Jump to content

DRAGONMOUNT

A WHEEL OF TIME COMMUNITY
Luckers

Quality Discussion Thread

Recommended Posts

So doing a re-read on certain sections and so much of the modern terminology is killing me.

 

AMoL

 

Selucia could teach sandpaper a thing or two about being rough.

Apparently Mat's memories include the future now as well?

 

Believe there is a reference to Galad "telegraphing" his thoughts as well.

 

That's funny. As a kid I was a huge LOTR fan. I just happened to see the extended movie versions the other night. There's a part where Gimli says his axe is buried in an orc's nervous system. That really bothered me for the same reason.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just looked up the origin of sandpaper. 13th century China - used ground up seashells and such. It's possible there could be sandpaper in the WOT world, but I understand your dislike of its use. Telegraphing is something else completely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just looked up the origin of sandpaper. 13th century China - used ground up seashells and such. It's possible there could be sandpaper in the WOT world, but I understand your dislike of its use. Telegraphing is something else completely.

I believe glass paper(what they had in China, so yest technically the origin had been invented) was the predecessor to sand paper and neither were widespread/mass produced until the 1800's if I recall correctly.

Edited by Suttree

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

History of Sandpaper

Although Isaac Fisher JR. patented the first process for mass manufacturing of sandpaper in the United States in 1834, sandpaper was used as far back as the 13th century in China. Sandpaper paper was made out of crushed shells, seeds, sand, and gum. Originally Sandpaper was known as glass paper, because particles of glass was used. Glass paper (Sandpaper) was being manufactured by John Oakey's company in London by 1833, who had developed new adhesive techniques and processes that could be mass-produced. Since then sandpaper has been made in many different ways. In 1916-sandpaper manufacturer 3M invented an abrasive, which was applied for automotive sanding and refinishing. As a result to the success sandpaper had on refinishing automotive materials, many different abrasive products have been introduced for all types of sanding. Abrasives are now used for wood sanding, metal sanding, glass sanding, automotive sanding and much more. Sandpaper by definition is a “paper, which has abrasives material ingrained into it – part of the “coated abrasive family of abrasive products”.

http://www.abrasivesoasis.com/sandpaper.asp

 

It didn't bother me because they have gunpowder and, now, steam power in Randland. But, I can understand the bad taste it has left in your mouth. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know this may be off the current topic and I know that others have complained about the lack of individual voices in aMoL, but I just have to say that the one that bothered me the most was when we briefly saw Teslyn.

 

I believe she was from Illian, and yet when she spoke in aMoL there was not a hint of the Illianer accent and that just really burned me up. It's a small detail I know, but it's something that shouldn't have been overlooked and wouldn't have been overlooked if they had taken more time to edit before churning out a book for money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know this may be off the current topic and I know that others have complained about the lack of individual voices in aMoL, but I just have to say that the one that bothered me the most was when we briefly saw Teslyn.

 

I believe she was from Illian, and yet when she spoke in aMoL there was not a hint of the Illianer accent and that just really burned me up. It's a small detail I know, but it's something that shouldn't have been overlooked and wouldn't have been overlooked if they had taken more time to edit before churning out a book for money.

Teslyn's Illianer accent completely disappeared under Brandon. This type of thing happens quite a bit with the wooden dialog actually. A number of times you literally wouldn't have the slightest idea who was who if the names weren't included. Just one of many things that take away from the immersion. These little details individually don't seem like much, but when added up really take away from the quality.

Edited by Suttree

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Although I do understand people who are not able to ignore stuff. I suppose that's just too bad. I was able to ignore the issues you guys are talking about, and I don't agree with the complaints about Demandred. I know were are getting his backstory in River of Souls, so that might give us some more insight on his mental situation.

 

One major thing, why are people shrugging off the madness and saying "Demandred being insane is a cop out" - It's not. It was built up for many books and other Forsaken even commented on Demandred's urge to kill LTT. One comment was "I remember a time he would have been happy to just have him killed, now he wants it by his own hand" Or something of the like. True Power insanity has a stable background in Ishy/Moridin/Ba'alzaman.

But it wasn't built up for many books. Demandred wanted LTT dead, by his hand or another. Saying that he has changed recently is noting a change, but not explaining it. Consequently, it comes across more as a handwave to justify a difference in his character than it does as an actual example of character development. And Ishamael, unlike all the other Chosen, is noted for his extensive, almost exclusive, use of the TP - all the others display reluctance to use it, and are well aware of the dangers. They shouldn't have the same addiction or insanity resulting from it as Ishy did. What build up was there? Why the change in character? I had a similar problem with the last Mistborn book, where the Lord Ruler being insane is tossed in, almost as an excuse for his actions, and doesn't really feel like a natural development of his character. Insanity is not a "get out of jail free card", that excuses any and all out of character actions. What signs of insanity do we really see from Demandred? Compare that with Rand's insanity, something which really was built up over several books. Demandred can be considered insane in the way B movie villains are - not suffering from a recognised mental condition, so much as a blanket excuse for any illogical actions, with no defining symptoms. We are left with Demandred's character having changed, but no real explanation as to why.
Girl, Demandred's irrational hatred for LTT was mentioned way freaking back in book 6 by Semirhage in the same PoV in which we learn she, Mesaana, and Demandred are in an "alliance." It was nothing new.

Girl? And there was me thinking my name was sufficiently free of ambiguity. Now as it is, the post you quoted had the apparently feminine Mr Ares say that: "Demandred wanted LTT dead, by his hand or another". That was his characterisation in the RJ books - the irrational hatred was always there, I never disputed that, what changed was his personal obsession with killing him. That was new. In the future, I suggest you make an effort to understand what I am talking about before trying to tell me I'm wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Really bad planning by some great generals from the AOL. The light's thrown together plans and the dark has had the advantage the entire time knowing where the battle is going to be. I wanted the shadow to really show what they were made of, show us some of that AOL channeling that we have only dreamed about seeing.

 

Instead folding like a deck of cards with non channelers able to beat channelers just because they fight for the light. IDK i just thought we would have seen more uses of the one power. Demandred had obvious training influences on the Black Tower through Taim. We may have seen a little of it there. I would have thought Demandred would have been a little more cunning if he knew all that and more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i just finished the book last night...or this morning to be precise.

 

i just wanna say that i loved it

manly tears were shed etc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@ROB_88:

Leave this thread now. If you want to enjoy the book, turn around and leave. Your hopes and dreams will be crushed under the mighty foot of pessimistic skeptics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@ROB_88:

 

Leave this thread now. If you want to enjoy the book, turn around and leave. Your hopes and dreams will be crushed under the mighty foot of pessimistic skeptics.

Pessimistic Skeptics.  Pessimistic. Skeptics. 

 

Pessimism:  an inclination to emphasize adverse aspects, conditions, and possibilities or to expect the worst possible outcome. 

Well, this IS a Quality Discussion Thread.  And I don't see an inclination to emphasize adverse aspects.  The simple fact is that the quality of this book, both as an independent volume and as the conclusion of an epic series is bad from an objective standpoint.  Style (i.e., show not tell), Prose, Plot Development, Plot Consistency, Characterization.  These are not subjective metrics.  And they are all objectively bad in this book.

 

Skepticism: an attitude of doubt or a disposition to incredulity either in general or toward a particular object.

What exactly are the main contributors in this thread doubting?  I doubt, perhaps, that Sanderson was the right choice for this project.  But as for the quality of the book itself, I have no doubts. 

 

But he's probably right, ROB_88, this is not a place for rose-colored glasses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

sure, it was no masterpiece but i liked it for what it was.

the whole series has basically been a buildup to this fight. all important character developments have been dealt with. it's only the big war left.

so of course it's gonna be a bit generic after a while with the constant focus on battle scenes and stuff like that.
Mass Effect 3 had that problem too, but that doesn't make it bad for it, just different from the rest of it.

 

it did what it supposed to do.

it gave a proper ending to the story, and it gave me the chance to say goodbye to the characters.

and that's all i ever asked for

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

s so of course it's gonna be a bit generic after a while with the constant focus on battle scenes and stuff like that.

Mass Effect 3 had that problem too, but that doesn't make it bad for it, just different from the rest of it.

Personally I think it's a pretty big issue, the whole video game feel of the "battle porn" with wave after wave of trolloc fodder being chopped down.

it did what it supposed to do.

it gave a proper ending to the story, and it gave me the chance to say goodbye to the characters.

and that's all i ever asked for

You seem to have found a really good way to look to reconcile it Rob. Wish I could do the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rane its a VERY strong statement to say that

The simple fact is that the quality of this book, both as an independent volume and as the conclusion of an epic series is bad from an objective standpoint. Style (i.e., show not tell), Prose, Plot Development, Plot Consistency, Characterization. These are not subjective metrics. And they are all objectively bad in this book.

That's an opinion. Flat out. There is no such thing as "An objectively perfect book" because flaws can create appealing parts of a book.

 

I find it extremely arrogant for you to state that you KNOW for a FACT that this book is has terrible as you seem to think it is.

 

I realize you'd like to think your opinions are fact but they are not. You hate every single part of this book.

Edited by Stormcrown

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Rane its a VERY strong statement to say that

 

The simple fact is that the quality of this book, both as an independent volume and as the conclusion of an epic series is bad from an objective standpoint. Style (i.e., show not tell), Prose, Plot Development, Plot Consistency, Characterization. These are not subjective metrics. And they are all objectively bad in this book.

That's an opinion. Flat out. There is no such thing as "An objectively perfect book" because flaws can create appealing parts of a book.

 

I find it extremely arrogant for you to state that you KNOW for a FACT that this book is has terrible as you seem to think it is.

 

I realize you'd like to think your opinions are fact but they are not.

While a couple of those things are less objective than others, his overall point is corret. The unpolished/blunt prose, mistakes, consistency, and timeline issues are objective measures. This was a very uneven book and the quality doesn't hold up. That isn't really a subjective opinion. It's one thing if those flaws don't bother you, quite another to say they don't exist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wrong, Sut. Those flaws concerning the quality of Brandon's writing that people keep on saying they are seeing are all subjective in nature.

 

Timeline issues are a problem, but not one so big as to cast major downers and scathing reviews upon Sanderson's works, like some have done here. In fact, Brandon even took the time to explain why there were some timeline discrepancies, and that still was not good enough for the hyper-critics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Vam, I'm sorry but the things I mentioned above(unpolished prose, timeline, mistakes, consistency) are objective.That is just stating the facts.

 

As for Brandon, he never once gave an adequate reason for the timeline issues. You are flat out making that up to support your argument. The timeline for Tom was atrocious(Steven Cooper who had dedicated years to charting the timeline threw his hands up in disgust and tossed it in). Unfortunately based on things I've seen at TL, the AMoL timeline may be even worse. Again I get that these flaws in the quality of writing don't bother you and I have said time and again that is all good. People look for different things in their fantasy. That doesn't mean that these things don't exist however.

 

Edit: Look, I totally get that you think some people take the critique too far. In fact I agree, there are around three people I can think of here at DM that go overboard. That said you are on the far opposite extreme. You defend every aspect of the book and put blinders on to some of the very real issues. In order to have a rational discussion we have to be realistic about what we have in front of us.

Edited by Suttree

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Suttree - this is treading on very delicate ground. As a former student of literature, I can say I understand what you say and I do agree about objective measures. However, it is very hard to explain without sounding condescending. 

 

I know that many users have mistaken similar posts of yours to be arrogance in the past. 

 

Not that you are doing anything wrong - you are totally within your rights to do so. However, I know how difficult it is explaining without looking like a jerk. (Trust me, I have had similar experiences). 

 

If it's not too presumptuous of me, I would appreciate it if this particular debate be put on hold. It has already caused many misunderstandings, and I would like to take some time to formulate a reply that hopefully clears some things up. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Barid

 

Reread my post and agree with you. Hope the edit helps some. It is a difficult line to walk when explaining concepts and I hope it doesn't come off that way. It does get frustrating sometimes though as some seem to equate studying anything from an academic literary perspective as "putting on airs" when it is simply what we were trained to do in our studies.

Edited by Suttree

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sut, even though you might be a trained literary critic, you still ought to know that most critical discussions of literature recognize that they are subjective in nature, and not mostly objective. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why are you creating a straw man? Go back and read what I actually said and the response that followed. As Barid said lets table this though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't have the knowledge to presume to explain, or to be correct in my explanation. 

 

All I will say is that guys, keep this in mind: When people start posting about in-depth literary critique and things that seem arrogant and condescending, that is not the intent. 

 

While I am not saying that if you don't have a degree in literature, your opinion is invalid - Suttree and others with such degrees aren't simply making things up and looking down on everyone. 

 

Nor am I saying that everything that they say is true either mind you. Just that there seems to be a lot of misunderstandings when people start going into complex literary discussion. 

Edited by Barid Bel Medar

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...