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 2326 Views

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

Etzel - 03/05/2010 12:04:57 PM 1221 Views

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

Terez - 03/05/2010 12:20:00 PM 1349 Views

Of course, I prefer my theory.... Etzel - 03/05/2010 01:01:07 PM 1085 Views

I suppose it's better than Beslan Terez - 03/05/2010 01:19:52 PM 1263 Views

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

Etzel - 03/05/2010 01:55:07 PM 1208 Views

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

Terez - 04/05/2010 03:56:31 AM 1031 Views

In my view Etzel - 04/05/2010 10:07:02 AM 966 Views

Still prejudiced, of course... Terez - 04/05/2010 10:24:53 AM 1081 Views

Just disagreeing Etzel - 04/05/2010 11:15:44 AM 1057 Views

And repeating yourself. But I have evidence. Terez - 04/05/2010 12:24:06 PM 1043 Views

Well... Etzel - 04/05/2010 01:10:17 PM 952 Views

This is getting silly Terez - 04/05/2010 01:27:56 PM 932 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 496 Views

Mat's reasons for giving up the foxhead ter'angreal Gaidal Craig - 03/05/2010 03:53:43 PM 1153 Views

Why only the gholam? Terez - 04/05/2010 04:00:18 AM 1024 Views

Re: My new 'loony' theory Datakim - 03/05/2010 04:27:12 PM 1117 Views

cool people change the subject line Terez - 04/05/2010 04:14:18 AM 1176 Views

Re: cool people change the subject line Datakim - 04/05/2010 06:43:01 AM 942 Views

Re: cool people change the subject line Terez - 04/05/2010 07:32:24 AM 1028 Views

Re: cool people change the subject line Datakim - 04/05/2010 08:31:47 AM 1157 Views

Re: cool people change the subject line Terez - 04/05/2010 09:27:51 AM 1099 Views

oops *NM* Terez - 04/05/2010 09:28:11 AM 642 Views

Re: cool people change the subject line Datakim - 04/05/2010 03:17:42 PM 1112 Views

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

Nargs - 05/05/2010 02:41:49 AM 1050 Views

Yes. What of it? *NM* Terez - 05/05/2010 03:22:34 AM 651 Views

now you're a cool kid again?

*NM* Nargs - 05/05/2010 03:23:49 AM 592 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 582 Views

Re: My new 'loony' theory Nargs - 04/05/2010 04:44:28 AM 1107 Views

what comments by Brandon, and what flaws? Terez - 04/05/2010 04:49:29 AM 1090 Views

Re: what comments by Brandon, and what flaws? Nargs - 05/05/2010 02:34:33 AM 1241 Views

Thanks. Terez - 05/05/2010 03:21:53 AM 1135 Views

No go. *NM* Nargs - 03/11/2010 03:14:13 AM 565 Views

Who draws it out shall follow after Terez - 04/05/2010 12:33:56 PM 1156 Views

I don't think.... Etzel - 04/05/2010 01:22:21 PM 1041 Views

Gawyn promised not to raise a hand against Rand Jim - 06/05/2010 12:59:47 AM 888 Views

Indeed he did. Terez - 06/05/2010 07:23:44 AM 1276 Views

But... Etzel - 06/05/2010 08:52:04 AM 1090 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 919 Views

Well... Etzel - 06/05/2010 11:12:42 AM 1023 Views

*sigh* Terez - 06/05/2010 01:41:03 PM 1118 Views

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

Etzel - 06/05/2010 02:07:54 PM 1083 Views

You won't. Terez - 06/05/2010 02:11:42 PM 1040 Views

Gawyn agreed that he would talk with Elayne about this topic Etzel - 06/05/2010 02:32:55 PM 1151 Views

Reading comprehension issues. *NM* Terez - 06/05/2010 02:43:28 PM 617 Views

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

Etzel - 06/05/2010 02:49:01 PM 954 Views

the problem there Jim - 07/05/2010 05:45:23 AM 985 Views

more to the point Terez - 07/05/2010 04:45:40 AM 1021 Views

considering Rand won't hurt Elayne Jim - 07/05/2010 05:46:23 AM 944 Views

wow saidarisnowtainted - 06/05/2010 01:46:22 AM 1078 Views

thanks! Terez - 06/05/2010 07:25:25 AM 900 Views

Re: thanks! saidarisnowtainted - 12/05/2010 10:50:50 PM 981 Views

Nice theory ... Shishka - 07/05/2010 06:25:29 PM 1121 Views

Or Elayne could just give it to Gawyn. Gher - 07/05/2010 07:34:44 PM 1031 Views

True, but I prefer the idea that he'll steal it because ... Shishka - 07/05/2010 08:32:29 PM 969 Views

Thanks Terez - 08/05/2010 07:56:17 AM 958 Views

Nice! But how about.... Ishamael - 12/05/2010 01:58:00 PM 1192 Views

They'll kill each other Terez - 12/05/2010 02:22:18 PM 886 Views

Also Terez - 12/05/2010 09:06:25 PM 1013 Views

Re: Also saidarisnowtainted - 12/05/2010 10:49:51 PM 983 Views

Actually Terez - 12/05/2010 11:50:26 PM 1125 Views

Take two Terez - 17/05/2010 07:33:35 PM 966 Views

Re: Take two Datakim - 17/05/2010 11:45:08 PM 980 Views

Re: Take two Terez - 18/05/2010 12:52:10 AM 1038 Views

Re: Take two Datakim - 18/05/2010 01:35:46 AM 1120 Views

Re: Take two Terez - 18/05/2010 01:45:24 AM 1053 Views

Re: Take two Datakim - 18/05/2010 03:22:37 AM 1177 Views

Re: Take two Terez - 18/05/2010 06:32:57 AM 1015 Views

Re: Take two Datakim - 18/05/2010 07:11:08 PM 891 Views

Re: Take two Terez - 18/05/2010 10:07:36 PM 956 Views

From DomA's World Con report Terez - 18/05/2010 10:42:48 PM 944 Views

Yeah, we knew that... Etzel - 19/05/2010 08:25:04 AM 1181 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