Jump to content




  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

amolcomments's Achievements


Apprentice (3/16)

  • First Post
  • Collaborator
  • Week One Done
  • One Month Later
  • One Year In

Recent Badges

  1. "Remember he's in a circle of 72 with sakarnen!" You set a higher standard for a fan fiction forum thread than the actual author bothered to adhere to haha
  2. 1. Link to the review? Was mentioned earlier but in the industry there are a number of well known reviewers who reacted negatively. Take this example from Pat's Fantasy Hotlist. http://fantasyhotlist.blogspot.com/search?q=memory+of+light+review 2. If you think it was a strong finish could you please break down why? Really hoping to see analysis of not just individual nice moments but why this was a strong finish as a book from a literary perspective as the timeline mistakes, unpolished writing, blunt plot work and continuity errors have been discussed in detail. It would be nice to see positive opinions backed up by support for why they feel that way. Here are some links to positive reviews: http://io9.com/5975831/the-wheel-of-time-rolls-to-a-stop-io9s-review-of-a-memory-of-light http://fantasybookcritic.blogspot.com.au/2013/02/a-memory-of-light-by-robert-jordan.html http://nethspace.blogspot.com.au/2013/01/review-memory-of-light-by-robert-jordan.html http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/7743175-a-memory-of-light (this has popular ratings that avg to 4.6 from a total of 8,524 ratings) http://www.tor.com/blogs/2013/01/the-wheel-of-time-a-memory-of-light-spoiler-review I can't find the review from "The Age" online, but it was in the Age's review section last Saturday. You can get many more positive reviews than negatives from googling "memory of light review". So, although many people here seem to disagree, the general sentiment on this final book is very positive. I feel like Leigh Butler should be disqualified because whatever partially incoherent babble she posted that day wasn't a review. Anyway, this is ground that's been covered before - its not really a discussion of popularity is it? Otherwise, let's discuss the merits of Twilight?
  3. agreed - the obvious solution is don't write yourself into a corner by giving him a hugely powerful sa'angreal and a huge circle - neither of those things existed before amol
  4. Anyone who has ever read the phrase 'storm you' :p
  5. Tangent - ringing my personal 'fain as loki' theory again: in ragnarok, loki is killed by heimdallr (otherwise known as the hornsounder)
  6. My point is his 'screen time' should have been zero. The finale of someone else's work, with a huge stable of characters requiring important roles and story resolution is not the time to be injecting your own personal mary sue to do the heavy lifting. Saying that RJ created him is arguing semantics. He was an extra. Unfortunately the good folks here have left their work unfinished, so the key information (% of words) is missing, but even what is there is pretty damning: http://wot.wikia.com/wiki/A_Memory_of_Light/Statistical_analysis 8th on the list for POVs, topped only by the big 3, lan and the supergirls. (Tangentially, the Nynaeve and Moiraine counts are appalling). In either case, it is the importance of the roles he is given, not quantity of appearance, that is my criticism.
  7. Taking Androl out of the context of this story, he is a likeable, interesting character with interesting abilities. The issue is, he is not a character of this series up to this point. He steals the roles and limelight from innumerable established characters. He does everything that they should have done instead, and his POV consumes a substantial portion of what should have been the defining moments for figures with years of backstory and development. I didn't wait 15 years to see "Tarmon Gai'don: Starring, An Extra from the last book". I assume all the praise for Androl as a fantastic character would be equally effusive for ASOIAF finishing with Bob the hitherto-unknown stableboy sitting on the Iron Throne? Having a new character enter the story at the endgame and tie up all the loose ends because of the author's inability to get inside the heads of the actual story's characters is why he is a failure. It would be like batman being a secondary character in his own film. Oh wait that happened too, which is AMOL is another conclusion to a beloved work of fiction I must now pretend never happened.
  8. there's a lot of that in amol... but he's the husk on the floor when rand meets moridin in shayol ghul
  9. Forgive the butchered quote, this is from memory: 'If you have a sword, and an Aiel has his hands and feet, its an even fight. If you're good.'
  10. Not only did the Aiel numbers seem off, but so did their value as fighters. Throughout the series they were held up as these super-soldiers who could fight well in all situations. Yet they are treated as if they are only good as skirmishers/irregularsin aMoL. That is true as well, but perhaps that is BS bringing a note of realism to the battle scenarios. The Aiel are tough fighters and highly mobile, but to compare with their historical counterparts who would you prefer to make up your main force Zulus or Swiss pikemen?. Despite his other flaws as a writer of battles he does seem to appreciate the importance of armour. i don't disagree with the point, as adding more realism is a reasonable argument, i would counter only with - is that the issue? the rules of the world have been set up in which the aiel are amazing fighters that mounted guys in armour fear. changing that creates a dissonance within the bounds of the story.
  11. hai guys i'm bowing out of this thread cos arguing with this guy is like talking to a wall. ignores anything that doesn't fit his predetermined worldview or his ability to respond to, while at the same time desperately seeking external validation because he's unable to offer anything resembling a cogent argument to support his points. i don't know how many times it has to be said this is supposed to be a discussion of issues not whether a bunch of anonymous idiots on amazon gave a book five stars or not. a ton of which are almost certain to be fanbois fighting the good fight against people who gave it 1 star for not releasing an ebook. we know you liked the book, i think the fact that every post you write can be broken down into 30% missing the point of the post you're replying to, about 20% saying that it doesn't matter what the post was since everyone else agrees with you, and 50% some variation on the phrase amol was amazing and best thing you ever read.
  12. Haha that is pure gold, sums up my reaction. The last battle was a tiff that got out of hand
  13. Before we derail entirely into a cliched internet fight and start talking about how great you are in rl - I don't need to explore your abilities because they're visible to all who read your posts. The fact that you can't understand clear hyperbole when its being banged over your head is just the plainest example of it. re: fain - I feel like I have to frame each argument with tons of very detailed explanations so you don't go off on a tangent. My criticism of your comment was you were re-framing your opinion as the objective viewpoint, after spending countless posts railing against others for doing what you perceived to be the same. My thoughts on Fain: He's the catalyst for a lot of important events - he sets Rand on the path to declaring himself the dragon, Mat to being the (erstwhile) hornsounder, Perrin becoming the leader of men. He's the wild card, chaos in this very ordered light vs dark setting of the wot. Which makes his contribution to the picture unpredictable and far from the whimper it turned out to be. You could think of him as loki in the odin/tyr/thor analogy - who had a pretty significant role to play in the last battle. Most relevant - Fain's wound on Rand acts like a counterpoint to the wound Ishamael gives him. The taint on saidin - the dark one's touch - is funnelled into shadar logoth and destroyed; Rand's inspiration seeing how the two injuries fight against each other. It seems the smallest of leaps to imagine something similar playing out in the final confrontation. And even as I explore that line of thought it sort of rubbishes the patternfight idea the DO is the source of all evil (even if that idea wasn't rubbish already). Ah well. As Ares also pointed out Fain was another example Sanderson writing himself into a hole and then putting a clumsy patch over it - the buildup of Fain was his own writing.
  14. sheesh there is reaching and then there is reaching. 'just a sword fight' the subtext was obvious, and reading this guy's posts it seems obvious that his not his point. his entire post was written in a facetious tone. when he says 'just a sword fight'? he's saying 'that was it?' not 'was it really all a sword fight?'. when he says 'scratching his head' he's not saying 'i found this difficult to figure out', he's saying 'i couldn't believe that was all there was'. it is sort of obvious by this stage that you two aren't able to make more than the most superficial of interpretations on anything you read...which sort of explains your defence of amol, i guess. and just writing 'objective' in your argument doesn't actually make it objective. fain had a minor role in the whole series is an objective viewpoint? only if by minor you mean 'word count percentage' i suppose.
  • Create New...