HeavyHalfMoonBlade

Now you are twisting words. Inclusion does not include bad things. We are specifically talking about skin colour, sexual orientation, and other personal characteristics. To argue against inclusion because child murderers are bad is completely ridiculous. And you are still avoiding explaining why you think all proponents of the show (including the makers) have an agenda and like it as it ticks boxes on the SJW bingo card, but no detractors have an agenda and dislike the show because of those same ticks. It is kind of disappointing that my attempt to steer the discussion back to the actual topic veered onto a debate about whether inclusion is a good thing.

Eirik is an Algai, in training to be a Warder, but yeah, kind of the same thing. As you can see from my funky banded dress *twirls* I am an Accepted. So probably should be a bit more decorous *stops twirling* The experience has been amazing. There are really awesome people here, and living in the White Tower is an oddly involved thing. It has affected me more than I would have thought possible. I really regret that I did not find the website when the books were still being released and hundreds if not thousands people were treading the boards. I was looking forward to becoming an Aes Sedai, but then I think about how I'll have to tell the truth all the time...It's difficult to consider, really.

Oh, Del is lovely 🙂 I'm only teasing her, she is a remarkably tolerant Aes Sedai. There is no danger of you being throttled if me and @EirikDaude have survived this long. Unless she is just lulling us into a sense of false security... 🤔

That is a strange point you are making there, Samt. Making media and society more inclusive and tolerant is a good thing. Does not in itself make for good entertainment though. So cultivating the relationship between Moiraine and Suian can be seen as something that disrupts the hetero-normative narrative that is so common, and can be a good or bad thing in terms of the story which will probably rely a lot on how well it is written. However when people criticize it as it is not exactly the same as the books, there often seems to be an underlying reason for it. While sometimes that will be a rather childish "it doesn't look like the pictures in my head", there is always the implication that the only possible justification for challenging the hetero-normative narrative if it religiously follows the source. The show certainly emphasizes some themes from the source material. That is always going to be a given in any adaptation. The question should be how well that is done, not claiming it has been ruined by an agenda, not by making personal attacks on the showrunner. Things are very polarized politically speaking, and sadly that will mean that misunderstandings will easily be made. That said there is no doubt that some people will like changes that they agree with politically, regardless of how entertaining or good the writing actually is. And the other way about, of course. Surely here we should be trying to ignore both of these groups and concentrate on those that enjoy or not the show on its merits or lack thereof? It hardly seems appropriate to label the show and its proponents as having an agenda, whereas its detractors are straight-talking, telling-it-like-is honest dudes? In this polarized world, there will always be those with an agenda on both sides, the difference being that being in favour of inclusion is a good thing, but it isn't a substitute for good writing.

Welcome to Dragonmount, Andy. Has @Delenn Sedai, the Mistress of Novices, not been in touch? Maybe she has been hiding from the Aspirants for some reason. Last time I saw her she was muttering something about "otherwise I'll throttle him" or some such. No idea who she was talking about...

Hi Donchadh, Welcome to Dragonmount. Always nice to see new people around here.

Is that three screens on one desk, Lily Sedai? Truly you are an evil mastermind plotting world domination, there is no other explanation 🙂

For all the amusement of Nyn in her low-cut dress and Elayne in her trousers, yeah, I agree. I still remember my frustration each time Nyn tells them to turn the wagons around (happens once with the circus and once with a wagon, I think) and start to really slowly go back the way they came. While arguing if they are going to eat beans or vegetables. And to be fair, pretty much the whole Shaido arc, including the Prophet. And the Seanchan Gardeners. And Beslan. And Setalle Anan. And the Kin. And Oliver, the odious little gremlin. And the battle tactics and endless duels at Tar'mon Gaiden. Or perhaps more exactly it would be nice if these arcs didn't just peter out to really unsatisfactory conclusions. But the story would be much less rich without them. And it is largely down to how Jordan wove all these different threads together to make such a magnificent tapestry. Not all story arcs have to be super meaningful, some should be red herrings, some should fall short of their potential. But some things like the Prophet that went on for so long, that picked up so much pace along the way just to be tossed aside as irrelevant, with pretty much no explanation but he was mad, then corrupted (which kind of contradicted his religious zeal in the first place, he kills thousands for not acclaiming the Dragon Reborn and by the time we get to his POV, he is actively sabotaging the Dragon? It felt... contrived to mesh into the dumpster fire that was the Shaido arc) was kind of grating.

I think you have hit it on the head there. We all have different views of the characters and interpret them differently. Even Jordan's intentions don't set in stone how they are received. It is like Suian's uncle, who kept going back into the burning house to save the children. He was a hero when it mattered, but a lazy drunk when it didn't. Mat left to his own devices makes bad decisions. That doesn't make him a bad person, not at his core. Show Mat, even if he did steal the bracelet or prostitute himself or whatever, made a bad decision. But we never see him let his sisters down. When he meets the fade, he isn't running away but fighting to try to protect the girl, but he'll let Rand chop all the wood while he is warm and cozy. When it matters, he is there. Remember in the book, Mat repeatedly tries to get away from situations and out of danger but is defeated by his "luck" and being a ta'veren. To an extent, we see the best possible Mat as we see his heroism in saving the Wonder Girls, but being tied to the Dragon Reborn also stops him from drinking his life away and being like Suian's uncle. Imagine what being an addicted gambler would look like if you didn't always win. And this isn't to argue that your interpretation is "wrong", but to try and support why some people may see things differently, that doesn't rely on them being delusional or not true fans or whatever else. Mat is definitely a complex character and some people will emphasis different parts of it, and some people will judge him differently on his motives or on his actions.

Sometimes you can't run, Rand. Perrin was suggesting something along the lines that Rand was already thinking, running away to keep everyone else safe, but also about how you cannot run from what is inside you. Mat had something similar with the dagger - that was entirely his fault - yet felt no sympathy and was talking about running from Rand to keep himself safe. In my opinion, Mat's character in the show is a good reconciliation of the the book character pre-healing (where Mat was the Gollum in the LOTR trope) and post-healing, where he is a completely different character, with different traits and abilities. Your denial that there was any change does not lend support to your judgement of the show's adaptation, much less your claim that anyone that thinks differently is delusional. We see things differently, but this is not due to you liking or knowing the books better (especially not if you need to read a passage to remember what it said *joking*).

That did not happen in the first books. The show could also add in a bunch of anecdotes later about Mat's younger adventures. Yes, the joke was to laugh at the kids who believed in ghost dogs. The badger was to upset a hugely important day for the girls. I don't see that as a fun joker, that everyone likes. It seems that is only for Mat's fun, not anyone else's. And Perron also went through what Mat did, but dealt with it a lot better regarding Rand. Could it be that we have both taken different things out of the books, building a head canon that is subtly different in some respects and very different in others? That could affect how we see the show? And no one needs to be delusional to have these varying thoughts and opinions?

You were presenting your opinion as the truth, and when pointed to the fact that other fans disagree with you, you doubled down on your superfan status. You, as any kind of fan, are more than welcome to your opinions, just as any other kind of fan that wishes to discuss them. Branding people that disagree with as "borderline delusional" is hardly offering the respect that you appear to want for yourself to others. You did not like the series. That does not make those that did wrong, and it does not make your subjective views facts. You did not like the show interpretation of Mat, that is fine. But your argumentation is severely lacking, in my humble opinion, and entirely unconvincing to this person that has read the books multiple times. I think you are not adequately looking at the problems of book Mat's character pre healing, the issues of the books being written as stand alones instead of as a series, and i realise that many will not agree with me in those opinions.

Wow, appeal to authority on this site. Surely you are the only person here that has read the books. More than once, you say? *lets monocle fall from shock* You are taking Mat's character after healing, not that from the early books. Book Mat as an adult played vindictive elaborate jokes on literal children to get his kicks. He cruelly laughs and snickers (even at times of great danger and stress) at those less fortunate, abandons Rand and bullies Perrin to do so as well because of his airs and graces and then totally drops him when he learns he can channel. Yes, Jordan pretends in the later books none of this happened, but I thought the show should try to be as accurate as possible? Book Mat is a total mess until we get his POV in Tar Valon after healing, when he suddenly remembers his heart of gold, his great skill with the quarterstaff, his addictions to gambling, tabak and wine, and his obsession with bosoms. In my humble opinion, which obviously is not worth as much as that of a superfan like you, the show has made a decent attempt at reconciling Mat into a consistent character. I don't think I would have made the choices they have made but I can see and appreciate what they were trying to do.

The story is very rich and Jordan in particular put a lot of effort and meaning into the names he used. There is so much detail it is easy to see details and patterns that Jordan did not necessarily put there.

Canon doesn't go into very much, but you are assuming that only objects can be thought of as weapons. What if body parts and the power were the same? Egwene punched her sul'dam without thinking, but what if considering how best to one punch kill her sul'dam she could no longer make a fist or raise her arms until she had convinced herself that she would never, ever hurt her sul'dam with her hands? That is the point of the a'dam, it can read your intent. You don't have any plausible deniability, you cannot make legalistic arguments to get around it. Of course, that doesn't mean there aren't loopholes as written, but we don't know what they are or quite how they would work. Ryma I thought was more about them trying to break the three oaths more than her refusing to cooperate but I could be misremembering that. That is why the show doesn't make sense, to me at least, as Egwene deliberately used the a'dam to hurt her sul'dam. She should - in the spirit of how an a'dam works at least - only have been able to put it on if she genuinely believed that it wouldn't hurt her. It did make great TV, but it did not seem very consistent, as the loophole had not been shown in advance.

It is a shame your ability to accept that other people can have different opinions from you is so limited. You must be very happy having the one true opinion.

Mat's character was awful until RJ ripped it up and started again with his healing. How could heavy drinking, womanizing, and gambling Mat grow up in a village that has one tavern run by Marín al'Vere? The Two Rivers was a poor copy of the Shire in the first book, and the main characters acting like children while being twenty made no sense except in that hairy footed fantasy. Not saying I necessarily agree with all the changes, but a maturing of the Two Rivers and the Emonds Field Four seems rather inevitable in any adaptation. Either that or a streamlining of the story and starting at a different point. As the first book is a lot of exposition as the characters learn about the world that sets up the reader to understand who and what the Dragon is, a lot of it is unnecessary as a show can probably never employ the same technique. The flight from the Two Rivers could be told in a flashback in broad brush strokes. Or some such device, anyway.

That is some clever twisting of words. Just like a real Servant of All, wink wink. Don't worry, your secret is safe with me. Erm, for a while anyway. Though I may forget it is a secret and then it is not exactly my fault if I tell someone, is it? All the Ajahs are nice here. And they absolutely don't beat us Aspirants until we say that. Honestly. I have no idea what you need to do to get a spanking round here. But if I find out, I'll let everyone else know.

Welcome to Dragonmount, Catt. A real member of the Brown Ajah, I see 🙂 Can you also Channel? Probably hoping too much there, but it seems the obvious question. Hope you enjoy your time here, and it is always great to meet another fan of the Wheel of Time.

Of course that can be said to go both ways. It is not only about finding those that agree with us, but about experiencing different viewpoints. I would hesitantly put forward that that is why dealing with specifics is better - I have seen many differing opinions about the casting, for example, yet very few entirely positive or negative. That leaves room for interesting discussion. The same with for example, Thom's instrument. COVID has played a large part in some of the issues, yet that does not stop opinions or discussions of the rest.

I think that discussion should always be possible regardless of your overall opinion. Too often what passes for criticism is actually announcements of how objectively dire the show is. If people are interested in the show (in as much at least due to the source rather than the output) it should be possible to discuss things with people who have different opinions. Exactly the same should be true for those that have a really positive opinion of the show, that some do seem to have, that that should not prevent discussing aspects of the show or looking critically at certain aspects of it. It has been a fairly common theme in the time I have been here that users claim that you are not allowed to criticise the show, despite that being demonstrably false. What often seems to be meant is that abuse is not allowed to be thrown at other users and the individuals who make the show. The personal attacks against Rafe in particular are rather disappointing - we know from what little information comes out of the production team that Rafe does not have final say in the content of the show (him taking Sanderson's idea about Perrin not killing his wife to the "higher-ups", for example). And yet people continually justify personal attacks against him as they feel strongly about the book. It doesn't seem like a good justification to me. And if we see an actor doing a bad job in our opinion, rarely are personal attacks thrown at them, and allowances are made for the role of the director, etc. I'd prefer to see discussion of the aspects of the show and the book, instead of arguments about whether the whole is objectively bad or good. Sharing opinions is fine, but it is not so profitable in discussing them without specifics. In my humble opinion, of course.

The prologues are like the "cold starts" in a show (I think they are called), where you have a vignette outside of the main narrative to illuminate a different part of the world-building or story. In terms of the Wheel of Time, 95 pages is just a brief detour, it goes with the territory.

Who needs expensive climbing frames when you can just break the washing line instead? Apparently we need more work on the phrase "get ****ING off that, tubby". Vincent appears to think it means continue to sit and look cute.

I don't think it is something that can be answered. For example, Mat tried to resist the pull of the ta'veren repeatedly, yet was unable. Perrin at the same point in the Age Lace, successfully did break free. So is that Perrin exercising his free will, and Mat failing to do so, or was it fated before time? Was every struggle of Mat preordained or could he wriggle as he chose as long as he ended up in Rhuidean on time? Or was every move he made on the Stones' board against Thom written in stone? There isn't anyway to separate chance from fated. Admittedly, Min and Foretelling does mean it isn't completely random, but it doesn't answer the degree of freewill that anyone has - not least as those prophecies were fated to happen for those exact circumstances in the "no free will" scenario, but it says nothing for other circumstances. What happens if Min turns a different corner and sees someone else and has a different vision? Would visions she didn't have still come true?

Aside from the general start of the story being incredibly Tolkien-esque, to say the particulars of the story do not match up - the female only magic wielders living in a great white tower on an island, the militant pseudo-religious order in white, etc, etc, - is twisting the facts completely. Many people don't like the changes, fair enough. But to represent their opinions as actual objective fact and to claim that all "true" fans agree with them, including the Jordan estate, his widow, Sanderson, etc, all secretly agree with them whatever they say in public is just wrong. The fact is that with airtime allotted to the show, no matter how faithful to the story it had tried to be, it was never going to be able to do so, especially not with the standards that some want to hold it to.