The situation with Galad and his organization lends itself to obvious comparison with Egwene's in the last book. In each case you have a leader who martyrs himself for the sake of the unity of the organization and inspires his captors to choose him for command of said organization based on the superior example. Yet, what is more telling, in my opinion, is where the comparisons break down. Were they direct paralells, the Children would be doomed to fractious infighting foreever and thoroughly unable to cooperate to serve at the Last Battle. What is more, they would now be doomed to be scattered into mutiple competing bands, possibly encouraging rules to set up their own Darkfriend-opposing organizations.
The reason for this bleak alternate future for the Children rests on assumptions that were made while two factions in the White Tower split choose to have a staring contest with Tarmon Gaidon looming, rather than make a move to decisively end the split once and for all. According to the Tower personnel on both sides, violence or bloodshed (of the sisters of course - lesser mortal scum, particularly of the male variety, didn't count) would irreparably rupture the Tower for good. Likewise, taking the moral high ground and walking away from the conflict was absolutely unaceptable. Much better to bring the Tower to the brink of the aforementioned unthinkable clash in an attempt to gain control of the whole deal.
Plainly, the leadership conflict within the Children of the Light has violated all of these principles, as well as a massive shake-up of their typical means of doing business as one of their new leaders advocates making temporary alliances with their enemies of a thousand years and tolerating revolting practices in their own eyes in order to defeat the Dark One. By the standards of What Not To Do In a White Tower Civil War, Galad and his adherents have made every possible mistake and more or less doomed the Children, and made it all but impossible for them to have any effect with the Last Battle.
Or could it be that the Children of the Light are adults, and not spoiled children? That they will shrug at the necessary bloodshed and say "too bad, but it had to be done" and go on together cooperating with their brothers in arms and holding true to the ideals for which they were established? The implication of chapter 2, strangely enough, suggests the latter! The Whitecloaks DID take the high ground and depart from the field rather than fight, or even posture as if prepared to fight, their brethern. They sought out their traditional enemies with the intention of making peace, and when they saw a would-be leader willing to put the unity of the group before his own survival, they acted instantly and decisively to rectify their failure of incumbent leadership and effect a change of power. They didn't need to interview Galad and have him answer softball gimme questions to impress them, they didn't need his supporters making subversive whispers falsely accusing Asunawa of tolerating Darkfriends, they didn't hold hearings to censure Asunawa for shackling Galad or lock up Trom for challenging Asunawa's authority. It took them about one day to see the difference and present the pretender's head to the better leader as a fait accompli.
I wonder if the difference has to do with the way a new LCC takes control and says "Perhaps you are right. I should not chide you on this choice. It may have been the only one you could have made," as opposed to the flurry of invective a new Amyrlin unleashes on all sides of her followers. Or maybe it has to do with whether or not said followers DESERVE the way their new leaders treat them! But which leader is more likely to clash with the Dragon Reborn in the immediate future? Which leader fully intends to stick up for the supremacy of their organization, despite the shortcomings which he/she has personally witnessed and overcome or taken advantage of in the rise to power, and which leader has committed to a platform of reforming their own policies in order to fit in and cooperate with everyone else.
Essentially, one group is selfish, petty and prone to sulking over slights done in the course of a civil conflict and makes crucial and necessary leadership changes at a glacial pace with disaster looming over them. Their own leader, upon taking charge, berates them all equilaterally for their misbehavior over the course of the conflict, even while resigning herself to accepting and working with the difficult situation the group's habits put her in. The other group admires and swiftly moves to raise a leader who singlemindedly bases his actions solely on what is right. When their leadership is unjust or obstructive and there is a clearly better option, they act decisively to make the change and accept the cost in blood necessary, and maintain respect for their chain of command throughout. Their leader is able to trust their loyalty enough to accept they acted for the best as they saw fit, and is comfortable proposing a radical departure from their past customs to make common cause with enemies. Yet, in spite of all that, which group's leader is going to defy the Dragon Reborn to stick up for the rights and privileges and honors of their group, and which one is going to make his men suck it up and accept fighting alongside their hated persecutors and the group of humans whose existance is responsible for the very danger the world faces? The answer to those questions is: the unworthy and selfish group will have its leader butt heads with the Dragon Reborn over their status even as time grows short for him to save the world, and the moral and disciplined group will duck their heads and serve alongside the sort of people they (rightly) hold responsible for the threat of the Shadow and the Breaking of the World. There is no sign of Galad shrugging and saying "Well the idea that channelers are not to be trusted is good enough for now, even though we have to work under one for the Last Battle," but the nature of the Tower is such that Egwene has to say the same thing, substituting "men" for channelers. Based on the behavior of the Children, the statement Egwene has to accept is utterly false. Based on the behavior of the sisters, the hypothetical statement Galad openly opposes to his men is truer than not.
What a world.
The reason for this bleak alternate future for the Children rests on assumptions that were made while two factions in the White Tower split choose to have a staring contest with Tarmon Gaidon looming, rather than make a move to decisively end the split once and for all. According to the Tower personnel on both sides, violence or bloodshed (of the sisters of course - lesser mortal scum, particularly of the male variety, didn't count) would irreparably rupture the Tower for good. Likewise, taking the moral high ground and walking away from the conflict was absolutely unaceptable. Much better to bring the Tower to the brink of the aforementioned unthinkable clash in an attempt to gain control of the whole deal.
Plainly, the leadership conflict within the Children of the Light has violated all of these principles, as well as a massive shake-up of their typical means of doing business as one of their new leaders advocates making temporary alliances with their enemies of a thousand years and tolerating revolting practices in their own eyes in order to defeat the Dark One. By the standards of What Not To Do In a White Tower Civil War, Galad and his adherents have made every possible mistake and more or less doomed the Children, and made it all but impossible for them to have any effect with the Last Battle.
Or could it be that the Children of the Light are adults, and not spoiled children? That they will shrug at the necessary bloodshed and say "too bad, but it had to be done" and go on together cooperating with their brothers in arms and holding true to the ideals for which they were established? The implication of chapter 2, strangely enough, suggests the latter! The Whitecloaks DID take the high ground and depart from the field rather than fight, or even posture as if prepared to fight, their brethern. They sought out their traditional enemies with the intention of making peace, and when they saw a would-be leader willing to put the unity of the group before his own survival, they acted instantly and decisively to rectify their failure of incumbent leadership and effect a change of power. They didn't need to interview Galad and have him answer softball gimme questions to impress them, they didn't need his supporters making subversive whispers falsely accusing Asunawa of tolerating Darkfriends, they didn't hold hearings to censure Asunawa for shackling Galad or lock up Trom for challenging Asunawa's authority. It took them about one day to see the difference and present the pretender's head to the better leader as a fait accompli.
I wonder if the difference has to do with the way a new LCC takes control and says "Perhaps you are right. I should not chide you on this choice. It may have been the only one you could have made," as opposed to the flurry of invective a new Amyrlin unleashes on all sides of her followers. Or maybe it has to do with whether or not said followers DESERVE the way their new leaders treat them! But which leader is more likely to clash with the Dragon Reborn in the immediate future? Which leader fully intends to stick up for the supremacy of their organization, despite the shortcomings which he/she has personally witnessed and overcome or taken advantage of in the rise to power, and which leader has committed to a platform of reforming their own policies in order to fit in and cooperate with everyone else.
Essentially, one group is selfish, petty and prone to sulking over slights done in the course of a civil conflict and makes crucial and necessary leadership changes at a glacial pace with disaster looming over them. Their own leader, upon taking charge, berates them all equilaterally for their misbehavior over the course of the conflict, even while resigning herself to accepting and working with the difficult situation the group's habits put her in. The other group admires and swiftly moves to raise a leader who singlemindedly bases his actions solely on what is right. When their leadership is unjust or obstructive and there is a clearly better option, they act decisively to make the change and accept the cost in blood necessary, and maintain respect for their chain of command throughout. Their leader is able to trust their loyalty enough to accept they acted for the best as they saw fit, and is comfortable proposing a radical departure from their past customs to make common cause with enemies. Yet, in spite of all that, which group's leader is going to defy the Dragon Reborn to stick up for the rights and privileges and honors of their group, and which one is going to make his men suck it up and accept fighting alongside their hated persecutors and the group of humans whose existance is responsible for the very danger the world faces? The answer to those questions is: the unworthy and selfish group will have its leader butt heads with the Dragon Reborn over their status even as time grows short for him to save the world, and the moral and disciplined group will duck their heads and serve alongside the sort of people they (rightly) hold responsible for the threat of the Shadow and the Breaking of the World. There is no sign of Galad shrugging and saying "Well the idea that channelers are not to be trusted is good enough for now, even though we have to work under one for the Last Battle," but the nature of the Tower is such that Egwene has to say the same thing, substituting "men" for channelers. Based on the behavior of the Children, the statement Egwene has to accept is utterly false. Based on the behavior of the sisters, the hypothetical statement Galad openly opposes to his men is truer than not.
What a world.
Cannoli
“Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions.” GK Chesteron
Inde muagdhe Aes Sedai misain ye!
Deus Vult!
*MySmiley*
“Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions.” GK Chesteron
Inde muagdhe Aes Sedai misain ye!
Deus Vult!
*MySmiley*
The Children of the Light and the White Tower
20/10/2010 08:32:10 PM
- 2361 Views
Re: The Children of the Light and the White Tower
20/10/2010 08:58:12 PM
- 1026 Views
The one known rapist was, by his own admission, committing a crime against their standards.
20/10/2010 09:05:55 PM
- 1143 Views
Re: The one known rapist was, by his own admission, committing a crime against their standards.
21/10/2010 12:15:48 AM
- 1064 Views
Re: The one known rapist was, by his own admission, committing a crime against their standards.
21/10/2010 02:59:49 PM
- 1048 Views
Re: The one known rapist was, by his own admission, committing a crime against their standards.
21/10/2010 04:35:00 PM
- 875 Views
And farmers are, of course, treated the same as rebel officers and usurpers and mutineers.
23/10/2010 03:07:10 PM
- 941 Views
Re: The one known rapist was, by his own admission, committing a crime against their standards.
21/10/2010 07:55:06 PM
- 975 Views
And there is no indication of how far that went.
23/10/2010 03:12:42 PM
- 837 Views
"The question" as opposed to "questioning"
24/10/2010 06:21:43 PM
- 894 Views
And that would indicate everyone does it, if it is so commonly used, so how are the CoL worse? *NM*
25/10/2010 01:14:13 AM
- 591 Views
Re: The one known rapist was, by his own admission, committing a crime against their standards.
24/10/2010 06:53:19 AM
- 1086 Views
The utter stupidity of this statement caught my eye...
24/10/2010 08:12:58 AM
- 875 Views
Your analyses and extension of concepts always brings that "utter stupidity" phrase to my mind.
25/10/2010 02:17:10 AM
- 1051 Views
Huh? ... what !! ... are you mad?
21/10/2010 05:05:16 PM
- 974 Views
Did you forget the very first PoV Darkfriend in the series?
23/10/2010 03:27:25 PM
- 968 Views
Difference being the whitecloaks who were ordered to do it were not DFs. All the AS evil deeds
23/10/2010 07:55:23 PM
- 994 Views
So similar scenes in the Cairhienin civil war were all the work of Darkfriends?
25/10/2010 02:25:57 AM
- 931 Views
Please provide an example of a DF AS committing an atrocity and not being punished by the Tower
25/10/2010 03:34:46 AM
- 880 Views
Just one? Here's a list from the top of my head in 60 secs:..
25/10/2010 09:28:10 AM
- 945 Views
Re: Just one? Here's a list from the top of my head in 60 secs:..
25/10/2010 04:14:05 PM
- 1067 Views
Not to mention it's not like any of these have been without repercussion!
25/10/2010 04:50:39 PM
- 806 Views
Re: Not to mention it's not like any of these have been without repercussion!
27/10/2010 01:06:53 PM
- 975 Views
You under some delusion that I'm defending the AS
27/10/2010 08:29:14 PM
- 897 Views
No. I'm pointing out you are under the delusion that AS pay for their atrocities.
28/10/2010 09:16:38 AM
- 856 Views
okay, so AS never Still and execute AS for doing stuff ... have you read the series?
28/10/2010 05:20:28 PM
- 877 Views
That doesn't make the -unpunished- atrocities disappear, you know. Your point is lame AND moot.
28/10/2010 07:07:27 PM
- 950 Views
Re: That doesn't make the -unpunished- atrocities disappear, you know. Your point is lame AND moot.
28/10/2010 07:09:33 PM
- 827 Views
To echo Darius...
23/10/2010 08:34:00 PM
- 926 Views
Re: To echo Darius...
25/10/2010 10:03:14 AM
- 860 Views
Go look up the definition of the word atrocity
25/10/2010 04:53:55 PM
- 880 Views
Their implicit role in the genocide of Manetheren was probable their greatest atrocity *NM*
26/10/2010 03:01:01 AM
- 549 Views
You mean the act that got Tetsuan deposed, Stilled and sentenced to hard labor until she gave up the
26/10/2010 04:19:45 AM
- 1147 Views
Ya, the ultimated punishment of cleaning pots and floors NOOOOOOOO!!!
26/10/2010 11:59:51 PM
- 843 Views
Maybe you should have done that yourself: "behaviour or an action that is wicked or ruthless"
27/10/2010 11:11:30 AM
- 843 Views
the fact that you can't differentiate between the extermination of an entire village
27/10/2010 08:30:12 PM
- 881 Views
READ; I *did* differentiate between them. It doesn't change the fact all are atrocious deeds
28/10/2010 09:00:56 AM
- 977 Views
28/10/2010 05:22:18 PM
- 828 Views
You asked for atrocities and you got them. Now you just don't know what to do with them.
28/10/2010 06:49:16 PM
- 904 Views
dude, you gave us a list of petty crimes and compared it to mass murder
28/10/2010 06:59:33 PM
- 869 Views
Complete the thought...
28/10/2010 07:11:37 PM
- 794 Views
seems I must do so for this guy to understand ... and I'm not holding my breath on that!
28/10/2010 08:24:57 PM
- 931 Views
Rape, murder, starting wars and doing noting about them, kidnap / severe torture of prisoners... *NM*
28/10/2010 07:51:33 PM
- 507 Views
again you fail to note that the AS have systems in place to prevent these things
28/10/2010 08:23:32 PM
- 889 Views
Again you fail to note that the AS haven't used those "systems" of theirs
28/10/2010 09:02:15 PM
- 1081 Views
What wars did they start?
28/10/2010 08:56:46 PM
- 799 Views
You should be an Aes Sedai; the way you can twist truth would scare Siuan.
28/10/2010 09:07:24 PM
- 835 Views
28/10/2010 07:07:57 PM
- 931 Views
Take your own advice, please
28/10/2010 07:30:51 PM
- 843 Views
Come on. Just say it. Real men don't act like catty, bitchy women. *NM*
20/10/2010 11:14:49 PM
- 554 Views
"Rightly hold responsible for the threat of the Shadow?" Puh-leeze
21/10/2010 12:06:34 AM
- 877 Views
Puh-leeze right back at you:
21/10/2010 08:24:12 AM
- 857 Views
The Wheel was created so the DO could break in. The Creator plays his game with the DO thru people
21/10/2010 01:45:07 PM
- 868 Views
It was you who brought up that silly Real World kitchen example, silly.
25/10/2010 10:55:29 AM
- 701 Views
I could say you zinged me, but you're just bent on silliness. Bored now. *NM*
25/10/2010 10:54:41 PM
- 510 Views
Your personal theories do not constitute evidence, and your aberrant logic better supports MY case
21/10/2010 03:21:44 PM
- 1029 Views
Objection, your honor! Bringing evidentiary rules into this is asinine! *NM*
21/10/2010 11:22:19 PM
- 480 Views
The word "evidence" is not exclusive to the practice of jurisprudence
23/10/2010 03:31:57 PM
- 918 Views
Rational thinking. Well, you use the word "deserved" in all caps. Nuff said. *NM*
23/10/2010 04:55:02 PM
- 497 Views
Emphasis means nothing one way or another as far as rationality goes, which you would know...
25/10/2010 01:13:23 AM
- 1004 Views
You know zilch about my acquaintances. "mk" was wrong - you're not an idiot. But you are ignorable. *NM*
25/10/2010 10:57:04 PM
- 508 Views
21/10/2010 01:47:19 AM
- 1025 Views
Not so sure about that
21/10/2010 02:29:02 AM
- 920 Views
the city is closed to WC
21/10/2010 04:01:45 AM
- 989 Views
Re: the city is closed to WC
21/10/2010 04:55:45 AM
- 830 Views
But that is irrelevant. Aes Sedai can also go to Amadicia in disguise. *NM*
21/10/2010 05:35:18 AM
- 460 Views
But they aren't in disguise
21/10/2010 08:31:38 AM
- 859 Views
They don't wear their uniform, their one identifying feature. That is a disguise.
21/10/2010 09:08:25 PM
- 798 Views
Re: They don't wear their uniform, their one identifying feature. That is a disguise.
22/10/2010 02:10:07 PM
- 895 Views
CotL are welcome in Tar Valon to have a drink. Aes Sedai are hanged when found in Amadicia..
21/10/2010 08:33:03 AM
- 954 Views
Now hang on a minute!
21/10/2010 07:28:45 AM
- 1081 Views
Re: Now hang on a minute!
21/10/2010 10:49:34 AM
- 971 Views
it would be an interesting comparison if they weren't completely different organizations
21/10/2010 04:09:31 PM
- 1032 Views