Wheel of Time 4: Burning Threads [Book Spoilers]

[IlyaP]

21 minutes ago, Gaston de Foix said:

Rings of Power was an abomination.  WOT season 1 was frequently mediocre.  Big difference IMHO.  

Rings of Power admittedly had Bear McCreary as a composer, who is a far more interesting composer than Lorne Balfe, whose scoring work for WoT has been painfully uninteresting and lacking in any discernible leitmotifs or melodies. 

If we could just get Bear to jump ship...

[Arakasi]

13 minutes ago, Gaston de Foix said:

Rings of Power was an abomination.  WOT season 1 was frequently mediocre.  Big difference IMHO.  

Yeah season one was fine for the most part. I think it got off to a rough start but had a pretty good set of episodes minus the dumb warder one. But then episode seven had some oddities and episode eight just looked cheap and made little sense other than Rands storyline. Was easily the worst episode of the series. Covid and Barney leaving messed them up true but they could have likely handled it better too.

Season two overall was quite good and really had no bad episodes. Plenty of good ones (a couple great as well) and even the more average episodes had good scenes to carry it.

I said this somewhere else but in ways but the reality of the budget and modern filming doesn’t really mesh with Jordan’s writing. Jordan’s books are fill with hundreds of pages of skimmable character interactions but tied off by awesome over the top set sequences with some cool magic as technology moments. Basically it’s like marvel movies. No one reads wot for 500+ pages of Faile harassing Perrin or Rand whining for six books or Mats awful relationships with women or just the constant stereotyping of women as meddling manipulators that are getting in the way of the men saving the world. You read it for Falme, Rhuidean, Flicker Flicker, Dumai’s Well, Cairhein, etc. All completely over the top scenes with hundreds or more participants and often crazy uses of power.

But that kind of stuff is super expensive. CGI and physical casting are just way more expensive than they were a few years ago. So instead the show has been turned into a more character based story. Hence why the villains are getting more time to develop. Ishy being a caricature didn’t matter as much when every scene with him was some crazy magic or dream stuff going on. I like how they’ve done it but it’s not WoT like the books. It’s also why my favorite series (Malazan) is also utterly unfilmable. Then add in there they have to cram this into eight seasons and that makes it even harder. I’m quite impressed with what they’ve done given the clear limitations of the source material and the medium they’re working in.

[karaddin]

1 hour ago, Arakasi said:

Ugh don’t like that. Ingtars actor was fine and all but nowhere near the presence of Fares. I just don’t think that works but just because of actors involved.

I'm not even entertaining the idea of Ishy being played by anyone other than Fares until it's explicitly confirmed. Giving a character a new face is already a big jump for a show audience, when you add someone owning the role so thoroughly there's all the reasons in the world to change things up from the books such that he keeps his appearance in one way or another.

50 minutes ago, Gaston de Foix said:

Are you assuming they are already out there or that, like Taim, they will come onto the scene near the end? 

Probably the latter but agnostic on that point. We got pretty firm confirmation of 8 OG Forsaken between the Ishy/Lanfear conversation and then 6 extra seals in the last episode, I don't see any reason for Rafe to equivocate in an interview after the finale if there wasn't a complication of some kind. I just think Neo Forsaken is the most elegant way to do that complication, that also has potential to improve on the books.

[Corvinus85]

2 hours ago, Spockydog said:

So I just skimmed the first page in this thread, and people seem to be just talking about the story, instead of how awful the show is. Does this mean that it got better?

If you've only watched season 1, then yes the consensus is it got better. Plenty of flaws remain, though.

[Iskaral Pust]

S2 was enjoyable enough and we’re sticking with it.  It’s very noticeable that some characters have been deprecated in order to elevate others but non-readers probably wouldn’t notice except asking why “the one” is so ineffectual.

I think some of the plot holes are there to allow cool scenes at lower cost, e.g. the beach scene (why could Moraine break the oaths with her attack, how could she channel fire through water over such a distance, and why did Seanchan soldiers suddenly show up to defend an empty beach far from the city?), and the heroes of horn appeared for a minor skirmish that had no bearing on the wider battle.  Even if I’m rolling my eyes at Matt making a light saber spear by tying the dagger with a roll of cloth, it’s still an enjoyable fantasy watch.

[Arakasi]

So was watching a youtube vid about the last episode and I think there is something more going on in that dragon scene. If you watch it Moiraine starts it and then something happens and you see a look of shock/surprise on her face. Also she isn’t channeling at that time. So I’m not sure what that’s trying to exactly convey. My thought it she was starting to do something and then something else just took over and delivered that effect. Whether that’s the pattern or something else I don’t know. But I don’t think Moiraine is in control of it at that point. Still don’t like attacking the ships but there is a bit of mystery to me about this dragon which is better.

Also 100% sure Ishamael faked his death there. He knew that his plan was toast from Lanfears meddling and is retreating to fight another day.

[fionwe1987]

Also, Lanfear survived a stab wound before, in the same season. Now granted Rand was using the Power to enhance his sword, but I don't buy that it killed Ishy completely. It's also worth noting that he says he sees "nothing". That's what you'd expect if you're looking at the Dark One, about to snatch away your soul.

I'm of the opinion they should just have them reincarnated in the same body. Ishy's did crumble away, and I think it's ok for the show to have the same actors, rather than try to have someone else take over the role and have to play off the interpretation of another actor. Also, Fares Fares was a highlight of this season, so I really don't want him gone for good. We'll probably get some sense of this, once shooting resumes, and if those who track this kind of stuff see him on set. 

[karaddin]

Yeah I was initially thinking its another illusion but I'm less solid on that now - being sandwiched between the other 2 illusions doesn't have to mean this was as well, just that viewers should be thinking about more sophisticated misdirection. As soon as he realized how badly Lanfear has screwed him he starts talking about turning Rand 'in the next life' and when its combined with his preparations to shield and gentle Rand it seems like he's talking about Rand's next life, but that doesn't fit his goals or how things play out - he means his own next life. So I think he's deliberately dying knowing that he'll get maybe a moment of peace and then the dark one will have him back in play in one way or another and that's the next life he's talking about.

Lanfear orchestrated the events of the season, but Ishamael got some agency back to put on the play of the climax on the tower. He still made a half hearted effort to go through with the original plan, but it falls flat so he goes with this contingency.

[Gaston de Foix]

11 hours ago, Arakasi said:

Yeah season one was fine for the most part.

I would also add that for the WOT virgin there is a complex learning curve and they are the primary audience not WOT-obsessed nerds.  The little easter eggs are for the nerds.  As the wheel turns, the complexity of story-telling can grow.   

[IFR]

 

On 10/8/2023 at 6:55 AM, IlyaP said:

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.)

I suppose woke can in some instances be targeted at black people, but in modern parlance it has become a generalized word for over-reactionary progressiveness - and progressive here does not mean a positive progression, but rather a negative change from the established state.

Let's take an easy example that most people would agree on. The Netflix documentary of Cleopatra, where Cleopatra is black. Pretty obvious historical revision that falls into the category of over-reactionary progressiveness. How does it avail anyone to blatantly lie about history in a documentary?

Let's also take another example: Dune. Liet-Kynes was gender swapped. It has no impact on the story, and was clearly made for the sole purpose of the social impact of representation. This is very common now. This is something many view as overreactionary progressiveness. There is an easy word for that description, and it has nothing to do with targeting black people.

You object to a word evolving outside the domain of the community where it originates. This is simply the nature of words, and it happens all the time. Woke, incel, misogyny, PC, elitist, etc., these words all meant something specific, but then became a broad, offhand way to refer negatively to general ideas unrelated to their original specific meaning.

On 10/8/2023 at 6:55 AM, IlyaP said:

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. 

I disagree here. I've given a precise meaning, and you are giving several unwieldy and incomplete definitions that fall into the broader definition of the word you object to. "An incongruity with the themes of the original text" is often not what we're discussing, although that is often the case. This is what we are discussing:

Quote

disapproving : politically liberal or progressive (as in matters of racial and social justice) especially in a way that is considered unreasonable or extreme

Now if you have a better shorthand, I'd like to know it. I mean, I don't even begin to see how using woke in the context of this show is harming the black community. You'll have to explain that one to me.

As I've expressed before, I don't personally like the word. Like the other ones I mentioned above, it comes across as juvenile.

But it does accurately describe this show.

On 10/8/2023 at 6:55 AM, IlyaP said:

Hopefully that all made sense, and at no point felt like an attack against you.

That's good, I at no point attacked you.

On 10/8/2023 at 6:55 AM, IlyaP said:

I desperately want this forum to remain civil

I agree with you here.

On 10/8/2023 at 5:55 AM, Maia said:

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've spoken in criticism only about the show, because I honestly don't remember enough about the books. I remember the books being entertaining but pretty flawed. The magic system in the show I comment on because it is regularly apparent how poorly thought out it is. If problems with the magic system occurred in the books, it escaped my notice. Can you give some examples?

On 10/8/2023 at 4:45 AM, 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.  

True, we are putting a lot of effort into discussing something the writers likely put no effort in thinking about.

22 hours ago, fionwe1987 said:

So clearly, a damane can touch her own collar. The question then becomes, can she touch another?

Firstly, I'm willing to buy the programming had a hole, in this. An edge case, a risk that wasn't frequently encountered, so one the code didn't account for. This is literally the problem the world is facing with AI now, so I'm not particularly fussed that something similar existed with the a'dam.

But I also think this can be explained away: just like the pitcher, the a'dam doesn't need to be used for pain. It can simply be used as a link, a way to share each others feelings, and to work the Power together. 

The a'dam would already prevent Egwene from hurting Renna, so all Egwene would have to do is intend to put the collar on Renna and not immediately cause her pain.

Now, if she did this with the pitcher, with a future plan to lift it then change her mind, it wouldn't work.

But with another a'dam, I think collaring your leash holder would clearly cancel out your own leash, at least in terms of the other being able to control your use of the Power. On the pain front, if you're going to feel 2x the pain she feels, and she's going to feel 2x yours, you're both incentivised not to cause pain, and in the scene, Egwene didn't start making Renna feel pain. She just told Renna her theory, and then Renna started trying to hurt Egwene, and felt the pain, and that's when she realized she truly was collared.

Then, Egwene channels. This is definitely possible for her to do, with discomfort, which she clearly shows. She intends to hurt Renna, but at this point, she's both Renna's damane and her sul'dam, and while her collar is meant to block that, the leash is meant to permit that. And we know from the books that when two similar ter'angreal are used in close proximity, they can interfere with each other's function. 

So I can buy that Egwene truly only intended to put the collar, and not cause pain, when she put it on. The rest wasn't something she could know for sure would happen. That Renna would shoot herself in the foot, so to speak, isn't on Egwene, and the a'dam can't prevent actions based on that. The control is purely over Egwene's actions and intentions. Since she cannot guarantee Renna's actions, the a'dam cannot control her based on her speculations of those. And once the a'dam is on Renna, and Egwene has both her own collar and Renna's leash on her person, the idea that they'd interfere is entirely in keeping with the books. 

Let's put it this way: this never happens in the books. But it was something people had speculated upon. It's a reasonable extension from the rules of the books.

Egwene had every intention of killing Renna. That is just clear to me from watching the scene. She takes time to gloat first, but at no point does she try to defuse the situation - she only keeps antagonizing Renna to hurt her. Is there some doubt that openly being hostile like she is will cause Renna to attack her again? I suppose there's always an infinitesimal chance for anything.

But I still think that leaves open the loophole. Using this logic, setting traps is feasible. After all, there's just as much doubt that your enemy will trigger the trap you set right in front of them. They may stop and wander off in a different direction. So you aren't creating a deadly device that will kill them, you are simply doing a craft project. They kill themselves by triggering it.

But I do appreciate you taking the effort to come up with some explanation for this nonsense. The show itself obviously is not going to make any effort to address this because the writers don't care.

23 hours ago, Arakasi said:

Also getting into nitpicks about power math or the technology of magic and magic items while interesting in a book medium does not make good tv.

We don't know that because no one has tried. You can actually make a show that handles sophisticated ideas accurately. Have you seen the miniseries Chernobyl? Nuclear physics is not simple to most people, but that show covered it pretty well. There were a few mistakes, but for the most part it was accurate. And that had 5 episodes.

23 hours ago, Arakasi said:

it’s clear they’re simplifying it all down from a magic as technology standpoint because they just can’t waste the time explaining all that.

It's clear they're not just simplifying it, because while it's simpler, it also is mostly nonsensical. What the writers are doing is thinking of scenes they believe are cool, and then going for it, regardless of whether it makes sense.

Mat's dagger causes instant death in the show. But Min prophesied that Mat would stab Rand in the show. Wouldn't it be cool if Mat made his evil dagger into ashandarei? And that Ishamael tricks him into stabbing Rand, fufilling the prophecy, but letting the audience know prophesies don't go as you expect? Genius! Oh, but we already established that the dagger instantly kills people. Oh well, we'll let the nerds argue it out. Rand survives and Elayne is strong enough to heal him.

Wouldn't it be cool if when Perrin rescues Aviendha she takes down a dozen armored men barehanded? She punches them so hard that it hurts them through their metal armor! Maybe it doesn't make sense, but only nerds worry about that. Does the Fast and Furious audience worry about logic and details? No! And they have the biggest audience. So they clearly know what they are doing and we should follow their lead.

Wouldn't it be cool to have Moiraine, in order to show her dedication, declare she's willing to kill thousands of innocent people, and then actually use the One Power to kill innocent people because she's that amazing? I mean, there's the oaths, but the nerds can worry about that. Our audience doesn't care because it's cool!

In fact, that's the great thing about writing this show. We don't have to care because our audience doesn't care. If it's cool, then that's all that matters.

Edited October 9, 2023 by IFR

[Arakasi]

No it makes sense just fine (well other than Moiraine breaking the 3 oaths)  but the a’dam stuff is fine as fionwe said. But anyway I just plain disagree with your premise and am not interested in talking with you about this anymore. Comparing a fantasy series to a series on a nuclear disaster is a nonstarter. Just completely different audience and expectations.

I’d rather them focus their limited time on making compelling characters than making a show about magic as technology. And like Maia and others have said the book series are full of supermen and do it because it’s cool moments. Let’s not pretend Jordan didn’t do this all the time.

[IFR]

8 minutes ago, Arakasi said:

I’d rather them focus their limited time on making compelling characters

I wish they would do this too.

But you're right, it seems we fundamentally disagree. Which is fine. I'm glad you enjoy the show!

[Arakasi]

They have done that. Lanfear, Liandrin, Ishamael, Dain, Egwene, etc are miles ahead of where they were in the books. Jordans villains were almost always cardboard cutouts and the show has done an excellent job actually showing their motivations.
 

And it’s not like they’ve lost anything with main character characterizations either. A big issue with relationships in WoT is other than Min all woman in the series have awful relationships. Basically every single one of them was defined by their ability to manipulate men. For the most part they’re just there to support the men and get rescued by them. The books are overwhelmingly tavern centric and since all three are men well yeah. There are literally thousands of pages of this awful man/woman dynamic. It’s rather clear they’ve going away from that and giving women more agency. Another big plus on characterization.

[fionwe1987]

1 hour ago, IFR said:

Let's take an easy example that most people would agree on. The Netflix documentary of Cleopatra, where Cleopatra is black. Pretty obvious historical revision that falls into the category of over-reactionary progressiveness. How does it avail anyone to blatantly lie about history in a documentary?

I dunno why this is an example of wokeness. It's only an example of the cultural domination of Hollywood, which has existed since, well, Hollywood. If you do not have a vibrant film industry of your own, your stories get taken up by Hollywood, and you end up with a shambles. 

In this case, the casting of a black actor definitely is a case of American film industry updating itself and coming crashing against historical interpretation in Egypt itself, but was the situation any less bad when Christian Bale was cast as Moses in Exodus:Gods and Kings? Surely, no argument can be made that that movie was woke?

1 hour ago, IFR said:

Let's also take another example: Dune. Liet-Kynes was gender swapped. It has no impact on the story, and was clearly made for the sole purpose of the social impact of representation. This is very common now. This is something many view as overreactionary progressiveness. There is an easy word for that description, and it has nothing to do with targeting black people.

Or, maybe, just maybe, this is a sign of a diversifying workforce in Hollywood? It's spectacular to me that we all see the commercialization inherent in Hollywood and how it corrupts all artistic intent, but somehow the "wokeness" survives? This kind of selective interpretation is almost always behind any claims of wokeness, which I find makes the word utterly useless in such discussions. 

1 hour ago, IFR said:

Egwene had every intention of killing Renna. That is just clear to me from watching the scene.

It is clear to you, but not to everyone. Neither the a'dam nor the script is beholden just to your interpretation, right?

1 hour ago, IFR said:

 

 

1 hour ago, IFR said:

but at no point does she try to defuse the situation -

Ok we're shifting goalposts here. Why exactly should she diffuse the situation?

1 hour ago, IFR said:

she only keeps antagonizing Renna to hurt her. Is there some doubt that openly being hostile like she is will cause Renna to attack her again? I suppose there's always an infinitesimal chance for anything.

It doesn't matter that Renna was very likely to attack back. That is Renna's action, not Egwene's, and the a'dam only considers Egwene's actions, not reactions to her actions. 

1 hour ago, IFR said:

But I still think othat leaves open the loophole. Using this logic, setting traps is feasible. After all, there's just as much doubt that your enemy will trigger the trap you set right in front of them. They may stop and wander off in a different direction. So you aren't creating a deadly device that will kill them, you are simply doing a craft project. They kill themselves by triggering it.

But I do appreciate you taking the effort to come up with some explanation for this nonsense. The show itself obviously is not going to make any effort to address this because the writers don't care.

Look your argument is circular. You've decided the writers suck, so no matter what logic they use, you deride it as illogical. Even when it's shown that their logic is in keeping with the books, you then declare they cannot have cared, because you have declared they must suck. The writers clearly understand the books better than you, as you have now made clear you have barely any memory of it.

So, if the logic matches the books, and other viewers get this, then the issue is not with the writers. The issue is with you deciding this show must suck, and ignoring the logic of the books and the show and other viewers to continue to insist it is so. I'm done engaging with that. 

1 hour ago, IFR said:

 

 

Edited October 9, 2023 by fionwe1987

[IFR]

13 minutes ago, Arakasi said:

They have done that. Lanfear, Liandrin, Ishamael, Dain, Egwene, etc are miles ahead of where they were in the books. Jordans villains were almost always cardboard cutouts and the show has done an excellent job actually showing their motivations.
 

And it’s not like they’ve lost anything with main character characterizations either. A big issue with relationships in WoT is other than Min all woman in the series have awful relationships. Basically every single one of them was defined by their ability to manipulate men. For the most part they’re just there to support the men and get rescued by them. The books are overwhelmingly tavern centric and since all three are men well yeah. There are literally thousands of pages of this awful man/woman dynamic. It’s rather clear they’ve going away from that and giving women more agency. Another big plus on characterization.

To be fair, I agree that they've improved some characters. Lanfear and Ishamael, certainly. I think they are great in the show. I also really like Elayne in the show.

I think the show has done a terrible job with Rand, Perrin, and Mat. And Ingtar. And Loial. Worst of all is Lan. Stephanie Meyer Lan, who is always talking about feelings and needs a good cry once or twice a season is an abomination in my eyes. The show is pretty atrocious at writing male characters.

Some women are an improvement, I'll give you that. And I agree that the men vs women dynamic in the books was grating.

[Arakasi]

It’s a zero sum game though. If you give the girls more things to do it takes away from someone so yeah that means the boys do less. I don’t see why you don’t see that as a sign of fixing the gender imbalances from the series.
 

So yeah I think I’m with Fionwe here that I’m done engaging with you. 

Edited October 9, 2023 by Arakasi

[IFR]

24 minutes ago, fionwe1987 said:

In this case, the casting of a black actor definitely is a case of American film industry updating itself and coming crashing against historical interpretation in Egypt itself, but was the situation any less bad when Christian Bale was cast as Moses in Exodus:Gods and Kings? Surely, no argument can be made that that movie was woke?

I don't think that would be constituted as woke, because whitewashing is not progressive. I think this would be considered retrograde. And it certainly deserves criticism.

24 minutes ago, fionwe1987 said:

Or, maybe, just maybe, this is a sign of a diversifying workforce in Hollywood?

Well, sure, it is absolutely a sign of diversifying, it literally is imposing a change on a story in order to diversify. If you care about social impact in that direction over story, then it's a positive thing, and fortunately for Dune, the story impact is very minimal.

For many other shows, the story impact of forced diversification can range from mild to profound.

And Hollywood has not gone the positive direction of finding original property that accommodates diversification. They instead have been opting to select non-diverse works and impose diversification on them.

24 minutes ago, fionwe1987 said:

It is clear to you, but not to everyone. Neither the a'dam nor the script is beholden just to your interpretation, right?

Sure, there's not a correct interpretation to a scene. Including yours.

Plenty of people fall into my interpretation, as this is something I see a lot of show detractors complaining about outside of this thread. Show supporters will probably fall into your interpretation, because it lends a better defense of that scene.

24 minutes ago, fionwe1987 said:

Ok we're shifting goalposts here. Why exactly should she diffuse the situation?

Yes, you shifted the goalposts and I was addressing it.

24 minutes ago, fionwe1987 said:

It doesn't matter that Renna was very likely to attack back. That is Renna's action, not Egwene's, and the a'dam only considers Egwene's actions, not reactions to her actions.

Sure, I understood your explanation.

24 minutes ago, fionwe1987 said:

Look your argument is circular. You've decided the writers suck, so no matter what logic they use, you deride it as illogical.

My argument is not circular. I have not been discussing the book logic, I've been discussing the show logic.

The show's approach is nonsensical. It established that Egwene cannot use even non-weapon items if she has a premeditated agenda to use it as a weapon. An entire episode was spent covering this. And then she picks up the a'dam with the premeditation of using it as a weapon.

24 minutes ago, fionwe1987 said:

The issue is with you deciding this show must suck, and ignoring the logic of the books and the show

I haven't ignored the show "logic", I've consistently criticized it. I haven't addressed the book logic.

24 minutes ago, fionwe1987 said:

The writers clearly understand the books better than you, as you have now made clear you have barely any memory of it.

I don't care to speculate what the writers understand. I merely observe what they produce, and it is pure B grade nonsense.

Edited October 9, 2023 by IFR

[Corvinus85]

15 hours ago, Arakasi said:

So was watching a youtube vid about the last episode and I think there is something more going on in that dragon scene. If you watch it Moiraine starts it and then something happens and you see a look of shock/surprise on her face. Also she isn’t channeling at that time. So I’m not sure what that’s trying to exactly convey. My thought it she was starting to do something and then something else just took over and delivered that effect. Whether that’s the pattern or something else I don’t know. But I don’t think Moiraine is in control of it at that point. Still don’t like attacking the ships but there is a bit of mystery to me about this dragon which is better.

I re-watched the scene. Moiraine sends weaves of fire (and maybe air) in the direction of the tower. Suddenly fire from the burning ships which are to the right of where the weaves are moving bursts in a column/firebolt shape; the weaves intercept this fire column and the dragon is formed around the tower. IMO, it's unclear by Moiraine's face if she was truly shocked, or maybe just a little surprised because she wasn't sure what she wad doing, or it's nothing. I imagine she would know the shape, as per the book she recognizes the Dragon's banner, but up until that point the show hadn't done anything to indicate that people know much about why the word Dragon is used.

The main indicator that something weird happened is that Moiraine's weaves didn't head towards the burning ships from where the fire came. Also, Lanfear was smirking in the crowd, so maybe she did something, too.

Edited October 9, 2023 by Corvinus85

[SpaceChampion]

I can't remember at any time in the books someone altering another channeler's weaves.  As far as I know that can't be done.  So Moiraine must have stopped channelling or had her weaves cut to be replaced by whoever did it, if there is another person.  Hard to see anyone other than Lanfear behind it, but then why did she tell Moiraine to throw up the dragon?

[IFR]

1 hour ago, Arakasi said:

It’s a zero sum game though. If you give the girls more things to do it takes away from someone so yeah that means the boys do less. I don’t see why you don’t see that as a sign of fixing the gender imbalances from the series.

I just saw this update to your post. I don't believe it's zero sum at all. Let's take the finale. Egwene remains defiant to the end to Renna, even at the threat of her life. She has her moment. Nynaeve and Elayne rescue Egwene. They have their moment. Mat blows the Horn of Valere, and Perrin holds the banner of the Dragon, while the heroes of the Horn engage in battle. They have their moment. Rand fights Ishamael in the sky, utilizing the sword training the writers had the foresight to provide. He has his moment. Nynaeve heals the wound he receives. She has another moment. Everyone has their moment.

Moiraine doesn't, because in this scernario the showrunners did not hire their top actor for a side character.

But you could even make one up. She eventually regroups with Nynaeve, et al (since Rand is not in immediate danger by being stabbed by the dagger, unlike every other character), and links with her and Elayne and Egwene to heal the wound on Rand's side. Or she could be the one to heal him herself. Etc.

It's not a zero sum game. The writers deliberately set out to make it that way.

13 minutes ago, SpaceChampion said:

I can't remember at any time in the books someone altering another channeler's weaves.  As far as I know that can't be done.  So Moiraine must have stopped channelling or had her weaves cut to be replaced by whoever did it, if there is another person.  Hard to see anyone other than Lanfear behind it, but then why did she tell Moiraine to throw up the dragon?

It may be a show thing. Lanfear clearly directed Moiraine to create the dragon, so perhaps she contributed to the effect.

If this is the case, I'm sure it will be addressed next season. It's impossible to know for sure at this point. And you can't really use the books as reference for what is and is not possible in the show, because the show does its own thing.

Edited October 9, 2023 by IFR