Jump to content




  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by GERand26

  1. I just explained why it would not be consistent with the series for BS to have minimized their role. Since you haven't argued the point, I am considering it conceded.
  2. Who's the arbiter of what's good? You?
  3. I thought BS handled the Demandred/Shara situation quite well, considering the very difficult situation in which RJ left this particular plotline. Sharan society and culture had been mentioned and teased throughout the series, enough so that it is more than reasonable to assume that RJ intended to expound upon it eventually. RJ delayed and delayed, along with several other plotlines, and BS was left pick up the pieces and do what he could. [Removed]
  4. Still waiting for the objective tests for good prose.
  5. Yes, Cinz, I think you are absolutely right.
  6. You can start making the "world's premiere" system [removed] proud by actually addressing my point, and describing exactly how your esteemed professors [removed] objectively determine the strengths and weaknesses of prose.
  7. And you trust the UC system, of all things, to be objective about the matter? Please tell me I did not just read that.
  8. Using two mutually exclusive and inconsistent justifications for one argument drastically reduces the effectiveness and believability of that argument. So did Fain die off-screen, or is what happened to him not death but "close enough"? Did he "die offscreen between books", or not?
  9. Prose is entirely subjective. To even discuss "strengths" and "deficiencies" means you have subjectively presupposed what falls into each category. It's dishonest to suggest otherwise.
  10. TGS and TSR. TSR for the reasons already mentioned, and TGS because Brandon actually improved on RJ's "Dark Rand" and DRASTICALLY improved Perrin.
  11. So, is the argument that Fain "died," or that what happened to him was "close enough to death"? Because you've made both arguments and it's unclear what you are really trying to say, hence Finsssss accurate "dancing" observation.
  12. The evidence only reasonably supports one conclusion, and that conclusion is highly relevant to this thread. Still waiting for something of substance from you on the topic. You seem to have no problem resurrecting your objections to well-supported theories that you simply don't like, but become oddly reticent when asked to restate or support your own view.
  13. So there are many theories re: the voice at the end of TEotW and at Shaoyl Ghul in AMoL, but do you actually have any thoughts of your own on the subject? It wasn't hard to notice that you completely avoided answering the question posed, and I'm pretty sure because we both know that the answer is highly damaging to your critique of the prevailing theory that Nakomi is an avatar of the Creator. Brandon has repeatedly stated that Nakomi is, in fact, based upon something in RJ's notes. That, when combined with the Creator's speaking role in TEofW and AMoL, paints a pretty clear picture in my view, with far more to back to it up than any other theory that I have seen. I won't even get into the symmetry of the DO being the antithesis of the Creator and having an avatar in Shadar Haran (meaning it would bne consistent for the Creator to also have an avatar of some sort as well) althought that point is soundly in the theory's favor as well. So again, I will ask, what is your take? And I struggle to even call your statements an actual "critique" since, instead of actually presenting a theory of your own and backing it up with evidence, you are simply attempting to point of supposed flaws at the margins of the theory. That's not effective debating, it's issue-spotting, and anyone can do it. So if you have a better theory and can back it up, I anxiously await it.
  14. RJ may not have written "her" exactly as Nakomi appears, but it seems pretty clear, if you're using any deductive reasoning at all, that he included the concept in his notes, and that the concept "deep in the notes" involved an avatar of the Creator speaking to Avi and later to Rand. I think you're trying to shoot down this idea simply because you don't like it, because the evidence all points in one direction, and most fans can see it based on the poll results. And even though you are relying on old quotes where RJ indicated the Creator would not play an active role, you STILL have not answered the question regarding the voice at the end of TEofW or at the entrance to Shayol Ghul in AMoL. So, I'm waiting to hear your theory. Let's have it.
  15. Then what was the voice at the end of EotW, and the voice when Rand is at mouth of Shayol Ghul? You have not accounted for this, and it absolutely crushes your argument. Clearly, the Creator already has some involvement by virtue of his communication with Rand in those instances (even if the communication is rather passive).
  16. I always wondered what RJ meant by this. I have a feeling he wrote himself into a corner a little bit in The Great Hunt without fully thinking it through and then retconned the whole "lesser victories" thing. I am not sure it makes sense. If the Dragon Reborm dies or is turned, then who re-establishes the Bore? Someone had to, obviously, since something has always prevented the DO from fully breaking free from his prison. And if that's the case, then what really is the point of the Dragon Reborn?
  17. Everybody makes mistakes, the question is how severe and whether people are being reasonable about how much they claim it detracts from the book. In my experience, the most vocal critics on this point tend to have a serious axe to grind with Brandon.
  18. You are misunderstanding Brandon's quote. He is saying that he flubbed the presentation of the timeline by not including enough contextual clues, not that there are any inherent problems with the timeline itself. He says the timeline is actually quite good.
  19. You keep talking about the "structure" and why, in your opinion, the last three books have so many flaws. But, you have yet to provide any reasoning to support your conclusory statements beyond pointing to what others have said. Do you have any thoughts of your own on the matter? Personally, I think any structural flaws are minimal, to the point where they did not affect my enjoyment of the last three books at all. I think the perfect example of why a single book would never have worked is how solid The Gathering Storm was from a structural perspective, especially with regard to Rand's plot arc. IMHO, Rand's arc in tGS is the best in the series, by far, since LoC. This is primarily why tGS is one of the fans' favorites. Rand's internal struggle and epiphany on DM works perfectly as a climax to a single book. How do you propose this would work as part of a single book? It's an extraordinary claim on your part, and you need to back it up so show beyond stating "others have addressed this." Do the hard work. And after reading Brandon's recent retrospective on the writing process, his solutions to the three book requirement were more elegant than I thought. You should read them - the retrospective gives good insight into how a successful fantasy approaches his craft. Any aspiring writer could learn some valuable lessons.
  20. Brandon: "Not that the timeline is messed up—it’s actually pretty good, all things considered. However, the perception of it brought us troubles. Because characters interacted across timelines, it felt like they were in two places at once (Tam is an example) even though it all worked narratively." I agree with Brandon that the timeline is pretty good and works well narratively. It definitely did not detract at all from my enjoyment of the book.
  21. I didn't have much trouble understanding the order of events in the last three books. A few people have complained about being a little confused, but most of the people that I know who have finished the series did not feel it was a major issue, nor did it detract from their enjoyment of the book. Brandon's retrospective that he has recently been posting said they have a very clear sense if the timeline. It's such a minor issue that I almost can't believe the extent to which it has been blown out of proportion.
  22. The point is that there is no literary maxim that requires plot progression to accelerate in the end stages. The fact that plot threads need to be "drawn together," as you describe it, does not need to have a bearing on how many books or pages are best suited to complete the plot, and you haven't pointed to any authority, at all, which states otherwise. Although Book of the New Sun had less threads to pull together, it certainly had quite a few, to the extent that Urth of the New Sun was needed. For an effective argument, you need to be able to objectively deal with counter-arguments rather than relying upon conclusory statements. Many posters here seem able to do that.
  23. It's pretty clear to anyone paying close attention that Nakomi is an avatar of the Creator. It's also pretty clear that this is what RJ always intended - BS and TJ didn't make this up. It was in RJ's notes. BS won't give a direct answer because he has been instructed by TJ not to
  24. "I think everyone gets too hung up on novel structure, yes you want some structure. We're at book 12 here, and no one is recommending reading a particular book as a stand-alone (and I think shoehorning in a structure that wasn't there was one of the biggest problems with tGS) :)" This seems accurate. Getting hung up on structure doesn't make much sense. And after recently re-reading the Book of the New Sun series for the umpteenth time, there is no reason that the plot needs to speed up at the end of the series compared to the mid-late point of a series. There are numerous other examples where this has been shown not to be necessary. [Removed]
  • Create New...