Given the absolute lack of any sort of sure knowledge of the future, how can you realistically claim to assert the normal or most common emotional reaction to something that can not ever happen?

Who says it is fine? The total eradication of all that they are and believe in (which in its way leads to their destruction) is worse than a lot of corpses. People are all going to die at some point or other. The loss of their values and the rest can irreparable.


They are not a proud people being brought to their knees, they are an arrogant pack of jerks destroying themselves for their egos and pride. One of the constants in my criticisms of the Aiel, particularly in their relationship with Rand, is their insistance on special treatment and setting themselves above and apart from everyone else. They finally go too far with this attitude and drag the world down with them. Their eradication might be what the PoV focuses on, but they brought slavery and conquest on the rest of the world, and the extinction of Elayne's and Min's children, Rand's other descendants. Rand established a peace, and the Aiel claimed exception and picked a fight over their issues of pride. Treacherous criminals who violated ji'e'toh and led a revolt against the car'a'carn and knowingly supported a false claimant - this is what the Aiel throw the world and their family on the fire for. Because they are Aiel blood though, the rest of the world must burn to assuage their pride. Proud people, indeed.

A mild, moderate sadness. As I say, it was seen a long time ago. When, in the last two millenia have they condescended to adapt to anything? In the Three-Fold Land, wetlanders must adapt to the Aiel. In the wetlands, wetlanders must adapt to the Aiel. Cairhienin should leave off practices because they are just similar enough in some ways to upset the Aiel. They can't even learn basic morality - they obey Rand's decree against murder ONLY because he said so! Wearing a tatoo, which in his own culture could only be taken as a gesture of respect or admiration for Rand, is justifiable cause for an Aielman to murder a wetlander in his own land. Mangin even admits the man wasn't doing anything like claiming to be a clan chief. A symbol known in the wetlands since before the Aiel went to the Waste is claimed by the Aiel without the knowledge of anyone in the wetlands, and wetlanders are liable for death for unwittingly violating this Aiel taboo, when they are miles away from any Aiel land.

The Aiel have NEVER adapted to anything. As I said - the general cause of death of the Aiel people could be seen coming a mile away, which heavily mitigates the sadness.

Because they're easily led sheep who are swayed by those with an interest in using scare tactics to extend their power or create a market for their products. It's simply another lion loosed in the streets according to Pedron Niall's strategy. Ego and other superficial reasons are far more likely motivations for people who strut about framing their pet cause as "saving the world."

If they care about their grandchildren, why allow the government to build up a pyramid of debt-spending that will fall on their grandchildren's shoulders? Why sacrifice essential liberties for temporary security? People do those too. And they go to war over issues their ancestors fought over, and invade lands becauee their ancestors lived there. Ever hear of places called "Kosovo" and "Palestine"? How about a US President asserting 9-11 was motivated by the Crusades? As late as 1917, the rulers of two major European nations (and not tired old ones, but up-and-coming
powers) named their rulers' titles after a man who died over 1900 years prior. And this holds true in WoT as well. The Aiel killed one another over their perceptions of their ancestors.

All their progeny several generations later. Rand is more closely related to Janduin than Oncala, but he only feels some mild combination of curiosity and regret that they never had a relationship.

Yes, there is an intinctive reaction to protect those we identify with as relatives. That does not explain why we should be horrified at reading about the remote deaths of people vaguely connected to characters. I did not ask why Aviendha was horrified or why Rand might be horrified at her news. I asked why real people cannot separate themselves from identifying to that degree, especially because none of those instincts SHOULD be triggered by reading an account of potential danger to the long-term descendants of imaginary people.

And it is absurd to be horrified and distraught over the failure of such a pipe dream to be realized!

He was never in it for them. So far as we know, the idea of descendants hasn't crossed his mind since his memory returned to him way back at the Eye of the World. He was fighting for what was right. I can't see how giving him a selfish reason to make his sacrifices and do what must be done makes him better or more noble and admirable. As you say, it is instinct to protect one's offspring. Vicious feral animals will bestir themselves to do as much. What makes a hero is someone who goes against his interests and personal motivations to do what is right. Kids and the rest cheapen Rand's heroism.

WARNING OF DANGER. Not an absolute, not the epilogue or the setting of a sequel. Even if we stipulate all that you have said about the motivations and feelings and whatnot, it has NOT happened and is clearly a warning to be averted.

Thank you. What's the point of having the capacity for thought if you operate it the same way you do emotions and base impulses?

Why not? I do. Rand failed in the duty to his people Aviendha discerned and spoke of, and to which I referred. And I would bet good money the majority of people posting their sadness over that scene completely overlooked that role he played. He screwed up and imposed a situation for which their people were utterly incapable of adjusting and dealing with like sensible or normal folks.

You could GIVE HER SOME MONEY, instead of evading responsibility by voting to give her someone else's money!

Furthermore, your assertion about empathy is absurd. I was not saying there was nothing to empathize with here - I am asking what makes THIS special enough to stick out beyond a ton of other tragic stuff in the series. What makes the possibility of a stubborn and belligerent and arrogant people dying out from their failure to adjust to circumstances worse than a different people slaughtering their children in response to a prophecy? What about the atrocities of the Shaido? Don't those make you sad with their attacking and murdering entire towns worth of people for looking different? The Aiel chose their course of action and deliberately put themselves in the way of their enemy (to the point where they plan to impose the same fate on the Seanchan that they actual receive themselves). What did the people of Malden do that their children and grandparents should be driven into the wilderness to starve while they themselves are enslaved and their women raped? You want sad? The possibility of a flawed system and inept leadership bringing the expected consequences hardly rates in WoT.

And would you have handled it better seeing him run over by a truck driving through the backyard? And two questions: where did I say it is not a sad event, and how does that make it so bad that it garners so much reaction, above and beyond what other events elicited, and especially coming on the heels of so many worse things?

No, that was me.
Doesn't make it such an extreme case, which is what I asked in the first place.

Yeah, long and hard, in an alliance with the rest of the nations and with channelers augmenting their forces and with the Tower and Asha'man pitching in. The Aiel, much augmented, are crushed by the same old Seanchan. I based my assessment on the organization and institutional approach of the Seanchan, and especially their ability to utilize the resources of their conquests (which is cited as a decisive factor in their defeat of the Aiel). The principles on which I made those assessments are what underlay the success of the Seanchan.