*Spoilers* AMoL Ending Theory Discussion

[Morrighan Daghdera]

There was an entire thread devoted to Nakomi in the 13 forum, but I don't see that it made the great board migration. Feel free to start another thread on the topic unless you find that elusive thread.

 

[Ealandrelle Melyma]

I seem to remember it being called something like "The woman with the gray hair"... Ah-hah, found it! Regarding who she was (generally agreed that it's Nakomi) and what she's doing there http://www.tarvalon.net/showthread.php?6400-The-woman-with-the-Gray-hair

 

[Aulrick Vendour]

At the risk of sounding repetitive, what foreshadowing? I have still only seen you mention of Fain being unique, and some various fan theories.

So go to the various theories, which have beed discussed often enough in these forums, and read them. Plenty of foreshadowing mentioned there.
You also seem to purposefully ignore Rand's wounds, the cleansing of Saidin, THE last battle prophecies, etc. as foreshadowings, though I've mentioned them several times.

RJ said Fain was unique to a fan, he didn't write it in the books. You can't say an ending doesn't fit the rest of the series based on conversations that happen outside the books.

REALLY?
Well in that case... What Rand saw in the DOless vision was indeed false. After all, the confermation that it was real came from BS to a fan's question OUT SIDE the books. We can't rely on that, now can we? :rolleyes

I'm not saying that he mispoke and Fain is not actually unique. But I am saying he didn't mean that to be a big deal that you can base the whole direction of the books on.

I'm not claiming to know what he meant, and I don't think you should take the liberty either. I only know what he said. And no matter how you look at it, it's a big deal in a universe where time is supposedly circular. It means things are different from one turning to the next, which is saying a lot.

But at the end of the day, when the theories you built yourself up to believe in over years turn out to be wrong, you need to be able to step back and judge the ending that was given without that lens in place, or you'll never be satisfied with it.

My theory was wrong. The ending still makes no sense, and is just bad writing all together in my eyes. There were many theories out there. I wouldn't mind if someone else would have gotten it right. I wouldn't mind if no one would have gotten it right, so far as the ending made some sense to me... Because this one certainly doesn't.

You put a lot of emphasis on Fain's story, and built that up to a powerful belief that this means a certain thing.

I didn't put a lot of emphasis on Fain's story. RJ did. When it saved Rand's life. When it was used to cleans Saidin. When he brought the Trollocs to the Two Rivers. When he stole the Dagger, which gave Mat the holes in his memories and all that... He was a big part of the story since book 1. I didn't put a lot of emphasis on him, RJ did.

Other people put their emphasis on other things (all of which have already been discussed). I'm not saying either of us was right or wrong to do so at the time, that's the fun of theorizing. But when what you speculated is wrong, you have to accept that you were never meant to emphasize those particular points, that wasn't what the story was building to.

And again, that's fine, except there were NO points prior to this last book that had anything to do with the importance of choice and all that crap, nor of the DO's importance in a choice between good and evil. He was always a force to bring the pattern out of balance, all throughout the books. There were no points emphasizing otherwise. At least not that I remember, but since I keep saying it and nobody disagrees with me or bringing points from the books (since there aren't any) I tend to assume I'm right. Do you understand my problem? I don't mind saying my theory was right. I'm just saying that the last book suddenly gave us new information that we had no way of knowing, guessing, theorize on, etc. This new information made it so instead of understanding the information we already had, we have to start making up excuses why all the information we had was wrong and the new information is right. That's no good writing. Suddenly the BWB isn't a good source because blah blah blah. Suddenly the DO doesn't disrupt the balance, he only does so if he's actually touching the pattern, at all other times he's actually essential to the balance. Suddenly the DO is giving people choice, despite the fact that he took it from theme during the series...

You get my meaning. This ending is detached from the rest of the series. It's not "impossible" that the ending is correct. It's simply detached. It's got nothing to do with the rest of the books, and that has nothing to do with one theory or another. It's just detached. There was no foreshadowing, no way for anyone to think of the ending, anti-climatic, etc. Just bad writing.

 

[Morrighan Daghdera]

I seem to remember it being called something like "The woman with the gray hair"... Ah-hah, found it! Regarding who she was (generally agreed that it's Nakomi) and what she's doing there http://www.tarvalon.net/showthread.php?6400-The-woman-with-the-Gray-hair

Ah, I see. I was thinking of a completely different thread from the previous board. Since the "woman with the gray hair" in 14 very well may NOT be Nakomi from 13, I still wouldn't mind another thread, preferably in the 13 forum though.

 

[MuKen]

So go to the various theories, which have beed discussed often enough in these forums, and read them. Plenty of foreshadowing mentioned there.
You also seem to purposefully ignore Rand's wounds, the cleansing of Saidin, THE last battle prophecies, etc. as foreshadowings, though I've mentioned them several times.

Because you don't specify, even now, how any of them indicate a unique turning. What prophecy, what does it say, and why does that foreshadow a unique turning? How do the wounds foreshadow a unique ending? The cleansing? None of these do so unless you put them together with what RJ said about Fain. And that (as I've pointed out multiply) is entirely outside of his writing. You cannot call what he says on the spur of the moment while conversing with fans foreshadowing, and you CERTAINLY cannot call it "bad writing" if what he says in such a situation misleads you as to the final ending of the series. It remains that a reader who just reads the books and does not follow interviews has never been given any indication or foreshadowing that this turn of the wheel is unique.

REALLY?
Well in that case... What Rand saw in the DOless vision was indeed false. After all, the confermation that it was real came from BS to a fan's question OUT SIDE the books. We can't rely on that, now can we? :rolleyes

Seriously? To me at least, the difference here is pretty obvious and I think you're being intentionally obtuse. If the conversation is "what are the facts of the in-book universe?" then everything the author says in any context is valid, because his word is the final word. If the conversation is "did the author mislead us with his foreshadowing?" then nothing the author says outside of his books is valid. You cannot hold an author to task for not storyboarding and critically analyzing whether the information he gives out in his spur-of-the-moment answers to fan questions will lead them to cross-reference and come up with conclusions that somehow hurt the flow of his story.

I didn't put a lot of emphasis on Fain's story. RJ did. When it saved Rand's life. When it was used to cleans Saidin. When he brought the Trollocs to the Two Rivers. When he stole the Dagger, which gave Mat the holes in his memories and all that... He was a big part of the story since book 1. I didn't put a lot of emphasis on him, RJ did.

Entirely perpendicular to this conversation. None of that in any way indicates that this turning would be different. I'm saying RJ did not emphasize Fain's story being unique to this turning. And he didn't, he wouldn't have even told us that if someone didn't ask.

You get my meaning. This ending is detached from the rest of the series. It's not "impossible" that the ending is correct. It's simply detached. It's got nothing to do with the rest of the books, and that has nothing to do with one theory or another. It's just detached. There was no foreshadowing, no way for anyone to think of the ending, anti-climatic, etc. Just bad writing.

And like I said, it is easy to criticize the negatives of one thing when you don't take responsibility for showing how the alternatives would be better. What you suggest would be far less connected to the rest of the books, all of the foreshadowing you give for it is rooted in information which was given outside of the book. You think it would be good writing to foreshadow things by giving the single most important connecting clue in an interview that 99% of your readers will never see? No, that's a terrible way to foreshadow anything. The ending we got was, in my and several others' opinion, one of the best we could have got for where the series has taken us.

Now if you want to talk about the how the lack of followup and resolution for the dozens of side-stories he had going was a let down, then I'd be 100% with you on that....

 

[Jaryd Kosari]

Actually, there is one bit of specific foreshadowing that indicates that this is NOT the final turn. When Moridin is playing with the fisherking playing piece for the game Sha'rah (I think I spelled it right) and it looks just like Rand. He even mentioned that it seemed likely it was a memory of a memory of the Dragon Reborn from the last turning of the Wheel. So if you're using Rand's wounds as a reason why you thought this was the last turn...you're wrong.

 

[Aulrick Vendour]

MuKen - the more you try and use big words like "perpendicular," the more you lose your point.

I won't start quoting you because this is getting tiresome and repititive. If you want to know the foreshadowing about this turn being different, read the theories in other threads. The book 13 are a good place, since most theories came before the last book came out.

As for RJ's word - that's absurd. First of all, the fact that you say you can't compare what the authors said in two similar situations because the topic was different is just false. There is no reason to assume one is a "spur of the moment" thing and the other is not. Secondly - Fain being unique to this turning is very much a rule of the universe he created, because it tells us there are things that are unique and do not repeat, and as I've said before this tells us two thing: it tells us that there are exceptions to the circular time and it tells us there is a chance for things to change.

Also - this is anoher fine example of why the ending blows. Instead of letting us understand the information we already had, we start making excuses why what RJ said to a fan in one place is ok, but in another place it's not... Had the ending made sense, EVERYTHING RJ said, in the books and out, would make sense and we wouldn't need "Ah, but in THAT case he was blah blah blah, and in the other he was another blah blah blah." You jusr prooved mu point for me on that, thank you.

I also don't at all accept your premiss that we shouldn't take RJ at his word when he tells something to fans. This is a man who wrote a very long series for many years, with a lot of detail. He's not exactly the type of person to say such things on the spur of the moment, so far as I can say. Gave plenty of information out side the books, and I never heard someone say "yeah, you can't take what he said." That's a silly idea.

As for how it connects - if Fain is unique it means the cleamsing of Saidin is unique, because without him Saidin would not be cleansed, which indicates (though not for cirtain) that it wouldn't be tainted to begin with (unless we assume that the dragon can win while using tainted saidin, and the taint will disappear once the DO is sealed again, etc., which we have no reason to do).
This already indicates a huge change in this turning which was a HUGE part of the story. So yes, I think it matters a lot.

As for emphasizing it - what does that mean? Did you see RJ "emphasize" ANYTHING more then other thing? Because I can't say I remember that. You know what he didn't emphasize for sure? What was never even mentioned? The DO and freedom of choice between good and evil. I can't remember the choice was mentioned AT ALL as a plot point. How's that for a nipple twist?

As for the ending - I think I gave plenty of inbook foreshadowing during this thread, and on other threads. I'm not going to start repeating it all because you falsly claim I didn't.
Further more - I can critisize the ending as much as I like. I do not need your condecending permission, nor am I a writer, and am in no way required to give alternate endings to show the flaws in this one. When have you ever seen critics required to come up with alternatives to the things they critic? That's stupid. I think the ending was bad, and could have been better. Plenty of offers out there. Pick one, what does it matter?
If you want suggestions for better endings, go to the book 13 forums and look them up. I'm done with you. You turned this conversation into a personal attack against me, and with that I have one more thing to say to you. Go read the book 13 forums if you want foreshadowing answers.

 

[Morrighan Daghdera]

Mod Note: Refrain from personal attacks. If you need clarification, PM me. I'm not sending out PM's to individuals at this point, but if the problem persists; I will. Thank you.

 

[MuKen]

Wow, first let me apologize if anything I have said has amounted to a personal insult. The conversation has gotten heated as we both obviously believe what we are saying very strongly, but I didn't think it had reached that point, and I didn't intend to make it so.

MuKen - the more you try and use big words like "perpendicular," the more you lose your point.

I am not using "big words" to try to make a point. "Perpendicular" is not a word anybody is going to have to run to the dictionary to understand. I am simply trying to keep lengthy posts as brief as possible, and saying that was "perpendicular" was a lot shorter than saying "this series of arguments regards a point that neither supports nor refutes what I am saying and so does not need a response."

As for RJ's word - that's absurd. First of all, the fact that you say you can't compare what the authors said in two similar situations

I never said there were two different circumstances where RJ said something and one should be listened to and one not. We are talking about ONE particular circumstance, and I am saying you can take his words for one kind of purpose but not another. If we are arguing about the facts of the in-universe story, then we have to take what he said at face value, obviously. But if you are arguing that he is guilty of bad writing because of what he said there, that is completely invalid. What he says to fans is not part of his writing.

As for how it connects - if Fain is unique it means the cleamsing of Saidin is unique, because without him Saidin would not be cleansed, which indicates (though not for cirtain) that it wouldn't be tainted to begin with (unless we assume that the dragon can win while using tainted saidin, and the taint will disappear once the DO is sealed again, etc., which we have no reason to do).

See, you just backed up exactly what I said. Every single foreshadowing you have relies on the fact that Fain is unique. Since the books don't tell us that, you cannot say the books foreshadow this. So it is wrong to say that the ending contradicts what the rest of the books foreshadow.

A reader who just read the books and did not follow interviews would not have seen anything that hints at this turning being unique, so you cannot say the books have foreshadowed that.

Did you see RJ "emphasize" ANYTHING more then other thing? Because I can't say I remember that.

I didn't put a lot of emphasis on Fain's story. RJ did.

What exactly have we been discussing for these past few posts then?

When have you ever seen critics required to come up with alternatives to the things they critic? That's stupid. I think the ending was bad, and could have been better. Plenty of offers out there. Pick one, what does it matter?

Critics don't need to show alternatives because nobody is disputing that they exist. If a professional film critic said a movie is "dry" and you did ask "can you give me an example of a good movie that isn't dry?" I guarantee you that he could rattle off a dozen on the spot and defend his decisions.

You are not criticizing WoT as a whole, you are criticizing specifically this ending in relation to this series, and I am disputing whether or not there are endings that meet your criteria. So you have to demonstrate that there exists some reasonable ending which doesn't have the limitations you denounce. It is meaningless to say something is 'bad' if it is not worse than its alternatives, there is no 'bad' unless something else is 'better' (exactly what the series itself has been telling us).

It's like if someone said it's a stupid system that they have to wait in line to get onto a rollercoaster because waiting sucks. Then they refuse to acknowledge that when lots of people are trying to get in, people are going to have to wait and there is no system that avoids that. You can't call it a bad system for making you wait if there's no system that doesn't make you wait.

 

[Aulrick Vendour]

"Perpendicular" is not a word anybody is going to have to run to the dictionary to understand.

You're wrongly assuming that everyone here are native English speakers, which they're not. I, for example, am from Israel, and while my English is better then many Americans, I have no idea what "Perpendicular" means.

I am saying you can take his words for one kind of purpose but not another. If we are arguing about the facts of the in-universe story, then we have to take what he said at face value, obviously. But if you are arguing that he is guilty of bad writing because of what he said there, that is completely invalid. What he says to fans is not part of his writing.

No, I'm saying the ending is written badly, and I base this on many things, Fain included. I'm honestly not sure what you're trying to gain by arguing this point. RJ was very clear regarding Fain's uniqueness. Further more, I say again, it has everything to do with the facts of the universe, a point you seemed to ignore completely. And lastly - I disagree with your premise. I see no reason not to hold RJ accountable for things he said. We're not talking about some random conversation, these are serious Q&As, and even if they weren't - it's his world. I expect him to give serious answers.
So yes, when RJ said Fain is unique to this turning, I take it to mean just what it means. How important it is depends on your point of view, I agree, but there are some things I doubt anyone can question. For example, that if Fain is unique, it means that there are exceptions to the wheel's circular time. It means things can change. It also tells us a lot about the whole taint on Saidin issue, as I've explained before, but you seem to ignore my explanations when they don't suit you.

Every single foreshadowing you have relies on the fact that Fain is unique.

Fain IS unique.

Since the books don't tell us that, you cannot say the books foreshadow this. So it is wrong to say that the ending contradicts what the rest of the books foreshadow.

The books never told us what Rand saw in his DOless vision was true either, We were told that by BS as an asnwer to a fan's question at a book signing. It has nothing to do with the universe's rules, so from this moment on, I assume it's wrong.

Does that make sense to you? Didn't think so.
The authors are just as credible source of information as the books themselves.

A reader who just read the books and did not follow interviews would not have seen anything that hints at this turning being unique, so you cannot say the books have foreshadowed that.

A reader who just read the books without the final few chapters would also not have seen the DO as the source of all evil, since it was never foreshadowed or managed or anything of the sort. The books haven't foreshadowed that either, which is my problem exactly.

What exactly have we been discussing for these past few posts then?

We've been discussing (A) the fact that RJ is a credible source of information regarding his own books, regardless of the context in which this information is delivered, and (B) that importance and emphasis aren't the same thing. Fain was very important in the books. That doesn't mean he was somehow emphasized specifically by the author. That's exactly what interviews and Q&As are for.

Critics don't need to show alternatives because nobody is disputing that they exist.

Are you saying that you disagree any other ending is possible at all? Because, again, you need only look at the book 13 forums to see an abundance of suggestions, theories, etc., all of which were more then possible, with the only change needed done is the DO NOT being the SOURCE of evil. I can think of at least one better ending even with that, though I admit that "better" is a subjective term in this case.

You are not criticizing WoT as a whole, you are criticizing specifically this ending in relation to this series, and I am disputing whether or not there are endings that meet your criteria.

There are several that would do. As I've said, even if the DO survived I'd have been alright with that. The only, ONLY thing that really bothers me is the DO as the source of evil and thus required for a choice between good and evil, which makes no sense. The rest is fine by me.

So you have to demonstrate that there exists some reasonable ending which doesn't have the limitations you denounce.

And, as I said, go look in the book 13 forums if you want to see some.

It is meaningless to say something is 'bad' if it is not worse than its alternatives

I already said, like 4 times, why this is meaningless (since there are many alternatives offered) but even if non were available, I still disagree with that statement. I can easily say something is bad without offering an alternative. Just because there isn't anything better at hand right now doesn't mean something is good.

But just for you, here's an ending which someone offered on the book 13 forums a while back, which I think is better AND doesn't even require one to change the DO as the source of evil thing: Fain reaches SG and Rand seals both him and the DO away outside of the pattern. This makes them fight for all eternity, thus insuring on the one hand that the DO continues to exist, thus the silly choice thing remains as it is, and on the other hand he can no longer attempt to touch the pattern (seeing as he's busy fighting and all that), thus the pattern remains balanced without the DO's influence for ever.
I'd have LOVED to see this ending (would have liked the DO being killed more, but like I said, I'm fine with many other endings too). It would have given us a fitting ending for the Fain issue, would show us how things can change without really changing, the circular time would have been maintained but the DO would stop influencing the pattern, etc. etc.

Good enough as an example for you?

 

[Morrighan Daghdera]

Wow, first let me apologize if anything I have said has amounted to a personal insult. The conversation has gotten heated as we both obviously believe what we are saying very strongly, but I didn't think it had reached that point, and I didn't intend to make it so.

If it hadn't reached that point, then I wouldn't have bothered to post a friendly reminder regarding personal attacks...oblique (not expressed or done in a direct way) or otherwise, I might add. Again, if you have any questions you'd like for me to answer, then PM me. If you disagree with my mod style entirely, feel free to contact moderators@tarvalon.net and discuss the situation with my boss, Karassa. Thank you.

 

[MuKen]

If it hadn't reached that point, then I wouldn't have bothered to post a friendly reminder regarding personal attacks...oblique (not expressed or done in a direct way) or otherwise, I might add. Again, if you have any questions you'd like for me to answer, then PM me. If you disagree with my mod style entirely, feel free to contact moderators@tarvalon.net and discuss the situation with my boss, Karassa. Thank you.

To clarify, my post was intended to be an apology to Aulrick for any insults my previous posts may have conveyed to him; I didn't mean it as a reply to you or to refute your intervention in the thread. I'm sorry if it appeared that way, I have no issues with your mod style and will gladly comply.

You're wrongly assuming that everyone here are native English speakers, which they're not. I, for example, am from Israel, and while my English is better then many Americans, I have no idea what "Perpendicular" means.

Understood, and on the same note I reiterate that I didn't intentionally choose a word you don't know to try to inflate my arguments, I have no idea which words are unknown until you tell me. "Perpendicular" is used in geometry to describe two directions that are at a right angle. I was making an analogy to discussion by saying that the line of conversation we were taking there is at a "right angle" to our discussion, whether or not it is true does not either support or undermine either of our positions and therefore it doesn't need to be discussed.

(A) the fact that RJ is a credible source of information regarding his own books, regardless of the context in which this information is delivered, and

I think you are misunderstanding what I am saying. I am NOT refuting that; I agree that he is a credible source, and I agree that Fain is unique.

Where I disagree is you saying that his writing foreshadows a unique cycle. Could a unique Fain logically be part of a story of a unique cycle? Yes, I agree with you there. But since his WRITING didn't tell us Fain is unique, then you can't say the books foreshadowed any of the things you can infer from knowing that. Telling 0.01% of your readers this fact in an interview does not equate to foreshadowing. If he told us in the books that Fain was unique, I would agree with you, because now he's telling it to all of his readers. But telling it to the tiny, tiny portion of readers that follow his interviews because a fan asked him? No, that is not foreshadowing.

(B) that importance and emphasis aren't the same thing. Fain was very important in the books. That doesn't mean he was somehow emphasized specifically by the author. That's exactly what interviews and Q&As are for.

I am saying that if he DIDN'T emphasize it, which you seem to be agreeing with now by saying he doesn't emphasize anything, then how can you say he used that to foreshadow anything?

Are you saying that you disagree any other ending is possible at all? Because, again, you need only look at the book 13 forums to see an abundance of suggestions, theories, etc., all of which were more then possible, with the only change needed done is the DO NOT being the SOURCE of evil. I can think of at least one better ending even with that, though I admit that "better" is a subjective term in this case.

Not at all, this isn't about what is possible, or even really about what is a "good" ending. If all you said was "I just feel that this is a bad ending", i'd just chalk it up to different opinions between different people. It's about your reasoning of saying this ending is disconnected. I think it is fairly well connected, and I am saying I don't think any of those endings is more connected than this one. As an example, the one you've been pushing most generally is only connected if you use a crucial piece of evidence that is not in the books. That makes it hugely DISconnected from the rest of the books.

But just for you, here's an ending which someone offered on the book 13 forums a while back, which I think is better AND doesn't even require one to change the DO as the source of evil thing: Fain reaches SG and Rand seals both him and the DO away outside of the pattern.

1) Don't some of your criticisms apply to this ending as well? You've been arguing that it doesn't make sense for the DO to be required for balance. Why do those criticisms only apply to the ending we got?

2) I would like this ending equally, but I think it is less connected. It basically contradicts the entire foundation of the wheel if something as significant as the DO's touch can be different in the next turn. But as I said, I like it equally because I am not as concerned with the ending being as fully "connected" to everything as you are, as long as it connects to enough things. That's your criticism against the ending we got, which I am questioning because every alternative we see seems even less connected to the themes of the book.

 

[Eluial Aldaran]

Kind of hovering at the edges of this for the time being, but wanted to jump in with this:

First, while Fain is unique (and I honestly see no reason to doubt RJ's word on this), Aridhol and its subsequent fall and becoming Shadar Logoth is not (or at least, we have 0 reason to believe it so, and I vaguely remember reading something that confirmed that though I can't say where). Mordeth, the corrupt adviser, is not unique, either. So the evil that pervades Shadar Logoth, which stems from Mordeth, is not unique, meaning that cleansing the source is not unique.

RJ was known to choose his words very, very carefully when answering questions -- people often commented that he liked to give "AesSedai answers," meaning he didn't lie, but the truth you thought you heard was not necessarily the Truth. So when RJ says FAIN is unique, we should take him at his word. The creature that Padan Fain becomes is unique -- a creature of both the hatred and greed of Shadar Logoth, and a darkfriend, touched directly by the DO. But Fain's uniqueness implies nothing about Shadar Logoth itself or the cleansing of the source.

 

[MuKen]

Again, nobody is saying he is not unique. We all agree that he is unique.

My point is that you cannot criticize the writing of the books as being disconnected if the ending doesn't follow from the themes presented from him being unique, since we did not learn that from the books. If you want to say his ending is disconnected from his interviews, then sure.

But I would not say that is a reason to call it a bad ending. Authors are not required to make sure that themes from things they say in interviews fall in line with their writing. How can we reasonably require such a thing when they are given no time to storyboard their answers? Maybe in hindsight, he should have just said RAFO to that like he does so much other stuff, but you cannot blame him for not thinking to do so.

 

[Eluial Aldaran]

Again, nobody is saying he is not unique. We all agree that he is unique.

My point is that you cannot criticize the writing of the books as being disconnected if the ending isn't based on something that follows from him being unique, since we did not learn that from the books. If you want to say his ending is disconnected from his interviews, then sure. But I would not say that is a reason to call it a bad ending, authors are not required to make sure that themes from things they say to fans all fall in line with their writing. How can we reasonably require such a thing when they are given no time to storyboard their answers?

Ehhh, I kind of see your point. Well, to preface this, I *don't* think the ending was disconnected, even taking Fain's uniqueness into account.

BUT. Well, I don't believe it was an offhand comment or anything. Even though it wasn't said explicitly in the books "Fain is unique" I think it was built in as part of the story and meant to play a role in what happened. I think in this particular case, using "foreshadowing" in a much broader sense of the word makes sense, even if I ultimately disagree with Aulrick's conclusions.

The reason I can hold this two seemingly contradictory views -- that Fain's uniqueness was part of the story but I'm satisfied with how things played out regarding him -- is that I think it fits in with the whole the-world-is-a-wheel thing. If Fain is indeed unique (which we're all agreed on), then he CANNOT have an important role, because the big picture needs to play out the same as it always has, even if the minor details get fudged a little. Fain having a major role in this version of this age would have caused major imbalance in the pattern and been way off course.

 

[Aulrick Vendour]

My critisism IS valid for the ending I gave you as well, as I stated when I wrote it. I chose it to show that an less disconnected ending COULD have been writen using the same "DO=choice" thing. I still think it makes no sense, but I gave it as an example BECAUSE of it, not despite of it.

As for the emphasis on things - it doesn't matter. RJ didn't emphasis anything in the books, ever. He still foreshadowed A LOT. My point is something doesn't have to be emphasized in order for it to be foreshadowing.
Further more - it doesn't matter where he said Fain was unique. The way to show his importance would have been to use him in an important way, not to kill him in a back hand motion at the end. If Fain would have been used in a special way, everyone would have agreed that, looking back, it was highly foreshadowed. People still say it, even without him being used.
The choice ending however... In all the discussions here, I have yet to hear a single person showing a single foreshadowing of it prior to AMoL. One person mentioned to me, outside the forums, that the 13 method to transfer people to the shadow was described as changing something in them, behind the eyes, similar to what Rand saw in Elayn in his vision. However, since that happened in the same book, I hardly consider it foreshadowing (though I agree that it gives a little more to the choice ending, I would have wanted to see it far sooner in the series, otherwise there's no point. Also it's the only clue we got).
You're saying the ending isn't detached from the rest of the series? Fine. There are 14 books in the series. Please collect and show me all the foreshadowing regarding (A) a choice between good and evil (note: the fact that people made choices in the series IS NOT foreshadowing of choice. That happens in every series/TV show/movie etc.) and (B) that the DO is somehow responsible for evil, as a concept, in the world of the Wheel of Time.
The ONLY restriction I'll have on this is that it has to be from book 13 backwards. I want to see what in the series showed me choice was important, and that the DO is somehow responsible for it or the concept of evil or whatever.

It's also important to clear out a few things: I had SEVERAL problems with the ending, but after much debate we've managed to strip them down to two major factors. The first is the ending's detachment from the rest of the series (unless you manage to show me differently). The second is the anti-climax. Fain and other foreshadowings from the series that ended up being wasted are from the second part, not the first. The first is based solely on the fact that the ending had nothing to do with the rest of the series and contradicted information we had from the BWB, which we had no previous reason to question other then the fact it was written as if from the PoV of someone in the WoT series.
Most of what you're telling me is getting confused because I'm not sure which part you're reffering to. You're talking about Fain, which belongs to the anti-climax part, as if he's the reason I think the ending is detached, which is not my reasoning at all.
I hope this last part cleared things up so we can keep this debate going.

Eluial - Fascinating. I never thought of that... Doesn't really solve my problem about Fain and the anti-climax, because if we all agree he is unique, then I still say he was wasted both as a character which was important to the series AND a waste of foreshadowing which was very successfuly used in the past in at least two cases, including Rand's wounds and the cleansing of Saidin. I agree with you however that this tells us nothing about the cleansing of Saidin in the previous cycles, and will concede the point.

 

[Maibella ni Rhoiden t'al'Varrak]

I seem to remember it being called something like "The woman with the gray hair"... Ah-hah, found it! Regarding who she was (generally agreed that it's Nakomi) and what she's doing there http://www.tarvalon.net/showthread.php?6400-The-woman-with-the-Gray-hair

Thank you so much! That's exactly what I was looking for.

 

[Ealandrelle Melyma]

Thank you so much! That's exactly what I was looking for.

Glad I could help As goodness knows the rest of the discussion being waged in this thread makes my head hurt :rofl

 

[Aulrick Vendour]

As goodness knows the rest of the discussion being waged in this thread makes my head hurt :rofl

Goodness also knows the wicked's life are lonely and that the wicked die alone.

 

[Ealandrelle Melyma]

Goodness also knows the wicked's life are lonely and that the wicked die alone.

Hey, I'd rather be Elphaba than Galinda any day :P