Talk:A Memory of Light

Novels: Fantasy Mid‑importance

	Novels portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.NovelsWikipedia:WikiProject NovelsTemplate:WikiProject Novelsnovel articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Fantasy task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Health Issues

i removed part of the health issues section, there was nothing wrong with the content but i don't feel the article on the book should contain so much information on the health status of the author, the article on the author should be used for that. Boneyard 06:39, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Jordan is dead. http://www.dragonmount.com/RobertJordan/ You may want to edit this page to reflect this issue. --74.76.154.190 01:50, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When?

"The book is tentatively scheduled to be published Autumn 2012." March or September I assume? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autumn — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.59.39.54 (talk) 08:09, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Autumn in the Northern Hemisphere (September through December).Caidh (talk) 14:23, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Who?

It may be interesting to know exactly who will finish writing the last book. (Epgui (talk) 16:29, 7 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Well, that answers that. -- Cyrius|✎ 21:50, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Split

Any chance that split thing is a hoax? The graphic on the reference page looks a little off- if nothing else, it calls the book a sequel to "Crossroads of Twilight" instead of "Knife of Dreams." Of course, I may just be grasping at straws since I don't want to wait until 2011 to finish out the series. Robert Jordan said that he could get one really long good book, or two mediocre books out of the material he has left- so, Sanderson takes that and splits it into three books? Not a good omen... Nutiketaiel (talk) 20:01, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This link to Sanderson's blog seems to disparage the claims made. This really seems more like a hoax than anything else. I have tagged the section as such. Nutiketaiel (talk) 20:06, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sanderson's blog post, from Harriet also makes this look more like a hoax than reality. Harriet did not approve this image, she's never seen this image, and if this were remotely official she would be aware of it. Welch3694 (talk) 16:52, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed now by Tor and Sanderson. That cover art was bogus, but the split is real (and bigger than expected). http://www.tor.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=blog&id=19734 205.167.180.131 (talk) 18:32, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that just sucks. Let me find my torch and pitchfork. Nutiketaiel (talk) 19:06, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So do we stick all three of the volumes in this article or do we spin out a separate article for each one? --sdgjake (talk) 21:06, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it here for now. Can split if and when there's enough info/sources for a separate article. Rehevkor ✉ 21:23, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if splitting is the best option, given that the split books will still be considered parts of one big book with the collective title of A Memory of Light, with "The Gathering Storm" et cetera being subtitles. Thoughts? Mirithing (talk) 19:31, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They would have to be split eventually for length and practice. See the Lord of the Rings book articles. rootology (C)(T) 19:33, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You make a very good point there, I didn't consider that. So we'll just split this article once it becomes big enough? Mirithing (talk) 19:49, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A split would be inevitable really. I for one would rather avoid long and overly complicated plot sections in this article. Best bet would be to develop this one as we are, for a general article on the "trilogy", then the articles on the volumes can branch off and develop on their own. When dust settles, and the volume articles can't stand up on their own, we can attempt to merge them, (I'm always in favour in quality over quantity of articles) but that's a long way from now. But worth keeping in mind. Oh, and an example of a series merged into a single article would be

The Myst Reader. WoT is considerably more epic, but how easy would it be to write a decent, well sourced article on any of the individual WoT books that weren't just glorified plot summaries? Rehevkor ✉ 20:47, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where do people stand on the split now? With the official covers released and comments from Harriet, Sanderson and Tom Doherty at JordanCon, it seems that A Memory of Light will now be the title of just the final book (Book 14) and the preceding two will not have the Memory of Light subtitle on them. It seems logical to me that we now need a dedicated page for The Gathering Storm, Book 13 and the 'new' Memory of Light. Thoughts?--Werthead (talk) 23:34, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While it does seem to be the case I've not found anything concrete confirm and contradict the previous sources. So until there is something does come up nothing needs to be done. It is rather annoying though as the article was written on "the last novel(s)" so it'd need to be scrapped and re-written if it does turn out to be true. Unless we create a The Wheel of Time after Robery Jordan popped his clogs article or some bollocks. Rehevkor ✉ 13:12, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this is the correct action. As of this point the last bookmay or maqy not be A Memory of Light. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 00:59, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken the initiative and created a page for The Gathering Storm (book). A Memory of Light is not even mentioned on the US cover, and continuing to wiki-describe book 12 under this page is becoming counterproductive. I also think that this page has way too much information specific to the upcoming book and it is becoming unbalanced. I've created a short section on the split on the new page, including book specific information about how the title was chosen. I've put the new US cover there. I do think this page should still be used to discuss the new trilogy as a whole, but that info specific to the new book in this article should be kept to a minimum. Billebrooks (talk) 00:32, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see no problem in creating an article on the 12th book, but I also see no problem, for now, on there being an article on A Memory of Light, on the last books in general, even in Sanderson's latest interview describes a "series of three". There's been nothing to suggest a the last books are not part of a series, named whatever. Rehevkor ✉ 03:20, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"2000 pages"

I'm pretty sure he said this himself somewhere that this would be the final book even if it's 2000 pages long, but I can't seem to find it. Could anyone provide a link? Not that important as it's mentioned in the Forbes article, but I'd like it from the horses mouth. Cheers! Rehevkor ✉ 19:30, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Haven't found anything about the length, but he does comment on his blog before he died about "my intention is to finish with twelve books, and that may mean the last book will be VERY long...". That's at: http://www.dragonmount.com/RobertJordan/?p=26 Caidh (talk) 19:53, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's mentioned here and there in various articles and I'm pretty sure he mentioned the 2000 number somewhere one of his Dragonmount writings (a reliable source for anything related to him or WoT, especially if it's one of his posts). If you do creative Googling add in the phrase "fork lift" or "forklift", since I recall it was him making a joke about needing one to bring the book into your house. rootology (C)(T) 04:06, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, searching his blogs I've not been able to find a 2000 reference, but then I've not finished reading through it manually. In the article I've used the mention Caidh suggested. I recall reading the "forklift" reference, but used Caidh's source as I found it sooner. Don't need two blog references to the length. Thank you though! Rehevkor ✉ 04:36, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cover Picture

Should we really have the British version of the cover be shown? All the other articles use the American version of the cover.Jamhaw (talk) 04:32, 19 May 2009 (UTC)jamhaw[reply]

I thought the procedure was to use whichever cover version is "most common". Since this is the English language Wikipedia, which version is more prominent in English-speaking nations? rootology/equality 00:16, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the US versions have sold more than the other English language versions in the past, but unfortunately I haven't been able to find specific numbers. Even so - since the others are the Sweet covers (US version), we should probably keep with it (even though the art is horrid on this one - its better to be consistent).Caidh (talk) 00:33, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the image, there's no image directly related AMoL and we shouldn't really be using the TGS cover - it'd fail fair use policy. I believe the TGS article uses the US cover though. Rehevkor ✉ 16:36, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adding a source and changing verbage.

I have sourced and inserted that the last three books may not be overtitled A Memory of Light. I do this because it states in Brian Sandersons Blog "Therefore, "Shifting Winds" is the working title of the second book of the three-book cycle. Note that this title WILL change. Originally, I intended this title to be a sub-title beneath the larger title of A MEMORY OF LIGHT. It was meant to be unobtrusive. Now, the books are each going to carry their own titles, and so Shifting Winds just doesn't work. I'll let you know when the real title is settled upon. (The third book of the three will likely be given the title A MEMORY OF LIGHT.) " There are disputing sources that say it might be this way or that however I think Given the source both viewpoints should be represented as both are distinctly possible now.Hell In A Bucket (talk) 04:05, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Harriet who?

In The Gathering Storm article, Jordan's wife is referred to as "Harriet Rigney." In A Memory of Light, she is "Harriet McDougal." Which name is she currently using? 71.234.215.133 (talk) 18:53, 17 October 2009 (UTC) Cross-posted to both articles' talk pages[reply]

No one knows, both names are used, see Talk:Robert Jordan#Harriet. Rehevkor ✉ 19:00, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

release date paperback

May someone please tell me when the paperback edition arrives? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.39.35.15 (talk) 08:31, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The date for the paperback won't be announced for a while since the hardcover isn't out yet. Based on previous WoT books, the paperback should come out around a year after the hardcover so December 2013 or January 2014 would be good guesses. Since they're just educated guesses, I won't put anything in the article about it.Caidh (talk) 12:52, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno what country you're talking about, but in Australia, usually the paperback gets released at the same time as the hardback. In fact sometimes the paperback gets released first. 202.72.135.193 (talk) 07:48, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"True Power"

It may be a little late to raise this, but it has always bothered me that commentators use the term "True Power" to refer to the magical power that emanates from the Dark One. In the series, I think only the bad guys use that tendentious term (though I have not read the last book). I think it should be referred to as "True Power" in quotes, with the first usage accompanied by the parenthetical (Dark One's Power). D40 (talk) 00:14, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. It should be in quotes. MisterShiney ✉ 00:16, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can recall, although the Forsaken and various Darkfriends are the only people who refer to the True Power as the True Power, nobody else refers to it at all, except in abstract terms (ie "a new source of power" or "the power drawn from the Dark One"). It's not like the Forsaken referring to themselves as "the Chosen", and everybody else calling thm "the Forsaken"; there is no alternative name given to the True Power. Nor is there an alternative name used by the author; when Rand, Nynaeve and Moiraine overpower Moridin and use both the One and True Powers to repair the Bore, Brandon Sanderson uses the term True Power to describe what they are actually doing.

Of course, there are nearly 20,000 pages in the entire Wheel of Time saga, so it's possible that I've overlooked or forgetten someone mentioning the True Power with a different name. But to describe the True Power in the article with quotation marks implies that it is not the True Power. In the absence of an alternative name, this further implies that the True Power is not true at all. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:48, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

does anyone know if jordan stumbled across m-theory before writing the books? If so, that would mean you need saidar, saidin, and the dark one's power to make a complete set of 11 power-dimensions...each side might then try and claim their...eh. maybe i can put it better when i'm not as tired or in a hurry. 24.18.8.160 (talk) 15:23, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lighting the pipe

I added a footnote at the end that Rand can now tweak the Pattern directly because it was flamingly obvious that he can. No pun intended. 76.121.23.59 (talk) 16:19, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More detail, please, on Logain and on the Seanchan

Two of the most crucial plotlines could use a little more detail, I think.

The only mention of the Black Tower is at the beginning: Pevara and Androl plan to attempt to rescue Logain. When next mentioned, Logain is free and taking part in battle. What happened? How was he rescued against all odds? Also, were most of the Asha'man turned to the Shadow? Was it possible to turn any back?

On the Seanchan, the article says that the Dragon's Peace has provisions on captive Seanchan channelers. What are they? This to me was a question from the introduction of the Seanchan: are they going to be permitted to keep their form of slavery? The article implies only a limitation of the Seanchan system- sort of a Northwest Ordinance. But it would be nice to have a little more detail.

D40 (talk) 05:02, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redo Plot summary

The plot summary is very long. Compare it with Pulp Fiction which is given as an example of a good plot summary, or with plot summaries of other Wheel of Time novels on Wikipedia, and it seems excessive. The summary is also nearly identical to http://wot.wikia.com/wiki/A_Memory_of_Light, which is problematic. It's impractical to keep the two in synch, and it may also be a copyright violation. A lot of work has already gone into it, so it would be helpful to come to some consensus on the goal ahead of time. Currently, the summary is about 2700 words. I think we should aim for about 1000 words, and include links to other more detailed summaries, like the above. I think the structure (including sections for the prologue, The Field of Merrilor, The War, Shayol Ghul, Epilogue) is a good one. Johny (talk) 05:30, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OR tag for Rand manipulating the pattern to light his pipe

How Rand lit the pipe in the epilogue is left to interpretaton by the reader, making the claim that Rand was manipulating the pattern OR. Argel1200 (talk) 23:13, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're right about that. I thought about rewording it (...though has some unknown ability which let him light a pipe with no obvious ignition source) but couldn't think of how to do so without it sounding wrong. Its not that important - the plot needs to be seriously trimmed anyway - so I removed it. Caidh (talk) 01:11, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reception?

I would like to see a reception part for this book. However, I was unable to find any ('trustworthy') book reviews (I did not count the fans' reviews); is anyone aware are there any review published in a major journal etc? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.195.193.220 (talk) 23:17, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]