The Wheel of Time Reread Redux, blog without end, Amen! Today’s Redux post will cover Chapter 27 and 28 of The Eye of the World, originally reread in this post.
All original posts are listed in The Wheel of Time Reread Index here, and all Redux posts will also be archived there as well. (The Wheel of Time Master Index, as always, is here, which has links to news, reviews, interviews, and all manner of information about the Wheel of Time in general on Tor.com.)
The Wheel of Time reread is also now available as an ebook series, except for the portion covering A Memory of Light, which should become available soon.
All Reread Redux posts will contain spoilers for the entire Wheel of Time series, so if you haven’t read, read at your own risk.
And now, the post!
Chapter 27: Shelter from the Storm
Redux Commentary
The Tuatha’an sang and danced, cooked and ate around their campfires—fruits and nuts, berries and vegetables; they ate no meat
Well, at least they aren’t hypocritical about their pacifism.
Sure, I know that technically you can only be against violence towards people and still claim the title, but I’m probably still going to raise an eyebrow at someone telling me killing is wrong while chowing down on a big juicy sirloin.
(Mmm, steak.)
“Blood and ashes, do you believe we’re safe here? Are these people safe with us here? A Fade could find us anytime.”
[Egwene’s] hand trembled on the beads. She lowered it and took a deep breath. “Whatever is going to happen will happen whether we leave today or next week. That’s what I believe now. Enjoy yourself, Perrin. It might be the last chance we have.”
Well. That quote… does not make Egwene look very good, I have to say. I mean, yes, whatever will happen will happen, but Perrin’s point is that if they leave, it won’t happen to the Tinkers. From that point of view, Egwene’s—and Elyas’s—determination to stay with the wagons comes off as… callous, really. Egwene more than Elyas, though, who (as we learn) at least knows to rely on the wolves as an early warning system, and has them leave as soon as anything happens. Though perhaps in Egwene’s case it would be more charitable to ascribe it to naivete.
For humans [Hopper] cared nothing, but Dapple wished this thing done, and Hopper would wait as she waited and run as she ran. Wolf or man, bull or bear, whatever challenged Dapple would find Hopper’s jaws waiting to send him to the long sleep. That was the whole of life for Hopper…
First of all: aw, Hopper.
Second, I didn’t remember that he was so devoted to Dapple originally. Which for some reason makes what is to follow even sadder.
Also, being able to hear wolves: still cool. Perrin’s opinions notwithstanding.
Still, his first instinct when Ishy burned the dream wolf was to try and help it, so at least there’s that. I’m not actually clear on whether that particular wolf was an actual wolf resident of the Dream World, or if it was more of a metaphysical representation of how Perrin’s Wolfbrotherliness protects (well, semi-protects, because Perrin is a stubborn ass) his dreams. For obvious reasons, I hope it was a symbolic wolf and not a real one.
“Trouble never enters the stedding,” Elyas agreed. “But the Ogier are none too open to strangers.”
“Everyone is open to the Traveling People,” Raen said, and grinned. “Besides, even Ogier have pots and things to mend.”
I had a little moment of bemusement when I realized that if I were a first time reader, I would have no clue what either of them were talking about, but until I actually thought of that, this exchange came across as completely unremarkable to me. Like, oh yeah, stedding, good call. Heh.
“You came in peace,” Raen intoned, bowing formally, hands on his chest. “Depart now in peace. Always will our fires welcome you, in peace. The Way of the Leaf is peace.”
“Peace be on you always,” Elyas replied, “and on all the People.” He hesitated, then added, “I will find the song, or another will find the song, but the song will be sung, this year or in a year to come. As it once was, so shall it be again, world without end.”
Raen blinked in surprise, and Ila looked completely flabbergasted, but all the other Tuatha’an murmured in reply, “World without end. World and time without end.”
The Tinkers’ ritual hellos and goodbyes always bring back fond-ish memories of going to Catholic Mass as a child, and murmuring the call and response bits that these are pretty much a direct riff on. I was really rather dismayed, in fact, when I found out recently that the wording of a lot of the responses has been changed since I stopped attending. But hey, at least they didn’t switch it over to a completely different language on me (something I think my grandmother still feels a little miffed about).
Other than that, Perrin’s embarrassment re: the dancing girls is still pretty adorable, Aram is still irritating from the moment we meet him, and this bit:
“Advice! Nobody tells us how to be men. We just are.”
“That,” Egwene said, “is probably why you make such a bad job of it.” Up ahead, Elyas cackled loudly.
Yep, that bit is still funny.
Chapter 28: Footprints in Air
Redux Commentary
Well, I feel pretty much like I did before: I get Nynaeve’s frustration in this chapter, but I get Moiraine’s as well.
I also enjoyed that Nynaeve shared my skepticism re: the White Bridge’s architectural choices. Heh.
“As I have told you,” Moiraine replied without bothering to look back at her, “I will know when I am close to the two who have lost their coins. […] The longer it takes, the closer I must come, but I will know.”
…Um. How, exactly? I thought it was only a few channelers who can “see” ta’veren, and Moiraine isn’t one of them (Siuan, Logain, and Nicola are the ones we meet, I think). So, if she can’t sense them via their ta’veren-ness, and they don’t have the coins, what is she using to track them? I don’t get it.
“They were in this room, perhaps a day ago, no more than two. Afraid, but they left alive. The trace would not have lasted without that strong emotion.”
Trace of what?
Certain things like this in the early books, especially TEOTW, make me think that Jordan either did not have everything about his magic system quite hammered out, or (more likely) he was allowing for a bit more esoteric hand-waviness in it than he settled on later. Which is fine; it’s just a little startling in retrospect.
Best line is still best line:
“Part of the training you will receive in Tar Valon, Wisdom, will teach you to control your temper. You can do nothing with the One Power when emotion rules your mind.”
LOL. Oh, the irony.
And, yeah. Both of these chapters were largely transitional ones, as I remarked in the original commentary, so I really don’t have anything more to say about them. But next week’s chapters include Action! (Yay!) Excitement! (Yay!) And Whitecloaks! (Ya— um.) So tune in next Tuesday, kids! See you then!
Well, sure, if your definition of pacifism is “killing is wrong.” I think pacifism is more “violence doesn’t solve problems.” That’s certainly what it is for the Tinkers. It goes well beyond killing.
And its perfectly possible to view certain types of killing as completely non-violent.
Violence, much like murder, has more to do with intent than act.
I’ve always found Leigh’s dislike for pacifism and agreement with the idea that violence is acceptable in self-defense to be incompatible with her feminism. It creates a real cognitive dissonance for me that I can’t wrap my head around.
I’m admittedly a pacifist, and so the idea of violence in self-defense in general is something I have a problem with, but it seems especially difficult to reconcile with feminism — which, after all, holds tight to the tenet that we are all human beings and all should be considered to be and treated as inherently equal. A tenet I fully get behind. Why, then, does it not extend to the person who wants to rob you? Why does that person, just because they happen to have been raised in a disadvantaged socioeconomic background wherein they never learned or had the opportunity to learn how to get along in life without resorting to theft, somehow become less deserving of empathy and respect for their human dignity, and more deserving of a violent response to their actions?
It really makes no sense at all to me how, on the one hand, you can argue that people are all deserving of dignity and respect, and, on the other hand, that they can somehow lose their right to that respect just because they engage in activities which, though harmful to other individuals or society as a whole, are imbued in them through their culture and socioeconomic standing and are, at root, no fault of their own.
It was very disconcerting to make a ‘May the force be with you’:’and also with you’ joke on Facebook to find the church pamphlet was out-of-date. Why did I spend my childhood going to church (Anglican but same rhythms) and Catholic school if I not to make insider jokes?
@2
Simple, we don’t buy your premise that robbers aren’t responsible for their own actions.
And, what is REALLY frustrating is that the Tinkers’ pacifism apparently extends even to Trollochs and Fades, as evidenced by their non-participation in the defense of Emond’s Field later. I understand the consistency here: doing violence hurts the doer. But extending this to mean that one doesn’t defend one’s self or loved ones against mindless evil strikes me as obscene.
Just one note worth mentioning: I ended up naming our new puppy Hopper when we got him a couple years ago.
Still can’t wait until my wife gets through ToM…
Re: how does Moiraine find people, she’s Healed them all, hasn’t she? Or at least, done the “don’t be tired anymore” thing, which might function the same? I mean, I agree that it’s kind of just a handwavy thing, but it doesn’t necessarily conflict with the later, more strictly defined version of the Finder.
@2 I think it’s really, really, really remarkably misguided (at BEST) to suggest that feminist women should not defend themselves from attackers. Would you suggest a feminist woman should simply lie down and allow herself to be mugged on the street? This isn’t Christianity; there is no “turn the other cheek” in feminism.
@@.-@ – What does it mean to be “responsible” for one’s own actions? If I get up from my chair to go get a glass of water, yes, that was a volitional choice that I made to stand up, move, and get a drink. But it was also an act of biological necessity that caused me to crave and require water. And it was at the mercy of modern civilization and technology that I was able to get it from a tap across the hall, rather than having to scrounge about for a streem and then determine whether the stream water contained contaminants that might kill me. And it was at the direction of advocates for health and safety that I chose to drink water instead of, say, Coca Cola.
No one person makes their decisions in a vacuum, independent of outside influences and free from strictures and controls of civilized society. Saying that someone is “responsible for their own actions” is, in essence, a meaningless statement, because at one level everyone is responsible for everything they do, and at another level nobody is responsible for anything they do. If a person had grown up locked in a climate controlled room with an endless supply of food and water, they never would have gained knowledge of the concept of robbery (or private property, or society, or language, or religion, etc.). Why, then, do we automatically assign them blame for doing something that they were taught to do by the rest of us?
@7 – Well, as I said, I’m a pacifist. I’ve been mugged; I’ve been robbed; I’ve been punched in the face and knocked to the ground and kicked until my ribs broke (only one time on that last, thankfully). I’ve never offered any resistence or “defense” because I don’t believe that that’s an appropriate response to the situation. I believe in stopping the causes of violence, not the perpetrators. They’re as much victims as anyone else.
Moiraine can find them because she put a Finder on the coins she gave the boys. That weave is also done by Elayne to the pickpocket, ten or so books later. When used on metal the weave lasts a very long time, and Moiraine probably discovered her own variety that used the metal as a link to the person who held the stone when she wove it. When the metal and the person are separated the weave on the person starts to fade – that is what she would be sensing.
@8
Your original statement is that it makes no sense how someone could hold the opposing view. From your response you seem to be aware how deep of a question the concept of responsibility can be. Surely on such a foggy issue you can understand someone coming to a different conclusion than yourself?
I have a deep belief that people are more than their societal programming. I can point out inspiring stories of people who overcame their poverty to be role models and then stories of people from good homes that did horrific things. You can point to statistics that show those are the exceptions and not the rule.
I don’t care to go through the entire discussion today, and basically am just responding to the outrageous statement that anything aside from pacifism makes no sense.
@@@@@ 2 I think you’re trying to have an argument about free will and determinism, something which philosophers have been doing for a long time (stoics x epicureans, for example). For more about people that share your outlook on this, try to read Determinists. For different points of view, try to read those that oppose them. I don’t know how feminism got into that.
Anyway, I’m with Sartre on this question. We are our choices. If there’s a sentience, then the only choice that can’t be made is not to make a choice. Maybe they’re all bad choices (like between giving the money to the mugger or risk a physical confrontation with him/her), but choices they are.
OK, so I’m an economist, and that has lead me to view the whole pacifism debate in a ‘game theory’ environment. While pacifism would work if everyone adhered to it, it’s too easy for someone to say: if I know that everyone else is going to be pacifist, there is a gain for me if I choose to not adhere. That would lead to at least one person breaking the pacifist rule, which ultimately leads to: if I know people are not going to be pacifist, I’m not going to be pacifist, as there is no gain anymore.
And yes, that is a pretty sceptical worldview.
@2, @8:
What you suggest makes it seem like self-sacrifice is not even an option in such situations. We all have perceived needs, and if we don’t get them, then we have no choice but to take them from something else. We can’t simply choose to do without, so as not to harm someone else. We all have that choice, both the robber who steals, and the person stolen from. As @@.-@ says, we are all responsible for our own actions. We all have a choice, regardless of our circumstances.
Regarding Egwene in the first chapter: I took at as her trying to hang on to some normalcy for a time. She wanted adventure, then discovered that adventure can be very dangerous. When Elyas brings them to the Tinkers, she gets to sort-of go back to being a carefree young woman. She knows it won’t last (when Elyas says it’s time to leave she doesn’t hesitate to get her stuff), but she wants to enjoy it while she can. And, yes, that’s somewhat selfish, but I also think it’s understandable.
@@@@@ #8 – you cannot seriously hold the conviction that no one is responsible for their own actions, can you?
Take yourself as an example. If you are capable of not fighting back, even when being physically abused, then certainly it is reasonable to expect others to not physically attack you, even if they are hungry and desperate.
The idea that we should avoid violence is a decent one, but your version of pacifism, and the excuses that go into it, are the first step on a short road to total anarchy and a world without any ethics at all. The Tinkers in WOT are meant to be a perfect allegory for you. They are unwilling to commit violence, which sounds fine and dandy until you realize that even when confronted with the end of the world, and the personification of evil itself, they are unwilling to fight. They would rather let every single living creature on (their) planet be subjected to an eternity of hellish servitude and torture than lift a hand against anyone else. That is called selfishness. In the real world, the Tinkers (or people like yourself) are exactly the sort of compliant agents that allow things like the Holocaust to occur. All that it takes for evil to triumph is for good people to do nothing, and all that.
I am really not even sure what to contribute to the pacifism/self defense argument that has not been said (I do not disagree with the right to self-defense. I think it can be a legitamate choice to choose not to retaliate in certain situations, but I don’t think it precludes feminism either. Or even turning the other cheek. Life is a good; we are called on to protect and defend it (to a reasonable extent) especially for those that may not be able to defend themselves (I am a lot more likely to react ‘violently’ to something if children are involved). I also don’t think self defense actually always means ‘violence’ either. Maybe in the way the Tinkers are defining it, but pushing somebody away or restraining them isn’t the same as beating them. At any rate, there is a continuum – it’s not just ‘lie down and take it’ or ‘kill your attacker’.
Treating somebody with dignity and respect and equality does not mean letting them do whatever they want. But if we’re all so unable to take responsibility for our actions because everything is so predetermined, why are we even debating this? ;)
@1 – Right. I can totally buy that there are non-vegetarian pacifists (likewise, there are lots of vegetarian non-pacifists – they may choose not to kill animals for food, but still have no problem with self defense). There are many motives for both things. Even if I did go over to full blown pacifism, I don’t know if it would apply to animals because I have an admittedly human-centric view of personhood. Although even that I have been wondering about – not so much viewing animals as persons, but is it right for me to cause suffering in animals when I really don’t NEED animal protein to survive at this point. I may not view animals on the same level as humans but I don’t really believe in causing unwarranted suffering in any case, either. So sometimes I wonder if at some point in my life I’m going to end up vegetarian, not becuase I think it’s necessarily morally incumbent on everybody, but as a personal choice. But I also have similar cognitive dissonances when I encounter strict vegetarians who have no problems with abortion, or pro-life people who are generally callous to the suffering of others or try to justify things like torture…my point is there are a lot of ways we as humans can be inconsistent. Or maybe not even inconsistent – it might look inconsistent to another person, but it depends on what their reasons are for a given belief and what parts of those beliefs hold ‘priority’ in a certain situation. And maybe the reasons are illogical, contradictory or selfish but beliefs rarely fall into neat boxes or absolutes. (Which is why the two party system in this country utterly baffles me)
Now, what I can speak to is the new Mass form, which is a more accurate translation of the Latin (the original English translation was more of a dynamic equivalence type of translation and lost a lot) and means we get to say cool things like ‘consubstantial with the Father’ and ‘Lord God of Hosts’ and alla that ;) But I do kind of miss the ‘and also with you’.
Also, I think I read somewhere that Tolkien was so angry about the vernacular translation that he’d stand at the back of the church and yell out the Latin responses. LOL. I mean, maybe a bit disrespectful, but that image still makes me laugh.
I understand the Traveling People are pacifists and vegetarians, but what in the world do they feed their mastiffs? I believe the mastiff is the only breed of dog discussed in the entire WOT series. Every other dog we read about is discussed in passing, belonging to some farmer or as a slab-sided mongrel creeping around the city, etc. Even cats get a better representation in the series than dogs do. It was so sad to read that all the mastiffs were slaughtered along with the people.
@16 Amen.
When I think of pacifism, I think back to the sixties when so-called flower-power infused pacifists would sit around, not bathe, display the “peace sign” using the “Vee” shape with their fingers while slurring “Peace, man”, all the while using said pacifism as an excuse to smoke dope and take drugs. Those alleged pacifists were their own worst enemies. They didn’t live life they copped out of it.
So, um, no. I don’t want to be so laid back and out of it that I forget how to live.
RE: Egwene. Staying with the Tinkers was like a vacation. At Edmond’ s Field she was under the tutelage of The Wisdom, working hard and trying to please everyone. She wanted adventure only to find herself running for her life scared out of her wits. After becoming separated from the very people that represented the fabric of her life, she had to scratch for a morsal of food and a partially-covered spot to rest for a few hours, as long as her fear and discomfort allowed for any rest at all. So, a warm bed, three squares a day and happy companionship were like staying in a five-star resort with room service and a valet. No wonder she wanted to milk the stay for all it was worth. She knew once she left the comfort of the hospitality of the Tinkers, it would be full speed ahead into the unknown.
RE: ReRead Redux: I’m getting into a comfortable routine of reading two chapters, going back and rereading the ReRead of those two chapters, checking to see if I read all the comments on the ReRead Redux the week before (I check three or four times a week to see if new comments are posted) then excitedly click on the newest ReRead post! I look forward to Tuesday afternoon knowing I get to thoroughly enjoy a new post!!!!
Since I read all fourteen books back-to-back in the spring of 2013, there were nuances I didn’t pay attention to, like the chapter icons. Now I notice them and understand what they mean via the ReRead. The WOT circles just looked like a Hidden Mickey to me. Now I see it as a never-ending circle of life, or as the pastor would sing in church, “World Without End, Amen, Amen”.
Many thanks to Leigh and all the commentators for a great weekly read! Or, ReRead. Or, ReRead Redux… or whatever…..
@7 – I’m thinking that Moiraine could have put a weave on all three boys initially, a very weak but still functioning weave that couldn’t be discovered if it was inverted. Kind of like the weave to detect darkfriends that she used when they were hiding out in the mountains. The coins allowed a much stronger bond but the initial weave would still hold. Maybe that doesn’t make any sense but that’s how I’m looking at it.
Leigh: IMO, Egwene’s comeback to Perrrin regarding the merits (or lack thereof) of young men not needing advice how to be a man is one of the funniest in the entire series.
In your commentary, you quoted the following Moiraine statement to Nynaeve: “Part of the training you will receive in Tar Valon, Wisdom, will teach you to control your temper. You can do nothing with the One Power when emotion rules your mind.”
In many ways, this quote is what is wrong with the White Tower’s training methods. First, the White Tower beleives that there is only one way to train channelers and that it should apply to every women in the Tower. It is this refusal that prevents most Sisters (sans Egwene) from acknowleding that the Windifnders and Aiel teaching channeling methods have merit. Had Aes Sedai been more able to conform some of their teaching methods to an individual innitiative’s characteristics, the Tower could have been better equipped to teach older women. As a result, Egwene’s opening the novice book to women of all ages would not have been as revolutionary. Second, one wonders if the Tower had been less rigid in its teaching philospophy, some women would not have been kicked out for failure to advance or have failed to come back from the Accepted or Aes Sedai test.
Third, as this theory applies (or more aptly does not apply) directly to Nynaeve, it is interesting to note Rand’s comments to Nyneave in ToM. When Nynaeve tells Rand that she is temporarily going back to the White Tower, Rand tells Nynaeve he hopes she will not bocome the typical, outwardly-appearing stoic Aes Sedai. Rand tells her that her ability to show emotion is part of what makes Rand able to trust her. In addition, for about half the series, her block is such that she can only channel when she is angry. The complete opposite of Moiraine statement.
Andrewrm @16: said “In the real world, the Tinkers (or people like yourself) are exactly the sort of compliant agents that allow things like the Holocaust to occur. All that it takes for evil to triumph is for good people to do nothing, and all that.”
I cannot disagree more. The Tinkers beleive that to do violence (even hitting back and defending oneself) harms him or herself. In RL, many people did not do anything to stop the Holocaust not becuase they were pacificists. Rather, many people that that the treatment of Jews would not happen to them. In those people’s minds, it was a “them” problem, not a “me” problem.
Thanks for reading my musings,
AndrewB
Leigh–
Dapple, Wind and Hopper are telepathing (is that a word?) about Heartfang and Death at the end of chapt. 27. That exchange strongly suggests Heartfang was a real, live wolf. :-(
Yeah, first time through: “Stedding? What the **** is a Stedding?” //Recalls glossary at back of book and flips to it// “Ah, ha.”
@@@@@ 22, Heartfang is the wolves’ name for the Dark One, so far as I recall.
(Or maybe it’s their name for Ba’alzamon. If no one else can keep them straight, how can the wolves (or I) be expected to?)
@7 – That’s so elegant! I want to believe. @20 – I used to think her weave on the coins was a little like magnetism, and just by extended proximity to the coins’ Find ‘Em Field a weaker version got passed on to, say, their respective bladed weapons. Or belts.
If it’s hypocritical to eat animals while condemning violence to humans, the obvious solution is to start eating humans. And if you kill humans but don’t eat them, that’s hypocritical too and you should stop killing them or start eating them. *evil grin*
Pretty sure the ‘tracer’ weave specifically was noted to fix on metals for a long time while on other things it faded. Thus it gets weaker for the boys who do not have their coins.
The Creator must think the Tinker’s pacifism goes a bit too far. Otherwise making the Aiel out of the Tinkers and making them a key part of the forces of Light in this rematch of the War of Power and giving the weapon of mass destruction, the Dragon Reborn Tinker heritage through the remade Aiel.
@@@@@#2 There is always a choice. If you think someone has no capability to make a moral choice you are affording them no dignity as a human being at all.
The Moiraine of New Spring would have dumped the river on Ny to shut her up. She seems to have learned some patience since then.
I thought Moiraine would know when she got near the coinless Rand and Mat because of their ta’veren-ness? Whereas I have no idea how she’s sensing emotion left behind.
I side with Egwene being naive rather than callous here. She’s young, she’s fresh out in the world, she’s offered a reprieve from all the scary stuff and she seizes it. She wanted to leave and have adventures, but more likely the ‘meeting different people/cultures and dancing with nice men’ adventures than the ‘getting chased by Trollocs’ adventures. But, I think it also shows that aspect of her personality where she likes to completely immerse herself in something, like when living among the Aiel and being determined to be Aes Sedai.
When it comes to pacificm, I reiterate what I said last week (I think): that I believe everyone plays their part. The Tinkers don’t fight, as per their belief system, but they are vital in other ways. I can’t agree with them because, whilst, yes, violence is bad and I avoid it, if it was do violence or let someone kill me or someone else (or destroy the whole world), I’d do the violence. I think it would be instinctive. I do agree that people end up in situations because of environment and so on and it’s not solely down to personal choice, there still is some choice involved, and I don’t think not resisting is going to help a violent person get to a better place. I realise I’m jumping wildly between real world and WoT examples here, but if every inhabitant of that world had chosen the Tinkers path, the Trollocs and the Dark One and whatever else wouldn’t have said, hmm, let’s reconsider our ethics and understanding of how to conduct our lives here, they’d just have mown them down. (I see problems with my own comparison here but I’m about to tie myself in knots and it’s the end of my lunch hour.) So I don’t personally agree with the Tinkers or with real-world pacificts, but I think that’s a fine personal belief for others to choose, because each path has validity and benefits and purpose. (Although I do hit a bit of a wall with my acceptance if I think that some pacifists might not take action to stop someone else being hurt.)
@28 birgit
– Randland saying ca. 978 NE, believed by some to be meant quite literally
If I passively allowed my daughters to be carried off to be raped, without lifting a finger to try to stop it, I would deem myself to be worthy to burn in Hell forever.
And since most men can run faster than most women and children, I deem all “way of the leaf” men to be brazen cowards.
@5- The Tinkers fully participate in the defense of Emond’s Field. Perrin would be quite displeased with you for even daring to suggest otherwise. They helped make bandages, tended the wounded, and when it seemed likely that the defenses wouldn’t hold, volunteered to lead the children to safety. They are explicitly described as having children in each arm as well as infants strapped to their front and back. Despite the fact that each additional burden made their own escape far less likely, they willingly risked their own lives to save the children of those who have historically shunned and mistreated them.
@31 – It never says that they will passively stand by and allow such things to happen. The fathers would put themselves between their daughters and harm, allowing themselves to be killed/beaten in order to give the others time to escape. Heck, the one time we even see a Leafer sitting and watching his family be carried away (in the Way-Back Ter’Angreal) he’s already clearly been beaten down in a fruitless effort to non-violently protect his family.
I never noticed the line mentioning that the Travelling People were vegetarian before. The visions of Rhuidean suggest that the Da’Shain Aiel were not (a spear can put meat in the pot). The idea of supporting a vegetarian lifestyle in a fully nomadic non-agrarian culture…okay, just another way the logistics in the Wheel of Time make no damn sense.
@25 AeronaGreenjoy
“Soylent Green is people!”
@32 – Do we have canon that the Traveling People are vegetarians? I think I just assumed it because of their non-violent nature, but I don’t remember reading that there were chickens or sheep or goats with the wagons. And I’ve always wondered what the dogs eat. Maybe we will never know…
@34 thepupexpert
– TEotW, chapter 27, Shelter From the Storm
Yeah, Egwene doesn’t look too good through all the Tinker chapters, really. I can see where she’s coming from, both in terms of the fatalism (even before learning of the Way of the Leaf) and the desire to have some fun and entertainment while they had the chance, not to mention escaping the terror and stress of the scary adventure, but…eh. Elyas makes the same point, and he’s right they shouldn’t just rush off into danger when they have camaraderie, peace, and good food where they are (and how ironic Perrin is being so impatient here, when later on he sets great store by his patience and displays it to great effect, up until the PLOD). But the contrast between this, and what happened with Thom, Mat, and Rand (not to mention what Rand and Mat are about to get into on the road to Caemlyn) could not be more striking. On the other hand, with what’s about to happen with the ravens, the wolves, and the Whitecloaks, it could be argued they do need this respite. Watching them laughing and dancing and eating while Rand and Mat go through travails and Moiraine and Nynaeve worry about everyone is a bit selfish, but getting to know the Tinkers will have dividends later, and getting the chance to relax and have fun is indeed something which will be in short supply later on.
It was also rather dickish of Perrin to flaunt the axe at the Tinkers; however foolish he believes them to be (and in a time like the approaching Armageddon it seems particularly apt to see them this way, though their helping injured during the Last Battle does prove the value of their philosophy), he shouldn’t be shoving it in their faces–they aren’t forcing him to follow the Way, after all. Of course that may just be the point–he says himself he can feel it “seeping in” without any conversion going on, so I can’t help thinking his bit with the axe is him deliberately overcompensating to overcome the guilt he feels at, in his eyes, letting himself become weak when he needs to be strong against the Shadow. I comfort myself with the knowledge of how he completely turns around later on, not only seeing more and more value in the Way even as he becomes more of a warrior king but specifically defending the Tinkers to those who mock them by telling of what they did to protect the children of Emond’s Field. That was awesome.
Anyway, I’d never give up the chance to see Perrin embarrassed by the Tinker girls dancing (he thinks this is bad, wait till Faile dances the sa’sara for him!), Egwene dancing (too bad by the time they were together on a regular basis, she was the Amyrlin and thus couldn’t do such informal, naughty things–would have been fun to see her dance for Gawyn!), and of course that hilarious exchange at the end about men being taught (or not) on being men. I find it most telling of all that Elyas was the one who laughed.
I had also forgotten about how close Hopper was to Dapple–and how little Hopper cared for humans at first. That certainly changes when it comes to Perrin, doesn’t it? *sniffle* I had also forgotten the bit where Ishamael says to Perrin that he had “faced this before, many times”. We know wolfbrothers were an old thing, predating the Age of Legends, but this is an intriguing tidbit. Aside from underscoring the truth of wolves being against the Shadow, it proves another reason why Perrin is essential to the Pattern–whether as a companion of the Dragon’s or not, it seems wolfbrothers must always be involved in facing down the Dark One and his minions throughout all the Ages. (I too hope that wolf wasn’t an actual wolf; in a dreamshard, it’s hard to tell.)
The bit with the stedding is also an ironic foreshadowing, since despite Elyas, Perrin, and Egwene taking shelter in one, trouble does find them in the form of the Whitecloaks.
I know what you mean about the ritual departure…while not Catholic I was a churchgoer all through my youth, and I very well remember the Gloria Patri, which concludes with the same “world without end”. And I found it touching that Elyas remembered and used the whole full version, to Raen and Ila’s startlement; he tries to cover it up at the end by gruffly saying he just didn’t want to make them feel bad, but we can see through it as well as Egwene can; he respects their convictions even if he cannot share them (many people in modern times would do well to follow his example), and he cares a great deal for them.
Not a lot to say about the Nynaeve chapter that hasn’t already been said. All I can say is that I always got the impression what Moiraine was tracing was the Finder weave on the coins–that even after the coins themselves were gone, them having been in the boys’ possession meant a trace of the weaves had attached itself to them (as happened later with Elayne and Hark), and it was this Moiraine was following.
The line about Nynaeve learning to control her temper and being unable to channel until she did is indeed quite hilarious. But I was more struck by how Nynaeve still continues to deny the Power and want nothing to do it–unless it will let her get back at Moiraine or let her help Egwene and the boys. More of her hypocrisy we’ll see much more of later, but it’s also sad and poignant to see her switch from “what could a Wisdom do with that much Power?” to her knee-jerk fear instilled by all the tales of Aes Sedai and the Breaking. It really calls forward to TSR, when she’s under Compulsion and admits to Moghedien that her block comes from her being afraid of so much power. *hugs Nynaeve, no matter how much she wouldn’t appreciate it*
Three small bits: Lan’s way of defusing the militiaman was hilarious, and seeing Moiraine show sympathy and caring to the people (however reluctant Nynaeve is to admit it) is heartwarming. But the part in the forest when they are feeling more and more of the quiet, a sense of being watched, of hearing something but seeing nothing…all of it culminating in Moiriane’s explanation about the Dark One having his eye fixed more fully on the world. One of the more subtly creepy things I’ve ever read, and a great example of Nothing Is Scarier. Is it any wonder Whitebridge cowers?
@1 anthonypero: Good point. Killing in order to eat is not violence, at least not a violence that brings about undue pain and suffering.
@2 alreadymad: You make a very eloquent and compassionate plea but the fact is, most societies at large and many people within them do believe that people who commit acts that are agreed upon to be wrong do give up certain rights. That even if they are predisposed to act as they do by their environment, circumstances, and upbringing, they still have the choice to resist and rise above that, to not indulge in those acts–and there are plenty of examples of those who have and do, whether never ending up in trouble for it in the first place or by rehabilitating themselves afterward. No, they do not lose the right to common human decency, but they do deserve to lose respect for not having made a better choice, and the nature of their actions often necessitates using violence to stop them as well as, of course, punishing them–whether to keep them from doing further harm or to deter them and encourage them to make better choices in the future. It’s the same as the free speech argument “Your liberty to swing your fist ends just where my nose begins”: while we all have the same right to be treated with decency and respect, this ends or is at least qualified when one in turn does not treat others with it and believes they can get away with it. This doesn’t mean that someone who disrespects others is suddenly less human or worthy of being treated fairly, but it does mean they should be held accountable in some way for that disrespect and not merely excused by their circumstances, background, or mindset.
And to you @8 that is a rhetorical response which uses exaggeration to make your point. Very few examples of people doing wrong to others involve the wrongdoer being someone who has absolutely no idea that what they do is wrong, and no ability to choose otherwise because of their upbringing and background. No one would agree the person in your example is to blame, but for those who know very well that what they do is wrong, but do it anyway rather than try to be better, and then try and blame society or poverty or where they were born…well, that just smacks of dodging blame and responsibility. Yes, all those are factors, but in the end, they still had choice, even if they thought they didn’t.
@13 Bouke: Skeptical and cynical, but sadly very true as borne out by history.
@16 Andrewrm: Um…while I can understand your passion in defending your view, and agree in general that the Tinkers’ extremity of pacifism in the end still causes harm, I think you went a bit too far in your words. While your ending quote is quite true, comparing him to someone who allowed the Holocaust to happen is rather uncalled for. Not to mention treading close to Godwin’s Law.
@17 Lisamarie: Very well said, thank you.
@19 WDWParksGal: That must have been quite an interesting experience, not just reading them all back-to-back but not having to wait for any, or spend time in between thinking and theorizing. It will be interesting seeing how your perspective differs from those who did have to wait for the books.
@21 AndrewHB: Great insights about the Tower and its training methods. And indeed, look at how well the Windfinders and Aiel are able to channel, all while still feeling emotion. You can find faults in various aspects of their societies or in their channeling training, but the employment of emotion is not one of them.
@25 AeronaGreenjoy: *giggles* And that shows what happens when certain logic is taken to extreme conclusions!
@30 Randalator: ROTFL!
@32 NoBrandHero: Well said. While I can’t choose the Tinker path myself I do respect it and think it has its place for the people it works for, and I most certainly acknowledge the good things Tinkers do in the series, especially your Emond’s Field example.
As for the vegetarianism, I presume the Tinkers procure this food through buying or trading, thus allowing them to still be nomadic. But since they can’t always be near cities (or count on the people there being willing to sell/trade with them), unless they get it in bulk it does still seem problematic.
You are being disenginious there.
Obviously the link, when cut, still lasts a little while alike residues from channelling. If it takes months, there will be other ways. This was mentioned in Nynaeve’s pov.
Second, it is exactly the right thing to feel by Egwene, they do not know what may come, so they may as well have a little happiness. At my count it is the last of those Egwene had.
And something else but that is that!
Re: Egwene, I imagine that she also, somewhat naively, trusted that Elias wouldn’t have brought them to the caravan if it could endanger the Tinkers. And from this angle, she was absolutely right about relaxing and recharging while they were able to.
Re: Nynaeve and channeling – and yet it is uncontested truth in the series that a man must be emotionless in order to channel in controlled fashion – that’s what “the flame and the void” is all about. Hm… And, of course, the Aiel also practice extreme outward emotionlessness, as do the Windfinders, though to a lesser extent.
So, yea, I personally never bought it that the AS were somehow uniquely at fault for following similar tenets. Also, the ability of keeping calm and rational in a crisis is objectively valuable.
But then, I find a lot of AS flaws to be implausible within the framework of WoT and a lot of the criticism levelled at them to be somewhat hypocritical, so…
Re: women being instructed and taught, having to accept authority of their tutors over them in the process, while men make their own way, accepting only as much help as they chose is kinda another WoT trope. I guess RJ considered it to be one of the differences between the genders or something.
Re: Moiraine’s tracking of the boys – I chose to believe that Moiraine had some interesting abilities that were never fully disclosed.
Macster @36 said: “I had also forgotten the bit where Ishamael says to Perrin that he had “faced this before, many times” and “… it proves another reason why Perrin is essential to the Pattern–whether as a companion of the Dragon’s or not, it seems wolfbrothers must always be involved in facing down the Dark One and his minions throughout all the Ages.”
I have a different take on Ishamael’s comments. (At least I think I do. If I misunderstood them and it turns out we are saying the same thing — except you are saying it more eloquently — I apologize.) I took Ishamael’s comment to mean that in a prior Turning of the Wheel, the Dragon was a wolfbrother. As the Shadow’s champion during that age, Ishamael (in that particular Turning) faced a Dragon who was a Wolfbrother. From Ishamael’s point of view, while old, the concept of a Wolfbrother is not new to him. Perrin’s ability as a Wolfbrother will not protect Perrin if Perrin is this Age’s Dragon Reborn. I did not read into Ishamael’s statement that wolfbrothers must be involved in facing the Dark One and its human champion during every confrontation.
Thanks for reading my musings,
AndrewB
I will accept no thinking of “sorry that I am alive and might aflict things on you.” Sure if it is know the A is followed be B, that is different, but when A might be followed by W or Q, no, simply no.
Wetlandernw, I read your 2nd of 3 transcripts on the WoR re-read. Brandon’s answer to the question of if Mat was no longer ta’veren at the end of AMoL how would that affect his luck is facsinating (even though he hedges that his answer is not 100% cannon). I would love to hear your comments on Brandon’s response.
(For those who did not read it, Brandon’s answer is as follows:
“BWS: Everything I’m saying right now is not 100% canon, because I’m only working off of my guesstimates based on his notes. I believe that Mat’s luck is a soul attribute that is independent of him being a ta’veren, but enhanced by his ta’veren nature. Part of the proof of this is the Heroes of the Horn knowing him as Gambler, which means in other Ages when he’s been born and not been ta’veren, he’s still had luck and attraction to things like that. Plus things in the notes, I’m basing on that. So it does not necessarily mean they aren’t ta’veren right now, but even if they weren’t, I think Mat would still have his luck.”
There is some further discussion but the above quote was (IMO) the key response to the question. Wetlandernw’s full transcription is at post #118 on Chapter 23 of the Words of Radiance re-read.)
Thanks for reading my musings,
AndrewB
Mary Beth @23
Checked…Heartfang is indeed what the wolves call Ba’alzamon. So hopefully the wolf killed was only symbolic.
@37 Macster
I never heard of WOT until the 14th book came out, since obviously I was living under a rock, so when I finally got to read the series my only thoughts were getting to the next book. No theorizing, no wondering, just an anxious excitement to read the next page. I didn’t know there was any theorizing from anyone about the books until I found the ReRead several months later.
Comment #45 unpublished by moderator.
@39 Isilel: Good point re: Egwene trusting Elyas.
As for the hypocrisy in criticizing the Aes Sedai, for my part at least I don’t get after them for thinking you need to be calm and rational in a crisis, but in thinking you can’t express (or feel) any emotion at all when channeling except for calmness. And as Nynaeve herself says, calmness for the sake of calmness is ridiculous, and wrong if it causes you to not do all you can to save and help others. The fact men have to be emotionless when channeling is not the same, since a) although it’s required in order to channel, it’s never stated by anyone (even Asmodean) that you must feel absolutely nothing or display no emotion when channeling b) it’s quite clear throughout the series that despite the Void being how they channel saidin, men should not be emotionless any more than the women should–look at how much trouble Rand gets into thanks to being detached from his emotions, and how he changes from telling the Asha’man they’re just weapons to reminding them they are men and should act as such, and c) Rand’s specific issue with becoming hard rather than strong. All of this tells me the use of emotion when channeling is not a clear-cut issue, and that as much as calmness is necessary and beneficial when doing so, still feeling and expressing your emotions is required if you are to remain human.
@40 AndrewHB: No, I wasn’t saying what you were. And that is a very interesting theory! It’s certainly plausible that the Dragon could have been a wolfbrother before, this could also explain why the wolves recognize Rand as a special figure when Perrin tells them of him. However, it’s also very clear that channeling is essential in facing down the Shadow’s minions and winning the Last Battle (if nothing else, it’s required to seal the Bore) which tells me that even if not every Age has a Dragon and two companions, in ones where the Dragon is a wolfbrother he has to have at least one other companion to be the necessary channeler. Interesting to speculate how often the Perrin figure was the channeler, and how often the Mat figure was.
Also, interesting info from Wetlander @42!
As per the “trace” on the coins Moiraine grave Rand, Mat and Perrin, I had always assumed that she had placed some sort of intricate weave on the coins. Seeing as Aes Sedai can sense when the Saidar has been/is being channeled, perhaps she could sense the weave as well?
This Nynaeve chapter actually has a few great Nynaeve/Lan lines that on rereading make it quite clear to me that the conversation between them at the end of the book is *not* just out of the blue, and that there was a build up towards their romance. I was completely blindsided by that on my first read through – after all, a lot of it is through Rand’s perspective and he is utterly clueless. But knowing what to look for there were definite hints of it in this chapter –
“Lan would be better by himself – a Warder should be able to handle what was needed, she told herself hastily, feeling a sudden flush; no other reason” – so awesome