Why is Wheel of Time good?

[Rodrik]

About you saying that he's to reluctant to off the character or maim them. The fact that your saying that show's that you have't read very much of the series. I don't want to give away spoilers but i FoH At least 4 character's are killed at least temporaly and most recently one of the main character's has been permainatly maimed, and there are strong hints that a least another main character will be maimed in AMOL.

 

So one main character's been maimed out of 11 books? Gee.... Mind telling me what it was? Because I doubt it was anything truly serious.

 

 

 

 

irst off they're Taveran which explains why they're so "lucky." Plus, keep reading.

 

The whole ta'veren thing to me is a copout on Jordan's part. It's a plot device so that he doesn't have to have things be logical but can just go 'oooh, it's because they're ta'veren.'

 

(bye the way... you talk about problems with things being unrealistc in WoT... 13yr olds leading armies into war and being treated as equals by seasoned generals - is that realistic?? )

 

I don't believe Robb was 13. 14 or so? In Westeros that is basically an adult, and he was heir to Winterfell. The Starks ruled over the North for centuries, and had the loyal support of all the houses there. Robb earned their respect, even though some of his bannermen like the Greatjon (I think it was him) doubted him because of his age, and proved himself in battle enough times to gain the Northmen's loyalty.

[Cybertrolloc]

Robb was 14 at the start, 15 at the Red Wedding. He won the Greatjon's respect by not soiling himself when the Greatjon threatened him (Robb sicced his wolf on Greatjon) at Winterfell. The passage is important to show that Robb can fill Ned's shoes in the winning the hearts of his bannermen sense. (Compare with Bran's Lord of Winterfell scenes in the next book.)

 

I'm thinking we're not talking about the same thing in keeping track of everything in Westeros especially on the first read ;) I.e. the four Mormonts in AGoT: spaced on the names so it was a surprise to me when Dany found out about Jorah (even though I did catch the parts between Robert and Ned and Varys recon of Dany at the small council).

 

When WoT started 20 years ago, I'd say most fantasy heroes led charmed lives, it's been more recent that writers are willing to injure or kill off main viewpoint characters. Jordan didn't buck that convention, but at least tried to come up with an in story explanation for it (though it's annoying that Taveraness seems to rub off on the three girls lol). Granted, I think most fiction was shorter single volumes in those days too, or at least part of a loosely connected series (order read isn't too important).

 

Look at it this way: if Jordan had finished WoT years ago, there wouldn't need to be Martin et al comparisons where what was "revolutionary" about the opening books of WoT is the norm today (scope, book length--Storm of Swords is twice the length of the newer WoT books, depth of world development) areas where WoT isn't unique anymore.

[Jellybelly]

 

That's an interesting point that I think you'd have a hard time backing up in a lit class.

J

 

I do not see why I would have a hard time doing so. The literary canon changes all the time, so it has obviously happened before that someone has said "look, this really does not deserve to be on a best-of American literature list". Twain might be a fun read, but the stories he is most famous for are childish and fairly straightforward. In addition, there are places where it is apparent that he has caved in to public demand, and places where he cowardly negates all the social criticism presented earlier in a work with a turn of events to make the work in question easier to swallow. See the last part of "The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn" for an example of what I mean.

 

Then you have Lord Tennyson, who only made good poetry at the very beginning of his career, spending his decades as Poet Laureate vainly trying to match his former brilliance.

 

And then there is G. B. Shaw, who only made one really good play. His other plays are mainly boring, wordy and extremely longwinded affairs.

 

Another example is Alexander Pope's The Rape of the Lock, which is only on university reading lists because it is old.

 

I could go on and on, and in much greater detail if you really wanted. The point is that even though a lot of these authors are inconsistent, longwinded and in some cases only on reading lists because of tradition, they are dubbed "great". I do not think Jordan's skill is far below that of e.g. Mark Twain, but as the genre is stigmatized by academia (something which might be changing) he will not be dubbed a great author for a while yet. Sure, Jordan is not perfect, but none of them are. What is great literature in your opinion? Does it have to be world-changing? Does it have to deal explicitly with the real world? Does it have to be a work of social criticism? Is Tolkien's work great literature?

[Jedimuppet]

 

That's an interesting point that I think you'd have a hard time backing up in a lit class.

J

 

I do not see why I would have a hard time doing so. The literary canon changes all the time' date=' so it has obviously happened before that someone has said "look, this really does not deserve to be on a best-of American literature list". Twain might be a fun read, but the stories he is most famous for are childish and fairly straightforward. In addition, there are places where it is apparent that he has caved in to public demand, and places where he cowardly negates all the social criticism presented earlier in a work with a turn of events to make the work in question easier to swallow. See the last part of "The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn" for an example of what I mean.

 

Then you have Lord Tennyson, who only made good poetry at the very beginning of his career, spending his decades as Poet Laureate vainly trying to match his former brilliance.

 

And then there is G. B. Shaw, who only made one really good play. His other plays are mainly boring, wordy and extremely longwinded affairs.

 

Another example is Alexander Pope's The Rape of the Lock, which is only on university reading lists because it is old.

 

I could go on and on, and in much greater detail if you really wanted. The point is that even though a lot of these authors are inconsistent, longwinded and in some cases only on reading lists because of tradition, they are dubbed "great". I do not think Jordan's skill is far below that of e.g. Mark Twain, but as the genre is stigmatized by academia (something which might be changing) he will not be dubbed a great author for a while yet. Sure, Jordan is not perfect, but none of them are. What is great literature in your opinion? Does it have to be world-changing? Does it have to deal explicitly with the real world? Does it have to be a work of social criticism? Is Tolkien's work great literature?[/quote']

 

I'm not going to argue with you here, but when it comes to meter, quality of prose, setting, exposition, etc, he doesn't rate with the best. Rampant use of cliches, repetition of imagery, extensive "borrowing" all prevent this series from rising to the level of great literature.

 

Your support hardly qualifies as valid criticism, since you're just stating your personal likes/dislikes.

 

I don't think this is the place for this discussion. If you want to think that RJ is a great american writer of genius, rather than an entertaining SF writer, it doesn't bother me. As a former writer and editor, I think I have some grounds for my opinion.

 

Again, I find him entertaining. If you want to put him on the level of Poe, Oates, Whitman, Faulkner, Twain, etc, go right ahead. It baffles me, but not everyone is really into literature as an art. Most are into it for entertainment, and that's where RJ excels, so I suppose it makes sense.

 

Again, I'm sure I'll get flamed; I *like* the books for what they are. I just dont' think they're great american novels.

J

[Kadere]

Jordan is no Twain, but I think part of that has to do with the stigmatization of SF to begin with. If we're comparing his works to Twain, Faulkner, Hemingway, etc he's going to fall short, as does every fantasy author out there except Tolkien now, just because his stuff is getting older. But this is because we're comparing it to things that really aren't similar. Comparing Jordan to Twain is like comparing Star Wars to Gone with the Wind, they're both movies but they don't have much in common. The genre of fantasy is built on cliches and borrowed writing. Just about everybody in that genre stole an idea from King Arthur, The Mabinogian, The Illiad, The Odessy, The Bible, so on. One of the fun things about fantasy is being able to draw those parallels. But if you compare Jordan to other Fantasy authors, or even other SF authors, you'll see that his stuff ranks rather highly. Sure people will say that Tolkien is better, or Lewis, or Asmoiv, or Herbert, or even Martin, but what I've seen is there are an equal number of people who will disagree.

 

Fantasy is a genre ment to first entertain and then to make one think, and I believe Jordan does that. We've got a community right here arguing themes, charater, symbology, parallels, and a million other things which could go right into a course.

 

In the end I highly doubt Jordan will ever be seen as a great literary author, but I do honestly believe that he is one of the best, if not the best American fantasy author we have.

[Jedimuppet]

Jordan is no Twain' date=' but I think part of that has to do with the stigmatization of SF to begin with. If we're comparing his works to Twain, Faulkner, Hemingway, etc he's going to fall short, as does every fantasy author out there except Tolkien now, just because his stuff is getting older. But this is because we're comparing it to things that really aren't similar. Comparing Jordan to Twain is like comparing Star Wars to Gone with the Wind, they're both movies but they don't have much in common. The genre of fantasy is built on cliches and borrowed writing. Just about everybody in that genre stole an idea from King Arthur, The Mabinogian, The Illiad, The Odessy, The Bible, so on. One of the fun things about fantasy is being able to draw those parallels. But if you compare Jordan to other Fantasy authors, or even other SF authors, you'll see that his stuff ranks rather highly. Sure people will say that Tolkien is better, or Lewis, or Asmoiv, or Herbert, or even Martin, but what I've seen is there are an equal number of people who will disagree.

 

Fantasy is a genre ment to first entertain and then to make one think, and I believe Jordan does that. We've got a community right here arguing themes, charater, symbology, parallels, and a million other things which could go right into a course.

 

In the end I highly doubt Jordan will ever be seen as a great literary author, but I do honestly believe that he is one of the best, if not the best American fantasy author we have.[/quote']

 

For whatever reason, it does seem like many of the brightest SF/Fantasy people are British...I hate how we invent stuff, and then they seem to do it better (like Rock and Roll, and punk rock)...grr ;)

J

[Izzmonkey]

WoT is by far the most complex fantasy series I've read. Intrigue is good, and WoT has it to an extent, but too much would simply add too much unneeded complexity. WoT is a great series for different reasons. As mentioned, it just takes the right type of person to enjoy it.

 

On a completely unrelated note...

 

Rodrik, have you read Shogun by James Clavell? If you're looking for a great story with lots ot intrigue, I think you'll like this book.

[Jellybelly]

I'm not going to argue with you here, but when it comes to meter, quality of prose, setting, exposition, etc, he doesn't rate with the best. Rampant use of cliches, repetition of imagery, extensive "borrowing" all prevent this series from rising to the level of great literature.

 

Your support hardly qualifies as valid criticism, since you're just stating your personal likes/dislikes.

 

I don't think this is the place for this discussion. If you want to think that RJ is a great american writer of genius, rather than an entertaining SF writer, it doesn't bother me. As a former writer and editor, I think I have some grounds for my opinion.

 

Again, I find him entertaining. If you want to put him on the level of Poe, Oates, Whitman, Faulkner, Twain, etc, go right ahead. It baffles me, but not everyone is really into literature as an art. Most are into it for entertainment, and that's where RJ excels, so I suppose it makes sense.

 

Again, I'm sure I'll get flamed; I *like* the books for what they are. I just dont' think they're great american novels.

J

 

I am interested in literature as art, that is why I study it. Now, most of the authors I listed were not there to be compared to Jordan, only to illustrate the point of these writers not being above flaws themselves. It would be like comparing apples and oranges, as someone else hinted at.

 

Now, you say this is not the right place to debate this, and I am inclined to agree. However, your last post was nothing if it was not an entry in a debate, and I would like a chance to reply.

 

I also realize that my last post was not necessarily formed as academic criticism, that would take far to long both to read and write at such a casual forum as this. However, it is still valid as criticism as it does not merely reflect my opinion. I have studied these works, and conversed with Ph.Ds who share my sentiments. Just because I did not provide further justification for my statements does not mean there are none. I simply do not think this is the place for a very in-depth discussion of the subject.

 

Now, the nature of this discussion is not so much "is Jordan great literature" as "are the writers dubbed great really that much better". I find it somewhat offensive that you in your posts seem to imply that I do not take literature seriously, and is besotted with RJ to the degree where I put him above all else. This is not the case.

 

The point I am trying to make is that you are correct in stating that RJ is no Twain. But neither is Hemingway. They are both commonly referred to as "great", even though they in academic circles are not liked as much as in popular circles. This of course has to do with academia's aversion against works that achieve wide popular acclaim and success. Is there a need to distinguish authors that are "popular greats" and "academic greats"? Most people have probably heard of Twain and Hemingway, but I would expect not so many to have heard of and read Silko and Hansberry.

 

At the same time the question must be asked, is Twain really so great? He completely ruins "The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn", a statement on the conditions of black slaves in the American South, with the last part of the novel, when he introduces Tom Sawyer as a result of popular demand. The chapters following marks a relapse for Huck, where he promptly forgets everything he has learned about Jim as a human being opposed to property, where hard and controversial questions are skirted and avoided by introducing cheap comedy. People are fond of quoting Hemingway saying that "All modern American literature comes from one book by Mark Twain called Huckleberry Finn", but most people do not know that he also said this: "if you read it you must stop where the Nigger Jim is stolen from the boys. That is the real end. The rest is just cheating."So what does this tell us? Certainly that Mark Twain was not perfect. As great literature goes, he was certainly a coward for not holding to the message he wanted to make, and taking the easy way out.

 

Hemingway's position as one among the greats is also not so clear cut as you guys make it out to be. Faulkner criticized him heavily, saying he had no daring, and that he "has never used a word where the reader might check his usage by a dictionaryâ€.

 

As for the techincal terms you introduce, you may be right in the fact that Jordan is not perfect. Repetition of imagery and so on. Never said otherwise. However, you have to remember that meter is not a term that applies to Jordan's writing, as he writes prose, not poetry. Meter is a term used about poetry, and I suspect you are not referring to the meter of "The Color of Trust".

[Jedimuppet]

I'm not going to argue with you here' date=' but when it comes to meter, quality of prose, setting, exposition, etc, he doesn't rate with the best. Rampant use of cliches, repetition of imagery, extensive "borrowing" all prevent this series from rising to the level of great literature.

 

Your support hardly qualifies as valid criticism, since you're just stating your personal likes/dislikes.

 

I don't think this is the place for this discussion. If you want to think that RJ is a great american writer of genius, rather than an entertaining SF writer, it doesn't bother me. As a former writer and editor, I think I have some grounds for my opinion.

 

Again, I find him entertaining. If you want to put him on the level of Poe, Oates, Whitman, Faulkner, Twain, etc, go right ahead. It baffles me, but not everyone is really into literature as an art. Most are into it for entertainment, and that's where RJ excels, so I suppose it makes sense.

 

Again, I'm sure I'll get flamed; I *like* the books for what they are. I just dont' think they're great american novels.

J[/quote']

 

I am interested in literature as art, that is why I study it. Now, most of the authors I listed were not there to be compared to Jordan, only to illustrate the point of these writers not being above flaws themselves. It would be like comparing apples and oranges, as someone else hinted at.

 

Now, you say this is not the right place to debate this, and I am inclined to agree. However, your last post was nothing if it was not an entry in a debate, and I would like a chance to reply.

 

I also realize that my last post was not necessarily formed as academic criticism, that would take far to long both to read and write at such a casual forum as this. However, it is still valid as criticism as it does not merely reflect my opinion. I have studied these works, and conversed with Ph.Ds who share my sentiments. Just because I did not provide further justification for my statements does not mean there are none. I simply do not think this is the place for a very in-depth discussion of the subject.

 

Now, the nature of this discussion is not so much "is Jordan great literature" as "are the writers dubbed great really that much better". I find it somewhat offensive that you in your posts seem to imply that I do not take literature seriously, and is besotted with RJ to the degree where I put him above all else. This is not the case.

 

The point I am trying to make is that you are correct in stating that RJ is no Twain. But neither is Hemingway. They are both commonly referred to as "great", even though they in academic circles are not liked as much as in popular circles. This of course has to do with academia's aversion against works that achieve wide popular acclaim and success. Is there a need to distinguish authors that are "popular greats" and "academic greats"? Most people have probably heard of Twain and Hemingway, but I would expect not so many to have heard of and read Silko and Hansberry.

 

At the same time the question must be asked, is Twain really so great? He completely ruins "The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn", a statement on the conditions of black slaves in the American South, with the last part of the novel, when he introduces Tom Sawyer as a result of popular demand. The chapters following marks a relapse for Huck, where he promptly forgets everything he has learned about Jim as a human being opposed to property, where hard and controversial questions are skirted and avoided by introducing cheap comedy. People are fond of quoting Hemingway saying that "All modern American literature comes from one book by Mark Twain called Huckleberry Finn", but most people do not know that he also said this: "if you read it you must stop where the Please ridicule me, I can't express points without using hate speech! Jim is stolen from the boys. That is the real end. The rest is just cheating."So what does this tell us? Certainly that Mark Twain was not perfect. As great literature goes, he was certainly a coward for not holding to the message he wanted to make, and taking the easy way out.

 

Hemingway's position as one among the greats is also not so clear cut as you guys make it out to be. Faulkner criticized him heavily, saying he had no daring, and that he "has never used a word where the reader might check his usage by a dictionaryâ€.

 

As for the techincal terms you introduce, you may be right in the fact that Jordan is not perfect. Repetition of imagery and so on. Never said otherwise. However, you have to remember that meter is not a term that applies to Jordan's writing, as he writes prose, not poetry. Meter is a term used about poetry, and I suspect you are not referring to the meter of "The Color of Trust".

 

Jelly, you're combining two people's arguments. I'm not a big fan of hemmingway at all. I much prefer Faulkner, but that's neither here nor there. I did include poetry terms, because I was thinking of great literature in general, which is kind of why I included whitman in that list. I didn't mean to say Jordan is a poet.

 

You're entitled to your opinion; I'm just kind of surprised that someone trained in literature would put him in the "hall of fame" so to speak. If you want to, go ahead.

 

I never compared him directly to anyone except in stature. So that whole Twain tangent is a little off. I was surprised that you could call such a clever writer as Twain childish, and elevate RJ to classic level all in the same paragraph, though.

 

Every professor has his popular people he loves to hate. I had a philosophy teacher who hated Plato because Nietzsche did. Whatever. That's academia. There's still a notion of what's great, and a couple of people here and there throwing rocks at them won't change that.

 

I have nothing else to say. I've read the series three times, and loved it every time, but I continue to put him in the same category as authors Stephen King. Fun reads, but hardly great literature.

J

[Jellybelly]

I was not necessarily trying to elevate him to the hall of fame as much as I was trying to demonstrate that those people were not the perfect writers being in that hall would suggest. Hence the Twain "tangent", as you call it. What spurred this was your characterization of Jordan as a "guilty read", a term which I feel does not make any sense whatsoever. A guilty read to me would be Dan Brown's books, which are definitely fun, but definitely not very good.

[Jedimuppet]

I was not necessarily trying to elevate him to the hall of fame as much as I was trying to demonstrate that those people were not the perfect writers being in that hall would suggest. Hence the Twain "tangent"' date=' as you call it. What spurred this was your characterization of Jordan as a "guilty read", a term which I feel does not make any sense whatsoever. A guilty read to me would be Dan Brown's books, which are definitely fun, but definitely not very good.[/quote']

 

Perhaps you would have done better to ask me to clarify the term than to deliver such a lengthy defense. I have many books that I should read, some for work, some for extending my literary vocabulary, and when I'm rereading a series such as WoT, I do consider it a guilty read. *shrug* I also love comic books, and put them in the same category.

J

[Jellybelly]

I have to agree that there is a certain distinction between the guilty read as something you do despite not really having the time due to other reading duties, and something you do not hope others would discover you reading. I interpreted your statement as the latter, and saw no need to ask for clarification before reading your modifications just now. Probably my fault, since a guilty read in my mind equals bad literature you do not want it getting out that you are reading.

 

Oh, well.

[Deathblade]

The thing we must remember is that remember is that certain authors are considers great for a specific reasons. Be it daring, creativity, origionality, etc. Tolkien was considered great for two reasons. First, because he pretty much created a genre. The second is the expaniveness of his fantasy world. From the destruction of Gondolin to the War of the Ring to the forging of the Simarils, there is so much history. It's as if he created a "history of the world" and he had to create the world from scratch.

 

Jordan's claim to fame is the second of those. He has created a world as vast and diverse as our own. With cultures that are as varied as the peoples, it is more expansive, more immersive, more addictive than any MMORPG. HE has created over nine thousand pages, with hundreds, if not thousands of characters that are all unique enough that I could desrcribe nearly any one. Throughout all those thousands of pages there are no contradictions at all. Every character is developed, acts as they all had character describptions as vast as the main ones.

The charactes themselves are immense. I have never read more realistic people. Jordan is able to convincingly, intuitively create people from all different viewpoints.

 

As to Dune, there is definitely, as different between it and WOT. Dune was about human nature. WOT is about human potential.

[trakand01]

In my personal opinion, anyone who reads the first book (or even half of it) and hasnt either;

 

a. Identified with a character

b. Fallen in love with a character

 

hasnt paid full attention.

 

That is what happened to me, I identified with Egwene (although my opinion of her has since changed), and fell in love with Rand, which hasnt changed. Randland became simply an extension to my world - like the Secret Garden, if anyone has read / seen that, and I couldnt pretend it doesnt exist if someone paid me millions. No-one can erase what is in my imagination and I cannot put the books down.

[Guest Barmacral]

Holy Thread Necro Batman.

[Leopoled Boothe]

Now, a few months ago two friends suggested WoT to me, saying that I should read the first 6 or so books, since it went downhill afterwards.

 

It just goes to show how much opinions can vary. I strongly disagree with this statment as I actually prefer the latter books. Don't get me wrong I've loved every book in the series but "The Eye of the World" and "The Dragon Reborn" are among my lest favorites.

 

 

Well, today I finally finished The Shadow Rising, and I must ask: What's with all the hype? It was a decent read, but I don't understand how people can think it's an amazing series. I am told that these first 4 books were among the best of the series, so, is there something I am missing here?

 

Yes, you are missing books 5-11 :) My advice is just keep reading. While I thought that books 1-3 were a very good fantasy series, the series didn't really hook me until I read "The Shadow Rising." In fact, to me the story didn't really begin until book 4. Books one through three were just a 1800 page prolouge.

 

Writing: I enjoyed Robert Jordan's prose and lack of repition in his descriptions (Other than the skirt smoothing and braid tugging, which needed to be cut back down on a lot to prevent it from becoming annoying).

 

To me that just adds to the realism because in the real world people's anoying quirks don't just go away or change. Rather they stick around and stay much the same.

 

 

Characters: I didn't think they were poorly written, but they were rather sub-par. Most of the characters seem to have fit personality types: Blacksmith, gambeler, and rarely go out of the box.

 

What are you talking about. How many blacksmiths inspire three villages to rise up against opressors (ie Trollocs and Whitecoats)? How many gamblers voluntarly walk through doorways to parrallel worlds and cut the had off a savage warrior (and it the ain't outside the box for Mat I don't know what is)? How many sheephearder take up swordplay and then take down a blademaster? The only reason these characters start out somewhat seryeotypical is bacause Jordan wants to emphasize the fact that they are breaking away form these traditional roles and are becoming much more. In short he wants their to be obvious contrast between who they stared out as and who the ultimatly become.

 

The romance scenes I thought were ridiculously childish, and the characters act like women and men are alien beings, which I found very juvenille.

 

Yes, but keep in mind that many of the principal characters are between the ages of 16-18. I remember when I was that age my romances were rather childish and woman certainly seemed like alien beings back then (still do to some extent).

 

The women in general annoyed the hell out of me, seeming to nothing but bicker and or complain about men stupidly.

 

I'll agree with you there, Jordan should tone down on that.

 

Worldbuilding: The worldbuilding was pretty good, and immersive, but I didn't see any really new concepts in it; Black Riders, Fremen. The concept of the Wheel itself was interesting, but just an edited version of the Wheel of Time of dharmic religions. Perhaps the main fault I found in the worldbuilding was how weak the religions are. All in all, it was pretty good, but could've been better.

 

I see where you're comming from with this but if you read some of Jordan's interviews you will see that WOT is not about introducing new concepts so much as it is about framing old concepts in a new way. Basically Jordan wants to integrate elemants of just about every myth and legend into this series. Look a bit deeper and you will see that WOT is chalked full of influnces form Arthurian Legend, Norse Mythology, and Keltic myth among others. Basically, this story is suposed to take place in our distant past and the events told therein are the inspirations for many of our legends.

 

Plotlines seemed to get introduced, then just vanish.

 

Just keep reading, they'll be back :D It may be 3 or 4 books later but ultimatly all plot lines do show up again.

[vegetattack15]

I will never understand the human need to demoralize others in order to make themselves feel better. The author of this topic, in my opinion, never cared about what people think in relation to his opinions. Look at his posts, there is a certain feel of a sneer to all of them.

 

I see this all the time at my job, (which is why I am going to quit). I wait tables at an Olive Garden, most of the time people are polite, tip well, and appreciate the service I offer. Every once in a while though, you get the a-typical rich, successfull, snob, where its not enough for them to know that they have a nice house, golf membership, luxury cars. No, they must come sit in my section, show a complete lack of manners in a condescending attitude, and leave a lousy tip. This is the same kind of bullying I see on this post, with a forceful mental intrusion in what the author concludes is the correct POV.

 

I am sorry to react this way, fellow WOT fans, but the tone of this thread has irritated me greatly.

[DocBean]

lot of my book is better than your's in this forum.

 

WoT got me into Fantasy. So I'm always going to put it first.

 

I was dissappointed with a lot of things that Jordan wrote about that were obvious takeoffs of what Tolkien did, but the more I read the series I realized that he took stuff from lots of sources.

 

King Author and the Sword in the Stone, Celtic Myth, characters based off of ancient Western and Eastern Mythology, many religions, and on and on. So I can't fault him, because he has done it very well, and it's created a fun world to read about.

 

I love how Song of Fire and Ice uses magic as more of a mysterious unknown thing, and love that R.R. Martin isn't afraid to kill off some characters.

 

the problem with me is, I love Jordan's characters more, so I'm glad they're not getting killed. and I guess that's one reason why I prefer WOT. I find more enjoyment reading about Jordan's world than I do Martin's.

 

I don't compare either to Tolkien, Tolkien started it all, Jordan and Martin just went their own way with Fantacy and built on what he began. Both surpassing him in my opinion. Tolkien's world is not as fun for me as either of the other worlds, and since I started reading fantacy as a young adult, I've never gotten thru the Hobbit, it's just too juvenile for me now.

[stoneface]

The easiest thing to describe is the way that RJ paints a picture with words. He describes the smell of the leather, the rustle of the grass, the way the horses twitch. The world becomes real. True, it makes the book long, but it is a well-painted long.

 

Sure, there are some characters that we the readers would like to slap upside the head. We chafe at the pace sometimes. A lot of times. But we keep coming back. Eleven books, and waiting for the next.

 

I have to admit that my first start didn't last long. After the prologue of tEotW (prologue was just wierd), starting in Chapter One the wind arose and swept around a cart, a farmer, and the farmer's son. The rest of the thick book loomed, and priorities got in the way. Years later I was induced to restart (my wife bought me tDR as a Christmas present, without realizing that it was a series rather than a novel in a collection). I am now in my 3rd reading of the series, and expect to read the series again the series when I hear that Book 12 is on its way to the publisher.

 

I read aSoIaF (through Book 4). Yes, there is a vast difference in approach to the mortality of the main characters (e.g., even some of the dead Forsaken keep coming back). Initially a refreshing change, by Book 4 it was very depressing (will somebody please nuke the Iron Born?). Lots of buried clues, some hard to find, some hard not to trip on ("Pate, like the pig boy."). I am no longer waiting for Book 5; maybe I will read and maybe I won't. But that's my personal taste. My mother and wife both like mysteries, my sisters and my brothers-in-law like SF and Fantasy.

 

Back to tWoT. Part of the captivation is the theme of distrust, the frustration with how the characters could do so much better if they could only trust each other and work together, if they could only put aside petty wants and squabbles to prevent disaster. How the DO's forces could whup the splintered forces of Light if the DO's own weren't at each others throats themselves. Yeah, it sounds like a soap opera, but much better.

 

I will wait for Book 12...

[kmlau]

OK, I know the original post is like 10 months old but since its bumped up recently im gonna share my 2cents on what I really like about WoT.

 

WoT is like a giant puzzle, its not just reading, it makes you actively try to figure out theories and plots behind the story portrayed. Let's take a very amazing example here:

 

Back in 2001, 5 6 years ago, someone posted on WoTMania of a theory regarding Rand. This theory came from the FIRST book, TEotW.

http://wotmania.com/theorypostdbtheory.asp?ID=487&Category=Rand

On page 290 of the British paperback version, Moiraine is going on about the history of Aridhol, and its eventual turning to Shadar Logoth.

This attracted my attention straight away as Winter's Heart clearly highlighted the importance of Shadar Logoth in this series.

 

Anyway, Moiraine tells the story of how Prince Cerra Thorin's son, comes from Manetheren to broker a peace with Aridhol after their remittance from the Trolloc Wars.

 

Prince Cerra has his hand cut off in response to this peace offer, and then leaves Shadar Logoth to go to the Borderlands, meets a woman there, and is lead to his own downfall.

 

The interest of this to me is that later on in Moiraine's diatribe (page 292) she mentions about Lan and the Seven Towers. This all occurs about two days after meeting Min and her visions.

 

Now (finally) the point of my theory is that if Moiraine is mentioning Lan directly, could it be that Prince Cerra is a representation of Rand? After all, "son of Thorin" is not a million miles away from "al'Thor," and Rand has just gone to Shadar Logoth to attain a type of peace between male and female channelers by removing the taint. I would therefore guess that Rand is going to lose his hand very quickly in the next installment of WoT,

 

Now Rand lost his hand in Book 11 KoD, whether or not this is really foreshadowed since Book 1 is any body's guess. But this really just proves my point that any piece of text in RJ's book can be a clue to the meta puzzle. Its like a Fantasy X Mystery, now that is something very special.