Active Users:413 Time:04/04/2025 08:30:28 AM
Yes, the original post was dumb, but... Lord Haart Send a noteboard - 20/11/2009 08:09:27 AM
I actually also think that Mesaana is Silviana, but unlike our speculative friend, I've laid out my reasons for said belief in the other thread.

In short:

1) Keeper and Mistress of Novices are positions of power, which the FS like.

2) Silviana was the only Tower AS seemingly unaffected by the tower split.

3) Mesaana figured that after Egwene was captured, she needed to give Egwene some power in the tower otherwise the rebellion would crumble.

4) She also promised that the tower would fight for the Shadow - she probably thinks that Egwene can be manipulated.

5) By swearing first on the Oath Rod, she put herself in the best position to word the Oaths in a way that allowed her to escape them. eg "I am not Black Ajah" rather than "I do not and have not served the Dark One".

6) My main reason: The Epilogue of tGS reads:
"... Was Mesaana still in the Tower?
If so, she somehow knew how to defeat the Oath Rod.
A soft knock came at her door. It cracked a moment later. "Mother?" Silviana asked."


I know literary foreshadowing when I see it.
Reply to message
Mesaana == Silviana ... - 19/11/2009 10:34:45 PM 1062 Views
No. *NM* - 19/11/2009 10:36:16 PM 255 Views
No. *NM* - 19/11/2009 10:38:19 PM 233 Views
Sure why the hell not... *NM* - 19/11/2009 10:56:12 PM 243 Views
I like the way you think *NM* - 20/11/2009 12:17:01 AM 221 Views
Thank you *NM* - 26/11/2009 08:41:04 PM 234 Views
Meh. Yeah, why not? *NM* - 20/11/2009 04:17:46 PM 257 Views
because it's not true *NM* - 19/11/2009 10:59:38 PM 234 Views
Re: Mesaana == Silviana ... - 19/11/2009 11:07:56 PM 734 Views
That's not how speculation works. - 19/11/2009 11:41:55 PM 686 Views
Well, it's how speculation works. Plus, it has charisma! *NM* - 20/11/2009 01:18:48 AM 244 Views
Yes. It is. - 20/11/2009 03:06:04 AM 513 Views
Because I declared it to be so. That is sufficient reason. - 20/11/2009 03:33:54 AM 467 Views
This severely limits any discussion. - 20/11/2009 09:36:17 PM 500 Views
My point exactly . *NM* - 20/11/2009 10:12:06 PM 210 Views
Let me guess - 20/11/2009 12:07:46 AM 619 Views
Yes, the original post was dumb, but... - 20/11/2009 08:09:27 AM 660 Views
Perhaps - 20/11/2009 11:18:56 AM 513 Views
Fails the Sanderson confusion test - 20/11/2009 01:07:43 PM 493 Views
Oh, I see your reasoning. - 20/11/2009 03:14:11 AM 578 Views

Reply to Message