seemed like the implication was that rand was always lews therin.
like he just took a different name.
ie: if lews therin had been born and lived under the exact same circumstances that rand had, he would have turned out exactly the same as rand.
and similarly, if rand had been born and lived under the exact same circumstances that lews therin had, he would have turned out exactly the same as rand.
because it was never two people. really, the two sentences above was just another way of saying lews would have turned out like lews, or rand would have turned out like rand.
like he just took a different name.
ie: if lews therin had been born and lived under the exact same circumstances that rand had, he would have turned out exactly the same as rand.
and similarly, if rand had been born and lived under the exact same circumstances that lews therin had, he would have turned out exactly the same as rand.
because it was never two people. really, the two sentences above was just another way of saying lews would have turned out like lews, or rand would have turned out like rand.
This message last edited by uglycat on 05/08/2011 at 09:40:24 PM
Who is Rand, NOW? I don't get it.
- 05/08/2011 07:09:29 AM
1258 Views
Rand is the Great Serpent
- 05/08/2011 07:13:37 PM
766 Views
Re: Rand is the Great Serpent
- 05/08/2011 09:39:56 PM
698 Views