Jump to content

DRAGONMOUNT

A WHEEL OF TIME COMMUNITY

Why do people hate the Wheel of Time?


Recommended Posts

A lot of the dislike people have for the series is justified in my opinion (slowing of pacing in books 7-10, etc). Though naturally as the most popular contemporary fantasy series (other than Harry Potter most likely), naturally there are going to be more critics because more people are familiar with it.

 

You're not going to hear as many critics of something like Malazan simply because far fewer people are familiar with the books.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 171
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Before I even saw this topic, I saw a list that stated RJ has sold over 44 million copies of the WoT series. That is the definition of success.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Before I even saw this topic, I saw a list that stated RJ has sold over 44 million copies of the WoT series. That is the definition of success.

 

But not of artistic merit.

 

I'm a fan, but let's not pretend these books are flawless. They're not.

Edited by randsc
Link to post
Share on other sites

Allow me to add a bit of perspective from a non-fantasy reader. I have always been a huge fan of classical works, if it’s listed as a classic there is a good chance I have read it (likely more than once.) I personally enjoy the art of literature and will read Kerouac, Ginsberg or Dumas to kill a Sunday afternoon. I say this only to express the type of reader I am and that I think it takes to enjoy this work. While I have seen lots of people draw parallels to other fantasy authors, I cannot, I however see RJ’s work (less so with Sanderson) reminiscent of Dickens with local placement and use, with a nice hint of Steinbeck in character development and point of view. It is clear that RJ was extremely well read, he borrows from not just the Judeo Christian ideas but almost as heavily on Classic Greek literature. There can be many arguments for the representation of Jason and the Argonauts, Odysseus and personally I think there are some implications of Pan, just to list a few. That being said I have tried to read other Fantasy books thinking I had poorly misjudged the genre. (To date I have not disproved my original impression. I am simply not a Fantasy reader.) I find myself fortunate that I was given the first book from a friend who said ‘this thing reads like something you would like. Do you want it?’ (I paraphrase as this was in the Navy and there was slightly more explicative’s used.) Since then I have eagerly awaited each new volume as I can only imagine readers of Dumas’s original serials must have felt.

 

So to digress, I surmise that it is not that RJ was not an amazing Fantasy author that other fantasy readers do not appreciate but rather he was an amazing author who happened to be placed into fantasy, something that some Fantasy readers cannot appreciate. When their breadth of study is surmised with dime store pulp fiction that escalates with the wit and measure of a ten year old, it is no surprise that a true work of fiction would be so easily and sadly, dismissed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Considering this is probably the best selling fantasy series in the world and each of the last 6 books has debuted as a NY Times #1 bestseller I would say that the vast majority of fantasy readers do enjoy the books.

Seriously? The Lion, The Witch, and the Wardrobe, on its own, has sold far more books than the entire Wheel of Time series, as has the first Harry Potter novel. The Lord of the Rings (debatable if you want to call that a "series") vastly outpaces the Wheel of Time. Figures I've found suggest Discworld is more popular as well, but numbers I've found for some of these are out of date.

 

Of course, be careful if you choose to judge a book by its popularity. Twilight has also outsold the Wheel of Time.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Considering this is probably the best selling fantasy series in the world and each of the last 6 books has debuted as a NY Times #1 bestseller I would say that the vast majority of fantasy readers do enjoy the books.

Seriously? The Lion, The Witch, and the Wardrobe, on its own, has sold far more books than the entire Wheel of Time series, as has the first Harry Potter novel. The Lord of the Rings (debatable if you want to call that a "series") vastly outpaces the Wheel of Time. Figures I've found suggest Discworld is more popular as well, but numbers I've found for some of these are out of date.

 

Of course, be careful if you choose to judge a book by its popularity. Twilight has also outsold the Wheel of Time.

 

This is absolutely right. I think the Dark Tower novels are right up there, also. And obviously, the WoT books haven't come close to the Harry Potter books in sales, and the only person on the planet who doesn't think Harry Potter is a fantasy series is J.K. Rowling.

 

Anyway, total book sales probably isn't the best measure of the reach of a series. If I have a series of 3 books, and each sells 4 million copies, I have sold 12 million books. If I have a series of 12 books, and each sells 1 million copies, I have sold 12 million books. But the first series has more readers, yes?

Edited by randsc
Link to post
Share on other sites

Allow me to add a bit of perspective from a non-fantasy reader. I have always been a huge fan of classical works, if it’s listed as a classic there is a good chance I have read it (likely more than once.) I personally enjoy the art of literature and will read Kerouac, Ginsberg or Dumas to kill a Sunday afternoon. I say this only to express the type of reader I am and that I think it takes to enjoy this work. While I have seen lots of people draw parallels to other fantasy authors, I cannot, I however see RJ’s work (less so with Sanderson) reminiscent of Dickens with local placement and use, with a nice hint of Steinbeck in character development and point of view. It is clear that RJ was extremely well read, he borrows from not just the Judeo Christian ideas but almost as heavily on Classic Greek literature. There can be many arguments for the representation of Jason and the Argonauts, Odysseus and personally I think there are some implications of Pan, just to list a few. That being said I have tried to read other Fantasy books thinking I had poorly misjudged the genre. (To date I have not disproved my original impression. I am simply not a Fantasy reader.) I find myself fortunate that I was given the first book from a friend who said ‘this thing reads like something you would like. Do you want it?’ (I paraphrase as this was in the Navy and there was slightly more explicative’s used.) Since then I have eagerly awaited each new volume as I can only imagine readers of Dumas’s original serials must have felt.

 

So to digress, I surmise that it is not that RJ was not an amazing Fantasy author that other fantasy readers do not appreciate but rather he was an amazing author who happened to be placed into fantasy, something that some Fantasy readers cannot appreciate. When their breadth of study is surmised with dime store pulp fiction that escalates with the wit and measure of a ten year old, it is no surprise that a true work of fiction would be so easily and sadly, dismissed.

 

 

Well, like I said, I'm a Jordan fan. And like you, I'm a serious reader. And I cannot tell you how much I disagree with the premise of your post.

 

I've said it before, and I still maintain it is true: Jordan books are to literature as the Beach Boys are to the music of the 1960's. That is to say, bubble gum pop. Good bubble gum pop. Very good bubble gum pop. Even GREAT bubble gum pop...but still bubble gum pop.

Edited by randsc
Link to post
Share on other sites

Allow me to add a bit of perspective from a non-fantasy reader. I have always been a huge fan of classical works, if it’s listed as a classic there is a good chance I have read it (likely more than once.) I personally enjoy the art of literature and will read Kerouac, Ginsberg or Dumas to kill a Sunday afternoon. I say this only to express the type of reader I am and that I think it takes to enjoy this work. While I have seen lots of people draw parallels to other fantasy authors, I cannot, I however see RJ’s work (less so with Sanderson) reminiscent of Dickens with local placement and use, with a nice hint of Steinbeck in character development and point of view. It is clear that RJ was extremely well read, he borrows from not just the Judeo Christian ideas but almost as heavily on Classic Greek literature. There can be many arguments for the representation of Jason and the Argonauts, Odysseus and personally I think there are some implications of Pan, just to list a few. That being said I have tried to read other Fantasy books thinking I had poorly misjudged the genre. (To date I have not disproved my original impression. I am simply not a Fantasy reader.) I find myself fortunate that I was given the first book from a friend who said ‘this thing reads like something you would like. Do you want it?’ (I paraphrase as this was in the Navy and there was slightly more explicative’s used.) Since then I have eagerly awaited each new volume as I can only imagine readers of Dumas’s original serials must have felt.

 

So to digress, I surmise that it is not that RJ was not an amazing Fantasy author that other fantasy readers do not appreciate but rather he was an amazing author who happened to be placed into fantasy, something that some Fantasy readers cannot appreciate. When their breadth of study is surmised with dime store pulp fiction that escalates with the wit and measure of a ten year old, it is no surprise that a true work of fiction would be so easily and sadly, dismissed.

 

 

Well, like I said, I'm a Jordan fan. And like you, I'm a serious reader. And I cannot tell you how much I disagree with the premise of your post.

 

I've said is before, and I still maintain it is true: Jordan books are to literature as the Beach Boys are to the music of the 1960's. That is to say, bubble gum pop. Good bubble gum pop. Very good bubble gum pop. Even GREAT buble gum pop...but still bubble gum pop.

 

 

I find it ironic that you would use the Beach Boys as your comparative device considering they were responsible for Pet Sounds, that is and I quote.

 

“Pet Sounds is the eleventh studio album by the American rock band The Beach Boys, released May 16, 1966, on Capitol Records. It has been widely ranked as one of the most influential records ever released in popular music and has been ranked at #1 in several music magazines' lists of greatest albums of all time, including New Musical Express, The Times and Mojo Magazine.[1][2][3] In 2003, it was ranked #2 in Rolling Stone's 500 Greatest Albums of All Time list.[4]”

 

 

 

So…. Thanks for supporting my argument?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Believe what you like. Personally, I find the notion that people don't like tWoT because they aren't smart enough, or well-read enough, to be both arrogant and counter-factual. Plenty of very smart, very well-read people don't like these books. I think suggestions to the contrary reveal more about the WoT fans than the WoT haters.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Considering this is probably the best selling fantasy series in the world and each of the last 6 books has debuted as a NY Times #1 bestseller I would say that the vast majority of fantasy readers do enjoy the books.

Seriously? The Lion, The Witch, and the Wardrobe, on its own, has sold far more books than the entire Wheel of Time series, as has the first Harry Potter novel. The Lord of the Rings (debatable if you want to call that a "series") vastly outpaces the Wheel of Time. Figures I've found suggest Discworld is more popular as well, but numbers I've found for some of these are out of date.

 

Of course, be careful if you choose to judge a book by its popularity. Twilight has also outsold the Wheel of Time.

 

I meant to post it was one of the best selling fantasy series, although the fact that a handful of other series have outsold it does not invalidate my point. Nor was I implying that quantity equals quality. My posts were in response to someone bringing up the tastes of fantasy readers and what they like. For that, sales figures and popularity are relevant.

 

If I say that most teen pop music fans do not like Justin Beiber, his music sales would not support that position. If I say that Justin Beiber is terrible music, the sales figures would not be relevant to the argument.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Right. I'm not trying to change anyone's opinions on the books - I'm using evidence to answer the question posed. If you want to know why people don't like WoT, look at which books were well received, and which ones were not. As I demonstrated above, the numbers speak for themselves. Books 7-10 are rated significantly lower than Books 1-4. Ergo, if you want to know why people don't like WoT, look to Books 7-10. It's a simple matter of logic. These books have a slower pacing, introduce more minor characters, and focus on certain plotlines.

 

If you enjoyed the latter Jordan books, more power to you. Personally, I thought they were pretty dull, with the exception of events like the Cleansing.

 

I do not disagree with you that books 7-10 were less well received by readers (even the hardcore fans) than the earlier books. I was mostly taking issue with your "the vast majority of fantasy readers dislike what RJ did in the later books" hyperbole. Its a position that is just not supported by the continuing popularity of the series (this isn't for sure fact, but I believe that tGS was one of the best selling later books - this would be after 3 or 4 straight books that the vast majority of readers supposedly disliked - why would people continue buying in such volume if most of them didn't like the previous 3 or 4 installments?).

 

Again, the Amazon reviews do not present a good picture of the overall readership as only a small fraction of readers actually post a review, and these are usually just the most passionate ones one way or the other. And other than CoT, I would imagine that if you added up the percentages of 3 to 5 star reviews (people who liked the books) the result would be more than the 1 and 2 star reviews (people who didn't like the books). This indicates that the dislike is not the majority, much less the vast majority.

 

You can say that a growing number of fans do not like the later books as much as the earlier books. You can critique the literary shortcomings that you believe exist in the later books. The first has evidence and the second is personal preference. But to state that the vast majority of fantasy readers do not like how RJ wrote books 7-10 is unsupported hyperbole. Which really is just the simple point that I have been long-windedly trying to make.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Believe what you like. Personally, I find the notion that people don't like tWoT because they aren't smart enough, or well-read enough, to be both arrogant and counter-factual. Plenty of very smart, very well-read people don't like these books. I think suggestions to the contrary reveal more about the WoT fans than the WoT haters.

 

 

I am sorry if that is what you thought I was implying. My point was that it is a style of literature that harkens back to more classical prose and in a day and age where most people want ‘bite’ size information they do not appreciate the pace of these books. I agree, it is what you like, I have friends that love ‘Wrestling’ while I fail to grasp the entertainment of it. However, I love some three stooges any day of the week. I was attempting to draw a demographic that is more apt to describe those that enjoy the book not belittle or bedraggle those that do not. Some people will only drink scotch others will only drink beer, there is a difference in opinion not people.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Damn it can't we just all get along! Does it really matter that some people don't like these books? They have their reasons and are perfectly entitled to them. Peronally I love all these books; honestly there was not one moment in them that bored me, nor is there one bit I wouldn't love to read again anytime. That probably seems odd to those who hate these books, just as find it odd that some people can dislike them so much, but it's only opinon. You can't prove how good or bad a book is by their sales figures or Amazon reviews. These are big selling books, inevitably there are going to be lots who like them and lots who don't.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Believe what you like. Personally, I find the notion that people don't like tWoT because they aren't smart enough, or well-read enough, to be both arrogant and counter-factual. Plenty of very smart, very well-read people don't like these books. I think suggestions to the contrary reveal more about the WoT fans than the WoT haters.

 

 

I am sorry if that is what you thought I was implying. My point was that it is a style of literature that harkens back to more classical prose and in a day and age where most people want ‘bite’ size information they do not appreciate the pace of these books. I agree, it is what you like, I have friends that love ‘Wrestling’ while I fail to grasp the entertainment of it. However, I love some three stooges any day of the week. I was attempting to draw a demographic that is more apt to describe those that enjoy the book not belittle or bedraggle those that do not. Some people will only drink scotch others will only drink beer, there is a difference in opinion not people.

 

Still don't agree. I don't think the style WoT harkens back to classical prose at all. The language is very modern, the syntax very simple, and the series as a whole written at about a 6th grade vocabulary level.

 

To be perfectly honest, my experience has been that the more serious literature people have read, the less likely they are to be WoT fans. There are exceptions, of course. But this isn't about people liking beer instead of whisky. It is about people who like Laphroaig --- and think the WoT is Canadian Club.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This thread has taken a rather predictable turn. The question was "Why do people hate the Wheel of Time?" It seems that most of the posters would rather argue about whether people are correct in their opinions of the series, which is an inherently pointless debate.

 

I don't intend to keep beating this dead horse, but the original question isn't that hard to answer if you consider which books were more popular than others.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Believe what you like. Personally, I find the notion that people don't like tWoT because they aren't smart enough, or well-read enough, to be both arrogant and counter-factual. Plenty of very smart, very well-read people don't like these books. I think suggestions to the contrary reveal more about the WoT fans than the WoT haters.

 

 

I am sorry if that is what you thought I was implying. My point was that it is a style of literature that harkens back to more classical prose and in a day and age where most people want ‘bite’ size information they do not appreciate the pace of these books. I agree, it is what you like, I have friends that love ‘Wrestling’ while I fail to grasp the entertainment of it. However, I love some three stooges any day of the week. I was attempting to draw a demographic that is more apt to describe those that enjoy the book not belittle or bedraggle those that do not. Some people will only drink scotch others will only drink beer, there is a difference in opinion not people.

 

Still don't agree. I don't think the style WoT harkens back to classical prose at all. The language is very modern, the syntax very simple, and the series as a whole written at about a 6th grade vocabulary level.

 

To be perfectly honest, my experience has been that the more serious literature people have read, the less likely they are to be WoT fans. There are exceptions, of course. But this isn't about people liking beer instead of whisky. It is about people who like Laphroaig --- and think the WoT is Canadian Club.

 

 

Your position of “syntax” is confusing to me, especially in support of vocabulary and “modern” language. I wonder if you might have intended Vernacular or lexicon, if you could explain your thoughts on this statement. As for the reading level, I find that to be a bit misleading of an argument. You would assume that sixth grade reading level seems to imply that it is beneath worth, while on the contrary reading levels are a set of complex measures that are determined by not just composition but content. Let’s consider what else is on the “Sixth grade” reading level, Mark Twain, Jack London, Alexander Dumas, Victor Hugo, Charles Dickson, Jane Austen (I would be honored to be compared to any of these) and there is always the original fantasy work Beowulf, all of which fall into the “Sixth Grade” reading level. You will find that most works that fall above this reading level are done so due to content or complex philosophical ideas. For example a “sixth grade” can read David Hume’s work, but may lack the maturity to grasp or appreciate the complex positioning of ethics and morals without the life experience to support the ideas. Or they could read “A Map to the End of Time,” but it does not mean they would grasp the physics that it is attempting to argue. As I said before I think it more a measure of taste, I enjoyed reading the Count of Monte Cristo as a young man of 10 or 11 but I would dare say I was in a small minority. (Trust me I remember trying to explain it to friends of that age and learned quickly that they did not care.) It did not make me better or worse it did however, imply that my taste were different. Gi joe was still cool just not as cool as Dantès.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Believe what you like. Personally, I find the notion that people don't like tWoT because they aren't smart enough, or well-read enough, to be both arrogant and counter-factual. Plenty of very smart, very well-read people don't like these books. I think suggestions to the contrary reveal more about the WoT fans than the WoT haters.

 

 

I am sorry if that is what you thought I was implying. My point was that it is a style of literature that harkens back to more classical prose and in a day and age where most people want ‘bite’ size information they do not appreciate the pace of these books. I agree, it is what you like, I have friends that love ‘Wrestling’ while I fail to grasp the entertainment of it. However, I love some three stooges any day of the week. I was attempting to draw a demographic that is more apt to describe those that enjoy the book not belittle or bedraggle those that do not. Some people will only drink scotch others will only drink beer, there is a difference in opinion not people.

 

Still don't agree. I don't think the style WoT harkens back to classical prose at all. The language is very modern, the syntax very simple, and the series as a whole written at about a 6th grade vocabulary level.

 

To be perfectly honest, my experience has been that the more serious literature people have read, the less likely they are to be WoT fans. There are exceptions, of course. But this isn't about people liking beer instead of whisky. It is about people who like Laphroaig --- and think the WoT is Canadian Club.

 

 

Your position of “syntax” is confusing to me, especially in support of vocabulary and “modern” language. I wonder if you might have intended Vernacular or lexicon, if you could explain your thoughts on this statement. As for the reading level, I find that to be a bit misleading of an argument. You would assume that sixth grade reading level seems to imply that it is beneath worth, while on the contrary reading levels are a set of complex measures that are determined by not just composition but content. Let’s consider what else is on the “Sixth grade” reading level, Mark Twain, Jack London, Alexander Dumas, Victor Hugo, Charles Dickson, Jane Austen (I would be honored to be compared to any of these) and there is always the original fantasy work Beowulf, all of which fall into the “Sixth Grade” reading level. You will find that most works that fall above this reading level are done so due to content or complex philosophical ideas. For example a “sixth grade” can read David Hume’s work, but may lack the maturity to grasp or appreciate the complex positioning of ethics and morals without the life experience to support the ideas. Or they could read “A Map to the End of Time,” but it does not mean they would grasp the physics that it is attempting to argue. As I said before I think it more a measure of taste, I enjoyed reading the Count of Monte Cristo as a young man of 10 or 11 but I would dare say I was in a small minority. (Trust me I remember trying to explain it to friends of that age and learned quickly that they did not care.) It did not make me better or worse it did however, imply that my taste were different. Gi joe was still cool just not as cool as Dantès.

 

I was very specific that the vocabulary is on a sixth grade level. "Complex philosophical ideas" aren't part of that. And I would argue that philosophical complexity and moral ambiguity are hardly among the hallmarks of Jordan's writing, but that's another thread.

 

Of the authors you mention (I'm assuming Dickson is Dickens?), I would say only Austen uses vocabulary at the level of WoT, and the relationships between her characters are certainly more complicated than anything Jordan wrote.

 

I'm not going to have a debate where we name-drop authors we've read. It is pointless, proves nothing and is, frankly, obnoxious. I just wish people could enjoy these books for what they are, accept that not everyone does, and quit trying to imply that the only reason people might not be fans is because they just aren't as clever and well-read as the intellectual giants who read the WoT.

Edited by randsc
Link to post
Share on other sites

...You seem angry, :tongue: trust me this is not a personal conversation but an educated one. I mean no insult and apologize if any is taken.

 

However, you are willing to state an argument but un-willing to support it. :blink: I appreciate your catching of my typo (no spell check on this and likely typing ahead of myself again). :blush:

 

I was not “name” dropping but rather exploring your rational of defining argument. You stated a claim and I posed a counter to your claim. I am still confused by the syntax argument and would still love to hear your thoughts on this. As for vocabulary perhaps this is all about what you consider great vocabulary. As RJ is known for his mastery of the vernacular, do you assume because he is not digging into the deep recesses of the Webster to pull an outdated or arbitrary word that the vocabulary is weak. It is not that I wish to insight frustration here but I would enjoy reading your explanation for this thought. One of the greatest American Authors of all time, John Steinbeck, rarely used above the, pre-described, “sixth grade” vocabulary. Would you then say that his works are not great? It is not enough that you claim a thing is true and then simply say, ‘because I say so.’ Please I would love an example. It truly does fascinate me that you would say an author, that has repeated been compared to Dickens (got right that time :wink: ) has a weak vocabulary and “poor” syntax. I would really enjoy seeing this from your point of view but I am having a hard time finding your argument with the current support. (Though, I must say, I do appreciate your proofing. :tongue: )

Link to post
Share on other sites

There are thousands of reasons why someone might not like the Wheel of Time. But the vast majority of those people just put down the books and went on with their lives with nary a thought toward WOT. I think the reasons for people to hate WOT are more specific. These are almost certainly people who liked the series at first and then for some reason changed positions dramatically. A few reasons I can think of off the top of my head:

 

They don't like the direction a character (or multiple characters) went. E.g., I've often heard people describe Rand in the later books as a monster. I would agree, but for me it made the books more interesting. Or maybe their favorite character was Moraine, and they gave up after she disappeared. I think this is probably the least prevalent of the three reasons I'm going to give, though, as WOT has relied on a large cast of characters from very early.

 

They don't like the way the plot has changed. It changed in two primary ways: (1)after The Dragon Reborn, the books got a lot less self-contained and (2) the number of plot threads proliferated wildly. I suspect a lot of people either just didn't want to read a true series like that (this is tangentially related to the third reason) or they lost enjoyment because they couldn't keep track of everything (I admit to some of this in the latter books as I got away from re-reading the earlier books). I think this is much more central to WOT, so it probably accounts for more haters than the first reason.

 

I believe my final reason, however, results in the greater portion of the haters out there. They became frustrated as the delays between books grew, the length of each book diminished, and the pace of the plot grinded almost to a halt. I can sympathize with them, but I think the prevalence of this last view is why a lot of the haters will go away and the Wheel of Time will stand as a great epic fantasy series. While I think the latter books will always weaken the series, I think most of the problems disappear when you look at it as a standing series instead of an ongoing series with books dribbled out at irregular intervals.

Link to post
Share on other sites

...You seem angry, :tongue: trust me this is not a personal conversation but an educated one. I mean no insult and apologize if any is taken.

 

However, you are willing to state an argument but un-willing to support it. :blink: I appreciate your catching of my typo (no spell check on this and likely typing ahead of myself again). :blush:

 

I was not “name” dropping but rather exploring your rational of defining argument. You stated a claim and I posed a counter to your claim. I am still confused by the syntax argument and would still love to hear your thoughts on this. As for vocabulary perhaps this is all about what you consider great vocabulary. As RJ is known for his mastery of the vernacular, do you assume because he is not digging into the deep recesses of the Webster to pull an outdated or arbitrary word that the vocabulary is weak. It is not that I wish to insight frustration here but I would enjoy reading your explanation for this thought. One of the greatest American Authors of all time, John Steinbeck, rarely used above the, pre-described, “sixth grade” vocabulary. Would you then say that his works are not great? It is not enough that you claim a thing is true and then simply say, ‘because I say so.’ Please I would love an example. It truly does fascinate me that you would say an author, that has repeated been compared to Dickens (got right that time :wink: ) has a weak vocabulary and “poor” syntax. I would really enjoy seeing this from your point of view but I am having a hard time finding your argument with the current support. (Though, I must say, I do appreciate your proofing. :tongue: )

 

You're very defensive about this. You seem to have a large emotional investment in the notion that WoT fans are WoT fans because they are somehow better-read than non-fans. My experience, personally, is that the correlation between readers of serious literature and WoT fans is the inverse of what you suggest.

 

I didn't say that works written at a 6th great vocabulary level can't be great. I'm saying that the fact the books are written at a 6th grade vocabulary level suggests that there is a reason some people don't like the WoT other than the fact that it is over their poor little heads. And implying otherwise is the worst sort of self-congratulation.

 

I also never said Jordan had a "weak" vocabulary. I don't doubt that the man had an excellent vocabulary. The fact remains that the vocabulary he used to actually tell his story is not particularly advanced. He chose to write the books this way.

 

I also never said that his syntax is poor. "Poor" and "Simple" are not synonymous.

 

This is a simple story, set in a world of moral absolutes, and told using simple forms and accessible vocabulary. It can been read and understood by the average 12 year old. This is not a criticism; there is nothing wrong with Jordan choosing to do this.

 

It does, however, suggest that people may dislike the WoT for reasons other than the fact that they just find it so incredibly sophisticated and inpenetrable.

 

Frankly, the only thing difficult about reading the WoT, the only thing about reading these books that requires real intellectual effort, is remembering the details of a story that has taken 10,000 pages and 20 years to (nearly) complete.

Edited by randsc
Link to post
Share on other sites

Sometimes different people like different things. And sometimes, even when something is popular, there are people that don't like it. Let's just leave it at that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...