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.
That's simply no direct help by Alivia for Rand's death, because Gawyn has to take the medallion and Alivia - being dead - can't control that. It's just a random event.
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.
Yeah, but of course it only makes sense to connect it to the other Prophecies about Rand's "death" to figure out its true meaning. And if you look at everything, the fake death theory makes the most sense to explain the Aelfinn's riddle.
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.
There are too many assumptions, just because Gawyn announced that he will see Rand die (he might see it, but not kill him; and many other characters said that they will kill Rand), and because it's allegedly based on myths (of course, the fake death theory is based on myths as well).
Why can't Rand be spun out directly again, if the Pattern needs the Dragon?
Because Rand would be a baby?
But we know that the Pattern can create certain direct effects, e.g. at Falme. If Rand would actually die (which I seriously doubt the Pattern would allow anyway), the Pattern would probably immediately try to counter it by bringing Rand's soul back to his body, without having someone rip him out of TAR.
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.
But this quote doesn't say that the Heroes in TAR are alive. It just says they are dead, even if not as dead as others. And again, Mat's situation was different, because the Aelfinn told him his future that he will die and live again, while Rand asked how to to survive and they answered him with the seeminly paradox riddle "to live, you must die", which must mean something different, namely most likely that Rand will be put into a dead-like but still alive state and pull of a funeral to make the world/the Shadow believe that he died.
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.
See above.
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.
See above.
My new 'loony' theory
03/05/2010 11:09:52 AM
- 2241 Views
Hehe, yeah, we can also discuss it here...
03/05/2010 12:04:57 PM
- 1130 Views
Good deal. You're still being prejudiced, though.
03/05/2010 12:20:00 PM
- 1258 Views
Of course, I prefer my theory....
03/05/2010 01:01:07 PM
- 990 Views
I suppose it's better than Beslan
03/05/2010 01:19:52 PM
- 1170 Views
He, Beslan being Berelain's man in white was a most brilliant theory!
03/05/2010 01:55:07 PM
- 1120 Views
See, this is why I am right and you are wrong!
04/05/2010 03:56:31 AM
- 941 Views
In my view
04/05/2010 10:07:02 AM
- 882 Views
Still prejudiced, of course...
04/05/2010 10:24:53 AM
- 994 Views
Just disagreeing
04/05/2010 11:15:44 AM
- 970 Views
And repeating yourself. But I have evidence.
04/05/2010 12:24:06 PM
- 949 Views
Well...
04/05/2010 01:10:17 PM
- 872 Views
This is getting silly
04/05/2010 01:27:56 PM
- 870 Views
Yeah, I think as well that we have sufficiently exchanged our views on this matter! *NM*
04/05/2010 02:18:09 PM
- 459 Views
Re: My new 'loony' theory
03/05/2010 04:27:12 PM
- 1031 Views
cool people change the subject line
04/05/2010 04:14:18 AM
- 1072 Views
Re: cool people change the subject line
04/05/2010 06:43:01 AM
- 861 Views
Re: cool people change the subject line
04/05/2010 07:32:24 AM
- 927 Views
Re: cool people change the subject line
04/05/2010 08:31:47 AM
- 1071 Views
Re: cool people change the subject line
04/05/2010 09:27:51 AM
- 1013 Views
I dont claim to be but didnt you say cool people change the subject line?
05/05/2010 02:41:49 AM
- 953 Views
Yes. What of it? *NM*
05/05/2010 03:22:34 AM
- 618 Views
now you're a cool kid again? *NM*
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*
05/05/2010 03:25:17 AM
- 541 Views
Re: My new 'loony' theory
04/05/2010 04:44:28 AM
- 1032 Views
what comments by Brandon, and what flaws?
04/05/2010 04:49:29 AM
- 1002 Views
Gawyn promised not to raise a hand against Rand
06/05/2010 12:59:47 AM
- 803 Views
Indeed he did.
06/05/2010 07:23:44 AM
- 1184 Views
But...
06/05/2010 08:52:04 AM
- 996 Views
Just because it makes more sense to you doesn't make it more likely. I have evidence!
06/05/2010 09:57:52 AM
- 829 Views
Well...
06/05/2010 11:12:42 AM
- 935 Views
*sigh*
06/05/2010 01:41:03 PM
- 1030 Views
I'm still hoping to dissuade you from this crazy idea!
06/05/2010 02:07:54 PM
- 988 Views
You won't.
06/05/2010 02:11:42 PM
- 956 Views
Gawyn agreed that he would talk with Elayne about this topic
06/05/2010 02:32:55 PM
- 1053 Views
Nice theory ...
07/05/2010 06:25:29 PM
- 1022 Views
Take two
17/05/2010 07:33:35 PM
- 885 Views
Re: Take two
17/05/2010 11:45:08 PM
- 921 Views
Re: Take two
18/05/2010 12:52:10 AM
- 973 Views
Re: Take two
18/05/2010 01:35:46 AM
- 1039 Views
Re: Take two
18/05/2010 01:45:24 AM
- 968 Views