Active Users:710 Time:31/10/2026 02:28:49 AM
Not everything got tweaked... Gher Send a noteboard - 04/03/2010 07:57:47 PM
This is a good point, but the real question is, did Robert Jordan have all this transmigration business and limitations worked out when he wrote TEOTW?


What RJ intended or not at the time is quite irrelevant in this context. The rules were eventually made up, and that scene of EOTW has to be interpreted in the light of the transmigration limitations introduced later. If that scene violated the rules, RJ would have gone back and tweaked details in new editions to make it fit (as he's done in a few places through the series)

There's little doubt that when he wrote TEOTW he wanted to leave the issue of Kari's reality open for the reader. It served his dual purpose to offer a satisfying "stand alone" ending while not tying his hands for the rest of the series. Was Kari's reality an open issue to him, though? That's another question, but I'd say probably no more than Ba'alzamon being or not the real DO in his mind. It's pretty clear in EOTW that the concept (explained only in later books) that reality in TAR is shaped by your will or a contest of wills between opponents, and you need to deny this reality to undo it was already existing in his mind at that point. Of course, by EOTW RJ was the only one who knew anything yet about his world of dreams.


My copy of TEOTW still has Rand suddenly appear at Tarwin's Gap. No mention of a shimmering portal in the air or a gateway or Skimming. He simply Travels, same with LTT in the prologue. That doesn't follow the same rules that are established later in the series, and this different kind of Travelling is never mentioned or used again (besides mentioning that this is what True Power Traveling looks like).

But, my copy of TEOTW isn't exactly new. Maybe it was tweaked in later editions? This is an honest question, I don't know. You don't by chance have any examples of tweaks made do you? Not full quotes or anything, just something like, "the first editions of the book had Rand do X, but after the rules were established in book 5 it was changed so Rand did Y"?

I know some continuity errors were fixed, Birgette doesn't refer to Elayne as Daughter-Heir anymore when saved at Luca's caravan, because later in the series she doesn't believe Elayne is royalty.


I hopes all that made sense. Basically, I'm just not aware of Jordan changing mechanics from the earlier books, just minor mistakes that were acknowledged, the sort brought up in LitN's Mirror World Switch.
"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
Kari al' Thor - 03/03/2010 10:09:10 PM 1629 Views
I always figured..... - 03/03/2010 10:24:41 PM 1279 Views
Re: I always figured..... - 04/03/2010 01:33:34 AM 1098 Views
Re: Kari al' Thor - 03/03/2010 11:36:48 PM 1588 Views
Re: Kari al' Thor - 04/03/2010 03:51:00 AM 1056 Views
Well... - 03/03/2010 11:44:12 PM 1017 Views
It's a Tel'aran'rhiod construct. - 04/03/2010 01:30:16 AM 1192 Views
Re: It's a Tel'aran'rhiod construct. - 04/03/2010 01:38:44 AM 1143 Views
Re: It's a Tel'aran'rhiod construct. - 04/03/2010 02:16:12 PM 973 Views
Nice... but - 04/03/2010 03:54:02 PM 967 Views
Well, I thought that Rand wrenched control of the illusion from Ishamael... - 04/03/2010 07:09:06 PM 986 Views
Re: It's a Tel'aran'rhiod construct. - 04/03/2010 04:48:53 PM 1051 Views
Agreed. Excellent reasoning. *NM* - 04/03/2010 06:07:24 PM 419 Views
Hadn't even considered that. Yes, I think you are correct. - 04/03/2010 07:09:14 PM 1073 Views
While you're probably right... - 04/03/2010 05:04:27 PM 1022 Views
Re: While you're probably right... - 04/03/2010 05:58:52 PM 1045 Views
Not everything got tweaked... - 04/03/2010 07:57:47 PM 976 Views
Re: Not everything got tweaked... - 05/03/2010 10:36:54 PM 1061 Views
For the record I agree with your theory. - 07/03/2010 06:26:45 AM 915 Views
Re: Kari al' Thor - 04/03/2010 03:44:09 PM 1029 Views
Re: Kari al' Thor - 04/03/2010 07:01:43 PM 976 Views
- 05/03/2010 09:02:07 AM 907 Views
Re: - 06/03/2010 12:07:09 AM 1042 Views

Reply to Message