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.
My new 'loony' theory
- 03/05/2010 11:09:52 AM
2161 Views
Hehe, yeah, we can also discuss it here... 
- 03/05/2010 12:04:57 PM
1039 Views
- 03/05/2010 12:04:57 PM
1039 Views
Good deal. You're still being prejudiced, though.
- 03/05/2010 12:20:00 PM
1190 Views
- 03/05/2010 12:20:00 PM
1190 Views
Of course, I prefer my theory....
- 03/05/2010 01:01:07 PM
897 Views
I suppose it's better than Beslan
- 03/05/2010 01:19:52 PM
1081 Views
He, Beslan being Berelain's man in white was a most brilliant theory!
- 03/05/2010 01:55:07 PM
1055 Views
- 03/05/2010 01:55:07 PM
1055 Views
See, this is why I am right and you are wrong! 
- 04/05/2010 03:56:31 AM
855 Views
- 04/05/2010 03:56:31 AM
855 Views
In my view
- 04/05/2010 10:07:02 AM
805 Views
Still prejudiced, of course...
- 04/05/2010 10:24:53 AM
906 Views
Just disagreeing
- 04/05/2010 11:15:44 AM
891 Views
And repeating yourself. But I have evidence.
- 04/05/2010 12:24:06 PM
874 Views
Well...
- 04/05/2010 01:10:17 PM
808 Views
This is getting silly
- 04/05/2010 01:27:56 PM
788 Views
Yeah, I think as well that we have sufficiently exchanged our views on this matter! 
*NM*
- 04/05/2010 02:18:09 PM
427 Views
*NM*
- 04/05/2010 02:18:09 PM
427 Views
Re: My new 'loony' theory
- 03/05/2010 04:27:12 PM
965 Views
cool people change the subject line
- 04/05/2010 04:14:18 AM
996 Views
Re: cool people change the subject line
- 04/05/2010 06:43:01 AM
786 Views
Re: cool people change the subject line
- 04/05/2010 07:32:24 AM
836 Views
Re: cool people change the subject line
- 04/05/2010 08:31:47 AM
1004 Views
Re: cool people change the subject line
- 04/05/2010 09:27:51 AM
915 Views
I dont claim to be but didnt you say cool people change the subject line?
- 05/05/2010 02:41:49 AM
870 Views
- 05/05/2010 02:41:49 AM
870 Views
Yes. What of it? *NM*
- 05/05/2010 03:22:34 AM
572 Views
now you're a cool kid again? *NM*
- 05/05/2010 03:23:49 AM
518 Views
*NM*
- 05/05/2010 03:23:49 AM
518 Views
It was originally a comment on those who normally dwell here (and also did at Wotmania of course) *NM*
- 05/05/2010 03:25:17 AM
505 Views
Re: My new 'loony' theory
- 04/05/2010 04:44:28 AM
957 Views
what comments by Brandon, and what flaws?
- 04/05/2010 04:49:29 AM
928 Views
Gawyn promised not to raise a hand against Rand
- 06/05/2010 12:59:47 AM
723 Views
Indeed he did.
- 06/05/2010 07:23:44 AM
1113 Views
But...
- 06/05/2010 08:52:04 AM
920 Views
Just because it makes more sense to you doesn't make it more likely. I have evidence!
- 06/05/2010 09:57:52 AM
750 Views
Well...
- 06/05/2010 11:12:42 AM
842 Views
*sigh*
- 06/05/2010 01:41:03 PM
950 Views
I'm still hoping to dissuade you from this crazy idea!
- 06/05/2010 02:07:54 PM
893 Views
- 06/05/2010 02:07:54 PM
893 Views
You won't.
- 06/05/2010 02:11:42 PM
889 Views
Gawyn agreed that he would talk with Elayne about this topic
- 06/05/2010 02:32:55 PM
963 Views
Nice theory ...
- 07/05/2010 06:25:29 PM
929 Views
Take two
- 17/05/2010 07:33:35 PM
807 Views
Re: Take two
- 17/05/2010 11:45:08 PM
831 Views
Re: Take two
- 18/05/2010 12:52:10 AM
889 Views
Re: Take two
- 18/05/2010 01:35:46 AM
957 Views
Re: Take two
- 18/05/2010 01:45:24 AM
895 Views