Kevin's Watch

The unfethered said that he would give the raver the truth test and it laughed at him. I think that a raver isn't able to hide its presence from the test, but the test isn't able to do something more to it. It's like the use of the seven words against them in the first chronicles. A raver always wince when they are used, but the words don't stop them.

The Ravers were never subject to the seven words. The lords only knew six of them. and very badly said. As stated elsewhere all the words may have been place in Kevin's wards.

There are so many questions that FR opens up. It may explain why alot of "the why" of the first chronicles.

Why did Kevin put the "Lore of the Lords" into seven wards? Was it because Kevin did meet with or one of the Insequent(s)? The Theomach maybe? or some other?
Berek got the full list of the seven words right at the start. Kevin by placing the lore into wards is following the Insequent qwest of that knowledge is gained by efforts of the seeker. As opposed that it is handed to them like knowledge is to the Elohim.

Maybe a short list of "goofs" can be compiled and explained.

The more I read threads in the Watch and the more I see the desperate convolutions we create to try to justify apparent inconsistencies in FR, the more I become convinced that it's not that SRD has out-thought us; it's that he can't possibly be expected to catch all of these issues, being only one person. We have dozens (hundreds?) of readers on the Watch who are particularly on the lookout for such things, and who may have an even better mastery on the former books than he does (he says as much at some point in the GI, as well as admitting that the hardest thing for him in writing is internal consistency). Sometimes it seemed to me that some of the questions that hit a nerve in the GI were ones that exposed apparent inconsistencies that he might not want to admit he created (I'm afraid I can't think of a particular example at the moment). The fact that some of those inconsistencies may be resolved in later books doesn't necessarily mean he had a plan to make them clear all along; he may simply have become aware of the issues due to our posts (or people communicating with him through the GI or in other ways).

I have to clarify all of this by saying that not only do I consider SRD a brilliant writer that I love, but I also think he's done an absolutely tremendous job of holding the story together and weaving together the past and present without creating even more inconsistencies. I could never have accomplished what he has.

The more I read threads in the Watch and the more I see the desperate convolutions we create to try to justify apparent inconsistencies in FR, the more I become convinced that it's not that SRD has out-thought us; it's that he can't possibly be expected to catch all of these issues, being only one person

I am not so sure about this, each of us only has the same material as SRD. The fact that a number of people have noticed these inconsistencies (they might not be at the end of the last book) and SRD hasn't might well mean SRD has got it wrong.

regards

Alan

[quote="alanm]The fact that a number of people have noticed these inconsistencies and SRD hasn't might well mean SRD has got it wrong.
[/quote]

Lol... The man has well over 1200 pages left to resolve what _seems_ to be inconsistencies. We already know the story is about TIMETRAVEL people - inconsistencies are required for plots dealing with time; if he doesnt resolve them, then get offended.

In the meantime a little faith tho!

We already know the story is about TIMETRAVEL people

I can't recall in any of the first 6 books any mention of time travel. If it is that important in these last 4 books then maybe just a little mention previously..............

Does Arch of Time sound familiar? Lol...

Seppi2112 wrote:Does Arch of Time sound familiar? Lol...

since when did the Arch of time have anything todo with time travel?

Alanm is correct, there was never any mention of time travel prior to ROTE.

So what? The 1st and 2nd chron's aren't the Bible, it isn't heresy to add new elements to the story. If you wanted a 3rd/last chron that added nothing new, I think you would have to be ok with a boring story. For me, the last chron represents an evolution in SRD's writing which I am enjoying. I can always go back and re-read the 1st and 2nd chrons again and again if I want to.

This is why I'm so perplexed by the arguments that the Insequent are some sort of "cheat" by SRD. Huh? Why is it considered necessary that there be some reference to an Insequent in chrons 1 and 2, which were written so long ago? The history of the Land we had before RoTE and FR was from the new Lords and the Giants basically. None of whom had known any Insequent or really had any opportunity to. Why is it we want to consider that history the full and complete truth when clearly it's limited?

The 1st and 2nd chron's aren't the Bible

Blasphemy!

dlbpharmd wrote:

The 1st and 2nd chron's aren't the Bible

Blasphemy!

very true, for 20 years they where the bible.

cheers

Is this right?:

1st: Drool (LFB)
2nd: Lord M (TIW) - cancelled
3rd: H Lord E (TIW)
4th: Bannor and Foam (TPTP)

Also, didn't Atiaran try to summon TC only to die? Think that was TPTP, too.

If true, what is the goof? That Stave got 2 and 3 mixed? Or am i forgetting a summons?

Lastly, what was the Caer C goof?

Kil Tyme wrote:Is this right?:

Nope.

In LFB, Drool summoned TC (with SOL)

Before TIW, Atairan tries to summon TC, and summons HT instead. (device unknown)

In TIW, Elena summons TC (with SOL)

In TPTP, Mhoram summons TC, and releases him (device unknown)

Later in TPTP, Triock and Foamfollower summon TC (with lomillialor).

The goof is that Stave claimed that Mhoram summoned TC with the SOL, but the SOL was destroyed before that summons occurred.

In TPTP, Mhoram summons TC, and releases him (device unknown)

It was Variol's staff.

Re: The goof is that Stave claimed that Mhoram summoned TC with the SOL, but the SOL was destroyed before that summons occurred.

No it wasn't. Dead Elena had the Staff at that point.

Ahhh yes, thanks Way.

Just to follow up on my interspersed point, Stave says of the test of truth that against "lesser beings, such as the Ravers", the test of truth did not fail. This is just inaccurate, and I don't think it can be reconciled by attempting to argue that Yeurquin-Raver was in some way aided by the Staff of Law.

One thing that's hard is that certain characters, such as Stave, appear to speak "canonically", but we have to accept that they're not necessarily always right. I'm thinking now of a previous point that used to bother me about Findail, where he discusses how Covenant would be no threat to the Arch if he lacked the Despiser's venom. I think we can conclude that while Findail might believe that, it may not be accurate.

The test of truth did work against Marid, and in LFB the people of Soaring Woodhelven believed it would detect a Raver. I don't know how to explain the Yeurquin part, but there must be some reason for it.

How did it work against Marid exactly? He was touched by a piece of ordinary wood that caught on fire because the Ravers apparently radiate intense amounts of heat.