Jump to content

DRAGONMOUNT

A WHEEL OF TIME COMMUNITY
Hopebringer

"If you think Wheel of Time is good, then I dare you to re-read it. Believe me, it’s really bad."

Recommended Posts

Jordan's treatment of gender is probably the single biggest recurring flaw in the series.  Despite this flaw and others, I really enjoyed reading all of these books.  You can read them really quick (most of them at least) and they're a lot of fun.  I actually found the descriptions immersed me in the world more.  Yeah there are a lot of them, at times it can be a bit much, but I've found that's just a big part of the epic fantasy genre.  Jordan created one of the most detailed and vibrant fantasy worlds out there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

See I thought his treatment on gender was spot on, and seeing how people let their ego and gender bias cloud their judgment was one of the perks of the series!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

See I thought his treatment on gender was spot on, and seeing how people let their ego and gender bias cloud their judgment was one of the perks of the series!

 

I think with Rand, Mat and Perrin all thinking that the other two were better with women than themselves is pretty honest and amusing in the beginning, especially in regards to young men.  But, I also think that women thinking that all men are stupid troublemakers in need of a good ear-boxing is kind of simplistic at best. And, I know that his ta'veren nature had something to do with it, but three beautiful women falling in love with Rand and willingly sharing him with one another?  Seems a bit of a stretch to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

See I thought his treatment on gender was spot on, and seeing how people let their ego and gender bias cloud their judgment was one of the perks of the series!

 

I think with Rand, Mat and Perrin all thinking that the other two were better with women than themselves is pretty honest and amusing in the beginning, especially in regards to young men.  But, I also think that women thinking that all men are stupid troublemakers in need of a good ear-boxing is kind of simplistic at best. And, I know that his ta'veren nature had something to do with it, but three beautiful women falling in love with Rand and willingly sharing him with one another?  Seems a bit of a stretch to me.

 

Yes but at that point in the series, RJ had given me so many good moments, that I was willing to give him that.  Even if it was on a subconscious level, and consciously I just didn't care and thought it was amusing.  Looking back it seems absurd, but in the moment of the reading, it was great! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is not that absurd later in the series. Most of us probably read these books over 10-20 years, but the time that passed in Randland was not that long. The characters are still quite young despite their positions and their hardships. It is not surprising that they are still acting that way from time to time. To judge that characterization, I think it would be better to ask someone who read them all for the first time (in less than a year). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is not that absurd later in the series. Most of us probably read these books over 10-20 years, but the time that passed in Randland was not that long. The characters are still quite young despite their positions and their hardships. It is not surprising that they are still acting that way from time to time. To judge that characterization, I think it would be better to ask someone who read them all for the first time (in less than a year). 

The timeline of the books was across roughly three years.  That's it, three short years from Emond's Field to the Last Battle.  I thought it was reasonable that many characters' behaviors and assumptions from before that time period still held sway on their views and actions during the events of the novels.

 

On a side note, I've actually heard people say "re-read it, it's bad" in person before.  I always found it funny when they did, because over the course of ten years reading the series I've gone back and marathoned the available books at least eight times.  Each time it took only a couple months of reading through it constantly to finish, and each time I found myself loving the series more, not less.

Edited by Zhon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think I may like this series more on a reread. My main issue has been struggling to find awesome villain moments. It wasn't until book 6 that i realized exactly the way in which team shadow are competent in WoT. It's not in one on one confrontation, but rather large scale chaotic disruption. And the Forsaken being amazing whenever they aren't on screen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Woah,what? I am sorta rereading it right now [sorta cause I am actually skipping through pages to reread favourite parts],and it's even better.It's just like works of Zelazny or Pratchett - the more I read them, the more I love them.

Also,it is Game of thrones which sucks [just an opinion, but I've managed to read Gormenghast and a lot of newer russian fantazy, which is 99% what camel produces, and can't force myself into finishing book 1 of GoT cause bleh].

Edited by Mefista

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Clearly, this is relative. The immense amount of detail the Jordan included, pertaining to everything from each environment to how hard Nynaeve tugged on her braid, laid down before the reader a vivid world. Clearly opinions vary on this, whether one received it with appreciation or annoyance, the detail is there. With todays writing standards set with a "get to the point" attitude, elaboration is over-elaboration, and simply wont do. Jordan created an amazing universe (fanboyism aside), with few details left to the wayside. Either one will love it or reject it, regardless, he put forth a world of his own, nothing more needs be said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't have much to add to the consensus here, but a couple of items:

 

 

It is not that absurd later in the series. Most of us probably read these books over 10-20 years, but the time that passed in Randland was not that long. The characters are still quite young despite their positions and their hardships. It is not surprising that they are still acting that way from time to time. To judge that characterization, I think it would be better to ask someone who read them all for the first time (in less than a year). 

 

I agree. When I last re-read the series (my first *full* re-read) last year, I had something of a realization: yes, some of the gender attitudes are annoying (for a while I thought they were really problematic), but they're actually symptomatic of young adults, which most of the central characters are. They're all pretty headstrong and sure of themselves, and drunk with newfound power and the freedom that comes from living away from home (and a sense of immortality)--but so was I at their age. Now I know better, but I'm a fair bit older than they are now.

 

 

As for ASOIAF/Game of Thrones... it's OK, but I think it's been vastly overestimated. (My guess is that part of it is just because when it first came out, the bleakness was something pretty new and exciting in fantasy, and the other part is that for some reason I can't fathom the general public loves the TV show, which I can't stand.) There's better stuff out there these days, IMO. And the clincher for me, as for others here, is that I have no desire to re-read it, and no expectation that I'll "get" any more out of re-reads than I did upon first reading (whereas every new reading of WoT gave me something new to chew on).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

that I have no desire to re-read it, and no expectation that I'll "get" any more out of re-reads than I did upon first reading (whereas every new reading of WoT gave me something new to chew on).

That would be a mistake as there are pretty deep mysteries in that series central to the story. Re-reads of ASoIaF are well worth it in terms of picking up on it all. Pretty good thread comparing the two series somewhere on that count. I'll poke around for it a bit later.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've only reread books 1-6 of WoT, will read the rest this summer. But when I reread them, it seems even better the second time, and you pick up on so much detail you missed before.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've only reread books 1-6 of WoT, will read the rest this summer. But when I reread them, it seems even better the second time, and you pick up on so much detail you missed before.

 

Like an entire Forsaken, Asmodean :tongue:?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

that I have no desire to re-read it, and no expectation that I'll "get" any more out of re-reads than I did upon first reading (whereas every new reading of WoT gave me something new to chew on).

That would be a mistake as there are pretty deep mysteries in that series central to the story. Re-reads of ASoIaF are well worth it in terms of picking up on it all. Pretty good thread comparing the two series somewhere on that count. I'll poke around for it a bit later.

 

 

I'll believe it when I see it! (Note: my intuition is that I picked up on most/all of them, not that they aren't there. But that may well just be arrogance on my part!)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I've only reread books 1-6 of WoT, will read the rest this summer. But when I reread them, it seems even better the second time, and you pick up on so much detail you missed before.

 

 

Like an entire Forsaken, Asmodean :tongue:?

Really?

 

I have up to ADWD in the ASoIaF series but have not even finished reading GoT. I don't like the writing. I can't get past the writing. I much prefer the tv show. At least, I've made it to season four

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

that I have no desire to re-read it, and no expectation that I'll "get" any more out of re-reads than I did upon first reading (whereas every new reading of WoT gave me something new to chew on).

 

 

asoiaf = there is no character to root for.

 

Arya was cute but now boring beyond comprehension.

Tyrion was interesting in the first two books, now he is a borefest.

Jon ..., well, Jon is ... I just don't care about him.

 

The other problem with the series is that it is over 5000 pages long and honestly, very little happens in it.The first two books were so-so, the third one is just a huge mess, the last books are lame.

 

That would be a mistake as there are pretty deep mysteries in that series central to the story. Re-reads of ASoIaF are well worth it in terms of picking up on it all.

 

It does not worth the time. I read for enjoyment not for gatheing clues.

 

 

Edit:

 

nudity/sex - I'm not a virgin, so it's not a big deal

killing/maiming/torturing (left and right, up and down) - now boring as hell

Edited by udbabor520

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

that I have no desire to re-read it, and no expectation that I'll "get" any more out of re-reads than I did upon first reading (whereas every new reading of WoT gave me something new to chew on).

That would be a mistake as there are pretty deep mysteries in that series central to the story. Re-reads of ASoIaF are well worth it in terms of picking up on it all. Pretty good thread comparing the two series somewhere on that count. I'll poke around for it a bit later.

 

 

I'll believe it when I see it! (Note: my intuition is that I picked up on most/all of them, not that they aren't there. But that may well just be arrogance on my part!)

 

 

Here is a link to the old debate if interested:

 

http://www.dragonmount.com/forums/topic/61908-compare-contrast-wot-asofi/?hl=+ice%20+and%20+fire%20+mysteries

 

I do agree that there is a ton of good stuff out there these days. Bakker, Abercrombie Rothfuss etc. are doing some very solid work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I do agree that there is a ton of good stuff out there these days. Bakker, Abercrombie Rothfuss etc. are doing some very solid work.

 

:unsure:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do agree that there is a ton of good stuff out there these days. Bakker, Abercrombie Rothfuss etc. are doing some very solid work.

I don't. I think one has to wade through a lot of garbage to find something good. In every genre, not only Fantasy. The quality of most writing being published these days is poor. Imo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I do agree that there is a ton of good stuff out there these days. Bakker, Abercrombie Rothfuss etc. are doing some very solid work.

 

:unsure:

 

 

Care to expand?

 

I don't. I think one has to wade through a lot of garbage to find something good. In every genre, not only Fantasy. The quality of most writing being published these days is poor. Imo.

 

Certainly don't agree in the regards to the wider literary world and I would ask you to put a bit more weight behind your assertion.

 

With fantasy I guess it's more relative. Of course you have some classic authors from way back like Peake, Wolfe and Crowley. Overall though the fantasy genre is filled with far better quality than it ways in say the 80s and 90s.

Edited by Suttree

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I do agree that there is a ton of good stuff out there these days. Bakker, Abercrombie Rothfuss etc. are doing some very solid work.

 

:unsure:

 

Care to expand?

 

I don't. I think one has to wade through a lot of garbage to find something good. In every genre, not only Fantasy. The quality of most writing being published these days is poor. Imo.

 

 

Certainly don't agree in the regards to the wider literary world and I would ask you to put a bit more weight behind your assertion.

 

With fantasy I guess it's more relative. Of course you have some classic authors from way back like Peake, Wolfe and Crowley. Overall though the fantasy genre is filled with far better quality than it ways in say the 80s and 90s.

You can disagree, that's your opinion. And I have mine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So is it your opinion that the overall quality in genre used to be better? Do you have any reasoning behind that? Not all opinions are created equal after all. It would be useful for purpose of the discussion to post a bit about how you've come to this conclusion?

Edited by Suttree

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Care to expand?

 

They were hyped up to the sky but I (and most members of our book club) don't see anything special in their works. The scope is (very) small, everyone is 'grey', their books are based on superior material (Martin, Rowling), the writing is mediocre and so on and so on.

 

Of course, you could say, their output is better than 99.9% of sff writers but one could say that Avatar is better than 99% of movies. That is true but that does not mean that Avatar is a 9/10 movie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They were hyped up to the sky but I (and most members of our book club) don't see anything special in their works. The scope is (very) small, everyone is 'grey', their books are based on superior material (Martin, Rowling), the writing is mediocre and so on and so on.

 

Wow to the bolded. I don't even know where to go with that. Rowling...superior...material. *cough*

 

As for the rest I'm not sure that I get where they are coming from. Based on Martin's and Rowlings material in what way?

 

In terms of writing quality, Bakker's prose for example is strong even when compared outside of genre and he deals with heady philosophical themes. It's the type of work that holds up to scrutiny usually reserved for so called "literary texts" and rewards very careful reading. Also have no idea how anyone would start to back up the "scope" angle. 

 

If I may ask, what would you consider some good recent fantasy if you're that down on those authors? Do you just not like the darker  trend towards realism in general?

Edited by Suttree

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you want to compare these authors to RJ or BS that's fine, but if you want to discuss these books on their own merits then please take it to the General Discussion Board.

 

Thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...