PDA

View Full Version : The Dark One's Pla


Nery
03-11-2014, 10:27 AM
So I just finished AMoL. What was the Dark Ones plan? I thought it would be, as Moridin thought, oblivion, but it wasn't. Was it conquest? remarking the Pattern?

mogi67
03-11-2014, 10:28 AM
His plan was to fuck shit up

Rand al'Fain
03-11-2014, 11:21 AM
To take away the balance of light and dark and all free will. To enable chaos instead of order.

Basically, he wanted things to continue how they were before Rand had his epiphany and stopped being the "Lord of Chaos".

Res_Ipsa
03-14-2014, 02:08 AM
I think the light cannot consume the shadow, but the shadow can consume the light. After all, how do we know what is good without evil? Therefore, the light's objective would be to re-balance the equation, and the shadow's objective would be to destroy that balance. I think that was demonstrated by Rand's attempts to create an ideal world, and was unable to do so.

GonzoTheGreat
03-14-2014, 05:11 AM
I think the light cannot consume the shadow, but the shadow can consume the light. After all, how do we know what is good without evil?
Why would we have to know?

I find the idea that good can not exist unless there is at least a matching evil to be rather defeatist. I do not think it would be bad if everything and everyone was "good" and evil had no existence at all. True, one wouldn't notice goodness then, unless perhaps someone came up with the idea of testing for it. Just as for a very long time humans did not notice air pressure, simply because (to them) it was so ubiquitous that it was habitually overlooked. Would it be bad if being good was so normal that it was overlooked too, rather than (as is now the case) being so rare that it stands out like a sore thumb when it occasionally happens?

fdsaf3
03-14-2014, 12:13 PM
It feels like I'm responding far too often to these specious posts of yours, Gonzo, but what you're saying does not make sense.

You are somehow trying to equate a system where evil as a concept does not exist with a system where the capacity for detecting evil (or, in your example, air pressure) did not exist for a very long time.

The difference (which is obvious) is that in the first system, air pressure/evil is axiomatically determined not to exist. In the second, air pressure/evil always existed, but it took a long time for people to figure out that it did and to develop a way to identify it. If you can't see the obvious disconnect between those two, I can't help you.

GonzoTheGreat
03-14-2014, 12:56 PM
Air pressure did exist and it could have been detected, but no one thought of doing so because it was so obvious that it was overlooked.
And you misunderstand what I'm trying to do with my comparison, I think. Or I failed to make it clear, which is of course also possible (in theory).

I did mean a situation where evil just does not exist. Good would still exist. My question then is whether good would be noticed and if not whether that would mean that the situation was impossible. I think that it wouldn't be noticed (just as air pressure wasn't noticed until someone started asking the right question) but that would not prove that it was impossible.

In the simulation (or whatever it was) that Rand made, evil did not exist and everyone was good, but no one noticed that because no one knew what to look for. But that does not mean that therefor it was not possible; it just was not something that Rand (who hadn't been subjected to his own treatment) wanted to happen.

Seeker
03-14-2014, 01:44 PM
Guys, good and evil are concepts. They aren't substances. Therefore they cannot be "removed" in the way that RJ describes in Rand's visions. It's nonsense.

Let me give you an analogy.

Imagine a world just like ours, where there are people but no tall people.

Well, first what does that mean? How tall does someone have to be to be considered a tall person? The first problem is fixing a baseline for the definition, but let's say we managed to do that.

Average height for a man is about 5'9" so in this hypothetical world, there are no human beings who are taller than 5'9". Well, all that means is that the definition of "tall" changes. Where in our world, tall (for a man) meant 5'10" 5'11", 6' etc, in this world, men who are 5'7" would be considered tall.

The same is true in the hypothetical worlds RJ created. Note that Stepford Elayne has a sense of right and wrong. "Aviendha is probably at the nursery. We have grand competitions to take care of the children there, but we understand the need to take turns."

So, not taking turns is wrong.

It's just that while in the normal world, not taking turns might be a minor squabble, here it's abhorrent. It's not that there is no evil; it's just that the concept of evil has changed.


Here's another example. You know those Star Trek episodes where someone from the future travels back to present day Earth? Whether you've seen them or not really doesn't matter for the purpose of this discussion. The point is that inevitably, Captain Kirk or Spock or Picard takes one look around, sees one homeless person and says "I can't believe anyone ever lived like this. It's obscene!"

Because in their future, they've eliminated poverty. So, the very concept of poverty is disgusting. Most people in today's society, however, see it as a sad reality that can't be changed. It's just "the way things are." Some people even go so far as to think the poor deserve to be poor.

Here's another example. We think slavery is abhorrent, disgusting evil.

160 years ago, most people thought it was just "the way things were." It was an accepted reality.

The concept of evil changes but evil is never really removed.

This is why it was a kind of lackluster ending. I mean, these are problems that we worked through in high school philosophy class. They're not exactly what I would consider deep.

Hugh the Hand
03-14-2014, 04:41 PM
Evil is a concept and changes with the society. I hope we can all agree on that.

So in Rand's reality/fantasy he took away the evil he knew, the DO. When he did that, the curiosity, the drive to change, the "spirit" of the people also went away. Why? Because the author wanted it to? Because that spirit was connected to choice? (trying to avoid the Matrix thoughts) Or many other reasons.

My thought is that sometimes you need disorder, or evil, or whatever the DO is in order to have a reason to do something. War is a terrible thing, but look at the many advances that came about due to the NEED in war. IE the Atomic Energy, sonar, and many many other examples.

Plus we need to look at Rand's own limitations on his concept of good and evil. He may have taken more then he intended from the people in his reality.

Seeker
03-14-2014, 05:43 PM
Evil is a concept and changes with the society. I hope we can all agree on that.

So in Rand's reality/fantasy he took away the evil he knew, the DO.

Right, but here's what I'm trying to convey. If you acknowledge that evil is a concept, then you can't take evil away. Anymore than you can take subtraction away.

When he did that, the curiosity, the drive to change, the "spirit" of the people also went away. Why? Because the author wanted it to? Because that spirit was connected to choice? (trying to avoid the Matrix thoughts) Or many other reasons.


We've already had this discussion. The Dark One is not the source of choice or free will. It's in the Nature of Evil thread. Killing the Dark One does not remove people's ability to choose. It merely changes the list options they have to choose from.

Now, I guess RJ could be trying to say that humans need something to struggle against if they're going to have things like curiosity and drive and spirit. There's some truth in that, but it sort of calls into question what the Dark One is.

y thought is that sometimes you need disorder, or evil, or whatever the DO is in order to have a reason to do something. War is a terrible thing, but look at the many advances that came about due to the NEED in war. IE the Atomic Energy, sonar, and many many other examples.

Yeah, I've always hated that argument because it's incredibly short-sighed and inaccurate. Far, FAR more technology has been developed in times of peace. The implication is that war was necessary to develop atomic energy. Atomic energy would have happened anyway.

Now, yes, technology exists to solve problems; so, it therefore follows that if there are no problems, there is also no technology, but again, how do you create a world without problems? Problems, like evil, are concepts. They aren't things. "Problem" is actually a category and whether an event fits into that category depends very much on the person you ask.

The universe as it is right now is already a universe without problems. The universe does not care that the polar ice caps are melting. Nor does the Earth for that matter. It's only a problem from the human perspective. From a cosmic perspective, the only thing that humans are doing are taking pieces of matter and rearranging them into other configurations. A power plant is as natural as a pine tree from the cosmic perspective.

So, what is the Dark One?

You see, I have trouble wrapping my mind around the idea that you can point to a single thing - no matter how cosmic - and say "that's where all the problems come from." Humans can't conceptualize a world without problems because "problem" basically means "any situation I want to change" and humans are constantly changing things.

Let's go back to Stepford World.

Someone needs to care for the children in the nursery. Guess what! That's a problem. Problems still exist without the Dark One. Just like evil still exists without the Dark One. Just like choice still exists without the Dark One.

GonzoTheGreat
03-15-2014, 05:21 AM
Guys, good and evil are concepts. They aren't substances. Therefore they cannot be "removed" in the way that RJ describes in Rand's visions. It's nonsense.
That depends on the cosmology of the universe you're living in. To name another example: in our universe, death is a concept, not an entity. But in the Discworld universe, Death definitely is an entity, and quite an interesting one too.

In our universe, evil is a concept, not a substance nor an entity.
But in the WOT universe, it is less certain how evil should be classified. There, eliminating evil is not by definition impossible as you suggest should be the case.

Seeker
03-15-2014, 10:51 PM
What I'm trying to say is that it's impossible for any author to write about evil as a substance because no human being can conceptualize a world without evil. It's like trying to conceptualize a world without zero. What would that look like?

RJ/Brandon's attempts to portray a world without evil still had evil. RJ/Brandon's attempts to portray a world without free will still had free will.

It's not possible because these concepts are so rooted in the human psyche, we can't imagine what the world would be like without them.

Tollingtoy
03-16-2014, 08:27 AM
Since "good" and "evil" can be someone subjective concepts, maybe it should be thought of more as free will vs. slavery. That is certainly a theme that RJ weaves throughout the stories, including with the Sharans, the Seanchan, the DO of course and many others.

Rand didn't see a world where "evil" was eliminated, but a world where freedom and choice were eliminated.

Seeker
03-16-2014, 02:42 PM
But they weren't eliminated. People in Stepford world still had freedom and choice.

Tollingtoy
03-17-2014, 04:55 PM
I wouldn't say they had the full range of free will available to people in Rand's universe

Seeker
03-17-2014, 08:12 PM
Free will is not a matter of degree. You either have it or you don't. Changing the list of options that people have to choose from does not destroy their ability to choose.

You have free will, yes?

And yet you cannot choose to breathe in a vacuum. You cannot choose to fly by flapping your arms. That you are limited by the physical laws of the universe you live in does not mean you don't have free will.

If I may quote myself

More to the point, the people in Stepford Randland have plenty of free will. The whole "evil is necessary for free will" is largely considered to be philosophically invalid. And for several reasons. Let me illustrate.

Can you choose to move objects with your mind?

Can you choose to live forever?

No.

And yet you still have free will. So, now we've established something: free will does not mean infinite choice. The fact that certain courses of action are not available to you doesn't mean you've lost your free will.

A perfectly healthy man in his late twenties has the unfortunate luck to be injured in a car crash. When he wakes up in the hospital, he learns that his spine has been damaged and that he will never walk again.

Yesterday he could walk but today he can't.

Has he lost his free will?

Some of you may be tempted to say "Well, yes, he has lost SOME of his free will," but that would be a fallacy. You see, free will is not a matter of degree; you either have it or you don't.

Free will means that an object acts on its own and not as a part of a mechanized system. My fridge will turn on at roughly forty-five minute intervals because the circuitry that governs it instructs it to do so. The Earth will orbit the sun once every 365.25 days because the force of gravity keeps it locked into that pattern.

I, on the other hand, may either go upstairs and make myself a sandwich or continue typing out this paragraph. (Or any of nearly infinitely many other possibilities). So far as we can tell, there is no external force that dictates which I will choose. Outside forces may influence me but the choice is ultimately mine.

Free will means just that: the ability to make your own decisions. You either have it or you don't.

The fact that the people of "Stepford Randland" cannot choose to do evil - whatever that means - does not imply that they don't have free will any more than the fact that I can't choose to breathe in a vacuum or live to be 1000 implies that I don't have free will.

Certain options have been removed from the list of potential choices but they still have the ability to choose for themselves. Elayne chooses to take part in the babysitting competitions. Why? No doubt she finds it fun and gets a little thrill from winning.

Which means she still has wants.

She still has desires.

She still makes decisions for herself."

GonzoTheGreat
03-18-2014, 05:48 AM
You have free will, yes?
I don't know. It would depend on the actual definition of free will, and since no one can come up with a definition that both captures what they want it to encompass and withstands at least some nitpicking, all that can be said of the matter is that we may or may not have free will. Which leaves the whole rest of your post rather up in the air, unconnected to any kind of foundations.

A lot of people think they have free will. But if you look into their claims, all that means is that they wish that they have it. Often an argument from incredulity ("I can't believe that I don't have free will") is added to further bolster the wishful thinking.

Can you come up with a definition of free will that does not suffer from these problems?

Seeker
03-18-2014, 12:06 PM
Gonzo, I just gave you the definition. Not a definition, THE definition.

GonzoTheGreat
03-18-2014, 12:28 PM
Free will means that an object acts on its own and not as a part of a mechanized system. My fridge will turn on at roughly forty-five minute intervals because the circuitry that governs it instructs it to do so. The Earth will orbit the sun once every 365.25 days because the force of gravity keeps it locked into that pattern.
Is this it?

Then a pile of potatos which suddenly collapses has free will, because it isn't mechanical at all, let alone part of a mechanical system.
A human jogging in Central Park wearing headphones and listenening to music, on the other hand, does not have free will, since such a human is part of a mechanized system (legs, music player, official paths with in between them grass one isn't allowed to walk on, and so forth).

Are you sure that's the definition you want to use?
Because if you are, then any human who picks up a tool loses free will as a result of that, and I doubt that's what you believe happens. So either your definition is flawed, or free will is a lot less easy to keep than is usually suggested.

Seeker
03-18-2014, 01:31 PM
Is this it?

Then a pile of potatos which suddenly collapses has free will, because it isn't mechanical at all, let alone part of a mechanical system.

Are you fucking kidding me? Gravity, Gonzo. Gravity is a mechanical system.


A human jogging in Central Park wearing headphones and listenening to music, on the other hand, does not have free will, since such a human is part of a mechanized system (legs, music player, official paths with in between them grass one isn't allowed to walk on, and so forth).

What physical law dictated that the human would run? What physical law dictated that that she would go through the park and not around? What physical law dictated that she would listen to Katy Perry and not Billy Talent? You can't find one because there isn't one.

What you're doing Gonzo is verbal trickery.

The potatoes fell because gravity was constantly acting on the pile and the pile was never that stable to begin with. Eventually one potato nudged its neighbour under the pull of gravity and the whole thing came down.

There are no laws that we can list that can predict whether a human will run in the morning or the afternoon, whether she we'll turn right or left at the next corner, whether she will listen to pop music or country. Or whether she'll say screw it and curl up with a book instead. Stop trying to use verbal trickery.

GonzoTheGreat
03-18-2014, 02:09 PM
There are no known laws with which to make such a prediction. Are you omniscient, to know all there is to know about the universe?
If not, and I would assume you aren't, then the fact that we do not know the precise mechanics behind human thinking does not prove that such thinking is not bound by laws.

It is very human to think "I can't come up with an explanation so this has to be inexplicable", but that does not mean that such reasoning is trustworthy.
Maybe human thinking and human motivations are not as governed by the laws of nature as the falling of stacks of potatos is. Maybe they are. All we know about that is that we really can't tell which way it is. So where does that leave us in regard to free will? With ignorance. Denying your own ignorance does not reduce it.

Tollingtoy
03-18-2014, 05:50 PM
And yet you cannot choose to breathe in a vacuum. You cannot choose to fly by flapping your arms. That you are limited by the physical laws of the universe you live in does not mean you don't have free will.

If I may quote myself

More to the point, the people in Stepford Randland have plenty of free will. The whole "evil is necessary for free will" is largely considered to be philosophically invalid. And for several reasons. Let me illustrate.

Can you choose to move objects with your mind?

Can you choose to live forever?

No.

And yet you still have free will. So, now we've established something: free will does not mean infinite choice. The fact that certain courses of action are not available to you doesn't mean you've lost your free will.

A perfectly healthy man in his late twenties has the unfortunate luck to be injured in a car crash. When he wakes up in the hospital, he learns that his spine has been damaged and that he will never walk again.

Yesterday he could walk but today he can't.

Has he lost his free will?




I don't know that you can equate decisions of right and wrong, good and evil, belief or disbelief with making a sandwich or listening to music. Well, I guess you can, but it doesn't make the argument very convincing.

Since there is no absolute definition of what free will actually is, can you go on a message board and chastise people for not agreeing with the one you support?

Also, I don't remember the Dark One telling Alviarin what kind of sandwich to eat

Tollingtoy
03-18-2014, 05:52 PM
Also, couldn't someone have just as easily said that God planned for the woman to run in the park and that's why she did it? How is that any more or less measurable than saying "she decided to"?

Seeker
03-18-2014, 08:58 PM
There are no known laws with which to make such a prediction. Are you omniscient, to know all there is to know about the universe?
If not, and I would assume you aren't, then the fact that we do not know the precise mechanics behind human thinking does not prove that such thinking is not bound by laws.

It is very human to think "I can't come up with an explanation so this has to be inexplicable", but that does not mean that such reasoning is trustworthy.
Maybe human thinking and human motivations are not as governed by the laws of nature as the falling of stacks of potatos is. Maybe they are. All we know about that is that we really can't tell which way it is. So where does that leave us in regard to free will? With ignorance. Denying your own ignorance does not reduce it.

There are so many things I could say to this, but since I'm going to keep the focus to the Wheel of Time, I'll just reply as follows.

You're right, Gonzo. In theory, there could be a set of laws that govern how human beings make decisions. They would likely be so complex as to defy human understanding, but yes, it is possible that human behaviour is mechanistic and predetermined.


Which means there is no free will.

So, if there is no free will, then it can hardly be wrong for Rand to take away what people never actually had.

You see, you're screwed either way.

Either there is free will - in which case, it would still exist without the Dark One - or free will is an illusion, in which case the entire issue is irrelevant.

Seeker
03-18-2014, 09:04 PM
I don't know that you can equate decisions of right and wrong, good and evil, belief or disbelief with making a sandwich or listening to music. Well, I guess you can, but it doesn't make the argument very convincing.

Since there is no absolute definition of what free will actually is, can you go on a message board and chastise people for not agreeing with the one you support?

Also, I don't remember the Dark One telling Alviarin what kind of sandwich to eat

Yeah, I think you're a little too focused on one particular sentence and not the overall thesis of the post. I made two points.

1) Free will does not mean infinite choice.

2) The people of Stepford Land are still acting on their own, still making decisions in which the same way that the people of Normal Randland do. Yes, they cannot choose to serve the Dark One because there is no Dark One. What does that matter?

Looking just at the characters from normal Randland, if we gentle Logain, he can no longer choose to channel. Does that mean he's lost his free will?

No.

Because he can still make other choices for himself. Removing an option from the list of potential choices does not change the fact that people can choose for themselves.

GonzoTheGreat
03-19-2014, 06:14 AM
Either there is free will - in which case, it would still exist without the Dark One - or free will is an illusion, in which case the entire issue is irrelevant.
Or free will can only exist when certain external conditions are met, as a result of the interaction of natural laws which are too complicated for us ever to really understand. One of those conditions could be the existence of the DO or a DO-like entity, and if that is the case, then removing the DO would remove free will too.

An analogy for this is the way in which having a planetary atmosphere is necessary but not sufficient for being able to fly. On a planet (or planet-like body such as the Moon) without an atmosphere a sea gull can't fly. But on the Earth it can. However, even here on Earth with an atmosphere that allows sea gulls to fly pigs still can't fly, so having an atmosphere is not a guarantee for flight.
Similarly, having a DO in the background could be necessary but not sufficient for free will. Maybe the DO's influence is (part of) the medium through which free will moves, just as the wings of a bird move through the air.

Seeker
03-19-2014, 03:03 PM
Or free will can only exist when certain external conditions are met, as a result of the interaction of natural laws which are too complicated for us ever to really understand. One of those conditions could be the existence of the DO or a DO-like entity, and if that is the case, then removing the DO would remove free will too.

An analogy for this is the way in which having a planetary atmosphere is necessary but not sufficient for being able to fly. On a planet (or planet-like body such as the Moon) without an atmosphere a sea gull can't fly. But on the Earth it can. However, even here on Earth with an atmosphere that allows sea gulls to fly pigs still can't fly, so having an atmosphere is not a guarantee for flight.
Similarly, having a DO in the background could be necessary but not sufficient for free will. Maybe the DO's influence is (part of) the medium through which free will moves, just as the wings of a bird move through the air.

But I've already demonstrated to you that even without the dark one people are still nagging decisions for themselves and what is free will if not the ability to make decisions for yourself?

GonzoTheGreat
03-20-2014, 05:15 AM
But I've already demonstrated to you that even without the dark one people are still nagging decisions for themselves and what is free will if not the ability to make decisions for yourself?
I don't know what free will is.
Every time I think I know I come up with ways of shooting down that definition myself, so that I do not have to embarrass myself by having others shoot it down. You might consider taking that same approach.

In your definition of free will, what is the cause of the decisions?
-If they are based on external influences, then that's no different than the falling potatos thing.
-If they are based on internal influences, then it's just a somewhat more complicated potato scenario, as those internal influences originate outside too (with the parents of the human making the decision, if those influences weren't added after conception).
-If there are no influences at all, then it is just random.

So free will is either based on external influences, or it is random action, or it is a combination of those.

The real problem is that free will is a paradox, it is simply not logical. It is a very useful concept, but not one that can be used with the rigor we need in this discussion. Doesn't stop us arguing about it, of course, but we should keep in mind that what we say has only limited accuracy.

Seeker
03-20-2014, 02:25 PM
I don't know what free will is.
Every time I think I know I come up with ways of shooting down that definition myself, so that I do not have to embarrass myself by having others shoot it down. You might consider taking that same approach.

In your definition of free will, what is the cause of the decisions?
-If they are based on external influences, then that's no different than the falling potatos thing.
-If they are based on internal influences, then it's just a somewhat more complicated potato scenario, as those internal influences originate outside too (with the parents of the human making the decision, if those influences weren't added after conception).
-If there are no influences at all, then it is just random.

So free will is either based on external influences, or it is random action, or it is a combination of those.

The real problem is that free will is a paradox, it is simply not logical. It is a very useful concept, but not one that can be used with the rigor we need in this discussion. Doesn't stop us arguing about it, of course, but we should keep in mind that what we say has only limited accuracy.

Gonzo, you're REALLY over thinking this.

You're looking for some kind of universal definition of free will so that we can distinguish the things that have it from the things that don't. But remember that free will, like evil, is a human concept. The human mind has a tendency to group objects into one of two categories: things that act on their own and things that do not. There is a cup on my desk right now. Excluding events like natural disasters, that cup will sit there until kingdom come unless somebody moves it. My cat, on the other hand, will not. He will play with string, look out the window and watch the cars go by, eat from his bowl, etc. And so far as we can tell he will do this all on his own. I mention him because you don't have to be human to fit the definition of free will. That's all "free will" is; it's a colloquial definition for things that act on their own. It doesn't matter if the definition is universally accurate. Whether or not aliens of comparable intelligence to human beings would have a concept of free will doesn't matter.

It's just a way for humans to make sense of the universe.

Now, you're right, in theory it is possible that the conditions that made me hungry on a Tuesday afternoon have been inevitable since the moment of the big bang, along with the conditions that resulted in sliced turkey, cheese and lettuce being in my fridge. And therefore, the decision to make a sandwich may have been inevitable. However, whether or not it was predetermined does not matter.

Free will is a matter of human perception.

Humans believe they have the ability to make decisions for themselves, and therefore, almost every moral code on the planet treats it as obvious that it is wrong to take away someone's ability to make his own decisions (with a few exceptions such as people who are dangerous to themselves and others). To threaten, cajole or coerce. Or... in the case of science fiction, mind-control is bad. Compulsion, right? Notice how natural it was that the White Tower thought this was just about the worst thing that you could do with the One Power, that the very concept was disgusting (at least that was their official motto).

So, yes, it would be wrong for Rand to take away people's abilities to make their own decisions.

My point is that killing the Dark One would not actually do that. They were still making decisions on their own. In fact, it could be argued that killing the Dark One would REMOVE a form of mind control from the population. After all, the book is stating that the Dark One is influencing people's decisions and now they are free to do what they would have done without his influence.

You guys are missing the real problem with Stepford World. It has nothing to do with people choosing for themselves.

Tollingtoy
03-20-2014, 05:32 PM
Yeah, I think you're a little too focused on one particular sentence and not the overall thesis of the post. I made two points.

1) Free will does not mean infinite choice.

2) The people of Stepford Land are still acting on their own, still making decisions in which the same way that the people of Normal Randland do. Yes, they cannot choose to serve the Dark One because there is no Dark One. What does that matter?

Looking just at the characters from normal Randland, if we gentle Logain, he can no longer choose to channel. Does that mean he's lost his free will?

No.

Because he can still make other choices for himself. Removing an option from the list of potential choices does not change the fact that people can choose for themselves.


But if you are forcing someone to choose how to live, without the DO because Rand killed him, is it truly a "good".

I watched Schindler's List recently and I can't help but compare that to this situation. Schindler committed a good act by having the Jews in Krakow work in his factory, but was it truly a good act since its motivation was purely to profit from their cheap labor. The net result is good, but the intent was not.

Later in the movie, he essentially gives up his fortune to buy the freedom of his workers, a wholly selfless act.

Both have good results, but their motivations are completely different.

I envision the world with no DO like my first example. Good acts are still possible, but if people aren't willingly committing good acts for the sake of goodness, are they really good?

Seeker
03-20-2014, 08:55 PM
But if you are forcing someone to choose how to live, without the DO because Rand killed him, is it truly a "good".

I watched Schindler's List recently and I can't help but compare that to this situation. Schindler committed a good act by having the Jews in Krakow work in his factory, but was it truly a good act since its motivation was purely to profit from their cheap labor. The net result is good, but the intent was not.

Later in the movie, he essentially gives up his fortune to buy the freedom of his workers, a wholly selfless act.

Both have good results, but their motivations are completely different.

I envision the world with no DO like my first example. Good acts are still possible, but if people aren't willingly committing good acts for the sake of goodness, are they really good?

But is Rand forcing people to live a certain way, or is he freeing them from something else that is trying to make them live a certain way? Remember, the book is saying that humans are under the influence of an outside force - the Dark One - so, by destroying the Dark One, Rand is freeing people to make decisions without outside influence. To make their own choices.

GonzoTheGreat
03-21-2014, 05:45 AM
I envision the world with no DO like my first example. Good acts are still possible, but if people aren't willingly committing good acts for the sake of goodness, are they really good?
Yes, but then the ones performing them do not deserve credit for it.
So Schindler did good by saving lots of lives when all he was after was profit, but he does not deserve credit for doing good then (though he may deserve credit for being a canny capitalist).

Consider the following hypothetical alternate histories:
If Schindler had employed a whole bunch of Jews because they were cheap, and then some Nazi had happily used that list and deported the whole lot to a Concentration Camp, then that would have been evil, but it would not have been Schindler's fault.
If Schindler had employed a whole bunch of Jews because they were cheap, and then given that list to the Nazis for deportation because he decided he believed in their ideology, then that would indeed have been evil.

So both good and evil can happen with or without the actual intention of the one doing the deed. Whether the actor deserves praise (or blame) or not depends on why he is doing it.

Gonzo, you're REALLY over thinking this.
Maybe, but I do think that if we want to make sense of what happened in the WOT, then we have to take the relevant ideas and entities into account. And the DO is definitely relevant to what is going on in the WOT series.

mogi67
03-21-2014, 01:16 PM
His plan was to fuck shit up

My response was more accurate than any others in this thread gf

Tollingtoy
03-21-2014, 04:32 PM
But is Rand forcing people to live a certain way, or is he freeing them from something else that is trying to make them live a certain way? Remember, the book is saying that humans are under the influence of an outside force - the Dark One - so, by destroying the Dark One, Rand is freeing people to make decisions without outside influence. To make their own choices.


But without the DO, they are not free to choose to follow him, they are forced to follow the Creator. It seems like the Creator wants people to make the conscious choice to choose to follow the light, not be forced into it because Rand took their choice away from them.

Hugh the Hand
03-21-2014, 04:55 PM
Good point. remember in our own Judeo-Christian religion god gave man the choice to follow him or not. God made promises of rewarding faith, but it was not mandatory.

In Rand's reality, there is no devil/DO to follow, so by default you follow the Light/creator/god. That took that choice away. And left the people empty.

Seeker, you make good points, but the nursery example I do not think carries the day like you believe. Elyane and Co take their turns caring for the babies, but even how she phrased it sounded like she had no choice. Paraphrasing "we all want to do it" but "we know we MUST take turns" that does not sound like freewill, that sounds like a lack of a choice. She does not even seem to doubt or consider that there are other options like you know, not caring for the babies, or taking more then one turn.

Seeker
03-23-2014, 09:33 PM
Good point. remember in our own Judeo-Christian religion god gave man the choice to follow him or not. God made promises of rewarding faith, but it was not mandatory.

Your religion, not mine.

In Rand's reality, there is no devil/DO to follow, so by default you follow the Light/creator/god. That took that choice away. And left the people empty.

Or you follow no one and set your own path. There doesn't have to be a devil for you to choose whether or not you follow god. Most of those free will arguments were first put forward by Augustine of Hippo, most are logically unsound and most were created specifically to justify the early church's authority.

The fallacy here is the idea that there are only two possible choices (Light or Dark, Creator or Shai'tan) when in fact there are thousands.

I dunno.

Maybe it's that I don't see the world in terms of these binary dichotomies, so to find that a series I followed for fifteen years reduced to that kind of bland binary worldview in the end was just disappointing. I seem to recall RJ saying over and over again that there exists evil in the world that was not generated by the Dark One. His final book seems to go against that.

Seeker, you make good points, but the nursery example I do not think carries the day like you believe. Elyane and Co take their turns caring for the babies, but even how she phrased it sounded like she had no choice. Paraphrasing "we all want to do it" but "we know we MUST take turns" that does not sound like freewill, that sounds like a lack of a choice. She does not even seem to doubt or consider that there are other options like you know, not caring for the babies, or taking more then one turn.

Perhaps in your view she does not. The exact line is "We understand the need to take turns." In other words, there was a thought process that allows these people to arrive at that conclusion.

How much more interesting would it have been if killing the Dark One had no effect on human kind? Or better yet, if killing the Dark One breaks the cycle and makes time linear.

GonzoTheGreat
03-24-2014, 05:13 AM
Maybe it's that I don't see the world in terms of these binary dichotomies, so to find that a series I followed for fifteen years reduced to that kind of bland binary worldview in the end was just disappointing. I seem to recall RJ saying over and over again that there exists evil in the world that was not generated by the Dark One. His final book seems to go against that.
Only because Rand forgot about Fain and the DO was too smart to remind him.
That world that Rand created was not necessarily how the world would be without the DO, it was how Rand imagined such a world would be. Maybe it was the best that Rand could have managed if he had killed the DO, but not even that means that without the DO there could not have been free will, only that Rand could not make a world with free will if he tried.

Hugh the Hand
03-24-2014, 09:33 AM
When I said 'our religion' I meant the predominate one in our western world. not yours or mine maybe, but just the one the majority follows.

Maybe it was reduced to binary system by Rand, and that was his error. Or Brandon's or RJ's.

Many say slavery is evil, in our world, and Randland's, me included of course, but that was not connected to the DO. And hell, in at least two cultures it was not even seen as evil.

We got a glimpse of Rand's Reality, who knows if it was his fault to make things too simple or the DO playing games, or something. I still think the ending worked as Rand learned, even ninja Jesus Rand, that killing one's enemy is not always the best way to fix things.

GonzoTheGreat
03-24-2014, 11:12 AM
As Aviendha pointed out (AMoL, Chapter 20, Into Thakan'dar): taking the DO gai'shain would be better than killing him.

Tollingtoy
03-24-2014, 05:02 PM
Your religion, not mine.



Or you follow no one and set your own path. There doesn't have to be a devil for you to choose whether or not you follow god. Most of those free will arguments were first put forward by Augustine of Hippo, most are logically unsound and most were created specifically to justify the early church's authority.

The fallacy here is the idea that there are only two possible choices (Light or Dark, Creator or Shai'tan) when in fact there are thousands.

I dunno.

Maybe it's that I don't see the world in terms of these binary dichotomies, so to find that a series I followed for fifteen years reduced to that kind of bland binary worldview in the end was just disappointing. I seem to recall RJ saying over and over again that there exists evil in the world that was not generated by the Dark One. His final book seems to go against that.



Perhaps in your view she does not. The exact line is "We understand the need to take turns." In other words, there was a thought process that allows these people to arrive at that conclusion.

How much more interesting would it have been if killing the Dark One had no effect on human kind? Or better yet, if killing the Dark One breaks the cycle and makes time linear.


I wouldn't consider this in terms of a Judeo-Christian belief system, just in terms of the belief system set out in the books. A lot of your arguments are very good ones, but I don't feel like they apply specifically to the world of the WOT.

You don't need to be a follower of the DO to commit evil. Sevanna, the Seanchan, the Whitecloaks, even Perrin and Rand do evil things in the pursuit (of what they believe to be) good ends.

I think you are getting too hung up on defining the terms here and not thinking about the bigger picture. It isn't about good and evil, it's about choice and balance.

Seeker
03-24-2014, 06:34 PM
Yeah see, to me, "balance" is a bunch of new-age crap. Balance between what? It's a concept that gets thrown about without any kind of thought or analysis. Sometimes it makes sense. Balance between work and play? That's a valid use of the concept.

But when fire meets ice, all you get is slush.

Balance between good and evil?

Well, first we have to determine what that means. Irrespective of culture, most people can agree that "good" represents those things that promote, health, survival and happiness. So, why would we want to balance that with its opposite. (sickness, death and pain)?


You see, no one ever sits down and says "We had only one fatality last year, so we need to have x number of murders this year to maintain the balance." Nor should they; that would be insane.

What I'm trying to articulate to you is that "evil" isn't something we can remove from the world. Nor is choice. These are universal constants. To me, the problem with Stepford world is emotion. So far as we can see, people can't feel grief, rage or jealousy.

However, I really dislike the fact that as far as WOT is concerned, the Dark One is what gives us access to these emotions.

And you know, I think I just had an "a-ha" moment.

If I were to state my biggest criticism of WOT, it would be that RJ's characters don't feel like human beings to me. They make stupid mistakes and obvious blunders; they lack even the tiniest bit of common sense; they can't communicate for shit and their emotional reactions are almost always wrong. And it occurs to me that the reason for this is that they're NOT human. They're meaty puppets who dance on strings.

Either they're manipulated by some external force, without which they cannot feel things like anger and aggression, or they're manipulated by some other external force that dictates their every action in service of a plot that simply could not exist without dubious levels of deus ex machina. They're wooden, flat people who are utterly predictable, and it wasn't until Brandon came along that this started to get better.

So, yeah, you're probably right Tollingtoy. My points don't apply to the World of WOT, because the world of WOT is a stupid place.

I think, I'm gonna limit myself to the Stormlight Board. That series has waaaaaay more to talk about.

rand
03-24-2014, 11:56 PM
They're wooden, flat people who are utterly predictable, and it wasn't until Brandon came along that this started to get better.
I think this takes the cake as the funniest thing I've ever read on Theoryland :p:eek:

Seeker
03-25-2014, 12:28 AM
I think this takes the cake as the funniest thing I've ever read on Theoryland :p:eek:

Well, in fairness, I will admit that it didn't start that way.

rand
03-25-2014, 12:39 AM
I won't disagree that RJ definitely had some problems with his characters. I just think it's kind of odd that you think Brandon did better with RJ's characters than RJ did.

GonzoTheGreat
03-25-2014, 05:19 AM
Yeah see, to me, "balance" is a bunch of new-age crap. Balance between what?
For this, I think that the following quote is relevant:
"There is knowledge that would burn any mind but Aes Sedai,"

Seeker
03-25-2014, 03:39 PM
I think this takes the cake as the funniest thing I've ever read on Theoryland :p:eek:

I won't disagree that RJ definitely had some problems with his characters. I just think it's kind of odd that you think Brandon did better with RJ's characters than RJ did.

He humanized them.

The only way I can explain it to you is to say that in the ACoS-KoD era, characters had reactions that were just completely non sequitur to whatever was going on at that moment. They'd flip out about nothing or fail to do something that was incredibly obvious for dubious reasons. They were locked into pattens that persisted for several books in a row. Their emotional reactions were just... wrong.

Okay, here's what I mean.

You know how in Star Wars Ben Kenobi tells Luke that Anakin was one of his dearest friends, and then we see in the prequels that Obi-wan and Anakin are always at each other's throats, that Obi-wan has nothing but criticism for Anakin and that Anakin reacts with scorn and defiance every time Obi-wan disagrees with him in the slightest? It was like that.


There are just so many examples, and I don't really want to argue it, but take Nynaeve. If you read their interactions in LoC and ACoS, you can't help but walk away with the impression that Nynaeve loathes Mat, that she honestly thinks the best thing Mat can do for the world is to throw himself off a cliff. Now, every time I point this out, everyone says "Oh, no no no! Nynaeve loves Mat. He's one of her flock and she's a shepherd. She just wants him to straighten up and stop being such a miscreant," but while that might have been what RJ was going for, that's not what he created. Nynaeve treats Mat with nothing but contempt and scorn. There's no sign of the disapproving older sister. There's no sign of affection beneath a layer of exasperation. There's only hatred and fear. At one point, she literally flees from him. Flees as if she thinks he intends to murder her! Why? Because she can't touch him with the Power? She handled Mat for years before learning she could channel.

Nothing in their character history makes this level of hostility make sense. From the way she acts, you'd think Mat tried to rape her.

That's what I mean. The characters are often acting in ways that don't make sense given the context, and they make blunders that a ten-year-old could have anticipated and avoided. I'm not criticizing the fact that the characters are flawed people, but rather that their flaws are contrived and artificial and that I can't relate to them.

Expecting me to have sympathy for any of them is a little like expecting me to have sympathy for a man who lies down in the middle of a poorly-lit road and then whines when a car runs over his feet.

rand
03-25-2014, 05:15 PM
Like I said, I agree that RJ's characters aren't always the greatest, and I think you're right about a lot of the stuff you said about Nynaeve.

That said, I think Brandon did much worse. And I'm not blaming him per se, since he didn't create these characters and hasn't been working with them for several decades. But Mat, for example, is way off in Brandon's books. And I don't just mean his "voice." Brandon changed him from a witty anti-hero type of guy to someone with the maturity of a twelve year old who acts as comic relief more than anything. Several characters (minor ones for the most part, admittedly) are basically just dropped from the plot altogether.

I think BS did a decent job with Perrin, and mostly with Rand as well, but a lot of the other characters just felt flat to me. This probably has a lot to do with BS's writing style, though (minimalist), but still, his versions of the characters don't seem anywhere near as fleshed out as RJ's do. I really don't see how he humanized them.

Tollingtoy
03-25-2014, 05:17 PM
They're wooden, flat people who are utterly predictable, and it wasn't until Brandon came along that this started to get better.

So, yeah, you're probably right Tollingtoy. My points don't apply to the World of WOT, because the world of WOT is a stupid place.

I think, I'm gonna limit myself to the Stormlight Board. That series has waaaaaay more to talk about.



It's a shame Robert Jordan didn't consult with you before he wrote his books....

Seeker
03-25-2014, 05:30 PM
It's a shame Robert Jordan didn't consult with you before he wrote his books....

Oh, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying he has to please me in particular. That's just how I feel about his characters in the later books. Different strokes for different folks. Some people like it, and if it brings them enjoyment, that's great.

My only point is that thinking about the Dark-One/free will issue gave me an insight into how he saw his characters. He didn't really see them as people. He saw them as chess-pieces, and I think that's reflected in the work.

Ern: It seems like a tremendous job to keep herding the characters towards that scene. Some people's characters have a mind of their own.
My characters do what I want. When it comes to my writing I'm an old testament god with my fist in the middle of my characters lives.

Robert: My characters do what I want. When it comes to my writing I'm an old testament god with my fist in the middle of my characters lives.

Seeker
03-25-2014, 05:54 PM
Like I said, I agree that RJ's characters aren't always the greatest, and I think you're right about a lot of the stuff you said about Nynaeve.

That said, I think Brandon did much worse. And I'm not blaming him per se, since he didn't create these characters and hasn't been working with them for several decades. But Mat, for example, is way off in Brandon's books. And I don't just mean his "voice." Brandon changed him from a witty anti-hero type of guy to someone with the maturity of a twelve year old who acts as comic relief more than anything.

I guess I never really saw Mat as witty, or much of an anti-hero for that matter. His desire to avoid the shit storm of Tarmon Gaidon remains, for the most part, in tact throughout the Brandon books. Mat is and will always be the guy who buckles down and does what needs doing when he finally realizes that there's no other choice.

That said, he's definitely more animated in the Brandon books, and whether or not you like that is going to vary from person to person. To be honest with you, Brandon's version of Mat reminds me very much of Wit, Hoid's persona in the the Stormlight archive. I think Brandon thought that Mat was supposed to be a trickster figure and then made him into what he thought a trickster should look like. Again, your mileage may vary. I've always been ambivalent about Mat; so it's hard for me to relate to your POV here. I agree with you that there's definitely a change in the way he's portrayed, but for me, it's a change from something that I didn't really care about to something else that I didn't really care about.

But Rand, Perrin, Nynaeve and Elayne all saw massive improvement in my opinion. I'm tempted to throw Egwene in there too, but while she's a total bad ass in the Gathering Storm, a lot of that was RJ. So, there you have it.

Several characters (minor ones for the most part, admittedly) are basically just dropped from the plot altogether.

This, to me, is a good thing. They should never have been given so much attention in the first place. They're minor characters for a reason.

I really don't see how he humanized them.

By making their reactions more appropriate to their situations and by allowing them to grow. With the exception of Mat (who, in Brandon's hands, was a trickster ALL THE TIME), Sanderson showed us more than just the one shade of each character.

Look at the main cast's POVs in Knife of Dreams, and you will see that each of them has a defining character trait that dominates every single thing they do.

Rand's a hard-ass, bitter, misanthrope who actively works to suppress his feelings because he views them as a weakness. But as Brandon takes over, he begins to question that outlook.

Perrin is obsessed with finding his wife to the point of mania. When Brandon takes over, he begins to recognize the danger of such obsession.

Nynaeve is self-righteous and arrogant; when Brandon takes over, she begins to demonstrate self-doubt.

The list goes on.

Hugh the Hand
03-25-2014, 06:22 PM
Did BS Humanize them? Or did they finally grow and that was part of the plan?

Rand is obviously someone that was on the wrong path, a path he was lead to by the DO, Aes Sedai, the taint, and life itself. With all that pressure I am not sure anyone would have reacted better.

But he gets to Dragonmount and finally sees himself and has his epiphany.

Perrin saves his wife, but still has a one tracked mind, but eventually grows to see that everyone needs a leader from time to time, and he was the best choice around.

Nyn saw that although she had great power, second only to Alivia, she really had a lot to learn. Her errors with Rand help show her this.

These seem like patterns of growth, not a new writer adding humanity to them, it appears to me they went through a process to learn that humanity. A process started before RJ passed.

However, I really could be wrong since I have never seen RJ's notes.

rand
03-25-2014, 06:27 PM
I guess I never really saw Mat as witty, or much of an anti-hero for that matter.
Mat's constantly trying to avoid doing work, helping others, etc. He's always saying he only cares about his own skin. Yet, time and again, Mat's inevitably there to save the day for someone or other (Thom, Egwene, Nynaeve, Elayne, Olver, Tuon, etc). Brandon's Mat is a mere charicature of this, IMO. He'd rather have Mat do goofy things, like pretend he can't write anymore, scale the side of a palace for fun, and wear stupid costumes.

This, to me, is a good thing. They should never have been given so much attention in the first place. They're minor characters for a reason.
I agree that RJ focused too much on certain characters. This doesn't change the fact that Brandon all but pushed them to the side, and flat out ignored others. He can't just drop a character after RJ introduces him/her...I mean, obviously he can, 'cause he does, but that's beside the point. Considering the amount of filler used for the main characters, BS could have easily had the page space to finish up several minor character arcs.

By making their reactions more appropriate to their situations and by allowing them to grow. With the exception of Mat (who, in Brandon's hands, was a trickster ALL THE TIME), Sanderson showed us more than just the one shade of each character.

Look at the main cast's POVs in Knife of Dreams, and you will see that each of them has a defining character trait that dominates every single thing they do.
I think it's hard to tell because BS had the opportunity to finish the series whereas RJ didn't. Several character developments were necessary for the final stage of the story, so it's logical to believe RJ would have written them accordingly. Unfortunately, we can never compare Brandon's trilogy with how RJ would have written it.

Seeker
03-25-2014, 06:28 PM
Did BS Humanize them? Or did they finally grow and that was part of the plan?

Rand is obviously someone that was on the wrong path, a path he was lead to by the DO, Aes Sedai, the taint, and life itself. With all that pressure I am not sure anyone would have reacted better.

But he gets to Dragonmount and finally sees himself and has his epiphany.

Perrin saves his wife, but still has a one tracked mind, but eventually grows to see that everyone needs a leader from time to time, and he was the best choice around.

Nyn saw that although she had great power, second only to Alivia, she really had a lot to learn. Her errors with Rand help show her this.

These seem like patterns of growth, not a new writer adding humanity to them, it appears to me they went through a process to learn that humanity. A process started before RJ passed.

However, I really could be wrong since I have never seen RJ's notes.

Hey, Hugh, do you mind if we continue this over PM? I don't want to start an RJ vs Brandon thread.

fdsaf3
03-26-2014, 12:36 AM
I agree that RJ focused too much on certain characters. This doesn't change the fact that Brandon all but pushed them to the side, and flat out ignored others. He can't just drop a character after RJ introduces him/her...I mean, obviously he can, 'cause he does, but that's beside the point. Considering the amount of filler used for the main characters, BS could have easily had the page space to finish up several minor character arcs.

The part I marked in bold is ironic to me given how many hundreds of pages RJ spent on side-plots and descriptions of things so small you can't even call them minutiae any more.


I think it's hard to tell because BS had the opportunity to finish the series whereas RJ didn't. Several character developments were necessary for the final stage of the story, so it's logical to believe RJ would have written them accordingly. Unfortunately, we can never compare Brandon's trilogy with how RJ would have written it.

I have to disagree with this one, too. Sorry! I don't mean to "call you out" or anything, so please don't take it personally. RJ might have ended the series the same way (he did write the last chunk of the last book, after all), but come on. You and I both know that if RJ wrote the last 3 books there would have been significantly more squabbling, more pointless and totally arbitrary failures of anyone to exercise common sense and just freaking communicate with one another, and a whole lot more sniffs and straightening of skirts.

Jokes aside, the point I'm getting from Seeker (which, full disclosure, I agree with) is that the way the characters act and interact with one another is not realistic. It's not human. The cynical view is that they exist to fulfill the story. A more nuanced version of that might be that in-universe mechanisms exist which cause people to act and interact in certain ways. In the end, it doesn't matter. I truly believe that every example one could come up with which showcases a character acting in a realistic manner, someone with opposite intentions could come up with more where they don't.

Seeker
03-26-2014, 12:22 PM
Yeah, that's pretty much my point. Thanks Fdsaf3. Things in WOT don't feel organic. I know I use that term a lot and it can be vague, but it basically means that the situations and conflicts that come up do so because the author has forced them and not because they would have happened as a natural consequence to what happened before. Characters are at odds because the author wants conflict, not because they have any reason to squabble.

rand
03-26-2014, 01:58 PM
The part I marked in bold is ironic to me given how many hundreds of pages RJ spent on side-plots and descriptions of things so small you can't even call them minutiae any more.
I never said RJ didn't have filler as well.

You and I both know that if RJ wrote the last 3 books there would have been significantly more squabbling, more pointless and totally arbitrary failures of anyone to exercise common sense and just freaking communicate with one another, and a whole lot more sniffs and straightening of skirts.
True, but RJ would have done his best to write one book, not three, resulting in a much tighter ending, no bizarre chronology issues, no random/excessive/needless PoVs from characters like Gawyn, Galad, etc. He almost certainly wouldn't have had 700+ pages of battle scenes (which, just my opinion, but--this actually got pretty boring for me halfway through aMoL).

Jokes aside, the point I'm getting from Seeker (which, full disclosure, I agree with) is that the way the characters act and interact with one another is not realistic. It's not human. The cynical view is that they exist to fulfill the story. A more nuanced version of that might be that in-universe mechanisms exist which cause people to act and interact in certain ways. In the end, it doesn't matter. I truly believe that every example one could come up with which showcases a character acting in a realistic manner, someone with opposite intentions could come up with more where they don't.
I think you're misunderstanding my point. I'm not saying RJ was a master of character writing at all. I agreed with Seeker that RJ's characters have a lot of problems. That said, I don't see how BS swooped in and all of a sudden brought these "flat" characters from RJ's "stupid" world to life. The vast majority of the characters are written in completely different voices than they had originally, and any emotional changes they go through are due to the fact that the story ended and not because BS is a master at character writing. I'm not blaming Brandon or anything. I'm not sure that any available author could have truly finished the series satisfactorily. But to say that Brandon's somewhat caricaturized (IMO) versions of the characters are better than the actaul author's versions is just kind of baffling to me.

Tollingtoy
03-26-2014, 05:32 PM
It's actually refreshing to have a conversation about this without blatant "Brandon sucks" responses, so thank you! After reading this, I actually agree with quite a bit of it.

But, Brandon has some truly cringe-worth dialogue at times....yikes!

Seeker
03-26-2014, 06:24 PM
To be clear, Rand, I think the characters improved when Brandon took over; I don't think they became a brilliant, vibrant cast of undiluted awesomeness. I just think they improved.

I've explained my position to you over and over. I don't expect you to agree; if you don't that's your prerogative.

Seeker
03-26-2014, 06:25 PM
It's actually refreshing to have a conversation about this without blatant "Brandon sucks" responses, so thank you! After reading this, I actually agree with quite a bit of it.

But, Brandon has some truly cringe-worth dialogue at times....yikes!

I like his dialogue (mostly). It's his similes that make me groan.

Zombie Sammael
03-26-2014, 10:39 PM
I like his dialogue (mostly). It's his similes that make me groan.

Do you mean his metaphors? :D

GonzoTheGreat
03-27-2014, 05:14 AM
It's his similes that make me groan.
Do you mean his metaphors? :D
To quote something Britney once said in an interview: "that's like, you know, whatever".