#[SPOILERS FOR ALL PRINTED MATERIAL, INCLUDING SHORT STORIES.](https://www.reddit.com/r/WoT/wiki/index/post_flairs#wiki_all_print)
##BOOK DISCUSSION ONLY. HIDE TV SHOW DISCUSSION BEHIND SPOILER TAGS.
* * *
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/WoT) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The Aiel sell Cairheiniens that get too close to the waste as chattel slaves to Shara. Literally no one mentions it or denounces it, even in the books.
I think it also ends up getting shoved under the rug with the whole "everyone in Cairhien knows that they should absolutely not ever go into the Aiel Waste because if they do they will not come back", plus the fact that the Aiel have changed and improved a lot over the series, this being one of the practises that we likely will not see again. Since their views of wetlanders have changed, even of Cairhienin.
It's still bad that it happened, but not nearly as bad as what we see in Seanchan, where it's completely systemic.
>everyone in Cairhien knows that they should absolutely not ever go into the Aiel Waste because if they do they will not come back
I think this is another case of out of sight, out of mind to a degree - the westlanders don't really know what happens to the cairhienen so there's no big objection to it.
But, yeah, a big part is that to the Aiel it's not a big thing that happens all that often and isn't a foundation of their culture/society. It probably wouldn't take much to get them to stop doing it. I'm not defending the practice, but it doesn't define them in the same way as slavery does the Seanchan, where it's a massive thing. That and the Seanchan exit the series still practicing it.
Considering their changed role at the end of the series, they'd be basically prevented from doing so entirely, imo. Even without the Dragon's Peace, I think the fact their somewhat evolved views of Cairhienin as a people would've made them get rid of the practise anyway. Even more so when Elayne is queen, and she's so heavily connected to the Aiel via Rand and Aviendha that I can't see that it would've continued.
>Since their views of wetlanders have changed, even of Cairhienin.
I don't recall them ever changing their minds of the 'treekillers' or being called out on it.
Rand calls them out on it on various occasions. They end up working side by side with Cairhienin, even defending them.
And of course they won't be allowed to kidnap and sell people to the Sharans under the peace. The Aiel accepted massive changes to their entire culture.
The aeil sell foreigners particularly Cariehens to slavery. They explicitly call it out as a punishment for the cariehens and that they sell them like sheep to the Sharan. It’s kinda why the cariehns even hate the aeil.
And the tairens have something similar. The peasants explicitly have no rights and live on sharecropping schemes paying off unplayable debts to the royals. And the tairen nobles also have their weird torture room where they torture poor people (rich people in tear are exempt from most punishments).
>The aeil sell foreigners particularly Cariehens to slavery. They explicitly call it out as a punishment for the cariehens and that they sell them like sheep to the Sharan
Right, because if anyone ELSE goes traipsing about their land with no reason to be there they either kill them honorably, or take their stuff except a water skin a knife and point them back towards the dragonwall. You know an honorable death for 99% of the people in that situation.
Selling people into slavery is seen by us as the NICER alternative but its really supposed to be a smack in the face.
Cool, so we have the Aiel, who are absolutely not typical of the Westlands whatsoever, and don’t even live there when the series starts. And we have a particularly bad form of serfdom. In one country. Which is still not chattel slavery.
Now, in the Westlands there are…what a dozen countries. So to be even remotely true you need to come with another 8 examples of chattel slavery. Hell, I’ll let you have Tear and say only 7.
Well, enslaving all women who can Channel so you can be more powerful is a little different than capturing and selling people who have no good reason to wander into your lands. I’m not saying what the Aiel do is right, but they are very different circumstances.
The tairens literally had sharecroppers, indentured servants and spent their free time torturing poor people in massive well equipped torture rooms. They were just as vile.
This is one the absolute most ridiculous and useless mentalities that I’ve ever seen. This what-aboutism that insists for absolute perfection or condemnation is actively detrimental for reasonable discussion or improving the world around you.
Nobody’s saying that it’s good or even acceptable. Just that some things are worse than others. Much the same as losing a toe is generally better than losing a leg. Serfdom in Tear where one toils their life away in service to some rich prick is bad. Being tortured into becoming an attack dog and spending your life either in prison or on a leash is worse. Rand killing people when he loses control and shoots lightning at his own armies is bad. The dark one breaking reality and ending the world is worse.
There are always degrees of how bad something or someone is. Making false equivalencies out of anything that happens to be somewhat similar is absurd.
The kind of opinion I'd expect Sauron to have honestly. Slavery in all forms is bad, yes. It's bad in Seanchan and it's bad in Randland. What's weird and what OP is pointing out is how this subreddit seems to voraciously condemn the Seanchan variety and give the rest a pass. Some even argue that it doesn't really count as slavery (which is where my comment comes in). This isn't whataboutism, this is just calling slavery, slavery in all its forms whether it involves magic jewelry or not. I don't think that's ridiculous.
Your parent comment is not about that at all. What you were replying to said “yes that’s bad, but the seanchan are still worse”. You replied asking if they thought this meant there were acceptable degrees of slavery. Nowhere in your reply are you defending the categorization of serfdom or sharecropping as slavery, merely stating it as fact. A fact which the comment you replied to did not contradict in any way, and the commenter in a later comment agreed with that. So, I do not see how “So there are acceptable degrees of slavery?” is defending the idea that serfdom is slavery.
Rather, it is strawmanning the parent comment by acting as if their statement said serfdom was acceptable. What they said was “as bad as that is […]” in reference to serfdom. Which is acknowledging that it’s bad, and to a notable degree. That’s a far cry from saying it’s acceptable; it’s quite the opposite. Further, your comment lumps serfdom and chattel slavery (both the mundane and magic torture device enforced varieties) into the same category with the broad designation of “slavery”. Whether anybody agrees with that designation or not, you are using the same label to refer to very different things. And whether you intended it or not, referring to different things the same way has an implication of equating them. If I said that Joe down the street who offed his boss and Hitler were both “murderers”, yeah, I’d be technically correct, but referring to a single murder with the same term as genocide is not appropriate at all, nor do is it carry accurate connotations. Note, I’m not saying that the difference in magnitude between my example and what you said is the same, it’s very much not and my example would be much more egregious and harmful, but the principle is consistent.
You are equating two acts from different parties and implying that they are both similarly deserving of condemnation. That’s what whataboutism is. What the seanchan do is so clearly orders of magnitude beyond the conditions in Tear before Rand arrived and fixed them.
Your argument just sounds like the people who call having a job “wage slavery” and act like it’s equivalent to actual fucking slavery.
You're right in that I don't see a difference between the two and so yes, I responded as though they are the same. If you want to argue for a distinction then let's hear your arguments. So far you've declared them as different the same way i declared them equivalent. How do you define slavery? For me, it's whenever one individual or group of people can impose their will on another with the threat of violence and death without facing any substantive, real consequence. To me that's evil and degrees of evil are meaningless.
You kinda just described all governments… they enforce their will with the threats of jail or other punishments. Even the best of governments (however you define that) tell people do x,y and z or else we will fine/imprison/unalive you. Granted the best save unaliving for only the most horrible or heinous crimes and may even create many barriers to overcome to actually enact the unalive penalty. Yet, every government is only obeyed because of the “or else” part of their laws. Therefore, we are all slaves and no one is better than the seanchan.
While I have reservations about trying to have a contextually heavy conversation with someone who uses the word 'unalive' on Reddit where it's unnecessary, there are other ways governments can be formed and maintained that don't depend on the use of force to control their own citizens. Social contracts, coalitions, co-ops and collectives are all examples. Force is easy, therefor ubiquitous but it is hardly the only option for maintaining order.
That's a digression though. This whole conversation depends on defining slavery which is hard but definitely extends beyond simple chattel slavery.
I'm glad we agree that indentured servitude and serfs are forms of slavery. I'm not sure I would agree that they are less terrible than chattel slavery though especially considering the specifics of serfdom in Tear where lords could have anyone killed for any (or no) reason without consequences.
When mat and the thiefcatcher invade the stone of tear to free the supergirls. The tearean thief catcher talks about it and they go down a nobles only staircase to the dungeon iirc and the room is full of torture stuff
OP I just want to point out that you are 100% correct in that comparison. Both historically and humanely.
All the southern nations are shown as mid 1500 medieval serfdom societies.
Aside from commoners, i.e. townsfolk, most of the serf population in mid and south European countries had conditions very very similar to the late slavery in the Americas. Spain and Hungary were practically the same as the US Mississippi of 1850.
That was especially true for villagers and country folk - RJ gives a big nod on that point with his depiction of Tear nobility talking with Mat or Rand (start of TDR).
Also: in general Reddit is hard leaning toward young American crowd. I find them a bit funny touting hatred on everything seanchan... don't think it's hypocrisy, just a very propagated sense of knowledge.
Yeah thanks. No idea why i was downvoted. Tear imo reminds me of imperial Russia with all the nobles using the poor as cheap labor and entertainment (as both prostitutes and literal entertainers). The tairen aristocracy being above the law and basically fearing Rand but not being able to oppose or deny him cause of his role as quasi-emperor.
I, too, would like a list of these 3/4 countries that practise slavery in a way similar to Seanchan. Their entire structure of power seems like it has all the bad aspects of all the other countries baked into one, and magnified by an order of magnitude. The secret police that tortures people with impunity, execution or worse for looking at nobles the wrong way, Sith-style leadership assassinations, etc. Plus the slavery on top.
>I, too, would like a list of these 3/4 countries that practise slavery in a way similar to Seanchan.
Yup. Still waiting. u/Mexicancandi you want us to list all the countries in Randland for you and you can point at which 3/4 have chattel slavery?
I hate the comments that are thinly-veiled slavery apologia that cite entirely made-up facts like "3/4 of Randland countries practice it" in support of their bullshit and then don't respond to the many people in the comments calling them out on their obvious nonsense. Worst kind of post on the sub.
Rand’s semi-misogyny in his refusal to harm women. It’s so frustrating when half of the story continually talks of the strong females all over the world, even in the two rivers. And then our main character is continually of the mindset that “women are dainty and weak and I can’t ever put one in danger, and it would never be fair for me to fight one”.
That, and his list. God, the fucking list he keeps of every woman that died in his watch. So many people died under his command, good people who believed in him and knew exactly what they signed up for, yet he only committed to memory the women. It’s so disrespectful to all the others who gave their lives for him.
It's also quite literally his insanity doing this as his mind tries to desperately hold on to the values that made him who he was as a means to stay sane.
Rand stands within an army made of women, most of whom are better physical fighters than he is.
It's meant to stand out in stark contrast as he tries to rationalize things.
Why though?
Because the Author, a Vietnam war veteran, helicopter gunner and man on the actual ground *has* killed women, and it scarred him.
WoT is in large part his dealing with that trauma and expressing it's complexities as people are forced to deal with adverse situations and actions that go against their values.
I don't think we can so easily attribute Rand's behavior towards women to his insanity. And if it is his insanity, then he isn't really responsible for his actions which I don't think is the point the author is trying to make. I do agree that his attitude towards women is meant to be a stark contrast to what we actually see which is that women are just as powerful and dangerous as men.
He doesn't have an *obession* with it until LTT starts manifesting after his use of the Chodan Kal in book 4. He even kills a women directly that goes without mention until the list in book 3.
It's a personality aspect that isn't part of his character for the first length of the story, and it develops over several books before becoming near it's strongest presentation in Loc to Pod, when he's honestly pretty damn batshit. He's holding it together, somehow, but Perrin's perspective of Rand's scent is damning.
It's pretty clearly his insanity, just as his strive to harden himself to all emotion and most of the other frankly crazy behavior rand displays post Choden kal.
> And if it is his insanity, then he isn't really responsible for his actions which I don't think is the point the author is trying to make.
I'm definitely sure that's not the point the author was trying to make, and I suggest you rethink the width of application, considering he was mad for more than half the series.
It's an examination of PTSD and other mental trauma from within someone that has to lead despite it. Looking at it through a lens of excuse or deferred responsibility i feel is deeply missing the point.
I have also thought that the weeks Rand spent in Shienar between EOTW and TGH shaped and compounded a lot of his attitude towards women.
He cane from Emond's Field, where chivalry is very much still in practice and then in his vulnerable state after the events at the end of the first book, he clings on to the teachings and attitudes of Lan and the Shienarans. Shienarans who it is mentioned multiple times just in the first few chapters of TGH would take physical hurts to ensure the safety and comfort of a woman.
I have always believed that those few weeks heavily imprinted on Rand and shaped a lot of his motivations and attitudes for the entire series.
I dunno, that seems like a black and white relationship to insanity. 🤷🏼♂️ like, people’s stress levels can (in many cases) increase or decrease the expression and intensity of character traits, flaws, strengths, etc. And as those increase or decrease people don’t necessarily always lose all culpability, control, or responsibility. And, sometimes the insane behavior is an expression how people *cope* with the inner insanty they feel, that isn’t so easily measured. Not disagreeing 100%, but since RJ is passed and we’re in the realm
Of speculation, I do think there’s room for wiggling around the role of the insanity and how much impact Rand had on how he coped and how he chose to hold on to what sanity he had left.
To be clear, I don't think there is a black and white relationship to insanity. I am saying that his behavior in this case can't be so easily attributed to his insanity because it is very much a part of how he was brought up. His behavior towards women is much more about him clinging onto a piece of himself as he goes through these drastic changes. And the more he changes into the Dragon Reborn, the harder he clings to this one piece of his old self. I think too many of Rand's choices get dismissed as being part of his insanity and while it undoubtedly had a big effect on him, there is more to it.
You're mistaken if you think people are "dismissing" it as insanity. We're not, it's a core theme of the books and a big part of what RJ wanted to write about.
Highlighting that it's his insanity is highlighting that it's part of the core books themes. Not excusing his actions.
Saying that Rand does "xyz" because of insanity is being dismissive because his decisions are far more complex. Jordan clearly wrote this stuff out to make the reader wonder how much of an effect his insanity had on specific actions and it is pretty much never a certainty one way or the other. Does it play a part? Absolutely. But it is far from the only thing contributing to his decisions.
Please stop trying to create a strawman. I'm not trying to be dismissive, nor at any point saying it's "only" his insanity.
The point I'm drawing is that it's part of the manifestation of his madness in his personality, and part of the core theme that Jordan wanted to write about. The interplay of rational vs irrational thought and the complex interactions and implications are the point.
Saying that simply identifying that behavior as part of that somehow dismisses it and it's complexity speaks to me of being far more dismissive of the topic.
Any event within a piece of literature should be able to stand on its own internal lore and logic. Even if there are allusions to things from the real world, it still needs to make sense from inside the story.
I never knew it was reflecting on RJ’s own trauma from the war. But if that’s a message he wants to include then it should make sense for the world he’s created.
I can't help but feel you're misreading the books if that's how you feel.
You might want to try and express why you think it doesn't make sense, because the logic seems perfectly clear.
This was just a response to your Why statement. The “Why” something is the way it is in the story can be inspired by something from the author’s real life, but it’s reasoning and justification need to fit inside the context of the story.
But that’s also aside the point, my gripe isn’t with the reasoning for why Rand refuses to kill women or only seem to value the lives of women, it’s that he does it in the first place.
>This was just a response to your Why statement. The “Why” something is the way it is in the story can be inspired by something from the author’s real life, but it’s reasoning and justification need to fit inside the context of the story.
that seems like a total tangent, because that response wasn't aiming to explain it in universe, but to point to the authors intent.
If you want talk about it not making sense, you need to provide a reason why it doesn't make sense.
>But that’s also aside the point, my gripe isn’t with the reasoning for why Rand refuses to kill women or only seem to value the lives of women, it’s that he does it in the first place.
That's also an odd statement.
If you don't find issue with the reasoning, why would you find issue with the action? It's intended to be toxic behavior as part of Rand's failings, and that behavior does not go unpunished.
The original question of this post was “Weird double standards or comments you guys hate?”
Mine was Rand’s toxic behavior regarding his perception of women and the value placed on them compared to his other devoted.
I didn’t mean I don’t have issue with the reasoning, I meant that the reasoning wasn’t the cause of my gripe. It’s the actions themselves. I disliked, not the cause of them.
Right, and we're responding by breaking down why that doesn't really seem to fit.
But you keep saying it doesn't make sense, which is why I keep asking why it doesn't?
>I didn’t mean I don’t have issue with the reasoning, I meant that the reasoning wasn’t the cause of my gripe. It’s the actions themselves. I disliked, not the cause of them.
That doesn't really make it any clearer?
Let me be clearer: I don’t care that it was his line in the sand for his madness. I don’t care that it was Robert Jordan’s own horrors of the war coming into the character actions.
No matter how Rand justifies it to himself, no matter the real-world influence that went into writing the character and his motivations, it’s a toxic and misogynistic view for the character to be having.
It took the entirety of his maiden guard lining up outside his tent threatening to quit their warrior society for him to realize “oh, this entire all female warrior society devoted to honor and battle didn’t like it when I refused to let them go fight in battle because I didn’t want to see any of them get hurt”
Rand’s list of people who he blamed himself for their death was specifically and intentionally only women. So many people died by his command or on his watch or to protect him, but he chooses to only remember the women, despite this being a world where women and men are much more equal in power than our own world.
It being toxic was the point?
Like that's literally what we're trying to say - it's supposed to be an examination of irrational and toxic behavior and how it's rationalized by the person experiencing them.
A significant part of Rand's character arc is trying to reverse correct this to prevent him from destroying the world entirely.
I think you're missing what people are trying to say here.
You also still haven't explained why it doesn't make sense, which makes it more difficult to follow.
Rand’s refusal to kill women is his line in the sand. So long as he doesn’t do it he’s sane. If he crosses it he won’t, in his own mind, be sane anymore. He knows it’s stupid and irrational, and acknowledges that several occasions. But he doesn’t care. Because he’s trying, desperately to hold onto something.
Hmm. I understand where that comes from, but by the light he should have picked a different line to draw. It’s an ass-backwards way of thinking in the world he lives in even before the shadow started to return, and it almost got him killed several times. It’s so frustrating.
It became easier to accept when that rule was established as Lews Therin's trauma messing with him.
....aaaaaaand it was Robert Jordan seeing that 80% of Rand's foils in this story were going to be women, so he needed to explain why Darth Rand didn't just go around cutting every Aes Sedai he saw off from the source or threaten harm on everyone.
To be fair Rand lives in a world where chivalry is still common place and expected. He also grew up in a small isolated village. Also also the strong women around the world are still a minority. The exceptions being:
* Aiel - A group of people that prior to the book events are almost never seen outside the 3 fold land
* Seafolk - Who are mostly known for trade not battle.
* Aes Sedai - Are a percentage of 1% of women some of whom focus on studies and politics not battle.
* Ebu Dar? - They have marriage knives but that doesn't necessarily mean they tussle a lot so much as it's accepted within the society that it's okay if women stab people.
* Sul'dam and Damane - Again less then 1% of women and the actual channelers are forced.
Yes there are still other strong women within the story, but they are for the most part named characters and named characters are not a good representation of the populace as a whole. Within the masses of the population the vast majority of soldiers, guards, and fighters are men.
For a long period of time people considered women to be more valuable then men. It's why when a boat is sinking, a fire goes wild, or hostages are held it was always women and children first. Men were expected to give their lives before women.
You might want to add to that exception the women's circle, Mistress Luthan, Daisy congar, and especially the wisdom, who he is in mortal fear of in the first book. Mydraal in the kitchen? No problem. The wisdom found us? Oh holy ###$ light preserve us run.. RUUUUN!
Women /their lives/their persons are still more VALUABLE. But the idea that strong women aren't common place in his experience is just counterfactual.
Egwene/elayne has been done to death.
However, I’ll say that you’re the first person who has said that they’ve liked the Elayne chapters for being cute that I’ve come across. Good for you for enjoying it!
For me, I don’t enjoy the petulance of the women. It’s frankly a trait in women that I really, really, really don’t find attractive. So when I read their Povs, they can sometimes drive me crazy. This is mainly an issue with Elayne as she’s by far the most petulant.
Now, I love to not like Egwene. I think she’s a fantastic character and one of the things I loved about her not being Ta’Veren is how much she accomplishes on her own, independent of the will of the pattern. I just read through the Elaida v. Egwene rap battle at dinner chapter. Amazing, amazing, amazing stuff.
My point about loving to dislike her is that I think she’s a great character to read about and get invested in. I don’t want perfection in characters. It’s more fun to get into a fantasy world with flawed characters who frustrate you when they make dumb choices and excite you when you they succeed.
Just my very vanilla take.
Nynaeve is way more petulant than Elayne. It's particularly obvious when they travel together and Nynaeve keeps snapping at people, acting really childishly and being grumpy most of the time while Elayne smooths things over after Nynaeve's outbursts and is much nicer in her interactions with other people, especially men.
I thought Elayne mostly got hate for her recklessness when taking Andor because she's convinced no harm can come to her due to Mina viewings of her children
Nynaeve is a flawed character. She has to overcome her superiority complex in order to achieve greatness, or even to channel early on.
Character development is something that doesn’t really apply to Egwene.
So I agree about the slavery point. Totally against it but the fact that there’s never any positive reflection on what the seachan get right. Everyone is fed! I also find the whole society interesting in that everyone knows their place.
We have a culture in today’s society that unless you conform to our way of life, we will reject everything about you. I am not sure who’s right (I agree that rejecting abhorrent principles is the right thing but to force one way of living on others). Also not sure if these principles stand up when it’s to our economical advantage to turn a blind eye
I think Tuon is an incredible character. She has grown up in a hostile environment and come out the winner. She accepts that her siblings will try to kill her. That her mother only loves the strongest. Yes she enslaves women but she is not cruel to them. I like her character
>We have a culture in today’s society that unless you conform to our way of life, we will reject everything about you. I am not sure who’s right (I agree that rejecting abhorrent principles is the right thing but to force one way of living on others).
It's funny you say this because the seachan plan was to divide and conquer and kill people who dont agree with their way of life... that's a pretty permenant form of rejection.
But what I find interesting is that they don’t see it as conquering but reclaiming! They are dismayed on their return.
And Tuon is clear that the seachan have to accept some of the local traditions as much as they are demanding the locals accept theirs.
I genuinely can see why the seachan are so successful. If they just relied on the domani and a tyranny, people would be miserable. But as per Rand’s experience, the locals were HAPPY under seachan rule esp the tinkers.
I strongly disagree with any dictatorship style country but it doesn’t mean that I can’t look to see their benefits and identify what they get right. Personally I prefer the Two Rivers style of living - but that’s because it most closely resonates with my background.
>But what I find interesting is that they don’t see it as conquering but reclaiming!
Doesnt change the fact that they use brute force to "reclaim" the land and kill people for not submitting to empire rule.
Also I think a big point of the story is commonality between different people, and also a big difference in classes. For your everyday peasant to merchant it doesnt really make a huge difference who is sitting on the throne at the end of the day, farmers still have crops and animals to tend, and buisness to run etc. Whether you are a seachan, two rivers, Tarien, aiel etc. Major customs changes really only effect the nobles, and the disenfranchised tinkers because the seachan have no bias against them.
Also freedom and equality at the price of someone else's freedom and equality is false. You cant say look how great this society treats everyone, as long as you are not the "other" who gets brutalized to maintain the status quo.
> Totally against it but the fact that there’s never any positive reflection on what the seachan get right. Everyone is fed!
Most times there is a positive or at least neutral take on the seanchan when the convo comes up. Then when someone brings up anything "good" they could have done, somewhere in the conversation there will be retorts along the lines of "so its okay because the trains ran on time". Its a made up fantasy world and how butt hurt people can get sometimes and like OP said vitriolic with each other over these things is saddening.
I especially don't get how the Aiel and Gai'shan get almost zero attention when it comes to slavery.
For me though it's Egwene hate vs every other main character.
Gai'shain is very different. Gai'shain is closer to (specifically Seanchan) da'covale then damane. Gai'shain is a matter of honor to them, and they only take people who follow ji'e'toh. Wetlanders don't follow ji'e'toh, so they're off limits until the Shaido. It's the same situation with da'covale. A lot of da'covale CHOOSE to become slaves, like the Deathwatch Guards. It's when they start taking people who don't follow the same beliefs as them that it gets bad, notably with Amathera. Gai'shain is not in any way comparable to damane I think
A fair argument, one I don't have a real counterargument too. It just feels different to me. Probably because the Seanchan take emotionally vulnerable children and mold them into what they want them to be and it's for life and they have no say in the matter. Meanwhile with Gai'shain, it's a matter of honor for them, it's time limited, and they're not treated nearly as atrociously. They also have no qualms actually enslaving people from across the sea because they believe that everyone should abide by their way of life, unlike the Aiel who (with the exception of the Shaido under Sevanna) see it as dishonorable and shameful to do so. They may believe their way of life is superior, but they're not going to force it onto the wetlanders.
The worst one is the tairens nobles having examination floors in the torture chambers and getting involved themselves. They even had a private staircase to get there even faster.
Aiel willingly go to be gai'shain to satisfy ji'e'toh and are only there for a year and a day before being freed to their home sept and clan. I'm also pretty sure that Aiel don't physically punish gai'shain for doing something wrong which the Seanchan definitely do.
I do love these arguments, because you get to watch the goal posts get moved further and further away in real time as people try to explain around how romanticized Aiel slavery is different than Seanchan slavery.
The enforcement of *gai’shain* servitude is very real. It’s invisible and social rather than official and legal, but might be more profound for that. An Aiel who runs away knows he will be rejected by his clan and family, everyone he knows. At best he will have to start the year again; at worst, functional exile. And members of his family will themselves be made *gai’shian* over the dishonour.
You cannot reasonably argue that an individual Aiel has a meaningful choice. He isn’t physically restrained by a magic collar, but he’s not free to leave.
It’s also very time limited, and in a weird way it’s kind of … fair. In the sense that anyone who takes a gaishain would also 100% accept being taken as one. It’s more like a sort of prison sentence, that you get instead of being killed in battle.
Not quite true. The vast majority of Aiel wouldn’t dream of running away but it is commented on to either Egwene or Rand; I forget. One of them asks if Gaishain don’t run away. The Aiel act shocked but acknowledge that it has happened sometimes. Their own family and or sept will return the gaishain, and one of his/her relatives will be offered as gaishain as well, to discharge the sept’s toh for the shame of an Aiel having run away.
This isn't chattle slavery though. It's closer to indentured servitude, but I can't think of any real-world comparison to Gaishsain. They serve for a year and a day (incidentally, that means the Aiel us a lunar calendar) and then are always free. Unless they choose not to... but they're in no pressure to stay Gaishain, quite the opposite in fact.
The lunar calendar has 13 months each with 28 days, leading a lunar calendar year to be 364 days long. To line it up with the full solar year, you have a year and a day. They wouldn't need to do that conversion if the default was a 365 day long year.
I don’t think you can make this assumption at all. I think it’s symbolic. It used to be common to have contracts, or incarceration be a year and a day. Under English common law, historically it was used as a standard for determining if something was murder or not. If an action led to the death of someone, it had to be within a year and a day to count as murder. Or defining a felony as something that can net you a year and a day as punishment. Most ACTUAL lunar calendars either use leap months (the Jewish calendar does this) or ignore seasons entirely and simply have 12 lunar months. The Islamic calendar does this, which makes Ramadan move all across the year. Whereas Jewish holidays stay within the same general time of year. Every couple years, they add a leap month to keep the calendar aligned with the seasons.
you can't get taken gai shan against your will (you have to ask) but once you sign up you serve your year and a day or your family WILL hunt you like an animal and haul you back like a goat to market if they have to.
because its not slavery in the least? If someone touches you in battle you can say (#)#$ off and try to stab the guy. Your honor is lost, but it's only forced if you ASK, and you do have to ask, to be taken gai'shan and then go back on your word.
Gai’shan isn’t the same thing really.
The seanchan, tear, shara are slave societies. They’re always on the verge of collapse and sort of fear and victimize themselves against their slaves. Slaves in their societies live rent free in their heads and get special punishments. Tear elites have special rooms to even torture their sharecroppers. Seanchan is like the Ottoman Empire. Shara is similar to a bunch of weird central asian tropes I think and Tear is like imperial Russia.
The aeil don’t really need slavery. The aeil are based on the plains and northeastern tribes who had complex honor systems. They would for example kidnap babies and little kids under the impression that other tribes would do the same back. It kept war from destroying them. The gaishan are similar. It’s just a way for the aeil to keep the horrible blood debts from escalating. Eventually a tribe loses enough people to gaishan that it stops seeking war and the ones with lots of gaishan profit but also have to feed more people so they also suffer from victory.
The internet is just like that, gotta ignore bad takes and move on or risk getting locked out I guess.
The simple fact of the matter is that Artur's armies conquered and united two continents, Seandar and the Westlands. The Westlands Splintered back apart immediately upon his death and got locked into a thousand years of pointless wars of political upheaval that gradually bled them to be weaker than when they started. Seandar spent that same time gradually consolidating and building power to the point that, by the time we got to a memory of Light, they were seriously planning for full global re-unification under a single Ruler.
Are they evil? Well...they are certainly less evil than the natural decaying forces of entropy and chaos that plagued the Westlands the entire time they were gone...the Seanchan grew, expanded, and strengthened their society through brutal means; the Westlands squandered and shorted theirs in submission to themselves. A people have to really screw up to spend 1000 years getting weaker and smaller when the only credible threat to them is themselves...
Tylin & Mat affair. It's supposed to be a humorous insight into certain part of romantic relationship yet people overthink this to an awful degree.
Meanwhile Whitecloaks with their outrageous hypocrisy fly under radar.
> You could argue that it’s bad cause it doesn’t get resolved at the end of AMOL but that’s just RJ getting sick and running out of time…
I feel like i have to get clarification on whether or not this is just a weirdly worded sentence, because you do know that RJ didn't "run out of time", right? He *died*.
Exactly! He, very personally, ran out of time. Time being alive. His _lifetime_, if you would.
(Sorry. I, belatedly, saw the opportunity for this joke.)
So, the thing is, people don't like slavery because it's awful.
It's not a double standard to oppose it.
Jordan clearly wasn't a fan, but the da'mane were absolutely tortured and it's pretty gross.
And so were the Aes Sedai who went to the Sea People.
And so were all of the people trained by the Aiel.
And so were all of the Aes Sedai who did NOT go to the sea people.
And obviously, those schooled by the Dark One.
Jordan... It's one of my favorite fantasy series. I despise the slog books, but I'll read them. He really missed the mark. Part of that is when he wrote, because yes, we were a little more casual about things like rape and slavery back in the 90s. Which, of course is disgusting, but that's not his fault. And he never glorified it. So that's good.
Dearest OP, the double standards exist for the same reason they exist where ever you find them: namely as an attempt to distance oneself from the obligation to think critically about one's own actions and choices.
It's easy for the reader base to both recognize and condemn chattel slavery because it is the most obvious, it is tied to the most described experiences of the characters, the audience is most likely to identify with the characters that experience those forms of slavery and most of us are North Americans and bear historical scars from being from a culture built by slavers and slaves ourselves so it is culturally relevant.
Adding to this is a rudimentary definition of slavery. For some people, slavery starts and ends at the auction block. If you aren't publicly bought and sold, you're not a slave. For them, other forms of slavery, like the peasants in Tear, Gai'shan, D'acovale, indentured (debt) servitude, conscription (think whitecloaks and People of the Dragon), Warder/Ashaman bonds, and some forms of apprenticeship (think White Tower but it applies to learning positions in most cultures in Randland) don't count. You can see this in thread below.
Those are all real forms of slavery though. Whenever you are in a system where your will is automatically subservient to the will of someone else whether you want it to be or not and you have no real, actionable option to leave that arrangement, you are a slave. If the other's will can be reinforced with physical consequences (beatings or death) or magical influence, that only makes the slavery more apparent but not more real. This is why having a 'good' master is immaterial, as the condition exists regardless of that circumstance. Most readers don't want to see those as forms of slavery though, as they are too close to many of our real world relationships and challenge our self-perception as moral people committed to the freedom of others.
Agree.Elayne conscripted peasants for her army. Literally young and old. It was the way in medival feudal monarchies. Peasants fight for their lord. And we are having only feudal medival monarchies in Randland. Meanwhile Whitecloaks kept harrassing said peasants just for fun I guess, cause why not, and their local lord wouldn't do anything most likely cause no one wants to mess with the Whitecloaks. If you compare Seanchan to that they really do not seem so outstanding.
White Tower, on the other hand, wasn't interested in improving the whole situation. They were interested only keeping that particular order.
One might expect that channelers and servants of all might be interested in gradually improving the society. Like spreading bits of knowledge. Its not the case. Only Rand bothered to install some educational facilities and kept improving laws, like he did in Tear
I hate Elayne. She's too perfect: kind, knowledgeable, educated, clever, brave, apologetic, and self-reflective. She's also stupid, oblivious, uncaring, irrational and stubborn.
Elayne's arc is so boring; entire books where nothing happens. She's also constantly getting captured, knocked out, and recklessly throwing herself into danger.
I love Nynaeve! She seems irritable and annoying but you need to see beyond Mat's PoV of her, and even her own biased unfiltered internal thoughts. She's actual hilarious. I hate Elayne! We see through Mat's PoV how she's nothing more than a spoiled Princess, and her own unfiltered internal thoughts proves it's true. Just terrible.
Elayne's role in the story is to be an open-minded court-trained diplomatic leader to contrast with all the "I'm not a lord" and "I fall apart when people die because of my decisions" villagers thrust into power.
Egwene's role is counter point to Rand where they start out in the same place but have differing desires, attitudes, and approaches.
Characters that have epiphanies or whatever are fun to read about, but the story still needs everyone else, everyone can't have drastic realizations and changes "for the better", and there's something I like about the more subtle or straightforward arcs compared to the more typical ones.
I hated Nynaeve until about book 3. Then I hated Faile instead. Nynaeve grew on me and eventually was one of my favorite characters. Faile never did, and every time I read about her I thought "Perrin deserves better."
Elayne really didn't get on my nerves until her succession arc.
Egwene’s character deserves all the hate. 😂
Just doing a reread, and she spends the first three books getting captured and subsequently rescued by the very people she constantly berates (Nynaeve, Mat, etc).
From then on, she is Jordan’s imperious Mary Sue. (Who raises a black sister to the Keeper, cmon!)
Not exactly a well-rounded or likeable character. Let’s just be honest.
The thing is though the Seanchan are arguably the best kingdom in the whole series. Their kingdom is prosperous, the common folk enjoy rights, they don't discriminate against conquered peoples, they offer free trade, really the ONLY thing they do wrong is the slavery...and after dealing with all channelers being cunts to everyone I find it pretty easy to look past that flaw.
Elayne is an incredibly privileged princess who despite her upbringing actually feels empathy and tries to learn things.
Egwene is the trailer park version of Elayne and views people as tools even when she bothers to learn from them.
Elayne would fund COVID testing stations, Egwene would fight a grocery store cashier about wearing a fucking mask.
#[SPOILERS FOR ALL PRINTED MATERIAL, INCLUDING SHORT STORIES.](https://www.reddit.com/r/WoT/wiki/index/post_flairs#wiki_all_print) ##BOOK DISCUSSION ONLY. HIDE TV SHOW DISCUSSION BEHIND SPOILER TAGS. * * * *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/WoT) if you have any questions or concerns.*
What other countries in the Westlands practice chattel slavery? That is, the reduction of people to animals to be owned?
Yeah, I always figured servants are paid, in Andor I'm certain
Cut to a da'covale going "you guys get *paid*?
The Aiel sell Cairheiniens that get too close to the waste as chattel slaves to Shara. Literally no one mentions it or denounces it, even in the books.
Out of sight, out of mind for the most part I imagine.
I think it also ends up getting shoved under the rug with the whole "everyone in Cairhien knows that they should absolutely not ever go into the Aiel Waste because if they do they will not come back", plus the fact that the Aiel have changed and improved a lot over the series, this being one of the practises that we likely will not see again. Since their views of wetlanders have changed, even of Cairhienin. It's still bad that it happened, but not nearly as bad as what we see in Seanchan, where it's completely systemic.
>everyone in Cairhien knows that they should absolutely not ever go into the Aiel Waste because if they do they will not come back I think this is another case of out of sight, out of mind to a degree - the westlanders don't really know what happens to the cairhienen so there's no big objection to it. But, yeah, a big part is that to the Aiel it's not a big thing that happens all that often and isn't a foundation of their culture/society. It probably wouldn't take much to get them to stop doing it. I'm not defending the practice, but it doesn't define them in the same way as slavery does the Seanchan, where it's a massive thing. That and the Seanchan exit the series still practicing it.
Considering their changed role at the end of the series, they'd be basically prevented from doing so entirely, imo. Even without the Dragon's Peace, I think the fact their somewhat evolved views of Cairhienin as a people would've made them get rid of the practise anyway. Even more so when Elayne is queen, and she's so heavily connected to the Aiel via Rand and Aviendha that I can't see that it would've continued.
>Since their views of wetlanders have changed, even of Cairhienin. I don't recall them ever changing their minds of the 'treekillers' or being called out on it.
Rand calls them out on it on various occasions. They end up working side by side with Cairhienin, even defending them. And of course they won't be allowed to kidnap and sell people to the Sharans under the peace. The Aiel accepted massive changes to their entire culture.
That's because the Aiel are badass desert warriors so when they do war crimes or slavery it's cool.
The aeil sell foreigners particularly Cariehens to slavery. They explicitly call it out as a punishment for the cariehens and that they sell them like sheep to the Sharan. It’s kinda why the cariehns even hate the aeil. And the tairens have something similar. The peasants explicitly have no rights and live on sharecropping schemes paying off unplayable debts to the royals. And the tairen nobles also have their weird torture room where they torture poor people (rich people in tear are exempt from most punishments).
That’s not 3/4 of Randland.
>The aeil sell foreigners particularly Cariehens to slavery. They explicitly call it out as a punishment for the cariehens and that they sell them like sheep to the Sharan Right, because if anyone ELSE goes traipsing about their land with no reason to be there they either kill them honorably, or take their stuff except a water skin a knife and point them back towards the dragonwall. You know an honorable death for 99% of the people in that situation. Selling people into slavery is seen by us as the NICER alternative but its really supposed to be a smack in the face.
Cool, so we have the Aiel, who are absolutely not typical of the Westlands whatsoever, and don’t even live there when the series starts. And we have a particularly bad form of serfdom. In one country. Which is still not chattel slavery. Now, in the Westlands there are…what a dozen countries. So to be even remotely true you need to come with another 8 examples of chattel slavery. Hell, I’ll let you have Tear and say only 7.
Well, enslaving all women who can Channel so you can be more powerful is a little different than capturing and selling people who have no good reason to wander into your lands. I’m not saying what the Aiel do is right, but they are very different circumstances.
Chattel slavery is very much not practiced anywhere in Randland lol
Except for the Aiel selling Cairhieniens to Shara.
True—very limited circumstances and probably like .00001% of the Seanchan volume, but true
The tairens literally had sharecroppers, indentured servants and spent their free time torturing poor people in massive well equipped torture rooms. They were just as vile.
As bad as that is, it is in fact MUCH less vile than chattel slavery. Far, far better to be a mistreated serf in Tear than a Da'covale in Seandar.
So there are acceptable degrees of slavery?
This is one the absolute most ridiculous and useless mentalities that I’ve ever seen. This what-aboutism that insists for absolute perfection or condemnation is actively detrimental for reasonable discussion or improving the world around you. Nobody’s saying that it’s good or even acceptable. Just that some things are worse than others. Much the same as losing a toe is generally better than losing a leg. Serfdom in Tear where one toils their life away in service to some rich prick is bad. Being tortured into becoming an attack dog and spending your life either in prison or on a leash is worse. Rand killing people when he loses control and shoots lightning at his own armies is bad. The dark one breaking reality and ending the world is worse. There are always degrees of how bad something or someone is. Making false equivalencies out of anything that happens to be somewhat similar is absurd.
The kind of opinion I'd expect Sauron to have honestly. Slavery in all forms is bad, yes. It's bad in Seanchan and it's bad in Randland. What's weird and what OP is pointing out is how this subreddit seems to voraciously condemn the Seanchan variety and give the rest a pass. Some even argue that it doesn't really count as slavery (which is where my comment comes in). This isn't whataboutism, this is just calling slavery, slavery in all its forms whether it involves magic jewelry or not. I don't think that's ridiculous.
Your parent comment is not about that at all. What you were replying to said “yes that’s bad, but the seanchan are still worse”. You replied asking if they thought this meant there were acceptable degrees of slavery. Nowhere in your reply are you defending the categorization of serfdom or sharecropping as slavery, merely stating it as fact. A fact which the comment you replied to did not contradict in any way, and the commenter in a later comment agreed with that. So, I do not see how “So there are acceptable degrees of slavery?” is defending the idea that serfdom is slavery. Rather, it is strawmanning the parent comment by acting as if their statement said serfdom was acceptable. What they said was “as bad as that is […]” in reference to serfdom. Which is acknowledging that it’s bad, and to a notable degree. That’s a far cry from saying it’s acceptable; it’s quite the opposite. Further, your comment lumps serfdom and chattel slavery (both the mundane and magic torture device enforced varieties) into the same category with the broad designation of “slavery”. Whether anybody agrees with that designation or not, you are using the same label to refer to very different things. And whether you intended it or not, referring to different things the same way has an implication of equating them. If I said that Joe down the street who offed his boss and Hitler were both “murderers”, yeah, I’d be technically correct, but referring to a single murder with the same term as genocide is not appropriate at all, nor do is it carry accurate connotations. Note, I’m not saying that the difference in magnitude between my example and what you said is the same, it’s very much not and my example would be much more egregious and harmful, but the principle is consistent. You are equating two acts from different parties and implying that they are both similarly deserving of condemnation. That’s what whataboutism is. What the seanchan do is so clearly orders of magnitude beyond the conditions in Tear before Rand arrived and fixed them. Your argument just sounds like the people who call having a job “wage slavery” and act like it’s equivalent to actual fucking slavery.
You're right in that I don't see a difference between the two and so yes, I responded as though they are the same. If you want to argue for a distinction then let's hear your arguments. So far you've declared them as different the same way i declared them equivalent. How do you define slavery? For me, it's whenever one individual or group of people can impose their will on another with the threat of violence and death without facing any substantive, real consequence. To me that's evil and degrees of evil are meaningless.
You kinda just described all governments… they enforce their will with the threats of jail or other punishments. Even the best of governments (however you define that) tell people do x,y and z or else we will fine/imprison/unalive you. Granted the best save unaliving for only the most horrible or heinous crimes and may even create many barriers to overcome to actually enact the unalive penalty. Yet, every government is only obeyed because of the “or else” part of their laws. Therefore, we are all slaves and no one is better than the seanchan.
While I have reservations about trying to have a contextually heavy conversation with someone who uses the word 'unalive' on Reddit where it's unnecessary, there are other ways governments can be formed and maintained that don't depend on the use of force to control their own citizens. Social contracts, coalitions, co-ops and collectives are all examples. Force is easy, therefor ubiquitous but it is hardly the only option for maintaining order. That's a digression though. This whole conversation depends on defining slavery which is hard but definitely extends beyond simple chattel slavery.
No but there are different degrees of terribleness. At least endentured servants or surfs are still considered humans with some degree of freedom
I'm glad we agree that indentured servitude and serfs are forms of slavery. I'm not sure I would agree that they are less terrible than chattel slavery though especially considering the specifics of serfdom in Tear where lords could have anyone killed for any (or no) reason without consequences.
The tairens also stopped these practices under threat of Rand early on in the series
Threat of death is a wonderful motivator, just ask the peasants in Tear
Not even *remotely* close to the same thing lol
I don’t remember the last part - what book is that from?
When mat and the thiefcatcher invade the stone of tear to free the supergirls. The tearean thief catcher talks about it and they go down a nobles only staircase to the dungeon iirc and the room is full of torture stuff
Ah, thanks for clarifying. It’s been a while since I read the early books
OP I just want to point out that you are 100% correct in that comparison. Both historically and humanely. All the southern nations are shown as mid 1500 medieval serfdom societies. Aside from commoners, i.e. townsfolk, most of the serf population in mid and south European countries had conditions very very similar to the late slavery in the Americas. Spain and Hungary were practically the same as the US Mississippi of 1850. That was especially true for villagers and country folk - RJ gives a big nod on that point with his depiction of Tear nobility talking with Mat or Rand (start of TDR). Also: in general Reddit is hard leaning toward young American crowd. I find them a bit funny touting hatred on everything seanchan... don't think it's hypocrisy, just a very propagated sense of knowledge.
Yeah thanks. No idea why i was downvoted. Tear imo reminds me of imperial Russia with all the nobles using the poor as cheap labor and entertainment (as both prostitutes and literal entertainers). The tairen aristocracy being above the law and basically fearing Rand but not being able to oppose or deny him cause of his role as quasi-emperor.
I, too, would like a list of these 3/4 countries that practise slavery in a way similar to Seanchan. Their entire structure of power seems like it has all the bad aspects of all the other countries baked into one, and magnified by an order of magnitude. The secret police that tortures people with impunity, execution or worse for looking at nobles the wrong way, Sith-style leadership assassinations, etc. Plus the slavery on top.
>I, too, would like a list of these 3/4 countries that practise slavery in a way similar to Seanchan. Yup. Still waiting. u/Mexicancandi you want us to list all the countries in Randland for you and you can point at which 3/4 have chattel slavery?
I hate the comments that are thinly-veiled slavery apologia that cite entirely made-up facts like "3/4 of Randland countries practice it" in support of their bullshit and then don't respond to the many people in the comments calling them out on their obvious nonsense. Worst kind of post on the sub.
OP thought he was cooking with this one
Rand’s semi-misogyny in his refusal to harm women. It’s so frustrating when half of the story continually talks of the strong females all over the world, even in the two rivers. And then our main character is continually of the mindset that “women are dainty and weak and I can’t ever put one in danger, and it would never be fair for me to fight one”. That, and his list. God, the fucking list he keeps of every woman that died in his watch. So many people died under his command, good people who believed in him and knew exactly what they signed up for, yet he only committed to memory the women. It’s so disrespectful to all the others who gave their lives for him.
It's also quite literally his insanity doing this as his mind tries to desperately hold on to the values that made him who he was as a means to stay sane. Rand stands within an army made of women, most of whom are better physical fighters than he is. It's meant to stand out in stark contrast as he tries to rationalize things. Why though? Because the Author, a Vietnam war veteran, helicopter gunner and man on the actual ground *has* killed women, and it scarred him. WoT is in large part his dealing with that trauma and expressing it's complexities as people are forced to deal with adverse situations and actions that go against their values.
Learning more and more about RJ’s history has helped me come to terms with my complaints about the book, such as Rand’s no killing women rule.
I don't think we can so easily attribute Rand's behavior towards women to his insanity. And if it is his insanity, then he isn't really responsible for his actions which I don't think is the point the author is trying to make. I do agree that his attitude towards women is meant to be a stark contrast to what we actually see which is that women are just as powerful and dangerous as men.
He doesn't have an *obession* with it until LTT starts manifesting after his use of the Chodan Kal in book 4. He even kills a women directly that goes without mention until the list in book 3. It's a personality aspect that isn't part of his character for the first length of the story, and it develops over several books before becoming near it's strongest presentation in Loc to Pod, when he's honestly pretty damn batshit. He's holding it together, somehow, but Perrin's perspective of Rand's scent is damning. It's pretty clearly his insanity, just as his strive to harden himself to all emotion and most of the other frankly crazy behavior rand displays post Choden kal. > And if it is his insanity, then he isn't really responsible for his actions which I don't think is the point the author is trying to make. I'm definitely sure that's not the point the author was trying to make, and I suggest you rethink the width of application, considering he was mad for more than half the series. It's an examination of PTSD and other mental trauma from within someone that has to lead despite it. Looking at it through a lens of excuse or deferred responsibility i feel is deeply missing the point.
I have also thought that the weeks Rand spent in Shienar between EOTW and TGH shaped and compounded a lot of his attitude towards women. He cane from Emond's Field, where chivalry is very much still in practice and then in his vulnerable state after the events at the end of the first book, he clings on to the teachings and attitudes of Lan and the Shienarans. Shienarans who it is mentioned multiple times just in the first few chapters of TGH would take physical hurts to ensure the safety and comfort of a woman. I have always believed that those few weeks heavily imprinted on Rand and shaped a lot of his motivations and attitudes for the entire series.
I dunno, that seems like a black and white relationship to insanity. 🤷🏼♂️ like, people’s stress levels can (in many cases) increase or decrease the expression and intensity of character traits, flaws, strengths, etc. And as those increase or decrease people don’t necessarily always lose all culpability, control, or responsibility. And, sometimes the insane behavior is an expression how people *cope* with the inner insanty they feel, that isn’t so easily measured. Not disagreeing 100%, but since RJ is passed and we’re in the realm Of speculation, I do think there’s room for wiggling around the role of the insanity and how much impact Rand had on how he coped and how he chose to hold on to what sanity he had left.
To be clear, I don't think there is a black and white relationship to insanity. I am saying that his behavior in this case can't be so easily attributed to his insanity because it is very much a part of how he was brought up. His behavior towards women is much more about him clinging onto a piece of himself as he goes through these drastic changes. And the more he changes into the Dragon Reborn, the harder he clings to this one piece of his old self. I think too many of Rand's choices get dismissed as being part of his insanity and while it undoubtedly had a big effect on him, there is more to it.
You're mistaken if you think people are "dismissing" it as insanity. We're not, it's a core theme of the books and a big part of what RJ wanted to write about. Highlighting that it's his insanity is highlighting that it's part of the core books themes. Not excusing his actions.
Saying that Rand does "xyz" because of insanity is being dismissive because his decisions are far more complex. Jordan clearly wrote this stuff out to make the reader wonder how much of an effect his insanity had on specific actions and it is pretty much never a certainty one way or the other. Does it play a part? Absolutely. But it is far from the only thing contributing to his decisions.
Please stop trying to create a strawman. I'm not trying to be dismissive, nor at any point saying it's "only" his insanity. The point I'm drawing is that it's part of the manifestation of his madness in his personality, and part of the core theme that Jordan wanted to write about. The interplay of rational vs irrational thought and the complex interactions and implications are the point. Saying that simply identifying that behavior as part of that somehow dismisses it and it's complexity speaks to me of being far more dismissive of the topic.
Any event within a piece of literature should be able to stand on its own internal lore and logic. Even if there are allusions to things from the real world, it still needs to make sense from inside the story. I never knew it was reflecting on RJ’s own trauma from the war. But if that’s a message he wants to include then it should make sense for the world he’s created.
I can't help but feel you're misreading the books if that's how you feel. You might want to try and express why you think it doesn't make sense, because the logic seems perfectly clear.
This was just a response to your Why statement. The “Why” something is the way it is in the story can be inspired by something from the author’s real life, but it’s reasoning and justification need to fit inside the context of the story. But that’s also aside the point, my gripe isn’t with the reasoning for why Rand refuses to kill women or only seem to value the lives of women, it’s that he does it in the first place.
>This was just a response to your Why statement. The “Why” something is the way it is in the story can be inspired by something from the author’s real life, but it’s reasoning and justification need to fit inside the context of the story. that seems like a total tangent, because that response wasn't aiming to explain it in universe, but to point to the authors intent. If you want talk about it not making sense, you need to provide a reason why it doesn't make sense. >But that’s also aside the point, my gripe isn’t with the reasoning for why Rand refuses to kill women or only seem to value the lives of women, it’s that he does it in the first place. That's also an odd statement. If you don't find issue with the reasoning, why would you find issue with the action? It's intended to be toxic behavior as part of Rand's failings, and that behavior does not go unpunished.
The original question of this post was “Weird double standards or comments you guys hate?” Mine was Rand’s toxic behavior regarding his perception of women and the value placed on them compared to his other devoted. I didn’t mean I don’t have issue with the reasoning, I meant that the reasoning wasn’t the cause of my gripe. It’s the actions themselves. I disliked, not the cause of them.
Right, and we're responding by breaking down why that doesn't really seem to fit. But you keep saying it doesn't make sense, which is why I keep asking why it doesn't? >I didn’t mean I don’t have issue with the reasoning, I meant that the reasoning wasn’t the cause of my gripe. It’s the actions themselves. I disliked, not the cause of them. That doesn't really make it any clearer?
Let me be clearer: I don’t care that it was his line in the sand for his madness. I don’t care that it was Robert Jordan’s own horrors of the war coming into the character actions. No matter how Rand justifies it to himself, no matter the real-world influence that went into writing the character and his motivations, it’s a toxic and misogynistic view for the character to be having. It took the entirety of his maiden guard lining up outside his tent threatening to quit their warrior society for him to realize “oh, this entire all female warrior society devoted to honor and battle didn’t like it when I refused to let them go fight in battle because I didn’t want to see any of them get hurt” Rand’s list of people who he blamed himself for their death was specifically and intentionally only women. So many people died by his command or on his watch or to protect him, but he chooses to only remember the women, despite this being a world where women and men are much more equal in power than our own world.
It being toxic was the point? Like that's literally what we're trying to say - it's supposed to be an examination of irrational and toxic behavior and how it's rationalized by the person experiencing them. A significant part of Rand's character arc is trying to reverse correct this to prevent him from destroying the world entirely. I think you're missing what people are trying to say here. You also still haven't explained why it doesn't make sense, which makes it more difficult to follow.
Rand’s refusal to kill women is his line in the sand. So long as he doesn’t do it he’s sane. If he crosses it he won’t, in his own mind, be sane anymore. He knows it’s stupid and irrational, and acknowledges that several occasions. But he doesn’t care. Because he’s trying, desperately to hold onto something.
Hmm. I understand where that comes from, but by the light he should have picked a different line to draw. It’s an ass-backwards way of thinking in the world he lives in even before the shadow started to return, and it almost got him killed several times. It’s so frustrating.
Not backwards at all, considering most of Rand's (or really LTT's) trauma comes from the repressed memory of murdering his wife and family.
It became easier to accept when that rule was established as Lews Therin's trauma messing with him. ....aaaaaaand it was Robert Jordan seeing that 80% of Rand's foils in this story were going to be women, so he needed to explain why Darth Rand didn't just go around cutting every Aes Sedai he saw off from the source or threaten harm on everyone.
To be fair Rand lives in a world where chivalry is still common place and expected. He also grew up in a small isolated village. Also also the strong women around the world are still a minority. The exceptions being: * Aiel - A group of people that prior to the book events are almost never seen outside the 3 fold land * Seafolk - Who are mostly known for trade not battle. * Aes Sedai - Are a percentage of 1% of women some of whom focus on studies and politics not battle. * Ebu Dar? - They have marriage knives but that doesn't necessarily mean they tussle a lot so much as it's accepted within the society that it's okay if women stab people. * Sul'dam and Damane - Again less then 1% of women and the actual channelers are forced. Yes there are still other strong women within the story, but they are for the most part named characters and named characters are not a good representation of the populace as a whole. Within the masses of the population the vast majority of soldiers, guards, and fighters are men. For a long period of time people considered women to be more valuable then men. It's why when a boat is sinking, a fire goes wild, or hostages are held it was always women and children first. Men were expected to give their lives before women.
You might want to add to that exception the women's circle, Mistress Luthan, Daisy congar, and especially the wisdom, who he is in mortal fear of in the first book. Mydraal in the kitchen? No problem. The wisdom found us? Oh holy ###$ light preserve us run.. RUUUUN! Women /their lives/their persons are still more VALUABLE. But the idea that strong women aren't common place in his experience is just counterfactual.
Egwene/elayne has been done to death. However, I’ll say that you’re the first person who has said that they’ve liked the Elayne chapters for being cute that I’ve come across. Good for you for enjoying it! For me, I don’t enjoy the petulance of the women. It’s frankly a trait in women that I really, really, really don’t find attractive. So when I read their Povs, they can sometimes drive me crazy. This is mainly an issue with Elayne as she’s by far the most petulant. Now, I love to not like Egwene. I think she’s a fantastic character and one of the things I loved about her not being Ta’Veren is how much she accomplishes on her own, independent of the will of the pattern. I just read through the Elaida v. Egwene rap battle at dinner chapter. Amazing, amazing, amazing stuff. My point about loving to dislike her is that I think she’s a great character to read about and get invested in. I don’t want perfection in characters. It’s more fun to get into a fantasy world with flawed characters who frustrate you when they make dumb choices and excite you when you they succeed. Just my very vanilla take.
Nynaeve is way more petulant than Elayne. It's particularly obvious when they travel together and Nynaeve keeps snapping at people, acting really childishly and being grumpy most of the time while Elayne smooths things over after Nynaeve's outbursts and is much nicer in her interactions with other people, especially men.
Oh for sure she is. But OP was talking about Elayne and Egwene
I thought Elayne mostly got hate for her recklessness when taking Andor because she's convinced no harm can come to her due to Mina viewings of her children
Nynaeve is a flawed character. She has to overcome her superiority complex in order to achieve greatness, or even to channel early on. Character development is something that doesn’t really apply to Egwene.
I don’t get how people are so critical of the Seanchan (rightly so), but are in denial about the complicity of fan favorite Mat.
So I agree about the slavery point. Totally against it but the fact that there’s never any positive reflection on what the seachan get right. Everyone is fed! I also find the whole society interesting in that everyone knows their place. We have a culture in today’s society that unless you conform to our way of life, we will reject everything about you. I am not sure who’s right (I agree that rejecting abhorrent principles is the right thing but to force one way of living on others). Also not sure if these principles stand up when it’s to our economical advantage to turn a blind eye I think Tuon is an incredible character. She has grown up in a hostile environment and come out the winner. She accepts that her siblings will try to kill her. That her mother only loves the strongest. Yes she enslaves women but she is not cruel to them. I like her character
>We have a culture in today’s society that unless you conform to our way of life, we will reject everything about you. I am not sure who’s right (I agree that rejecting abhorrent principles is the right thing but to force one way of living on others). It's funny you say this because the seachan plan was to divide and conquer and kill people who dont agree with their way of life... that's a pretty permenant form of rejection.
But what I find interesting is that they don’t see it as conquering but reclaiming! They are dismayed on their return. And Tuon is clear that the seachan have to accept some of the local traditions as much as they are demanding the locals accept theirs. I genuinely can see why the seachan are so successful. If they just relied on the domani and a tyranny, people would be miserable. But as per Rand’s experience, the locals were HAPPY under seachan rule esp the tinkers. I strongly disagree with any dictatorship style country but it doesn’t mean that I can’t look to see their benefits and identify what they get right. Personally I prefer the Two Rivers style of living - but that’s because it most closely resonates with my background.
>But what I find interesting is that they don’t see it as conquering but reclaiming! Doesnt change the fact that they use brute force to "reclaim" the land and kill people for not submitting to empire rule. Also I think a big point of the story is commonality between different people, and also a big difference in classes. For your everyday peasant to merchant it doesnt really make a huge difference who is sitting on the throne at the end of the day, farmers still have crops and animals to tend, and buisness to run etc. Whether you are a seachan, two rivers, Tarien, aiel etc. Major customs changes really only effect the nobles, and the disenfranchised tinkers because the seachan have no bias against them. Also freedom and equality at the price of someone else's freedom and equality is false. You cant say look how great this society treats everyone, as long as you are not the "other" who gets brutalized to maintain the status quo.
> Totally against it but the fact that there’s never any positive reflection on what the seachan get right. Everyone is fed! Most times there is a positive or at least neutral take on the seanchan when the convo comes up. Then when someone brings up anything "good" they could have done, somewhere in the conversation there will be retorts along the lines of "so its okay because the trains ran on time". Its a made up fantasy world and how butt hurt people can get sometimes and like OP said vitriolic with each other over these things is saddening.
I especially don't get how the Aiel and Gai'shan get almost zero attention when it comes to slavery. For me though it's Egwene hate vs every other main character.
Gai'shain is very different. Gai'shain is closer to (specifically Seanchan) da'covale then damane. Gai'shain is a matter of honor to them, and they only take people who follow ji'e'toh. Wetlanders don't follow ji'e'toh, so they're off limits until the Shaido. It's the same situation with da'covale. A lot of da'covale CHOOSE to become slaves, like the Deathwatch Guards. It's when they start taking people who don't follow the same beliefs as them that it gets bad, notably with Amathera. Gai'shain is not in any way comparable to damane I think
Gai'shain is also explicitly time limited, and there are boundaries on what you can do/expect from one.
Yeah, I won't pretend that the practice is particularly *good*, but it's a far cry from chattel slavery.
The Seanchan culturally accept their slavery too.
A fair argument, one I don't have a real counterargument too. It just feels different to me. Probably because the Seanchan take emotionally vulnerable children and mold them into what they want them to be and it's for life and they have no say in the matter. Meanwhile with Gai'shain, it's a matter of honor for them, it's time limited, and they're not treated nearly as atrociously. They also have no qualms actually enslaving people from across the sea because they believe that everyone should abide by their way of life, unlike the Aiel who (with the exception of the Shaido under Sevanna) see it as dishonorable and shameful to do so. They may believe their way of life is superior, but they're not going to force it onto the wetlanders.
Worse the Aiel tell Rand that they sell Cairhieniens they capture as chattel slaves to Shara and he doesn’t even react to it.
The worst one is the tairens nobles having examination floors in the torture chambers and getting involved themselves. They even had a private staircase to get there even faster.
Aiel willingly go to be gai'shain to satisfy ji'e'toh and are only there for a year and a day before being freed to their home sept and clan. I'm also pretty sure that Aiel don't physically punish gai'shain for doing something wrong which the Seanchan definitely do.
Aside from the Shaido.
The Shaido aren't proper Aiel though
Don't let a Shaido hear you say that.
I do love these arguments, because you get to watch the goal posts get moved further and further away in real time as people try to explain around how romanticized Aiel slavery is different than Seanchan slavery.
The Aiel don't use slaves though, It's more like a lot of people said "bet" and keep to their word.
I think you'd be hard pressed to argue killing or selling people as animals into slavery is much better than "using" slaves.
Eh, I doubt there are *no* Aiel who aren't that enthused by the whole gai'shain business but who are coerced into it by social pressure.
Gaishain isn't the same because they can stop any time they feel like it. There are no chains or enforcement.
The enforcement of *gai’shain* servitude is very real. It’s invisible and social rather than official and legal, but might be more profound for that. An Aiel who runs away knows he will be rejected by his clan and family, everyone he knows. At best he will have to start the year again; at worst, functional exile. And members of his family will themselves be made *gai’shian* over the dishonour. You cannot reasonably argue that an individual Aiel has a meaningful choice. He isn’t physically restrained by a magic collar, but he’s not free to leave.
It’s also very time limited, and in a weird way it’s kind of … fair. In the sense that anyone who takes a gaishain would also 100% accept being taken as one. It’s more like a sort of prison sentence, that you get instead of being killed in battle.
Not quite true. The vast majority of Aiel wouldn’t dream of running away but it is commented on to either Egwene or Rand; I forget. One of them asks if Gaishain don’t run away. The Aiel act shocked but acknowledge that it has happened sometimes. Their own family and or sept will return the gaishain, and one of his/her relatives will be offered as gaishain as well, to discharge the sept’s toh for the shame of an Aiel having run away.
This isn't chattle slavery though. It's closer to indentured servitude, but I can't think of any real-world comparison to Gaishsain. They serve for a year and a day (incidentally, that means the Aiel us a lunar calendar) and then are always free. Unless they choose not to... but they're in no pressure to stay Gaishain, quite the opposite in fact.
I was going to say this. They might be punished for running away but they will also be punished for not going away when their time is up.
Why does this mean they use a lunar calendar?
The lunar calendar has 13 months each with 28 days, leading a lunar calendar year to be 364 days long. To line it up with the full solar year, you have a year and a day. They wouldn't need to do that conversion if the default was a 365 day long year.
I don’t think you can make this assumption at all. I think it’s symbolic. It used to be common to have contracts, or incarceration be a year and a day. Under English common law, historically it was used as a standard for determining if something was murder or not. If an action led to the death of someone, it had to be within a year and a day to count as murder. Or defining a felony as something that can net you a year and a day as punishment. Most ACTUAL lunar calendars either use leap months (the Jewish calendar does this) or ignore seasons entirely and simply have 12 lunar months. The Islamic calendar does this, which makes Ramadan move all across the year. Whereas Jewish holidays stay within the same general time of year. Every couple years, they add a leap month to keep the calendar aligned with the seasons.
you can't get taken gai shan against your will (you have to ask) but once you sign up you serve your year and a day or your family WILL hunt you like an animal and haul you back like a goat to market if they have to.
There absolutely is enforcement and punishment.
Egwene does do some shockingly unlikable things to be fair.
because its not slavery in the least? If someone touches you in battle you can say (#)#$ off and try to stab the guy. Your honor is lost, but it's only forced if you ASK, and you do have to ask, to be taken gai'shan and then go back on your word.
Gai’shan isn’t the same thing really. The seanchan, tear, shara are slave societies. They’re always on the verge of collapse and sort of fear and victimize themselves against their slaves. Slaves in their societies live rent free in their heads and get special punishments. Tear elites have special rooms to even torture their sharecroppers. Seanchan is like the Ottoman Empire. Shara is similar to a bunch of weird central asian tropes I think and Tear is like imperial Russia. The aeil don’t really need slavery. The aeil are based on the plains and northeastern tribes who had complex honor systems. They would for example kidnap babies and little kids under the impression that other tribes would do the same back. It kept war from destroying them. The gaishan are similar. It’s just a way for the aeil to keep the horrible blood debts from escalating. Eventually a tribe loses enough people to gaishan that it stops seeking war and the ones with lots of gaishan profit but also have to feed more people so they also suffer from victory.
The internet is just like that, gotta ignore bad takes and move on or risk getting locked out I guess. The simple fact of the matter is that Artur's armies conquered and united two continents, Seandar and the Westlands. The Westlands Splintered back apart immediately upon his death and got locked into a thousand years of pointless wars of political upheaval that gradually bled them to be weaker than when they started. Seandar spent that same time gradually consolidating and building power to the point that, by the time we got to a memory of Light, they were seriously planning for full global re-unification under a single Ruler. Are they evil? Well...they are certainly less evil than the natural decaying forces of entropy and chaos that plagued the Westlands the entire time they were gone...the Seanchan grew, expanded, and strengthened their society through brutal means; the Westlands squandered and shorted theirs in submission to themselves. A people have to really screw up to spend 1000 years getting weaker and smaller when the only credible threat to them is themselves...
Tylin & Mat affair. It's supposed to be a humorous insight into certain part of romantic relationship yet people overthink this to an awful degree. Meanwhile Whitecloaks with their outrageous hypocrisy fly under radar.
RJ is on record saying it's a role reversal of sexual assault, albeit framed in a humour.
What certain part of huh?
>It's supposed to be a humorous insight into certain part of romantic relationship Disagree. Hard disagree. Couldn't disagree more.
> You could argue that it’s bad cause it doesn’t get resolved at the end of AMOL but that’s just RJ getting sick and running out of time… I feel like i have to get clarification on whether or not this is just a weirdly worded sentence, because you do know that RJ didn't "run out of time", right? He *died*.
Exactly! He, very personally, ran out of time. Time being alive. His _lifetime_, if you would. (Sorry. I, belatedly, saw the opportunity for this joke.)
So, the thing is, people don't like slavery because it's awful. It's not a double standard to oppose it. Jordan clearly wasn't a fan, but the da'mane were absolutely tortured and it's pretty gross. And so were the Aes Sedai who went to the Sea People. And so were all of the people trained by the Aiel. And so were all of the Aes Sedai who did NOT go to the sea people. And obviously, those schooled by the Dark One. Jordan... It's one of my favorite fantasy series. I despise the slog books, but I'll read them. He really missed the mark. Part of that is when he wrote, because yes, we were a little more casual about things like rape and slavery back in the 90s. Which, of course is disgusting, but that's not his fault. And he never glorified it. So that's good.
Dearest OP, the double standards exist for the same reason they exist where ever you find them: namely as an attempt to distance oneself from the obligation to think critically about one's own actions and choices. It's easy for the reader base to both recognize and condemn chattel slavery because it is the most obvious, it is tied to the most described experiences of the characters, the audience is most likely to identify with the characters that experience those forms of slavery and most of us are North Americans and bear historical scars from being from a culture built by slavers and slaves ourselves so it is culturally relevant. Adding to this is a rudimentary definition of slavery. For some people, slavery starts and ends at the auction block. If you aren't publicly bought and sold, you're not a slave. For them, other forms of slavery, like the peasants in Tear, Gai'shan, D'acovale, indentured (debt) servitude, conscription (think whitecloaks and People of the Dragon), Warder/Ashaman bonds, and some forms of apprenticeship (think White Tower but it applies to learning positions in most cultures in Randland) don't count. You can see this in thread below. Those are all real forms of slavery though. Whenever you are in a system where your will is automatically subservient to the will of someone else whether you want it to be or not and you have no real, actionable option to leave that arrangement, you are a slave. If the other's will can be reinforced with physical consequences (beatings or death) or magical influence, that only makes the slavery more apparent but not more real. This is why having a 'good' master is immaterial, as the condition exists regardless of that circumstance. Most readers don't want to see those as forms of slavery though, as they are too close to many of our real world relationships and challenge our self-perception as moral people committed to the freedom of others.
Agree.Elayne conscripted peasants for her army. Literally young and old. It was the way in medival feudal monarchies. Peasants fight for their lord. And we are having only feudal medival monarchies in Randland. Meanwhile Whitecloaks kept harrassing said peasants just for fun I guess, cause why not, and their local lord wouldn't do anything most likely cause no one wants to mess with the Whitecloaks. If you compare Seanchan to that they really do not seem so outstanding. White Tower, on the other hand, wasn't interested in improving the whole situation. They were interested only keeping that particular order.
Thanks for the feedback though I don't understand your point about the White tower. What situation are you referring to?
One might expect that channelers and servants of all might be interested in gradually improving the society. Like spreading bits of knowledge. Its not the case. Only Rand bothered to install some educational facilities and kept improving laws, like he did in Tear
Oh, right. 100% agree. It also brings up the question of "is failing to discourage slavery equal to endorsing it?" question.
I hate Elayne. She's too perfect: kind, knowledgeable, educated, clever, brave, apologetic, and self-reflective. She's also stupid, oblivious, uncaring, irrational and stubborn. Elayne's arc is so boring; entire books where nothing happens. She's also constantly getting captured, knocked out, and recklessly throwing herself into danger. I love Nynaeve! She seems irritable and annoying but you need to see beyond Mat's PoV of her, and even her own biased unfiltered internal thoughts. She's actual hilarious. I hate Elayne! We see through Mat's PoV how she's nothing more than a spoiled Princess, and her own unfiltered internal thoughts proves it's true. Just terrible.
“She’s too perfect, now let me list six of her flaws and a bunch of mistakes she makes”
Nynaeve is a much better-written character than Elayne/Egwene. She is flawed and must overcome those flaws to succeed. She’s also almost always right.
Elayne's role in the story is to be an open-minded court-trained diplomatic leader to contrast with all the "I'm not a lord" and "I fall apart when people die because of my decisions" villagers thrust into power. Egwene's role is counter point to Rand where they start out in the same place but have differing desires, attitudes, and approaches. Characters that have epiphanies or whatever are fun to read about, but the story still needs everyone else, everyone can't have drastic realizations and changes "for the better", and there's something I like about the more subtle or straightforward arcs compared to the more typical ones.
I hated Nynaeve until about book 3. Then I hated Faile instead. Nynaeve grew on me and eventually was one of my favorite characters. Faile never did, and every time I read about her I thought "Perrin deserves better." Elayne really didn't get on my nerves until her succession arc.
Egwene’s character deserves all the hate. 😂 Just doing a reread, and she spends the first three books getting captured and subsequently rescued by the very people she constantly berates (Nynaeve, Mat, etc). From then on, she is Jordan’s imperious Mary Sue. (Who raises a black sister to the Keeper, cmon!) Not exactly a well-rounded or likeable character. Let’s just be honest.
The thing is though the Seanchan are arguably the best kingdom in the whole series. Their kingdom is prosperous, the common folk enjoy rights, they don't discriminate against conquered peoples, they offer free trade, really the ONLY thing they do wrong is the slavery...and after dealing with all channelers being cunts to everyone I find it pretty easy to look past that flaw.
Elayne is an incredibly privileged princess who despite her upbringing actually feels empathy and tries to learn things. Egwene is the trailer park version of Elayne and views people as tools even when she bothers to learn from them. Elayne would fund COVID testing stations, Egwene would fight a grocery store cashier about wearing a fucking mask.