Active Users:364 Time:01/05/2025 12:47:39 PM
I think that the doorway melting did that. Gher Send a noteboard - 02/12/2009 12:49:02 AM
If you don't think Moiraine was stilled/burned out, then why did Lan's bond break?

I don't buy the idea about the doorway melting. That simply doesn't make sense to me. It also makes a whole bunch of assumptions that we really don't know about. While we do know that the Warder bond is severed by stilling/burning out and death. We know Moiraine lives, so the simplest remaining explanation is that she was stilled/burned out.


The string analogy is the best one. An invisible string between Moiraine and Lan, that was severed when the connection between the two worlds was broken. I think the best proof for or against this theory would be to examine what happens when a Bonded person (Aes Sedai or Warder or their respective equivalents) goes to TAR. Does the bond still point them to the real life place their partner is at? To the TAR reflection? Or does the position locator aspect of the bond not work? If I remember correctly, it's said that they can't point to where their partner is. Obviously the pathway from real life to TAR is always open, TAR is after a reflection of the "real" world. So the Bond wouldn't break, but it does affect the mechanics of it.

There's also the possibility that Moiraine "manually" severed the bond or passed it on.
"And it breaks my heart to look around, and see the unimpressed; who can't believe the emperor is dressed"~Fastball
2-7-1
Reply to message
Moiraine and Lanfear - 01/12/2009 10:24:54 PM 1677 Views
Healing, huh? - 01/12/2009 10:58:00 PM 1031 Views
Re: Healing, huh? - 01/12/2009 11:12:53 PM 1094 Views
yep - 01/12/2009 11:19:23 PM 956 Views
Re: yep - 02/12/2009 01:15:47 AM 1273 Views
Re: yep - 02/12/2009 04:44:32 PM 1016 Views
Re: yep - 02/12/2009 05:37:41 PM 823 Views
I don't think Moiraine was stilled. - 01/12/2009 11:19:03 PM 955 Views
what about Lan's bond - 01/12/2009 11:23:35 PM 935 Views
I think that the doorway melting did that. - 02/12/2009 12:49:02 AM 1013 Views
Not manually - 02/12/2009 07:13:09 AM 857 Views
Not sure, but it seemed like she planned for it. At one point - 02/12/2009 01:23:36 AM 831 Views
Rand wasn't stilled when - 02/12/2009 06:48:42 AM 856 Views
Re: Moiraine and Lanfear - 01/12/2009 11:27:49 PM 888 Views
Not just an assumption. - 01/12/2009 11:38:56 PM 979 Views
Re: Not just an assumption. - 02/12/2009 02:45:26 PM 884 Views
it can - 01/12/2009 11:40:40 PM 952 Views
Re: it can - 02/12/2009 02:51:21 PM 1045 Views
I think that since Moiraine was in another dimension, the Bond passed to the closest holder. - 01/12/2009 11:43:15 PM 927 Views
but she'd been there before - 01/12/2009 11:51:41 PM 1008 Views
I don't understand why you think there are too many assumptions - 02/12/2009 12:57:50 AM 969 Views
Exactly. Thanks for translating in fewer words than I would have used *NM* - 02/12/2009 04:21:06 PM 554 Views
that assumes quite a bit about the structure of the bond - 02/12/2009 07:45:37 PM 940 Views
My only complaint... - 02/12/2009 12:34:34 AM 881 Views
Best. Slashfic. EVER! - 02/12/2009 12:38:06 AM 1040 Views
BS not committing to the Cyndane = Lanfear scenario has me wondering as well - 02/12/2009 02:51:30 AM 1128 Views
The only possibility is "something weird" if Cyndane ISN'T just "Lanfear" - 02/12/2009 05:26:23 AM 877 Views
Re: The only possibility is "something weird" if Cyndane ISN'T just "Lanfear" - 02/12/2009 05:46:30 AM 936 Views
That would be absolutely hilarious!!! *NM* - 02/12/2009 05:49:01 AM 481 Views
That'd blow some minds. *NM* - 02/12/2009 05:56:06 AM 511 Views
Maybe they put some of Ilyena in Cyndane. - 04/12/2009 06:52:01 PM 948 Views
LOL ... Lanfear doesn't need Ilyena to be an LTT stalker! - 04/12/2009 07:09:02 PM 904 Views
Right, But Ilyena Doesn't Need Lanfear for That Either. - 04/12/2009 07:17:29 PM 921 Views
I'm 99.99% sure RJ said that the DO had to grab a soul quickly after death or it was lost - 04/12/2009 09:13:18 PM 782 Views
Never Said It Had to Be the DO. - 04/12/2009 09:43:58 PM 776 Views
it would indeed be a totall shocker! - 04/12/2009 09:50:16 PM 1033 Views
Weird is a given, I think - 02/12/2009 07:12:45 AM 1029 Views
It may be as simple as... - 02/12/2009 09:42:50 AM 838 Views
I didn't see any sexual connotation attached to it.... - 02/12/2009 10:38:07 AM 831 Views
Not sexual, no... - 02/12/2009 06:12:15 PM 846 Views
Cairheinin to the Core. - 04/12/2009 07:03:23 PM 909 Views
Haven't you people ever seen a contortionist? - 04/12/2009 07:12:20 PM 802 Views
I Don't Believe I Have, Now That You Mention It. - 04/12/2009 07:18:32 PM 843 Views
See Above. - 04/12/2009 06:54:47 PM 1014 Views
I doubt it - 02/12/2009 08:55:23 PM 843 Views
Maybe it's a wild goose chase. - 04/12/2009 06:44:55 PM 1007 Views
There are several holes with this scenario... - 02/12/2009 02:18:28 AM 1017 Views
On Transmitigation vs rebirth: - 02/12/2009 02:35:23 AM 1331 Views
Re: There are several holes with this scenario... - 02/12/2009 09:05:34 AM 1051 Views
On Cyndane's strength... - 02/12/2009 09:40:27 AM 765 Views
Re: On Cyndane's strength... - 02/12/2009 11:24:38 AM 803 Views
Re: On Cyndane's strength... - 02/12/2009 06:16:57 PM 865 Views
Re: On Cyndane's strength... - 03/12/2009 04:39:45 AM 1005 Views
But that doesn't explain why Leane and Siuan are now essentially equal - 02/12/2009 06:21:47 PM 873 Views
oops I double posted this! *NM* - 02/12/2009 06:23:02 PM 447 Views
I don't think they're equal - 03/12/2009 04:43:13 AM 822 Views
Re: There are several holes with this scenario... - 02/12/2009 09:08:00 PM 1042 Views
I don't think they were stilled or burned out. - 02/12/2009 04:37:09 AM 784 Views
I have no opinion on the theory (yet), but - 02/12/2009 04:42:36 AM 843 Views
Disagree. There's no way they don't. - 02/12/2009 05:26:00 AM 858 Views
Moridin mentions it - 02/12/2009 04:33:01 PM 768 Views
Re: Moridin mentions it - 02/12/2009 06:13:20 PM 855 Views
Yub, I generally agree - 02/12/2009 11:56:03 AM 778 Views
I'm always nervous when we agree - 02/12/2009 04:24:51 PM 829 Views
I think it's cool! - 02/12/2009 06:01:32 PM 797 Views

Reply to Message