“He shall be born to face the Shadow, born once more as he was born before and shall be born again, time without end. The Dragon shall be Reborn, and there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth at his rebirth. In sackcloth and ashes shall he clothe the people, and he shall break the world again by his coming, tearing apart all ties that bind. Like the unfettered dawn shall he blind us, and burn us, yet shall the Dragon Reborn confront the Shadow at the Last Battle, and his blood shall give us the Light. Let tears flow, O ye people of the world. Weep for your salvation.”
- The Great Hunt, Jordan, 1990
Our hero is unique among men; he represents a union of opposites which are at war in his soul, the devil and the son of God struggling for expression against a backdrop of madness. Rand al’Thor’s uniqueness derives strongly from his figurative combination of the Lucifer and Messiah archetypes – the one a force of chaos and destruction, the other representative of order and creation. With the Creator having chosen Rand as champion, the better half of Rand’s nature is bound to overcome its inner adversary – its dark brother, lurking Seth-like in thin chains – although not without challenge and possibly temporary defeat, perhaps even death. But a hero is meant to show us the way to rebirth, so death will be all the more fitting. Rand’s eventual triumph for good, however, does not belie his essential encapsulation of opposites. It is prophesied that he will not only save the world, but destroy it. He is the breaker of bonds and the forger of chains. The Lord of Chaos striving for order in a world of turmoil.
Rand’s incorporation of opposites is symbolised by the name ‘Dragon’ given to him as Lews Therin’s incarnation. The dragon is certainly an ambivalent symbol that lends itself to either benevolent connotations – especially in the East – or malevolent ones – particularly in the West, and is thus fitting for a character who embodies both order and disorder.
Throughout the history of myth the dragon has appeared in positive and negative manifestations. The dragon is the great serpent (in fact, the Greek word for dragon, drakon, also means serpent), reviled as a phallic symbol of venomous sexuality and temptation, and worshipped as a bringer of new-life for the same reason, shedding its skin in an act expressive of renewal. Negative manifestations include the first recorded appearance of the dragon: Tiamat of Mesopotamian myth, who symbolised Chaos, an ungovernable force of the primal waters – as did Leviathan, the biblical force destined in Hebrew tradition to be destroyed by archangel Gabriel. In Revelation Satan appears as a great red dragon. Egypt’s Apep lay in wait for the Egyptian sun-god trying to swallow his light. When Fudo-Myoo of Japanese Buddhism overcame the dragon he overcame ignorance; St. George’s slaying of the dragon symbolised good obliterating evil.
And yet dragons have also been “celestial symbols of the life force and power of manifestation, ejaculating the primeval waters of the world-egg” (Penguin Dictionary of Symbols, 1996). Indeed, Hindu teaching identifies the dragon with First Cause; dragons play important roles in numerous creation myths. In Chinese folk religion, the Long Wang were dragon kings responsible for rain; strong, wise, and essentially benevolent. The dragon’s flight, its ability to breathe fire, and the ability to make rain are celestial activities, and therefore divine – its fiery breath associated with lightning, its ability to fly locating it in the heavens, and its rain-making ability celestial by contiguity and via connotations of fertility.
There is a duality of gender too in the dragon symbol. Linked to the sky, the dragon is masculine. Typically the sky is considered male (eg. Zeus, archetypal sky-father), but there are also aquatic and earthy dragons, for example in Japanese mythology, which associate with the feminine (Gaia, earth-mother).
* * *
While the dragon’s positive or negative manifestations may seem endless, seldom in mythology has the dragon been used to represent both destructive and creative qualities simultaneously as it does for our hero Rand. In The Wheel of Time the dragon is used perhaps as is most appropriate considering its historical ambivalence. But this does not answer the question: Why is the dragon such a dualistic symbol and thus so appropriate for Rand? We can perhaps find the reason in its physical description.
Quite possibly the dragon’s physical make-up – the scales, wings, breath of fire, etc – is significant in a psychological sense. It has arisen, with variations, independently in different cultures, suggesting it is archetypal. Chuang Tzu and others claimed that the celestial attributes (eg. wings, rain-making ability) in connection with its earthly, chthonian traits (eg. serpentine body) represent the resolution of opposites. If this is true, then it is because the dragon is a combination of these opposites, celestial and chthonian, and thereby represents the resolution of opposites, that the dragon as a symbol can be extended to represent good or evil, order or chaos, creation or destruction. Though some cultures have chosen to highlight one or the other opposite, Jordan has gone a step further in introducing the dragon as a simultaneous embodiment of both – its more natural form considering the full spectrum of the dragon’s potential symbolic meaning.
We have in our hero a tragic and fascinating figure. Rand: wounded on his palms, his side, whipped and mocked, wearing a crown of swords. The saviour of the world; bringer of salvation. But also, Lord of the Morning, Prince of the Dawn – explicit euphemisms for Lucifer (Prince of the Morning). The Dragon: carrier of hubris, which caused Satan’s downfall – a bringer of blood and destruction to a world embroiled in chaos.
Weep for your salvation indeed.
“Master of the lightnings, rider on the storm,
wearer of a crown of swords, spinner-out of fate.
Who thinks he turns the Wheel of Time,
May learn the truth too late.”
- A Crown of Swords, Jordan, 1996
“Only
The fool, fixed in his folly, may think
He can turn the wheel on which he turns.”
- Murder in the Cathedral, Eliot, 1935
- Durandir Nor
Any criticism is welcome, particularly symbolic quibbles, line editing, and . . . really, anything. Debate is as always especially welcome.
Burr says: Do you think this is intentional on Jordan's part? Did he really study all this dragon mythology and make a conscious choice to combine the positive and negative manifestations of dragons? Or might it be the incidental effect of his drawing on legends about Aurthur and the Fisher King, or other broad myths?
Comments
You've done your research, and I do agree, but... so? That Rand represents most of this is already apparent in the books, if you read with an eye towards a career in Psychoanalysis.
So.. I agree, but I wouldn't worry about it too much, if I were you.
P.S. Are you studying History, or is this just a hobby? Either way, shake hands!
Karlaan 
Just kidding, Nice theory.
AOBtD
It`s frustrating when you know all the answers, but nobody bothers to ask you the questions.
Never be afraid to try something new. Remember, amateurs built the ark. Professionals built the Titanic.
Yes, as I said in the other theory, as interesting as I find all this (and it really does fascinate me), it's not really a theory. Unless the theory is that Jordan has drawn from the same place you have.
it is just not really a theory; it's more like a thesis. However, I must say that you have quite a comprehensive understanding of the references you use. That's something, at least.
I have also been guilty of being too obscure. It's better than being trite, I guess, yet falls short of being practical.
If you want some brain exercise, try comparing Plato's forms with the idea of a transcendant Creator and Anti-creator, with the focus being the absence of their actual presence in what we know to be reality, realizing that the true essence of each necessarily transcends their representation.
Or...
How about just watching some T.V.
Do you look for all of this stuff as you read, or is it all hindsite? If you look for it as you read, how do you get any enjoyment out of it???
Wolfbrother
I think the point of all that was that Rand is going to turn into a giant dragon at the end of the series. He'll eat the Dark One and start flying around burning stuff, thinking he's all powerful. Then the Creator will slap him down and imprison him, making Rand the next Dark One. A great theory post if you ask me...
If my last post is right, everyone on here owes me a dollar. I think you guys should be able to accept that.
While everybody has been posting their opinion of the theory, I think some actual criticism of the information contained in the theory should be stated.
I think that Durandir's motives behind these theories were perhaps not explanatory in nature. It appears to me that these theories are, if anything, merely meant to be provocative, which was my original complaint. However, if we take them to be a theory, some interesting predictions arise as far as plotline is concerned. If Rand is a dual archetype, a blend of Christ and Satan, then the last internal struggle would involve a battle between Humility and Pride (Humility is always symbolic of Christ, and as Durandir stated, Hubris or pride is symbolic of Satan).
Anybody who reads Nietzsche is familiar with "slave morality vs. master morality", and would understand that humility as a virtue is contributed to slave morality, while pride was a virtue in master morality. However, while pride is a vice in slave morality, humility is not necessarily a vice in master morality.
It's kind of difficult to explain without writing another thesis-looking theory. Virtuous men in master morality exhibited excellence as human beings, being successful in all areas of human activity. However, a humble man was not considered unvirtuous, he was merely dominated. Actually, virtue completely changed its meaning with the dawn of Christianity. In other words, unlike today, the greater the success a man had during the rule of "master morality", the greater the virtue. Therefore, what if RJ was a "master moralist", or better yet, what if he was an Ayn Rand objectivist, where the one virtue of man is success above all else. Perhaps then Rand's internal struggle would not be humility vs. pride, but would be self doubt vs. will to power. (Again, Nietzsche)
My point (do I have a point?) is that it is possible to analyze the series from one point of view and draw conclusions, and then draw separate conclusions from another point of view. I think these theories of Durandir would have had more merit if he had discussed how he thought these Jungian ideas would contribute to the developments of Rand's plotline, perhaps how the last battle will be affected because of this. Instead, it appears that the theory contains only lateral thinking and analogies, albeit very impressive lateral thinking and analogies.
Also, one point of contention...
RJ has stated that he wanted to write a story about what it would be like if somebody "tapped you on the shoulder and told you that you had to save the world." This sounds like he is taking the archetype of a more human type of hero, one that is an average joe with an unbelievable job to do. I don't see any room for a Satan archetype at all. If anything, he is just playing on the human psychology of this situation, one that is grounded in realism.
For those who don't know, that means Keep it simple.
I think the theories are great, even if they have an essay feel to them. The problem with these posts lies with the fact that people like to KISS.
So, it might have been easier to understand had the author of the theories just said something like:
Robert Jordan is once again using his vast knowledge of mythology and symbolism by using "the Dragon", and then explaining what the dragon means.
(People who don't know diddly about Jung don't get all of the "Jungisms". Wait! Isn't he that guy that...?)
However, I do think that for most of us who are rereading the books, these theories give us even more insight to possibilities behind the plotline and further remind us of Jordan's ability to utilize his own store of knowledge in weaving such a great tale.
Queen of her own castle and ruler of none
Shameless member of the Babefest '90
I was about to say something very insightful, but I completely forgot what I was going to say.
Didn't Nietsche die of syphillis?
Nietzsche died of syphilis at a sanatarium in Weimar. Of course, the poor man had his problems, what with growing up in a household dominated by women and confusing Wagner's wife with his own.
Jung was influenced by Nietzsche. After all, they were both Classicists to a certain degree (for those of you who didn't know, Nietzsche's "real job" was initially in the sphere of Greek and Latin Studies, and he translated a LOT of Greek into German).
Annoying wotmaniacs for 10 years.
Oh, I don't have time for this. I have to go and buy a single piece of fruit with a coupon and then return it, making people wait behind me while I complain. - Prof. Farnsworth
The Voice of Lews Therin
Find out what WOT really means...
It is obvious Jordan has made 'the Dragon' in The Wheel of Time a symbol of two opposites: destruction and creation. Rand is destined to save the world, and destroy it, yada yada. Perhaps, I was contending, this was facilitated by the dragon's physical make-up and the psychological effect, conscious or unconscious, this has in symbolism.
aerocontrols has already posted this
This post was funded by Hamas.
http://www.seanet.com/~billr/xbs/DontdisElisha.htm
in a steel cage!
Barring that, maybe wotmania should schedule them to be in a chatroom for a series of debates on topics like this one. Log them, summarize them, and post them in the FAQ or an even more relevant section. Three in a Boat is another person who could participate.
Such great work on the series needs to be encouraged, and also made more visible than in the Blackboard of some random theory I only found by refreshing the main page twice.
Congrats to the both of them!
I find it rather interesting how Jordan decided to combine the bad and the evil but a viewing that Min had suggests
that there will be a struggle between Lews Therin Telamon and Rand al'Thor at some point in the future and that
only one of them would survive. I think will probably occur at the Last Battle and it will be at that point that Satan/evil
will be destroyed once and for all, but there will be a lot of destruction along the way because whenever good and
evil clashes, the sparks destroy everything around it. But, I believe good will prevail, Lews Therin will die(thus the
blood of the dragon will be spilt on the rocks of Shayol Ghul), and Rand will rule peacefully with a new generation
of people who will strive to make the world a better place and not put themselves upon a higher order, like what
happens in their version of polotics(hopefully). I mean, what would the Last Battle be like without Lews Therin?
Lucienne Sedai Purple
Still Awaiting The Creation Of The Purple Ajah
I think a real question is, can evil be destroyed? How can good exist without evil? Life is defined by opposites; we know what something is by knowing what something is not. How can we call something good if we don't have an evil to compare it to? So I feel that evil cannot be completely destroyed. So therefore, the Dark One will always exist, as will the Creator. Even if the D.O. breaks free from his prison, the Creator will still exist, if the Creator is destroyed, then the Dark One would no longer be the Dark One, there would be no "Light One" (Creator) to oppose and define him.
As has been stated, dragons are good in the East and bad in the West. They also look different, the Eastern dragans look like the dragon banner, while those of the West look like the raikin(sp?) of the Seachan.
Ervs Ironfist
I know my name
the wheel weaves
to speak ill of The Wheel Of Time is blasphemy, walk in the light
Nice work, but...