A Memory of Light [FULL SPOILER DISCUSSION] Part 2

[glabrain]

I.m sorry. I'll move my obviously inferior views out of your big manly thread so you can enjoy it without us pesky women.

You're not pesky, you're just furious that you're a woman and a woman in the book was getting hurt by a man. When that happens you have an innate desire to criticize it.

[Brendan Moody]

Uh-huh. I'm a man and I agree with everything Gertrude has said. What's my psychological problem? Do tell, doctor.

[Shryke]

Numerous faceless people died, several named but who really cares characters died, and we had one Major charachter death who went out in a blaze of over the top awesomeness, and a (not really) major character go out in a blaze of dumbassery who, IMO, was a waste of space anyway. (I would say that Siuan, Bryne and Davram were secondary/tertiary characters we cared about, but their deaths were merely meh.) None of it, except Egwene, felt immediate or dire or anything other than window dressing to make it more horrific. And Egwene's death was sad, but she got to god-damn accomplish something with her sacrifice, so it was inspiring rather than adding to the feeling of horror and loss.

I don't see why "number of major characters dead" matters. What is this a metric of? It gets brought up alot all over the place, but it seems like nothing more then a dick measuring contest over which author enjoys killing characters the most. Like "kills major characters" has become some sort of measure of quality or grittiness or something for some reason.

I mean, probably the most accute feeling of impending doom in the series is in TGS while Rand is really going over the edge, and that involves no deaths at all. It seems more then anything like people calling for a cheap way of making the story darker or something.

Especially in the last volume of a series, where plot armour disappears no matter what has come before.

On a side note, I thought Egwene's death was harder then many of the others. Sure, she went out in a blaze of glory, but so what. That's practically what you expect for this part of the story. What made it hard was that, really, of all the major characters Egwene seemed like the one (or one of the ones) with the most to do later. She had plans and goals and shit she needed to get doing after the Last Battle. I think her death was the most unexpected.

OK, YA is probably not the right descriptor. PG is probably the better way to frame it. I don't really feel like arguing it because it is basically my opinion vs your opinion and neither one of is is going to be swayed. I've said multiple times that I know I am not the most objective of reviewers because I measure the actual story to the potential I see it having and it falls short every time.It's a very, very good story executed fair to middling, with stretches of poorly. (and of course, several isolated moments of awesome. Mostly in the first few books, however.)

Yeah, PG is probably a better descriptor.

[Gertrude]

You're not pesky, you're just furious that you're a woman and a woman in the book was getting hurt by a man. When that happens you have an innate desire to criticize it.

:rofl:

I don't see why "number of major characters dead" matters. What is this a metric of? It gets brought up alot all over the place, but it seems like nothing more then a dick measuring contest over which author enjoys killing characters the most. Like "kills major characters" has become some sort of measure of quality or grittiness or something for some reason.

Before the book was released I was seeing many people who had read it early say 'the body count is high!' that I have a knee-jerk response of 'that's it?' So no, deaths are not a measure of quality, but how you use the deaths is. Not one of the deaths really impacted me. Maybe that's because I'm a cynical bitch :P but when Siaun died my first thought was 'well, someone had to go, why not Siuan'. The second was 'couldn't we at least have seen her die taking a bullet for Matt or something?' The off-screen death was meh. I get that it can be effective for senseless deaths to happen with no heroics, but this wasn't it. (As an example - I loved Tasha Yar's death on Star Trek:TNG. Completely random and unexpected, completely senseless. Still one of my favorite deaths.)

Even Egwene's death didn't impact me negatively - she was an inspiration. Yes, it's disappointing to see that she will never realize her visions, but she put the pieces in place and honestly, she was a dead woman walking from the time Gawayn died, so not really unexpected when it actually came.

[Shryke]

Before the book was released I was seeing many people who had read it early say 'the body count is high!' that I have a knee-jerk response of 'that's it?' So no, deaths are not a measure of quality, but how you use the deaths is. Not one of the deaths really impacted me. Maybe that's because I'm a cynical bitch :P but when Siaun died my first thought was 'well, someone had to go, why not Siuan'. The second was 'couldn't we at least have seen her die taking a bullet for Matt or something?' The off-screen death was meh. I get that it can be effective for senseless deaths to happen with no heroics, but this wasn't it. (As an example - I loved Tasha Yar's death on Star Trek:TNG. Completely random and unexpected, completely senseless. Still one of my favorite deaths.)

Even Egwene's death didn't impact me negatively - she was an inspiration. Yes, it's disappointing to see that she will never realize her visions, but she put the pieces in place and honestly, she was a dead woman walking from the time Gawayn died, so not really unexpected when it actually came.

I think that's kinda my point. It's not about the number of deaths, that's irrelevant. It's how the book is written. And neither RJ nor BS were ever much good at conveying a sense of doom, despite all actual information in the book saying "These guys are in a bad way".

I mean, you say yourself "I like random deaths" and then Siuan (a pretty important character) gets one and you don't care. I found that one a bit weak too. Something about the way it's written lacks impact.

[glabrain]

Uh-huh. I'm a man and I agree with everything Gertrude has said. What's my psychological problem? Do tell, doctor.

Joanna's Tear: a blog about A Song of Ice and Fire and Game of Thrones. Because the Internet needed one more.

Both of you should read The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo series, you'll both get euphoric and admire the book with adulation.

[Brendan Moody]

(I wrote this before the two most recent posts by Gertrude and Shryke, with which I largely agree.)

I don't see why "number of major characters dead" matters.

In this context, and in epic fantasy generally, it's a measure of how seriously the author takes what he's writing about. If you're trying to say something meaningful about the terms on which good triumphs over evil, you need to acknowledge that the price is often high and tragically unfair. Otherwise, you're writing about how the world ought to be, not how it is. Any battle, let alone an apocalyptic one on an enormous scale, is going to kill people, and it's not going to affect secondary, tertiary, or faceless characters disproportionately. Death isn't the only way to convey the cost of victory, and for some writers it becomes a cheap source of grittiness, but I'd say it's still under- rather than over-used.

But I think the problem with A Memory of Light in this regard is (again) as much one of execution as of conception, and Sanderson is at fault. (We'll never know whether Jordan would have done better.) Egwene's death doesn't get more than two lines' worth of reaction from anyone, so the "blaze of glory" aspect overwhelms the tragedy of it, which, if emphasized, could have made the ending feel appropriately downbeat without adding extra major character deaths. Having a moment for Moiraine to mourn Siuan, Morgase to think about Gareth Bryne, Egwene to truly grieve for Gawyn, would also have helped. But Sanderson seems to have been more concerned with having an OMG epic 79,000-word chapter than with having it, you know, mean anything. It also doesn't help-- and I don't know whose idea this was-- that several biggish characters seemed to die and then got better. If anything's wrong with Jordan's conception, it's that he seems to have been unwilling to kill half a couple and leave the other half alive, to go on alone. That's true tragedy, part of life, and overlooked here.

Both of you should read The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo series, you'll both get euphoric and admire the book with adulation.

I tried the first one; it was poorly written (or poorly translated) and much too in awe of its own moodiness. So, um, wrong again.

[Shryke]

In this context, and in epic fantasy generally, it's a measure of how seriously the author takes what he's writing about. If you're trying to say something meaningful about the terms on which good triumphs over evil, you need to acknowledge that the price is often high and tragically unfair. Otherwise, you're writing about how the world ought to be, not how it is. Any battle, let alone an apocalyptic one on an enormous scale, is going to kill people, and it's not going to affect secondary, tertiary, or faceless characters disproportionately. Death isn't the only way to convey the cost of victory, and for some writers it becomes a cheap source of grittiness, but I'd say it's still under- rather than over-used.

Actually it would. Most of the major characters are either super powerful or in the backlines. People are getting killed by the tens of thousands in the battle at Merrilor, but as you'd expect, it's mostly hitting the front line troops.

I don't think number of deaths of major characters is any measure of seriousness.

But I think the problem with A Memory of Light in this regard is (again) as much one of execution as of conception, and Sanderson is at fault. (We'll never know whether Jordan would have done better.) Egwene's death doesn't get more than two lines' worth of reaction from anyone, so the "blaze of glory" aspect overwhelms the tragedy of it, which, if emphasized, could have made the ending feel appropriately downbeat without adding extra major character deaths. Having a moment for Moiraine to mourn Siuan, Morgase to think about Gareth Bryne, Egwene to truly grieve for Gawyn, would also have helped. But Sanderson seems to have been more concerned with having an OMG epic 79,000-word chapter than with having it, you know, mean anything. It also doesn't help-- and I don't know whose idea this was-- that several biggish characters seemed to die and then got better. If anything's wrong with Jordan's conception, it's that he seems to have been unwilling to kill half a couple and leave the other half alive, to go on alone. That's true tragedy, part of life, and overlooked here.

Yeah, there's a general lack of any character moments in the book. It's just all action scene, all the time.

Also, the people dying as couples was a bit lame, although given the deaths we had, they made sense.

[Brendan Moody]

Actually it would. Most of the major characters are either super powerful or in the backlines. People are getting killed by the tens of thousands in the battle at Merrilor, but as you'd expect, it's mostly hitting the front line troops.

I'm not sure a battle driven by magic has frontlines and backlines in the traditional sense, and in any case the major characters who don't die aren't any further from the heat of battle than the secondary and tertiary ones who do. It's only plot armor protecting them.

I don't think number of deaths of major characters is any measure of seriousness.

Not as a simple count separate from any deeper consideration, obviously, but in the larger context of how well the writer deals with the balance of justice and injustice in the world, it certainly matters. If Jordan or Sanderson had done anything else to suggest they understood the impact of what they're writing about, the lack of other major character deaths wouldn't be so revealing.

[The Scabbard Of the Morning]

You're right that the battle tactics were silly, but not for the reasons you state. Opening such a large Gateways and keeping it open will sap the strength of the channelers very quickly. And Dreadlords can, and will, disrupt the weave. Sure, they could have other channelers defend against the Dreadlords, but the circle holding the Gateway open would still be vulnerable.

That said, there's no reason this tactic couldn't have been used in Kandor. Egwene's army faced no Dreadlords, and they even see that Trollocs are unable to pass through Gateways. I fail to see why Aes Sedai went to individual hills to fight. They could have opened Gateways, tied them off (since there were no Dreadlords to cut the weaves), then attacked through the Gateways. The trollocs wouldn't be able to enter the Gateways, so the Aes Sedai would be safe from attacks. It would have been an even more one sided battle than it turned out to be. Very disappointing.

Except when the plot demanded it people were able to transport large armies through gateways quickly. Heck the entire Sharan army showed up in the gateway. And plenty of other times there were large armies moved into a position to attack with gateways.

And I still don't buy that gateways can't be effective against large forces. Open up a gateway in the sky to the bottom of the ocean, you can pretty much drown all the trollocs at Tarwin's Gap in a matter of minutes.

[Shryke]

I'm not sure a battle driven by magic has frontlines and backlines in the traditional sense, and in any case the major characters who don't die aren't any further from the heat of battle than the secondary and tertiary ones who do. It's only plot armor protecting them.

It most certainly does. You see it in the book and in any battle in the book. Channeling over distance is difficult and so channelers move near the front and attack the front lines. That's how it's always shown. The people getting slagged are the infantry and such in the front lines. You see tons of it. Demandred is killing thousands of them at a time at the end.

And the main characters are most definitely further from the heat of battle for the most part. The only people mixing it up on the front lines are like Lan and Uno and Galad. Or Mat at a few points, but he's lucky. Everyone else is either a channeler (and thus harder to kill and protected behind a screen of troops) or a general or the like.

Not as a simple count separate from any deeper consideration, obviously, but in the larger context of how well the writer deals with the balance of justice and injustice in the world, it certainly matters. If Jordan or Sanderson had done anything else to suggest they understood the impact of what they're writing about, the lack of other major character deaths wouldn't be so revealing.

I don't see how it does at all. They show tons of people being killed. The horrors of war are most certainly there and there's deaths among the named characters. But no deeper consideration is gained by killing a few more named characters.

I mean, something like LOTR ain't killing named characters left and right, but that book most certainly deals with the horrors of war.

[Shryke]

Except when the plot demanded it people were able to transport large armies through gateways quickly. Heck the entire Sharan army showed up in the gateway. And plenty of other times there were large armies moved into a position to attack with gateways.

Um, the Sharan army showed up through the biggest gateway anyone had ever seen, by far. And one made with a full circle of strong channelers and one of the most powerful Sa'angreal ever.

At basically any other time throughout the book (and previous books), gateways are described as hard to make and a big bottleneck. There's tons of incidences in the book where they can't retreat easily because of how long it takes to move troops through gateways and how tiring it is for the channelers.

And I still don't buy that gateways can't be effective against large forces. Open up a gateway in the sky to the bottom of the ocean, you can pretty much drown all the trollocs at Tarwin's Gap in a matter of minutes.

It'd more just make a small portion of them really really wet till a dreadlord slashed the gateway to pieces. They can't be made that big, nor is it that easy.

[The Scabbard Of the Morning]

It'd more just make a small portion of them really really wet till a dreadlord slashed the gateway to pieces. They can't be made that big, nor is it that easy.

Open it up a mile up in the sky above them (like the viewing gates) and they won't even know what hit them until it's too late.

[Shryke]

Open it up a mile up in the sky above them (like the viewing gates) and they won't even know what hit them until it's too late.

I don't think that's even possible. You'd have to be in the ocean or something, since you can't weave a gateway that far from your own location.

[Brendan Moody]

And the main characters are most definitely further from the heat of battle for the most part.

Here's the kind of thing I mean. Siuan, Min, Mat, and Tuon are all under direct attack by the forces of the Shadow. Which one dies, and which ones come out utterly unscathed? Egwene, Gawyn, and Romanda are all there when the Sharans "land." Which one gets flattened instantly, and which ones go on to have more dramatic deaths? The ones who live are frequently in no less peril than the ones who die, just as if they were all in the front lines.

I mean, something like LOTR ain't killing named characters left and right, but that book most certainly deals with the horrors of war.

The Lord of the Rings would be the book where the hero is so badly wounded that he's regularly in pain, a shadow of his former self, and the only available consolation is a tearful parting from his friends for a healing sojourn in the earthly paradise. Whereas A Memory of Light is the book where the hero gets a fresh new body and wanders off to have neat-o adventures and intermittently visit his three wives. As I've already said twice, it's not character deaths in isolation, it's the overall awareness that war damages people permanently. I'm not saying Jordan "should" have killed off more people, or that the book would be more meaningful if he had; I'm saying that, in character deaths and in many other ways, the book doesn't do justice to the horrors of war. Anyone can write "ten thousand nameless characters died;" that's not showing the horrors of war, at least not in any way that indicates actual skill. Intention is not the same as success.

[Shryke]

Here's the kind of thing I mean. Siuan, Min, Mat, and Tuon are all under direct attack by the forces of the Shadow. Which one dies, and which ones come out utterly unscathed? Egwene, Gawyn, and Romanda are all there when the Sharans "land." Which one gets flattened instantly, and which ones go on to have more dramatic deaths? The ones who live are frequently in no less peril than the ones who die, just as if they were all in the front lines.

Yes, and Tyrion rides into battle at least twice I can think of and servives, unlike all the unnamed characters. But I'd hardly call ASOIAF stingy with the deaths. Sometimes main characters don't die too.

The Lord of the Rings would be the book where the hero is so badly wounded that he's regularly in pain, a shadow of his former self, and the only available consolation is a tearful parting from his friends for a healing sojourn in the earthly paradise. Whereas A Memory of Light is the book where the hero gets a fresh new body and wanders off to have neat-o adventures and intermittently visit his three wives. As I've already said twice, it's not character deaths in isolation, it's the overall awareness that war damages people permanently. I'm not saying Jordan "should" have killed off more people, or that the book would be more meaningful if he had; I'm saying that, in character deaths and in many other ways, the book doesn't do justice to the horrors of war. Anyone can write "ten thousand nameless characters died;" that's not showing the horrors of war, at least not in any way that indicates actual skill. Intention is not the same as success.

The LOTR would be the book where you've got a bare handful of character deaths. You are now trying to shift the goalposts.

Rand gets a fresh body because Rand sacrifices everything and in the end gets to be free. If you want to get speculatively authorial-intent about his shit, both LOTR and WOT reflect their respective author's experiences in war. Tolkien was left shaken and his book reflects that. RJ took the persona that let him survive the war and killed it before coming home, as a sort of rebirth if you like, to go on to live a more peaceful and happy life.

I don't see one as more intrinsically valid then the other.

[Darth Richard]

Uh-huh. I'm a man and I agree with everything Gertrude has said. What's my psychological problem? Do tell, doctor.

+1 for agreement. Where do these people come from?

[Darth Richard]

Both of you should read The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo series, you'll both get euphoric and admire the book with adulation.

I have no words. :bang:

[alguien]

If you want to get speculatively authorial-intent about his shit, both LOTR and WOT reflect their respective author's experiences in war. Tolkien was left shaken and his book reflects that. RJ took the persona that let him survive the war and killed it before coming home, as a sort of rebirth if you like, to go on to live a more peaceful and happy life.

That's a real interesting way of looking at it. This is all speculative, but in some ways, I get the sense that RJ felt more dehumanized than Tolkein did, but was able to get rid of that--or leave it behind, whereas Tolkein didn't lose himself in quite the way that RJ did in Vietnam, so the tragedy stayed with him more.

Comparing them both, i think LOTR has quite a lot more depth and tragedy. I can't think of any character death or interaction in WoT with more pathos than Denethor's fall. Though the prologue of EotW comes close.

I'm not sure which way of living after a war is more valid than the other, I can only say that the LOTR's sense of tragedy resonates with me way more than the ending of WoT.

I think I really would have enjoyed a haunted Rand leaving his own funeral with a different body--having to struggle the way Frodo did, or better yet, how Sparrowhawk, or Ged, had to struggle after he lost his powers--instead of gaining new ones.

[generic]

Except when the plot demanded it people were able to transport large armies through gateways quickly. Heck the entire Sharan army showed up in the gateway. And plenty of other times there were large armies moved into a position to attack with gateways.

And I still don't buy that gateways can't be effective against large forces. Open up a gateway in the sky to the bottom of the ocean, you can pretty much drown all the trollocs at Tarwin's Gap in a matter of minutes.

Remember when Rand destroyed the Seanchan Border army? Or when he killed all the Trollocs in the Stone of Tear? Or when Lewis Terrin ripped open a vulcano that is still active after 3000 years?

The point is that earlier in the series it wasn't hard to kill uncountable numbers of Trollocs. At all. So yeah kill them with Gateways if you want. Or just set them on fire or blow them up.

They should have had access to several sa'angreals and full circles. No need to be finicky about it.