}
}I believe you have mispelled "secret records".
Oh, lord. Dr. Pepper all over the screen. Joe, how wrong you are.
Ravens
Timothy Bruening wrote:
>
> AMYRLIN SEAT BREAKS FIRST OATH! Details below. Spoilers for A Crown of
> Swords up to Chapter 12, and for the Shadow Rising, Chapter 47:
>
SS can lie now, since she was stilled, she has also been released from the
three oaths.
--
Ravens Ah, Love! could you and I with Him conspire
------ To grasp this sorry Scheme of Things entire
Quote from Would we not shatter it to bits - and then
Omar Khayìam Re-mould it nearer to the Heart's Desire!
Rocky Persaud
tsbr...@wheel.dcn.davis.ca.us (Timothy Bruening) wrote:
>Dylan Flynn Alexander (dy...@tamu.edu) wrote:
>: Oh, please. It's obvious Jordan only made up the Seecrit Rekurds later
>: in the series.
>
>I believe you have mispelled "secret records".
>
Are you for real?
Sok-Hyon Kang
Excerpts from netnews.rec.arts.sf.written.robert-jordan: 20-Jun-96 Re:
AMYRLIN SEAT . . . ACO.. by "James R. Moore"@cybertr
> the last 15+ years in Caemlyn as advisor to Morgase.
Actually, Elaida is a Sitter for the Red. It's mentioned somewhere in TSR.
Steven
Dylan Flynn Alexander
}Timothy Bruening wrote:
}>
}> AMYRLIN SEAT BREAKS FIRST OATH! Details below. Spoilers for A Crown of
}> Swords up to Chapter 12, and for the Shadow Rising, Chapter 47:
}>
}Useless stuff snipped.
}
}SS can lie now, since she was stilled, she has also been released from the
}three oaths.
But she couldn't in TSR when the incident he was discussing occured.
Reading comprehension is your friend.
Richard Boye'
Elaida was *never* a sitter for the Red. almost immediately
after she was raised to the shawl, she was appointed as
advisor to Morgase, a position she held until Morgase left
her in Tar Valon after the missing Elayne fiasco.
However, you may remember a throw away reference to Elaida
being a Sitter for the Red in Egwene's Acceptance testing.
But that never happened.
Sok-Hyon Kang
Excerpts from netnews.rec.arts.sf.written.robert-jordan: 22-Jun-96 Re:
AMYRLIN SEAT . . . ACOS.. by Richard Boye'@prodigy.co
I said -TSR-, not TDR.
TSR, p. 764, ppb, 'The Truth of a Viewing' First Siuan POV
"Three Sitters for three different Ajahs had proposed holding all
plans close in the Hall before she even suggested it; the surprise had
been that one was Elaida, . . ."
Steven
Dylan Flynn Alexander
In article <4qi3a7$f...@mark.ucdavis.edu>, tsbr...@wheel.dcn.davis.ca.us
(Timothy Bruening) wrote:
}Rocky Persaud (rocky....@utoronto.ca) wrote:
}: tsbr...@wheel.dcn.davis.ca.us (Timothy Bruening) wrote:
}: >Dylan Flynn Alexander (dy...@tamu.edu) wrote:
}: >: Oh, please. It's obvious Jordan only made up the Seecrit Rekurds later
}: >: in the series.
}: >I believe you have mispelled "secret records".
}: Are you for real?
}
}Of course I'm for real. I was just correcting an obvious spelling error.
<gasp>
<choke>
<sputter>
No matter how often I check the headers, it's never an obvious forgery
by the Cabal (TINC). I'm becoming Very Frightened.
Timothy Bruening
Ravens (ja...@follonett.no) wrote:
: Timothy Bruening wrote:
: >
: > AMYRLIN SEAT BREAKS FIRST OATH! Details below. Spoilers for A Crown of
: > Swords up to Chapter 12, and for the Shadow Rising, Chapter 47:
: >
: Useless stuff snipped.
:
: SS can lie now, since she was stilled, she has also been released from the
: three oaths.
However, at the time that I believe that SS told an outright lie, she had
not yet been stilled, and therefore was still bound by the Three Oaths.
Timothy Bruening
Rocky Persaud (rocky....@utoronto.ca) wrote:
: tsbr...@wheel.dcn.davis.ca.us (Timothy Bruening) wrote:
: >Dylan Flynn Alexander (dy...@tamu.edu) wrote:
: >: Oh, please. It's obvious Jordan only made up the Seecrit Rekurds later
: >: in the series.
: >
: >I believe you have mispelled "secret records".
:
: Are you for real?
Of course I'm for real. I was just correcting an obvious spelling error.
--
Michael Nielsen
tsbr...@wheel.dcn.davis.ca.us (Timothy Bruening) wrote:
>Dylan Flynn Alexander (dy...@tamu.edu) wrote:
spoilers
>: }_inside_ the tower
>:
>: Oh, please. It's obvious Jordan only made up the Seecrit Rekurds later
>: in the series.
>
>I believe you have mispelled "secret records".
>
Possibly the funniest one-liner I've seen in the 14 months I've been reading
rasfwrj.
Timmy seems to effortlessly reach levels of humour other mortals can only dream
of.
--
Michael
http://tangelo.phys.unm.edu/~mnielsen/index.html
Don HARLOW
j-h...@ehsn24.cen.uiuc.edu (James Lloyd Hill) lastatempe skribis:
No spoilers here, I think...
>The man, long may he write, is coming dangerously close to writing himself
>into a corner he can't get out of short of _Deus Ex Machina_. He's
>already gone to the "anything can happen, they're ta'veren" well ten
>times too often, and the finding of the Bowl via "Need" ranks down with
>finding Someshta and the Eye via "Need": a fucking cop-out.
With all due respect, and not to disagree with your general opinion
(which may well be correct), don't include "finding Someshta and the
Eye via 'Need'" as an example. Despite what Moiraine said about how to
find the Eye, they didn't find it via need. Rand channeled it to them,
or them to it, when they were being chased by the worms (jumara?).
Check out, in chap. 49, "The Dark One Stirs", of tEotW, the paragraph
beginning "Clinging to his saddle with a deathgrip" and the one
immediately following.
Don HARLOW
http://www.webcom.com/~donh/
(English version available at http://www.webcom.com/~donh/dona.html)
Don HARLOW
tsbr...@wheel.dcn.davis.ca.us (Timothy Bruening) lastatempe skribis:
>Dylan Flynn Alexander (dy...@tamu.edu) wrote:
>: In article <4qcosv$1...@sol.rutgers.edu>, sa...@sol.rutgers.edu (Michael
>: Sabia) wrote:
>:
>: }_inside_ the tower
>:
>: Oh, please. It's obvious Jordan only made up the Seecrit Rekurds later
>: in the series.
>I believe you have mispelled "secret records".
I believe you have misspelled "misspelled".
Didn't we go through this once already? Come on, Novak, it's really
you, isn't it. 'fess up!
Timothy Bruening
Spoilers for TSR and ACOS below:
: >AMYRLIN SEAT BREAKS FIRST OATH! Details below. Spoilers for A Crown of
: >Swords up to Chapter 12, and for the Shadow Rising, Chapter 47:
Munch of why I believe that Siuan lied outright when she said (on page
766 of the paperback tSR) during Elaida's Coup that "there has never been
a rebellion inside the Tower", when in fact there had been six mutinies
(See Egwene POV at bottom of page 247 of ACOS).
:
:
: All depends on how Siuan, in her mind, defined the term "rebellion."
: It may well be that Siuan did not consider those mutinies to be
: rebellions.
According to an Egwene POV on page 163, the Tower has been broken
before, which indicates that there have been, by anyone's definition,
"rebellions inside the Tower" before Elaida's coup.
: I like your analysis. But Siuan was always slippery with a word.
: She may be trying to shame the rebels back in their place by using a
: word which is not used in the Tower, even among those in the know, to
: describe the incidents. Wasn't Elaida a sitter for the White, by the
: way?
However, at the time, Siuan had just been Shielded and told that she had
been removed from the Amyrlin Seat. I doubt that she would have been in
any condition to play word games.
James Lloyd Hill
d...@donh.vip.best.com (Don HARLOW) writes:
>No spoilers here, I think...
None at all...
>>The man, long may he write, is coming dangerously close to writing himself
>>into a corner he can't get out of short of _Deus Ex Machina_. He's
>>already gone to the "anything can happen, they're ta'veren" well ten
>>times too often, and the finding of the Bowl via "Need" ranks down with
>>finding Someshta and the Eye via "Need": a fucking cop-out.
>With all due respect, and not to disagree with your general opinion
>(which may well be correct), don't include "finding Someshta and the
>Eye via 'Need'" as an example. Despite what Moiraine said about how to
>find the Eye, they didn't find it via need.
True, true, I gave the wrong idea about finding the Eye via need. Yes,
Rand channeled the Eye to where they were (or Traveled them to the Eye),
but even then RJ was setting up what I feel to be a very weak link in the
books. Finding things via need, which Moiraine fully expected to do, ranks
with clapping your hands to get Tinker Bell back.
If the Creator is watching closely enough that he'll intervene when
someone "needs" something, then why all the foofaraw about Khar'mann
Ghia? Shoot, mankind "needs" to be delivered from the Dark One...and
thereyago...instant deliverance.
Oh, and my general opinion is _always_ correct.
Yrs in modesty,
"Bye-bye, Miss American Pie"
Timothy Bruening
John S. Novak, III
>>The man, long may he write, is coming dangerously close to writing himself
>>into a corner he can't get out of short of _Deus Ex Machina_. He's
>>already gone to the "anything can happen, they're ta'veren" well ten
>>times too often, and the finding of the Bowl via "Need" ranks down with
>>finding Someshta and the Eye via "Need": a fucking cop-out.
>With all due respect, and not to disagree with your general opinion
>(which may well be correct), don't include "finding Someshta and the
>Eye via 'Need'" as an example. Despite what Moiraine said about how to
>find the Eye, they didn't find it via need. Rand channeled it to them,
>or them to it, when they were being chased by the worms (jumara?).
Oh?
Silly me, I just assumed that Rand found it because _he_ needed to be
there this time, not Moiraine. I'm not sure what makes the 'need'
thing such a copout, as it's been used since the middle of the first
book.
Middle? Yes, middle. See Rand's escapdes in dreams. He finds (gasp)
the White Tower when Ishaamael is hunting him, and he finds it by
jumps and triangulating skips, just like Elayne and Nynaeve found the
Bowl. This is something I don't think Jordan has overused, because
it's only been used in earnest, hat, three times, counting Rand and
the Eye?
As for the need relating to the Eye of the World, that whole region of
the Eye seems to share properties in common with the Unseen World.
We know most of the special spaces (the Ways, the Portal Stones, the
Arches of Tar Valon, etc) show characteristics of the Unseen World,
why not this one?
--
John S. Novak, III j...@cegt201.bradley.edu
http://cegt201.bradley.edu/~jsn/index.html
The Humblest Man on the Net
Don HARLOW
John S. Novak, III wrote:
>
> In <4qib07$7...@nntp1.best.com> d...@donh.vip.best.com (Don HARLOW) writes:
>
> >With all due respect, and not to disagree with your general opinion
> >(which may well be correct), don't include "finding Someshta and the
> >Eye via 'Need'" as an example. Despite what Moiraine said about how to
> >find the Eye, they didn't find it via need. Rand channeled it to them,
> >or them to it, when they were being chased by the worms (jumara?).
>
> Oh?
> Silly me, I just assumed that Rand found it because _he_ needed to be
> there this time, not Moiraine. I'm not sure what makes the 'need'
> thing such a copout, as it's been used since the middle of the first
> book.
>
> Middle? Yes, middle. See Rand's escapdes in dreams. He finds (gasp)
> the White Tower when Ishaamael is hunting him, and he finds it by
> jumps and triangulating skips, just like Elayne and Nynaeve found the
> Bowl. This is something I don't think Jordan has overused, because
> it's only been used in earnest, hat, three times, counting Rand and
> the Eye?
>
show Rand channeling just before they find themselves inside the Eye -- referred
to in the section of my paragraph that you munched.
Keith Edward Casner
Dylan Flynn Alexander <dy...@tamu.edu> wrote:
>}Of course I'm for real. I was just correcting an obvious spelling error.
>
><choke>
><sputter>
>No matter how often I check the headers, it's never an obvious forgery
>by the Cabal (TINC). I'm becoming Very Frightened.
Obviously you have forgotten what we learned of The Bruening in our
earlier encounters. It's not that he is *actually* as anal as he sounds,
it's that he has an incredibly dry wit and a remarkable indifference to
being thought a fool.
At least, thinking that makes it much easier to understand him.
++++++++++++++++ All will be well, all will be well, ++++++++++++++++++++
+++++++++++++++ and all manner of things will be well. +++++++++++++++++
++ diom...@uclink.berkeley.edu ++++++++++++++++ Keith Edward Casner ++++
+++++++++ A *Can'ada Dhrei* (Beverage Seeker) of the Jinjer Aiel ++++++++
--
Keith E. Casner diom...@uclink.berkeley.edu
Karaoke is life; the rest is details
John S. Novak, III
>Twice then. Please check again the paragraphs I recommended -- which clearly
>show Rand channeling just before they find themselves inside the Eye -- referred
>to in the section of my paragraph that you munched.
"After this, therefore because of this?"
I expected better of you.
Besides, consider that through tEotW, the only time Rand manages to
channel, he does so inadvertantly. He does so when he absolutely
_needs_ something. He needed Egwene's horse to keep up with everyone.
He needed a boom to swing around and swat a Trolloc. He needed a
lightning bolt to break the window bars, etc.
Sure, Rand channeled, but that's because he needed something. The
same need which prompted his rough, untrained channeling also prompted
the Eye opening up.
Joel Eaton
>
> Besides, consider that through tEotW, the only time Rand manages to
> channel, he does so inadvertantly. He does so when he absolutely
> _needs_ something. He needed Egwene's horse to keep up with everyone.
> He needed a boom to swing around and swat a Trolloc. He needed a
> lightning bolt to break the window bars, etc.
<lots more munched>
This is something that always bugged me. We all assume Bela's
miraculous rejuvenation was Rand's channeling. How do we know it wasn't
Egwene? She was exhibiting the spark born within her already (it was
why Moiraine allowed her to accompany the boys). She shortly thereafter
began learning to channel, in fact much earlier than Rand. Surely she
also would have willed Bela to greater speed and endurance, and she had
been working with Nynaeve in Healing. Sure, Moiraine would have sensed
saidar, but would she have said anything?
elwood
Lara Beaton
>This is something that always bugged me. We all assume Bela's
>miraculous rejuvenation was Rand's channeling. How do we know it wasn't
>Egwene? She was exhibiting the spark born within her already (it was
>why Moiraine allowed her to accompany the boys). She shortly thereafter
>began learning to channel, in fact much earlier than Rand. Surely she
>also would have willed Bela to greater speed and endurance, and she had
>been working with Nynaeve in Healing. Sure, Moiraine would have sensed
>saidar, but would she have said anything?
For one thing, it was Moiraine who made the initial assumption that it
was Rand who had helped Bela. She showed surprise at the fact that
Bela didn't need rejuventating, which would not have happened had she
felt Egwene embrace the Source. For another, Rand exhibited the signs
of someone who had channelled saidin without instruction soon after
the incident, Egwene never shows these symptoms, because she didn't
channel until she was instructed.
========================================================================
Lara Beaton
The opinions expressed are not those of Hughes Aircraft or General
Motors, nor are they probably opinions at all.
"To play tricks on your sacred mind.
To tease, torment and tantalize."
Emma Pease
>This is something that always bugged me. We all assume Bela's
>miraculous rejuvenation was Rand's channeling. How do we know it wasn't
>Egwene?
Because Moiraine would have know instantly if a woman was channelling
saidar that close to her.
Emma
--
\---- |blue|
|\* | Emma Pease Net Spinster | () |
|_\/ em...@csli.stanford.edu Die Luft der Freiheit weht | /\ |
John S. Novak, III
>This is something that always bugged me. We all assume Bela's
>miraculous rejuvenation was Rand's channeling. How do we know it wasn't
>Egwene?
Rand exhibited the Power sickness some days later in Baerlon.
Egwene did not.
Don HARLOW
J...@cris.com (John S. Novak, III) lastatempe skribis:
>In <31D143...@donh.vip.best.com> Don HARLOW <d...@donh.vip.best.com> writes:
>>Twice then. Please check again the paragraphs I recommended -- which clearly
>>show Rand channeling just before they find themselves inside the Eye -- referred
>>to in the section of my paragraph that you munched.
>"After this, therefore because of this?"
>I expected better of you.
Post hoc ergo propter hoc is acceptable when trying to understand a
piece of literature... ;<)
(Like coincidence, which is assumed to be rare in real life -- though
in fact real life is made up of coincidences -- but has been a staple
of great literature from Shakespeare through Edgar Rice Burroughs to
Jordan.)
>Besides, consider that through tEotW, the only time Rand manages to
>channel, he does so inadvertantly. He does so when he absolutely
>_needs_ something. He needed Egwene's horse to keep up with everyone.
>He needed a boom to swing around and swat a Trolloc. He needed a
>lightning bolt to break the window bars, etc.
>Sure, Rand channeled, but that's because he needed something. The
>same need which prompted his rough, untrained channeling also prompted
>the Eye opening up.
I'm not sure what we're arguing about here. You say Rand needed,
therefore he channeled, therefore the Eye opened (or came to them --
same thing, I suppose). This is essentially what I am saying -- that
the Eye appeared because Rand channeled.
The argument about _need_ itself usually doesn't involve channeling,
or not directly. In other circumstances, for instance, channeling has
not been involved -- e.g. in finding Amys or the Bowl through
tel'aran'rhiod. This, as far as I can tell, was the sort of need that
Moiraine was talking about when she said how to reach the Eye (which
was usually on the other side of the Mountains of Dhoom, if I remember
correctly). Channeling wasn't in it.
John Novak
>J...@cris.com (John S. Novak, III) lastatempe skribis:
>>Sure, Rand channeled, but that's because he needed something. The
>>same need which prompted his rough, untrained channeling also prompted
>>the Eye opening up.
>I'm not sure what we're arguing about here. You say Rand needed,
>therefore he channeled, therefore the Eye opened (or came to them --
>same thing, I suppose). This is essentially what I am saying -- that
>the Eye appeared because Rand channeled.
This would work better if I could draw you a picture.
There are three things in this scene. Need, challening, and the Eye.
You seem to be saying that Rand's need caused the channeling, and
Rand's channeling got him to the Eye.
I'm saying Rand's need caused the channeling, and Rand's need also got
him to the Eye. Namely, the channeling was extraneous, and a result
of Rand's lack of control over the whole channeling phenomenon.
Don HARLOW
j...@cegt201.bradley.edu (John Novak) lastatempe skribis:
>In <4r7pn2$e...@nntp1.best.com> d...@donh.vip.best.com (Don HARLOW) writes:
>>J...@cris.com (John S. Novak, III) lastatempe skribis:
>>>Sure, Rand channeled, but that's because he needed something. The
>>>same need which prompted his rough, untrained channeling also prompted
>>>the Eye opening up.
>>I'm not sure what we're arguing about here. You say Rand needed,
>>therefore he channeled, therefore the Eye opened (or came to them --
>>same thing, I suppose). This is essentially what I am saying -- that
>>the Eye appeared because Rand channeled.
>This would work better if I could draw you a picture.
>There are three things in this scene. Need, challening, and the Eye.
>You seem to be saying that Rand's need caused the channeling, and
>Rand's channeling got him to the Eye.
>I'm saying Rand's need caused the channeling, and Rand's need also got
>him to the Eye. Namely, the channeling was extraneous, and a result
>of Rand's lack of control over the whole channeling phenomenon.
The point is that the original argument was about need as
instrumentality, not motivation. You find bowls, etc., by _using_ need
as the instrument of finding -- and it was said that Jordan had
overused this. In the trip to the Eye, need was not instrumentality --
it was motivation. The instrumentality was channeling, not need. Need
as motivation is very common in these books -- and in most others.
(Question: would a book without need as motivation really be all that
interesting?) Characters do all sorts of things because they need to.
Need as instrumentality is reserved primarily for excursions through
t'a'r to places like Ebou Dari slums.
John Novak
>j...@cegt201.bradley.edu (John Novak) lastatempe skribis:
>>This would work better if I could draw you a picture.
For the record, I didn't mean that to be condescending.
>The point is that the original argument was about need as
>instrumentality, not motivation. You find bowls, etc., by _using_ need
>as the instrument of finding -- and it was said that Jordan had
>overused this. In the trip to the Eye, need was not instrumentality --
>it was motivation. The instrumentality was channeling, not need.
Neat, we've come full circle.
Isn't this exactly what we've been talking about?
How can I make this more clear? I don't think the channeling was the
instrument. I think it was incidental. I think the need was the
instrument, whether it was conscious or not. It helps if you realize
that I think that the Eye's hidey hole-- like many of the other
extra-spatial space (such as the Ways, the Skimming place and the
Portal Stone continuum) is very closely related to the Unseen World
and thus amenable to some of the same effects.
In fact, we have good evidence that the need doe not, in fact, need to
be conscious-- see Rand's flight from Ba'alzamon earlier in the book.
Don HARLOW
j...@cegt201.bradley.edu (John Novak) lastatempe skribis:
>In <4ra7ef$i...@nntp1.best.com> d...@donh.vip.best.com (Don HARLOW) writes:
>>j...@cegt201.bradley.edu (John Novak) lastatempe skribis:
>>>This would work better if I could draw you a picture.
>For the record, I didn't mean that to be condescending.
For the record, I didn't take it as such. No offense taken or meant.
>>The point is that the original argument was about need as
>>instrumentality, not motivation. You find bowls, etc., by _using_ need
>>as the instrument of finding -- and it was said that Jordan had
>>overused this. In the trip to the Eye, need was not instrumentality --
>>it was motivation. The instrumentality was channeling, not need.
>Neat, we've come full circle.
>Isn't this exactly what we've been talking about?
Not according to my understanding, apparently.
>How can I make this more clear? I don't think the channeling was the
>instrument. I think it was incidental. I think the need was the
>instrument, whether it was conscious or not. It helps if you realize
>that I think that the Eye's hidey hole-- like many of the other
>extra-spatial space (such as the Ways, the Skimming place and the
>Portal Stone continuum) is very closely related to the Unseen World
>and thus amenable to some of the same effects.
>In fact, we have good evidence that the need doe not, in fact, need to
>be conscious-- see Rand's flight from Ba'alzamon earlier in the book.
I believe that at this point we have to agree to disagree. My own
opinion is that need played little or no actual role -- certainly no
instrumental role -- in the arrival of the Eye at that place and time.
Jordan very clearly describes Rand's (unconscious) channeling at this
point. At no other time that need was used as an instrument --
including the flight from Ba'alzamon that you mention -- did
channeling play a role.
As to your comments on where the Eye is located -- I won't disagree
with those. Certainly it hasn't been sitting around in the middle of
the Blight for 3000 years. But I doubt that we'll ever find out much
about that, like some of the other things we saw in tEotW which seem
just a bit inconsistent with the rest of the series.
Lara Beaton
so sayeth eo...@werple.net.au (Sandra Lange) :
>lbe...@ccgate.hac.com (Lara Beaton) wrote:
>>For one thing, it was Moiraine who made the initial assumption that it
>>was Rand who had helped Bela. She showed surprise at the fact that
>>Bela didn't need rejuventating, which would not have happened had she
>>felt Egwene embrace the Source. For another, Rand exhibited the signs
>>of someone who had channelled saidin without instruction soon after
>>the incident, Egwene never shows these symptoms, because she didn't
>>channel until she was instructed.
>Didn't the symptons start after he called lighting at the inn where he
>and Mat were attacked? Rand was desparate for a way to escape, and
>all of a sudden lightning hit. So his first use of OP (on Bela)
>wasn't enough to trigger the reaction. I think.
Rand's first reaction was in Baerlon, when he tried to pick a fight
with the Whitecloaks (after healing Bela). His second reaction was on
the boat when he climbed the mast (after making the boom knock the
Trolloc off the boat). The one you describe is his _third_ reaction.
HTH
Sandra Lange
lbe...@ccgate.hac.com (Lara Beaton) wrote:
>so sayeth Joel Eaton <jo...@dickens.com> :
>>This is something that always bugged me. We all assume Bela's
>>miraculous rejuvenation was Rand's channeling. How do we know it wasn't
>>Egwene? She was exhibiting the spark born within her already (it was
>>why Moiraine allowed her to accompany the boys). She shortly thereafter
>>began learning to channel, in fact much earlier than Rand. Surely she
>>also would have willed Bela to greater speed and endurance, and she had
>>been working with Nynaeve in Healing. Sure, Moiraine would have sensed
>>saidar, but would she have said anything?
>For one thing, it was Moiraine who made the initial assumption that it
Magnus Itland
eo...@werple.net.au (Sandra Lange) wrote:
>lbe...@ccgate.hac.com (Lara Beaton) wrote:
>>For one thing, it was Moiraine who made the initial assumption that it
>>was Rand who had helped Bela. She showed surprise at the fact that
>>Bela didn't need rejuventating, which would not have happened had she
>>felt Egwene embrace the Source. For another, Rand exhibited the signs
>>of someone who had channelled saidin without instruction soon after
>>the incident, Egwene never shows these symptoms, because she didn't
>>channel until she was instructed.
>Didn't the symptons start after he called lighting at the inn where he
>and Mat were attacked? Rand was desparate for a way to escape, and
>all of a sudden lightning hit. So his first use of OP (on Bela)
>wasn't enough to trigger the reaction. I think.
Actually Rand showed signs of the PAS after both these incidents. Only
after the lightning did it manifest as an illnes. In "Strangers and
Friends" it manifests somewhat like intoxication.
--
itl...@sn.no The one and only Magnus Itland
Without 'indecency', you'd not even been born.
Timothy Bruening
> tsbr...@wheel.dcn.davis.ca.us (Timothy Bruening) wrote:
> have edited, a bit revealing?
> >Swords up to Chapter 12, and for the Shadow Rising, Chapter 47:
> >she was still bound by the Three Oaths. In tSR, Chapter 47, Elaida springs
> >her infamous coup. Elaida and her supporters walk into Siuan's office and
> >Shield her from the OP as Elaida calmly removes Siuan's stole and informs
> >her that she has been removed from the Amyrlin seat. Elaida then binds
> >Siuan with Air. On page 766 of the paperback tSR, Siuan angrily tells
> >Elaida that "There has never been a rebellion inside the Tower". However,
> >at the bottom of page 247 in Chapter 12 of ACOS, Egwene thinks to herself
> >that there have been six mutinies in the White Tower's history, hidden away
> >in the Tower's secret histories. The secret histories are accessible only
> >to the Amyrlin, Keeper, Sitters, and a few librarians. I believe that
> >Amyrlin Siuan would have had access to the secret histories and thus would
> >have known about the six mutinies. Therefore, I believe that Siuan lied when
> >she said that there had never been a rebellion in the Tower, at a time when
> >Siuan was still bound by the First Oath (she hadn't been Stilled yet). Here
> >are the sources of my belief that Amyrlin Siuan knew about the rebellions in
> >the hidden records:
> >On page 25, Amyrlin Elaida thinks about the ancient rebellions buried in the
> >secret records open only to Amyrlin, Keeper, and Sitters. If Amyrlin Elaida
> >knows about those rebellions, then so did Amyrlin Siuan. On pages 156, 212
> >and 246 are indications that Siuan was familiar with the Tower's secret
> >history. On page 156, Egwene muses to herself that Siuan had told her
> >secret details of some of the odd things that have happened in the Tower.
> >On page 212, in the last paragraph, Egwene comments that she doubts that
> >anyone has ever been raised Amyrlin without first being a full Aes Sedai,
> >and thinks to herself that that comment should have elicited a comment from
> >Siuan about the Tower's hidden records. At the top of page 246, Siuan says
> >that there is nothing in the secret records about Amyrlins demanding oaths
> >of fealty.
> It may well be that Siuan did not consider those mutinies to be
> rebellions.
> She may be trying to shame the rebels back in their place by using a
> word which is not used in the Tower, even among those in the know, to
> describe the incidents. Wasn't Elaida a sitter for the White, by the
> way?
> Do we associate the term "rebellion" with the Civil War? If I said,
> "There has not been a rebellion in the US in over 150 years", am I
> necessarily lying or speaking a word that is not true?
The Southern States revolted against the US government, so I would call the Civil War a rebellion.