Active Users:1241 Time:23/02/2025 07:50:57 PM
I wonder if Sanderson's division of this story into two books affected this plot guttering flame Send a noteboard - 24/12/2010 09:03:31 PM
"He has to be there, or else something bad will happen" clearly implies that Perrin's presence must be required. Rand was not at all affected by Perrin on Dragonmount. To begin with, Perrin was in T'A'R while Rand was in the real world, so that's a huge barrier.

If Perrin had actually touched Rand, or had reached out to him mentally, that would be one thing, but it seems clear that he was there as an observer so we could see something amazing happen (and so that Perrin would know to trust Rand).


He WAS there. So the viewing came true.



If Perrin affected Rand's subconscious from TAR, Rand's epiphany would've been trivialized but the way Sanderson wrote it Perrin role was pretty superfluous to the both their stories.

I think Jordan originally meant for both their scene to occur together and for Perrin to participate in Rand's debate with himself. He would probably have been the Pattern's advocate showing the good things in life within the Pattern.

But with the tangled timelines in tGS and ToM that was discarded.

Though the presence of channeling women was still missing from the scene unless you count Cadsuane and her allies.
Reply to message
Second time Perrin must be there for Rand vs Two times Aes Sedai may hurt him - 22/12/2010 10:29:49 PM 1858 Views
I see a stampede of Egwene apologists on the way *NM* - 23/12/2010 01:03:56 AM 461 Views
I just want to point out.. - 23/12/2010 01:18:29 AM 953 Views
Re: I just want to point out.. - 23/12/2010 06:51:05 AM 808 Views
- 28/12/2010 01:16:20 PM 626 Views
I'm still of the opinion that Rand is headed towards the same disaster LTT did - 04/01/2011 06:42:51 PM 682 Views
I think they're both partially right... - 05/01/2011 11:16:21 AM 620 Views
Er no - 23/12/2010 12:22:04 PM 863 Views
The viewing says "women who can channel" - 23/12/2010 04:13:29 PM 773 Views
The second one isn't connected. - 23/12/2010 05:16:30 PM 986 Views
nail on the head *NM* - 24/12/2010 01:27:41 AM 342 Views
Re: The second one isn't connected. - 24/12/2010 05:29:16 AM 871 Views
Re: The second one isn't connected. - 24/12/2010 11:32:59 AM 693 Views
Re: The second one isn't connected. - 24/12/2010 06:06:04 PM 701 Views
Nope. - 24/12/2010 07:44:37 PM 671 Views
Re: Nope. - 24/12/2010 08:16:25 PM 713 Views
I wonder if Sanderson's division of this story into two books affected this plot - 24/12/2010 09:03:31 PM 675 Views
Re: Nope. - 26/12/2010 03:22:38 PM 775 Views
I agree. - 18/01/2011 06:21:43 PM 665 Views
+1 - 19/01/2011 01:46:39 AM 724 Views

Reply to Message