Re: Demandred, Callandor and the explicit-ness debate
Lord Haart Send a noteboard - 14/12/2009 01:08:34 PM
Remember that Rand would have had subconcious access to LTT even then, so the traps may have been dangerous even to an AoL'er. And Demandred doesn't like risks.
Of course, Be'lal failure to raid the stash is a glaring plot hole, though it always possible that he simply made a silly assumption that because Channeling was 'outlawed' in Tear, they wouldn't have any such objects. Or perhaps he actually already took another angreal from there (which would have been lost after he was BF'ed.
On the one hand, I hate having to justify plot holes, but on the flip side I also generally prefer authors that let their readers fill in blanks that aren't really that critical to the plot.
I mean in LotR, what would have stopped Gandalf from just flying one of the Eagles in to Morder and dropping the ring into Mt Doom? No riskier than using hobbits. I'm sure there are reasons why this wouldn't have worked, but I don't think that books always have to explicitly say why characters made bad decisions or why other occurrences happened.
Of course, Be'lal failure to raid the stash is a glaring plot hole, though it always possible that he simply made a silly assumption that because Channeling was 'outlawed' in Tear, they wouldn't have any such objects. Or perhaps he actually already took another angreal from there (which would have been lost after he was BF'ed.
On the one hand, I hate having to justify plot holes, but on the flip side I also generally prefer authors that let their readers fill in blanks that aren't really that critical to the plot.
I mean in LotR, what would have stopped Gandalf from just flying one of the Eagles in to Morder and dropping the ring into Mt Doom? No riskier than using hobbits. I'm sure there are reasons why this wouldn't have worked, but I don't think that books always have to explicitly say why characters made bad decisions or why other occurrences happened.
This message last edited by Lord Haart on 14/12/2009 at 01:09:22 PM
So why didn't Egwene Travel into the Tower storerooms from Salidar and steal the sa'angreal?
13/12/2009 08:32:01 PM
- 1440 Views
Plot convenience *NM*
13/12/2009 08:38:49 PM
- 384 Views
Regardless of more textual answers, this is the best *NM*
14/12/2009 01:53:47 AM
- 328 Views
Agreed
14/12/2009 04:17:56 AM
- 808 Views
OK, but...
14/12/2009 05:23:21 AM
- 794 Views
I don't see that as unbelievable.
14/12/2009 06:09:44 AM
- 820 Views
I don't buy it
14/12/2009 03:19:59 PM
- 803 Views
Re: I don't buy it
14/12/2009 03:50:05 PM
- 745 Views
Re: Demandred, Callandor and the explicit-ness debate
14/12/2009 01:08:34 PM
- 799 Views
Re: So why didn't Egwene Travel into the Tower storerooms from Salidar and steal the sa'angreal?
13/12/2009 08:55:56 PM
- 968 Views
They felt that traveling was a bigger strategic advantage than some angreal.
13/12/2009 09:56:19 PM
- 819 Views
Re: They felt that traveling was a bigger strategic advantage than some angreal.
13/12/2009 10:10:42 PM
- 794 Views
Only way to stop them learning travelling would be to unravel the gateway weaves...
14/12/2009 02:02:44 AM
- 793 Views
One does not simply walk into Mordor....or Travel into the tower, as it were
*NM*
16/12/2009 06:53:21 AM
- 385 Views
