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 2237 Views

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

Etzel - 03/05/2010 12:04:57 PM 1129 Views

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

Terez - 03/05/2010 12:20:00 PM 1256 Views

Of course, I prefer my theory.... Etzel - 03/05/2010 01:01:07 PM 988 Views

I suppose it's better than Beslan Terez - 03/05/2010 01:19:52 PM 1167 Views

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

Etzel - 03/05/2010 01:55:07 PM 1118 Views

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

Terez - 04/05/2010 03:56:31 AM 939 Views

In my view Etzel - 04/05/2010 10:07:02 AM 879 Views

Still prejudiced, of course... Terez - 04/05/2010 10:24:53 AM 992 Views

Just disagreeing Etzel - 04/05/2010 11:15:44 AM 968 Views

And repeating yourself. But I have evidence. Terez - 04/05/2010 12:24:06 PM 948 Views

Well... Etzel - 04/05/2010 01:10:17 PM 869 Views

This is getting silly Terez - 04/05/2010 01:27:56 PM 867 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 458 Views

Mat's reasons for giving up the foxhead ter'angreal Gaidal Craig - 03/05/2010 03:53:43 PM 1054 Views

Why only the gholam? Terez - 04/05/2010 04:00:18 AM 935 Views

Re: My new 'loony' theory Datakim - 03/05/2010 04:27:12 PM 1028 Views

cool people change the subject line Terez - 04/05/2010 04:14:18 AM 1070 Views

Re: cool people change the subject line Datakim - 04/05/2010 06:43:01 AM 859 Views

Re: cool people change the subject line Terez - 04/05/2010 07:32:24 AM 924 Views

Re: cool people change the subject line Datakim - 04/05/2010 08:31:47 AM 1070 Views

Re: cool people change the subject line Terez - 04/05/2010 09:27:51 AM 1010 Views

oops *NM* Terez - 04/05/2010 09:28:11 AM 603 Views

Re: cool people change the subject line Datakim - 04/05/2010 03:17:42 PM 1004 Views

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

Nargs - 05/05/2010 02:41:49 AM 950 Views

Yes. What of it? *NM* Terez - 05/05/2010 03:22:34 AM 616 Views

now you're a cool kid again?

*NM* Nargs - 05/05/2010 03:23:49 AM 553 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 540 Views

Re: My new 'loony' theory Nargs - 04/05/2010 04:44:28 AM 1031 Views

what comments by Brandon, and what flaws? Terez - 04/05/2010 04:49:29 AM 999 Views

Re: what comments by Brandon, and what flaws? Nargs - 05/05/2010 02:34:33 AM 1139 Views

Thanks. Terez - 05/05/2010 03:21:53 AM 1031 Views

No go. *NM* Nargs - 03/11/2010 03:14:13 AM 527 Views

Who draws it out shall follow after Terez - 04/05/2010 12:33:56 PM 1054 Views

I don't think.... Etzel - 04/05/2010 01:22:21 PM 964 Views

Gawyn promised not to raise a hand against Rand Jim - 06/05/2010 12:59:47 AM 803 Views

Indeed he did. Terez - 06/05/2010 07:23:44 AM 1183 Views

But... Etzel - 06/05/2010 08:52:04 AM 994 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 827 Views

Well... Etzel - 06/05/2010 11:12:42 AM 930 Views

*sigh* Terez - 06/05/2010 01:41:03 PM 1026 Views

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

Etzel - 06/05/2010 02:07:54 PM 985 Views

You won't. Terez - 06/05/2010 02:11:42 PM 954 Views

Gawyn agreed that he would talk with Elayne about this topic Etzel - 06/05/2010 02:32:55 PM 1049 Views

Reading comprehension issues. *NM* Terez - 06/05/2010 02:43:28 PM 580 Views

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

Etzel - 06/05/2010 02:49:01 PM 864 Views

the problem there Jim - 07/05/2010 05:45:23 AM 889 Views

more to the point Terez - 07/05/2010 04:45:40 AM 923 Views

considering Rand won't hurt Elayne Jim - 07/05/2010 05:46:23 AM 855 Views

wow saidarisnowtainted - 06/05/2010 01:46:22 AM 978 Views

thanks! Terez - 06/05/2010 07:25:25 AM 802 Views

Re: thanks! saidarisnowtainted - 12/05/2010 10:50:50 PM 893 Views

Nice theory ... Shishka - 07/05/2010 06:25:29 PM 1021 Views

Or Elayne could just give it to Gawyn. Gher - 07/05/2010 07:34:44 PM 927 Views

True, but I prefer the idea that he'll steal it because ... Shishka - 07/05/2010 08:32:29 PM 878 Views

Thanks Terez - 08/05/2010 07:56:17 AM 877 Views

Nice! But how about.... Ishamael - 12/05/2010 01:58:00 PM 1106 Views

They'll kill each other Terez - 12/05/2010 02:22:18 PM 793 Views

Also Terez - 12/05/2010 09:06:25 PM 904 Views

Re: Also saidarisnowtainted - 12/05/2010 10:49:51 PM 895 Views

Actually Terez - 12/05/2010 11:50:26 PM 1020 Views

Take two Terez - 17/05/2010 07:33:35 PM 883 Views

Re: Take two Datakim - 17/05/2010 11:45:08 PM 918 Views

Re: Take two Terez - 18/05/2010 12:52:10 AM 970 Views

Re: Take two Datakim - 18/05/2010 01:35:46 AM 1035 Views

Re: Take two Terez - 18/05/2010 01:45:24 AM 966 Views

Re: Take two Datakim - 18/05/2010 03:22:37 AM 1087 Views

Re: Take two Terez - 18/05/2010 06:32:57 AM 927 Views

Re: Take two Datakim - 18/05/2010 07:11:08 PM 805 Views

Re: Take two Terez - 18/05/2010 10:07:36 PM 861 Views

From DomA's World Con report Terez - 18/05/2010 10:42:48 PM 852 Views

Yeah, we knew that... Etzel - 19/05/2010 08:25:04 AM 1088 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