Wheel of Time Messageboard: Still prejudiced, of course... by Terez

Back to Messageboard

Post New Thread

Help

Stats

Rules

Still prejudiced, of course... Terez Send a noteboard - 04/05/2010 10:24:53 AM

Your interpretation of the Prophecies doesn't fit the wording: Alivia simply doesn't help Rand in a direct and specific way to die, like Elayne wouldn't simply because she gave Alivia the medallion. Following your theory one would rather have to say that Gawyn "helps" Rand to die. Of course, this is also not correct, since he doesn't want to "help" Rand, but just wants to kill him in your opinion.

Following my theory, Gawyn kills Rand, and Alivia helps by giving Gawyn access to the medallion. That fits the definition of 'help' just fine; it simply doesn't fit your preconceived notions of what sort of 'help' Alivia will be giving.

Similarly the Aelfinn's answer suggests that Rand has actively to do something, namely "dying", in order to live. That implies that simply being killed isn't enough, but that Rand has to find a way to be dead and alive at the same time. The solution to this is a state where Rand appears dead - is even basically dead because the processes of his life are temporarily shut done - but is actually still alive, like in a coma or stasis, and can be revived.

But he's not dead in that scenario, so it doesn't fit. Also, the extra meaning you're applying to the Aelfinn's words is based on your preconceived notions of how Rand will be dead and alive at the same time. It's not in the text itself. He asked them how to survive. They said, 'to live, you must die'. All that says is that he has to die.

The problem is that your theory relies on too many such on the whole unsupported assumptions.

Not really. It only relies on the supported assumptions; it doesn't presume to know how every detail will play out.

Why can't Rand be spun out directly again, if the Pattern needs the Dragon?

Because Rand would be a baby?

But the Heroes in TAR are dead, basically ghost or souls, as e.g. the Prophecy of the Horn shows. They aren't alive, even if they can interact with you (like e.g. the dead Hopper with Perrin).

Sorry, but I have a quote from the book to show that dead Heroes are 'not dead as others are dead', no matter how you choose to see it. You don't have anything from the books to support your idea that Rand faking his death somehow counts as death; in fact, I have evidence from RJ that it won't count, since Mat's near death at Rhuidean didn't count.

Actually Mat was also never dead at all, because of the balefire.

He did die, though. We actually saw him, dead. The balefire erased the event - made it to where it was AS IF it had never happened - but it still happened.

In any case, Rand's case is different because contrary to Mat he will be dead and alive at the same time. This only works with a coma. And as said, if it could fulfill a similar Prophecy in Dune, I'm certain that the explanation for being dead and alive at the same time could be a coma in WoT as well (though still a bit different of course, because Alivia will assist by putting Rand into a coma with the OP). This is also based on several myths.

Forgive me for using evidence from WoT to support what counts as living and what counts as dying, rather than using Dune.

Reply to message

My new 'loony' theory Terez - 03/05/2010 11:09:52 AM 2452 Views

Hehe, yeah, we can also discuss it here...

Etzel - 03/05/2010 12:04:57 PM 1353 Views

Good deal. You're still being prejudiced, though.

Terez - 03/05/2010 12:20:00 PM 1503 Views

Of course, I prefer my theory.... Etzel - 03/05/2010 01:01:07 PM 1208 Views

I suppose it's better than Beslan Terez - 03/05/2010 01:19:52 PM 1429 Views

He, Beslan being Berelain's man in white was a most brilliant theory!

Etzel - 03/05/2010 01:55:07 PM 1372 Views

See, this is why I am right and you are wrong!

Terez - 04/05/2010 03:56:31 AM 1210 Views

In my view Etzel - 04/05/2010 10:07:02 AM 1098 Views

Still prejudiced, of course... Terez - 04/05/2010 10:24:53 AM 1298 Views

Just disagreeing Etzel - 04/05/2010 11:15:44 AM 1203 Views

And repeating yourself. But I have evidence. Terez - 04/05/2010 12:24:06 PM 1240 Views

Well... Etzel - 04/05/2010 01:10:17 PM 1097 Views

This is getting silly Terez - 04/05/2010 01:27:56 PM 1041 Views

Yeah, I think as well that we have sufficiently exchanged our views on this matter!

*NM* Etzel - 04/05/2010 02:18:09 PM 570 Views

Mat's reasons for giving up the foxhead ter'angreal Gaidal Craig - 03/05/2010 03:53:43 PM 1292 Views

Why only the gholam? Terez - 04/05/2010 04:00:18 AM 1172 Views

Re: My new 'loony' theory Datakim - 03/05/2010 04:27:12 PM 1288 Views

cool people change the subject line Terez - 04/05/2010 04:14:18 AM 1321 Views

Re: cool people change the subject line Datakim - 04/05/2010 06:43:01 AM 1082 Views

Re: cool people change the subject line Terez - 04/05/2010 07:32:24 AM 1169 Views

Re: cool people change the subject line Datakim - 04/05/2010 08:31:47 AM 1298 Views

Re: cool people change the subject line Terez - 04/05/2010 09:27:51 AM 1244 Views

oops *NM* Terez - 04/05/2010 09:28:11 AM 736 Views

Re: cool people change the subject line Datakim - 04/05/2010 03:17:42 PM 1258 Views

I dont claim to be but didnt you say cool people change the subject line?

Nargs - 05/05/2010 02:41:49 AM 1183 Views

Yes. What of it? *NM* Terez - 05/05/2010 03:22:34 AM 726 Views

now you're a cool kid again?

*NM* Nargs - 05/05/2010 03:23:49 AM 671 Views

It was originally a comment on those who normally dwell here (and also did at Wotmania of course) *NM* Terez - 05/05/2010 03:25:17 AM 662 Views

Re: My new 'loony' theory Nargs - 04/05/2010 04:44:28 AM 1262 Views

what comments by Brandon, and what flaws? Terez - 04/05/2010 04:49:29 AM 1218 Views

Re: what comments by Brandon, and what flaws? Nargs - 05/05/2010 02:34:33 AM 1412 Views

Thanks. Terez - 05/05/2010 03:21:53 AM 1277 Views

No go. *NM* Nargs - 03/11/2010 03:14:13 AM 644 Views

Who draws it out shall follow after Terez - 04/05/2010 12:33:56 PM 1306 Views

I don't think.... Etzel - 04/05/2010 01:22:21 PM 1190 Views

Gawyn promised not to raise a hand against Rand Jim - 06/05/2010 12:59:47 AM 1006 Views

Indeed he did. Terez - 06/05/2010 07:23:44 AM 1424 Views

But... Etzel - 06/05/2010 08:52:04 AM 1247 Views

Just because it makes more sense to you doesn't make it more likely. I have evidence! Terez - 06/05/2010 09:57:52 AM 1060 Views

Well... Etzel - 06/05/2010 11:12:42 AM 1143 Views

*sigh* Terez - 06/05/2010 01:41:03 PM 1242 Views

I'm still hoping to dissuade you from this crazy idea!

Etzel - 06/05/2010 02:07:54 PM 1219 Views

You won't. Terez - 06/05/2010 02:11:42 PM 1168 Views

Gawyn agreed that he would talk with Elayne about this topic Etzel - 06/05/2010 02:32:55 PM 1278 Views

Reading comprehension issues. *NM* Terez - 06/05/2010 02:43:28 PM 695 Views

Ah, come on, it's fun to discuss!

Etzel - 06/05/2010 02:49:01 PM 1066 Views

the problem there Jim - 07/05/2010 05:45:23 AM 1148 Views

more to the point Terez - 07/05/2010 04:45:40 AM 1139 Views

considering Rand won't hurt Elayne Jim - 07/05/2010 05:46:23 AM 1075 Views

wow saidarisnowtainted - 06/05/2010 01:46:22 AM 1222 Views

thanks! Terez - 06/05/2010 07:25:25 AM 1038 Views

Re: thanks! saidarisnowtainted - 12/05/2010 10:50:50 PM 1124 Views

Nice theory ... Shishka - 07/05/2010 06:25:29 PM 1286 Views

Or Elayne could just give it to Gawyn. Gher - 07/05/2010 07:34:44 PM 1186 Views

True, but I prefer the idea that he'll steal it because ... Shishka - 07/05/2010 08:32:29 PM 1098 Views

Thanks Terez - 08/05/2010 07:56:17 AM 1096 Views

Nice! But how about.... Ishamael - 12/05/2010 01:58:00 PM 1408 Views

They'll kill each other Terez - 12/05/2010 02:22:18 PM 1009 Views

Also Terez - 12/05/2010 09:06:25 PM 1144 Views

Re: Also saidarisnowtainted - 12/05/2010 10:49:51 PM 1108 Views

Actually Terez - 12/05/2010 11:50:26 PM 1276 Views

Take two Terez - 17/05/2010 07:33:35 PM 1092 Views

Re: Take two Datakim - 17/05/2010 11:45:08 PM 1106 Views

Re: Take two Terez - 18/05/2010 12:52:10 AM 1164 Views

Re: Take two Datakim - 18/05/2010 01:35:46 AM 1283 Views

Re: Take two Terez - 18/05/2010 01:45:24 AM 1187 Views

Re: Take two Datakim - 18/05/2010 03:22:37 AM 1308 Views

Re: Take two Terez - 18/05/2010 06:32:57 AM 1154 Views

Re: Take two Datakim - 18/05/2010 07:11:08 PM 1033 Views

Re: Take two Terez - 18/05/2010 10:07:36 PM 1076 Views

From DomA's World Con report Terez - 18/05/2010 10:42:48 PM 1104 Views

Yeah, we knew that... Etzel - 19/05/2010 08:25:04 AM 1316 Views

Back to Messageboard

Post New Thread

Help

Stats

Rules

Reply to Message

Subject

Formatting

Smiley Codes

Body

<quote id="104648">
<quote id="104645">Your interpretation of the Prophecies doesn't fit the wording: Alivia simply doesn't help Rand in a direct and specific way to die, like Elayne wouldn't simply because she gave Alivia the medallion. Following your theory one would rather have to say that Gawyn "helps" Rand to die. Of course, this is also not correct, since he doesn't want to "help" Rand, but just wants to kill him in your opinion.</quote>
Following my theory, Gawyn kills Rand, and Alivia helps by giving Gawyn access to the medallion.  That fits the definition of 'help' just fine; it simply doesn't fit your preconceived notions of what sort of 'help' Alivia will be giving.
 
<quote>Similarly the Aelfinn's answer suggests that Rand has actively to do something, namely "dying", in order to live. That implies that simply being killed isn't enough, but that Rand has to find a way to be dead and alive at the same time. The solution to this is a state where Rand appears dead - is even basically dead because the processes of his life are temporarily shut done - but is actually still alive, like in a coma or stasis, and can be revived. </quote>
But he's not dead in that scenario, so it doesn't fit.  Also, the extra meaning you're applying to the Aelfinn's words is based on your preconceived notions of how Rand will be dead and alive at the same time.  It's not in the text itself.  He asked them how to survive.  They said, 'to live, you must die'.  All that says is that he has to die.

<quote>The problem is that your theory relies on too many such on the whole unsupported assumptions.</quote>
Not really.  It only relies on the supported assumptions; it doesn't presume to know how every detail will play out.

<quote>Why can't Rand be spun out directly again, if the Pattern needs the Dragon?</quote>
Because Rand would be a baby?

<quote>But the Heroes in TAR are dead, basically ghost or souls, as e.g. the Prophecy of the Horn shows. They aren't alive, even if they can interact with you (like e.g. the dead Hopper with Perrin).</quote>
Sorry, but I have a quote from the book to show that dead Heroes are 'not dead as others are dead', no matter how you choose to see it.  You don't have anything from the books to support your idea that Rand faking his death somehow counts as death; in fact, I have evidence from RJ that it won't count, since Mat's near death at Rhuidean didn't count.

<quote>Actually Mat was also never dead at all, because of the balefire.</quote>
He did die, though. We actually saw him, dead.  The balefire erased the event - made it to where it was AS IF it had never happened - but it still happened.

<quote>In any case, Rand's case is different because contrary to Mat he will be dead and alive at the same time. This only works with a coma. And as said, if it could fulfill a similar Prophecy in Dune, I'm certain that the explanation for being dead and alive at the same time could be a coma in WoT as well (though still a bit different of course, because Alivia will assist by putting Rand into a coma with the OP). This is also based on several myths.</quote>
Forgive me for using evidence from WoT to support what counts as living and what counts as dying, rather than using Dune.
</quote>

Link title

Link url

Send notification emails?

Username

Password