Wheel of Time 4: Burning Threads [Book Spoilers]

[Gaston de Foix]

1 hour ago, Arakasi said:

I just didn’t like the Moiraine part. Felt they nailed everything else. (Given their budget) Its not that she’s bad or anything but sometimes I feel they lean too much to give their top billing stuff to do that detracts from other characters.

RIght.  Everyone needs their screentime particularly an A lister like Rosamund Pike.  

[karaddin]

I think the show might be well positioned to pick up additional support from Amazon if the audience numbers are improving and Rings of Power gets shit canned - which I very much expect after it's second season.

[karaddin]

2 hours ago, Gertrude said:

Cutting Egwene's braid immediately just had me think "oh, they are sick of her wig budget." 

Not replying to the rest of it as things that annoy you are things that annoy you and there's not really any point arguing about personal preference like that, but this is unfair - it was quite good character writing using details established in the first episode of the show.

The braid is a symbol of solidarity between the women of the two rivers - touching it is a reminder that you're never alone and both Nyn and Egwene have continued to touch their hair as they need that reminder. Renna is aware of the feelings that Egwene gets and the sources of good feelings - already demonstrated in episode 6 with burning the tree. She's now desperate not just to get Egwene in line but to do it without making it clear to any other Sul'dam that Egwene isn't behaving right, cutting off her tongue would make it clear to everyone that she's not actually top of the class. So she cuts off the thing she knows Egwene cares about but won't mean anything to anyone else. It doesn't work the way she wants though.

[Corvinus85]

40 minutes ago, karaddin said:

I think the show might be well positioned to pick up additional support from Amazon if the audience numbers are improving and Rings of Power gets shit canned - which I very much expect after it's second season.

The amount of money Amazon paid for those rights doesn't really afford them to drop it. Or at least they may cancel it and do something else in Middle-earth.

[karaddin]

The new boss was very unimpressed with how much some of their shows had cost compared with how successful they had been. I think it was RoP and Citadel that were specifically called out.

RoP was just so obscenely expensive it's hard to see them continue to pour that much money into something I thought was losing audience by the end of season 1 instead of gaining. Doing something else that cost less with the rights is possible.

[SpaceChampion]

ROP was said to have something like only a 37% completion rate (and even that is in dispute, because this graphic looked more like 27% but I don't know how that graph was produced), and season 1 of WOT had around 66%, which is quite good and comparable to shows like Arcane.  ROP is down where Netflix canceled 1899 at.  But Netflix is likely harsher, quicker to cancel something Amazon necessarily wouldn't.

If I read that graph correctly, twice as many people watched the WOT season 1 finale than the ROP season 1 finale.  Which is extremely good news for WOT.  This season really ought to have better numbers too.

[IFR]

4 hours ago, Arakasi said:

I just didn’t like the Moiraine part. Felt they nailed everything else. (Given their budget) Its not that she’s bad or anything but sometimes I feel they lean too much to give their top billing stuff to do that detracts from other characters.

The part where she violates her oath? Her insane increase channeling power? Her weak illusion that is supposed to get people to recognize Rand as the Dragon Reborn somehow? Her Hallmark moment with Lan where she delivers the cheesiest line by telling him that they're not equals because he's better than her? All of it?

Because I agree. About Moiraine. Not that they nailed everything else.

Speaking of working around ter'angereal with ease, does anyone have an explanation for how Egwene was able to use the a'dam? It's obviously a weapon that can harm. She's aware of this, having been harmed herself by it. But that didn't stop her from being able to get a hold of it and use it.

[Arakasi]

No just the dragon and channeling part. I felt the part with Lan was fine. And it’s clear they’re doing different things with the oaths in the show.
 

As for the a’dam that’s fine. It basically does nothing if you don’t use it to force the other person to channel. It only hurts Renna if she tries to hurt Egwene. So I think that takes any issue off of Egwene since it is not her actions that will hurt Renna.

[IFR]

11 minutes ago, Arakasi said:

As for the a’dam that’s fine. It basically does nothing if you don’t use it to force the other person to channel. It only hurts Renna if she tries to hurt Egwene. So I think that takes any issue off of Egwene since it is not her actions that will hurt Renna.

I don't know.

The show established that anything that is taken with any kind of intention to use it as a weapon cannot be used. Even a pot of water. I guess I must be missing something, because it is Egwene's actions in using the a'dam to kill Renna. I can't see how she picked it up with any other intention. She knew it could be used against Renna and that's how Egwene used it.

Are you saying you could make a Rube Goldberg machine sufficiently removed from your own action that even if you use it with the intention of doing harm to another, this will trick the a'dam? Because that is not at all made clear in the show.

[Arakasi]

Because she wanted to use the pot of water to smash her head in. She is not using the a’dam as a weapon. It’s simple enough here if the rule is you can’t hurt who has bound you then what she does is fine because she didn’t hurt Renna.
 

If Renna had walked away no violence gets done. And nothing happens with either until Renna tries to attack Egwene and gets hurt. I think the scene more in question is lifting her up to hang her. That is definitely a more violent act but at that time they are both bound to each other so maybe that cancels the compulsion out and just leaves them with the shared pain.

[Gertrude]

5 hours ago, karaddin said:

Not replying to the rest of it as things that annoy you are things that annoy you and there's not really any point arguing about personal preference like that, but this is unfair - it was quite good character writing using details established in the first episode of the show.

I get this, and watching reactions, the non-book readers remembered this and were upset by it, so yes - objectively it worked. For me though, it was just robbing Nyneave of a moment when her braid gets cut. The context here is arguably better as a deliberate act of cruelty, but I liked the symbolism of Nyneave being raised and finally severed of her ties to her old life. It will just seem a repeat bit now and not hit as hard.

[IFR]

48 minutes ago, Arakasi said:

Because she wanted to use the pot of water to smash her head in. She is not using the a’dam as a weapon. It’s simple enough here if the rule is you can’t hurt who has bound you then what she does is fine because she didn’t hurt Renna.
 

If Renna had walked away no violence gets done. And nothing happens with either until Renna tries to attack Egwene and gets hurt. I think the scene more in question is lifting her up to hang her. That is definitely a more violent act but at that time they are both bound to each other so maybe that cancels the compulsion out and just leaves them with the shared pain.

Renna is clearly hostile and intends harm to Egwene and Egwene knows this when she puts the a'dam on her.

But even putting that aside, if what you're speculating is the case, then the a'dam is fairly pointless. Egwene should be able to pick up a dagger and threaten Renna if she only intends to use it as a threat and not to harm, since only by using it with the intention to harm is it considered a weapon. She could even hold it to Renna's throat if her intention is only to threaten. If Renna just follows her orders, no harm gets done. If Egwene stumbles and cuts Renna's throat, well, that's the weakness of the a'dam. She can point a sword at a charging Seanchan. The Seanchan won't get hurt if they stop and don't continue to charge into the blade. If the Seanchan just walks away no violence is done. Nothing happens unless the Seanchan continues to attack and charges into the sword.

Egwene should be able to set up traps. After all, they do nothing by themselves. Renna only dies if she triggers them.

Etc.

Edited October 8, 2023 by IFR

[Arakasi]

Well I thought episode six showed that pretty well. The device does read intent. So yes if she picks up a weapon but doesn’t intend to use it for harm she can wave it around. Which could have been an interesting way to handle this by threatening something you don’t mean. But all the rule does is say you can’t hurt the person. So it would react if you picked up or did something with the intent of hurting the suldam. If you don’t intend to use it as a weapon you can pick it up. You can’t like you said change your mind and fool it that way as episode six showed. You have to have a true change of heart.
 

It also makes sense with what they do as channellers. They can already throw around weapons (the power) as loosely dictated by their holder as long as it is not targeted at the holder. During the siege Rena wasn’t telling her which targets to attack so that was up to egwene. Everything you brought up is already covered by how they can channel. They can blast an enemy in close proximity to a good guy. They can drop a fireball on someone that a seanchan could walk into. Similarly they can pick up a dagger as long as they don’t plan to use it on their holder.

[IFR]

2 hours ago, Arakasi said:

Well I thought episode six showed that pretty well. The device does read intent. So yes if she picks up a weapon but doesn’t intend to use it for harm she can wave it around. Which could have been an interesting way to handle this by threatening something you don’t mean. But all the rule does is say you can’t hurt the person. So it would react if you picked up or did something with the intent of hurting the suldam. If you don’t intend to use it as a weapon you can pick it up. You can’t like you said change your mind and fool it that way as episode six showed. You have to have a true change of heart.
 

It also makes sense with what they do as channellers. They can already throw around weapons (the power) as loosely dictated by their holder as long as it is not targeted at the holder. During the siege Rena wasn’t telling her which targets to attack so that was up to egwene. Everything you brought up is already covered by how they can channel. They can blast an enemy in close proximity to a good guy. They can drop a fireball on someone that a seanchan could walk into. Similarly they can pick up a dagger as long as they don’t plan to use it on their holder.

These are things I consider internally inconsistent and the implications nonsensical. Let me expound.

First of all, I'd like to address Egwene using the a'dam. What occurred: Egwene and Renna both get up after the attack that knocks them down. Egwene spots the a'dam. Renna attacks Egwene and while Egwene is being attacked she picks up the a'dam. The only reason Egwene uses the a'dam is because she knows that it will stop Renna. How will it stop Renna? The a'dam does not allow mind control. It coerces people through pain. The only possible reason Egwene would pick up the a'dam and use it to stop someone causing pain to her is to harm that person. This is a premeditated action. She wouldn't put it on out of idle curiosity. She already unlocked the secret that Renna could channel and was certain it could be used against her. As far as I am concerned, it is very clearly shown that Egwene's thought process is: 1. I will put on the a'dam. 2. She will try to attack. 3. I will attack and kill her.

It would be equivalent to, when confronting an enemy charging at you with a sword, who has already swung at you a few times: 1. I will pick up a sword. 2. She will attack me again. 3. I will kill her.

It seems like you're suggesting that since at (3) the compulsion is cancelled out, that the premeditation portion is irrelevant. If we propose only (3) is essential, and as long as we observe (1) we're in the clear, that allows a broad license of action. One can create an invisible field of deadly razors for one's sul'dam to walk through. After all, it's just creating razors, that doesn't harm anyone. That follows step (1): if the sul'dam walks through the door and dies it's their own action. It's trivial to come up with many scenarios that would serve as a loophole and render the a'dam effectively useless as a tool of control. Seachan would always be at risk of a tricky damane coming up with loopholes and killing hundreds of them.

Another thing I would like to cover is the siege. The sul'damane made an Aes Sedai under oath use the One Power as a weapon. Also, we saw Moiraine, also under oath, have a discussion with Lan about how she would let thousands of innocents die for the Dragon Reborn and then essentially go down the same path as Darth Rand in The Gathering Storm. She deliberately burned a fleet, killing all those people.

Now we have a couple of instances where the One Power is directly used as a preemptive weapon - not in personal defense, but just to kill because that is what the Aes Sedai feels will achieve their objective. So what does this oath even mean? It's not clear to me at all.

 

Edited October 8, 2023 by IFR

[Gaston de Foix]

34 minutes ago, IFR said:

These are things I consider internally inconsistent and the implications nonsensical. Let me expound.

First of all, I'd like to address Egwene using the a'dam. What occurred: Egwene and Renna both get up after the attack that knocks them down. Egwene spots the a'dam. Renna attacks Egwene and while Egwene is being attacked she picks up the a'dam. The only reason Egwene uses the a'dam is because she knows that it will stop Renna. How will it stop Renna? The a'dam does not allow mind control. It coerces people through pain. The only possible reason Egwene would pick up the a'dam and use it to stop someone causing pain to her is to harm that person. This is a premeditated action. She wouldn't put it on out of idle curiosity. She already unlocked the secret that Renna could channel and was certain it could be used against her. As far as I am concerned, it is very clearly shown that Egwene's thought process is: 1. I will put on the a'dam. 2. She will try to attack. 3. I will attack and kill her.

It would be equivalent to, when confronting an enemy charging at you with a sword, who has already swung at you a few times: 1. I will pick up a sword. 2. She will attack me again. 3. I will kill her.

It seems like you're suggesting that since at (3) the compulsion is cancelled out, that the premeditation portion is irrelevant. If we propose only (3) is essential, and as long as we observe (1) we're in the clear, that allows a broad license of action. One can create an invisible field of deadly razors for one's sul'dam to walk through. After all, it's just creating razors, that doesn't harm anyone. That follows step (1): if the sul'dam walks through the door and dies it's their own action. It's trivial to come up with many scenarios that would serve as a loophole and render the a'dam effectively useless as a tool of control. Seachan would always be at risk of a tricky damane coming up with loopholes and killing hundreds of them.

I had a similar thought.  But the problem is inherent in hypothesizing a device to be a mindreader of second order intent or causative effect because...magic.  

But it is possible to defend the show by saying the a'dam has a blindspot for any harm inherent in wearing putting on or wearing an a'dam.  

[hauberk]

38 minutes ago, Gaston de Foix said:

I had a similar thought.  But the problem is inherent in hypothesizing a device to be a mindreader of second order intent or causative effect because...magic.  

But it is possible to defend the show by saying the a'dam has a blindspot for any harm inherent in wearing putting on or wearing an a'dam.  

There is also a third - if I put her in the a’dam she’ll either a) stop attacking or b) cause herself harm by continuing to attack making the act of using it either defensive or passive. 
 

None of that relieves stringing her up with the a’dam. 

[Maia]

1 hour ago, IFR said:

The sul'damane made an Aes Sedai under oath use the One Power as a weapon.

 

Yes, having Maigan, or at least an extra with similar enough hair-cut to make us think that it was her, on the tower was a completely unforced mistake.

 

1 hour ago, IFR said:

Also, we saw Moiraine, also under oath, have a discussion with Lan about how she would let thousands of innocents die for the Dragon Reborn and then essentially go down the same path as Darth Rand in The Gathering Storm. She deliberately burned a fleet, killing all those people.

 

Yes, they kinda shot themselves in the foot by having Lan bring up this unnecessary argument about innocents. A lot of "but what about civil contractors on the Death Star?" energy there. Moiraine had every reason to think that Seanchan were an army of Darkfriends, seeing how they were led by a Forsaken, and should have been free to nuke them on that premise. I guess that she has a loophole of still being confident that there were Darkfriends on these ships, particularly among the leadership and can justify her attack as being aimed at them?

Regarding your arguments about channeling rules or the use of a'dam being consistent in the books, though, this is absolutely not the case. Jordan was pretty much constantly whipping out whatever he wanted for his current plots, pre-established rules be damned. In no way was WoT magic system "hard", though it pretended to be such.

I always thought that it should have been possible to circumvent some of the a'dam's cohersive function through mental discipline. The Flame and the Void removes all emotion and blocks physical sensation even when used by a non-channeler, right? There was no reason why women couldn't learn it, except for RJ's view that men and women were different species and  his general propensity to have female channelers get perfectly enslaved. IIRC, there are at least 3 different ways he made it happen in the books.

Maybe that's what happened in this scene - Egwene made her mind empty, convinced herself that the collar was not a weapon and was able to put it on Renna. Then, once they both were collared and wore respective bracelets, they seemed to be on a level playing field vs each other and Egwene was able to overcome compulsion of her a'dam and hurt Renna directly.

Frankly, with the way Renna's and Seta's plots went nowhere in the books, nothing was lost when they were both just killed in the show. Egwene would have totally killed Renna in TGH, had Nynaeve not stopped her, for fairly spurious reasons.

P.S. Forgot to mention something that has been bothering me for a long time - shouldn't the AS have been able to employ their First Oath to prevent being used by Seanchan and even to commit suicide? Any oath an AS makes is binding, so if they swore not to channel while collared, not to share any information, not to break, etc, as long as the wording was airtight nothing could have overcome it, right? Never made sense to me that it didn't occur to any of them. Here is to hoping that in the show it does.

P.S.S. My brother, who is not a reader, loved this season and even the finale. He was lukewarm on the first one.

 

Edited October 8, 2023 by Maia

[Poobah]

14 minutes ago, Maia said:

P.S. Forgot to mention something that has been bothering me for a long time - shouldn't the AS have been able to employ their First Oath to prevent being used by Seanchan and even to commit suicide? Any oath an AS makes is binding, so if they swore not to channel while collared, not to share any information, not to break, etc, as long as the wording was airtight nothing could have overcome it, right? Never made sense to me that it didn't occur to any of them. Here is to hoping that in the show it does.

IMO that isn't how the first oath works. You can't force something to become true by swearing it - an Aes Sedai knows that there is a chance, maybe even a certainty that under enough torture she will break, therefore she cannot swear not to break and just make it so. 

[Maia]

My understanding is that if an AS swore to herself not to do something and then was driven to attempt to do it by torture, it would kill her unless her torturers relented. Like what happened when the BA hunters tried to force a Salidar mole to say something that she knew to be a lie.

When the AS swore to serve Rand, they were clearly forced to follow through, even though the wording left them loopholes for personal interpretation what it entailed, exactly. If one wanted to bind herself with an airtight oath, though, she could do it, IMHO.

[IlyaP]

22 hours ago, IFR said:

@IlyaP We were not derailing the thread in our discussion. I addressed someone using the word woke, who clearly was using it with the definition I gave you. If you think that they're aiding the enemy by using the word woke and you want to discourage others in using it, that's fine, I applaud you for being a trailblazer in modern moral clarity.

The word itself doesn't matter in  the discussion. It was correctly pointed out that we should agree on what the conversation is about. I stated what I meant by using this word. You gave a different definition. The issue is not the word, it is effective communication.

If you want to police what words we can use, honestly I'm neutral on the issue and am willing to accommodate you and not use that word, because I think fostering a respectul environment is how conversations should be held. So in our future discussions on whether the show is 'woke', let's instead use the definition that I gave you and as an alternative for woke you can supply another shorthand for that definition that works.

It's not a question of policing, it's about encouraging people to understand that language has context and to exhibit the maturity to engage in self-moderation and self-reflection. (If you start to unpack the implications of saying something is "anti-woke" with an acknowledgement of the original, intended meaning, it becomes easy to see the obvious and awful anti-blackness sentiment that it conveys, and really, what are we doing if we're helping damage civil rights progress?)

My infinitely wise wife suggested, as a mental exercise, consider how one could say "social justice warrior" and the tone in which one says it can convey either support or contempt for those who call themselves SJWs, and by proxy suggest certain things about one's personal politics based on the tone used, as a tool to better think about this. Me personally, I just find it insanely frustrating to see, once again, something appropriated from the black American community, and have it weaponised against them (see also - Florida's education curriculum skirt around the evils of slavery, because Ron DeSantis is a piece of sh*t.)

But to come back to the point, it's an imprecise and awkward term to use, and instead of that, if one thinks that men are being sidelined to female characters to the point of excess, for example, as was raised by...someone in the previous thread, suggest something like (pulling a random sentence out of my hat here after a long day on my end) "narrative emasculation" or "a thematic incongruity with the themes of the original text". At least that's clearer and more precise. 

At least by choosing this option, we're not using language that's actively hurtful towards a real world community, however indirectly. 

Hopefully that all made sense, and at no point felt like an attack against you. I desperately want this forum to remain civil (something I myself have failed to do so in the past, much to my personal frustration and shame), but I desperately hope others here would avoid using language that's actively hurtful towards others. (Case in point: we were at a Whitlams concert tonight, and Tim Freedman *FINALLY* removed a transphobic word from his popular song 'No Aphrodisiac (Like Loneliness)' that's made many of us uncomfortable for years.)