Brandon Sanderson S2 Finale Reaction Video

[HeavyHalfMoonBlade]

9 minutes ago, swollymammoth said:

Not really responding to you specifically here, just weighing in on this aspect of Jordan's writing. Mainly, I find it extremely strange that people consider these things (the descriptions of women particularly, but also other related aspects like the stereotypical male/female dynamics) are "male" in nature when it seems pretty clear that these things are actually much, much more common in fiction written by women.

 

Romance is the biggest literary genre in the world, almost exclusively written and read by women, and if you read most anything in that genre, you're not going to find 21st century gender politics represented very heavily haha The "heaving bosoms" and "brooding male" dynamic is a female creation and a hallmark of the single largest and most successful literary genre in the world. 

 

My point is that RJ was a fan of bodice ripper romance, and one of the first books that he pitched to Harriet was a bodice ripper (this pitch later became the Fallon Blood series). So yeah, RJ was a man, but the style that he uses in WoT is pretty obviously inspired by WOMEN'S FICTION. 

 

So yeah, RJ focuses a lot on his female characters' appearances and bosoms, but I think laying that at his feet as "sexist" or just "man writing" is sort of disingenuous when it's really just a feature of a genre that he liked and was drawing on while writing WoT. 

I think that is taking it slightly out of context. Romance is tying into eroticism and fantasy, while also trying to stay on the good side of societal norms so it is not seen as obscene. 

 

So that on one had gives us the female (sure not only female but still) fantasy of being whipped off your feet by a tall handsome stranger. Books echo this fantasy because it is thrilling. But juxtapose this to a non-erotic/romantic story, and it does not work. We don't want men to be as expressive as Lan, who shout "quiet woman" and quite literally sexually assault them. 

 

It is only fairly recently that romances have gotten over the first sexual encounter being non-consensual, because the woman had to be virginial, and unwilling and only later realise that actually she loved the pirate/bandit/highwayman so that it would not portray her as having loose morals.

 

So in a romance written to titillate, having women being spanked, assaulted and disrespected can be exciting and long descriptive passages about secondary sexual characteristics are demanded, the Wheel of Time is something different, plays by different rules, and cannot be judged in the same way.

 

Jordan's male gaze in the novels is definitely sexist, and there are lots of themes that can also be debated about how sexist they are. Likening the Wheel of Time to trashy, semi-erotic works with no value as literature does not do anything but demean Jordan's writing, and, no, it makes no difference if the bodice ripper was written by a woman. Why would it?

[swollymammoth]

16 minutes ago, HeavyHalfMoonBlade said:

Likening the Wheel of Time to trashy, semi-erotic works with no value as literature does not do anything but demean Jordan's writing,

A lot of people would dismiss fantasy this exact same way. RJ seemed to think that romance wasn't a waste of time seeing as he takes so many cues from the genre and (as I mentioned before) pitched a bodice ripper to Harriet when they first met which later became the Fallon Blood series. 

 

19 minutes ago, HeavyHalfMoonBlade said:

it makes no difference if the bodice ripper was written by a woman. Why would it?

I think it matters in the sense that isn't it weird that the "male gaze" (as it's so reductively called) is EVERYWHERE in books written by and for heterosexual women? The male gaze is supposedly supposed to appeal to men, but men aren't the audience in romance. Yet the "male gaze" remains.

 

I can pretty much guarantee that more fictional bosoms have heaved over the last century as a result of women than men. So how is this a male problem? 

[SinisterDeath]

1 hour ago, king of nowhere said:

how many human societies, historically, had power balance among genders? as far as I am aware, zero. men were generally in power, though the extent varied - in some societies a woman with no brothers could inherit a kingdom, in others women were little more than slaves.

the books were written in a time when women had achieved parity in law, but they were struggling to have that parity recognized in practice. and indeed, in the books there's plenty of conflict between men who want women to stay safe in the kitchen and women who want to be independent.

now we have a society where women can, at least ideally, do anything they want, in terms of career and life choices. and in the tv show, women can do anything they want.

 

in many ancient societies they had this idea that you could kill another person, and the law had no issues with it. on the other hand, the relatives of the deceased could then kill one of your relatives in retribution - and on like that in a feud, until both families agreed to make peace. it was considered a private business. and it was considered perfectly moral and just to kill somebody because 50 years before his great-uncle killed the father of your second cousin. I am not aware of any work of fiction where ancient people had this attitude - except for the aiel, but as I said, they have other issues. 

meanwhile, works of science fiction written in the past assumed in the far future women would still stay at home to cook for their husbands, though perhaps with a robot assistant. except for works written in the soviet union, where every advanced alien culture was organized in soviets, because that's the most advanced form of government according to the writers.

 

this is what i mean when I say that we project our cultural values in fiction.

And through all of that word salad, I think you managed to completely miss the entire point of what I said.

[HeavyHalfMoonBlade]

6 minutes ago, swollymammoth said:

A lot of people would dismiss fantasy this exact same way. RJ seemed to think that romance wasn't a waste of time seeing as he takes so many cues from the genre and (as I mentioned before) pitched a bodice ripper to Harriet when they first met which later became the Fallon Blood series. 

 

I think it matters in the sense that isn't it weird that the "male gaze" (as it's so reductively called) is EVERYWHERE in books written by and for heterosexual women? The male gaze is supposedly supposed to appeal to men, but men aren't the audience in romance. Yet the "male gaze" remains.

 

I can pretty much guarantee that more fictional bosoms have heaved over the last century as a result of women than men. So how is this a male problem? 

I am sure there are good romance novels out there, however, Mills and Boon type pulp cannot be compared to WoT. But still the pretext, aim and everything else is different. If someone once directed a Hallmark movie, would that then mean that they should be a standard to compare everything else to?

 

Male gaze is called that as the camera, or the narrator, acts as a man's gaze, lingering on the female body. If it does exist in romance, then its goal is the same, to titillate the audience. Except who gets titillated by descriptions of female anatomy? In a romance the context is completely different, being wrapped up in a fantasy that is appealing to a female audience, or they would not be reading. I was reading an article recently about a pair of women that had carved out a niche for themselves in dinosaur erotica. That is not a joke. So make really good money writing full-time about large-breasted women being ravished by dinosaurs. Their words. And this is aimed at women. Does this mean that if I write a serious attempt at high fantasy, I can include lots of large-breasted women being assaulted by triceratops because that is what women like, and how could it be seen as sexist because an actual woman with lady bits and everything also wrote about it?

 

WoT is not a romance so cannot be judged as one, or taken in the same context. I really don't see how this should be a difficult concept to understand.

[Scarloc99]

1 hour ago, swollymammoth said:

Not really responding to you specifically here, just weighing in on this aspect of Jordan's writing. Mainly, I find it extremely strange that people consider these things (the descriptions of women particularly, but also other related aspects like the stereotypical male/female dynamics) are "male" in nature when it seems pretty clear that these things are actually much, much more common in fiction written by women.

 

Romance is the biggest literary genre in the world, almost exclusively written and read by women, and if you read most anything in that genre, you're not going to find 21st century gender politics represented very heavily haha The "heaving bosoms" and "brooding male" dynamic is a female creation and a hallmark of the single largest and most successful literary genre in the world. 

 

My point is that RJ was a fan of bodice ripper romance, and one of the first books that he pitched to Harriet was a bodice ripper (this pitch later became the Fallon Blood series). So yeah, RJ was a man, but the style that he uses in WoT is pretty obviously inspired by WOMEN'S FICTION. 

 

So yeah, RJ focuses a lot on his female characters' appearances and bosoms, but I think laying that at his feet as "sexist" or just "man writing" is sort of disingenuous when it's really just a feature of a genre that he liked and was drawing on while writing WoT. 

We can all dissect her opinion and read into it because we now the author, have grown up with him in may cases and so see alot more nuance, but, having her point these things out to me the biggest thing I takeaway is that the books really do feel, especially early on, that they have a demographic in mind for who is consuming them, and they are pitched at that demo (nothing wrong with that and probably the publshers as much as RJ himself). 

 

I just think it interesting getting an opinion from someone about 10 years younger then me who consumes a lot of books, including fantasy and so has a lot of comparison and her take on the books as a first time reader. 

[Yamezt]

7 hours ago, Scarloc99 said:

"the author never bothers describing his male characters in the same way he does his female ones, uou never get a sense of the broadness of chest, or how they present themselves in the same way as you know for every female character if they are large or small breasted, pretty or plain etc. 

 

I have to agree with your friend regarding female descriptions.

 

As someone who was more interested in male description in my teenage hormonal years, it was like... what? folding arms under the breasts again? Why do you keep having to direct my mind to breasts? 

 

Please fold your arms under your well-toned hunky pectorals, dudes.

 

2 hours ago, swollymammoth said:

Romance is the biggest literary genre in the world, almost exclusively written and read by women, and if you read most anything in that genre, you're not going to find 21st century gender politics represented very heavily haha The "heaving bosoms" and "brooding male" dynamic is a female creation and a hallmark of the single largest and most successful literary genre in the world. 

 

My experience with recent experience romance novels are that they are very diverse and progressive actually, despite having quite a bit of erotic writing.

 

It has changed a lot from when I was a teenager where it was more what you described.

 

 

 

[Elder_Haman]

Just now, Yamezt said:

Please fold your arms under your well-toned hunky pectorals, dudes.

Umm, did you miss all the references to "well-turned calves"?

[Yamezt]

Just now, Elder_Haman said:

Umm, did you miss all the references to "well-turned calves"?

 

I do like pecs more than calves 🤐

 

Though, power to RJ for reminding dudes their leg days.

[HeavyHalfMoonBlade]

2 minutes ago, Elder_Haman said:

Umm, did you miss all the references to "well-turned calves"?

For people with a sex drive from the fourteenth century, I bet that was wild. And the serving girls' ankles? Phew, someone open a window! It's hot in here!

[king of nowhere]

1 hour ago, SinisterDeath said:

And through all of that word salad, I think you managed to completely miss the entire point of what I said.

if that's the case, it's reciprocal.

[VooDooNut]

14 hours ago, king of nowhere said:

I like sanderson style better, and i like androl and his take on magic. Channelers tend to be very inefficient in their use of the power. It makes sense for aes sedai, since they never faced a challenge that would force them to innovate. But in front of total war, people adapt quickly. Even aes sedai.

 

 

We see it on a few kinswomen, but yes, not much.

By the way, i like how the show have most women fight with air. Women are supposed to be weak in fire, and while fire is easier to weaponize, it's better to take the stuff you are strong with and find ways to weaponize it than using a weak fire power

@Samt as well, I’m just on phone so I can be bothered to try and double-quote.

 

I don’t have a problem with Androl being introduced and present in the BS books, but I don’t respond well to BS taking RJs “soft-magic” system and, as he is wont to do, trying to over-define it. I’m sure there’s other examples of this is the final trilogy, but Androl just comes to mind as the most grating. Androl feels like a BS character, not an RJ character. 
 

Relating it back to the thread topic, I find it kind of humorous that BS had so many critiques for S2 when he made so many Sanderson-ism mistakes in the last three books. But also, everyone’s human and I’m sure he was as emotional and spastic as any reader watching S2E8 for the first time. 

[Samt]

12 minutes ago, VooDooNut said:

@Samt as well, I’m just on phone so I can be bothered to try and double-quote.

 

I don’t have a problem with Androl being introduced and present in the BS books, but I don’t respond well to BS taking RJs “soft-magic” system and, as he is wont to do, trying to over-define it. I’m sure there’s other examples of this is the final trilogy, but Androl just comes to mind as the most grating. Androl feels like a BS character, not an RJ character. 
 

Relating it back to the thread topic, I find it kind of humorous that BS had so many critiques for S2 when he made so many Sanderson-ism mistakes in the last three books. But also, everyone’s human and I’m sure he was as emotional and spastic as any reader watching S2E8 for the first time. 

Interesting take.  I wouldn't have really classified RJ's magic system as "soft" and I don't really see BS as making it harder.  He's adding more weird things that are possible with the magic and creating a sort of innovation mindset.  All the weird things you can do with a gateway or with [warder] bonding.  Feedback from unweaving is still super unpredictable.  

 

But the idea of talents and power levels already existed from RJ.  I see BS as more just exploring and showing us the dark and twisted corners that were always there in the system that RJ created.  It's given that current channelers haven't imagined even a small fraction of the things that AoL channelers could do with the one power.  BS exploring a little of that is fun.  What things does BS add that you would consider as making the system "harder"?

[VooDooNut]

17 minutes ago, Samt said:

Interesting take.  I wouldn't have really classified RJ's magic system as "soft" and I don't really see BS as making it harder.  He's adding more weird things that are possible with the magic and creating a sort of innovation mindset.  All the weird things you can do with a gateway or with [warder] bonding.  Feedback from unweaving is still super unpredictable.  

 

But the idea of talents and power levels already existed from RJ.  I see BS as more just exploring and showing us the dark and twisted corners that were always there in the system that RJ created.  It's given that current channelers haven't imagined even a small fraction of the things that AoL channelers could do with the one power.  BS exploring a little of that is fun.  What things does BS add that you would consider as making the system "harder"?

I’m mostly floundering in my own poor recollection, but I think what I’m getting at is that BS made channeling more complex than RJ, I think, would have done. The only thing that comes to mind with Androl is the double-bonding, which, again, feels beyond the reach of RJs intent. I’m not surprised, but personally I find it boring when everything is as well-defined as BS has a habit of doing. Recently I read Tress of The Emerald Sea, just to give BS another go, and while I liked some of it, it felt like BS was really limiting the readers imagination by being too clear and exact with how that worlds magic system works, the spores and whatnot. This makes sense when you consider he’s tying that book into his massive universe of books and he needs all the complex (blah) magic systems to line up in a way he finds satisfying, but that was never really the point for me when I read RJs books. Just tried to get back into Stormlight Archive and I just…can’t. It’s not fun for me the same way it is for him. 

[Mailman]

10 hours ago, Scarloc99 said:

The constant insistance that "men and women don't know what each other is thinking" the emphasis on the attractiveness of a women, the need to always emphasise "bosoms" very stereotypical ideas on the way men and women operate (men bluster around, women manipulate them to get things done), she actually said that for a fantasy series that is supposed to show women as being a central power in general women in the world still are not able to project real power in the story and instead have to rely on men to do that work for them with just a couple of exceptions, but even then Morgase is shown to have not had any real power when she was younger, having to use who she married to acquire it, and Tuon is presented as a petulant child, who yes is in charge, but is also a bad guy in it, she even said that Aes Sedai show this, an entire group of powerful females forced to restrict what they can do by a man, spending there lives manipulating and controlling because "thats what women are good at". Oh and nakedness, she said alot of female nakedness, which is ok in itself, why should a women getting topless be different to a man, but in her words "the author never bothers describing his male characters in the same way he does his female ones, uou never get a sense of the broadness of chest, or how they present themselves in the same way as you know for every female character if they are large or small breasted, pretty or plain etc. 

 

She did like that Ebou Dar at least is a culture where women have real genuine power, but said the fact that it is presented as being "odd" to outsiders emphasis how the rest of Randland is very much stuck in the "women stay at home" trope. She even found examples on characters I hadn't even thought of, Aludra, she asks would she have had as much trouble if she was a male illuminator. 

 

I don't agree with all her points, but I can't really disagree when she says the book feels like it was aimed at teenage/early 20's boys in much of the writing. I also can see her points that for all we try and say RJ created a world where women had power, they actually still only have that power largely at the behest of men. 

Cannot agree with most of this.

 

Morgase came to the throne as a weak monarch, nothing to do with her being female, and had to work hard to set herself up to reign in complete control.

 

Lol really Ebou Dar being odd as the only place woman have real power.

Sea Folk are a female led society

Aiel have both Wise ones and Clan leaders but i'll doubt that you will find anyone who will say it is not the Wise ones who are the true leaders.

Far Madding militantly run female city.

Womans Circles in the two rivers in the books were considered by most to be the real power in the towns.

Andor before Rahvin.

Tar Valon.

Seachan dominated by the Empress. Suroth in control of the return.

 

Ebou Dar is such an odd choice for her to pick as the most interesting in terms of female empowerment, it is nowhere near the most female power in the books, it also where their ruler rapes one of the heroes of the book.

 

Aludra I cannot think of anything that would have changed had she been male. She appeared to be a senior member of the chapter house, and then through unfortunate events outside her control was ousted and was pursued because they believed her selling guild secrets. I can't believe they would have reacted any differently to a man selling their secrets.

 

Tuon is never a petulant child. Some who initially see her believe her a child purely based on her size and some have views on nobility however these views are always wrong and immediately dispelled.

 

As for nakedness the cultures that embraced it like the Aiel, Borderlanders and a lesser extent the Seachan seemed to do it for all rather than one sex or the other. Yes the use of the word bosom is excessive. However there are also lots of descriptions of how broad men are built in axehandles, how they have well turned calves and talk of backsides as well. Galad is constantly talked about in terms of how beautiful he is.

 

As for the woman stay at home trope that you complain of. There are constantly business's run by females in all the cities.

 

[Mailman]

5 hours ago, Yamezt said:

 

 

Please fold your arms under your well-toned hunky pectorals, dudes.

 

 

 

 

 

 

There are a lot of descriptions about men being well built across the shoulders and upper bodies, especially like an axehandle across the shoulders, arms as big as legs and such.

[Mailman]

Slightly off topic and contains sexual descriptions but one of the weirdest sexual literary scenes I have ever seen. Always makes me laugh.

Again language warning before opening.

 

Spoiler

 

Edited October 19, 2023 by Mailman

[Yamezt]

1 hour ago, Mailman said:

There are a lot of descriptions about men being well built across the shoulders and upper bodies, especially like an axehandle across the shoulders, arms as big as legs and such.

Eh, it is a little different. He would describe the male character and then life goes on with the story. Like I'm aware the various male characters are muscular and all, but it isn't in my face. So it is more like - Dude who is axe handle wide and then back to the story

 

The bosoms are drawn to the reader when a female character doing just about anything. So it is always in your face. So scene with ladies are more like *long description about appearance, dress and swishes (which may drop a neckline is so low it expose bosoms too, but not relevant here)* - back to story and then casually drops

1. folds her arms under her breasts in response to something
2. clutch the ter-angreal against her breasts because reasons
3. wearing a pendant (yes - we must talk about her breasts - lets place the pendant in ... gasp...  between her breasts)

I certainly do not remember as similar treatment to guys but it has been 10 years so I'm happy to be proven wrong.

 

 

Edited October 19, 2023 by Yamezt

[Mailman]

I agree the book could have done with a reduction in the number of bosom usages. 

 

However I don't believe that the constant use of the folding arms beneath the breasts is an overtly sexual thing. It's more a writing device that RJ got over reliant on to show how a woman was thinking at certain times.

[VooDooNut]

I'm so lost on this conversation.

 

Are we trying to say Robert Jordan was a man of his age, with all the biases of men of his age, and those biases reflected in the content of his books? Well yeah, duh. I'm sure he tried his best to consult Harriet et. al. for other perspectives, but he ultimately was the author of his works. And that's fine. That's what being human is. Not perfect.

Spoiler

I don't think society deals well with imperfections these days

 

But if this has more to do with the show and people getting upset about women having more screen-time/importance than men, well... men have been in power for, like, forever, so maybe one (fantasy) show depicting the opposite (agenda or no) isn't too tough a pill to swallow?

[Scarloc99]

6 hours ago, Mailman said:

Cannot agree with most of this.

 

Morgase came to the throne as a weak monarch, nothing to do with her being female, and had to work hard to set herself up to reign in complete control.

 

Lol really Ebou Dar being odd as the only place woman have real power.

Sea Folk are a female led society

Aiel have both Wise ones and Clan leaders but i'll doubt that you will find anyone who will say it is not the Wise ones who are the true leaders.

Far Madding militantly run female city.

Womans Circles in the two rivers in the books were considered by most to be the real power in the towns.

Andor before Rahvin.

Tar Valon.

Seachan dominated by the Empress. Suroth in control of the return.

 

Ebou Dar is such an odd choice for her to pick as the most interesting in terms of female empowerment, it is nowhere near the most female power in the books, it also where their ruler rapes one of the heroes of the book.

 

Aludra I cannot think of anything that would have changed had she been male. She appeared to be a senior member of the chapter house, and then through unfortunate events outside her control was ousted and was pursued because they believed her selling guild secrets. I can't believe they would have reacted any differently to a man selling their secrets.

 

Tuon is never a petulant child. Some who initially see her believe her a child purely based on her size and some have views on nobility however these views are always wrong and immediately dispelled.

 

As for nakedness the cultures that embraced it like the Aiel, Borderlanders and a lesser extent the Seachan seemed to do it for all rather than one sex or the other. Yes the use of the word bosom is excessive. However there are also lots of descriptions of how broad men are built in axehandles, how they have well turned calves and talk of backsides as well. Galad is constantly talked about in terms of how beautiful he is.

 

As for the woman stay at home trope that you complain of. There are constantly business's run by females in all the cities.

 

So as I said I didn't agree with all these, but I am also aware I am both male and have 20 years of book reading, I do find myself, when I re read now days, thinking that if 43 year old me picked this series up now then I would think I was reading something written for teenage boys. I also think that we need to take someones opinion (hers) and see that it might have some validity, maybe not all the points, but if she is reading something and at a minimum feeling that it feels very dated (which it does in moments) then maybe it should be accepted that an adaptation will need bringing into the 2020's. 

[Scarloc99]

9 hours ago, VooDooNut said:

@Samt as well, I’m just on phone so I can be bothered to try and double-quote.

 

I don’t have a problem with Androl being introduced and present in the BS books, but I don’t respond well to BS taking RJs “soft-magic” system and, as he is wont to do, trying to over-define it. I’m sure there’s other examples of this is the final trilogy, but Androl just comes to mind as the most grating. Androl feels like a BS character, not an RJ character. 
 

Relating it back to the thread topic, I find it kind of humorous that BS had so many critiques for S2 when he made so many Sanderson-ism mistakes in the last three books. But also, everyone’s human and I’m sure he was as emotional and spastic as any reader watching S2E8 for the first time. 

My big issue with Androl is how artificial his arc is, it just jars so much with the rest of the writing in the entire series. In particular, Brandon Sandersons need to create artificial tension around the dream spike, Perrin "suddenly closing it", it is just such bad writing that it sticks out a mile compared to the rest of the series. At no point did RJ need to create artificial tension in this way, the way he then also uses Androl as a get out of jail free card for other key moments.

As an aside, I also want to say please watch the words you use, the word Spastic is horrifically insulting to people, it is the reason why a charity changed its name in 1994, I have a friend who if they had read that would have been triggered because of childhood bullying. I get it is a word in the english language but it has conetations that go far beyond its actual meaning. 

[Scarloc99]

4 hours ago, Yamezt said:

Eh, it is a little different. He would describe the male character and then life goes on with the story. Like I'm aware the various male characters are muscular and all, but it isn't in my face. So it is more like - Dude who is axe handle wide and then back to the story

 

The bosoms are drawn to the reader when a female character doing just about anything. So it is always in your face. So scene with ladies are more like *long description about appearance, dress and swishes (which may drop a neckline is so low it expose bosoms too, but not relevant here)* - back to story and then casually drops

1. folds her arms under her breasts in response to something
2. clutch the ter-angreal against her breasts because reasons
3. wearing a pendant (yes - we must talk about her breasts - lets place the pendant in ... gasp...  between her breasts)

I certainly do not remember as similar treatment to guys but it has been 10 years so I'm happy to be proven wrong.

 

 

Looks are also the defining feature if a man would want to sleep with a women, or marry her, or even dance with her. 

[Mailman]

5 minutes ago, Scarloc99 said:

My big issue with Androl is how artificial his arc is, it just jars so much with the rest of the writing in the entire series. In particular, Brandon Sandersons need to create artificial tension around the dream spike, Perrin "suddenly closing it", it is just such bad writing that it sticks out a mile compared to the rest of the series. At no point did RJ need to create artificial tension in this way, the way he then also uses Androl as a get out of jail free card for other key moments.

I really liked Androl gave us an insight into the black tower.

 

You are aware that he opened the tiny gateway prior to Perrin removing the dreamspike. Then was hiding till he felt the spike barrier being removed.

 

[Scarloc99]

10 minutes ago, Mailman said:

I really liked Androl gave us an insight into the black tower.

 

You are aware that he opened the tiny gateway prior to Perrin removing the dreamspike. Then was hiding till he felt the spike barrier being removed.

 

I am aware of that yes, but the writing of the whole scene is still really artificially done, he relies on the dropping of the spike triggering that moment, Androl had no idea the spike was going to be removed. There are a few moments in the books where BS relies on artifically generating tension through a series of very unlikely events. 

[Mailman]

26 minutes ago, Scarloc99 said:

So as I said I didn't agree with all these, but I am also aware I am both male and have 20 years of book reading, I do find myself, when I re read now days, thinking that if 43 year old me picked this series up now then I would think I was reading something written for teenage boys. I also think that we need to take someones opinion (hers) and see that it might have some validity, maybe not all the points, but if she is reading something and at a minimum feeling that it feels very dated (which it does in moments) then maybe it should be accepted that an adaptation will need bringing into the 2020's. 

Look I don't know the book starts in a conservative rural town in a feudal/agrarian world. Does that really need to be updated for modern audiences. It fits with the World that exists in the books and it's not like we don't get more cosmopolitan settings continuing on in the series. Did we really need Rand and Eggy to have sex in the common room of her parents Inn.

 

Not everything needs to be updated or changed to fit modern values. If the content fits the story then allow it too.