What you dislike most about the series?

[Vambram]

 

 

I find it rather ridiculous that most of the threads on DM are devoted to ripping apart characters, plot lines and the authors.

 

 

 

+1000 QFT

 

 

[Vambram]

 

 

So tell me again, how are you not judging his opinion?

 

I was asking him a question. I am sorry that you are unable to see the difference between judging someone's opinion, and asking someone a question.

[Mrs. Cindy Gill]

I've read everything, man,

I've read everything, man

Read about the deserts bare, man,

while I breathed the mountain air, man,

Of books I've had my share man,

I've read everything,

I've read Donaldson and Buther, Dostoevsky, Tolstoy, Rice, Dickens, Austen, Peake, Tolkien, Vance, Smith, Lovecraft, Howard, Fallon, Jordan, Sanderson, Martin, Joyce, Gaiman, Pratchett, Holt, Brown, Richards, Abnett, King, Moorcock, Abercombie, Bakker, McCaffrey, Abraham, le Guin, Fuller, Fraser, MacDonald, Lieber, Zusak, Wooding, Banks, Morgan, Huston, Hutson, Hart, Dicks, Brooks, Dick, Herbert, Anderson, Guderian, Iggulden, Gardner, Smith, Adams, Mieville, Swainston, Rankin, Clarke, Reynolds, Asimov, Aldiss, Swanwick

I've read everything, man.

 

 

 

thank you. i can't tell you how much i love this.

 

and now JC's going in the alarm clock-CD, so when i wake up every morning crying, i'll think of you, man.

[Hybrid]

Anyways I don't even know why I'm posting in this thread, this site's purpose is for fans of the world RJ created to gather and share their enjoyment of one of the best epic fantasy series I've ever read, and discuss possible theories and whatnot. And yet, more threads are devoted to what's wrong with the series than most topics I've seen addressed. If there's so much wrong with this series, why even discuss it and criticize it when you can move on to the next book/series? It's not like anyone is paying you for your flaming criticisms.

 

That's ridiculous.

 

Enjoying the series does not preclude believing that it is imperfect.

 

WOT is one of my favorite fantasy series -- perhaps my favorite fantasy series -- but that doesn't mean I don't think it could have been better. I certainly wouldn't be wasting my time on this forum if I actually disliked it.

[ironisles]

True, true; I'm gnashing my teeth going thru WH.. and CoT yet to come..I haven't decided if I'm going to read Cot or use Wot Encyl. summaries for it. Cot is just.. bad there's no other way to describe it. and Gormenghast is.. different, it's hard to describe..but Steerpike would fit right into Wot backstabbing nobles and cut throats heh.

[Joshua Hendrickson]

Dude, you need a reality check if you think that series is even 1/3 as popular and read by as many people as was the Lord of the Rings trilogy.

 

Didn't say anything of the sort. Just thought it was quite odd that you would use when it was published to make a conclusion on the "vast majority" not having read Gormenghast. Or even better questioning the quality of the work because you hadn't heard of it.

 

As for me I thought the first two books were quite well done...third not so much. His descriptive style along with dark, surrealist influences really make it unique.

 

So, you were one of the small percentage of fantasy readers that are still alive today whom have read Peake's books. Congrats.

As to why I think I am qualified to determine whether or not a series is better than the WOT? Well, because I have been reading fantasy books for 30 years.. and because I have read books from several other genres, then it is safe for me to believe that if I have not heard of a fantasy book series, then the probability is very high that it ain't as good as Robert Jordan's WOT series.

 

Oh my god.

 

I was going to apologize for being an arse: even if my comment was relatively mild, it was still rude. And being a gentleman, I still will:

 

I apologize for being an arse.

 

But seriously--to equate your imperfect knowledge with perfect sight-unseen critical judgment? How arrogant and ignorant can you get?

[Vambram]

 

 

Oh my god.

 

I was going to apologize for being an arse: even if my comment was relatively mild, it was still rude. And being a gentleman, I still will:

 

I apologize for being an arse.

 

But seriously--to equate your imperfect knowledge with perfect sight-unseen critical judgment? How arrogant and ignorant can you get?

 

 

Thank you for the apology.

However, I see that you are twisting around my words with gross exaggerations. Seriously, give me an honest answer. If a person has been reading fantasy books for 30 years as I have, doesn't it make logical sense that said person would have at least have HEARD about Peake's trilogy if that trilogy was a very good and very well known piece of literature?

I asked you a legitimate question, ... with some attitude behind the question, I'll admit, and in response I get little more than attacks against me by others before you, and then you yourself.

Now I am being shown again why I dislike coming to the WOT General Discussion forums because of all of the hyper-critical posts that I read here.

 

 

[Joshua Hendrickson]

True, true; I'm gnashing my teeth going thru WH.. and CoT yet to come..I haven't decided if I'm going to read Cot or use Wot Encyl. summaries for it. Cot is just.. bad there's no other way to describe it. and Gormenghast is.. different, it's hard to describe..but Steerpike would fit right into Wot backstabbing nobles and cut throats heh.

 

Yes, COT was terrible--boring and inconsequential. The nadir of the series. The only memorable moments from COT are those times when Aes Sedai and others sense the massive amount of the One Power being used at Shadar Logoth, leaving them all awestruck and uneasy. That was cool. Everything else ... uggh.

 

Winter's Heart, on the other hand, I enjoyed ... or at least, I remember enjoying the Cleansing of Saidin and ensuing battle; quite thrilling, that.

 

Yes, Gormenghast is "different." It is not at all akin to the sword and sorcery sort of fantasy that is so often taken for the whole of fantasy literature by some of its readers. No magic, no monsters. But there's incredible atmosphere, an epic sense of scale in the Castle itself, and the characters are of a very high literary quality. I for one think Gormenghast is a better fantasy than WOT or even The Lord of the Rings, but it is certainly not capable of enchanting as large an audience as works such as those, and in any case they are simply too unalike for a meaningful comparison. And yes, Steerpike surely is reminiscent of other ruthless villain types, but we get to know him in an almost Shakespearean way, the same as we do the other people in the story. By the way, the duel between Flay and Swelter in the first book is probably the greatest fight I've ever read in a novel.

 

It is understood amongst fans of Peake that the third book in the Gormenghast trilogy is not as good as the first two; it's even weirder, and lacks focus. Peake was dying from a kind of encephalitis during the years he struggled to write it, and the strain shows. Like Robert Jordan, he didn't get a chance to finish his masterpiece.

[Vambram]

Gormenghast sounds like a very good and interesting trilogy. If I have the opportunity to read it, then I shall most certainly give it a try and see if I like it. I know that the concepts and the characters in this trilogy sound very, interesting.

[SuperFade]

It is understood amongst fans of Peake that the third book in the Gormenghast trilogy is not as good as the first two; it's even weirder, and lacks focus. Peake was dying from a kind of encephalitis during the years he struggled to write it, and the strain shows. Like Robert Jordan, he didn't get a chance to finish his masterpiece.

 

He was also suffering from shellshock and dementia if I remember rightly, which is why the third book becomes rather surreal. It's always a tragedy when an author dies before completing their masterwork, but at least the third book was finished and ended on a more or less fitting note.

[Joshua Hendrickson]

 

 

Oh my god.

 

I was going to apologize for being an arse: even if my comment was relatively mild, it was still rude. And being a gentleman, I still will:

 

I apologize for being an arse.

 

But seriously--to equate your imperfect knowledge with perfect sight-unseen critical judgment? How arrogant and ignorant can you get?

 

 

Thank you for the apology.

However, I see that you are twisting around my words with gross exaggerations. Seriously, give me an honest answer. If a person has been reading fantasy books for 30 years as I have, doesn't it make logical sense that said person would have at least have HEARD about Peake's trilogy if that trilogy was a very good and very well known piece of literature?

I asked you a legitimate question, ... with some attitude behind the question, I'll admit, and in response I get little more than attacks against me by others before you, and then you yourself.

Now I am being shown again why I dislike coming to the WOT General Discussion forums because of all of the hyper-critical posts that I read here.

 

@Vambram:

 

An honest answer about how you managed to miss something out there in the wide world?

 

How could I know that? I don't know you or what you've read. Doubtless your bookshelves and mine have some contents in common and not others. All I can tell you is this: I read a lot of novels, and I also read a lot of books about novels, i.e. literary criticism. It was while reading one such critical tome back in high school (back in the 1980s) that I learned about Gormenghast (as well as most of the authors and works that I have since read and come to love). But I don't imagine that there are no good authors that I've never heard of. It is a strange, rather defensive claim to make, saying in effect that if you haven't heard of it it must not be any good.

 

Look, I'm not here to fight with you. I don't mean to twist your words, but I can only interpret them as I read them. I don't mean to be rude or boorish. And opinions are like assholes: everybody's got one, and the bigger the opinion, the bigger the asshole. So I apologize once again for my assholish behavior, though not for my opinion, which is just this: no matter how good you or I or anyone else thinks WOT (or anything else) is, there's always something better. Except maybe for Shakespeare.

 

I'm sorry you've never heard of Peake before. He's not that obscure, though. The books were published in the 1940s and 50s. Peake was a famous British poet and painter in his day, and he died fairly young of encephalitis. The books were never as popular as Tolkien's stuff but they did have a good run during the fantasy-friendly 60s, and have stayed in print. The BBC produced a four hour television miniseries adaptation of the first two (and most relevant) books in the trilogy back in the year 2000, I believe; Christopher Lee, Fiona Shaw, and Johnathan Rhys-Meyers were amongst the stars. Be aware that Gormenghast (as I have said in another post) is not sword and sorcery style fantasy, lacking magic and monsters; if that is the only sort of fantasy you have read (which I will not presume) then it is unlikely that you will have heard of it. All I can say is that he is out there, he has been influential on many other writers, and has an enduring (not to say cult) following.

 

Truce?

[Vambram]

Well, even though I disagree with some of what you've said in your most recent post here. For the sake of peace and tranquility, and also because stuff like this really ain't worth arguing about, ..

Aye, Lets call a Truce and lets hope any further interactions you and I have here are more polite and more pleasant than this mess between us about the WOT series as compared to Peake's fantasy trilogy.

[Joshua Hendrickson]

Ugh can we ease up on the condescension just a tad?! Anyways I don't even know why I'm posting in this thread, this site's purpose is for fans of the world RJ created to gather and share their enjoyment of one of the best epic fantasy series I've ever read, and discuss possible theories and whatnot. And yet, more threads are devoted to what's wrong with the series than most topics I've seen addressed. If there's so much wrong with this series, why even discuss it and criticize it when you can move on to the next book/series? It's not like anyone is paying you for your flaming criticisms.

 

Just because I like WOT doesn't mean it doesn't deserve criticism. I think a lot of WOT fans have a love/hate relationship with the series and its creator. We recognize that WOT is immense, complex, and impressive, but we don't think Jordan was the greatest writer (or even necessarily a good one) or that his creation is flawless. Flaws and all, I keep coming back to it....

[EpitomyofShyness]

Ugh can we ease up on the condescension just a tad?! Anyways I don't even know why I'm posting in this thread, this site's purpose is for fans of the world RJ created to gather and share their enjoyment of one of the best epic fantasy series I've ever read, and discuss possible theories and whatnot. And yet, more threads are devoted to what's wrong with the series than most topics I've seen addressed. If there's so much wrong with this series, why even discuss it and criticize it when you can move on to the next book/series? It's not like anyone is paying you for your flaming criticisms.

 

Jeez Loise! I freaking love this series, but I still think it can be better. Now do I think I can do better? No, maybe if I got serious about writing and wrote every day for the next thirty years, but right now, no I couldn't do better. But criticizing something as wonderful as Wheel of Time helps me bring into focus, as a wanna-be writer, what Robert Jordan did well, and what he didn't do well. Therefore, as a potential someday writer, I can take the good lessons from Wheel of Time, learning from what Robert Jordan did well and therefore aping greatness in that sense, and I can also take the bad lessons, learning what I would not want to do.

 

A few examples of my personal opinion, no one is obligated to share my opinion;

 

Something Robert Jordan did very well; detailed magic system, which has visible rules.

 

Something Robert Jordan didn't do well; To few character deaths, series lacks a sense of fear.

 

Well done; Many detailed and complex cultures.

 

Not well done; Polarization of sexes.

 

Just my opinion folks.

[hazelkrs1]

Just to be clear, I wasn't trying to say that everyone who has posted a negative comment about the WoT on this thread should be burned at the stake. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, and there's no problem with pointing out some of the flaws of the WoT. I'm not under the impression that it is the be-all-end-all best fantasy series ever, or that Robert Jordan is the greatest fantasy author of all time. That doesn't mean that I'm not enthralled with how well Jordan crafted a world full of so many characters, plot arcs, and underlying themes. The only point I'm making is that there's way too many of these type of threads in this forum, whether it's Egwene-bashing or questioning RJ's entire vision of the series. We're just becoming conditioned to overlook the positive traits of something and move straight to trying to tear it down, a culture of cynics. Consider the main points people bring up when criticizing the WoT:

 

Abundance of Sexism/Misandry - It's true that RJ failed in creating a world where sexism doesn't exist, if that was his intent. It's true that some of his personal bias shows up, especially from certain character POV's (the female ones). It's true that practically every women in Randland thinks all men are wool-headed morons. And yet we overlook some HUGE features of this issue that make criticizing RJ really kind of pointless in a way. He created a world where the roles we're reversed from what we are generally used to seeing, and in which there was an ingrained reason for many individuals to develop a misandric attitude towards men (because male channelers were responsible for the Breaking. In doing so, he brought focus to an issue that countless fantasy authors ignore, and did it in such a polarizing manner that you have fans, both male and female, stirring the pot and discussing the matter in frank, open, and honest tones. This is such an immense boon for us because I don't know if you've noticed, but the roles men and women fill in today's society have been shifting for quite some time, and they haven't stopped yet. We need to examine the underlying issues that create friction between us in order to provide the lubrication that will help our civilization move forward. The worst kind of sexism or any other kind of discrimination you can have in a story is the kind that's ignored. It's also almost impossible to not let any personal bias show when creating a work of art on this scale, and I don't think people often think about the factors that might have influenced RJ, growing up in a different time, in completely different circumstances. It's easy to sit on your high horse and act enlightened, but imagine how hard it was for people in generations before ours to have to adapt to changing times when the changes spoke against everything they were ever taught or shown to be true.

 

Lack of character deaths/futility of the villains - I don't quite know what to say to this, because if you examine just about any epic fantasy, the protagonists have plot shields hovering around them every step of the way. It's generally understood that the good guys are going to win, you're just having to depend on suspension of disbelief to help you feel concerned for the world youre reading about. As for the Forsaken, I think it was the author's intent that the legends of each indivual Forsaken often outgrew the actual truth of who they really were: a bunch of scheming brats all trying to scrap for the DO's attention. Aknowledging this doesn't mean that if given the chance, any one of them would commit horrible atrocities to help advance their cause. Just because the good guys have always had a response doesn't mean the Forsaken are ineffectual (at least not all of them), it means that the threads of pattern have been woven a certain way, and those threads lead to life chugging ahead. What's wrong with a happy ending?

 

Length of series - This is only really a complaint you'll hear when a series hasn't finished yet. There have been plenty of series that went longer than RJ's and to me dragged on much more. Yet they're still enjoyable, and generally people don't complain about the length because they're usually aware of how many books there are in the series. Fans of this series started to get anxious though, that this series possibly wouldn't get finished when it was apparant that RJ's health was declining, and this frustration translated to wanting to throw blame around for why it wasn't finished yet. I really have been more than irritated at the implications I've heard that Team Jordan was milking us for money, which doesn't even make any sense when you consider how successful sequels and WoT spinoff stories could have been. It's obvious to me that Jordan was an artisan, and cared deeply about the masterpiece he was putting together. To think that he would let that story be influenced by personal greed is just a shock to my senses.

[Hybrid]

Lack of character deaths:

 

This is something I feel strongly about.

 

I honestly don't mind that Rand and the other major players have plot armor. What I want is more tension.

 

One way would be to have less major character dying. That is, characters who aren't important enough to have POVs, but who become important parts of a main character's sequence. Someone the main character bonds with or relies on. For example, Moiraine dying for good at the docks. That would drive home the message that while Rand and co. are going to win, it's not going to be easy and they're going to be bleeding out the entire way.

 

Death isn't even necessary. For example, the kidnapping of Rand in LOC worked just as well to drive that point home. But later in the series, we don't really get anything like that, or at least nothing that drives home the same tension. For example, Elayne's kidnapping wasn't the same. (Bad example, I know. I was mostly feeling relief during that scene. ) The length of time spent wasn't as long, the circumstances weren't as horrific, and the rescue wasn't bittersweet.

 

 

Length/pacing:

 

It's not as big of an issue for me, since I didn't have to wait between all the books. So I don't mind the length of the series. But the pacing slowed down considerably after LOC, and it didn't have to. A lot of the plotlines in ACOS through COT could have been condensed, while still leaving room for character development and world building.

[capuga]

Was Rand getting his hand blown off not proof that victory would be costly?

 

Was the scene of Rand being tortured in a collar and chocking the life out of his beloved Min not terrifying and tension filled? It was still disturbing and scary dispite Min not dying.

 

There's always this talk of plot armor in this series yet our main protaganist is nearly crippled (missing a hand, two unhealing wounds in his side, temporary near blindness, was tortured and beaten, is mostly insane), another major player Mat just lost an eye (this might have been more effective with a bit less foreshadowing as we were all expecting this to happen), the main female protaganist Egwene was captured and basically tortured. Etc. It's not like there has been no cost to the good guys. It's not like there has been no excitement or tension in the series. These people don't have to die to show that they aren't invincible.

 

I don't understand the mentality that hopes for death amongst characters that they are emotionally invested in. Death is not necessary to create conflict, excitement, or tension.

[Joshua Hendrickson]

Plot shields around major characters are certainly to be expected. For instance, as I recall, out of all the major and minor protagonists in THE LORD OF THE RINGS only Boromir and Theoden actually die, and of course Gandalf's supposed death in Moria was a red herring (even if it did serve the function of empowering him to overcome Saruman). But series like DUNE or GORMENGHAST or A SONG OF ICE AND FIRE show that you can incorporate the deaths of major characters and thereby enrich the story ... and I believe those are better works of fiction than WOT or TLOTR. Frankly, I wish Moiraine had been allowed to die a true and heroic death--not because I disliked her (I like her a lot) but because it would have leant gravitas and meaning to her sacrifice.

 

The sufferings, dismemberments, and endangerment of major characters are necessary for story development, and it's good that Jordan included a good deal of this, but they don't often seem to have a whole lot of impact, though I am grateful when they do.

 

As far as sexism goes, I think that the idea that Jordan meant for his world to be a reversal of the standard pre-feminist human society is correct. Our own world is only barely beginning to reverse the misogynistic standards of the past. By the future time of the Age of Legends, it would be logical to presume that true equality of the sexes had been achieved. After the Breaking, when only women have (or are allowed to have) awesome magical powers, it only makes sense that misandry and backlashes against it (i.e. Whitecloaks) would reign supreme. So all of that "sexism" is probably intentional, even if it does get wearying to the reader.

[capuga]

Plot shields around major characters are certainly to be expected. For instance, as I recall, out of all the major and minor protagonists in THE LORD OF THE RINGS only Boromir and Theoden actually die, and of course Gandalf's supposed death in Moria was a red herring (even if it did serve the function of empowering him to overcome Saruman). But series like DUNE or GORMENGHAST or A SONG OF ICE AND FIRE show that you can incorporate the deaths of major characters and thereby enrich the story ... and I believe those are better works of fiction than WOT or TLOTR. Frankly, I wish Moiraine had been allowed to die a true and heroic death--not because I disliked her (I like her a lot) but because it would have leant gravitas and meaning to her sacrifice.

 

But I doubt the fact that some major characters die is the main (or even major) reason that people that view those works as superior to WoT feel that way. For example some things I have heard from Martin fans in comparison to Jordan (I haven't read those books yet so this is second hand) - the relationships are grittier and more realistic, the political intrigue is more in depth and realtistic, the world seems darker and grittier. Etc. Some main characters dying perhaps enhances that but it's not a real selling point and I would be willing to wager that the series would be just as good and beloved if he had found other ways to create tension rather than killing a character.

 

The sufferings, dismemberments, and endangerment of major characters are necessary for story development, and it's good that Jordan included a good deal of this, but they don't often seem to have a whole lot of impact, though I am grateful when they do.

 

And I wouldn't mind seeing more criticisms along the lines of - "The trials the characters face need to have more of an impact. Rand doesn't even care that he lost a hand so its not really a big deal." Instead all you hear is "People NEED to DIE!!" As if characters dying instantly increases the quality of the story being told.

 

I'm not saying that characters shouldn't ever die or that it can't be used to great effect in the story. I'm just saying its not the only way to create tension and its not some necessary and positive story telling device that will make a story always better.

 

Also, I like most of these characters. I'm not going to be particularly happy (not saying angry at the author, just sad) if characters I like end up dead. I'm certainly not going to root for it. To me the scene with Rand almost killing Min was just as effective in creating tension and a sense of danger as someone dying would have been.

[hazelkrs1]

 

And I wouldn't mind seeing more criticisms along the lines of - "The trials the characters face need to have more of an impact. Rand doesn't even care that he lost a hand so its not really a big deal." Instead all you hear is "People NEED to DIE!!" As if characters dying instantly increases the quality of the story being told.

 

I'm not saying that characters shouldn't ever die or that it can't be used to great effect in the story. I'm just saying its not the only way to create tension and its not some necessary and positive story telling device that will make a story always better.

 

Also, I like most of these characters. I'm not going to be particularly happy (not saying angry at the author, just sad) if characters I like end up dead. I'm certainly not going to root for it. To me the scene with Rand almost killing Min was just as effective in creating tension and a sense of danger as someone dying would have been.

 

+1 Mark, I really like your mentality towards this subject. I think there's been plenty of tension throughout the books, just different kinds than just expecting the character's deaths. The search for the bowl of winds, Graendal tryin to bag Perrin, Rand's kidnapping, Perrin rescuing Faile; I thought all of those had plenty of tension in them. Moiraine could have died earlier, and I guess it couldve helped raise the stakes a little bit maybe, but I felt just as much tension during her escape, and the way that whole scene and the foreshadowing leading up to it was written was excellent.

[Mr Ares]

I agree with what Hybrid and Mark Grayson have said. Killing characters is not an instant guarantee of more tension in the story, and it's possible to generate tension in ways that don't involve killing people. Therefore it does seem rather silly to me that people seem to be fixated on this idea of the story needing more tension, therefore people must die. I have no particular objection to characters dying, I just don't think it will solve any of the perceived problems of the series. To look at another fantasy series, Malazan Book of the Fallen, it has a high body count, but I wouldn't rate it as superior to ASoIaF, a story which actually kills fewer people. So more deaths does not equal better. In fact, one of the frustrating things about Malazan is that it is often quite boring for lengthy streches - before redeeming itself by doing something spectacular. I wouldn't say Malazan is more tense. If people want more tension, they should say they want more tension, not more corpses. The two things are different. Body count is no measure of quality or tension.

[hazelkrs1]

I agree with what Hybrid and Mark Grayson have said. Killing characters is not an instant guarantee of more tension in the story, and it's possible to generate tension in ways that don't involve killing people. Therefore it does seem rather silly to me that people seem to be fixated on this idea of the story needing more tension, therefore people must die. I have no particular objection to characters dying, I just don't think it will solve any of the perceived problems of the series. To look at another fantasy series, Malazan Book of the Fallen, it has a high body count, but I wouldn't rate it as superior to ASoIaF, a story which actually kills fewer people. So more deaths does not equal better. In fact, one of the frustrating things about Malazan is that it is often quite boring for lengthy streches - before redeeming itself by doing something spectacular. I wouldn't say Malazan is more tense. If people want more tension, they should say they want more tension, not more corpses. The two things are different. Body count is no measure of quality or tension.

 

Hey Mr. Ares we agree on something!

[Hybrid]

Was Rand getting his hand blown off not proof that victory would be costly?

 

Was the scene of Rand being tortured in a collar and chocking the life out of his beloved Min not terrifying and tension filled? It was still disturbing and scary dispite Min not dying.

 

Those are good examples that I'd forgotten. Maybe I just haven't read the books recently enough, but what I'm trying to get at is that RJ often stated that the Light was on its last legs, but it's difficult to really see that without actually thinking about what's happened so far. The protagonists have really been rolling along, mowing down almost everything in their paths. We get glimpses of trouble in the world, but I don't think it really strikes home.

[RyanL24]

 

And I wouldn't mind seeing more criticisms along the lines of - "The trials the characters face need to have more of an impact. Rand doesn't even care that he lost a hand so its not really a big deal." Instead all you hear is "People NEED to DIE!!" As if characters dying instantly increases the quality of the story being told.

 

I'm not saying that characters shouldn't ever die or that it can't be used to great effect in the story. I'm just saying its not the only way to create tension and its not some necessary and positive story telling device that will make a story always better.

 

Also, I like most of these characters. I'm not going to be particularly happy (not saying angry at the author, just sad) if characters I like end up dead. I'm certainly not going to root for it. To me the scene with Rand almost killing Min was just as effective in creating tension and a sense of danger as someone dying would have been.

 

If there is another way to cause tension without using deaths, RJ did not know what it was. There really is no tension in this series, and it makes it seem a little "kiddie". I mean, Harry Potter was written for children and people die. When you read parts you've never read before, you know that anybody can die anytime. With WoT...

 

 

The search for the bowl of winds

 

Was long and boring. You knew the whole time everything would turn out OK, and nobody was going to get killed.

 

Graendal tryin to bag Perrin,

 

Is stupid, because you already know ahead of time no matter what Graendal tries, it will end in failure, and Perrin will be just fine.

 

Rand's kidnapping,

 

Was also boring, because just like all the kidnappings that came before and after, you knew he would be rescued and nobody important would be lost during the rescue.

 

Perrin rescuing Faile;

 

Was stupid for several reasons, the #1 reason being it took 3 frickin books, and the whole time you knew that Perrin would rescue Faile, you just didn't know how or when he would hurry up and get it over with.

 

 

 

Don't get me wrong, there were some tense parts, and some excitement, but it is missing an element. When you read a good book, part of the excitement is that you don't know how it's going to end. When you read a kids book and can see the ending coming from halfway through the book, that's not really entertaining for adults. I only recently had a child, so have just gotten back into reading children's books but there it is. When you are reading the WoT for the first time, and you get to about book 4, you have it figured out. Nobody is going to get hurt in this fight of good vs evil.

 

 

I actually really don't like it when characters die in books. Especially with Steve King, he makes you love them so much, and then abruptly kills them. I thought the first 4 books of aSoFaI were obnoxious due to the amount of deaths (and gore and profanity for profanity's sake). But I tell you, I'm reading the new one, and I haven't been this hungry for a story in a long long time. I want to know what's going to happen, and each chapter is exciting, because it could be that character's last chapter. When GRRM's character falls in the river, you pretty much consider him a gonner. When he gets rescued, it's a total surprise! When Nyn fell in the river, I just rolled my eyes and wondered who was going to fish her out. I already knew how that was going to end, with Nyn safe and sound.

 

 

I guess there is a fine line between too many deaths and not enough deaths. No deaths is boring (in a story like this one, the age old battle of good vs evil). If the WoT was a football game, at the end of the game the score would be good guys 100, bad guys 0, the good guys would have no dirt on their uniform... and the crowd would be snoozing peacefully in the stands. (If you're not American, feel free to replace the phrase "football game" with the phrase "football match")...

[EpitomyofShyness]

I really second what you just said here Ryan.