Minimize Maximize

Theoryland Resources

WoT Interview Search

Search the most comprehensive database of interviews and book signings from Robert Jordan, Brandon Sanderson and the rest of Team Jordan.

Wheel of Time News

An Hour With Harriet

2012-04-30: I had the great pleasure of speaking with Harriet McDougal Rigney about her life. She's an amazing talent and person and it will take you less than an hour to agree.

Read the interview

The Bell Tolls

2012-04-24: Some thoughts I had during JordanCon4 and the upcoming conclusion of "The Wheel of Time."

Theoryland Community

Members: 7653

Logged In (0):

Newest Members:johnroserking, petermorris, johnadanbvv, AndrewHB, jofwu, Salemcat1, Dhakatimesnews, amazingz, Sasooner, Hasib123,

Theoryland Tweets

Theories

Recent Theories

Last ten theories at Theoryland.

Padan Fain, Roommates With the Dark Oneby aNewAge

The Real Slayerby Cabadrin

How the Bore Will Be Sealedby Tremalking

The Bore is in Tel’aran’rhiodby Great Lord of the Dark

Callandor's Purposeby RealAshaman

Rand and the True Powerby Zombie Sammael

Caemlyn's Battleby 1eyedfool

Moghedien Raises the Deadby Truthless

Breaking the Sealsby Kamaul

Let me die forever!by Kamaul

Home | Index | Archives | Help

obert Jordan doesn't appeal to everyone

by Johnamdor: 2003-08-31 | 1 out of 10 (11 votes)

Previous Categories: Miscellaneous

You cannot rate theories without first logging in. Please log in.

Comments

Tamyrlin: 2003-09-06

I am sure you will get responses, and since I read them all, I am requesting that no one flame this "theory"...in other words, if you flame it, it won't be posted. :) I would suggest to you that you don't really want to be convinced that Jordan is better than Tolkien, in fact, you have decided that Jordan is no where near as good as Tolkien. From the perspective of scholarly study, I would probably agree. It is funny you mentioned the "infintesimal nod." My brother has a Masters in English, with an emphasis in Shakespeare, and he started reading the first book, and by page twenty put it down because he couldn't hear the story, he could only see the words...which is a shame. You see, that is the difference, Jordan is writing an epic, while Tolkien was busy crossing his "t's" and dotting his "i's". Don't get me wrong, I enjoy Tolkien, but Middle Earth and the Lord of the Rings is much too polarized for me to enjoy like WoT. In the Wheel of Time, characters constantly bleed the line between good and evil, and they are constantly challenging the excepted norms, like the idea that the Forsaken must be more powerful than anyone else. Tolkien's world is limited by the small amount of Point of view characters. You are either good or evil or good going evil in Tolkien's world. Jordan's world feels so large because he gives you the perspective of tens to hundreds of people, from all shades of the good to evil spectrum. And by the way, Sauron was defeated by a hobbit, a little bit worse than Ishamael being defeated by Rand. ;)

Jiana: 2003-09-07

Flame a theory? Who would flame a theory? :)

John... I believe that it is a personal perspective that makes people enjoy the Wheel of Time so much. It's just the kind of writing that a person likes and can understand that draws people to read, not just the storylines. For instance, I love the Lord of the Rings films (yes I know they have cut a lot out of the story, but I digress), but when I tried to read the books, I simply could not follow them. The stories are great, but the writing was a bit much for me. On the other hand, I find Jordan easy to understand, and it is easy to have my own little "mind-movie" playing as I read. Not so with earlier writers, because I'm too busy trying to sort out what it is that's being said to really get a grasp on what's happening. Things like the "infinitesimal nod" may not be physically possible, but the reader gets a handle on just how nearly imperceptible the nod was, by the use of that particular word. But I am rambling.

In addition, a lot of fantasy stories, epics and the like have common threads, common characters. Most of them have a "chosen one" (Rand for the Wheel of Time, Roland Deschain for the Dark Tower, etc.). Most if not all have a good vs. evil theme. Yes, I agree that the similarities are there, but it isn't only Jordan... it's nearly every writer. Tolkien was of a different school of writing (so to speak) than Jordan. In my own opinion, comparing the two is like trying to compare Stephen King or Dean Koontz to E.A. Poe or Bram Stoker... just because they were horror writers. In my own opinion, they are all talented in their own different ways. Tolkien's writing was more suited to his time period, as Jordan's is more suited to ours. I personally don't think that one is better or worse than the other. Just... different.

So, John, I take it that you won't be along for the ride for book eleven? :)

Callandor: 2003-09-07

**1) Most of the characters are stolen from The Lord Of the Rings and Dune.**

This crops up on almost any fantasy series. Take your pick and you can find them. Does it matter? No. Why are they there? I mostly say it's because the great fantasy authors love folklore and legends and can pick them apart and toy with them to make them their own personal heroes and villains. You can do this with movie characters all day long, just put yourself in that world and do what you would do; there you have your own hero that is "stolen" from a movie.

**2) Some people claim he is as good as Tolkien when he is obviously not; tolkien wrote in perfect English prose, Robert Jordan calls a telescope a looking-glass (i.e. a mirror) and gave account of an "infintesimal nod"(just impossible)**

You have to realize that RJ is writing from a middle age world; if he called it a telescope it would break down much more to me, then if he puts it in the way he does.

**3) Jordan has a mono-cultural world, Tolkien spent most of his life creating the world in which LotR is set in. It is linguistically impossible that when a united continent with one language (ie the old tongue) breaks apart the various factions speak in entirely new common language.**

This is my only real "flame". Mono-cultural? No way. Aes Sedai? Aiel? Sea Folk? Seanchan? Sharan? Ogier? Heck, the Shadowspawn are almost a culture.

**4) Anthropologically, the Aiel's features result from a cold climate (e.g. vikings or celts) while the two river's folk are more suited to warmer climes.**

That is a joke played by RJ. He always wanted to see a desert culture that was fair-skinned.

**5) It is very hard to believe that in 3-5 thousand years no-one did the jigery pokery required to make angreal that Elayne did.**

First off it's about 3500 years (but that's just nitpicking :)). Secondly, it's because some people just don't have the Talent for it. Why can't everybody Foretell? They don't have the Talent.

**6) Every character is taller than the next**

Moiraine? She was FAR from tall and she came after Rand, Tam, Mat, and Perrin. :)

**7) Every character is more handsome (beautiful) than the next**

Not really, Galad is the cap and no one has been more beautiful then him, and Gladial Cain is far from handsome.

**8) Concepts in his world are not constant but used whenever it suits him (e.g. when a man travels he must know his destination, but Taim could just appear in the nick of time to help rand)**

To quote RJ: "Taim is one paranoid SOB." :) And they are constant, but they aren't explained flat out otherwise the reader would be commiting suicide in the first 5 pages while he explained away.

**10) The forsaken aren't powerful or dangerous in any way**

Rumors and myths and legends grow out of size with every telling. That's a major theme here. Basically, when you boil it all down, the Forsaken are just people, just like you and me (almost :)). They have strengths and flaws, but they are VERY dangerous and powerful.

**11) The Dark Lord is a bumbling Idiot in that he could easily have killed Rand in every book or set all the Forsaken to sit in wait in a link of 13 to kill him.**

Do we know what the DO wants? Nope. How do we know it isn't a plan?

**12) Most of the 'suspense' in the book relies on people not knowing whats going on but assuming something. If Mat told Egwene what he had to do, she would not assume he was an idiot etc.**

Most of the "suspense" I would think most people would say is in the battle scenes, but to me it's the subtle play. And not knowing everything and having to make decisions on what you have is a fact of life.

**13) Professional, disciplined and long-experienced soldiers and trained generals are incompetent compared to Aiel and warders, yet a few younglings can dispatch warders, Aiel, you name it without any of the skills of the other armies. He doesn't even offer any "taver'en" explainations for this.**

Everybody makes mistakes; fact of life :).

Take your pick RJ, Tolkien, Herbert, anyone else, or love all of them, but to me don't rate them. You read some things you will stuff you loved (for me Helm's Deep and Gandalf are great in LOTR, but I hated most of it) and stuff that annoys you, and stuff you really hate.

To me I love the Wheel of Time much more then Lord of the Rings and Dune, but I haven't read everything so I wouldn't want to say one was the greatest.

Particleman: 2003-09-07

I would add that while JRRT did create a large and beautiful world he left much of it out of the books...no offense to those of you who liked the Silmarillian but it is as hard or harder to read than the bible...

In any case the reason I like RJ is that he fleshes his characters out much more than Tolkein did...with JRRT you got minimal explaination....RJ gives much more.

Isabel: 2003-09-07

(Tamyrlin, I will try hard not to flame him)

Johnamdor: I certainly don't agree with many of your arguments.

First of all: You say that most characters are a copy from dune or LOTR.

This is not true. I have read both series, but there are a lot of differences between the characters.

And Lotr really doesn't have any female characters. So who would be Nynaeve then in LOTR or Dune?

And as far as i can remember, I didn't think much of the characters of Lotr and wasn't that impressed by dune. But that's my personal opinion.

In lotr characters don't have feelings/ thought/ emotions or even talk with each other. (i know that is generalising the way tolkien wrote)

I am not going to talk about Dune, because i have read that a very long time ago.

2 Jordan is an american. So why would he write perfect english. Why would any writer be a better writer because the english is better. It is all about taste! If you like perfect english, you will probably like tolkien better. But there isn't a rule you should apreciate it.

3 You haven't heard RJ talk about it. And as far as i have heard that, it isn't impossible. That's also partly because there is a printing press.

But I am not a linguist so i can't say for sure. But jordan has thought about it.

4: It isn't illogical, because the "races" didn't develop in the areas where they live now. And in 3 thousands years, faces etc don't chance much.

5 And it is only said that Aes sedai can't make angreal. And I think that is quite logic. Aes sedai have been quite busy and don't encourage other things. Other yellow aes sedai disapprove of nynaeve healing with her waeves, because it is not the way they were taught.

Seanchan can make angreal. So it isn't true that nobody could make it.

6: Everyone is taller than someone else. even i must be taller than someone. And a lot of other people are taller than me. So although you have a point that there are a lot of men very tall, it isn't unlikely. There are also not very tall people: (nynaeve, moiraine, etc)

7: It is true that the main characters are beautifull, but there are also less beautifull non main characters.

8 They are constant. Of course there are a few mistakes, but as far as i can remember with traveling you have to know the place from which you travel. Thats why Rand couldn't leave when he was freed at dumai's wells.

You have to know your destination if you skim.

Where is nine?

10: They are powerfull, but they have there own goals and the world has changed a lot. In the Age of legends they were most of the time Generals or spies. Now it is different, so they can't be that dangerous. But you never know with Tarmon Gai'don.

11: Maybe he doesn't want Rand killed. Maybe he needs Rands or wants him converted to the Shadow. That's also a possibility.

12: Normal people also don't tell everything. Also keep secrets. And the characters have good reasons not to tell everything.

13: It isn't said there are incompentent, only the aiel are better fighters. But aiel train and fight from since they are little.

And there weren't a few younglings. There were probably a lot of younglings, who were trained by the warders themselfs. Who also got help from real warcers.

I will tell you later why wot is so great.

bye isabel

TheNetweaver: 2003-09-07

I think this theory has gotten beat up enough already, but I have just one thing to add. The statement about the characters becoming increasingly taller and more attractive is true during the first few books. But it's only like this to accompany the broadening scope of the entire series. In the course of the first two books, the setting shifts from a small town to an entire continent. The conceptions of the inexperienced characters about various things changes rapidly. Their idea of a massive city, a beautiful woman, or a skilled swordsman changes appropriately as the scope broadens. I don't see this as a flaw, it's something that makes the characters a little more believable.

Johnamdor: 2003-09-07

Thanks to everyone who replied, although, I realise now I placed too much empasis on my criticms (pedantic and technical as they are) and not enough on my main question, what is it that makes the Wheel Of Time great. I look forward to hearing from Isabel on this, and would like to hear what other people say as well. I do agree that styles vary, but many people consider Robert Jordans prose frustrating; I would like to know if everyone agrees but puts up with it for the story.

In regards some of the specific responses; by 6) and 7) I meant that Robert Jordan describes every character as incredibly beautiful, with several superlatives (Leanfear, Elayne, Faile, etc). If this was to show subjectivity of tastes among characters it does not help the reader understand the world from an objective point of view. Also, if Rand is exceptionally tall, why are many 'wetlanders' as tall if not taller than him. There is an abundance of stony-faced men and irked women. If it were for style, as TheNetweaver says, to show their progress from village to world domination, I can see how this would explain it. But it is never resolved whom among the superlatives is, in reality, the best. It could perhaps be that I prefer to imagine characters based on descriptions rather than assertions, something I feel applies to most characters in WOT, with the exception of Min and a few others minor characters.

Tamyrlin is right in a sense, I have decided that Tolkien is better. However, I would like to see Jordan competing with him and I can't help but feel that I'm missing something if so many people think RJ has surpassed JRRT.

I still stand by my assertion that it is a mono-cultural world. With the exception of Ogier and Shadowspawn, every race in wot could live in a different American City(or coastal waters). They speak the same language, and other than the Aiel have remarkably similar customs. I think he could do a little more in terms of Aiel language etc. He gives them some of their own words (mostly perfect nouns) without any other linguistic differences. Other than the Tairean inflection, none of the nations in the book speak differently.

Tamyrlin, as for Smeagol defeating Sauron, he destroyed the ring by accident; were he to come up against the Dark Lord or a Ringwraith he wouldn't stand a chance. Other than the defeat of Ravhin (the only forsaken to live up to his reputation, in my opinion), the forsaken have not been very cunning or powerful. Or at least, i'll admit, their cunning has not yet become apparent.

So, the wheel of time is the best fantasy series ever because...

Priest: 2003-09-07

I enjoy reading Robert Jordan's Wheel of Time because he really brings the world to life as I read. I realize that he does not use perfect grammar and syntax, however, he is writing his book in traditional American dialogue. Robert Jordan has never taken a writing course, he admits that he has not taken any sort of course aside from the English courses that were required of him in school. I for one find his writing style to be a breath of fresh air. I have read the Lord of the Rings series, and I found it to be enjoyable. I also found it to be very dry at times, and I would get bogged down as I read it. This detracted from the overall joy of the books for me.

Wheel of Time is an amazing adventure, involving hundreds (thousands perhaps?) of named characters that all serve a purpose. The only other book that I can think of that had this many characters was Tolstoy's War and Peace.

Jordan has created a very in-depth world, he is able to not only bring the characters to life, but the scenes, the intrigue, the clothes (how many colored slashes can there be!? =) everything. He has created a fantastic sort of magic and all of the rules that go along with it. He not only involves a large number of races, but also nations, cultures, worlds. He writes about plots within plots within plots. He keeps you guessing, I mean, look at all of the theories on this site alone, and there are what 4 or 5 more sites that have places for theories? How many Dune or LotR theory sites are out there? How many Star Wars or DnD theory sites? None that I know that are this extensive.

The fact is that this book is not for everyone, I have introduced 2 people and both have loved it, but I know that not everyone that I bully into reading TEotW will want to read the rest. I do think that, deep down, John has even enjoyed reading the series though, I mean why else drag yourself through 10 books if you hated it. I will stop reading a book if I do not enjoy it by the 5th chapter or so, my free time is too valuable to waste reading drivel that doesn't interest me.

I know I didn't answer all of the points asked, but I just wanted to give a general account of why I really enjoy (okay, I am really addicted...) this series. I really look forward to hearing what others have to say on this topic.

May the Light Illumine you.

moridin68: 2003-09-07

To be honest, I'm surprised Tamrylin posted this theory/ thought/ complaint. I would've never thought that I'd see criticism of RJ anywhere on this site. Kudos to Tamyrlin and Johnamdor. Hurrah for people being honest.

I started my love affair with the fantasy genre by reading "Heaven Cent" by Piers Anthony when I was nine. From there, I discovered Tolkien and I was truly swept into another world by his writing. I would never dream of taking anything away from Tolkien, because he is much like Issac Asimov: the true grandmaster of his genre.

However, I believe that Jordan is far more accessible to his reader than Tolkien ever could be. Tolkien's style was more (especially in the Silmarillion and other histories) was written in what I would like to call "High English". His vernacular seemed to be more suited to an educated reading public. Jordan on the other hand, seems to write more for the general public. His prose is far easier to follow, while at the same time, taking nothing away from the story. It's genius.

It's true that RJ isn't for everybody. I know people who started out as great fans of the series that have fallen by the wayside because of it's length. I don't think that John is one of them. You're showing interest just by searching out one of the many sites dedicated to RJ and speaking your mind. I think that if you gave the series another chance and ruled out what some people have prematurely said about it, you would really enjoy it.

shane: 2003-09-08

While I agree with most of you in that WOT are perfectly enjoyable books. when Jiana wrote''Jordan is an american. So why would he write perfect english.''... Sorry I thought it was his language!! enough said!

Friar: 2003-09-08

Apart from What everybody else has written I would like to add that history shows that writing styles change. Shakesphere based his (comedy), books on "the comedy at that time" to the people in the 15th centry it was absoluty funny. He used the style of that time. Much of his work refelected the bible. JRR Tolken's time applied to the writers of that time and his work was based on the war. And do not forget that the prose itself has changed and developed over the years. RJ is a set of books writen to appeal to the modern reader. He has based many theams on history and tries to write for the 20/21st centry cultures. The bottom line is that to YOU and me a book can be subjectivly better than another. As some have pointed out to them it is not the black and white issues but the many grays that defines the difference. Lastly, if writers just do the same would you read an almost copy of JRRT?

Callandor: 2003-09-08

** Also, if Rand is exceptionally tall, why are many 'wetlanders' as tall if not taller than him.**

Who was taller then Rand west of the spine of the world? Only one I know of is Bael and he is Aiel.

**Other than the defeat of Ravhin (the only forsaken to live up to his reputation, in my opinion), the forsaken have not been very cunning or powerful. Or at least, i'll admit, their cunning has not yet become apparent.**

Again, everyone has flaws. Some will hide and cower and build up and be patient for the big battle, others will charge head first into battle due to arrogance. Flaws and skills.
**I still stand by my assertion that it is a mono-cultural world. With the exception of Ogier and Shadowspawn, every race in wot could live in a different American City(or coastal waters).**

Well, they are all on one continent, and they may not be totally seperate "cultures" in your mind, but compare the Aiel and the "wetlanders" and you can see vast differences, and compare that again with the Aiel and the Sea Folk, more differences. And again with the Sharans. And again with the Seanchan. More and more differences.

And not to be picky, but if you exclude 2 cultures, and still claim it is a mono-cultural world... your denying the facts :).

**However, I would like to see Jordan competing with him and I can't help but feel that I'm missing something if so many people think RJ has surpassed JRRT.**

Why would RJ compete with JRRT? Sure, JRRT's books are still sold, but RJ isn't writing for the number of books, he's writing for the story he made (regardless of what some people think).

Rhodric: 2003-09-08

first i must make a correction to a common misconception of JRRT's work:

**JRR Tolken's time applied to the writers of that time and his work was based on the war. **

no no no no no wrong wrong!! NO! the Tolkien books were not based on either of the world wars. read the words of the author himself on the matter; in some editions of the LotR, it's in a letter to his editor included at the start of the book.

now WoT:

i think reason that RJ's books appeal so much (that i don't think anyone has mentioned so far) is the influence of film and television on the written word. in tolkien's time, writing was big in culture, film was big but no bigger than writing.

now in RJ's time, we are a culture that is constantly bombarded with images, leaving less wiggle-room for the imagination. the images are also stronger, ie of sex/violence etc. so when people write these days, to remain interesting to our society, the writers too must write things more graphic, stronger images. i think that this is one reason that RJ's world appeals to so many: it reads like TV.

i realize i am rambling so i will try to use an example to clarify:

in Tolkien, the evil is rarely shown, merely spoken of. and if it is shown, it is usually just as shadows in the night.

with RJ when we see evil, it is really EVIL, like in tGH when there is that empty town that Fain ravaged, Myrdraal strung up on the wall of a house and all that. the images are stronger so they hold our attention.
<
for characters there are two things. i would use a similar argument to say that the characters in RJ are more exaggerated, flambuoyant than those in tolkien, more like those on the screen and that could be why like them.

also i think that RJ's method of writing, that is, switching POV from character to character in each chapter, gives a real depth to the characters. say he writes 10 characters, and writes in each of their POV. in each of these POV, we read descriptions of the 10 characters, so we have about 10 different ways to describe each character. differing ideas about a person combined allow you to really understand that person. so the many-POV style that RJ has is another reason that the books are popular. (actually this character depth is possibly my main motivation for reading).
<
in short, TV is to blame (thank?) for RJ's popularity.

Rand-althor: 2003-09-08

All of the above have been explained before me, so I will not say anything about them, just a question to you. If you don't like the series, then why did you read it, then come find a WoT site, just to complain? I personally like RJ's work because he is descripticve and develops the charactors enough to flesh them out to realizm, where as Tolken did none of that. You barely ever knew what the charactor was thinking or feeling, and therefore could not really get into the story. The whole time it seemed like you were a observer watching and completely seperate, and overall, when I look back, that made me care about as much as a news report on some kind of new window sealer that would save 5 cents a month. Jordan's writing is written so that you can actually feel what the caractors are feeling, and it shows that they are humans, and it shows that Jordan thought about why the charactors are doing this, and gave a reasonable explanation for when people do what you don't expect, where as in Tolken's world, when somebody does something that makes no sense, it never really tells you why. Basically, I find Jordan better than Tolken because you can relate to Jordan's charactors, and you can't really with Tolken's because, well, they just dont seem realistic.

CJH68: 2003-09-08

Yes the Dark One could have squashed Rand when he was a mere babe in the use of the One Power - even before he knew that he could channel. This however, would make for a very short and dull story!

By the same token, at the end of LOTR, the eagle arrives to pick Sam and Frodo up from the side of the mountain and bring them home safely. Now if this we were being pragmatic and this was an option from the start, Gandalf could have arranged for the eagle to carry them TO the mountain, they could have tossed the ring into the fire without it having time to corrupt them, Sauron would have been defeated, war would have been averted and Sam and Frodo would be back at Rivendell in time for dinner.

Again, this would have led to a very short and dull story!!!

rubbernilly: 2003-09-09

LotR was not a great story, can we just get that out there in the open? LotR was great because of three things:

1) It was the first modern fantasy; indeed, it was more a modern myth but that did not stop the genre from growing up around it

2) The world has a history of its own

3) The style of the narrative is that of a story-teller

However, those things do not a good story make. In fact, the story is quite thin. "This group of people got together and did this thing... then these people got together and did this thing... then we went over here and did this thing..." It's like listening to a 14 year old girl describe her shopping trip to the mall. None of the events are related. Further, he has no defined system of magic to speak of, and the characters on both sides are able to feat their way out of situations because of it.

Distance in the LotR is a relative thing. It's a long arduous journey for Frodo to get to the heart of Mordor... but once he does, Gandalf takes a transcontinental eagle flight to go pick him up. "Good afternoon to all of you, and welcome to Eagle Airlines Mordor-direct flight. Estimated flight time... 2 hours, the weather in beautiful Mordor is hot. Very hot. If you look out the right hand side of the eagle, you'll see the broken armies of Sauron..."

What, all the sudden Gandalf has a way to cover great distances, has a way to have gotten Frodo deep into Mordor before the weight of the ring dragged him under, and we as readers are not supposed to question that little writer deus ex machina?

So, no, LotR was not a good story. It was a story told well. But even there, talking about this notion of "proper english grammar" I think people are being sucked in. As mentioned, linguistic styles change. Tolkien was writing a modern epic, and his style reflects that.

But what about Faulkner's "The Sound and the Fury"? That *certainly* is not proper english grammar, yet it is a classic, too. "Oh," someone might say, "but Faulkner was writing in a particular style for a particular purpose, to suit what he was trying to do."

And?

So was Tolkien.

IMHO, Tolkien was an innovative story, but not a good story, and it was a story that was told well.
<
Jordan, on the other hand, has a good story that he is also telling well (in modern tones and standards). The world is just as thick if not more so than JRRT, and he has a believable, known set of rules governing what goes on. He has a solid system of magic (not just a hodge-podge of abilities like LotR).

Jordan's downfall are a lot of the things you've mentioned... the fact that, like Bilbo talking to Gandalf at the beginning of LotR, the story has begun to feel ... stretched.

I will admit that RJ is not for everyone, but I shake my head at the person mentioned as a graduate student studying Shakespearean lit who was paraphrased as saying that he couldn't hear the story. Please. You grow accustomed to what you read. If you read Shakespeare then you expect Shakespeare... and please do not mentally substitute "greatness" where I have written "Shakespeare." I am referring to style, language, diction, and structure only. After all, that's all Shakespeare is; no different from any other author. That's all JRRT is. That's all Jordan is.

The problem is, for that graduate student, he is trying to fit WoT into his literary worldview. He is trying to hold everything up to the standard of Shakespeare (again, not greatness, just stylistic expectations). Guess what, though?

That is an antiquated standard.

Shakespeare is a beautiful example of the style of his day.

Not the height of the language.

JRRT was a beautiful example of the style of his day for what he was doing.

Not of the height of the language.

Will RJ be a beautiful example of the style of our day? Who knows.

I'm sure the ancient Celts are writing into their own fan websites complaining that RJ is not a touch on Beowulf. (waits... waits... yes, that is sarcasm).

ranman38: 2003-09-09

Hmm, where to start? And more importantly, where to end. I will say this, LotR is a good story. It is a simple story, and life is often simple. BUT, it is a simple story with a deep complex history. It is a house of cards with yards of steel and concrete as a base. That is what makes it a great story. Also, well told. Richly told. WoT? A very very complex story with a base of sand. We only learn of history in bits and pieces, in prophecies and short narratives, mostly from the brown ajah. "Magic" i.e. channeling, is there to tie this story together, it is at the very heart of it. It is required for the story to exist. LotR, magic is a simple part. It does not need to be explorered too deeply, it enhances the story, it does not control it. The story is what is important in LotR. Magic and the impending Last Battle is what keeps our attention. We do not identify particularly with any character. It is not an underdog story. We are anticipating the end. Only after the last book is published and read, will the legacy of this series be written. And only time will tell of its impact. Tolkien has stood the test of time. It is a great story, very very well told. And supported by a rich imaginative genius history. Why do we like WoT? It is fantasy. A great fantasy. A futuristic fantasy that has elements of our past and present. It is richly told. Only criticism I have, other than the excrutiatingly long wait for the end, is that his narratives are trying to be Tolkienesque, but really just end up as a lot of words trying to explain a sky, or a cloud, or the dew on the grass. I feel he reaches a bit with that. But, all that being said, we are transported into a unique world, that I as an avid fantasy reader have not been to before. That is why I like it. One wonders if the internet and message boards existed back in the Fifties when LotR was first published what fervor those books may have created? The movies have certainly done well, and are well done. I will probably be 80+ years old when Wheel of Time Part 50 "The Last Battle" is released. :)

TheNetweaver: 2003-09-09

I'll continue to defend only my own point, since everyone else is having a go at various others. John, you said that among the superlatives, there's no single, preeminent example (or something along those lines). Bael is the tallest in the series. Lanfear is the most beautiful in the series. Lan is the most "stone-faced" in the series, at least among the characters I can think of. Rand is the most powerful man. If you read the entire series, these things become apparent. Why does RJ have so many people of great beauty, composure, etc.? I think it's because he tends to describe a character on their most prominent feature. A beautiful woman is always described as a beautiful woman. A masterful swordsman is always complimented on exuding danger and confidence, or something of the like. If a person has a massive nose, that's probably what Jordan will point out. As for Tolkien, there's no way you can call the epic that he wrote a bad story. The fact that he weaved a tale that well in 900 pages, while it takes Jordan 900 pages to develop one plot point, explains why the Wheel of Time is so much more complex. I know that it's great to have all this stuff to read, but the word "concise" comes to mind.

Rhodric: 2003-09-09

about that eagle thing in tLotR that people keep mentioning... the eagles only got through mordor because the dark lord Sauron was already destroyed.

so it wouldn't have worked earlier on in the story... Nazgul woulda got the eagles. and ate them or something.

WoT

pointing out that the DO could have killed Rand and won a billion times by now is a useless exercise. of course the DO could/should have, but yes it wouldn't have made a nice story. pick any story of adventure you like and the only reason the big bad guy loses is BECAUSE they are incompetent fools, bumbling idiots etc. the bad guys always do dumb things and the viewer/reader says "oh that's dumb the baddies coulda won by now." but they don't and that's how the good guys win.

meh...

Flinn: 2003-09-09

I just had to reply to this.

The difference between Tolkien and Jordan is simple. Tolkien wtote his books as a type of history (just read the silmarillion. OY!). He wanted to make people think, imagine, that Middle-earth did exist, that there was a dark lord, hobbits and elves did exist. He spent a good part of his life creating maps, languages, histories of nations, geneologies. He wanted it as real as possible, thus the reason why some people find it hard to read.

Jordan, on the other hand, is writing to entertain. That's all.

oh yeah, about jordan "stealing" tolkiens characters, i've heard it said that basically all fantasy books and characters come from the LotR.

rubbernilly: 2003-09-10

We only get the WoT history in bits and pieces?

What?

What do we get of LotR in the trilogy? A single tale of the fashioning of the One Ring and how it came to be lost. That is not a history. That is not anything.

Ask yourself this: Did you know who and what Tom Bombadil was based solely on the trilogy? Could we as readers know he was, what... an elder spirit who basically forgot who and what he was (if I remember correctly)? And that the woman he was shacked up with was a nature sprite? We don't know these things. There is no history being revealed there. Or how about the fact that the Dwarves were made by a different god than the rest of the races? Don't know that during the trilogy either, do we?

All of this we find out later. It underpins the story as a good history does, but what matters its revelation? Jordan has just as detailed a history, a history which is being revealed more pronouncedly than LotR ever hoped to.

Also, about this notion that magic is not central to LotR. Fine, I can grant that, since it is a matter of opinion and anyone is entitled to be wrong. :) Seriously, though, however central or peripheral magic is to the story, if it exists, it must make sense. In fact, the more periphery the magic is to the story the *more* it has to make sense, since the one or two times it might crop up and decide a problem in the plot or direct a course of actions will seem all the more important.

For instance, as mentioned above Who-tF is Tom Bombadil? We don't know, but he got the hobbits out of a jam. He got Tolkien - the writer - out of a jam, is what it seems like. What is the nature of the ring of power, or of the other rings? They are simply 'powerful.' They can 'do things.' People speak of their belief that they would be able to do great things with the ring, that they would bend its power to good.

To that I say I have a muffin sitting on my desk... I am going to try to use that only for good... I am going to try to bend the power of my muffin to good. But the muffin yearns to return to its master. They are one.

You see? The ring is just a thing, and its power just made up. But if that were the only piece of the magical landscape that was unexplained we could manage. There is also all the things the elves do - like the visions Frodo receives at Lothlorien. All of that is unfounded-author-needs-a-plot-anvil type stuff.

And, no, the story is not a good story told really well. The story is a simple story told as a tale. Really, just as with my One Muffin, you can reduce the story down to the most simple of example stories:

Frodo went to the store. Along the way he had a fight.

Sorry, RJ's story has it all over this. And who was it that compared RJ's 900 page books to Tolkien's total of 900 pages? Please. You'd think, by that comparison, that all RJ was trying to do was as little as Tolkien did (which, as I have shown in this post, was not that much). What matters is not the number of pages, but if the pages are of quality. RJ is doing so much more than Tolkien ever attempted to do that it is naturally going to take more pages. Judge the page number that way, in some sort of ratio to the scope of the story. Toklien's story was narrow in scope (Frodo goes to the store, gets in a fight along the way). Jordan's is epic in scope. Of course he needs more pages.

That being said, some of the middle books of WoT (and especially CoT) seem stretched. I said it before, and I will not defend RJ for *that*. However, Tolkien is not exactly the standard for minimalist theory, either. I just think it high time people think critically about Tolkien. Yes, it was a ground-breaking work. It was not, however, a great book.

Jiana: 2003-09-10

Shane posted: While I agree with most of you in that WOT are perfectly enjoyable books. when Jiana wrote''Jordan is an american. So why would he write perfect english.''... Sorry I thought it was his language!! enough said!

Sorry Shane that wasn't me. Was Isabel. :)

Korell: 2003-09-10

it odvioulys could not have been that bad if you read the series i dont think i could force myself to read somthing i did not like and there in begins why i love the WOT

i was diagnosed with add in the second grade from then all through my high school years i never read an entire book i would skip chapters to get the just of the story so i could pass the test otherwise i would not read anything in high school i had the enjoyment of playing RPGs with friends AD&D to be specific i still did not read though my friends i played with would always talk about these wheel of time books and i had no idea what they were talking about and eventually it got frustrating not being able to be involved in these conversations so finally about 8 months after graduating highschool i picked up the Eye of the World and started reading it i read it in about 2 weeks about 1/3rd of the way into the book i was hooked after that i read the rest of the books that were out at the time<6 at the time> and was hungry for more since then i have been off and on a fervent reader and i souly attribute it to the WOT series because were it not for finally finding somthing i was interested in i would probly not have started reading on the same token i have read the hobbit and The Fellowship of the ring as well as about half of The Two Towers and it never captivated me the way that the WOT has i admit that some of the books are not Great but the majority are. I do love the LOTR movies dont get me wrong they are great but the books were not for me as others have said before the reason i enjoy RJ so much is that his charecters are more openly developed i am not saying JRRT does not develope his but it is much more subtle i think i will end there for now though.

This is why i love The Wheel Of Time

Rand-althor: 2003-09-10

Also a large part of WoT is that the charactors don't communicate because they are all working toward their own ends. Egewene with the tower, Elayne with Andor, Rand with the last battle etc. They dont trust each other enough, so their plans interfere with each other. The same thing with the forsaken. A prime example is book 5. They wanted Rand to attack Sammuel and then Ravin Grendal and Lanfear would link and kill him, but Lanfear died, and Rand attacked Ravin instead, meaning that because of Lanfear and Ravin's private agendas the whole trap got ruined, making it useless.

Him-who-may: 2003-09-10

Before I start let me say i am a huge Tolkien fan and believe his work far superior to Jordan's. However I believe Jordan is the only author to come close to Tolkien. I consider him the greatest fantasy writer alive and a worthy second to the great Tolkien.

Also it is obvious enough that ALL fantasy just about is inspired by Tolkien.

I think it would be unfair to claim ALL the characters are stolen from Tolkien.

Admitadly many of the early characters are simular to Tolkiens work but as the book progresses the characters evolve differently to Tolkiens and become something totally unique.

As well as this, many of the characters later introduced to the saga are something totally new and 100% original.

Cadsuanne, Suian, The great captains, infact almost all of the later characters are something unique to Jordan.

Lorddragonwolf: 2003-09-10

i have to say the jorden and tolkien have two different styles of writing. i enjoy both their works. I would not have heard of the WOT books if it wasnt for the fact that i recieved a free copy of the firstfew chapters of the first book. i was hooked and have waited patiently for each to come out. i have noticed that jorden has taken alot of our own history and legends and incorperated them into his writings taking away the cultural referenses from them. his style of writing is easy to read.

Caramoor: 2003-09-10

The story in LoTR is not what Tolkien was trying to emphasize when he wrote. He worked his entire life creating this world and wanted to share the world with other people. Thus his characters tend to be very cookie-cutterish (all hobbits loved full bellies, all elves were wise).

It was the world, the geography, if you will, and its history that was the compelling theme behind the work. The story was a way to describe the world to his audience and explain how things came to be as they are.

Jordan on the other hand, has developed a world that serves a particular purpose - To tell his story.

Jordan also has believable characters with flaws and essentricities. Tolkien only develops three characters in LoTR (Frod, Sam, and Gandalf). And even those characters seem somewhat shallow (advantage of POV).

Jordan has given us a rich world full of history (including legends and folklore) and varied cultures (I would say, from experience, that life in New York City is quite different from life in Dallas, TX - Quite a lot of difference in culture there - or is it that Jordan doesn't create seperate races besides the Ogier and the Nym (Green Man)?).

And the story is always twisting and turning. Jordan will give us an option that always was there, but we hadn't considered or picked up on. The only thing I didn't catch in LoTR is that Gandalf was weilding the Third Ring of power. Still don't know how I missed it.

Finally, RJ gives us a structure to his universe. Granted, in LoTR, Magic was meant to be strange, mysterious, and not understood, thus there was no apparent structure in its use. RJ has laid out the Physics of his universe and revealed them to his readers, allowing us to surmise the possibilities, giving us a say on what is possible and what is impossible.

Also, the language is not perfect English because RJ is a physicist, not a linguist like Tolkien was. Describing a telescope as a looking glass instead of a mirror adds to culture as well. Why do we say planes were involved in a near-miss when they nearly hit? Jordan's work is much easier to read and tends to have a better flow because he writes as he thinks, which, hopefully, is how most of us think and visualize what we are reading.

In a nutshell, Jordan is so great because he explores the ideals of good vs. evil and all the in betweens showing a diverse world and history through an intriging story with deep, realistic characters. I think he gives us everything that Tolkien did and more in an easy to read format.

Anyway, I love both stories and will read WOT to its conclusion and likely will read both series several more times before they put the nails in my coffin.

Callandor: 2003-09-10

**We do not identify particularly with any character. It is not an underdog story. We are anticipating the end. Only after the last book is published and read, will the legacy of this series be written.**

Have to say bullcrap to that first sentence. A lot of people can identify with different characters (with me it is Mat, but it can be anyone at all). If you really don't identify with a character, there really is not much of a point to reading the story; the story can be great, but if you don't have a favorite you aren't that much into the story (if you study it, may be possible to not have a favorite ;)).

Isabel: 2003-09-11

Shane: There are differences between british english and american english. Not al the words are the same etc.

And about why do i like wot:

It is difficult for me to explain why I like Wot so much, but I will try to explain it.

1 I like the characters very much. The woman have certain traits I recognize from myself and I like
that. I have even heard of women who are like, for example, Nynaeve. So the characters are very realistic.

Only not all the people can identify themselves with the characters. Fortunately, I do.

Although there are certain times when I think "talk with each other!" but when I think about it, it is only realistic that people don't tell each other everything. In real life your also (at least I don't) not going to sit around a tabble and going to talk about everything. You are not going to talk about things you think are not very inportant for the other to know, or things you have sworn to keep a secret etc.

I haven't met other characters, in all the other books I have read so far, who I like so much and understand so

much as the characters in wot. So that's one of the reasons I like wot so much.

Another reason is that the plot is very original and not only a story about a boy who becomes the savior of the world.

It is very realistic, I think and that is also my personal opinion. (I have met other people who have other opinions about what realistic is). It is not only about Rand al'Thor, but it is more about a whole world. The story has a really good plot. The main characters really have to think about what other people and nobles think of their actions. They can't do anything they like, or they would get into trouble. I think that is also one of the things I like, they can't just rush in and try to defeat the Dark One, but they have a long path to go. With things some other people think aren't important, but those are the things I like about the story.

The story also contains a lot of details and foreshadowing and clues about what will happen or what has happened in the past. It is really fun to discuss what will happen or what has happened. And I haven't read an other book or series with this depth in it.

So this is why i like wot so much.

rubbernilly: 2003-09-11

I'm sorry, I cannot help but see those praising Tolkien as the end-all and be-all of fantasy writing with the same lens I see a bunch of older generation mechanics popping the hood on the latest thing to come out of Detroit, standing around without actually doing anything to the engine, but declaring, "Yeah, sure this is nice, but it's not a speck on what we used to have back my day."

You have been told that Tolkien is great and no one ever thought to question that. It's just the standard answer anyone gets halfway through the question of who is the greatest fantasy auth--

--Tolkien.

And the greatest work of fant--

--Lord of the Rings Trilogy

Like some sort of automated critic doll; "Pull the string and hear it talk!"

No one has yet answered the problem of the simplicity of the story.

No one has yet answered the problem of numerous deus ex machina moments in the text, where Tolkien appears to simply create a detail to get the characters out of a jam.

...among other points people raise; these are just the points that I have been arguing.

Tolkien is great, but great in the way of the first moon lander or an old classic car. Better things have and will come along, but he remains great in the way that a classic remains great. He was the first. For that I applaud him. However, that does not automatically earn him a perennial shoe-in to the top fantasy author slot.

That would feel like John Madden voting a 65 year old Butkis to his 2004 All Madden Football team.

Jiana: 2003-09-11

I have to agree with Callandor's last post. To make a story interesting, there has to be a character that the reader identifies with. The great thing about the WoT, and why it appeals to so many different types of people, is that there are many different types of personalities that RJ has developed. Any reader can find at least one character in the series to root for and get all worked up about, more so than the others. And if you have all these different people from all different walks of life that find a common thread and enjoy the same books, then, to me, that says that not only is the plot really good (yes it does lag at times, but most of us can forgive that because we are addicts), but also the characters are very well developed, and very diverse. From reading all of your posts, I have come to this conclusion. It seems that we all have different tastes in literature (I have seen many different authors listed, some I am not familiar with, and some that I don't particularly care for), and therefore we all have our own opinion of what makes a good (or great) story. John, I think you have started a never ending post. :) We all have different reasons for loving the WoT as much as we do, and as RJ has said that he intends to write until they nail shut his coffin, I intend to read his work until they nail shut mine.

ranman38: 2003-09-11

Well, rubber I agree with you, YOU have every right to be wrong. ;)

Rand-althor: 2003-09-11

Also, when the story gets a bit slow (like in TPoD or CoT) there is a reason for it. When it drops in Token's (Tom Bobadil, a fair amount of Sam and Frodo's journey) it is just a page filler, pointless in all practicallity. Also, about the nazgul "catching and eating" the eagles, the eagles killed one of the Nazgul's flying beasts. The nazgul can't fly, so without the beasts, the eagles would have been safe, so just send a army of eagles, then when the Nazgul are disposed of, send in Frodo. Not that hard.

heronblade: 2003-09-11

personally i find tolken dry and little more than an exercise in good english. Robert Jordans books are real. atleast real in a parallel dimention where, after world war three, genetic mutants descovered how to channel the power and acidentally taped into the source of all evil ;). Jordan has a sence of adventure, hummour and above all he doesn't take a page to describe a river! he uses a language poorly suited language to try and describe what he sees on the inside of his eyelids, of course its not going to be right 100% of the time but he tends to do better than most. to be perfectly honnest i found lord of the rings to be long winded and pointless (kinda like this post;)) and i found dune...dull... face it your not a jordanette. dont worry about it. not the worst thing in the world, cant think of anything at the moment but im SURE it could be worse...

spearmaiden: 2003-09-11

rubbernilly: **I'm sorry, I cannot help but see those praising Tolkien as the end-all and be-all of fantasy writing with the same lens I see a bunch of older generation mechanics popping the hood on the latest thing to come out of Detroit, standing around without actually doing anything to the engine, but declaring, "Yeah, sure this is nice, but it's not a speck on what we used to have back my day." **

Thank you, it's good to hear someone else say that for a change!

I'm not going to go all out and say that RJ is better than Tolkein, I think they both have their strengths and weaknesses, and it depends on what the individual reader looks for in a great novel to decide which is better. But I will say he's definitely on the same level, and you can't say that of many fantasy writers.

I will definitely reiterate that there IS a lot of room for people to improve upon the foundation Tolkein laid, and while people have every right to claim Tolkein hasn't been surpassed yet, if that's how they feel, they'd be downright foolish to claim he'll never be bettered.

TheNetweaver: 2003-09-11

I like what Caramoor said, even though I'm using it against her in a way. Robert Jordan is easier to read than Tolkien. I think that fact alone makes a lot of people lean towards RJ. As for the whole "magic is never explained" element. Magic doesn't actually exist. Sure, RJ has set up this system in which limitations are made, but couldn't someone weave anything they wanted if they were talented enough? There's supposed to be an element of mystery, because magic isn't real. Also, epics aren't meant to be massive compilations in which laws of nature are laid out. Personally, I don't think the Wheel of Time is an epic. It's a great series, but it lost its focus on a main hero/group of heroes a few books ago. Too much is happening to concentrate on the three ta'veren, which is what an epic would do.

CJH68: 2003-09-11

Posted by Johnamdor:

"I still stand by my assertion that it is a mono-cultural world. With the exception of Ogier and Shadowspawn, every race in wot could live in a different American City(or coastal waters)."

(Advance apology if this is too obvious and has been posted before!)

It was always my supposition while reading WoT that The Land in which it occurs is what we currently know as Northern America???

I may well have missed the mark here but I thought the map provided looked like a mirrored image of the East / Middle of the USA.

The story is set after the Age of Legends which has enough references (such as elevators and Mercedes symbols) to identify that is being of around our own current time (2003).

Then the world was broken and begun anew.

Therefore, it made sense that the land would be something that we are familiar with today.

It made most sense that it was the USA because:

* Sea Folk to the South (Carribbean)

* Spine of the World (The Rocky Mountains)

* Desert to the far side of the Rockys (Nevada, etc)

* People with bizarre cultures to the far side of the Waste (California)

* Warmer climates in the south (Florida)

* Colder, frozen regions to the north

* Evil over the border (Canada :p)

* Even the landshape of Windbiters Finger is vaguely like Florida.

* RJ is American!

Following this line of thought, yes all the people of the land would have a similar cultural base with only minor variants in sub-culture.

ranman38: 2003-09-12

Identifying with a character is not crucial to understanding or liking a story. I do not identify myself with any character in WoT, nor LotR. I am not them, they are not me, I am not in their times and place. And could argue will never be. I enjoy the "big picture", the struggle of good and evil. The "chase" if you will is greater and better than the end. Now, i obviously spoke in too general of a term, when I said "we" don't identify with characters, clearly many of you do. Also, Callandor, you spoke in a general term when you said there wasn't much point in reading it if you do not identify with a character. Clearly, you are wrong, since I do exactly that. :) Had this series been say 6 books, then maybe, it would be on the same plane as Tolkien, but not now. However, before all you RJ fanatics, FREAK OUT, as I said before the legacy of this series will be written at a later time. I like this series a lot, and will and have purchased and anticipated every book, so no crucifiction please. Obviously we all have our opinions, but, let's not assume that yours is better than anyone elses, unless of course there are actual literature professors in here. And possibly psychology profs as well. ;) People love Jordan, people hate Jordan. Many people have answered the original questions quite well. As for the looking under the hood part..that was pretty funny, and probably true. Maybe in 20 years WoT will be as revered or reviled as LotR.

Therilon: 2003-09-12

I'm certain that as I write this, several other replies have already been written. However...

CJH68, I'm also pretty sure that WoT takes place in Europe. Remember, there is the Spine of the World, and the countries beyond the Aiel Waste like Shara. It seems to me that that would not be quite possible in N. America.

~Tolkien -vs- RJ~

They both are good. GRRM is also just as good as RJ, if not better. It's all your own opinions.

rubbernilly: 2003-09-12

spearmaiden - thank you for your support; it seems we see eye to eye on this one.

And to the person comparing the map to a reversed north american continent... why does that remind you *of* the NAC? The breaking displaced rivers and oceans, raising land where there had been none and drowning it elsewhere. The landscape would have changed, and there should be very few reminders of what it looked like before. Now, if you think that the Breaking nearly-exactly reversed the continent... that's just weird. Sorry, that's my opinion of that.

heronblade: 2003-09-12

They are all a part of one ancient culture and therefore would share a commen language, consider us and the french. We think they are a little odd (and lets face it they are) but we share a commen ancestery and thanks to the romans and years of cross invasions a similar language and culture. Other than the snails and perfume...

Anyway... are you trying to say lord of the rings wasn't mono-cultural! The hobits lived underground and elves in trees little other difference!

The hobbits, dwarfs, elves and humans all spoke the same language. You say people living in relatively close proximity coulds evolve the same commen tongue, what about different species! yes the elves\dwarfs have two languages that they speek but in the literary world it would make the most sence for all the main cultures to be able to understand each other. Be a funny story if all the heros did was stand around and say "err, what did he say?" and keep waiting for a translation! wot is not neseccerily better than tolkien (tho in my opinion it far surpasses it!) its different.

Callandor: 2003-09-12

The physical features may fit an inverse (oh, yeah! math words :)) map of the US, but the countries cultures fit much much better to Eurpean countries. Examples are "dark skinned Tairens" and their fashion make them similar to Spain, and "pale, short Cairhien" also with the Sun Throne makes Cairhien very similar to France, Andor is pretty obviously Great Britain or mostly just England, Altara I believe is similar to Italy, and Illian to Greece (although those may be reverse), Shinear is similar to Japan (so are the Seanchan, as well as China).

There are others listed on the WoT, but I can't remember them now.

golem22: 2003-09-12

Opinion is opinion. Its just like movies some people hate some movies while other people love the same movie.

I love RJ's charicters there are so many of them and what i love even more is that even someone who seems completely 5th business sometimes steps out to be worth more to the story.

It is rare that you read a book where each of the charicters ARENT cardboard cut and paste. I would dare to say that both tolkien and RJ are masters of this genre in ther own rights.

A Wild One: 2003-09-13

Variety is the spice of life.

WOT is an enjoyable read when I'm in the mood for reading. RJ realizes that his reader lives in the movie/TV era so he gives us all the info we need to make the movie in our mind as we read.

As for the location of the main story, well looking at the map in the BWB it resembles early maps of our world before the aerial advantage. I'd say Seanchan is the Americas and the story takes place on what once was Europe. Shara would be Far East, which coincidentally both traded silk to the West.

Callandor: 2003-09-13

** Also, Callandor, you spoke in a general term when you said there wasn't much point in reading it if you do not identify with a character. Clearly, you are wrong, since I do exactly that. :)**

If you have never ever put yourself in their shoes, then yes it is hard to get into the story, but if you haven't walk tall and proud if you want.

But if you have put yourself into Rand's position in any random scene and said "now if I was in this position, what would I do?" to me, you are identifying with that character because you are trying to get a feel for what they are thinking; if you did that once, then to me you have gotten yourself deeper into the story then if you were a robot and just reading text on a page.

heronblade: 2003-09-15

what i like is how something a character does that completely confuses every 1 else in the scene can make you laugh cause u can relate to that charactor and understand why they said or did it, or why its out of charector and therefore funny!

knowing the characters makes them real. solid. you can predict there actions and it improves the series so much cause when they do something unpredictable it makes you re-evaluate their motives and think about their charactor to a greater depth. it makes them real

Rhuark: 2003-09-17

"Robert Jordan doesn't appeal to everyone'

Well Tolkien doesnt appeal to everyone either...

Its a matter of personal opinion so why search out a WOT site and bag it out?

The WOT series has great characters that I enjoy reading about and care about, a huge detailed fascinating world and a cool, detailed magic system...

Not everyone reads so that they can sit there and apppreciate 'perfect english prose'

rubbernilly: 2003-09-18

'perfect english prose'

Gah! Bah!

Tolkien wrote in what *was* english prose.

Jordan writes in what is perfect english prose.

The language lives and breathes; it changes. Just because it is older or sounds more formal does not make something automatically better.

If that were the case we would all still be speaking latin.

Callandor: 2003-09-18

**If that were the case we would all still be speaking latin.**

Oh no, I think grunts, clicks, and body language would be best... but that would be hard making a novel then.

Anubis: 2003-09-19

tolkien does have some incredible imagry... but if he didnt he wouldnt be regarded as a great author. i read his series (not the funky s one... my dad told me id hate it so i didnt) and i liked it... the ringwraith rising from the corpse of his flying dragon was just awsome... but it had the feeling of a legend, nothing was real everything was ancient beyond knowing. i like rj more cus rj seems more real, there is ancient evil.. but it doesnt completely outstripe the new and i like the characters more. and i read dune.. it was ok, then it got confusing and far out... i dont care about your golden path i want instant gratification dammit! then that guy became the whirlwind... and that was just cool.

meh, not everything appeals to everyone...

and ill admit you make some points... id love to see the forsaken do more, tho demandred does make me nervous, i hope it actually pans out.

and hey, ive been a youngling for a loooong time *glares at tam*

Someshta: 2003-09-21

My argument that Robert Jordan is a good writer doesnt have to do with character or plot originality, but with this site. The fact that RJ can set up a world with 1000+ characters, twisting story lines and still keep this many people interested enough to analyze scientifically the way the One Power works, its a measure of the man. Dune had its share of characters, and intricacies (sp?) but i found myself saying, "wow, im reading a political textbook" and lord of the rings, i compare that to reading a dictionary for content.

Jalwin Moerad: 2003-10-12

I would just like to point out that one of the truly enjoyable elements of this series is the fact that it tells the story from many points of view. Big deal, you might say. But this is the implication: what is true to one character may not be true to another. So every character can be taller, from Egwene's position, say; perhaps she has 'issues' about height. Rand can make assertions that 'one must know where one is starting from', but that only makes it true from his perspective. In other words, Robert Jordan explores the very essence of truth, and the fact that truth is relative to each character. Good and evil are also relative. The "law of unintended consequences" is a good example. When is something necessary as opposed to evil? Every character is forced to face these issues, which are unique (in my experience) to the Wheel of Time. I don't know about the rest of the WOT fans, but that is one of the primary reasons for which I read Robert Jordan.

Jalwin Moerad: 2003-10-12

Just one more thing. Lord of the Rings, as someone above said (I forget who), was based on Beowulf. JRRT even wrote a long analysis of it (assumingly for his own enjoyment). But Beowulf was based on, depending on which history you follow: a) Christian myths (think Samson), b) Norse myths (think Thor), or c) Roman/Greek myths (Hercules, Achilles, etc...). All of these are in turn based upon Neanderthal legends, which sprang from Cro Magnum (I hope I spelled that right). Basically, every legend in the world dates back to the first humans in Africa. Ever wonder why every civilization has a flood story? The Jewish people wrote it down about 1000 years after the Sumerians. The Epic of Gilgamesh formed the basis for the Illiad, which formed the basis for the Oddysey, which formed the basis for the Aeneid, which formed the basis for the Song of Roland, which formed the basis for the tales of Charlemagne, which formed the basis for Morte de Arthur, which formed the basis for Paradise Lost, etc. Tolkien copied others as much as Robert Jordan does.

Rhodric: 2003-10-13

~sigh~

***Lord of the Rings, as someone above said (I forget who), was based on Beowulf. ***

tLotR was like RJ's work in that it has elements taken from a wide variety of mythological sources, and epic poetry and the like (eg. beowulf). it was NOT based on one particular poem. have you read beowulf? beowulf slays a dragon. that's pretty much it.

saying tLotR is based on Beowulf is like saying that the WoT is based solely on the work of Tolkien. it's false.

jackmisfit: 2003-10-14

First, I have to admit that I am a huge JRR Tolkien fan. Now that that's off of my chest...

I've enjoyed the WOT series tremendously. I've read tons of fantasy books out there and while some have left me sorely disappointed, others have been a true joy. I think that one of the things that makes the whole Jordan vs Tolkien difficult to truly judge is that we get to read Jordan's books as they come out. Our opinions can change book to book. Reading the WOT is like the old serials back in the day, cliffhanging endings and 10 plus books ending in, "to be continued". Tolkien on the other hand is what it is, there won't be another book or series from him, it's history at this point.

As to the difference in writing...all of the old english versus new english, come on, Tolkien was a professor that created a language and then created a world for that language to be used in, Jordan is fantasy fan that has an incredible way of writing that is just as involved.

Does that make one better than the other?

Everyone is entitled to have their own opinion of what they like better. I've always thought that both Tolkien and Jordan had a wonderful way of giving a sense of depth to the world that their characters live and react in.

But I have to say that nothing moved me more than Tolkiens writing. Before everyone jumps on that, I have to say why. I think the first fantasy series I read was when I was in 5th or 6th grade, it was either the Taran wanderer or the CS Lewis series, I can't remember which. My cousins laughed at me for reading "kids" fantasy and told me to read the Hobbit. I not only read the Hobbit, but the LOTR books and finally the Silmarillion. I was hooked! It blew me away, the Silmarillion tied everything together and it all made sense. Tolkien will always have a special place in my heart because it was the first book(s) that truly captivated me and moved me, but by no means does that mean that there isn't room for other authors. The sense of history that Tolkien conveyed was immaculate, I imagine that it was due to the fact that he started laying the ground work for his world back in the late 1910's. For all of the bellyaching that we give Jordan for taking his time, you have think that it took 40 plus years for Tolkien to finish/partially finish 5 books, the Silmarillion was finished by his son).

I guess the point that I'm trying to make is that just because Tolkien was the first person to write modern fantasy doesn't preclude others from writing great fantasy as well.

And the fact that everyone always has to say that some author is stealing characters or plot lines or this that and the other thing....the only analogy I have is, a Dodge Viper takes a lot of important ideas from the Model T, you know, 4 wheels, an engine and what not, but that doesn't make them the same thing...similar, but not the same.

Last comment, in all the years I've been reading, I have to say that I've reread Jordan as much as Tolkien, so to me they both have as much staying power.

Cor Shan: 2003-10-14

You are backwards I think Jalwin Moerad, in that we are Cro-Magnons in all but height, face and name, and why would our legends evolve from thier myths? Thus it is like that Beowulf was a CM, who killed a Neanderthal, (like Grendal), and then killed a big snake or whatever for the dragon. BTW, Toklein is not like 'Frodo went to the store and had a fight'. It is more like Frodo went to the [2 pgs of descriptions] store, and had a [3 pgs of descriptions] fight'. Like reading a dictionary? Like duh (not to sound like a teenaged girl No offenceto any one meant)

dave: 2003-10-14

About RJ stealing charcters and plotlines:

I think it was Stephen King who said something like: "All the good stories have already been told, we're just retelling them they way we want to"

Tolkien based many of his stories and characters on folk tales and lore from the whole of Europe, by the way.

OKflyboy: 2003-10-16

I submitted a long, and mostly sarcastic reply to this thread a couple of days ago, but aparently it has disapeared in moderatorland. I guess it was TOO sarcastic. My apologies to the poor moderator who had to read of of that only to delete it... =^P (~note from moderator~, your reply was lost in database errorland~ :)

The short version:

I'm reminded of Dead Poet's Society, when the essay about understanding Poetry is being read.

"To fully understand poetry, we must first be fluent with its meter, rhyme, and figures of speech. Then ask two questions: One, how artfully has the objective of the poem been rendered, and two, how important is that objective. Question one rates the poem's perfection, question two rates its importance. And once these questions have been answered, determining a poem's greatest becomes a relatively simple matter. If the poem's score for perfection is plotted along the horizontal of a graph, and its importance is plotted on the vertical, then calculating the total

area of the poem yields the measure of

its greatness.A sonnet by Byron may score high on the vertical, but only average on the horizontal. A Shakespearean sonnet, on the other hand, would score high both horizontally and vertically, yielding a

massive total area, thereby revealing the poem to be truly great."

I mean, these seems to be how you're rating Mr. Jordan's work. By this method, I suppose Mr. Tolkien's work might yield a greater area, and reveal itself as truly great. But, as Mr. Keating would say:

We're not laying pipe, we're talking about [literature]. I mean, how can you describe [literature] like

American Bandstand? I like [Robert Jordan], I give him a 42, but I can't dance to it.

...We don't read and write [literature] because it's cute. We read and write [literature] because we are members of the human race. And the human race is filled with passion."

So in answer to you're closing statement

"I am not out to drag RJ through the mud for no reason, but I want someone to tell me why they think WoT is so great"

I love the Wheel of Time series on many levels. Robert Jordan has a style of writing that appeals to me. I can EASILY identify with the characters. I can almost SEE the landscapes he describes. I knew that a looking glass was actually a mirror, but I also knew in the world of The Wheel of time, they call a telescope a "looking glass". The lack of comunication you mention only serves to add realism in my opinion. I mean, how many of life's problems today can be attributed to a lack of comunication?

In other words, I like it, you don't. Good for you, good for me.

salem: 2003-11-01

Ok, wow there were a lot of replies to this, and maybe I read about half. Seems to have touched a nerve..:) I have read both Jordan's work and Tolkien's. I do like both, though for different reasons. I will say that for myself, I prefer Tolkien. But the difference I think came from different purposes. I believe Jordan set out to write a novel. So it was supposed to be 3 in the beginning, I think, and now he is up to 10. He has made a much more complex world of fiction than Tolkien's LotR, but he has had, what 9,ooo pages to do it in? And Tolkein went out to set up a mythology, so it should be more vague and mysterious.

-yes, I get annoyed with everyone being described the same way as being beautiful, strong, wise, handsome etc., but it is just his style

-the charcters being stolen, well, I haven't read Dune so I can't say. However, a lot of his names are stolen from Arthurian legend. Artur Paendrag/Arthur Pendragon. Elayne/Lady Elaine, Moiraine/Morgaine, Igraine/Igraine, Galad/Galahad, etc..

-and the Sword in the Stone.heehee

-but I do like Jordan, and unlike Tolkein, I am not sure what will happen. So as angry as I get at the slow pace and thousands of pages, I keep reading. I am sure good will triumph over evil, but I don't know who will be left standing

And I must say, Jordan has a great sense of humor, but I think it isn't so obvious. He seems to put a lot of private jokes in. At least I see them that way. He studied physics and I think whenever I see Hawkwing, I think of Stephen Hawking. And I live in Japan now, and he makes a lot of references to Japanese culture. Including basing the Sheinar language on Japanese. And the Tower of Ghenji, and the Japanese work, the Tale of Genji. It was writtne by Shikibu Murasaki, and in The Fires of Heaven we see something like, "They gave their names as the Murasaka sisters."

-also, Jordan doesn't take himself as seriously as Tolikein. He knows all the comparisons being made between them, so I burst out laughing in book ten when Kaldin went by the name "Mr. Underhill".

Just some of my views..

Murrin: 2003-11-10

I think that the WoT is one of the best series I have read, but then again, I think that of most the series I read :/

Anyway, to me, it is always the story, rather than the prose itself, that I love. The way RJ writes (it improves towards book 4, IMO) effectively conveys emotions, images, events, and this appeals greatly to the way I read - picturing the imagery in my mind, hearing the conversations (this is why the typos and errors don't really bother me - When reading, for example, CoT (which in my copy has many words dropped from sentences) my mind automatically fills the blanks). The prose itself may not be the perfect English of Tolkien, but it is still good enough for myself.

Of course, it does have its down points - although he could never reach the amazing depths of tedium to which the great master Tolkien brought us on occaision, some of his Perrin POVs are pretty irritating, and I usually skip the Min/Siuan bits in tFoH.

Sidhe: 2003-11-11

First I would like to ask you a question Johnamdor. Was LotR the first fantasy book you ever read? (not counting children's stories and so on). Because that would explain a bit, at least to me. Judging from my own experiene: friends of mine, the ones who read fantasy that is, can be roughly divided into two groups: the ones that started reading fantasy with LotR and the ones that read other books first. This first group swears LotR is the best book ever written, no other fantasy book can even BE better, how well-written it may be (story-wise and language-wise)... The second group thinks LotR is nice, but certainly not the best ever, they have read other books (WoT among them) they think/feel is far better.

In principle, it's of course all a matter of taste, but could it be we are kinda "molded" by the books we read first?

By the way, I'm one of the second group. ;)

Why I think WoT is great? Maybe not because it's written so well, but just because it feels right. I read my fair share of fantasy, but this is the only series I can re-read a hundred times, with every time being some kind of 'get together' with old friends.

One last thing, no flaming, but...

About the *Every character is more handsome (beautiful) than the next*: it's always said in the PoV of the char of that time... For example, Elayne is said to be beautiful, but Perrin doesn't think so, cause she's blond, and he isn't attracted to that. Same with Faile: Perrin is head over heels, will do everything for her (wondering how far he Will go, by the way), but the first description of her, seen a couple of times more, was that she had a bold nose and a too wide mouth... not your everyday pretty huh? ;)

So, PoV... with the other things as well...

Sensir: 2003-11-15

The fact that tolkiens world was small and insignificant compared to RJ's is true completely. and is also oposite your opinion. RJ's world consists of histories the game of houses and everything whereas tolkien wrote a book of a world with 3 or 4 factions dwarves elves and humans. the only thing in common is the united evil and the humans. Open your vision and youd see that all fantasy authors follow the same route. united evil and a force of good that must unite to become victorious. you see it everywhere. Chronicles of narnia, Dragonlance, WoT, and tolkiens own writings. The fact that its hard not to have differences is a challenge to the author and i think RJ has done and incredible job

Alanna Mosvani: 2003-12-14

Okay, I really like the Wheel of Time, but does anyone else think that there is just too much "filler" in the newer books? Did Elayne do ANYTHING exciting since she got pregnant? And we hear pages and pages of Perrin's frustrations at not knowing where Faile is. It's like Jordan has switched from storytelling to some sort of real-time journal of What Everyone is Doing Today.

Go back and see how many references there are to Egwene's breakfasts and lunches. I dare you.

The funny thing is, the books are shorter now too - about 600 pages, and the first 100 pages is the prologue to update you on everyone. Fires of Heaven broke 1000 pages, and there were two major showdowns (in Cairhein and in Camelyn.)

A friend, who didn't really like the way the Wheel of Time series was going, introduced me to George Martin's Song of Ice and Fire series, where the author consistently has something relevant and exciting happen in EACH chapter, thus propelling the story. Maybe Jordan needs a better editor.

rubbernilly: 2003-12-19

Somewhere on this thread I wrote that the LotR books were not good stories (albeit that they were well-written), because the plot is disjointed and irrelevant, punctuated by deus ex machina moments and feat. I said it was like listening to a teenage girl telling you about her trip to the mall; "First we went here and we did this, then we went here and we did this..."

To that came this response:

BTW, Toklein is not like 'Frodo went to the store and had a fight'. It is more like Frodo went to the [2 pgs of descriptions] store, and had a [3 pgs of descriptions] fight'. Like reading a dictionary? Like duh (not to sound like a teenaged girl No offence to any one meant)

OK, so it's like you let the teenage girl ramble on for two or three pages about her shopping trip to the mall before you ask her to move on.

And as far as reading a dictionary goes... I don't know if that was in response to me or not but I will say this:

I read and enjoy both Shakespeare and Herman Melville. I dare you to say that either of them are less dense, or require less effort on the part of the reader, than anything Tolkien did.

silverwolf: 2003-12-31

I never really understood why people have to have a sort of rating system for authors; each has his or her own strengths and weaknesses. Tolkein was wordy, but the background to the story (the maps, the languages, the histories of cultures) was nothing short of incredible, and the story itself was a littly more complex than going to the store and getting in a fight on the way :) On the other hand, his writing was dry at times and his characters were very distant, impersonal, and unchanging. Jordan has woven together a massive story with a central framework of magic with well-defined rules (he was a physics major, after all), but his stories drag at points, his characters have some inconsistencies, and some of the cultural issues (all of which have been discussed in depth in earlier posts) are not easily resolved. What I'm trying to say is that I put Tolkien and Jordan on an equal level--they wrote at different times and with different focuses, so which one you like more is really dependent entirely on your tolerance of the English language and which focus you prefer: the individual or the wide scope.

That said, I'd like to clarify a few things. First, the weak bringing down the mighty is a classic fantasy device--if you consider the destruction of the ring an accident, look at when Merry and Eowyn (a hobbit and a woman--no offense, but women have other strengths than physical power and are, in general, physically less powerful than men) destroyed the Witch-king of Angmar, reputedly the most powerful warrior of the time. Look at the Silmarillion, when Beren and Luthien (a mortal man and an Elf-maiden) cut the silmaril from the crown of Morgoth, one of the Valar! Look at the Two Towers, when Sam drives of Shelob, an ancient menace that had killed countless warriors.

I could go on with other examples from Tolkein (or, if you want, from Dune) but I think I've made my point.

Also, the eagles never killed one of the Nazgul's flying creatures, and it was only in the movie that they even attacked the Nazgul (in the books, they merely attacked the army). Please, in a debate about authors, stick to the books and not the films.

Also, one of the Valar created the dwarves. The Valar are not gods--that title, in the Silmarillion, goes only to Iluvatar (sp?). The Valar are better viewed as angels than as gods.

Finally, the main reason I don't include Dune in this debate is because I didn't like it as well. It had too many oddities and inconsistencies for me to enjoy it as well as Tolkien or Jordan, and the plot line was really screwed up after he took the drug, whatever it was called (it's been a couple of years since I read it).

brigitta: 2004-01-05

I will try to write no critisism on either books, just praise... Tolkien first

Tolkien was a professor of scandinavian myths and culture, he learnt finnish because he thought it a beautiful language and he created the elven language based on finnish. these are facts. My mother tongue, Estonian, is so much like Finnish that... well, let's say it's like a dialect and an accent, and without ever having studied it I can communicate with a finn that has no idea how my language really works. so, to me, the best part of LoTR was the elven language. I sometimes even got the feeling that I can almost understand it. I have read it some 4 to 7 times, The Hobbit even more (it was my favourite book before LoTR took the place), and it is interesting every time.

WoT. before I had read it, I had this idea how every persons life is a string of something, everyone a different colour, lenghth or other characteristics. And all these strings would form a carpet, a tapestry wih a picture-- the meaning of life... A more than a bit cheesy, but OK, at least it was mine and mine alone, until I read WoT. so I have the same kind of feeling of oneness with both books.

to some of you answering above: Tolkien denied ever having been influenced by the war, but I don't think a person can live through something and come out not influenced. While Tolkiens terrain does resemble Europe, Randland could be anywhere. I think it has been sort of drifted together and apart. (proof- the Sand Hills in EoTW are said to have once been the shore of a sea) In this way Jordan could insert many nowadays customs into his world so that it would still make some sense.

Darren: 2004-01-26

It's hard to begin on this, and I'm wondering why I bother. First of all, there is an atmosphere of such blatant contentiousness to this "theory" that I have my doubts as to whether or not you are just trolling, John. Right down to your THIRTEEN objections (coincidence? I think not) But I will assume the best, and answer as well as I can.

"1) Most of the characters are stolen from The Lord Of the Rings and Dune."

This is an unfortunately ignorant statement. Tolkien WAS writing pastiche, and the majority of his characters were written in conscious reference to characters from medieval literature. There are passages that are direct translations from Beowulf, in LOTR. And I suspect if you're citing Frank Herbert as the originator of Dune's characters, you haven't read the Q'uran, never mind any history of the Arab peoples. Herbert had, and certainly Jordan has. (Shai'tan is an Arabic word, remember) RJ just went to the source. You should do the same.

2) Some people claim he is as good as Tolkien when he is obviously not; tolkien wrote in perfect English prose, Robert Jordan calls a telescope a looking-glass (i.e. a mirror) and gave account of an "infintesimal nod"(just impossible)

This is not worth answering. You're definitely trolling here. I by no means assume RJ is "better" than Tolkien, only different, and what attracted me to the series (14 YEARS ago!!!) was that finally someone was stepping up to the high bar that Tolkien set. LOTR is a 54 year old tale, and I have read no other piece of High Fantasy that even comes close to the ambition and depth of storytelling of these two. Whether RJ will pull it off is very much up in the air, as far as I can tell. After CoT, I'm having my doubts.

As to the "infinitessimal nod" Yeah, that's impossible, but in the land of literature, we like to call that "hyperbole." You may have heard of that.

3) Jordan has a mono-cultural world, Tolkien spent most of his life creating the world in which LotR is set in. It is linguistically impossible that when a united continent with one language (ie the old tongue) breaks apart the various factions speak in entirely new common language

This is an interesting theory (the Old Tongue part,) you should work it out in another post. I look forward to breaking it ^_-v For now I can only say "Opinion without evidence is gossip."

5) It is very hard to believe that in 3-5 thousand years no-one did the jigery pokery required to make angreal that Elayne did.

Never mind all the other "discoveries" made by the girls in these novels. I agree.

6) Every character is taller than the next

But this is true in Tolkien, as well (moreso since the protagonists are hobbits!!)

7) Every character is more handsome (beautiful) than the next

Again, nothing Tolkien is not guilty of. This sort of thing is characteristic of epic fantasy. And it's a lot older than LOTR. I've read Njarl's Saga and Snorri Sturlusson's tales, and the same sort of hyper exaggeration is in there.

8) Concepts in his world are not constant but used whenever it suits him (e.g. when a man travels he must know his destination, but Taim could just appear in the nick of time to help rand)

Umm... It's not the destination that has to be known, it's where you're AT. Read a bit more carefully. Also, remember that these books are essentially the first printing. Remember that the first printing of the Hobbit was changed after Tolkien "discovered" what the ring Bilbo got from Gollum was. There ARE errors in the Wheel of Time series (although there are some on this site that refuse to believe so. I am not one of them) I believe these will be fixed when and (gulp) if the main text is finished.

10) The forsaken aren't powerful or dangerous in any way

Come again? They're winning.

11) The Dark Lord is a bumbling Idiot in that he could easily have killed Rand in every book or set all the Forsaken to sit in wait in a link of 13 to kill him.

It IS stated repeatedly that the DO does NOT WANT TO KILL Rand, but to turn him. Secondly, in case you haven't noticed, the Forsaken, who no longer number 13, can hardly stand to be in the same room as one another for five minutes... one must assume the DO knows this.

Also, he's still bound. And there is that Creator out there, somewhere. (at least in Theory)

12) Most of the 'suspense' in the book relies on people not knowing whats going on but assuming something. If Mat told Egwene what he had to do, she would not assume he was an idiot etc.

It's called "missed communication" A common thread in all sorts of "literature" A man called Shakespeare was fond of it.

13) Professional, disciplined and long-experienced soldiers and trained generals are incompetent compared to Aiel and warders, yet a few younglings can dispatch warders, Aiel, you name it without any of the skills of the other armies. He doesn't even offer any "taver'en" explainations for this.

The Younglings ARE warders (at least as far as training goes) who have NEVER marched into battle as an army. This is their strength. Warders do not behave like an army; they're bodyguards. The Younglings are free of this; also there's more than a few of them, and they don't much like fighting Aiel.

Anyhow, I could go on, but you get my point. My question is why do you care? Do you see yourself as a defender of Tolkien? There seems to be an idea in your statement that there is only room for ONE high fantasist. If you think this, then stop reading fantasy. I think there's room for more.

OKflyboy: 2004-01-27

Darren:

Thank you, I couldn't have said it better myself. I have to agree that this guy is just trying to stir up trouble, especially since he hasn't bothered responding to ANY of the 67 replies...

My point was simply, how can you put something like this on a scale, and expect someone to give it a grade. I see it the same as music. Why do I like Jordan and he doesn't? I don't know. Why do so many people like Rap and I don't? What moves one person, may not move another... Does my dislike of rap make it any less enjoyable for others? I hope not. I may not like it, but I wouldn't want to take it away from those who do...

You can't quantify things of the soul. These things like literature, music, and dare I say, religion. These are things beyond scales and grades...

Davian93: 2004-01-27

Everything wraps up too neatly in LOTR. Don't get me wrong I really like LOTR, but to me WoT is better simply because its a bigger world with more characters and more gray areas as Tamryln says. Tolkien is like the Beatles, he revolutionized and basically created Fantasy writing. Jordan is maintaining that standard but with a modern writing style. The infinesimal nod is simply hyperbole. I know most of this has already been said. Both are great authors, I just wish that Tolkien would have expanded his story a little more instead of giving us three fairly short books in LOTR and one other in The Hobbit. Jordan has had us all addicted for the past 15 years, and will continue to do so until the entire series is finished and we've all disected every line for more clues and inuendos of what all really happened. Either way, both are great, just different.

OKflyboy: 2004-01-27

Oh yeah, a couple of points I didn't get to last time...

***5) It is very hard to believe that in 3-5 thousand years no-one did the jigery pokery required to make angreal that Elayne did***

It is also very hard to believe that in two thousand years no one did the "jigery-pokery" required to make an aircraft, or pennicillin (sp?) or Algebra. That's why inventions are so revolutionary, because even though the answer may have been right there, it took a visionary to come up with it! And then after a while, we take it for granted.

***Most of the 'suspense' in the book relies on people not knowing whats going on but assuming something. If Mat told Egwene what he had to do, she would not assume he was an idiot etc.***

Yeah, it's called miscommunication. IT happens a lot in real life, too. Why is it so unbelievable in writing?

dragonsceptor: 2004-01-27

Oh but Tolkien did expand beyond three books (or even 4 if you consider the hobbit). There is the Simillarion( I know I hacked the spelling) that begins with the creation of the world and gives chronicles the histories of the first and second ages. It tells of the discovery of the elves and men, the creation of Orcs, goblins, dwarves, and balrogs. It talks about the forging of the rings of power and the creation and fall of Numenor. And beyond this there are two books of unfinished tales compiled by Tolkien's son.
Tolkien's world had just as much depth and history as Jordan's. He just died before he could write it all down. I suggest you read the other things written by Tolkien before you say that Jordan's world is bigger and has more characters.

Davian93: 2004-01-28

Good point, dragonscepter. I just meant I wish the three books of the trilogy were bigger. They only follow a couple of characters pov's and they kinda fly by. If you read all the background on LotR, I agree the world is just as in depth. Jordan's difference was he just put it all in the storyline instead of making huge appendixes, the BWB not withstanding.

Unicorn: 2004-01-28

Ok so this one is not entirely dead yet, I suppose it never really will be. I have not read all replies, I think, but even Tamyrlin's threat of refusing flaming of this theory, has not prevented a certain amount of mudslinging. I am sad to see that much of it is directed at the old master - not at Johnamdor - This is probably a very predictable reaction, when somebody steps all over the stuff you like and tries to tell you that something else is better, I will try to avoid this but I probably cannot entirely.

To address the issues one by one.

1. Read Darrens excellent comment on this. I would like to add that in my opinion if this point was to be taken then, all stories with a hero written after the Iliad or the Odyssey (please don't nitpick something with a hero might be older) would be copies, it is not possible to write fantasy, or anything else for that matter, without some or more traits being similar to other stories, intentional or not.

2. I actually believe this is very much worth answering, because it is totally off the mark if you ask me. If being good at “correct English” makes a good storyteller then I have missed everything, besides I do not think, I would be able to find a book, including LotR where the author not at some point made a description that cannot be remade in real life, this is one of the facets of books that are greater than movies, an author has a much better possibility to convey “a feeling” but still letting the audience make their own image. As to calling things by their “proper” names, I believe this is one of the tools an author has to set an ambience, in this case of something “not modern”, much in the same way you might (be supposed to) feel, that you are in some Dickens period inn, because the owner put some patina on the furniture and calls it “the OLDE English alehouse”, words are tools in a story, as long as you actually know that the looking-glass is a telescope. The being as great as Tolkien refers not to the prose but to the richness of the invented world, and the magnificent storytelling.

3. I might have misunderstood the mono cultural argument, or maybe not understood it at all. Culture is not made solely of language, but that is beside the point, in my absolutely not learned opinion culture in the real world can be traced largely to religion, and obviously environment, but also in a very big way to heritage, the past, the ancients, the age before, the age of legends. In the age of legends there was (as far as I know) one nation, one culture, in a high tech world where environs(climate) did not have such a great impact, and very importantly there was no religion. In the third age, there is still no religion, and gradually the tech is forgotten, the base for all people be they Arafellin or Taraboner is still the same. They develop different customs and other oddities. Some of the extremes are perhaps a little hard to swallow but where I come from there is a new saying that “exaggeration promotes comprehension”, it would be even more a blur of nothing if the sea folk did not spend ninty odd percent of their life on the sea, and so forth. I think that Jordan has made a diversity in the people of his world, giving the reader a good clear possibility to distinguish the different peoples, without the need of a separate volume or three to describe culture and background

I tend to agree that everybody speaking the same language after three thousand years is somewhat if not totally unbelievable.

But first off nobody understands even their own language completely after a few centuries, it is said that five hundred years ago a man from northern England, would not understand a Londoner. Today in my native country Denmark (for those who don't know it is about twice the size of New Hampshire, NH should be known these days), I do not understand the people for the most northern parts, or those from the most southern parts if they speak the local dialects. Language is a strange thing.

Second if Jordan should have incorporated a plausible way around this it would, either have been a total Tolkien rip-off , with some sort of “common traders tongue” or having made the books so much longer having to find a translator or explaining why this or that character knew this or that language, I think most would agree that telling the story is more important.

So whether you like it or not this I believe is an artistic liberty Jordan has taken, to make both his and our lives easier. I for one do not mind, actually I think maybe I like it better than Tolkiens option, but this would be a matter of taste.

As for the “Tolkien spent most of his life creating the world in which LotR is set in”, yes, so I have heard, sad that he did not show more of the world in his book. Sorry this is my time for sarcasm. Tolkien spend most of his life compiling and rewriting the myths and legends from which the devised the history of middle earth, then goes on to write a story in a world that has no recent history, a world where habitation was put down when the story directly required it. Jordan and Tolkien are/was writing two different, yet similar stories but with two completely different angles. Tolkien as it has been set out in several replies wrote a rather simple story in a world with a vivid history, in my opinion the world itself was strangely empty, and then suddenly a great city(Gondor), but it had history. Jordan tells a complex story or maybe even a number of stories within that great big overlay of good vs. evil. These stories are told in a living vibrant world, that has a thousand things in it, that has no direct bearing on the story, but without them the world would have been, well, empty. It would not have been cool if there had been nothing between Whitebridge and Caemlyn, no farms for Mat and Rand to find shelter or be chased away, no inns in villages where Rand could play the flute and Mat juggle, it would shorten the story, definitely, it could have made for picturesque descriptions of landscapes, certainly. But I think I read that book, it was called .... Lord – no, “the Rangers survival guide” or something :-). Seriously I think this is what makes Jordans world wonderful, the thousands of people in it, having one or two or twenty cultures.

4. I don't get it. If Johnamdor know anthropology that well, again I'm not learned, actually I'm an economist, would he not also know that people do not change over the course of only three thousand years. Who is to say that the Aiel did not originate from a cold climate? Today in Italy, Blonde blue-eyed people are born, raised, grow old and die. They would probably be able to trace their line as far back as church records are kept, finding that they have no ancestors born outside Italy. How? In the years of the old republic of Rome, in the time of Gaius Marius, and Lucius Sulla, the Cimbric, Teutonic and Jute tribes decided that Denmark and Northern Germany was too cold, and migrated, some survived the battles and stayed, their descendants are blond and blue eyed. This was around 110 BC

5. Yes it is hard to believe, but who is to say they didn't try. But technology is forgotten and rediscovered. To go on from number 4, the old Romans had concrete and central heating. How it was lost for nearly two thousand years is beyond me, but it was. So I agree but it is not without precedent.

6. This I think has been covered, I don't find the point justified.

7. Yes, well in that case I'll date Lanfear, and you can have Silvie ;-)

8. I will not go into that.

9. this one is the best

10. As compared to what? The forsaken are, if you must draw comparisons to LotR the equivalent of the Ringwraiths, they were just about as bad ass as you can get right? Well to my recollection the leader of them was killed by a young woman and a boy(oh well Hobbit). That did not diminish his being dangerous. It did however show two things. One, that characters like this often has over inflated reputations, and Two, They tend to underestimate the competition. Both are also true of the forsaken. And again I don't agree with the point, I think they have shown themselves to be dangerous, with the notable exceptions of Be'lal, who didn't really get the chance, Asmodean whose part in the play was another, and then you might count in Balthamel and Aginor who, I agree went a little too easy but apparently to a purpose (Aran'gar and Osan'gar).

11. Please consider the authors dilemma. He can make an obviously bumbling idiot as the big baddie, resulting in a story no one wants to read, because seeing Superman arm wrestle with the polio-ridden 7-year old girl who is nearsighted and has dyslexia so spelling “I” requires a dictionary, is just not fetching. On the other hand if the Big Baddie is too powerful we would have the worlds shortest 10 book series, as it would have ended with the prologue to Eye of the World, when Ishamael turns a lunatic Lew Therin to the Shadow, Now that would have made for a poorly written story, Yes?.

This besides the common argument that the Dark One really doesn't want Rand dead (A whole theory as why that is could be made), and as for setting the forsaken to wait, I don't think it would take more than a few hours before they would start killing each other.

12 As it has been pointed out, missed communication is common in most literature, I believe in real life as well, the most blatant, example, probably, is what we refer to as World War One, started entirely on assumptions that kicking the Serbs back in line would be no big bother, how wrong they were. Skipping the missed communication would make the story boring, all suspense is made up by the author keeping the reader out of the loop, making him/her guess what will happen or will he tell her, without this why read it, why not get a short synopsis of the plot and a general list of characters and say “Ok, I know the end now, cool, new book please”.

13. Try thinking of the Aiel as the Rangers, and the Warders as the Seal teams. These guys are special forces, black ops, covert thingy dudes. The Aiel has a military tradition and, most of all, the discipline to be a mighty fighting machine, on top of this their enemy is mostly scared s***less going to battle against them, this is not to be underestimated. The Shako of the Napoleonic time, an the bearskin headdress of a little later, seen on any 19th century European soldier was made so the soldier would seem larger than he was – only to intimidate the enemy. That is what is winning for the Aiel. If half the opposing troops turn away running I could beat Alexander the Great with half a decent army, providing my troops didn't run as well :-), don't forget that from the evidence in the books many of the men fighting in the Aiel war, was reguler people, farmes and so on. Basel Gill was there.

As for the warders being beaten by the younglins, Ouch. I can only say that they did not fight all the Warders, some sided with the Elaida faction (assuming they sided with their Aes Sedai), and usually in a “School” there are more students than teachers. But I have wondered about this myself, not so much the HOW but more the WHY. My conclusion is a bit psychotic. It serves to put Egwene and Gawyn on opposite sides, and will force Egwene's hero to become a turncoat, believe you me, Gawyn will be instrumental in the release of Egwene.

And then to your question

As to the why do I love the Wheel of Time, where to start, and not be a copy of all the others. The world, monocultural or not, has it all, happy people, angry people honorable people, I could go on, and I love the diversity. I am absolutely sold on stories with the plot within plot, and a side order of plots, and if you want dessert we have intrigue, with plot sauce, I am, and the Wheel of Time has this in abundance. Tolkiens story was great, and I still like it, but it is very single minded, and (without spite) this worked for me when I read it the first time 20 years ago, today I want more. Perfect prose or not, I want Passion to go along the heroes, I want real people with real weaknesses, and I'm getting it. I love figuring out that Cairhien the nation is France and Cairhien the City is New York(my personal pocket theories). If you don't, I'm sad because then I cannot share this with you.

It has been long and I still have the feeling that I didn't get all my point across, but if anybody is with me still, you might just be ready to read the Silmarillion :-), well thanks for hanging in there, hope I did not make too many mistakes (see below)

I have only one flaming – sorry Okflyboy, please look up Algebra in an encyclopaedia, I believe the concept is a few thousand years old, some of what you have learned even has the name of the Greek guy thinking it up a while back. And while you are here, check out post number 8 (4+4 no that was not nice, but I am tired and by now probably mean as well)

Don't encourage Johnamdor in thinking us fools!

OKflyboy: 2004-01-29

Holy cr... Sis I really say algebra?? Fair enought criticism then. I meant calculus... sheesh.

And as for the post 8 (1+1+4+2), you're right, he did reply, once. One (0+1)in, what now, 72(216504/3007)replies? I still think he's just trying to stir up trouble.

OKflyboy: 2004-01-29

Wow, and that should say "Did I really..." not "Sis". Can't even type now...

And, I CAN bring up earlier Heroes, how about Gilgamesh... :) (Sorry, but I felt compelled to prove I'm NOT as foolish as you might think...)

Jiana: 2004-01-30

Once upon a time, long ago in theoryland, Callandor replied to r-nilly thus:

**If that were the case we would all still be speaking latin.**

"Oh no, I think grunts, clicks, and body language would be best... but that would be hard making a novel then."

Jane Auel managed to do it. :) (Clan of the Cave Bears)

Jiana: 2004-01-30

Oh, and as for the "stolen" characters and plotlines.. someone mentioned that a great deal of Jordan's names for people and places, phrases and words in the Old Tongue come from our world, our history and literature. I actually enjoy the parallels. Yet another thing that makes the story more real to me. And this is back to point of view and opinion again (which is what this post is about anyway), but to me, the more real a story seems while you are reading it or discussing it, the greater it is. Can't picture myself at Bag End, but I CAN picture myself in most any place in WoT.

Unicorn: 2004-01-30

Okflyboy - I was tired and mean sorry truth is I think your argument was spot on - it IS what makes inventions great, and I liked the Rap music analogy too by the way, it would be sooooo boring if we were all moved by the same stuff

OKflyboy: 2004-01-30

***Okflyboy - I was tired and mean sorry truth is I think your argument was spot on - it IS what makes inventions great, and I liked the Rap music analogy too by the way, it would be sooooo boring if we were all moved by the same stuff ***

Unicorn,

No harm no foul. And I thought your arguments were good as well. And I think you're right. In an attempt to defend Mr. Jordan and the Wheel of Time, many fans will go about attacking Tolkien. It's too bad..

Truth be told, I enjoy Tolkien every bit as much as Jordan, but for different reasons. Quite appropriately, since they are very different...

And as for the Gilgamesh reference, and my (#)s in response to yours... I couldn't help myself... :)

phenila: 2004-02-03

*but i want someone to tell me why they think WOT is so great*

Several years ago my brother handed me five books. He said I think you might like this series. I thought cool! a five book series I can get into that! I started and couldn't stop. The story grabbed me. At the end of five I actually looked for more pages. Where was the end of the story? I called my brother, "Where can I get six?" "Hasn't been published yet. Due out in a few months." Fortunately he was four hundred miles away at the time. It saved his life. Since then i have read the books many times. i just love 'em. When tPOD was released, my son got me an autographed copy and sent it overnight mail. I called the post office at 7 a m and asked if the package was in. It was! I walked six blocks in a snowstorm and got the post office to give me my package before they had even opened for business. Read the first six chapters at a cafe a block away. Couldn't wait any longer than that to get into the story. Could it be that i love the plots, the characters, the way RJ draws the reader into the tale? Naw! I think TOR puts and addictive substance in the ink used in the books which is then absorbed through the skin......

Dragonsworn: 2004-02-04

I was wondering. How is RJ going to finish the serious in two books, i mean on top of the main plot and the fact rand still has to unite everyone and the fight tg. What about all the little substories that havent been finished

Daebril: 2004-02-14

I have to admit that the first time I read the series (when it was only 3 books long) I hated it.

As a matter of fact it was only my friends' continual questions and theories about the story that forced me to re-read it at all.

However after reading it and giving it a fair chance it becomes apparent that while rj doesn't follow classic english prose he has quite an epic story to tell and the depth of forshadowing and plot is pretty near unparalelled in english and I believe that that's why it is regarded so highly amoung many fantasy scholars.

Plus it draws popularity from focusing on a battle between the sexes, which either pisses people off to no end and forces them to read on until the new balance is acheived, or invokes a morbid curiousity in a society run almost completely by women, but is always popular.

The part that really appeals to me is the depths he goes to define the world and the functions of magic in the world. So while he might not be the best of writers his idea is beautiful, terrorizing his work for love of tradition is like saying emily dickinson was a lousy poet because she worked in a primitive struture of poetry.

As for the other stuff Anthropology has little to do with the break down of these cultures because there were still many uniting forces left in the world after the and even during the breaking the aes sedai who still spanned the known world, upkeep of trade amoung founding nations and a common language and most importantly they are not isolated enough to need to evolve their own language and there is no real reason to do that anyway. A good question would be why did the old tongue die out? Why are there so few remnants of it in the language?

You would have to read further to understand the aiel though but I know that was said earlier, natural adaptations have nothing to do with anything after the breaking because unless there's new genes entering the pool stuff doesn't change and red hair and blue eyes breed true because they are recessive... so yah, lots of sunburn for those fair haired denizens of the waste :)

Darren: 2004-02-17

phenila? You started five books in and had to wait a whole 3 months for book six? Two words:

Boo.

Hoo.

I would write a lot more, but I have no wish to start an "I've been reading longest" thread.

~note from Tamyrlin: I don't want to start a "who has been reading longer" thread either, but I have been reading since '92. :)~

dragonsceptor: 2004-02-17

We could start an I've been reading for the shortest time thread ;) I've only been reading since October.

Nine Moons: 2004-02-18

RJ's books appeal to people because feelings in the story can be related to. And because there are people in the world who need to grasp their full attention on something and raise the bar of fandom.

Oh, and Dragonsceptor, I'd win the 'I've been reading for the shortest time' thread, I've only been reading since November.

OKflyboy: 2004-02-18

dragonscepter,

you've got me beat my 3 months... rats!

:)

Darren: 2004-02-19

Wow, I thought you'd have had me beat, Tamyrlin. I've been reading since TGH came out in trade paperback... I can't remember when that was exactly... I think '89. I know the books were coming out every year back then. (It's hard to believe it now, when he takes so long to put out a "padded bra" like CoT, but he put out the first six all within a calendar year of each other.)

Tamyrlin: 2004-02-21

~Tamyrlin: the author of this thread submitted a reply a while ago, but it didn't have a name, so I kept it, but didn't post it...sorry. So, here is the response~

----

As Jiana pointed out this could go on forever, so I will try to finish what I started.

My intention was to find different points of view on the more technical aspects of RJ. True, I would not read 10 books if there was nothing there; that would just be insane. He writes a compelling story but I have many problems with his delivery and with what seems to me a very subtle racial/cultural differentiation. This is not a blanket criticism, the prologue to EotW was excellently written and a brilliant example of plot development and suspense. Simillarly, the Aiel do have a varied culture. But, the style soon gets bogged down on repetition(I have no problem re-reading if I have forgotten some detail, but if there must be repetition of old themes he should either give it at the start as an introduction ala Tad Williams or give it a different or humourous slant ala Terry Pratchett) and off-point descriptions (I feel more time is spent describing clothes than emotions)

Perhaps it is because I am Irish I tend towards Tolkien. But most of you have given me new perspectives on the book. For instance, War and Peace is a pretty dry book if you don't know any French or Russian history or culture, and the overall impression I get (and I might be wrong) is that RJ is orientated to Americans in a no-nonsense style in the way JRRT wrote for English dreamers and stuffy academics. In a sense this is the most important thing that I take from this site (am I wrong to assume that most of you are American -there are some suggestions eg. High School, mentioning of home towns etc?) that WoT gives a good insight into American culture.

As to the suggestion that LotR can be reduced to Frodo goes to the shops etc., so can the WoT to Guy comes to terms with the possibility of maybe saving the world eventually. I cannot say either summary is in anyway accurate so please don't belittle The Lord of the Rings.

Tolkien said himself that the Eagles did not obey Gandalf, but were persuaded occasionally to let him ride on his back. It is a force of nature that cannot be relied on, kinda like Rand before he could control the power in the first three books.

On a personal level, I read the Lord of the Rings when I was 10 in 1992, so it is not fair criticism of me to say that I'm like an old man saying they're not built like they used be – both were available to me at the same time. That I read WoT afterwards and when older may prejudice me somewhat, but I cannot agree that Tolkien wrote well solely for his day. Language has not changed dramatically in 50 years, and people of my generation can understand Tolkien without difficulty. His use of anachronisms (a deliberate touch) gave a sense of an old yet timeless story set in an unfamiliar world. I cannot but feel that Jordan does not have such stylistic considerations when he uses malapropisms like looking glass or oxymorons like “infintesimal nod”. The reason I don't think these are deliberate is that they only confuse me and do not give me a sense of difference. That is why I started by asking if I was missing something.

But I am now just rambling. I intend to look back over WoT with the views expressed here in mind. Thanks for everyone who answered, perhaps someday soon I will post a real theory.

In particular;

Flinn; well put; I'll try to see the wood from the trees from now on.

Lorddragonwolf; “i have noticed that jorden has taken alot of our own history and legends and incorperated them into his writings taking away the cultural referenses from them” – if you mean American History could you point me to somewhere that this can be further explained or give me a few comparisons? I think that this is one of the things I might have missed when reading WoT so far. In exchange (as I wave a little Irish Flag) I will postulate that Jordan took a lot from Celtic and Irish history – for example, the name Aes Sedai is derived from a mystical group from an island off the coast of Ireland

Isabel; “Only not all the people can identify themselves with the characters. Fortunately, I do”. That's never stopped me before from enjoying a book. In fact, the most enjoyable books for me are those which allow me access to another person's life. Perhaps I feel detached from the characters because I cannot sympathise with them (as I don't have the same cultural base as Jordan). You would feel the same about Joyce's characters, even more so about O'Casey's. If you would care to speak more about your affinity with the characters I would really appreciate it, although I would not expect it of you of course!

Rubbernily; I would happily discuss plot holes in LotR with you, but it would not be appropriate in a public forum. If you want you can ask Tamyrlin for my email address and I will gladly give permission for him to release it to you. Of the Deus Ex solutions you mention;

Tom Bombadil was one of my favourite characters in Lotr, and one of the biggest criticisms that me and my friends had of the films is that he was cut out. He was a magical spirit of the woods, who seeks out the hobbits and tells them to call him when in need. If I recall, Moiriane seeks out rand and co. and offers to help them stay alive (in particular in the barrow downs/Shadar Logoth), and the women can find stuff in T'A'R when in need so in relative terms he isn't conspicuous.

The Eagle which flies in at the end is not a necessary plot point; perhaps when the ring was destroyed the eagle felt very amenable and no longer feared Mordor. This is at the end and the hobbits could just as easily walked to Minas Tirith and met him in a bar. I accept that this type of explaination could justify some of Jordan's discrepancies, but it's a minor point in LoTR and so is not really a timely detail.

The ring finding its way is a central theme of the book – the ring can be an allegory for whatever you want i.e. power, money, a wedding ring – and his point is that this inanimate object or ideal has a magnetism of its own thus explaining Smeagol etc.

That the rings of power have an ambiguous strength is again a major theme of the book – its power varies with its user. With the one ring Hobbits and Dwarfs become invisible and age slower, being unmagical creatures. Humans become stronger and crueller, elves become incredibly powerful being normally magical, and powerful spirits like Gandalf, Elrond or Saruman go beserk with the power or (in WoT parlance) corruption. The effect on your typical Dark Lord makes him several times more powerful, but binds him to its fate. The other rings are either in Saruon's Jewelry box or kept safe (hence Gandalf displays his after the destruction of the ring). Lesser magic weapons etc are well forged in something like Age of Legends obscurity and magic is channelled from nature, similar to the One Power but I think this is only explained in later work. I do not know about the power of Lothlorien other than it comes from nature and spirits of the woods, but how is it different to the Talents in RJ such as Dreamreading or Eladia's foresight thing and in any case the powers of the Elves (a magical race) is small in comparison with the balefire and travelling of the Aes Sedai.

And as for all the timely appearances of characters e.g. Strider, Farmer Maggot or anyone else, when Taim appears in Dumani Wells and Jordan glosses over how he knew where to go, when Lan appears just in time to save Nynaeve and other such quick remedies, I have no problems with any of these in either book. They are the things that add to suspense and sense of danger.

As for your muffin analogy, I don't understand. The ring is just a thing, but a powerful thing like a sa'angrel, only that if it gets into the hands of Sauron then it is bye bye world. The power of the ring is explained from the start.

To summarise, the plot is deliberately simple so that the more complex world around it is revealed. Robert Jordan takes a similar plot, adds some half explained sub-plots and then convolutes it with 10 books worth of repetition and fashion tips. If RJ wrote the series first and then cut out unnecessary words to fill the original 7 books I would love it. I would not be writing this. If you feel that I haven't discharged your criticism fully then please don't be shy.

“Jordan writes in what is perfect english prose.” – explain an infinitesimal nod then. I did not assume the language was better. I found that the language was more poetic, and the fact that JRRT was an English professor and RJ a physicist can be offered as proof of calibre.

Spearmaiden; I read the books in the hope that they can equal Tolkien, but I feel that RJ's language and concept elaboration falls short. In terms of good story – if both were made into 2hour(or, more likely, 10 hour) film they would both hold equal appeal for me.

Ranman38; My sentiments exactly

And of course, Tamyrlin for posting this. The friend I mentioned at the start still wont talk to me because of the arguments I set out above, and I have learned a bit more about the reasons for her fanaticism.

OKflyboy: 2004-02-21

Johnamdor,

Wow. I have to say,I'm impressed. I really thought you were out just to stir up trouble, but that was a well thought out argument with none of the "Jordan sucks" undertones that seemed to run rampant through your original post. Thank you for taking the time to write such a long and serious arguement, especially when it seemed like so many of us wanted to strangle you. :)

I'd like to officially apaolgize for jumping to conclusions.

BTW- I had no idea about the origon of the term 'Aes Sedai' that's a cool trivia fact to know. Thanks!

Persephone: 2004-02-21

As my first reply I thought this was a good thread to begin with. It seems this thread has become more a comparison and contrast between Jordan and Tolkein so I too will add my commentary.

First I like both fantasies. And for that very reason. I love fantasy. And unlike romance, fantasy is a smaller genre and therefore most fan have read them all. I won't go into what everyone else is sayingabout their stylistic difference because I want to address some other points.

1. Jordan's richness is what attracts me to the story. He has so much scope, and he does it in the one long epic, where Tolkein did it in split books that most people did not read until after TLOtR. Jordan's world has been unfolding since 1991-92 when I began reading it in high school. (Hard to think I am now 3 years out of college ad still waiting for the end.:)

2. the gender issue is a big carrotstick for readers - it's got sex appeal without even having the sex - people can't help but get drawn into the conflict of men vs. women, because you are either male or female and therefore have your own opinion on the matter.

3.the subplots are so many, there's bound to be one favorite for everyone.

4. allegory - people like seeing familiarity - ,the celtic, teutonic, native american mythology woven into the story again. You're bound to find somethink you like because of the vastness of the cultural spectrum.

**overall I really love both series, but I think we are really snubbing what I would say on a par - or the current rival for best fantasy along with WOT - A Song of Ice and Fire by George R R Martin.

details, characters, subplots, personal agendas, and magic (though not in the vein of Tolkein's mythical magic nor Jordan's systematic magic, but instead a religious based magic - one of the elements noticeably left out of the other 2 epics)

okay that's enough nit picking. hope this explains my love for the series in particular and some other epics

Davian93: 2004-02-21

**overall I really love both series, but I think we are really snubbing what I would say on a par - or the current rival for best fantasy along with WOT - A Song of Ice and Fire by George R R Martin.****

It's not that we're snubbing it, we're simply not discussing it in the comparison between WoT and LoTR. Its nothing against aSoIaF, as far as I know, alot of people here read and enjoy that series. All three are excellent fantasy series. Although I have to say aSoIaF can be pretty dark sometimes. But then that's about what I expect out of a former Disney employee.

Darren: 2004-02-23

I've read the Martin books, and my brother loves them, but I find them dull. Every chapter is a new POV, and there are now so many characters that it takes FOREVER for any plot resolution to occur.

I AM glad to see that Martin (unlike Jordan) is unafraid to actually kill off major characters, but he might have gone a bit far in the other extreme.... will any Starks be left at the end?

Martin is OK, but for "contenders" I think you have to go to Canada and check out Tad Williams. He doesn't write "epics" but he does write some solid tales. And he finishes them. (hint hint to RJ)

Persephone: 2004-02-23

Sacriledge! :) I must say the numerous PoV's do get trying, but let's not forget the outrage that happened when Mat was gone for a whole book because of so many other's Pov's and their plotlines. A note to both authors, "write tight" as they say. I guess that's part of the problem, we all want the story to keep going and we want it to come to a resolution at the same time.

Martin is darker than Jordan, but that was kind of the point since there was a comparison made that Tolkein was too soft and that Jordan's writing showed more realism by having more violence. I thought pointing to Martin would further the spectrum since some of his main characyers (as mentioned) do actually die.

I haven't read Tad Williams except for his short story in Legends and it was one of my favorites of the whole anthology.

But back to comparing. I find it very strange that Peter jackson, Robert Jodran, and Martin all have a similar look. Maybe that's the real key to being a great fantasy author/director/etc. -just a crazy thought:)

Darren: 2004-02-23

oh MAN!!! Did I say Tad Williams... He's not from Canada... I must be working too hard. I mean, I liked "Memory, Sorrow and Thorn" by Williams, but I meant Guy Gavriel Kay. Sheesh, I must be getting alzheimer's or something.

Davian93: 2004-02-24

I like Jordan alot better than Martin, although Martin is probably more realistic as to characters dying off. Real life is good and all but it would be nice for one or two of the Starks to survive. As for the three of them, Tolkien, Jordan, and Martin, I like all three of them. Although I Jordan a little better than the other two because there are simply more books. Martin needs to write faster, he makes Jordan look like a quick writer.

Jiana: 2004-02-24

Darren, I don't think you're getting Alzheimers... I get the idea that you are like many of us, and your head is so crammed full of WoT trivia (and that of other books) that its difficult to remember anything else... :)

JohnAmdor, thank you for your posts. Personally, I never wanted to strangle you, just defend my position. :)

OKflyboy: 2004-02-24

**Personally, I never wanted to strangle you, just defend my position. :)**

You mean I was the only one? =^P

Arbryan: 2004-03-09

Even though this topic has probably long run out, I finally sat down and read through “most” of it. For the art of stating my opinion, I can't say that it is the ONE best, because not only is that subjective but I have other favorites that rank high on my personal list. I enjoy each one of them differently.

I'd like to go back and address the original question of why does the WoT appeal to me.

Daes Dae'mar.

There has been mention of the countless plots woven into the story as well as the description of characters from various points of view. This is just the tip of the iceberg. Jordan has not only introduced us to Daes Dae'mar he has drawn us in. There are stories within the story. There are layers upon layers upon layers. Jordan himself stated in an email to someone (can't recall the exact quote so I'll summarize it) that he wrote a simple story on the surface. He also mentions the complexity put into the story for those that want to search for it. This site itself is proof that both the complexity and those that seek it are in existence.

Perspective plays a very key role in the world we are shown. We see different sides of the same coin and it becomes more real to us because it is not just a flat piece of silver with an imprint. It is the food a starving man wants to buy; the motive for the murder of a man on his way home from a hard days labor; the one forgotten by the noble woman that has more than she knows what to spend it on; a purposely neglected mark to test the loyalty of a servant. Yet, it is still only a coin it is now perceived to have value. That value is what Jordan is giving us through his use of Daes Dae'mar. Another aspect that is very prevalent is the method in which concepts and peoples are introduced into the story. You will usually learn about the perception first, then the point of view as an initial encounter takes place, and finally (and not always) you discover the reality of that concept, peoples, or legend. He takes us on a journey through his world and uses the Great Game in the telling. Simply put, it's masterfully done.

The fight scenes: To me, the fighting can make or break a fantasy novel. Let's face it; if you read fantasy you have some fairly high expectations of A) magic and B) fighting. Jordan has done justice with both. His fight scenes are exceptionally well done. I personally haven't read a series that does the same thing to my adrenaline during a fight. In this instance it is the allowance for me to interpret what is happening while being guided through the forms. Instead of a barrage of chaotic fighting it is a choreographed literary event. Boar rushes down the Mountain, as an example of allowing the reader to interpret some of the fight themselves and is the perfect counter-point to - swords slam together emitting blue sparks as they clash. – For me, this builds the tension and delivers a fight that is brought into my head as opposed to me having to bring it in and build my own mental picture. It makes the process of internalization effortless.

(I purposely skipped A since it has been covered fairly in-depth further up the post)

Jordan has avoided a number of my personal pet peeves and THAT is no easy feat. The most common, and most severe of these is the mentally and creatively challenged hero that is continuously put in impossible situations and is “written” out of them by knowing “exactly what to do”. Sometimes something can be considered better than the norm if it avoids the pitfalls that have become rather commonplace.

GRRM: Is also one of my favorite authors, and aSoIaF is without a doubt exceptional work IMHO. He is true and loyal to the story, not all of the main characters. I won't go into an in-depth analysis of GRRM, just thought I'd mention my agreement with his talent as well.

I don't think I like one more than the other (Jordan and Martin), but I can tell you that they are both good because they not only entertain but also promote thought. I read to not only escape the mundane, but to stretch my mind. I don't just read anything I can get my hands on and therefore truly appreciate when a storyteller comes along and tells a story worth reading again and again.

stants: 2004-03-11

IMO Comparing Jordan to Tolkein is comparing apples to oranges. Although they both write in the genre of fantasy, they are very different writers.

I must disagree strongly with rubber's assessment that Tolkein's story is "simple" or not a good story. It is not laced with the same detail that Jordan's is...but of course it also is not ~9,000 pages long. Detail and complexity are not synonymous. Take, for example, the Tao Te Ching. It is a scant 81 chapters, most consisting of less than 100 words, and yet it is one of the most complex works of literature/philosophy that has been written. The complexity lays in the ideas. If you truly believe that the ideas contained in LoTR are simple, then I suggest you re-read the trilogy.

Turning back to Jordan and Tolkein, I see them as stylistically very different. To borrow a concept from Terry Goodkind, Jordan (and also George R.R. Martin) is a "world-builder." Of course Goodkind, with his overly narrow view of the world (another story for another time) ascribes a negative, and overly simplistic, connotation to "world-building." I harbor no such sentiments and find value in what RJ and Martin do. Jordan and Martin employ a style, seemingly more and more popular that gives you insight into the nature, personality, soul of each character by writing from a plethor of POV. Tolkein, on the other hand, writes about an idea. The LoTR isn't meant to give you a glimpse into the soul or personality of Gandalf, Frodo, Aragorn, or Denethor. It is meant to give you a glimpse into the soul of Man. The Ring is not a tangible object. It is a symbol. It is temptation. And the story is the story of man's struggle against/with temptation. It is a story about sin, and about how we as human must cope with sin and temptation. Stephen R. Donaldson does the same. Goodkind tries (and in my opinion, mostly fails) to do the same---in the end all he does is regurgitate Ayn Rand's ridiculous objectivist dribble. A message board re: WoT contains threads like, Who killed Asmodean?, Is so-and-so Black Ajah? How will Perrin rescue Faile? Each appeals to the mystery solver, puzzler in us. If one has not that gene, then RJ could be quite frustrating indeed. A LoTR message board might have threads related to Why did Denethor forsake Faramir and love Boromir? Why did Gandalf refuse the ring? These are retrospective, as opposed to the prospective, questions. They look to the mysteries that remain unexplained, and yet are essential questions related to the theme of the books.

Another way to cast the difference between Tolkein and RJ is to label them Macro and Micro. Jordan/Martin write in the micro. Tolkein and Donaldson in the Macro. Or, put another way, Tolkein and Donaldson are sociologists. Jordan and Martin are pyschologists. LoTR is concerned with how mankind struggles with temptation. WoT is concerned with how individuals struggle with the challenges of facing evil, facing death. One is not better than the other and both offer different insights into human nature. I happen to like both, hence I enjoy both LoTR and WoT.

In another sense, the conflict that drives each story is different. And conlfict is an essential component to every story...it drives the plot. LoTR the conflict, on the surface, appears to be man v. evil. But I suggest the conflict is deeper. Man v. himself. I submit that LoTR offers a glimpse into how and why man is tempted. At this point, after reading 1-10, I still have yet to see any plot-driving conflict in WoT other than man v. evil. In other words, I have yet to figure out why RJ is telling this story. I can see how this would frustrate some.

I am not out to trumpet or champion any one author above another or any style over another. We all have our personal choices and preferences. To suggest that Tolkein is 'simplistic' misses the point, I think. By the same token, to suggest that because RJ writes differently than Tolkein he necessarily must not be as good also misses the point. Those people who don't prefer to engage in philosophical, sociological, macro type thinking tend not to find much interesting in Tolkein. Those who don't like to dabble in the economcial, psychological, micro type thinking tend to become frustrated with RJ. Hence, I can see why some people choose not to read either author. Me, I like em both.

100

timetorollthedice: 2004-03-17

I would never Flame a theory...I would balefire it. :)

Why I like it...

A few examples:

We are introduced to a game called Snakes & Foxes. As time goes by, we get a little more detail of what the game looks like, how it's played, &c. We also at some point pick up that it is based on the world of the Finns. There are so many stories intertiwined with each other. I love that depth.

Another example would be the relationship between the Aiel and the Tinkers. We meet the Tinkers and think, "what odd people". In book four we learn where they came from and how they're related to the Aiel and how they fit in with the story. All the history that is involved in that...again, the depth.

Other examples include: The Travels of Jain Farstrider-then we meet him; explanation in book 1 of Lan's cousin leaving-he shows up later as Slayer; the tinkers looking for the song in book 1-we learn in book 4 why; we meet Birgitte in TGH-she comes into the story later as a main character; and on and on.

I read LOTR after seeing The Fellowship of the Ring. I enjoyed the story but thought it was too wordy. (My wife and I read it together and kept asking each other "Do you mind if we skip this part?") I kept thinking that by reading the poetry I would be given a clue into the story. It never happened. With RJ, everything you read may have an impact on anything else, no matter how pointless it seems at the time.

One final point: In TFOH (I think) in a Rand POV it says something like "Why don't one of the Forsaken just open a gateway into Cairhien and let in thousands of Trollocs?" RJ knows that the FS could do these things but they don't. The Light only knows why.

101

Darren: 2004-03-20

they don't send the trollocs in because the DO has commanded them not to attack Al'thor, and they no better than to disobey the Dark One.

Rest assured, when Shai'tan decides that it is time to attack, there will be a lot of blood.

102

istarifire: 2004-05-03

lol, this has been so chewed up its hard to say anything original. One thing, However, that Tolkien did in the appendices and the simarrilion is he wrote in archaic english. thee and thou and whatnot. Tolkien was a story teller that comes along once a century. However, i thought that many of Tolkiens characters were "too good" You rarely see the dark side unless its involved with the ring. RJ's characters are very human. They have lusts and greed and ambition (lol those are all the same thing) Galad might be "perfect" but his "perfection" leads him to doing harm to those around him. Even the Aes SEdai who are supposed to be the wisest in the land can be corrupt. There are no perfect elves of wonder. I do love both Tolkien and RJ's books so i should probably not be talking *runs away*

103

: 2004-05-28

Ok, first of all, I finally read ALL the posts on this thread, and I really appreciate that you posted a topic like this, because it gives us all a chance to explain the reasons we are reading wot. I have a question for Johnamdor. Why would you read the series, look and find a site based on the series, become a member to the sight, and post on theory bad-mouthing the books? Your first post came off as a burn on WOT, but a later reply indicates that during the course of all the post, only then, did you change your opinion. Ok. Now to address your statements:

1) I haven't read Dune, but I can surey tell you that characters throughout every novel can have similarities to other cahracters in other novels. They have some things in common, just as they have some things different. And another thing to point out; Jordan is trying to tie together all myths, legends, and tales, in one series, and he uses a theme of miscommunication, and the fact that a story retold over centuries is remade and changes as it is retold.

2) Writing in perfect english prose does not make Tolkein a better writer. It makes his writing better grammatically, (mainly in fault of jordan's editors; so many errors, tsk, tsk) but not his overall writing skill.

3) Monculture! Whoa man, take some time to actually read the series. What about the Aiel, Sea Folk, Tinkers, Sharans, Seanchan, Ogier, Shadowspawn. I'll admit that the Shadowspawn are not so much as cultures as the rest, but they do assemble in to septs and tribes, which kind of vouches for a custom. Let's not forget the differen cultures within each country/state/city. You have saldeans, which are very different from the borderlands, which have their own customs and saying, who also differ from Cairheinin's(sp?). If you base the cultures on the different amount of languages, then I'm sorry but that is not a correct way to analyze robert jordan's writing. Alot of the cultures have very slight differences, that when you reread the book, you notice it, and you realize just how deep the culture goes.

4) Im not an anthroplogist, and neither is RJ. I'm pretty confident he didn't write this series planning what would be Anthropologically correct.

5) Another thing to consider in this argument is that no one has had the talent for this, and no one has been as strong as Elayne. Also, every thousand years or so, everytime civilation is making a step towards uniting the lands, and making things right, good old Ishy steps in and screws it up. There have been too many devastating wars and conflicts to actually make time for this. Most people have been rebuilding from the Aiel wars(cairhein) and the Aes Sedai are to busy manipulating each other to their own benefit to try. Not to mention their nack for doing things the way they were taught. (One of the yellows got upset because of Nynaeves new way of healing. It wasn't how they were taught)

6/7) It has been stated, so I'll just restate it. We see mutiple points of view throughout the series. Each person has got to be shorter, taller, or the same height as someone else. It depends on which view you take. Egwene is rather short, so POV from her would regard people being exceptionally taller. It has also been stated that it helps to show the two rivers folk attachment to Emonds Field. Once they get out into the world, they realize there is alot more than they are used to. It broadens the scope for the reader.

8) All I can say to this, is that you have to know where you are at to travel, not the destination, and wait util the end of the series to judge what is used when needed. RJ is good at giving us something like that, then later it becomes important.

9)?

10) That is something that emphasizes the theme that stories get bigger with each retelling. The forsaken are just people but, they were the strongest channelers in the world at that time, they are pomised immortality and they know secrets from the AOL. That is pretty dangerous to the common soldier. To a person like Rand, amybe not, but they sure would scare me if they showed up on my doorstep.

11) " Or, for that matter, made for reasons unknowable to a human mind. Remember, the Dark One is NOT human and thinking of him in human terms just doesn't work."

-Tor question of the week

The DO does not think as we think, so his motives are unknown to us. Many beleive that he wants to turn the Dragon. I myself beleive it is something that no one will ever be able to comprehend.

12) Miscommunication is always a great way to make suspense. If Mat told Egwene what he had to do, he wuldn't be the stubborn ol' Mat now would he? He would be the "make a awesome character into a terrible excuse for oxygen use Mat".

13) The trained experienced soldiers are not incompetent to Aiel, just in hand to hand. Lan easily could cut his way through a couple of Aiel, as could Gareth Bryne and all of them. The Aiel are raised from birth ro fight, and have the mind for fighting. Aiel are thinking "I must fight because my honor depends on it, I must win...blah blah". The soldier is thinking "When am I gonna get payed for this? Dang, I left the stove on. I hope sherry turned it off before she went to go play the game of houses"

OK, the reason WOT is so great, is because:

It is a story that is original, that combines almost nearly every piece of tall tales, myth, legend, and even some Shakespeare. (there was a romeo and juliet refference somewhere) It is unpredictable, and yet predictable at the same time. You know what is supposed to happen because of the prophecies, but you don't know when, why, how, and where, if it does at all. Another simple fact is that, I don't know another series that can spark thousands of sites (aside from LOTR) like this site. Whew. I'm tired so good night.

104

wattj69: 2004-06-22

ok, I didn't have time to look at every comment, so I'm sorry if someone already said this, but as to your comment concerning all the different languages cropping up from the old tongue: there is only one language, it just is ever so slightly different all over. and if you have a problem with it being different from the old tongue completely you should try talking to someone speaking whatever language english evelved from 3500 years ago. I really doubt you'd understand a word being spoken.

105

Tanis: 2004-06-23

I'm fairly new to the WoT world having read all the books in 2004 (and this maybe where I'm going wrong), but if I'm allowed (and not wishing to flame anything!) can I add something slightly different....LotR - brilliant films, books get skip read (Tolkien does waffle a tad!); WoT - fantastic depth of story and plot, but with a couple of exceptions (mainly Perrin and Matt) none of the characters have dragged me in and made me want to read more. Nothing new there!

The controversial bit is that I have enjoyed neither series (allowing for the fact that WoT is not yet finished and therefore perhaps is being compared unfairly) as much as Weis & Hickman's Dragonlance stuff (the original chronicles and most of the following works). Plots were far simpler and characters less flawed (again with a few exceptions) but this was pure fantasy and it was a world in which one did not have to constantly try and remember where a character came from and what his/her/its plot influence was/is.

Although don't get me wrong...........do I really have to wait another year for Book 11 (feeling very sorry for those who've been reading WoT since 1990!!!)

106

Cor Shan: 2004-06-23

Ok first off, if Tolkien writes in 'perfect english prose', why did it take me four months to crawl through tTT, and even them, I couldn't understand it. All the plot is drowned out by fluff. RJ... now it takes me 2 months to get through most every one.

It depends when it comes to detail recall. Im sure some Tolkien nutcase can speak fluent elven, and recite the LOTR books in it, but I couldn't remember the plot.

WOT is medium-hard to recal everything, but it is easier than LotR

DLC - simple. Dont like anything after Summer Flame. Also dont like how we never find out who Usha really is. Palin rocks.

WoT is great because:

It has a vast, colourful world.

The characters are 3d. (tolkien apparently borrowed some cookie cutters)

Everything makes sense (JRRT is like a cheap magician - keeps everything up his sleeve)

107

Brendan Reborn: 2004-06-25

**The controversial bit is that I have enjoyed neither series (allowing for the fact that WoT is not yet finished and therefore perhaps is being compared unfairly) as much as Weis & Hickman's Dragonlance stuff (the original chronicles and most of the following works). Plots were far simpler and characters less flawed (again with a few exceptions) but this was pure fantasy and it was a world in which one did not have to constantly try and remember where a character came from and what his/her/its plot influence was/is.**

Actually, one of the greatest things about WOT is the depth of the plot. It is plot upon plot upon plot under plot...etc. That's the greatness of it, you don't read a simple book. You read an epic fantasy series that is just as wide and deep as anything in real life. The characters being flawed is just another thing to add realism here. You can't have everyone in the world perfect, because that would make for a boring predictable book. It's great the RJ can keep WOT so real, yet have so many fantastical elements.

108

wattj69: 2004-06-25

ya, those of you from 1990, seriously...I've been going since last year and I feel like ripping my hair out. how do you do it?

109

: 2004-06-27

(Note from the Tamyrlin: This reply came in without a username, no fault of the user, because it is long enough, depending on the browser, so the session timed out. But, I read through it, and didn't want to deny the author of the post his/her say. Please, once again, try not to flame in your responses.)

I couldn't agree more with you, Johnamdor.

Personally, I can't believe Jordan hasn't been sued for plagarism yet.

To me, the popularity of WoT is proof of the disintegration of the English language and of the public education system in America. The only reason people like Jordan is because he writes at a second-grade reading level. Those of us who can read are able to appreciate what great literature is, and we cringe at the following that has been gathered by such second-hand trash as WoT.

In my opinion, there are three areas of criterion in which good fiction is to be judged: characterization, plot, and execution (i.e. the author's writing style and how he presents his story). For example: Shakespeare's plots are not all that great. For one thing, none of them were original. His characters are usually moderately good, with a few great ones, Prospero and Ariel from The Tempest, Hamlet, Caius Cassius, etc. But what makes Shakespeare shine is his fantastic execution, that is, his use of iambic pentameter, the puns, repetition, and choice of words. That's what makes Shakespeare great-- his flawless execution.

Every one of Jordan's characters is stolen. And what's worse, where Shakespeare improved upon what he stole, Jordan has completely mangled it. His characters are flat, stock stereotypes, created by rote. I agree with you, Johnamdor, if I have to see one more stoic male running around with a pissy woman I am going to puke. So Jordan fails characterization with an unprecedented triple F.

The plot is a total disaster. It runs from plagarized fragment to plagarized fragment, becoming completely knotted up in the process. There is no flow. Some things happen without reason while others that are necessary for clarity's sake are completely omitted. The dramatic timing is all wrong, and the ending flops (yes, it audibly flops).

And execution? Is there anyone living who can possibly construct a more fragmented, nonsense sentence than Jordan? I don't think the guy could have passed freshman English. At least, he certainly shouldn't have.

Furthermore, The Hobbit was written for and loved by English school children. Yet it's over the heads of the majority of fantasy-reading American adults (or so it would seem). That is a fact that makes me want to cry.

As to the claims that Tolkien lacks significant female characters, consider the following list:

Eowyn, Shieldmaiden of Rohan (if you don't know her story, you have to right to call yourself a fantasy buff)

Arwen Evenstar

Galadriel, keeper of Nenya, the ring of water, considerably more powerful than her husband, Celeborn

Aredhel

Earwen

Elbereth, i.e. Varda "The Exalted" "The Lofty" "the Lady of the stars"

Elwing

Emeldir, called the Man Hearted, who rescued her people from the aftermath of the Dagor Bragollach; mother of Beren

Este

Finduilas

Gloredhel

Lady Haleth, a leader of the Haladin

Idril

Ilmare

Indis

Inzilbeth

Luthien

Melian (again, vastly more powerful than her husband, keeper of incredible magic-- "the Girdle of Melian")

Miriel

Tarmiriel

Morwen

Nerdanel The Wise

Nessa

Nienna, Lady of pity and mourning

Nienor

Nimloth

Rian

Silmarien

Thuringwethil "Woman of Secret Shadow", a sorceress and servant of Sauron

Uinen

Vaire

Vana

Yavanna, numbered among the Aratar

Oh, and we can't forget Shelob, to name a few.

And as for Tolkien not having any characters who tread the line between good and evil, who could be more in the grey than the fellow who started it all, Feanor, most gifted of the elves, creator of the Silmarils, cast out of Valinor, sworn enemy of Morgoth?

(I apologize, by the way, that many of the names are incorrect, but the formatting of this word processor won't allow me to add the proper accent marks, umlauts, etc.)

And what about Eol, the Dark Elf, and his son Maeglin? Or the great hero Turin who accidentally wed his sister?

Even Frodo himself spends a great deal of time wavering on that precipice that marks where good ends and evil begins.

Jordan is the Nora Roberts of fantasy genre. Whereas Tolkien's works were a life-long obsession, taking close to twenty years following publishing of The Hobbit to put together Lord of the Rings, Jordan cranks out WoT works like the cheap reproductions they are. Jordan's focus is on profit lines. Tolkien's was on great literature. You say you're waiting on book eleven? Tolkien's genius is contained within four concise volumes.

And back to Jordan's habit of "borrowing" characters, scenarios, plot lines, etc. He cannot possibly be excused by the rationale that works of this genre are bound to contain common threads. J.R.R. Tolkien and C.S. Lewis were best friends. They attended the same university. And I can't imagine two works of fantasy more different, more unique, than Lord of the Rings and The Chronicles of Narnia. So there's no excuse for the blatant plagarism, and I, for one, will not tolerate it.

And as to Tolkien's linguistic genius, you won't find anything that merely resembles it in Jordan. But I wouldn't expect people to appreciate such things when they are still having obvious difficulty with their native tongue.

As much as I would like to say, "to each his own", and leave it at that, the popularity of WoT presents a real threat to this genre, because it represents the decline of literary skill and appreciation in this field. No wonder fantasy writers have been lumped in with the science fiction jumble, since their readers continually support such under achievement as WoT. Why create a saga, a masterpiece, when you can do what Jordan does, churning out overworked stereotypical plots and characters, and make more money doing it? The support of WoT and similar works is DESTROYING THIS GENRE.

Jordan is no more than a comic-book artist who can't draw. His works belong in the same drawer as "Mighty Mouse" and "Wonder Woman". How he was ever able to wander into the world of so-called literature and have his name even compared with Tolkien's baffles and frightens me.

All I have to say further is thank God for J.K. Rowling. She may be the last living fantasy author who can actually write. Without her, the genre would be facing certain doom.

110

Davian93: 2004-06-30

****ya, those of you from 1990, seriously...I've been going since last year and I feel like ripping my hair out. how do you do it? ****

With patience and a lot of help from Jack Daniels. Seriously though, why do you think we have this site? We are able to obsess over the series while waiting for the next book. It helps take the edge off.

111

Jes: 2004-07-01

Yeh, I'm one of those souls who've been reading since the beginning. (Boy, do I feel old!) And maybe that's why we are even more frustrated than average by the lag between the last few books.)

That being said, how we stand it is by reading all the other Fantasy epics mentioned above in between our re-reading WoT. And of all those mentioned, including Jordan and Tolkein, my favorite is Guy Gavriel Kay's Fionevar Tapestry (3 books) -- I highly recommend it.

112

charliec: 2004-07-01

Oh my life.

I agree completely that in terms of literary skill RJ isn't close to Tolkein (although I'm not entirely convinced of Tolkein as teh daddy of it all)... but J. K. Rowling? you honestly think she's the best remaining writer in fantasy?

I'm surprised.

113

Davian93: 2004-07-01

If you hated it so much, why did you read it?? And if you havent read all 10 books, you have no room to criticize.

114

wattj69: 2004-07-01

ok, I'm gonna do my best not to flame here...although I'm responding to what is essentially a great big flame on a series I think most people here think pretty amazing. for one thing I have to blast in with a point that has been made a few time in responses to this theory: different writing styles. DIFFERENT. not better, not worse, different.

I read Lord of The Rings when I was 10, and I enjoyed it immensely, it was a great trilogy, and the Hobbit was excellent too. I've also read, or viewed, quite a bit of Shakespeare, and found it to be brilliantly written, and for the most part very well done. and just last year, I picked up The Eye Of The World. This was what I had been waiting for. in this series I have discovered a depth only dreamt of while reading Tolkien. the characters are not flimsy and hollow, I think you say that because you don't approve of the way they are written up, I'm beginning to think all of the arguments here are because you don't approve of "simple" English. the plot is amazing, and much more three-dimensional then anything brought forward in Tolkien's linear works.
The only way to really explore the land of middle-earth through literature is to pick up a copy of his extra works...no offense to a man who really is a giant in the world of fantasy, but the Silmarilion put me to sleep. moreover, you complain that many of Jordan's plotlines and characters don't have enough depth...and you also complain that he's on book eleven, while Tolkien got through his story in four. do you want depth here or not? throughout human history, language and communication methods have changed. the fact that north american culture today gravitates for Jordan's writing style does not point to a degeneration in that culture, it points to a change. change isn't bad, it's (again that word) different.

and as to the female characters, yes Tolkien had some, but no one, not Galadriel, not your shield Maiden, certainly not Shelob, had the same importance as Egwene, Elayne, Aviendha, etc. there were important female characters, but no MAIN female characters. Tolkien: amazing. Lewis: unbelievable. Shakespear: brilliant. but Jordan? one of my favorite writers in print today. not because I'm too stupid to understand anything better, as you seem to believe, but because it is truly excellent writing, unbelievable plotlines, and thoroughly thought out characters. I'm sorry, I know you already said you didn't want to hear this, but it really is a for each his own situation. o, and one more thing, how did you get throught the whole series if it was so terrible? enthralled a little bit maybe? hmmm...something to think about...

115

Anubis: 2004-07-01

wow... someones a LOTR fan. My largest problem with LOTR is that you need to REALLY get into it or it becomes like somthing from another age really really fast

116

Zader: 2004-07-01

Reply to unnamed post 27/6/04

I have read through your post and I am trying to understand what upset you more. RJ making more money than Tolken or selling more books. Your last remark about JKR was a joke wasn't it. I picked up one of her books but could not get in to it.

That doesn't make JKR a bad author.

It just means I am not ready for it yet. My observation from the page and a half I read of the book though would indicate most of the criticism you level at RJ could also be leveled at JKR.

117

wattj69: 2004-07-05

Guy Gavriel eh? I'll have to remember that. sadly, I still got another three years before Jack Daniels is an option...I guess it'll be helping me wait for book 12...

118

mako0424: 2004-07-05

To people who agree or disagree with John, there is no point to concur or refute this argument, i understand a differnece of opinion solidfies one's own opinions further, but its a book, no one has the intelligence or value enough to tell other people what they read is stupid.

If i want to read stories from the back of cereal boxes, so be it. Im still reading which is better than millions of people who only watch TV and never pick up a book.

I luv Jordan bec ause he has written an epic which both loveable, enjoyable, or even detestible characters where one casn lose themselves, live in a world created by one's imagination, and follow the adventures of other characters simply because we can.

This is what makes RJ awesome, the same reason that makes anyone who can write anything better, as long person likes it, thats enough for it to be good in my book.

119

Dorindha: 2004-07-06

I've been avoiding replying to thi8s thread but - that unnamed post...

To add to what others have said, it is a thorough (and well-written) piece of criticism and if you hate that much why read it? And it you haven't read all 10, are you qualified to criticise?

I really enjoy reading Jordan, and find there aren't too many similarities with LotR, though I read Jordan before LotR. I read the Hobbit when I was quite little, and though I had no problems with the writing, it never grabbed me as much as WoT. In a similar vein, I resent the implied criticism that those who enjoy WoT are in some way more shallow? stupid? than those who enjoy Tolkein more - I read Les Miserables (unabridged) age 10, and consistantly read a whole range of literature - it is not so much a matter of ability to appreciate good literature, but a difference in taste. There is no way you can say "this author is better than this author" - whose standards are these? It still comes down to taste in the end.

The comments about plagiarism irritated me (the rest was an reasonable level of criticism). There is no plagiarism in WoT - ideas are not protected, and there are so many original ideas in WoT that the odd one or two that have been incorporated from elsewhere merely serve as signposts to involve our interest in the story. Some ideas are taken from the real world - such as the differences between countries (this is something you find in Narnia); others from old religions or traditions - mythology, Norse gods in particular; and still others come from existing literature. The only LotR example I can think of is the quest nature of book one, under the guidence of the mysterious leader. In legal terms, there is no substantial taking, and ideas cannot be protected by copyright or the literary world would grind to a halt.

I appreciate there are inconsistancies in the series, and it is not perfect, but this is one of the most developed and complex series I have comes across, and the sheer effort going into creating new ideas, and keeping our interest must be phenomenal.

120

Brendan Reborn: 2004-07-09

Just another question for the people who criticize RJ's masterpiece (still in making):

Though you have the right to hold your own opinion, why would you read the books all the way through, and continue to dedicate the time to a website completely dedicated to the works? It makes no sense. The only probable conclusion I can draw from it is to annoy the people who do like the books, unless you feel that your statement was so important to make that you couldn't resist the urge to become a member of this site. Answer that question please.

121

Far Dareis Mai: 2004-07-14

You said you couldn't follow the plot when you picked up CoT. Of course you couldn't, there are too many subplots and characters and references to previous books! I read book five before the others (hehe...stupid me ^_^) went on through PoD before reading 1-4, and I can see how you got lost. Granted, FoH was MUCH less complex that CoT....oops, strayed from my point.
"2) Some people claim he is as good as Tolkien when he is obviously not; tolkien wrote in perfect English prose, Robert Jordan calls a telescope a looking-glass (i.e. a mirror) and gave account of an "infintesimal nod"(just impossible)"

Okay, don't get me wrong, I have been a LotR fan since I first read the books in fourth grade, but RJ is so much easier to understand (the words that is, not the people *cough* Taimandred? *cough*) than Tolkien. RJ calls a telescope a looking-glass not because he's stupid, but because in Randland, they've never heard on a telescope. It's a NEW INVENTION. They can call it whatever they want, and RJ chose looking-glass.
"3) Jordan has a mono-cultural world. It is linguistically impossible that when a united continent with one language, the old tongue, breaks apart the various factions speak in entirely new common language."

Yeah right. have you ever heard of the Big White Book? It's all about Randland. No plot, just the history and different cultures.
And it actually IS possible for them all to speak the same language. Hawkwing conquered the land from the Aryth Ocean to the Spine of the World and shuffled everyone around. Thats the perfect chance for everyone to learn to speak the same language. All of the Chinese speak Chinese, so big deal. And when everyone spoke the old tongue in the AoL, it was possible because people used the 1P to travel instantly from place to place. And the Seanchan are Artur Hawkwing's armies/descendents, so they can speak the same language as Rand and the others. and the Aiel are from the same place, too. If you want to be picky, we don't know what the Sharan's native tongue is, or those in the Land of Madmen.
"It is very hard to believe that in 3-5 thousand years no-one did the jigery pokery required to make angreal that Elayne did. "

Have you made any angreal lately? Or how about an Egyptian pyramid w/o machinery/technology? hmm?
"6) Every character is taller than the next "

Nope. For example, Moiraine is introduced after Rand, Mat, Perrin and a score of otehrs, but shes a midget. All Cairhienin we have been introduced to are short, as well a Tuon, etc.
"7) Every character is more handsome (beautiful) than the next."

Oh yes, Osan'gar is just sexy. Well, second to Sharina I suppose.
"10) The forsaken aren't powerful or dangerous in any way"
Are you sure? Lets see...Lanfear just KILLS Moiraine, so I guess she's not dangerous...Halima (Aran'gar) kills a few Aes Sedai...Rahvin compels Morgase to swith and exile/kill her friends....nope. Not dangerous, you're right. Of course, all of the things they did in the AoL don't count, right
"11) The Dark Lord is a bumbling Idiot in that he could easily have killed Rand in every book or set all the Forsaken to sit in wait in a link of 13 to kill him."

Umm...Sauron is defeated by a hobbit and a deformed, insane hobbit. The Dark ONE (not Lord) wants Rand alive becasue it will make him more powerful if Rand is his alive. Besides, not all of the Forsaken would just line up to kill him. Lanfear wants to be his lover, Graendal would probably compel him and make him a servant, Moghedien is a bloody coward and would probably go last, if at all, Sammael and Demandred would want to kill LTT by themselves, not with any help, Ishmael was insane...quite literally, Asmodean is basically Lanfear's lackey, but Semirhage and the others probably would.
"12) Most of the 'suspense' in the book relies on people not knowing whats going on but assuming something. If Mat told Egwene what he had to do, she would not assume he was an idiot etc."
Egwene would still think Mat an idiot. And I suppose there is no suspense at the end of CoT with Egwene? I don'y want to put any spoilers, so I'll just go on...
"13) Professional, disciplined and long-experienced soldiers and trained generals are incompetent compared to Aiel and warders, yet a few younglings can dispatch warders, Aiel, you name it without any of the skills of the other armies. He doesn't even offer any "taver'en" explainations for this."
Younglings, in case you missed it, are WARDER TRAINED. As in, warders who just haven't been bonded yet. Warders-to-be. Whatever. And I'm sure the Younglings suffer casualties, I remember it (I don't have my books handy) they just happen to survive.
RJ's WoT is so great becasue it is so real. Not everyone is in these nice little box called "good" or "evil". True, the 1P may not be realistic, but it is to us because of RJ's description. It is also just a matter of personal taste. I'm sure there is someone out there who (unthinkably) hates JRRT.

122

Birgitte: 2004-07-19

Okay, I know this topic has been around long enough to make it practically impossible to say anything new about it, but I figured I'd put my two cents in too.

I like both J.R.R. Tolkein and RJ. They are both excellent, but I don't see how it is possible to compare them to each other because they are both so different.They had different styles. I don't really need to go in depth here because it has already been discussed.

What I really wanted to do was to reitterate what some one (I don't know who) already pointed out. If you don't like the books, why are you on a site that is dedicated to them? Why not just stop reading them and leave it at that, instead of going out of your way to irritate people who are pretty much obsessed with the whole series?

BTW the charaters are similar because both authors were influenced greatly by the same myths and legends, not because RJ was deliberately copying Tolkien.

123

Isendre: 2004-07-21

i'm not going to add my thoughts to this already very long discussion, but i have to say something which has been really bugging me which no one has pointed out. Elayne and the Seanchan DO NOT make angreal or sa'angreal. the a'dam i am almost positive is a ter'angreal and Elayne copies ter'angreal, which aren't as stong as the originals. i know this has nothing to do with the topic really, it was just annoying me.

124

Mairashda: 2004-07-29

I swore that I would not participate in this thread since it is not a theory at all but rather a dispute on taste...

anyway... it might be a good thing to recall that tolkien was not at all well recieved by his contemporaries: celebrating the 50th anniversary (07/29/04) of the release of "the fellowship of the ring" bbc.co.uk quotes some critics (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/3935561.stm)...

what became the worlds most influential fantasy saga is dismissed as "juvenile trash",without imagination and disappointing... there are however wiser critics who admonish readers to suspend their judgement until they have seen the whole work, a courtesy that surely should be extended to mr. jordans magnum opus.

125

danger: 2004-08-02

I actually agree with most of your points except for 3 (Which I just think is wrong) and 6 (because I believe there is a good reason for that) But that doesn't mean the book isn't awesome. Tolkien is art. He is the best. He is the father of all that is fantasy. So R.J. can't measure up. He's not art, but he's dang fine entertainment. And even though he's got some flaws I think he really is a VERY good writer. (Even though we need to hear about women smoothing their skirts and arching their eyebrows every page.) In a work that size there are going to be things that you appeal to you but I think that the majority of it is great.

126

Callandor: 2004-08-03

**Tolkien is art. He is the best. He is the father of all that is fantasy. So R.J. can't measure up. He's not art, but he's dang fine entertainment.**

Of this entire thread, there are really three facts.

1. Tolkien is credited at starting the fantasy genre.

2. Robert Jordan started his series after Tolkien.

3. Both authors drew on sources from history and mythology, and did not copy directly from each other (kinda hard for Tolkien to do, but you get the point).

Besides those three, everyone here is arguing over their own bloody opinion, and that is quite moronic.

I hate The Lord of the Rings. It's is extremely boring, trivial, and is more or less a small flame to spark the greatest wildfire which is the fantasy genre of today. That is my only respect for it. I believe the characters to be fools, cardboard cutouts, and totally dedicated to their existing choices in life, the final thing something which I feel never happens without some questioning. The action is good, but I never get a feel for it, since it is in such excessive wordiness and deadwood mixed in between, it drives me crazy.

Good, great, and wonderful. That is my opinion, not one of you can ever say anything to change that, and trying to only drops my own opinion of yourself. I'm not putting my opinion on a plinith and harolding it as absolute truth by any means.

I love the Wheel of Time. It is my favorite series, and Lord of Chaos is my favorite book. The story is original (the archetype is not original (the hero/savior phase); but the ~story~, the twist to the archetype, is original), dense, compelling and just great. To me.

You don't like it, fine, don't read it. If it makes you throw The Eye of the World hard against the wall and give up on it, great, I don't care at all. But if you read through the entire series, hating it, then come here to complain about your own opinion on a story to people who love it, you're a dang moron. You read 10 extreme length books, all the time a story you hate. Give up, read something you like instead, and above all, don't come here to list your hates of it.

I wouldn't read a story 5 times through if I did not love it. I do not like the Lord of the Rings, but I read it, I still hate it, and I do not go to Lord of the Rings boards and proclaim my hatred of it. Just plain dumb.

127

Raen Mhaal: 2004-10-27

I haven't been here in a long time, and haven't read Crossroads Of Twilight yet (and I don't plan to either), but I feel compelled to reply to this thread...

Firstly, Tolkien was by far the better author, had by far the most detailed world, the fullest culture, etc. RJ's world is a pale and pitiful shadow of Middle-Earth. However, both authors have acheived the same end - they were out to entertain. RJ, for all he lacks in the skill of Tolkien, is still telling a story here that is loved by thousands. He is telling a story that is appreciated for its entertainment value, and for its value as a point of discussion (ie all the unanswered questions he leaves, which have led to the creation of sites like Theoryland).

So, it seems to me, RJ has done something right, no matter what anyone thinks of his writing style. He has created a world and a plot that have caught the imaginations of thousands and keeps those people entertained. Realistically, the ultimate goal of any author should be to keep their readers entertained. Both Tolkien and Jordan have acheived this.

As for Rowling being all that's holding fantasy together...and for Martin being the equal of Jordan and Tolkien...all I can tell those of you who believe these things is this: read War Of Light And Shadows by Janny Wurts. She has an excellent use of the english language, has been working on this story since 1982, and is, imo, the only author of today who holds a candle to Tolkien. Rowling and Martin are great, but Wurts surpasses them both.

128

Dreamwolf: 2004-11-03

Everyone has said what I thought of, but I have a few other things I'd like to add on.

1. Hero worship is bad. Saying Tolkien or Jordan is the best and no one will ever come close is very limiting. The purpose of doing something is to better what has come before. Tolkien didn't write LOTR to be a hero or the best, but to better the field, to make it a viable literary vehicle. If Jordan is "better" than Tolkien then it shouldn't really be a surprise. Now, what a writer has to do is take what Tolkien and Jordan tought us and improve on that. You see, we stand on the shoulders of those who come before and work at making things better, or adapting it to a new time period. Shakespeare based his career on adaptation.

2. I think those who read fantasy have a huge bias towards fantasy. I love SF, but I love fantasy more. I love literature, but I love fantasy more. If "The Sound and the Fury" was written in a fantasy setting I would consider it to be the best book ever written. Tolkien helped build a culture were my way of thinking is possible and I thank him for it. I absolutely love the LOTR movies, but the books put me to sleep. Is this really a surprise? Of course not. The movies are a tool we use to relate the story to our times. You won't believe the number of people who hated the books, and would've never read a fantasy book, change their minds after the trilogy came out. Robert Jordan is simply doing what Tolkien cannot because he's dead. Jordan is continueing a legacy left to us by a great man... whose purpose is to be bettered. If I were to write a brilliant book I'd like the next generation to do something better.

3. WoT is brilliant.

129

Jane-Sedai: 2004-12-01

I think it is silly to state that Jordan and WOT is not good or less than other writers and books on a fan site for WOT. Everybody is different and enjys different things, I enjoy LOTR, Dune and WOT. Each has something special about them, and as they are not meant to be the same I do not compare them. Wouldn't it be boring if they were all the same.

130

ImmDude123456: 2004-12-06

I'm beginning to think we scared the guy off he hasnt respnded in what seems like weeks

131

Cha Faile: 2004-12-17

I don't think that I totally agree with Issue #1 "Most of the characters are stolen from The Lord Of the Rings and Dune." but when I was first introduced to the series I found it quite amusing how the names of places reflected that of Tolkien's.

For Example:

RJ:"Mountains of Dhoom"

JRRT:"Mount Doom"

RJ:"Mountains of Mist"

JRRT:"Misty Mountains"

Perhaps he ran out of ideas before he began or maybe he thought it would add a bit of irony...

I love Tolkien too but there is so much less "journeying" in WOT. Most of LotR is spent describing Frodo and Sam's breakfast every day of their journey. So i don't think anyone can say that RJ "pads out" his books when (in my opinion), one of the best writers ever did it too! They both have different strengths and weaknesses, so who you like more depends on which weakness/strength you think matters the most. And look at how many people love LotR!

I hope this will persuade Johnamdor to reply because all the negative responses seem to have scared him off!

132

Jane-Sedai: 2004-12-22

It has been over a year since the first original post so I guess if I wasn't that interested in a book series I wouldn't go back to the website over a year later? He certainly did cause a stir though.

133

SugarBullet: 2004-12-24

if you don't dig on it, don't read it. Period. Same as music, same as tv, same as movies, same as anything. Advice for the rest of us: don't feel like you can't like something just because. There's no need to comehow explain why Jordan is the best writer on the planet or something. I think there are some legitimate complaints you could have, but... So what? Over all, I still dig it. I still read it and while I get pissed off at some small things, I still read it again and agian and it is my favorite series. Period.

Also: I think people are getting way too hung up on jordan's borrowing or stealing or whatever. You all miss the point. Like u2 sang: "every artist is a cannibal / every poet is a theif". Besides, what makes jordan's series brilliant is the concept itself. De-evolving myths or wahtever jordan calls it, is pretty smart stuff. And the beautiful thing about it is this: if jordan "Steals" things (arthurian legend, mythology, cultures, history, yes - even LotR) its just as brilliant to do so as if he started from scratch and made up a new genre.

134

ladyvivamus: 2004-12-27

Alrighty, there are WAY too many posts to sit and read all of them... I'd just like to add my two cents.

Lord of the Rings (well, really, all of the literature in connection with it, including the Silmarillion) and Wheel of Time are two of my all time favorite book series'... and for entirely different reasons.

I admire Lord of the Rings and all the work Tolkien did on it because I am fascinated by the sheer depth of the world he had created. The fact that Elvish is a complete language boggles my mind; the fact that every character had three or four names and a complete history wows me. Tolkien didn't just write a story; he created an entire world. But, to be perfectly honest, the prose throughout most of it, while perfect in a grammatical sense, is quite frankly boring. The Hobbit is lighthearted and playful, but the Lord of the Rings is dark and droll, and the Silmarillion (as has been pointed out before) is written like the bible. I say these things and I am a FAN of them.

Wheel of Time is great for other reasons, not the least of which being the fact that they are much easier to read. Where in Tolkien's work it is the world itself, the races and the lands and the countries, that is incredibly complete, in Wheel of Time it is the characters. Of course the suspense lies in lack of information and such... all of Jordan's characters are unarguably human. All of them have flaws, all of them have fears, all of them have desires, all of them have agendas. One of the things about it that always fascinates me is that (unlike in TOlkien's works) the good guys aren't all on the same side, and neither are the bad guys. Our heroes are just as likely to be taken out by someone on the side of the Light as someone on the side of the Dark. But there are other parts that are just as fascinating, and at the core of it all lies the fact that with very few exceptions, the characters are people you could encounter walking down the street tomorrow. (No, you're not going to meet an Ogier. But you could meet a young man who's not quite old enough to be travelling on his own and is really obsessed with books.) That, for me, is where the magic of Wheel of Time lies. Not in the creation of an entirely new world, but the portrayal of entirely real characters.

By the way, just as a side note, in response to the title of this theory ("Robert Jordan doesn't appeal to everyone"): You're right. Neither does Tolkien, or anyone else.

135

pacafinn: 2004-12-28

I thought I would take this thread as an opportunity to say what I think RJ does well and what he doesnt do so well. I am going to start off on the negative track simply because it is easier.

1) I think RJ is as interested in his world as his characters and as interested in his secondary and tertiary characters as his main ones. I wish we spent more time with Rand, supposedly the main character, than we do with Cadsuane, Verin, Faile, and others who have come to dominate the books. I am not even clear who the main character are anymore. Rand is clear, then Mat and Perrin. OK, then it gets muddy. Egwene and Elayne.... Nynaeve... Alviarin? Min? Are those all main characters?

2) It really is not necessary to spell out the reaction of every single character in the room to every word said. I think if he got a handle on this and such similar items, he could shorten the books. I remain convinced that he could take these 10 very good books and with good editing make them 6 or 7 excellent books. Of course, I have no idea what to cut yet since I dont know what is important and will not until book 13-14.

3) This is old, but many of the characters express themselves in the same way. How many controlled faces with eyes as cold as steel, death, ice, etc. are needed? Perhaps if he could find more ways for the characters to act, then he wouldn't have to keep falling back on eyebrows and skirt straightening. This goes back to my editing point. Do more in less space and RJ has more ways to reveal character. Less can be more.

4) I am not sure RJ knows what to do with a couple who are happy and in love. He is excellent at teenagers figuring this stuff out and arguing as a substitute, but we aren't all teens.

5) Keep the characters likable and allow some space for joy and happiness even in this struggle against death and world domination. We know that all of our heros have to be cold and manipulative and untrusting to survive. Make sure we continue to see their other side before we stop caring whether they or some other cold, manipulative, untrusting person wins.

That's good enough on what I hope RJ would do better. As I said it is easier to complain than to create. I haven't spent two decades writing high fantasies, so my hat is always off to RJ. The complaining done, I have stuck with the WOT for about 7000 pages now, so why?

1) He has created some wonderfully evil cultures and people that I can't wait to see crushed. The greatest horror in the book for me has remained the capture of Egwene as damane by the Seanchan. This total anihilation of human freedom, the ultimate in slavery, is so noxious, I can't wait for it to fall.

2) For reasons I can't explain, I enjoy spending time in the world, even though I'm a fool who can't keep Illianers from Tairens from Taraboners from Domani all that well. I didn't mind that the plot was advanced little in COT. It was still fun to spend some time here.

3) RJ did use the word "smarmy". And more than that he used the verb "to smarm". That's hard to beat.

4) I like Mat. I like Min. I like Loial.

5) When he tries, RJ can grab you and hurdle you along. That's always fun.

Last comments. Of course, people have different tastes and like different things. In an experience of reading, there are two things - the book and the reader. Both are equally important to creating the experience. It is impossible for two people's readings of RJ to be identical since they are two different readers. However, this does not mean there is nothing to discuss and that everything is opinion. After all, there is still the book that the two readers share. Hopefully in our discussing I will learn something that you see which I missed. I can then see this myself. Since I am a different person, I will still experience it differently, but if we had not talked, I never would have seen it at all.

PacaFinn

136

fistandantilus: 2005-01-08

Somewhere in this theory someone complained about the descriptiveness of sword forms. How no one but RJ knows WTF the wind over the wall is. Not true. point your browsers at Google and do a search for "swordforms" or "WOT sword forms." Or go to http://www.thelastsunrise.net/misc/swordguide.htm, they have them all listed in alphabetical order. Perhaps some of the sword forms are even really used. Though if they are it seems like they would be used in fencing. Any way, this is just an example of a fan using his IMAGINATION to enhance the story, rather than relying on the author for everything.

137

ssjx7squall: 2005-03-20

Well in my opinion you cannot base rj and tolkein in the same area. Both are fantasy writers but from completely different times. And as for monoculturality (not really sure if thats a word lol) look at it this way. With the exception of the Aile, ogeirs, and the sea folk no culture is really secluded. I will only partly agree with you there because i do admit that you would think they would have different languages but as for the rest of the world its pretty much open. At a time when no other nation is really fighting with another people will travel alot and the culture will kind of form into one large one. Yes the language is pretty much all the same but there are different accents which RJ makes abundantly clear. Such as the Illianer accent of Domon that rand and mat meet in the first book. Rand is startled and has a hard time understand him at first and this continues through out the series. Mono cultural my ass I am re-reading the series and am seeing more of it. In the borderlands nothing is really elaborate such as the walls. You qoute masters out there can find the qoute where rand basically says that where the walls of Camyln basically wanted people to marval and stare at them the walls of Fal dara (pretty sure thats the place) didnt care and were only there for one purpose, defense. In Ebu Dar the women carry daggers and basically rule over the men. Camyln being camyln everyone there is pretty much equal. In Tear he goes into detail about the different dresses of the men and the "oiled beards" that they had. I could go on for a long time about how i think you're wrong about it being a mono culture with the expetion of the language. As for the characters i beleive those in LOTR are really robotic in comparison of those from wot. In wheel of time they struggle basically all the time but in different ways that fit their character paths. I have read the first 2 books of lotr but i had to stop after that. I loved the books but to me it was to much like reading a dictionary, unlike it being reading for fun it was more like i was reading a book for school, something i really didnt want to but was anyways. I admidt that the Hobbit was an awsome book and to me better than lotr but thats just me. The forsaken are just men and women who were once aie sedie. Thats it. Where we see the flaws in the ae sedie now they are still there in the forsaken. They may have more knowledge in the one power and they do use it in ways such as compulsion which i think is an amazingly strong power. Where you say they do not show their power i agree only in part. Every now and then i do think that one or another was killed too easily but look at the second book where Rand is fight one *cant remember who* basically his sword which was made with the one power gets all screwed up for one and he receives a wound that continually pains him through out the series...

This post may be a jumbled mess but this is my first one so sorry for the wreck it is

138

ssjx7squall: 2005-03-20

I enjoy reading the wheel of time because it does bring the world alive for me. Where lotr really seemed like a bombardment of constant descriptions that i do admit are betiful i still dont see a need to write two pages describing a guys house which Tolkein does every now and then. Where tolkein describes guys house beutifully in 2 pages RJ does it in a paragraph simpler but no less effective. The politics in WOT also grab me because they seem so realistic and completely probable to me. The constant battle of not strength but wits and the under handed tactics that many of them employ. The series will show you the worst possible person whether he is a dark friend or not, and it will show you an amazingly kind, honorable person. Another thing i like about WOT is that it isn't completely out there. It's fantasy but its not dragons all over the place and faeries popping up all over, it is fantasy with more rules and structure than i have seen in many other fantasy books. It has its dark and light side, heavy and lite side, funny and depressign side. The atmosphere it creates is one that encompasases all not just one emotion in my opionion. Where reading the Shanara series you are really set upon with depressing feelings (at least for me) here you have all. I love how you get to see the characters in this series struggle with everyting. Rand struggling with trusting Aei Sedie or not, loving Min Elayne and Avienda because all he will do is die in the end. You see the 3 women struggle with their love for him and their friendship that they have with each other. The damn series is like a soap oprea with alot of action and kool crap in it for it to be interesting. I find my self not only captivated by the battles and action scenes but also with just the plain humanity of the people in it. Rand being the dragon the chosen one if you is not infallible. He screws up here and there and he cant always fix it. People die from his mistakes and it pains him but he learns from it. He gets tricked, he gets his ass handed to him al lthe damn time but he keeps goin. I will admit that the series does kind of take a nose dive at book 7 and i had a hard time finishing book 8 and 9 but it still and amazingly good series. I also like the fact that it is a book not only with fantasy but also science in it. It shows both here and there through out the entire series, one such instance being in the schools that rand sets up. Well im done rambling for the moment, next post...

139

clarkkd: 2005-04-03

The only draw back I have to The Wheel of time is in the Lord of Chaos, when Taim makes a reference to the virgin birth, I actually skip this part completly.

140

Kurtz: 2005-04-29

mmm. I very interesting theory/ranting session going on here. Supposes i'll add my two cents.

First off arguments are fun. Lets not take it to heart. I berate Terry Goodkind every opportunity i get (he's crap by the way ;) ).

To reply to Johnamdor's monocultural comment. RJ has said Randland is like the 17th Century in our world. If you compare Randland to Europe during this time then yes its monocultural, but then so was Europe, the only difference being the presence of Religious and language differences in Europe. Religion is obviously not a factor. Difference in language would make a difficult read.

And then to our other unnamed and exquisitely succinct friend. First of all its good to know that there are people out there who are SO much more intelligent then us.

You talk of original plots. There are about six basic stories and every fictional piece is simply an embellishment on these. Nothing wrong with this as long as the embellishments are good enough.

You say somethings happen for no reason. One of the most loved things about WoT is that nothing haoppens without a reason.

As for plagiarism, that's up to the offended parties (not that I think their are any) to sort out. For those of us who haven't read every book ever written I guess we'll get are small pleasures from this wonderful series.

As for the characterisation, I agree to an extent that there are many repetitions of peersonalities. But fantasy is a plot based genre. The characters in LOTR are hardly bursting with vitality. Eomer could have been Faramir and vice versa.

The plot of the WoT is the most extensive i've come acrossed. As for er, floppy endings, JRR was the lord of the anti-climax. Makes for interesting reading and afterthought but hardly thrilling.

As regards RJ's syntax etc, I think most people tend to agree that he's not the greatest. I guess you have to just bite that quivering stiff upper lip and get on with it. As I said, its plot based. Enjoy for what it is. If you can't then too bad, but don't condemn it for it.

As for the women in Tolkien. Arwen did nothing, Galadriel did little. Eowyn i'll accept. She is but one however. For the rest on that tenderly drawn up list, I don't think its fair to bring the Silmarillion into this. You did say Tolkien's genius was contained in four concise books. I enjoyed it but, how did you put it 'the plot is a disaster......there is no flow...... and the ending flops'

Back to plagiarism. You bandy the word around a lot. You won't accept RJ's supposed plagiarism but you will Shakespeares 'stolen' plots and call him great. Perhaps some consistency is in order.

I'm taking the J.K. Rowling reference as a jest. Good one.

141

Traveller: 2005-07-22

I totally agree that Jordan isn't for everyone, but only on a personal level. There is nothing wrong with the storylines, writing, characters or cultures, just some people will like it and others won't. However I will say that the Wheel of Time can really convert people: My best friend was never interested in fantasy in the slightest (she was into the Princess Diaries etc) but I asked her to read it and she said she'd have a go. Now she's on Book 10 and absolutely addicted!

There you go- its not for everyone, but everyone has such good taste as others.

142

Traveller: 2005-07-22

ooooooops!

I meant on the last sentence "not everyone has such good taste.."

I hate this procedure- I only notice stupid mistakes after I've posted something!

143

: 2005-08-21

Whew! It's been awhile since someone posted a reply to this one, but I'll add my 2 cents anyway.

I started reading WoT many moons ago back in high school. My school library had a copy of ACoS on their "New Additions" bookshelf, and I was intrigued. Of course, when I read that it was Book 7, I knew I'd have to start at the beginning. So I trooped on down to my town's library, and I checked out TEotW. The Prologue hooked me, and that was that. Over the years, my level of interest has risen and fallen. As with Harry Potter or any other series with long waits between books, the interest peaks when news comes of a new book. RJ is not the only author I admire and love. I read a great deal, and I enjoy many different authors for many different reasons.

Let's take Tolkien. A lot of people here don't like him as much as RJ because of the simplicity of his characters. I'm not arguing that this is the case, but with so many books and stories showing characters with not-so-pure motives and uncooperativeness amongst themselves, it is refreshing to read about people who have a noble goal, clearly-defined notions of right and wrong, and almost always say what they mean. That last one is an especially big plus. Not that I'd want every book I read, or even most of the books I read, to be that simple, but I enjoy Tolkien's work for what it is.

I also enjoy RJ's work for what it is. It's more human, more complex, and infinitely more complicated. Any more complicated, and I probably would have bugged out before now, as I did with A Song of Ice and Fire. I got so tired of seeing people I liked get killed off. At least in WoT, there are some constants that you can be sure of: Rand and his friends are good, the Forsaken and the Dark One are bad, and pretty much all of the main characters will be sticking around until or after the end.

As for writing style, I'm pretty picky about spelling, consistency of character, and plot holes (not plot devices). Other than that, I'm pretty much open. Tolkien's writing is very...ethereal. That's the only word I can use to describe it. It's like you're reading myth instead of a story, which is fine. It works. RJ's writing, on the other hand, is very gritty and solid. You're not just reading a story, you're watching it, too. The LotR movies helped me visualize the story. I don't need movies to visualize WoT.

I said earlier that I was picky about plot holes. In fantasy, those plot holes almost always have to do with how magic is done. Here is where RJ's training as a physicist has paid off in spades. He knows the importance of a consistent set of rules for describing the physical world, and if that world includes magic, there must be rules for that as well. I too have a degree in physics, and my appreciation of the books has been greatly heightened by the knowledge that RJ isn't just throwing magic around with no rhyme or reason.

There are some aspects of RJ's work that frustrate me. A great many of his female characters seem to exist solely for the purpose of being annoying, men-don't-know-anything banshees. Nynaeve is the prime example, but Egwene and, occasionally, Elayne display this as well. Min and Moiraine are my two favorite female characters, both because they are strong women, and because they don't berate every man in sight every five minutes.

A few other miscellaneous items:

I didn't like Dune, as a few other people on here have stated as well. It's very disjointed, and almost arbitrary at times. How it got to be considered a classic, I'd like to know.

I enjoy the Harry Potter books a great deal. J. K. Rowling has a very clear idea of where she's going, and is very good at interweaving minor details from previous books into major plot points for later ones. Also, the writing and plot matures with the characters. It's subtle, but that's what makes it a lot of fun.

In short, RJ and Tolkien both enjoy pride of place as first on my list of favorite fantasy authors. They are both there simply because they're so very different.

144

freya23: 2005-08-21

(1) Tolkein and Jordan: First, while I recall telling various people that Robert Jordan was as good as Tolkein around the time book 6 was coming out (and when I was about 17), but upon further study of Tolkein and his works, I cannot in any way say that WoT is a masterpiece like LotR. Tolkein, after all, had a PhD in linguistics and invented multiple functioning languages for the world he created(and no, RJ's creation of a few bits of Old Tongue does not compare). Of course his books are far and away technically better. Who hasn't read an RJ passage that was boring, pointless, and sloppily written? People might not like each part of LotR equally, or each character, but they were all thoughtfully created and each word was carefully chosen. However, I also suspect that JRRT had a much more patient editor who did not rush his books to print with so many mistakes and sloppily written passages remaining. I am glad to hear that this may be remedied in the next book as Jordan seems to have demanded a longer editing process. In the end, though, what I think I meant when I used to say that Jordan was a good as Tolkein, was that I haven't enjoyed reading any fantasy as much as LotR until WoT.

(2) Why Wheel of Time is so addictive and fun to read (for most of the series, anyway...): I have recently embarked upon a rereading of the series, partially to catch up for the next book, and partially because, not having read the books for awhile, I wondered why I was so slavishly addicted to a series that, upon reflection, I didn't even remember as being particularly good? I am currently working through Crown for Swords (for at least the fifth time since 1995, however), and I was surprised to find that I fell into really enjoying the books again and truly did think they were very good. In thinking about which books are the best books, I've decided what I, at least, think makes the books so enjoyable.

(a) The characters: Of course, I logically have to think RJ's treatment of women characters borders on the blantantly sexist (as indicated by the rigid gender seperation common in every culture and even the power itself). Except for Min maybe. And I like Min as a character. Everyone likes Min as a character. Everyone likes Mat as a character. And for some embarrassing reason, we all really, really like certain characters. Everything that happens to them is therefore for interesting and engrossing. All the characters are as accessible as Merry and Pippin in LotR, and that goes a long way toward sustaining a reader's interest.

(b) The climaxes. The absence of these from the later books emphasizes their arguably inherent suckiness. It's not that the readers of WoT are blood-hungry Braveheart fans, it's that Robert Jordan writes climaxes so well. As the series progresses, RJ moves away from the traditional structure of end the books with a (or a series of) plot climaxes (in my opinion, for the worse), and in CoT, seems to get rid of them altogether, but wherever they are he always writes them so that reading them is truly engrossing. The battle at Dumai's Wells in LoC is the typical example, but Elayne and Nynaeve's use the Bowl of the Winds (in CoS?) was also engrossing. RJ, however, does not write the character's secret plans and other Games of Houses-like strategy as well as he thinks he does (hence the not-goodness of CoT).

(c) Metaphysics: Okay, RJ's treatment of the one power, the Creator and the Dark One, the World of Dreams, Portal Stones, the Eelfinn and Aelfinn, the effect of balefire, etc. are not perfectly consistent, but they are pretty respectable, and more complex than Tolkein's metaphysical world (although, as I have said the language and culture of LotR are certainly superior). I hope that RJ will fill in any gaps in the next two (and last) books.

(3) One every character being more handsome or beautiful than the next: Think of this as sort of the charm of JR, like in the way that every woman crosses her arms beneath her breasts, every man fingers his sword hilt, and Mat, Perrin, and Rand are always wondering why the other is so much better with women. There used to be a WoT drinking game on the web built around this concept (although I'm quite sure it would quickly get everyone to drunk to read). Also, there are limits: as has been said, Galad is the most handsome man, and Lanfear the most beautiful women. Also, there is variance. I get the feeling that Elayne is better-looking than Min (although she loses in the personality department, and Min apparently has that way of walking), and that neither Matt, Perrin, nor Rand is really more than merely attractive. Faile is presented as a woman who is beautiful to some tastes, but not all. Come to think of it, I can't think of what men are rated as particularly good-looking, except for Galad, Gawyn less than him, Wil al'Seen, Aram, and Rhavin.I guess maybe Logain, who apparently has some particularly masculine kind of good-looks. And many of the women are merely "handsome" (like the old Siaun Sanche) and "plumply pretty" (like the girls Mat usually likes).

And even if they were all beautiful, I have to say that many, many of Tolkein's characters were all beautiful as well (even beyond the elves, who are apparently beautiful as a race).

Sorry for the very long post - and that is (finally) all I have to say.

145

William Seeker: 2005-08-27

"1) Most of the characters are stolen from The Lord Of the Rings and Dune."

Ok some the basic charcters at the begining are similar to those from Lord of the Rings and Dune, but many you won't find in either of those books (Egewene, Mat) and as they develope throughout the series they become markedly diffrent. (Plus none of them are "all-knowing" like Paul in Dune).

146

William Seeker: 2005-08-27

My reply; Part Two

Why the Wheel of Time is great, and fantastic, and magnificant, etc. etc.

Well . . . Where to start?

It's the characters, they change over time, develop, mature, and are scarred by what happens to them. And there's so many you're bound to like at least one.

147

HeridPel: 2005-09-12

"what is it that makes the Wheel Of Time great."

Seems like every possible viewpoint has been covered. Personally I like the one espoused by Rhodric:

"now in RJ's time, we are a culture that is constantly bombarded with images, leaving less wiggle-room for the imagination. the images are also stronger, ie of sex/violence etc. so when people write these days, to remain interesting to our society, the writers too must write things more graphic, stronger images. i think that this is one reason that RJ's world appeals to so many: it reads like TV."

One new reason for liking Robert Jordan, read a series by R.A.Salvatore. Once you know how bad it can get, you appreciate the good stuff even more.

148

Anubis: 2005-09-13

I bought Winter's Heart first because it was on sale in a secondhand bookshop for c. $5 and I couldn't follow the plot. So, to throw good money after bad I started to read the Wheel of Time from book one. I thought the first and second were alright but it went severly downhill. I asked a friend of mine who likes RJ to explain why she likes his books but she wouldn't talk to me. What I really want to know is why do people like the wheel of time? Perhaps you could rebutt some of these criticisms for me:

1) Most of the characters are stolen from The Lord Of the Rings and Dune.

Funny, I dont see Paul, or Teg, or Aragorn or Legolas.

2) Some people claim he is as good as Tolkien when he is obviously not; tolkien wrote in perfect English prose, Robert Jordan calls a telescope a looking-glass (i.e. a mirror) and gave account of an "infintesimal nod"(just impossible)

They write differently. Tolkien in his world RJ in his. If Rand had never seen a telescope in his life, and I handed him one, he would probably call it a looking glass. This may come as a shock to you, but different cultures call objects different names. Americans hear looking glass and think glass that you look through. Im sure RJ knows the Brittish definition, he just chose to write for an American audience for some inexplicable reason. Cant figure that one out myself.

3) Jordan has a mono-cultural world, Tolkien spent most of his life creating the world in which LotR is set in. It is linguistically impossible that when a united continent with one language (ie the old tongue) breaks apart the various factions speak in entirely new common language.

Mono cultural world? So the Aiel and the Seanchan have the same culture? And the Tierans and the Domani? I think what you are trying to say is that they have one language. Aside from the Aiel, this has been explained and explained well. And by the way, I dont see multiple languages in Dune. And besides, the cultures broke apart and came back together every thousand years, developing a linga franca so they could communicate. This is why they have strong accents instead of new languages. Maybe if you tried studying Latin a little you would understand.

4) Anthropologically, the Aiel's features result from a cold climate (e.g. vikings or celts) while the two river's folk are more suited to warmer climes.

Whats your point? The Two Rivers people didn't originate in the Two Rivers, and the Aiel were essentially exiled to the desert. Of course their features dont match their climates.

5) It is very hard to believe that in 3-5 thousand years no-one did the jigery pokery required to make angreal that Elayne did.

Considering that Channeling itself is a feat, and without training most people die and die quickly, I would say that yeah, it is possible. Considering that there are a billion and a half ways to kill yourself with the One Power I could see Aes Sedai not willing to try new things.

6) Every character is taller than the next

Not true. Height is noticed, and tall people get a "holy crap hes tall" reaction, but no one is taller then Bael and I think Egwene is the shortest, or close to it. Mat is lanky and tall for his people, but doesnt match the Aiel.

7) Every character is more handsome (beautiful) than the next

This is just good writing. This may come as a suprise, but men and women have different tastes. A woman could think Mat was hot, and Rand ugly, while a different woman could think the opposite. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. There is no gold standard.

8) Concepts in his world are not constant but used whenever it suits him (e.g. when a man travels he must know his destination, but Taim could just appear in the nick of time to help rand)

This has been explained. Taim followed Rand, Traveling short distances. Come up with a better example.

10) The forsaken aren't powerful or dangerous in any way

The Forsaken are powerful incredibly skilled channelers, nothing more. Most of people being afraid of them comes from legends. Combine that with the fact that they can not act in the open, (their existance is a general secret) and the only people who REALLY need to fear them are Darkfriends, and unlucky chumps like Cabrina. What would be incredibly stupid, would be having 13 really powerfull dangerous people creating havock. It would be like a Megaman game.

11) The Dark Lord is a bumbling Idiot in that he could easily have killed Rand in every book or set all the Forsaken to sit in wait in a link of 13 to kill him.

The Forsaken are greedy bastards who dont link and the Dark One needs Rand alive. Makes it interesting because Rand is helping the Dark One alive or dead and must find a better way to win.

12) Most of the 'suspense' in the book relies on people not knowing whats going on but assuming something. If Mat told Egwene what he had to do, she would not assume he was an idiot etc.

People dont communicate well. People think other people are idiots. Reminds me of how real people interact. Read the news lately? Heard about the huge FEMA fuckup? Lack of communication caused that, what makes you think RJs characters should be any different?

13) Professional, disciplined and long-experienced soldiers and trained generals are incompetent compared to Aiel and warders, yet a few younglings can dispatch warders, Aiel, you name it without any of the skills of the other armies. He doesn't even offer any "taver'en" explainations for this.

Aiel spend their entire lives fighting, weilding weapons, running, etc. Warders train almost as much as Aiel and have other gifts. Younglings are Warders in training, and outnumbered the Warders that they were fighting. If you cant understand the role of constant training in military applications, maybe you should read something simplistic like Lord of the Rings, where an untrained undisciplined army of orcs is an actual threat.

I could go on, but you get my point. I am not out to drag RJ through the mud for no reason, but I want someone to tell me why they think WoT is so great (some say better than Tolkien).

Heres why LOTR sucks. You expect me to believe that 1.5 hobbits. and yes, if sam has to carry frodo, then frodo is a half a hobbit carried a ring of power, that Saurin could detect, into the heart of his country. To the ONLY PLACE IT COULD BE DESTROYED. that was for some inexplicable reason COMPLETELY UNGAURDED, through several armies and creatures of darkness, and destroy the ring and save the day? hell, the mountain being ungaurded ALONE is a big enough hole in the story to cause complaint. and dont get me started about tom bambadill. what the hell was that about? And aragorn can cure any disease and heal any injury with a weed because hes a king? NONE OF IT MAKES ANY SENSE.

and dune is worse. Someone explain the golden path to me. Or why Leto spent thousands of years undoing with Paul did in a couple. The ONLY saving grace of that series is the mentants, and Teg.

149

Lilbaz: 2005-09-15

Why does everyone say the world Tolkien invented? As far as I know this world has existed for thousands of years, he has stolen from mythology, just as Jordan has. From Norse, Celtic, Egyptian and Greek fables. I have respect for Tolkien but please his stories were hard work to read. Jordan has taken it to another level, as have other writers at this time.

If Tolkien released another book tomorrow (I know he's dead) and so did Gemmell, Jordan or Feist. Tolkien would be the 4th I'd pick up, because I know I'd enjoy the other 3 more.

150

Callandor: 2005-09-16

**Not true. Height is noticed, and tall people get a "holy crap hes tall" reaction, but no one is taller then Bael and I think Egwene is the shortest, or close to it. Mat is lanky and tall for his people, but doesnt match the Aiel.**

I'd like to refute that: Loial is most likely the tallest character, with possible close canidates being Elder Haman and Shaidar Haran. But I think it's Loial ;)

Tallest human seems to be Bael, yes.

151

: 2005-09-16

You may feel that RJ's is a "mono-cultural world," and refer to it as a projection of the US where everyone speaks English. I have to object. The US in and of itself is known as a melting pot, a country created from a plethora of cultures, incorporating bits and pieces of each.

That said, I will answer your primary question. While I enjoyed Tolkien's world, its nuances, characters, languages and ideas, I do agree that his language made it hard to follow and IMMERSE myself in the story. I spent much of my time deciphering what was going on, and didn't feel I was a part of the world he created. I couldn't relate to his characters fully, although they were entertaining. I am sorry for that, because his ideas were wonderful and he was immensely talented.

Jordan, on the other hand, speaks in a more modern prose with modern references and stronger, more rounded characters. His female characters are not merely afterthoughts. Although very often they do all seem angry and determined to manipulate the "stupid" men in their lives (something I personally object to), they are as well-developed as the male characters. I enjoy being able to relate to more modern subtleties (i.e. the flower child reference in one of the sa'angreals). I also prefer his approach to the english language and through it, his delivery of the story. Compared to Tolkien, it flows. I can simply enjoy and visualize, be a part of the world for a time.

In all fairness, I have found that occasionally, the story drags in later books. But it's true of most published books (especially when you have a series as long as this one). It was more pronounced in the LOT series for me because of the older english.

I definitely see similarities and parallels in the storylines and characters. I do not, however, believe that RJ's is simply a "copy" of other fantasies. I have actually enjoyed discovering these parallels for myself. Like any modern reference, just like the others in his book, RJ would be amiss to leave out the LOTR entirely. It's a treasure of modern society.

While it may seem I believe RJ is better than Tolkien, that's not the case at all. I'm simply defending my enjoyment of RJ's writing. Hobbit, LOTR and Tolkien's other works are all evident as masterpieces. His study of linguistics and therefrom his creation of an entirely original language and unique world is amazing in and of itself. However, I will always find it easier to follow RJ's storyline. We grew up in the same era. Perhaps if I was of Tolkien's generation I could have followed his writing style more easily. As it is, LOTR is more of a collector's item, to be admired from afar: protective leather binding, unbent pages, unblemished. WOT is already something I pick up more often: tattered paperback cover, folded pages, food stains.

Personal preference, go figure.

152

Trahelion: 2005-10-09

customs remarkably like the others...

yea cuz the ebou dari wear the marriage knives along with the rest of the world. The Domani flirt with the expertise the whole world can. The Sea Folk walk around ships naked like the rest of the world. The Game of Houses played in Cairhien but not Andor? The cultures in each of the countries are so complex and detailed that I don't understand how you can say they are the same. The two genders are generalized into two main personalities, but that is just to show that women are not good for nothing, as they are actually in this story and only good for rape in other fantasies. The cultures are so diverse and many across Robert Jordan's world that you probably skim read the book only so you could tear it apart in an unrealistic and false fashion. People have different points of views, its that simple.

153

blademaster neal: 2005-10-31

My personal opinion is that Tolkien's world is very good. It was created to give England a Mythology. The story is interesting but is a political statement against industrialization.

RJ story is just a story and a very good one at that. The story has many more sub-plots and story lines than I have seen any other author handle at once ever.

I would say that they each have their place and shouldn't really be compared.

If RJ uses some characters and story elements from Tokien, I view it as a hommage to a great fantasy writer, not as stealing.

154

haertchen: 2005-11-01

"If RJ uses some characters and story elements from Tokien, I view it as a hommage to a great fantasy writer, not as stealing."

Amen. Especially since borrowing literary elements from other writers is one of the oldest traditions in the world, with literally every author who ever wrote having done it.

155

JakOShadows: 2005-11-02

In fact, what I really like about RJ is that instead of stealling from one source, he steals from almost every old legend and story possible. King Arthur, greek gods, Norse gods, etc, he ties them all together excellently.

156

tanuki gao: 2005-11-21

I apologise for adding to this enormous and much flogged dead horse, but having just read it myself, I'm itching to add my own points (some of which may even have not been addressed before)

Firstly, books can be read for enjoyment as well as enrichment. Both, if you're lucky. Read what you want, stop reading if it isn't your thing.

As a side note to Johnamdor, though it's unlikely he'll ever read this, I don't recommend trying to get other people to show you how to enjoy *any* book. Quite honestly, if a book doesn't catch your imagination by itself, you're better off finding something else to read.

Secondly, RJ makes references to other works of fiction, both ancient and conemporary. As does Tolkien. To go all pseudo-intellectual about it, culture is basically a pool of ideas that creative types dip into and give tier own spin. In fact, originality has only really been seen as an artistic virtue in the West for the last 500 years or so. In medieval times, troubadours and storytellers would endlessly retell the same stories, making only minor changes as taste and memory demanded - Thom, as an example of such a person in WOT, talks about the chants and songs as a complete body of work, which he draws upon, but rarely adds to.

I have also always liked RJ's little nods to this idea, in the form of Mat's reminiscences, most notably the songs, with their endlessly changing names and lyrics, but with melodies that remain the same over centuries.

Tolkien was not writing in a vacuum. Obviously he was referring to Arthurian and Celtic myth (his writing style, by the way, was purposefully archaic even at the time of writing), but he was also looking back to the turn of the century Arts and Crafts movement, where a whole variety of artists and artisans tried to reclaim the virtues of pre-industrial life; a central theme of all of Tolkien's work.

Writers such as William Morris, E. R. Eddison, Lord Dunsany and Tennyson all wrote historical fantasy epics decades before Tolkien.

Incidentally, LOTR is and epic work of fantasy. It was written in the same style as the Oddyssy and Beowulf, as a myth that could be recited by a storyteller for several nights or weeks for an audience sitting round a hearth in appreciative silence. These sorts of works have hardly any dialogue or in-character observations because that sort of thing doesn't work nearly as well when spoken aloud as they do when written.

WOT is not an epic work. It doesn't matter how large or complex it is, it simply isn't written in that sort of style. Where LOTR harks back to the oral tradition, where everything must be *described*, as an earlier poster said, WOT is far more closely related to films and television. As a result, everything is *shown* directly to the reader; dialogue is important, as are the physical appearances of things. Compare, for instance, the description of the Balrog in LOTR to Myrddral in WOT.

Lastly, WOT wasn't inspired by LOTR, not really. There are many, many other fantasy books that have an equally great impact (that's another pet peeve; sometimes people talk about Tolkien and RJ as if they are the only fantasy writers out there):

Roger Zelazny's Chronicles of Amber with it's many multiple but slightly differing universes

Ursula le Guin's Earthsea books, with their Daoist-inspired male and female types of magic, both conflicting and complementary.

Jack Vance's Dying Earth and Gene Wolfe's Book of the New Sun are both set in a fantastical far future which occasionally harks back to the present.

In Michael Moorcock's books, the main hero is almost always the Eternal Champion, cursed and angst-ridden, reborn again and again to set right the balance of the universe. Sound familiar?

Most of all, though, RJ draws inspiration from the works of Robert E. Howard, him of Conan fame. Many of you may well know that RJ himself has written short stories about Conan. Forget the film. Conan the barbarian came straight out of the pulp genre, where the aim of the writer is to get the blood racing and make the reader wonder at awesome spectacles. Everyone, or at least everyone that *matters* in pulp is special, heroic, superlative. The women are beautiful, the men are incredibly strong, good at fighting and exude an aura of menace. The old gender stereotypes aside, every important character is in some way remarkable, otherwise they wouldn't be important. Ta'veren are just extreme examples of this.

Yes, RJ's characters are over-the-top, and his grammar is not perfect, but that doesn't matter, as his books are written to be enjoyed.

I think I should stop here, as I have already written an obscenely long post, and I think I may be preaching to the choir on this point.

157

jak o shadows: 2005-11-25

Of course RJ won't appeal to everyone, what author does. In fact he bugs the hell out of me sometimes with his 'sniffing' and 'skirt smoothing'. I also think he waffels on unnecessarily.

But he has created a rich and detailed world in which you can totally immerse yourself. Something many of us obviously enjoy.

I feel your comparrisons with other authors are well wide of the mark. There is very little similarity to Tolkien, there are no elves, dwarves, or hobbits for instance. Besides Tolkien stole most of his characters from european tribal mythologies. So you can hardly credit him with inventing these races. Their origins are lost in the past mythologies of europe. One could also argue that Tolkien, in his academic english prose, is prone to his own fair share of unnecessary waffle and descriptions.

As for Dune while there are similarities between the Aes Sedai and the Bene geserit, they are just passing similarities. Likewise the Aeil and the Fremen. Herberts books are much more concerned with religion than Jordans.

While these writers all deal with prophesy, destiny and the impact that the individual can have, they approach these themes in very different ways and with different focus.

None are particularly better than the other just differnt and those differences will appeal to individual readers in different ways.

158

JakOShadows: 2005-11-27

I agree with you there Jak, but I think you stole my name;).

159

The Librarian: 2005-12-04

What a lovely argument. I read all the replys and I just have to say something too.

To give myself some credibility among those who think WoT lovers must be stupid I'll tell that i have read LOTR five times (once in only two days), Silmarillion and big part of the book of lost tales or something like that. I don't remember the name exactly. And I enjoyed them all.

Most of the reasons I like WoT have already been mentioned, but I would like to add one thing. There have been writers with better characters, better descriptions and better other things, but I have never seen anybody so good in threading. With this I mean his incredible ability to have dozens of characters moving around the world in grops, which occasionally meet in far away places, mix and are off wandering around again. The timing and the flow are incredible. Plus, with his mastery of POVs Jordan has several mini-threads in every other thread. This among other things makes WoT very nice to read. I read the first six in two weeks. (OK, OK that is not relevant. I just wanted to boast.)

And to the comparison between Jordan and Tolkien. I think it all can be said in one sentence.

Tolkien is better, but Jordan is gooder.

I think an able-minded person can read many things from that.

160

FraKcture: 2005-12-05

I hope that one day I will be gooder so that I can read fast too. I think I will get 50 cans of red bull for the weekend and see how many WOT books I can read.

I have refrained from this topic to this point because I think if you don't like TWOT then you're not going to be convinced here. Why even argue?

While I suppose it's natural to compare Tolkien and Jordan, it's not really a fair comparison. Tolkien was primarily a professor. Writing was his hobby. He's the grand master of the sci-fi genre. (Not that he didn't steal as well; but he's the one that made it popular in this day and age.)

Personally, I find RJ to be, arguably, the best contemporary sci-fi writer. I can understand why some people may not like him though. Who cares? I don't. I gave up a long time ago trying to debate people about what writer or music group or whatever is better. Either you like it and enjoy it or you don't.

If I had to pick, I'd say the Silmarillion is my all time favorite book. But who cares? I don't. Maybe your favorite is Harry Potter. More power to you I say.

Just be sure that you don't get hung up on a particular writer or genre. Read a wide variety. That gives you the best perspective.

161

Kuma: 2005-12-07

Excellently put, jak, Librarian and FraKcture. I think that these are all valuable ways of looking at comparative sci-fi/fantasy lit.

To me, like when I listen to music or am deciding what to eat, it's all about what kind of mood I'm in. Some days I want to revel in a superbly crafted world and dense description, and so I read Tolkien. Some days, my tastes run toward gargantuan epic and the complex "threading" that Librarian mentioned and I pick up Jordan. Sometimes I want comfortably familiar characters and quirky dialogue and I grab David Eddings. There are days when I want cornball laughs and puns and I go digging through Piers Anthony or Robert Lynn Asprin. Occasionally, I'm just looking for light reading to pass an idle moment without deeply investing myself, and I go for the Harry Potter or R.A. Salvatore or something. There are days when almost anything can be better/gooder than everything else.

And as for criticism, we can criticize ANYTHING--even Tolkien--so let's not wind that beast up.

Generally, I don't jive so well with exclusivistic people who try to tell me what I should like, but it seems that most of us here agree that liking RJ or any other writer is more about personal tastes than who's better than whom. After all, one can equally enjoy the complexity and subtlety of Steak Tartare seved in a gourmet restaurant as well as the satisfying simplicity of a greasy hamburger at your neighbor's backyard barbecue.

Just my two cents.

162

JakOShadows: 2005-12-07

On Frackture's note there, the reason a writer writes is to express a point of view. Tolkien wrote LotR to write a 3rd person, descriptive story of the struggle of good vs evil in the creaton of our world. So he wrote with that purpose in mind. Whereas RJ is trying to show the complexities of our world through the series. And so he won't use perfect language, everything will not a be black and white good guys vs. bad guys plot line, it will show the shades of gray too. And the Harry Potter series is written to show the struggles of being a kid and a hero. And if you read it in that light it becomes ten times better. Sure, some of the plotlines may seem childish, but they're written from a kids pov. So if you look at books in that perspective, LotR won't be written the exact sameway as Harry Potter or WoT. Even if they were written at the same time, the would need to be written in different styles. If some people can't deal with it, they should not read the book.

163

Dionysis25: 2006-01-08

I don't know if anyone has mentioned this before. I don't have time to read ALL the replies right now. However, point twelve can be refuted in two words - DRAMATIC IRONY.

164

: 2006-05-03

Why do people like the Wheel of Time? Why do some people like chocolate ice cream, others vanilla and some crazy fools strawberry? Of course; it is all a matter of taste. Certainly, Tolkien may be a much better technically and litteraly, but his story is very monochromatic and stubborn. It persists in only one direction, one goal. Jordan's has blossomed and branched into something phenomenal. When Tolkien came across a plot hole he covered it up with a quick explanation or made something up on the spot. I can just hear him say "Hmmm, I could really use Gandalf right about now. I know I'll bring him back with no better explanation than 'My task was not finished, it was not yet my time!'" Jordan on the other hand will devote whole subplots or even volumes worth of material in order to flesh out the tale.

Robert Jordan's fantasy world is one of the most complex (if not the most) stories ever told. He has given us a world rich in detail, intrigue, excitement, conflict, love, suspense, blood, and magic. I could go on, but why should I? People love to be swept away by epic stories such as these. Why else would the Lord of The Rings movie trilogy have been so popular? People love big things. And as far as stories go, this is right up there at the top. Ten thousand plus pages of written story with a cast of hundreds.

It is a very well written story (as far as story, subject matter, and content goes). many of the themes of the books are relatable if perhaps the plot is not. The idea of ultimate good versus ultimate evil is of course universal. Loving someone who perhaps cannot love you back is familiar to us to be sure. There are others too numerous to mention, but you can see my point I am sure.

Why couldn't you follow the plot of the first book? Obviously you are an intelligent person; the plot and story are very straight forward (at least in the beginning). It is only in later volumes that the scores of subplots begin to overlap and become confusing.

Do you even like fantasy novels? This story has all the classic elements; magic, love, good vs. evil, redemption, a quest or outward conflict, and struggles internal within each character. Also it is popular because most of us have so much emotional investment in the story. We have bled with and loved these characters for so long that we could not help but stay the course.

I ask you sir; how much of the story have you even read? To say some of the things you do shows that you have not invested much critical time into analyzing this story. That in itself is not wrong or bad, but why bother posting if you don't understand what is really going on?

To answer a few and add to some previous answers:

2) Perfect English prose? Who does write in perfect english prose in the modern age? How boring. It is the vision, the pictures the words are painting that matter.

3) Now this is the one that truly shows you haven't been paying attention or even reading the books. Every other person who has ever read the books could probably tell you the differences between the cultures of this story

4) as was stated previously, just because a person lives in a place now, it doesn't mean their ancestors came from that place or the race started there. There are plenty of blondes living in southern California; just watch Baywatch.

6 & 7) an aiel named Bale is the tallest character in the books and Lanfear (before dieing) was the most beautiful. I will agree with you to some extent with regards to ability or potential to channel the one power. Who truly is the most powerful ( at least with regards to the women) seems to change from volume to volume.

8) Noone really knows who Taim is or where he has been so how do we not know where he can't travel to.

9) the forsaken routinely kill many people and each other; this comment is just silly

11) The Dragon Reborn MUST meet the Dark One on the slopes of Shaoul Ghul at Tarmon Gaidon to decide the fate of the world in this age.

The other questions are just matters of opinion. Do keep in mind that this is fiction, and FANTASY fiction at that. PLot devices are needed in every work of fiction. Sort of like when we see Aragorn kill dozens of orcs and Uruk-hai or when Eowyn kills the Witch King when many more skilled men including Gandalf fail to. Plot holes are plot holes and occur in evry work of fiction.

165

arcaneix: 2006-05-19

i think you are right about the dune,lotr chars,but there is also alot of king artur and napoleonic,charlemane in it as well.i dont think its better than lotr or dune.but i am an avid fantasy reader and think its worth a read.some of the concepts are good he does borrow alot of ideas but he does it so much to be honest i think it makes a fairly decent book.not best or even heir to that title but a decent read.

166

Divil The Bother: 2006-05-23

I think you can divide WOT into two categories - The first 5 or 6 books and then the rest. This is a series that started off brilliantly and through an admirable depth of plot and complexity of characters managed to sustain its momentum for 5, maybe six books.

Those very same qualities then seem to have been taken to extremes in subsequent books so we must endure chapter after chapter dealing with some minor thread such as Faileâ€™s kidnap and the long long long long rescue by Perrin. Other events which may have a significant bearing on the plot (such as Elayne securing the throne of Andor) are gone into in so much unnecessary and boring detail that the reader begins to feel that they are a secondary consideration for the author. This is the point where in my view RJ moves from brilliance to self indulgence.

At this stage I can say that I have purchased and read the 5 most recent books in the series not because I think they are worth the money or the time or because I think the WOT is a fantastic piece of work but because I have invested so much time in them that I feel I have to keep going and find out what happens in the end. This is RJ, in my view, at worst milking his readers for as much as he can get or at best being incredibly self indulgent! Imo most of the occurrences in books 7, 8 9 and 10 werenâ€™t central to the plot and could have been dealt with in one book.

I believe that when the series is complete and people look back on it they will come to the same conclusion that I have â€“ WoT started out as a fantastic sequence of novels that had everything but through a combination of slack editing, the self indulgence of the Author and an unsustainable level of complexity ended up as an overlong series which is very much let down by books 7 â€“ 10. This is sad because I really think WoT had the potential to be an all-time classic.

From what I remember KoD does start to get things moving at a reasonable pace once more and Iâ€™m hopeful that this will follow through into the final book and at least complete the series with a bang rather than a whimper.

167

Callandor: 2006-05-24

**Those very same qualities then seem to have been taken to extremes in subsequent books so we must endure chapter after chapter dealing with some minor thread such as Faileâ€™s kidnap and the long long long long rescue by Perrin.**

The thing is -- doesn't that show just how important the events were? The entire kidnap and rescue of Faile is what leads to the opening signs of the Last Battle -- Perrin choosing the hammer over the axe. I don't see how that is minor.

**This is RJ, in my view, at worst milking his readers for as much as he can get or at best being incredibly self indulgent! Imo most of the occurrences in books 7, 8 9 and 10 werenâ€™t central to the plot and could have been dealt with in one book.**

Yes, if one book could be mass produced and shiped as over 2500 pages.

168

Divil The Bother: 2006-06-20

**The thing is -- doesn't that show just how important the events were? The entire kidnap and rescue of Faile is what leads to the opening signs of the Last Battle -- Perrin choosing the hammer over the axe. I don't see how that is minor**

Maybe not but surely there's a better way to have Perrin make this choice than making the reader endure chapter after chapter of tedium. A really great writer simply wouldn't do this.

And if all these threads are to be addressed in the last book it will have to be at least 2,500 pages!!!

169

Heartstone Hunter: 2006-06-20

The point about the eagles in LOTR is that they were the eagles of Manwe, the head of the "Angels". Manwe, his birds, and even Galdalf were not supposed to interfere. Gandalf (a lesser angel) was able to interfere a little bit because Sauron, Balrog and Saramen where also deified beings. After the creatures of ME defeated the baddies, the eagles were allowed ot bring them hom.

170

Callandor: 2006-06-21

**Maybe not but surely there's a better way to have Perrin make this choice than making the reader endure chapter after chapter of tedium. A really great writer simply wouldn't do this.**

Right, a great writer doesn't write their plot threads in full of their importance....

Look, if there is anyone that knows what is important and what can be removed, it is Jordan. Any writer re-writes several times over, editors pour over the material, and everyone knows people don't want to read a heavy going book so what is going to be in there is what is important.

Again, all the chapters spent on this subject just show how important it is to the story and the characters involved. If you don't like the story itself, fine, but don't try to take a swipe at Jordan and say he's not a great writer because the story itself doesn't suit your tastes.

171

JakOShadows: 2006-06-22

***Maybe not but surely there's a better way to have Perrin make this choice than making the reader endure chapter after chapter of tedium. A really great writer simply wouldn't do this.***

I agree there was a better way to do this, but I think the reason the books dragged on was because he realized the other characters were underdeveloped. If you notice in books 8-10, nothing much happens with the three ta'veren, but all the minor characters have a lot of action to get the stage set for the LB. This isn't so much a case of bad writing as a case of having to fill in the gaps. Kind of like in star wars episode 1, 2, and 3; 1 & 2 were only decent in my opinion, but they were needed to set up the situation for episode 3 which is a really good movie. I agree that a good writer/editor will minimize this as much as possible, but the scope of the WoT books make it hard to do. And plus, I think the editing issue can also be chalked up to the fact that the publishers wanted a product very quickly so they could make money.

172

rltomkinson: 2006-06-22

"Writers such as William Morris, E. R. Eddison, Lord Dunsany and Tennyson all wrote historical fantasy epics decades before Tolkien."

Hear, hear!

I was getting quite irritated by the number of posts claiming that JRRT was the "father" of fantasy. Two of my favorite fantasy authors are Robert E. Howard and Edgar Rice Burroughs. Both of which were in print before LOTR.

173

Anubis: 2006-06-23

1) Most of the characters are stolen from The Lord Of the Rings and Dune.

Most of the characters from The Lord of the Rings and Dune are archetypes reflecting common traits of humanity. Find a real complaint.

2) Some people claim he is as good as Tolkien when he is obviously not; tolkien wrote in perfect English prose, Robert Jordan calls a telescope a looking-glass (i.e. a mirror) and gave account of an "infintesimal nod"(just impossible)

Holy crap, language changes over time and writers writing style reflects that. By the way, Tolkien sucks because he did not write in the perfect English style of William Shakespere.

3) Jordan has a mono-cultural world, Tolkien spent most of his life creating the world in which LotR is set in. It is linguistically impossible that when a united continent with one language (ie the old tongue) breaks apart the various factions speak in entirely new common language.

Yes, all the cultures are exactly the same. There is exactly one style of government, everyone eats the exact same foods using the exact same utinsels. Oh, and no one has a different accent. Or different style of dress. Or different manerisms. No. Not at all. You probably equate different species with different culture. Sorry, no elves here. No dwarves either. We don't miss them.

4) Anthropologically, the Aiel's features result from a cold climate (e.g. vikings or celts) while the two river's folk are more suited to warmer climes.

Woah. Peoples seperated by a cataclismic change in the planets surface and weather patterns are not fully adapted to those new patterns in only 3 thousand years?!?! They should at least be tan by now. At least where the sun touches their skin. Oh wait...

5) It is very hard to believe that in 3-5 thousand years no-one did the jigery pokery required to make angreal that Elayne did.

The One Power has over a billion different ways to kill or wound you. Even worse, you can burn yourself out easily.

6) Every character is taller than the next

Yes. Perrin is taller than Mat who is taller than Rand who dwarfs Bael. RJ doesnt use feet and inches, he has his characters describe height like real people do in their heads. Shame.

7) Every character is more handsome (beautiful) than the next

Amazingly enough different characters have different standards of beauty which is supposedly in the eye of the beholder. Or something.

10) The forsaken aren't powerful or dangerous in any way

Really? I will give you that most of it is reputation, but they have caused serious damage. Borderlands? Stripped of their garrisons. Andor? Destroyed by Rhavin. Arad Domon? Pure chaos. Dragonsworn. Seanchan Empire? Everywhere that Rand isn't the forsaken are destroying. Did you READ what Semerhage did to Seanchan?

11) The Dark Lord is a bumbling Idiot in that he could easily have killed Rand in every book or set all the Forsaken to sit in wait in a link of 13 to kill him.

The Dark Lord is a creature fighting a battle he can not win (I can explain why) and he is putting on one royal hell of a fight. If anyone can do it its Shai Tan, I'm pulling for you buddy.

12) Most of the 'suspense' in the book relies on people not knowing whats going on but assuming something. If Mat told Egwene what he had to do, she would not assume he was an idiot etc.

Wow. People don't have deep meaningful revealing long thoughtful conversations with people they haven't seen in a while, who have changed, or who they dont particularily trust? Wierd.

13) Professional, disciplined and long-experienced soldiers and trained generals are incompetent compared to Aiel and warders, yet a few younglings can dispatch warders, Aiel, you name it without any of the skills of the other armies. He doesn't even offer any "taver'en" explainations for this.

1. Aiel are the best man to man in terms of Armies.

2. Warders are the best man to man in terms of individuals, they just lack the numbers to be a real army.

3. Younglings are Warders in Training, who know all the Warders strengths and weaknesses.

4. Rand al'Thor, the most powerful Ta'veren of all time, was sitting in a treasure chest twenty feet away.

174

Divil The Bother: 2006-07-06

***Look, if there is anyone that knows what is important and what can be removed, it is Jordan. Any writer re-writes several times over, editors pour over the material, and everyone knows people don't want to read a heavy going book so what is going to be in there is what is important.***

Callandor - I think you're missing my point in your last post. Maybe these events are important but a great writer should be able to write about them without boring the reader - and a good editor would warn against self indulgence. Put it this way - if the first few books of the WOT series were written in the same long winded, tedious fashion as the later ones I suspect there wouldn't be a huge fan club out there for Jordan and his publishers to milk.

And by the way, I'm entitled to "take a swipe" at Jordan if I feel imo that the later books are not up to the standard of the earlier ones. You seem to suggest that just because Jordan puts something into a book that we should all think it's great!

You're not RJ posing as a site member are you?

175

Callandor: 2006-07-06

**Maybe these events are important but a great writer should be able to write about them without boring the reader - and a good editor would warn against self indulgence. Put it this way - if the first few books of the WOT series were written in the same long winded, tedious fashion as the later ones I suspect there wouldn't be a huge fan club out there for Jordan and his publishers to milk.**

It's not entertaining to you. That's the whole point. You don't like it, so Jordan is immediately a hack writer. You're point was implying that a "great writer" doesn't write his plot lines in full. That's absolute crap.

**And by the way, I'm entitled to "take a swipe" at Jordan if I feel imo that the later books are not up to the standard of the earlier ones. You seem to suggest that just because Jordan puts something into a book that we should all think it's great!**

Of course you're entitled to. But it only reminds me of a George Carlin joke. "I figured out why people groan at bad jokes. Envy."

176

wolfbrother10: 2006-07-07

I just don't know where to begin with the opinions posted on this theory...

First of all anyone who appreciates any form of art be it music, paintings or literature they do not look for literal meaning but what these things mean to you as you experience the work. That is what is called enjoyment of art.

A lot of the criticism by the original poster are unfounded. RJ is great at making the characters appear human. He focuses on insecurities, arrogance, ignorance and naive minds to create realistic situations and decisions. Even though it seems that every action is predestined we are able to follow how one thing leads to the other without any flaws.

I love the LOTR but The Hobbit was extremely boring until about the last few chapters. Even though RJ has some filler chapters in the end you see the reason behind some of the things he writes. You begin to have a relationship with the characters and that is why people feel like they are able to make predictions of the story.

A lot of things in life are done because our parents did them and their parents before them. Tradition is something that ensnares the minds of people and blinds them to many things. As we can see the characters in the WOT are not traditionalist in fact they are radicals. The dragon himself is proclaimed to bring change. Because the characters don't follow preset guidelines they are able to do things that others don't do.

An example of this is Elayne...other sisters would not even channel around ter'angreals for fear of what they could do. Elayne ignorance led her to want to study them even if they might be dangerous. This leads to her ability to create the ter'angreal leading to the discovery that Aviendha can know the use of a ter'angreal, angreal, sa'angreal by touch alone eliminating the need to even channel around them. I mean this is an excellent story thread.

Another is Nynaeve wanting to save her fellow villagers from Aes Sedai, realizing that the only way she can do it is by becoming Aes Sedai. She is afraid of the OP but then discovers how to heal the sever to the OP. She later on goes to help her fellow villager in the cleansing of the male half of the OP. All this from someone who didn't even want to accept that she could channel.

These are thoughts processes that real people can have and that makes it interesting to me. I can see what will lead people in the book to do the actions that they do and what stops them from doing the things they do.

I could mention something for each of the points offered by the original post but I think that Anubis did a great job.

If someone were to write down every detail and every thought process of all the individuals in ones life I think that there would be an amazingly similar work between the real life account and what RJ brings us. RJ wants us to be like authors and know the motivating impulses behind the characters while I think that Tolkien just gave us a story with no foundation making the LOTR fall short as far as integrity of the story compared to WOT. (whew)

That is my two...three...four cents. :D

177

snakes-n-foxes: 2006-07-09

Without having read all the preceding posts :

My opinion is multiple. Firstly, JORDAN has the best writing 'style' of anyone that I've read. His ability to bring a world, it's nature, it's lands, it's history, it's customs, and it's monuments to life shows great intelligence, and incredible talent.

The same for his characters, their flaws and strengths, their loves and hates, their history and emotions....their consistency (pure consistent characters is quite rare...their development..all this shows an incredible talent.

That said, I do think Jordan, in a number of his latter books has allowed his focus (ie the plot) to wonder...perhaps the biggest example being when the girls went off to Luca's menagarie - that went on for hundreds (yes hundreds) of pages, with very little action and no apparent benefit to the overall plot of the series. This part for me, among other such diversions, became incredibly boring (even with Jordans great writing style).

My favourite books were TEotW, TGH, to a lesser extent TDR, then it varied from book to book.

His great writing style keeps me reading, yet (apart from the first few), his pacing, at times, has frustrated me greatly.

178

Sampson: 2006-07-10

I think the WOT series is one of the best written. Thatâ€™s my opinion only.

I think George R Martins Song of Fire & Ice is better.

I have read the LotR and I really liked it allot. I think what you have to understand that Tolkien set the standard for Fantasy and an epic type of novel. What he did influenced all the authors we read now. I read the LotR after reading years of fantasy. I found that I could determine what was going to happen before it happened almost through out the series. It wasnâ€™t that Tolkien was bad, it was that most authors used the same concepts that he used.

Dune & Frank Herbert, is similar to RJ & the WOT series in that the first couple of books were really really good. But the quality dropped off as the series went along. I truly like the Dune series and enjoy the prequelsâ€™ that his son has published.

The argument that you have presented is about taste. But you also fail to take into consideration the influence Tolkien & Herbert have had on authors who want to write fantasy. If you read it and purchase the books that means youâ€™re a fan. That would also make one assume that you read more than just one author. I find it very interesting to see how a fantasy author writes and see what influenced him in their style.

Basically, you are having problems with the topic of fantasy as a whole. There is only so many ways you can spin a story about a battle between good and evil. That the world will end as we know it unless the powers that want to destroy it are stopped. It is the details of how the author takes us along that journey. How they place the obstacles and how the hero(s) over come them.

I agree with you that the Lord of the Rings was a great piece of work, which influenced countless authors and would be authors. I agree that the Dune series was also a really good series, which also influenced many authors. I would hazard a guess that Robert Jordanâ€™s Wheel of Time Series has also influenced many authors and will be ranked as a great series. I a would also agree that the quality of the books has declined from the first 3, but I am not complainingïŠ I like being able to read, the more books the more reading I can do.

So smile and enjoy what you can, nobody is perfect. This is a work of fiction and should be taken as such.

179

soranar: 2006-07-13

Well I happen to be an anthropology student and as culture goes the author with problems RJ is fine, its Tolkien that needs to answer a few questions

In RJ's world everything makes some kind of sense: the high birth rate of aiels, for example, can be explained by the fact one man can have many wives and that unmarried woman can have children outside of marriage without any social stigma

food custom, the way people talk, how they interact with each other mostly makes sense and is sound : cities have trades routes, make some kind of goods they use for barter and they actually have money

tolkien on the other hand just doesn't make any sense, the worst or best example is found in dwarves

you hear of a people that live underground, in caverns they dig themselves without making the whole mountain fall on top of them, ok so far its believable

yet they cultivate no food and don't seem to hunt or gather cattle or anything ... from what do they live? how do they find stuff to make their famous ales? if they don't cultivate food then who do they trade with for it? and how does it get there? There is a severe lack of economical structure in LOTR that most people simply don't care about because they just accept it as it is

in any low technology society food is extremely important and hard to get and so is pretty much anything else for that matter, horses, rope, gear, whatever you make, you need something to make it with

the other communities in LOTR make some kind of sense but their trade seems rather nonexistent which is a problem for such an era: you'll always need something you don't have near you like leather, metal or food, noone is completely self-reliant like what is described in LOTR

180

Karede: 2006-07-14

Orson Scott Card (Ender's Game, other science fiction/fantasy) says that they are four types of stories in speculative fiction. These are--> Milue, Idea, Character, Event (think MICE). The reason people have different tastes is based around the types of stories they like. Epics like LotR and WoT usually touch on more than one.

LotR is focused around the Milue (the world) and the Event (destroying the ring of power). The only used Idea is to give a reson for the event to occure and the Characters only exist to show the Milue and carry out the Event.

The WoT is focused on the Idea (good and evil being subjective) and the Characters. The Milue is more of a setting to show the characters than its own part of the story and the Events demonstrate the Idea and the different sides to the Characters.

I think it is unwise to pass judgment on which is better, because it is more based around a matter of taste than any mechanical flaw in either one.

181

rand: 2006-08-15

Hello Johnamdor! If you are still checking here, read this:

1- a) Lotr- there are no women characters, and the movies are better than the books

b) Dune- never read it, sorry :)

2- In the first chapter of the first book, rand sees a "double handful" of geese on the Green

3- true, but the one language makes everythung a lot easier to understand than Tolkien, who had 30 different names for every city

4- don't know about anthropology stuff

5- true, but elayne is the most powerful ever besides nyneave and egwene (sinse the AOL)

6- Bael is tallest, met in book 4

7- galad is handsomest (book 1)

lanfear is beautifulest (book 2)

8- this is true! in Illian at the end of ACOS, Rand and the Asha Man travel all over the place! But u have it wrong, u need to know the start, not the finish.

9- u don't have a nine! :)

10- they are, Rand is just more powerful/dangerous

11- but he doesn't want to. "Let the Lord of Chaos rule"

12- confused :/

13- well, gawayn is good

oh and all 3 lotr's equal about 1 wot book. But i guess its quality, not quantity!

lol :) Rand

182

Anubis: 2006-08-16

**1- a) Lotr- there are no women characters, and the movies are better than the books**

Um...

4- don't know about anthropology stuff

**5- true, but elayne is the most powerful ever besides nyneave and egwene (sinse the AOL)**

Did we read the same books?

**7- galad is handsomest (book 1)**

There is an official standard for beauty now?

**lanfear is beautifulest (book 2)**

Think you are looking for most beautiful and again with the official standard of beauty.

**oh and all 3 lotr's equal about 1 wot book. But i guess its quality, not quantity!**

Glancing at my bookshelf seems to disagree, but im too lazy to actually do a word count, sorry.

183

rand: 2006-08-17

Anudis,

Well the women in lotr really don't have much of a role. And therre are only 3: Arwen, Eowyn, and Galadriel.

I like the books too, I just think the movies were amazing.

Isn't Elayne the most powerful Aes Sedai since AOL, along with Nyneave and Egwene?

Lanfear is MOST BEAUTIFUL.

Fellowship= 458

Towers= 398

Return= 340

Total= 1196

LOC= 1006

Close enough,

LOL :) Rand

184

Callandor: 2006-08-18

**Isn't Elayne the most powerful Aes Sedai since AOL, along with Nyneave and Egwene?**

It's a ranked scale, with clear divisions. For instance:

Lanfear

Graendal

(rest of the Forsaken, for example)

They're the top most level. Jordan has said that he uses a scale of 21 and there's all kinds of speculation regarding it many times, but for safe betting you can think of the "Forsaken range" to be roughly 17-21. Nynaeve is in this range (she is the first strongest since the Age of Legends found; others have been mentioned, like Sharina Malloy).

Then there is the "Above Aes Sedai standards" range. Like:

Egwene, Elayne, Aviendha (all mentioned to be closely the same).

Cadsuane

Bodewhin

Nicola

Etc.

This range could be considered roughly 13-16.

Then there is basically "Aes Sedai standard" range, 8-12 or so. For instance:

Moiraine

Siuan (pre-stilling)

Romanda

Elaida

etc.

Those four I mentioned are actually considered bad examples because they are the very upper limit of the Aes Sedai standard, and somewhat close to being in the above range (though, they are still weaker; just closer than "normal" Aes Sedai).

Then there is lower than this of course.

Egwene isn't the end all be all of channelers. With every ranked position, she'd probably be considered above average in strength, but still not Forsaken strength. Stronger than most Aes Sedai, but there are a lot of others far stronger than her.

185

Anubis: 2006-08-19

**Isn't Elayne the most powerful Aes Sedai since AOL, along with Nyneave and Egwene? **

Its very debatable. Sharina is easily stronger, and we know she will be Aes Sedai. As well as the fact that by Cadsuanes definition of Aes Sedai Elyane isnt one, having not held the oaths.

However, you seemed to just be implying that the supergirls are the strongest, and that isnt the case. They have been surpassed by Alivia and Sharina.

186

wolfbrother10: 2006-08-19

In regard to strength in the power...there are many that have been seen as stronger than the superchicks. Talaan (spelling?) was so strong in the OP that she surprised Nyn by being able to sustain a shield on her. She was a rarity among channelers because both her mother and grandmother were born with the spark as well as she.

However, when it comes to spunk and ambition the superchicks reign supreme. :D

187

rand: 2006-08-20

but neither Sharina nor Alivia are Aes Sedai, neither are Lanfear and the other forsaken (not anymore at least) so nyneave is the strongest Aes Sedai, then Elayne and Egwene. (Aviendha also is not Aes Sedai)

188

Anubis: 2006-08-22

Like I said, it all depends what you mean by Aes Sedai. The stupid supergirls have been calling themselves Aes Sedai since they discovered they could channel, that doesnt mean they are. Untill they hold the oath rod they arent Aes Sedai in any real sense, with the exception of Egwene, by virtue of being Amryllin.

189

Callandor: 2006-08-22

**but neither Sharina nor Alivia are Aes Sedai, neither are Lanfear and the other forsaken (not anymore at least) so nyneave is the strongest Aes Sedai, then Elayne and Egwene. (Aviendha also is not Aes Sedai)**

1. I find it really stupid to limit strength to just who is "Aes Sedai." Like Anubis said, if you want to get truly technical about it, Cadsuane is the strongest Aes Sedai now, since Egwene, Nynaeve, and Elayne have not held the Oath Rod. As well, you'd be forced to include the Forsaken into this really, since they were Aes Sedai and still can be considered such.

2. Even if we accept this, the wording of you inital question is quite suspect. One cannot be the "most powerful Aes Sedai" and truly be tied with another. So, in that case, Elayne is not the most powerful since the Age of Legends -- Nynaeve is.

But again, that's be unnecessarily technical about answers.

190

JakOShadows: 2006-08-23

Anubis:

Actually, Nyn and Elayne are AS too because Egwene proclaimed them to be AS. They aren't AS by the old rules, but if Egwene raised them to AS level then they are technically

AS. Because if Egwene makes a proclamation it is law, no matter how much the sitters and other AS complain.

191

rand: 2006-08-24

Callandor,

The original theory that started all this strength thing was:

"It is very hard to believe that in 3-5 thousand years no-one did the jigery pokery required to make angreal that Elayne did."

I said that she is the strongest Aes Sedai next to Nyneave, so she would have the strenght required to make an angreal. All the other stuff about Talaan and Sharina and them, I'm not sure. I would think that only Aes Sedai would try or care about how to make an angreal. That's why I didn't include windfinders, damane, grandmas, etc.

192

Callandor: 2006-08-24

**I said that she is the strongest Aes Sedai next to Nyneave, so she would have the strenght required to make an angreal.**

Making angreal has nothing to do with strength -- it's a Talent.

And if that is all you were after, you shouldn't have put that comment in with your comments replying to Anubis. Your later comments about disqualifying people for not being Aes Sedai are all the more strange because of this. Finally, you again said "along with" not "next to." Big difference in word choice. Along with implies that they are all equal -- next to shows that there are exceptions you are discounting.

193

Anubis: 2006-08-24

**Actually, Nyn and Elayne are AS too because Egwene proclaimed them to be AS. They aren't AS by the old rules, but if Egwene raised them to AS level then they are technically**

Cadsuane would beg to differ. Are you going to argue with her? Have fun. Who do you think would win in a showdown, Cadsuane or Egwene?

194

JakOShadows: 2006-08-25

***Cadsuane would beg to differ. Are you going to argue with her? Have fun. Who do you think would win in a showdown, Cadsuane or Egwene?***

I wasn't trying to claim that all the other AS would agree, but I think there are some situations in which it is required. And the other rebel AS did something like that with Theodrin. So I believe it is not beyond reason that other AS would do it, rather, I think they just weren't happy about who she was choosing to raise to the shawl.

195

JakOShadows: 2006-08-25

Anubis:

Sorry forgot that last question. I think it would actually depend on whether Egwene is Amrylin of united tower or just of the rebel faction. Because it would add a certain amount weight behind her words if she does unite the tower.

196

rand: 2006-08-25

(Not sure if I believe this but...)

If Egwene is only rebel Amyrlin, does that mean she technically isn't the Amyrlin? Elaida is the real one. So the whole thing about the Amyrlin's words being law would not be true for Egwene, and thus Elayne and Nyn would not be Aes Sedai.

(Sorry, I know this contradicts everything else I put here, but I figured I'd ask...)

197

snakes-n-foxes: 2006-08-25

**Making angreal has nothing to do with strength -- it's a Talent.**

They also called travelling a talent, yet it requires a certain strength.

198

Callandor: 2006-08-26

**Cadsuane would beg to differ. Are you going to argue with her? Have fun. Who do you think would win in a showdown, Cadsuane or Egwene?**

Well technicalities aside, it would be the one instance where I would root for Egwene due to being the lesser of two evils so to speak. The best situation would be to shoot both.

But it does come up against the contrast of the perscribed law and what Aes Sedai all have in common. As Amyrlin, what Egwene decrees is law; however, what she, Elayne, Nynaeve, Theodrin, and Faolain have in common is that they have not sworn on the Oath Rod something which every Aes Sedai has done. As Siuan said, it is what truly binds them together.

So, in technical terms, they are not Aes Sedai. In legal terms, they are. In personal terms, hardly any Aes Sedai is "Aes Sedai."

199

Callandor: 2006-08-27

**If Egwene is only rebel Amyrlin, does that mean she technically isn't the Amyrlin? Elaida is the real one. So the whole thing about the Amyrlin's words being law would not be true for Egwene, and thus Elayne and Nyn would not be Aes Sedai.**

It technical terms, there isn't any Amyrlin now, because they haven't been approved by seven Ajahs.

**They also called travelling a talent, yet it requires a certain strength.**

Which is why I find it silly that they do. Traveling requires knowing a weave. Actually utilizing it just requires being so strong, and can even be done with a link if the person is not. There's nothing really inate that is a Talent about Travelling, unless you just want to stipulate it as "the person is strong." Healing requires knowing the weave and being as strong to do it as well; yet some people have the Talent to do it well or very well, others do not. Same with Compulsion. Foretelling is a complete Talent, since there's nothing to it that you have to learn as far as we know -- you either have the ability or you don't. The best that could really be said about Traveling is maybe the person could find a location better than someone else, but we've seen nothing about that at all.

200

peacant: 2006-08-28

1. what characters are stolen from LotR? Myrdraal are like black riders, Lan's a little like Aragorn. That's like saying LotR ripped of the Oddessy because Oddyseus has a beard and so does Gandalf.

2. Opinion staed as fact

3. Hawkwing united all the kingdoms, uniting languages doesn't seem so hard next to that

4. Waste nights are very chilly

5. No one was powerful enough

6. Thats because the story starts out in the second shortest region and goes to the tallest (The Waste) last.

7. I have yet to hear of a character more beautiful than Selene (Lanfear)

8. Actually Travelling requires the user to be familliar with their current location

9. You forgot 9

10. That's because their up aginst the most powerful channelers since the Age of Legends

11. Have you noticed all villians are (See: Lex Luther's inability to just shoot Superman when kryptonite is around, See: Galbatorix being so paranoid as to not come out of his palace and nuke the elves, Varden, etc.)

12. That's what suspense is

13. Cite specific examples

14. Since you forgot 9, I felt is was neccessary to add a 14, on your intro you asked your friend why she likes WoT, a satisfactory answer is almost impossible (Generic ramblings such as "It has an intricate plot" or "I identify with the characters" have literally no meaning as they apply to almost every novel)

201

peacant: 2006-08-28

I see Johnamdor thinking when he says JRRT uses perfect english prose: "Tip top jolly good, JRRT uses perfect english prose, that RJ is just all sixes and sevens".

202

TheDragonMustLive: 2006-12-23

Johnamdor:

I can accept that some people just don't see the appeal of Wheel of Time. Everyone has different tastes. The thing I love about it is the vast scope of what Mr. Jordan is trying to accomplish. He is writing an epic that is more complex than any that I have ever seen. Literally dozens of subplots need to be followed and he brings them all to life. Perhaps his grammar and syntax aren't perfect, but he speaks in a way that brings life to his scores of characters to millions of people like me. And as for his characters being based on other stories, if you look closely, a lot of them are based on people from legends and mythologies of our world (i.e. Rand based on Jesus Christ, Artur Paendrag based on Arthur Pendragon, the names of the Trolloc tribes taken from various monsters of legend). I personally feel that this allows for a connection to the real world. I think it was meant to give us a feel that perhaps we are on the Wheel of Time and our legends are taken from their legends. Time has simply polluted the names. We are in a new Age, free from the One Power, in an age of technology (please note that I do not think this, I just feel that was perhaps Mr. Jordan's intent in using our legends as a basis for his book). To be able to ask "what if" and suspend disbelief while reading his books is a treat to me. His characters come to life to me, and if they don't for you, I honestly feel sorry for you because I feel that you are missing out on a wonderful experience.

Christopher

P.S. To nitpick about the racial characteristics of a desert-dwelling race while raising up Tolkien, who simply made up nonhuman races, seems a bit ridiculous to me. Although, for the record, I love Lord of the Rings.

203

raraavis: 2007-04-11

I am writing as an initial skeptic who became an obsessive.

The WOT series was initially suggested to me by an old friend. The bookstore only had vol. 2, and a quick look at the book cover and the prologue convinced me that it was a terrible rip off of Tolkein with some Authurian legends and Shaitan thrown in. I was surprised my friend had suggested it and I dismissed it as lacking enough merit, even for a guilty pleasure.

Then several months later, after a wet and dreary morning dealing with various bureaucrats, and in a foul mood, I went into the bookstore. I thought a browse through the books would put me in a better mood. The fantasy section is right at the top of the stairs, and looking straight ahead, I saw the WOT series. They had vol. 1, so I thought I would give it another shot. It was just the sort of fluff, I reasoned, that would cheer me up. I sat down with the book and almost put it down half a dozen times during the first 20 pages. I was indignant: it was just a rip off of Tolkein, the writing was not terribly good, and it seemed headed towards a really binary (and therefore predictable) view of good and evil.

However, by p. 50, I was hooked. The characters took on depth. There was some ambiguity. Mostly, I just wanted to know what would happen next. I kept saying to myself, just 20 more pages, just until I finish this chapter. I read until I was ready to pass out with hunger and felt that the women working in the store must be wondering why I was still there. At this point, I had been there for so long that I was too embarrassed to just put the book back on the shelf and so I went downstairs to buy it. There were no windows on the top floor, but when I went downstairs I saw that it was dark (I had entered the store at noon.) I thought to myself, it must be a rainstorm coming in, until I looked at my cell and saw that it was 5pm. (No wonder I was hungry!)

That was in January. Since then, I have avidly consumed the entire series. The question is, why?

It wasn't because I finally became convinced that RJ wasn't drawing heavily on Tolkein (as one responder already noted, most fantasy series do, or merely seem to because they are drawing on the same mythologies and histories that Tolkein used.) I can't give a definitve list of reasons for why I became so hooked, but here are some:

1) As the WOT world developed it added layers and layers of complexity: political, culturall, historical, geographic. It became its own universe, quite apart from its original inspirations.

2) I became caught up in the characters and their relationships to one another. I became attached to certain characters and wanted to see them accomplish their goals.

3) A substantial part of the series is dedicated to strong, determined and fascinating women.

4) I was fascinated by the different cultures, their histories and RJ's account of their collisions. Against Johnamdor, I think that the variety of cultures in WOT is a key aspect of its attraction and intellectual depth (though the fact that they all happen to speak the same language is indeed suspect.)

5) And perhaps most compellingly, it became clear that good and evil were not being offered in black and white.

I think the true measure of the WOT series is that in spite of its obvious Tolkein inspirations and sometimes repetitive or flat writing, the story is still powerful enough to sweep us up and take us into another world, full of characters that seem like real people. When I read Tolkein, I always feel that I am reading of heroes and history. When I read the WOT series, I feel I am encountering the weakness, ambiguity and determination of "real" people in the act of struggle. And I think this is a large part of the point. Matt, Perrin and Rand all repeatedly remark on the fact that the experience of adventure and the responsibility of their tasks is nothing at all like the heroic epics make it out. It seems that for many on this site, it is this internal, psychological access to the characters that makes the series so compelling.

All that said, I think Johnamdor has some good points. I laughed when I read this post, because it echoed so many of my own sentiments, both before I read the books and even as I was devouring them.

First, I think we have to give him 6 & 7:

6) Every character is taller than the next

7) Every character is more handsome (beautiful) than the next

While there are exceptions, at least in the first 2/3rds of the series, this trend is laughable. I despaired of every seeing an ugly woman in the land of WOT. I was delighted when finally (in KOD, I believe) a woman was described as looking like a carion bird. The minor exceptions withstanding (Gaidal Cain, Balwer) the inhabitants of WOT seem to be a surpassingly attractive population.

I also can't say how many times I gnashed my teeth over 12)- the fact that most of the problems would be sovled if the main characters would simply talk to one another: "Oh, you ran into one of the forsaken? I did too. Could that be related? What do you think they're up to?"

I tried to tell myself that this was just the reality of living in a world without phones, cell phones and e-mail. However, given the introduction of communicating via dreams, traveling, etc., the lack of communication sometimes stretches my capacity for suspension of disbelief.

More than enough for now. I promise never to make such a long post again.

204

Tantor The Holy: 2007-04-18

Robert Jordan didn't steal his charicters from lord of the rings and dune. he got them from the same place the others did. Rand is a christ figure and Mat is based on the norse god Oddin. t5he others probably have the same connections, I'm just don't know where.

205

Marie Curie 7: 2007-04-23

raraavis:
"I also can't say how many times I gnashed my teeth over 12)- the fact that most of the problems would be sovled if the main characters would simply talk to one another: "Oh, you ran into one of the forsaken? I did too. Could that be related? What do you think they're up to?"

I tried to tell myself that this was just the reality of living in a world without phones, cell phones and e-mail. However, given the introduction of communicating via dreams, traveling, etc., the lack of communication sometimes stretches my capacity for suspension of disbelief."

The lack of communication among the characters in the Wheel of Time is one of the central themes of RJ's writing. He has emphasized that on more than one occasion:

-------
RJ's Blog, December 19, 2005

Now as to communications and the lack thereof, these things are not commentaries on any sort of technologies. They are a commentary on the human navel. Do you really know anybody who actually tells everything he or she knows to everybody? Even when they really need to know? Maybe especially when they really need to know. Do you really trust people who think they always know what other people really need to know? May I postulate that this person has few close friends, those quite quiet when around him or her? There are a thousand reasons why we don't tell everything to everybody, including often things that we should tell. Maybe the information puts us in a bad light, so we withhold information, or perhaps shade the truth a bit. That's one of the most common. Or maybe we think the other person must already know because it is so obvious. Which can add the factor that we don't want to appear foolish for pointing out that the sky seems to be blue today. Or maybe we just didn't bloody well think of it. It has always struck me how unrealistic, how incredibly fortuitous -- you think ta'veren are centers of unrealistic coincidence? Huh! -- books are where almost everybody learns everything they need to know as soon as they need to know it, where almost nobody of any note or importance ever has to make decisions based on incomplete information, information that the reader may know is at least partly wrong. Lord, even when they just learn almost everything they need to know exactly when they need to know it, matters seem just too far-fetched. No, it isn't a commentary on technology. Just people.
-------

Tantor the Holy:
"Robert Jordan didn't steal his charicters from lord of the rings and dune. he got them from the same place the others did. Rand is a christ figure and Mat is based on the norse god Oddin. t5he others probably have the same connections, I'm just don't know where."

RJ got his inspiration from all sorts of myths and legends and stories. From Thus Spake the Creator:

-------
Q: Did you get any inspiration from Arthurian Legend?

A: Quite a bit, along with other Celtic myths and Norse myths and African and Middle- Eastern, and Hindu and Chinese and Japanese and Native American and even Australian Aboriginal. Plus some others here and there to tell you the truth.
-------

RJ does indicate that he wrote the beginning of The Eye of the World as sort of a tribute to Tolkien, though. Again, from Thus Spake the Creator:

-------
Q: How much did Tolkein, or even Edding's Belgariad chronicles influence the WOT series?

A: Edding certainly not at all, and as for Tolkein, only to the degree that (1) he showed that it was possible to write a very large series of books, a very large story, and (2) the fact that I purposely did the first, oh, perhaps 80 pages of "The Eye of the World" as an homage to Tolkein in a way, that it was set in the same sort of pastoral country that Tolkein wrote about.
-------

And, Rand and Mat have some influences along the lines you mention, but RJ has stated that he took bits of all sorts of characters and legends and used them in different ways. For example, Mat's influences include Odin and Loki and others, while Rand's influence include Arthur and Thor. From Thus Spake the Creator:

-------
Q: Mr. Jordan. I love your series, it is intricate and interesting. My favorite character (other than Rand) is Matt. People have speculated that Odin was the outline for this character. I see Chukullen (misspelled). Could you eleborate?

A: There are a number of characters reflected, mythological characters, reflected in each of the books because of the basic theme, if you will, of the books, that information becomes distorted over distance or time... you cannot know the truth of an event the further you get from it. These people are supposed to be the source of a great many of our legends or myths, but what they actually did bears little resemblance to the myth. that is the conceit, that time has shifted these actions to other people, perhaps compressing two people into one or dividing one into three as far as their actions go so Rand has bits of Arthur and bits of Thor and bits of other characters and so does Mat and so does Nynaeve, and so do others. And yes Matt does have some bits of Odin, but not exclusively. He has bits of Loki and bits of Coyote and of the Monkey King.
-------

Other good places to read about RJ's influences are in the Character Parallels and the World and Plot Parallels sections of the wotmania FAQ. I also would suggest the appropriate section on parallels in the Wheel of Time Theory Database, which also has links to the WOTFAQ material.

206

Allchaos: 2007-04-25

Well, my opinion on the subject;

To me, Lord of the Rings was a simple book, with a simple story and simple characters. The plot was easy to follow, and there weren't any political intrigues. However, a lack of POV left me without an in-depth look into the characters at all, whcih is what the Wheel of Time excels at.

Reading from Mat's point of view is always a good time, because (in my opinion), he is so likeable; the same with some of the other characters. Jordan also, like the POV of Elaida, allows some characters to be hated by the reader; the reader can choose who he or she wants to side with or defend. There are also even cases where a POV character completly misunderstands what is happening around him; this brings a depth to the characters and the story that LTR doesn't have. I couldn't get in touch with any of the characters in LTR, because I didn't know them well enough to.

In the case of writing, however. I believe WOT is a book for out generation, with modern English and easy to understand words. I'm sorry to say, that maybe because of the age I read it at, LTR's english was way too formal and complex for me to treat it any differently than a history book. Jordan's diction and detail, however, truly get me interested in the story.

I have to say though "7) Every character is more handsome (beautiful) than the next" is true in some senses; there's at least 5 pretty serving maids in each chapter (roflmao). At leats we know Mat, one of the main characters, is apparently not that good looking, even though he's a player.

I seriously can't agree with this "3) Jordan has a mono-cultural world, Tolkien spent most of his life creating the world in which LotR is set in. It is linguistically impossible that when a united continent with one language (ie the old tongue) breaks apart the various factions speak in entirely new common language." because there are many different dialects, like Illian and Tear, but the accents are also completely different in each culture, i.e Seanchans slur, while Domani (I think) have a really brisk way of speaking.

"5) It is very hard to believe that in 3-5 thousand years no-one did the jigery pokery required to make angreal that Elayne did."--For this, in most books, the main characters will usually be able to do something no one thought of before...

Yeah, but that's basically what I have to say.

207

Marie Curie 7: 2007-05-01

Allchaos:
"To me, Lord of the Rings was a simple book, with a simple story and simple characters. The plot was easy to follow, and there weren't any political intrigues. However, a lack of POV left me without an in-depth look into the characters at all, whcih is what the Wheel of Time excels at.

Reading from Mat's point of view is always a good time, because (in my opinion), he is so likeable; the same with some of the other characters. Jordan also, like the POV of Elaida, allows some characters to be hated by the reader; the reader can choose who he or she wants to side with or defend. There are also even cases where a POV character completly misunderstands what is happening around him; this brings a depth to the characters and the story that LTR doesn't have. I couldn't get in touch with any of the characters in LTR, because I didn't know them well enough to.

In the case of writing, however. I believe WOT is a book for out generation, with modern English and easy to understand words. I'm sorry to say, that maybe because of the age I read it at, LTR's english was way too formal and complex for me to treat it any differently than a history book. Jordan's diction and detail, however, truly get me interested in the story."

It's a personal preference whether you enjoy RJ, Tolkien, both, or neither, but I just wanted to point out some of the motivating factors for Tolkien's writings. Tolkien was a philologist; he loved to study and construct languages (he was professor of Anglo-Saxon language and then later professor of English language and literature at Oxford University). He invented peoples to speak the languages and stories with historical depth to illustrate the evolution of the languages -- this was one of the primary motivating factors for Tolkien's creation of The Lord of the Rings and the earlier history of Middle-earth as set out in books like The Silmarillion.

Tolkien also was struck with the notion that England didn't really have its own set of myths and legends. From one of his letters:

"I was from early days grieved by the poverty of my own beloved country: it had no stories of its own, not of the quality that I sought, and found in legends of other lands. There was Greek, and Celtic, and Romance, Germanic, Scandinavian, and Finnish; but nothing English, save impoverished chap-book stuff."

So, the stories of Middle-earth represented Tolkien's attempts to create a mythology for England, in addition to providing a forum for his explorations of languages.

208

A-Vron: 2007-05-22

Hereâ€™s my take on the 'Johnamdor 13':

1) The characters in WOT are composites of mythological characters if anything, but they are certainly not stolen.

2) As good as Tolkien? Thatâ€™s an opinion & by definition canâ€™t be right or wrong. You may love Tolkienâ€™s writing, but most of us here at Theoryland love RJâ€™s. Thatâ€™s why were here. It also sounds like you like Dune more than WOT too. Thatâ€™s fine, I like Dune too. But Martinâ€™s stories only got better, imo, when Kevin J Anderson joined the team. Maybe Iâ€™m biased because Iâ€™m a huge Star Wars book fan, but itâ€™s still my opinion.

3) This has been refuted may times already, WOT is not mono-cultural. If it were, none of the Two Rivers characters would be surprised by anything they see on their journeys, but when Mat attends the festivals in Ebu Dar heâ€™s shocked by the nudity/near nudity on display with the local costumes.

4) Again, this has been refuted many times over already in this post and addressed by RJ himself.

5) First off, itâ€™s terangreal that Elayne made, not angreal. Secondly, a persons Talent has to be taken into account. Not everyone can Foretell, not everyone has the same ability with Healing, and not everyone can do the jiggery-pokey to make a terangreal.

6) False, Bael is the tallest human with Shaidar Haran being the tallest fade and all kinds of even taller ogier.

7) Perspective, like the argument against #6, has to be taken into consideration. If the entire story were told from Rands POV, then there wouldnâ€™t be very many tall people. If it were told from Egweneâ€™s POV then everybody would be uglier than Gawyn. The varied perspectives gives the WOT fantastic depth.

8) Another one that has been blown away time and time again. Traveling requires knowing you point of origin, not destination. Also, I loved the argument saying Tolkien wasnâ€™t consistent, bringing Gandalf back to life just to make his story easier. I had never looked at it that way.

10) Callandor broke this down really well showing the Power Ranking List of current Aes Sedai/Foresaken. But we also have to look at the argument that the Reds must shoulder a little of the blame for the weakening of the Aes Sedai by killing off all men that can channel of hundreds of years. This probably makes the Foresaken very powerful by todayâ€™s standards, couple that with 3000 years of legend & you have some very intimidating people. Difficult for even them to live up to.

11) The order came from the DO himself, â€˜Let the Lord of Chaos rule.â€™ He didnâ€™t want Rand dead.

12) No one tells everyone everything all the time. Not in real life and certainly not in a fictional book. The lack of communication does assist in some suspense or frustratiuon, but itâ€™s definitely not where all of the suspense in the books comes from. Any book would suck if the main characters addressed the reader directly & said â€œDonâ€™t tell the other characters in the book, but hereâ€™s how the story is going to goâ€¦â€ The lack of communication in WOT is based more on arrogance than on lack of trust. Rand doesnâ€™t trust anyone, so he doesnâ€™t tell anyone his plans. The supergirls donâ€™t men are incompetent so they donâ€™t tell a man anything.

13) You know what Johnamdor, this always bugged me too, until one of the other posts in this thread pointed out that the tower can be seen as a kind of military academy. There were many more Younglings than Warders at the time of the coup. The Younglings were not only trained by the masters, but they also outnumbered them by quite a bit. The Younglings took losses in their battles with the Warders and eventually with the Aiel, but in the end their training along with their superior numbers helped them win those battles. You have to remember that the Aiel they fought after Dumais Wells were just small bands, scattered after the Ashaman defeated them.

The final thought you gave in your initial post was that you wanted someone to tell you why WOT is so great. This again is based on taste and opinion & really canâ€™t have a right or wrong answer, but I look at it this way. Tolkien sat down to write a history book that turned out to be fantastically entertaining, RJ sat down to write an entertaining book and it has turned out to be a fantastically entertaining, epic series. I enjoy WOT more than LOTR because it reads like watching a movie.

I read Bram Stokerâ€™s Dracula when I was a kid before I read LOTR. I then really enjoyed LOTR because it was easier to read than Dracula. Thatâ€™s not to say I didnâ€™t enjoy Dracula, but I liked LOTR more.

Now Iâ€™m into WOT & it reads even easier than LOTR. Just because a book/series is an easy read doesnâ€™t mean that it is poorly written. Harry Potter is an easy read and itâ€™s enjoyable. The Left Behind series is almost too easy of a read, but I also found that enjoyable. The Silmarillion is more difficult read but itâ€™s my favorite Tolkien book. One of the best books Iâ€™ve read (even though the movie was horrible) is Battlefield Earth by L Ron Hubbard. Not the best written book ever, but it was 1000 pages of action. Thatâ€™s enjoyable to me.

Even though WOT has a few chapters strung together from time to time that are more development than action and are perhaps considered boring by some, I agree with Callandor that those chapters are needed to further develop the characters & plot, showing the importance of those chapters. This series and website are very popular because RJ succeeds at â€˜hookingâ€™ people with this. There are many people all over the world that love the multiple plot lines and even more so the characters that play them out. That is what makes WOT & RJ so great, that heâ€™s able to grab hold of so many people and keep them fans for more than a decade already & for years to come.

209

irerancincpkc: 2007-07-05

Just from reading what was written in the 'theory.'

---2) Some people claim he is as good as Tolkien when he is obviously not; tolkien wrote in perfect English prose, Robert Jordan calls a telescope a looking-glass (i.e. a mirror) and gave account of an "infintesimal nod"(just impossible)---

That is part of why I love Jordan, and don't like Tolkien as much. Because he calls it a looking glass. Little things like that do it for me.

---3) Jordan has a mono-cultural world, Tolkien spent most of his life creating the world in which LotR is set in. It is linguistically impossible that when a united continent with one language (ie the old tongue) breaks apart the various factions speak in entirely new common language.---

Mono-cultural? Are the Aiel like the Seafolk? Are the Tarians like the Seanchan? Are the Sharans like the Shienarians? Come on.

---6) Every character is taller than the next ---

Nobody is taller then the Ogier, so it stops there.

---7) Every character is more handsome (beautiful) than the next---

No. For the guys, it stopped at Galad, and the women, it stopped at Lanfear, though it's more a matter of personal taste, I suppose.

---10) The forsaken aren't powerful or dangerous in any way ---

I would call having large armies in your control powerful. And of course they are dangerous. The mistakes they have made are explainable; how long of a nap did they take? A lot has changed.

---11) The Dark Lord is a bumbling Idiot in that he could easily have killed Rand in every book or set all the Forsaken to sit in wait in a link of 13 to kill him. ---

We never know what Shai'tan is thinking. Everything he does has a purpose.

210

LordoftheWheel: 2007-07-12

Of course he doesn't, nobody appeals to everybody.

211

Gulaben: 2007-08-20

well as others have said this has been done to death but i feel i should add something. When i first read WOT i was 8 years old. It was not the first fantasy novel i had read (Interview with the Vampire was)and i can say now that i can speed read and i read through most of the newer books in a day or two.

I have tried to read LOTR five times now, and the most ive ever read was the first half of the Twin Towers.

Why do i enjoy WOT? It's simple and complex at the same time. A case of you get what you put in, the more you think about it the more complex it seems. 8 years after i read EOTW i still discover new and interesting things each time i re-read the books. As for LOTR, i can read Shakespeare with more ease than i can read LOTR.

212

Sidhe: 2007-09-30

The title is correct, Robert Jordan doesn't appeal to everyone. Whereas I love these books and read the whole series at least once a year, people in my environment have put it down for various reasons, ranging from "too long" to "too descriptive" to "doesn't match Tolkien". And that last statement came back in this first post as well. I'd like to write down my own little theory on that, it's proven true so far irl. I think that people who started reading fantasy by reading Tolkien will always compare other writings to him, and will always say "is not as good by far" about other books/series. On the other hand, people who started with other books than Tolkien, like for example Jordan, Hobb, Eddings, etc, are more "open-minded" about fantasy writing. Of course there's comparison and of course they have a favorite, but it's not the sniffy disdainfulness I noticed pure Tolkien fans seem to display. No offense to any pure Tolkien fans intended, by the way. I read Tolkien, and liked it, just not as much as other books ;)

Also, I looked up "infinitesimal" and imo an "infinitesimal nod" is possible. It means a very tiny almost invisible nod, and it sounds impossible, but you can read or feel stances/emotions in people right? Agreement can be seen as a stance or emotion, a nod is a way to express agreement, so a nod could also only be read or felt. It could be a nod conveyed with the eyes only, for example. Anyway, there are more of these kinds of things in a lot of books, but if you are able to see beyond the words, and feel the story, you can make those seemingly impossibilities possible.

213

Davian93: 2007-10-03

****On the other hand, people who started with other books than Tolkien, like for example Jordan, Hobb, Eddings, etc, are more "open-minded" about fantasy writing. Of course there's comparison and of course they have a favorite, but it's not the sniffy disdainfulness I noticed pure Tolkien fans seem to display.****

You make an excellent point. I agree with you completely. Pure Tolkien fans are fairly closeminded when it comes to comparing their master to any other type of fantasy. Overall, however, all of Tolkiens works could fit into on of RJ's books and that is just sad. Because of the far richer and complex world that RJ has given us, I will always give him the edge against Tolkien. Don't get me wrong, I like both but I will always put RJ above Tolkien, maybe even GRRM above Tolkien.

214

sporkify: 2007-10-13

Well, I see Tolkien as the forerunner of much of the fantasy genre. His work was groundbreaking and new. To compare it to the movie metaphor, LOTR is like Citizen Kane; both began many conventions that changed their respective fields. Robert Jordan has created a much more accessible and feel-able world. (Yes, I know Tolkien's world is far more complex, but you don't see much of it. It's histories are only mentioned in passing, rather than explained) In terms of worldmaking and plot complexity, I would say Robert Jordan lead the field. In terms of originality, Tolkien easily wins.

As for the point that most of RJ's characters are "stolen" from other series, I would like to mention the idea of archetypes. There are some myths, legends, and stories that are found across cultures. For instance, the Cinderella story is told in various forms across hundreds. (Or so I've read.) The idea of a central character who discovers he has magical powers is also in no way unique. There are always similarities to other stories; I would not call RJ's characters "stolen."

215

Dragon Tamer: 2008-01-08

Like Tamyrlin said, it seems more like you don't want to be convinced that RJ is as good or better. I thought I would throw out some responses to your criticisms anyways.

How are the characters from WOT stolen from LOTR or Dune? There are hundreds of characters in WOT, and only about 10 in LOTR that are of any importance like the ones in WOT. I haven't read dune but from what my friends who have read it tell me, it is nothing at all like WOT.

#3, It is entirely possible for all of the nations to have the same language, especially if they are all reliant on trade with all of these other nations. It makes sense especially due to the fact that they are all bunched together so closely, on one landmass. Besides, if you paid attention, RJ mentiones how each of the different nations speaks in different ways. One might have a more drawn out deliberate way of speaking while another may be fast talkers.

#4, i like that you are using anthropology (i am a anthro major myself) but what you fail to realixe is that in a group of all red haired, grey eyed people, it would take an assanine amount of time to adapt into different eye color and hair color, especially with how fanatical the aiel are. They may think someone of different hair or eyes was evil or a sign they could channel or something. The same goes to two rivers folk. If they are a village cut off from the rest of the world, they are going to have similar characteristics, similar to the people who started their village. And look at the eskimos and native americans, they have dark eyes and dark hair, yet they do not live in warmer climates.

In regards to your 11, the dark one isn't an idiot, it's just that Rand is too powerful and unpredictable to do what you say (even though they have tried things similar).

Number 10, the forsaken are powerful, but the main characters were created by the pattern to counter balance the forsaken and even the most powerful of people (sauron)can be overthrown because they are too overconfident in their ability and the hero does what they do because they have to.

I respect that you like LOTR so much, I used to be a big fan like you. But then I got older and I needed to broaden my horizens. While Tolkien writes on battles and language and hills and history, RJ actually writes about people and emotions and many other things while still presenting the amazing battles that we look for.

216

willz: 2008-01-14

Johnamdor,

Before I rant, I will reply to your honest question of: **I could go on, but you get my point. I am not out to drag RJ through the mud for no reason, but I want someone to tell me why they think WoT is so great (some say better than Tolkien).**

The reason why this is, is that Tolkein's work to a lot of people has some simple running themes that he drags on with too often: Eating, Walking and Poetry for no real reason. Tolein's work is good, but after a while, especially if you go back to it after reading other stories, you feel like you want to skip the poems, or just get Frodo and Sam to Cirith Ungul and be done with it! You could shave off a good 20% of the books without missing much.

I'm not saying Jordan doesn't have his flaws (especially in terms of sweating) but overall, the books MOVE. They go places! They do things! They might not be things we, as the reader might approve of, but that is what makes them good - the characters dont' tailor to anyone, and stay relatively true to their design in how they would handle a situation. That is a hard thing for anyone to do - I know - I write myself and find myself scrapping stuff all the time because it isn't what the character would say or do. It is a frustrating labor to write something of any scope.

As for my ranting, I'm just going to put it off and go with this: Everything has been done before. Everything. Tolkein's work is related to the Bible, war stories,and various other works from mythology and fiction. Same with Herbert and Jordan. It has all been done before, the things that you have to ask yourself are:

1) Do I want to read the same thing over and over but by another author?

No. Nobody does, but authors always try to make the best of their story with what they have (Save Kevin J Anderson, but that's just My Honest OPINION) and give people something they HOPE they will enjoy.

2) Does this story appeal to me?

If not, then it happens. Go find something else to read and hope that it holds your interest better.

3) Am I entitled to my opinion?

Yes, you are, but sadly, this is a THEORIES place, meant for people to discuss what they love in the books as themes. It's a shame you didn't enjoy them, and I hope that the next series you read goes better. If this wasn't a troll, then good luck. If it was a troll, then , just like the Wheel: What comes around will go around eventually.

217

erikthebald: 2008-03-05

i've read tolkien, including the children of Hurin and the lost tales and while it was goundbreaking for the 40's I find it to be a total yawn fest. I made it through the first Dune book but lost interest after that.

Jordan doesn't appeal to everyone because everyone has different tastes.

I counter that if you'd started with the first book back in 91 and read the series in order, rather than starting with, admitedly, one of the weaker volumes, you'd possibly have a different opinion, maybe not. The best of the series were #4 and #6.

One of my personal opinions is that it could have been wrapped up in about 9 books. I personally believe that Tor pressured Jordan to stretch it out for financial reasons. Why sell 90 million copies when you can stretch it out and sell 120 million.

But I digress.

Jordan is very subtle and most people who read the series, enjoy it more, and get more out of it, reading it the second time.

I would say you should go back through it again and rather than just reading it, try to intereptet it. Answer your own questions.

"how did the younglings beat the warders?" Eventually most students surpass their teachers.

It sounds like you went into the series expecting to dislike it (If your only reference point was Wh, I understand) and only managed to prove yourself correct. If it was that bad, get rid of them and think no more on it. If you want to escape for a while, which is why I read them, try it again with a different mindset.

218

fish06: 2008-04-14

Someone may have already mentioned this but Tolkien took all of his ideas from someone else. In fact he took most of his characters ideas etc. from Norse mythology. For example, Gandalf, Sauron and Saruman all represent Odin and Smeagols whole story is really "the lay of Volund." Yes he did twist these ideas to make them his own. I think it is a stretch to say Jordan took his ideas from Tolkien in my opinion he does the same thing as Tolkien and takes his ideas from Norse mythology. Such as Mat being hung from the tree of life to gain knowledge just as Odin did. If you ask me Tolkien and Jordan are the same as far as stealing ideas and twisting them to create something new.

219

Dragon Tamer: 2008-04-21

everything is taken from something else. It's hard not to do it. Most of Jordan's work is based off of religions like christianity, norse mythology, chinese and indian mythology. That isn't really that big of a deal because everybody does it. What bothers me is when people claim that wheel of time is a word for word copy of LOTR. I hear people say entire sections of the nook are take word for word. I can appreciate a little fan defense of their favorite series but maybe they should actually read the series instead of just being angry.

220

ninja9100: 2008-04-27

1) Sorry I havenâ€™t read Dune and could only get through whichever book from Tolkeinâ€™s LOTR I happened to sample way back when so Iâ€™m not really qualified to answer that one.

2) Some people claim he is as good as Tolkien when he is obviously not; tolkien wrote in perfect English prose, Robert Jordan calls a telescope a looking-glass (i.e. a mirror) and gave account of an "infintesimal nod"(just impossible)

Itâ€™s just one of those things really, Tolkien wrote using the type of language that was popular in his time and that was a part of the style he used in his books where RJ does the same just in his time.

In relation to his use of terms, like looking glass, you have to remember that heâ€™s writing it from the perspective of the character. In this case the people of WOT are just getting to grips with this new fangly dangly telescope thing and so give it a name they think suits it best (think along the lines of â€˜steamhorseâ€™ and â€˜steamwagonâ€™ in book 11). Maybe in the future it will become a â€˜telescopeâ€™ or something entirely different, but thatâ€™s just how naming works really. This is just another way that RJ makes his world unique.

3) Jordan has a mono-cultural world, Tolkien spent most of his life creating the world in which LotR is set in. It is linguistically impossible that when a united continent with one language (ie the old tongue) breaks apart the various factions speak in entirely new common language.

Yeah I noticed that one myself. Mono-lingual X amount of years? Perhaps. Then again fiction is exactly that. With all the ideas bouncing around in the books would it be a good idea to have more than one language spoken? I have enough problems just keeping up with the names of the Aes Sedai, lol.

4) Anthropologically, the Aiel's features result from a cold climate (e.g. vikings or celts) while the two river's folk are more suited to warmer climes.

5) It is very hard to believe that in 3-5 thousand years no-one did the jigery pokery required to make angreal that Elayne did.

Teâ€™angreal R&D was pretty much put on hold really in WOT. If you think about it the between the White Tower, Tear and the Kin collecting up all the usable Teâ€™angreal in the WOT and the Aes Sedai (and Kinâ€™s) lack of desire to study any of these rather dangerous relics of the past age and the rather nasty incidents that have been hinted at in the books often enough, itâ€™s not hard to see why nobody is keen to dig in and make making Teâ€™angreal, angreal and saâ€™angreal a reality.

6) Every character is taller than the next

Yep, but you have to wonder if RJ is also writing that from a character perspective.

7) Every character is more handsome (beautiful) than the next

Galad seems to be pretty much King here, but I would say itâ€™s a POV thing again. For instance, if you look at how often characters like Nyviene (sp) canâ€™t understand why Min thinks Rand is the shizzle (and vis-versa â€˜dead eyesâ€™) then itâ€™s easy to see that itâ€™s POV rather than some ever increasing hotness standard. Also donâ€™t forget once Egwene falls in love with Gawyn she often contemplates how she could have thought him less handsome than Galad (seems that Galad isnâ€™t king after all).

8) Concepts in his world are not constant but used whenever it suits him (e.g. when a man travels he must know his destination, but Taim could just appear in the nick of time to help rand)

Iâ€™d imagine heâ€™s visited their a few times. I also seem to remember that its knowing where he is not the destination thatâ€™s important (correct me if Iâ€™m wrong); I believe Asmoden (sp) explains it and Rand couldnâ€™t understand it either.

10) The forsaken aren't powerful or dangerous in any way

Thatâ€™s just a part of how RJ writes. One thing Iâ€™ve learnt from reading his books is that he likes to highlight how we can believe something, but in reality it might not be true; The forsaken are just a product of the hype at the end of the day (people believe they are powerful because of the rumors theyâ€™ve heard about them in this case and, therefore, they are, the reality itself is quite different).

Then again, the forsaken are both dangerous and powerful. Rand and co. go through some serious hard times to kill/imprison members of the forsaken and if you read the books many of them havenâ€™t gone down easy (e.g. his hand in book 11 or the wound he receives from Ishammel [?] are pretty serious loses for Rand).

11) The Dark Lord is a bumbling Idiot in that he could easily have killed Rand in every book or set all the Forsaken to sit in wait in a link of 13 to kill him.

All will be revealed in book 12. I think the DO has some plans for Rand and donâ€™t forget the forsaken have had standing orders not to kill Rand for some time now. Weâ€™ll just have to wait and see.

12) Most of the 'suspense' in the book relies on people not knowing whats going on but assuming something. If Mat told Egwene what he had to do, she would not assume he was an idiot etc.

I do agree that RJ sometimes goes a bit overboard on this, but it does reflect real life. Itâ€™s really about how people think and see the world they live in. Obviously two different people would have two different views of the world, but its also complicated by lots of things like distance, motivations, ability/willingness to share information and so on. RJ puts us in a world just like our own where we really donâ€™t know whatâ€™s going on all the time and have to make do with what we know or can figure out.

13) Professional, disciplined and long-experienced soldiers and trained generals are incompetent compared to Aiel and warders, yet a few younglings can dispatch warders, Aiel, you name it without any of the skills of the other armies. He doesn't even offer any "taver'en" explainations for this.

Quite a few younglings have died over the period of time that this group has existed in WOT. They are pretty much like any other military group in WOT â€“ skilled sure, but not unkillable. Iâ€™m not sure about the warders, but the Aiel certain did give them a run for their money though (having Aes Sedai throwing their lightning and fireballs about does even the tables a tad)

Finally, why do I like it? Well itâ€™s the WOT, IMO, has a pretty interesting story, itâ€™s clever in how it portrays the world the people exist in and itâ€™s very well thought out (RJâ€™s seriously must have been an amazing thinker to juggle all the balls he has juggled to write these books. I guess it comes down to the fact that I donâ€™t think about it too much, I just enjoy it.

10) The forsaken aren't powerful or dangerous in any way

11) The Dark Lord is a bumbling Idiot in that he could easily have killed Rand in every book or set all the Forsaken to sit in wait in a link of 13 to kill him.

12) Most of the 'suspense' in the book relies on people not knowing whats going on but assuming something. If Mat told Egwene what he had to do, she would not assume he was an idiot etc.

13) Professional, disciplined and long-experienced soldiers and trained generals are incompetent compared to Aiel and warders, yet a few younglings can dispatch warders, Aiel, you name it without any of the skills of the other armies. He doesn't even offer any "taver'en" explainations for this.

221

Catalyst: 2008-04-28

When I first glanced at the title of this theory, I thought it some insignificant bloody little matter. Today is the first time I ever read it.

And I want to tell the guy who wrote it the following: if you don't like the Wheel Of Time, try... (and sorry for what I have to write, probably will get kicked off Theoryland for advertising other fantasy series)

A Song Of Ice And Fire.

Why?

1) Most of the characters with several neccessary exeptions are made up by the author himself.

2) I don't understand your second reason, so I don't reply to it. My own opinion is that Jordan is not the second Tolkien. Jordan is the first Jordan.

3) The plotline is not centered on that what language everybody uses. Although sometimes I wondered about it, I realised that I don't care.

4) If Jordan was set to write it the way you want, then probably the Aiel would have inhabited the bloody poles of the world. And they would not have been included. And, originally they are descended from the Age of Legends, and they settled in the Waste.

5) Aes Sedai had far more important matters to deal with than angreal. And, after the Trolloc Wars, they wouldn't know where to begin from.

6) Reread the descriptions of Egwene, Nynaeve, Tuon, Bashere, Moiraine, cairhienin in general.

7) Rand, after KoD, is quite rugged. Fain is uncomely. All right, so what if the people are not ugly?

8) The example you give is VERY unsuited to explain your point. It was Taim himself who sent that Gray Man in the first place, then killed him in order to gain Rand's trust. It didn't come out that way, of course, but... As to your point, it is not needed to know exactly where you mean to ARRIVE, it matters to know where you are at the moment to open a bloody gateway.

9) Bloody hell, you might hate the 9th book (WH), but do you hate the number nine itself so much that there's no ninth point? :)

10) Lanfear almost killed Rand, Egwene and Aviendha. Rahvin DID kill Mat, Aviendha and Asmodean. Sammael almost managed to get rid of his scar. Dashiva/Aginor/Osan'gar almost did it. Semirhage blew off Rand's hand before she was captured. Moghedien almost got Nynaeve in T'A'R. Yeah, they are fluffy bunnies.

11) A prisoner, even one as powerful as the Dark One, cannot reach out quite so easily. And why the Forsaken don't make a circle to capture him?

I. They don't trust each other enough to make a circle. Although in FoH, in case you have forgotten, Rahvin, Sammael, Lanfear and Graendal plotted to do just that.

II. "Too many of us have died confronting him..."

12) If you can tell me what will happen in book 12 RIGHT NOW, I will not buy the book, I swear in the name of the Great Lord of the Dark. Because I've been waiting for three bloody years and another one will pass before I lay hands on it.

13) Those "trained" generals are not quite trained as you believe. Jordan pointed out the competent ones: Mat, Gareth Bryne, Davram Bashere, Rodel Ituralde, Agelmar Jagad. None of them is against Rand, so none of them has to fight Aiel. And Warders are trained killers and fighters as skilled as the Aiel. And the Younglings are not that untrained. As for the other trained soldiers, the Seanchan I mean: let me see how well you'll do against 50 killing machines you are unable to detect until they are on top of you (referring to the Asha'man-Seanchan battle in Altara in Path of Daggers).

Hell, it's good to rip someone's head off after so long.

222

volker: 2008-04-28

To start with, I have no doubt that Tolkein is a greater writer, but Jordan is more enjoyable, just like Shakespeare is a far greater writer than either of them (and far less enjoyable). This is largely due to the passage of time, but also the change in literary taste: people enjoy one style of literature for a time and then get sick of it and change (romanticism to realism). Even though Tolkeinâ€™s world feels real, his story is much more romantic: magic is unknown, friendship is more important than strength etc. Conversely, Jordanâ€™s story is written to be realistic: â€œmagicâ€ follows natural laws, practicality is crucial, feelings take a back seat to actions, etc. We largely appreciate realistic entertainment today, but, given time, weâ€™ll get sick of it and people will wonder how we ever got through WOT and compare it to an encyclopedia, just as many of you think reading LotR is like reading the Bible. In short, WOT is written with us as the target audience, not the audience Tolkein wrote for or the audience that will be here in the future , and is what we expect an epic to be today.

223

Noirmusic: 2008-05-03

Note - Sorry for my spelling, in regards to character names etc. I am legally blind and so have listen to the books on CD...I understand that some of the names are not as they sound.

I think each and everyone of your 13 points have been ripped to pieces at this point. For that reason I will stick to what you claimed was your real question "Why WoT is so great".

In no particuliar order -

1 - The battle scenes - Jordan's expierence in the army really shines. He talks about the pain, fear, death...not just "The shine of their spears in the morning".

2 - The history - While Tolkien wrote a lot of poetry, and myths in the "main" 4 books, Jordan includes HISTORY. The difference isn't subtle. Snippets and snatches that are sometimes very precise and sometimes very off. The way history is. Forgetting this JRRT/RJ thing how about RJ version Jennifer Roberson? The entire Cheysuli Chronicles was based on "THE PROCHECY" which was what 16 words long? Jordan gives us a richer and more powerful dark prophecy just in book 2, JUST to get Rand to follow the horn and dagger.

3 - The interactions of the men and women. If you are married, you get it.

4 - Matt the womanizer gets made into an womans play pretty! How can you not love that section? The irony, the humour! Rarely does fantasy have this sort of humour!

5 - All the other humour!! Ok Kender in Dragonlance Chronicles? R.A. Salvatore has a few chuckles...but most high fantasy takes itself really seriously. Part of why the horrible things that happen to Rand et al seem so horrible is...the humour. The contrast!

Lastly I will pick at one of your points. Each woman is hotter then the next? Isn't that just like life? (J/k) Seriously though...as I remember it Elaine is described by Rand as all that...Matt on the other hand says she's pretty enough if she could get her nose out of the air. Matt describes Tuan as looking like a boy and comes to appreciate her. Rand see's Tuan (or he thinks he does) and certainly doesn't get all hot and bothered. To make a long story short (too late) since these books are written in the first person, each chapter a different characters perception each one is going to see someone as gorgeous and someone as...not and it only stands to reason that said person will pay more attention to the object of his desire rather then plain ol' Nyneave. :)

224

englermeister: 2008-05-07

I have read Tolkein and enjoyed Lotr, and in my view there is one major difference:

Tolkein wrote an epic story, and this was set in an epic world. this world is described to us in the appendices and the simarillian but not to a great extent in the actual LOTR story.

RJ on the other hand writes an epic story and an epic world. Tolkein uses what I have heard called hard magic, which is an all powerful unexplained (in that we do not know all it's limits and it's capabilities) magic. but Wot uses a 'softer' magic, in that we are told of (some) of it's limitations and we know of it's capabilities (even if some of those capabilities do not occur til later like angreal making.) Wot's magic is part of the epic world RJ has written, he also describes different cultures and nations and lots of characters through which the world is viewed giving an interesting, if not always clear, point of view of the world in which they live. the epic story slowly reveals this epic world and it is as much a part of the story to me as what happens to the characters.

the two styles of writing to me lead to two things: Lotr leads to awe and wonder, in that less is explained, (but not less happens)

and Wot leads to interest as the reader, using the explainations, tries to puzzle out what will happen next. which is why this site exists.

as to the mono cultural-ness.

imagine this world in a thousand years. english will have virtually run over every other language... if then there is a cataclysm (like the breaking) then with no major government the world will split up into smaller states. for example the US would split up with states as new nations. these nations would reatain their accents, and specific ways of talking... but still have the SAME language.

then if a nation from overseas arrived (seanchan) then they would also have the same language but different culture and accent....

the world RJ created might be more mono cultural than our world today, but after a world wide golden age such as the age of legends, that would happen....

so in summary I like WOT better than Lotr because I enjoy the explainations and logic behind the world... in the story.

225

SightBlinder77: 2008-05-15

I have been thinking about your article for a while now. I love fantasy as a genre and will accept many flaws and character similarities for a good story.

I myself have considered many of the points you make. And could add some more...

By the 6th book all the female characters seem to have the same personality. Min is the only female character that isn't bossy, overbearing and unreasonable (maybe this is my naivity in thinking that there are women who are not like that).

The books in my opinion start perfectly. Books one to five are excellent, if a little unoriginal in some of the characters. However Jordan seems to get bogged down. Book nine for example takes 90 odd pages to get past the prologue - which incidentally spends most of its time describing the inner thoughts of women who do not even appear in the book again. Jordan seems to want to get us intimately involved with the utmost thought of every character, even the least important, and this leads to the books dragging. Books nine and ten in particular.

However, I still love the Wheel of time. I love Matt, I love Moridin, I love the diversity of the different peoples in the books, but most of all I love the story. I can see how Jordan has got bogged down in overdeveloping the minor characters and overplaying every event. Its because no-one has ever attempted to tell a story of this magnitude that happens over such a period of time and in such detail before. I love that it is so big and that there is always more to read. In many ways when it ends next year I will be missing something important from my life.

There is one point in what you have written I didn't like... Point four. This is a fantasy novel. If Jordan wants the people who live in the temperate regions to have green hair orange feet and tusks, he can do. He can make it as connected or disconnected from our world as he likes... You could as well point out that channeling doesn't exist and the forsaken are not real. The rules of our world simply cannot be applied to this one unless Jordan has specified they do.

226

JakOShadows: 2008-05-26

sightblinder:

I agree with you, but sometimes I wonder how much was RJ's fault and how much of it was rushing to get the book out a month or two sooner. Because I think books 8 through 10 could have been combined into two books, even if they would have been 100 to 200 pages longer. And it would have been more bearable. It just would have taken more effort and rewriting. Because I notice that when he started writing book 11 and only two books were left, he made a big point about taking the time make sure the books were properly edited and that pages weren't being wasted on overly distracting story lines. I agree with you though, I just don't know who to blame.

227

Fourth Age Historian: 2008-08-20

OK, I'm new to the site, and hello all! I thought this one would be the easiest to tackle first, because it doesn't really require quotations and I don't have ready access to all the books at this computer. It is also an issue I have a fairly complete opinion about.

I will not claim that Jordan is categorically better than Tolkien, but neither will I claim the reverse. Each has strengths and weaknesses, and a complete comparison is unfair, even impossible for two reasons. The first is that Tolkien's main tale is complete, while Jordan's is not...and even once the twelfth installment is completed it will unfortunately never be exactly as it would have. The second is that it is in general impossible to compare writers of different eras, just as it is unfair to compare athletes from different eras. The language has changed, and the writing was for a different audience. Of course, matters of quality are simply opinion in any case - though regarding the "classics" scholars would have us believe otherwise.

This brings me to another introductory point. The great writers of the past are often ascribed their status as such simply for being the first. Contemporary authors have no chance at being considered better by the literary community (other art forms have this pattern, as well) simply by the accident of timing. First does not necessarily equate to best, but to express this sentiment in the wrong company is akin to blasphemy. This attitude for me is the height of folly - for if the best has already been written, why write new works at all? I will concede that the pioneers (Tolkien in this case, but really any whose work defined a new genre or formula) made the greatest contributions to literature, but that is not the same thing as the best writing.

Personally, I prefer Jordan's work. There are several things I believe he does better. First, his worldbuilding is more complete than Tolkien's, despite the latter's lifelong efforts. Perhaps Tolkien had worked it all out, but Jordan reveals it all to his readers in a non-confusing way. Second, the characters are richer than ever Tolkien's were, and their motivations more realistic. Minor characters serve as more than a backdrop, and even the least of them is clearly a person and not just a device.

Now I will move n to your point-by-point list.

1) I can't speak for Dune, but very few of the characters are anything like Tolkien's. They may fulfill the same roles, but the same the are not. Every writer is influnced by what he or she has read, admittedly or not, and to write epic fantasy and be taken seriously you must include certain elements. Derivative is not necessarily bad, nor even unoriginal. I believe Jordan successfully makes the formula work for his unique characters.

2) There is no "obvious" in an opinion. There is also no "perfect English prose" and the language is not watered down today, it is merely different. One thing that is common in fantasy is to give familiar items new names...the looking glass is not a mistake, it is flavor. Is Tolkien's "elevensies" (brunch) a mistake? Finally, an infinitesimal (from American Heritage "Immeasurably or incalculably small") nod is certainly possible. I give them all the time to people I recognize but do not really know. If you move your head barely perceptively, the person you nod to can certanly not measure it.

3) Jordan's world is not mono-cultural, though it is mono-linguistic. To be fair, though, it is also not the entire world. It does stretch belief that the Aiel, Seanchan, Sharans, and various "wetlanders" all speak the same language but this is a liberty taken throught sci-fi and fantasy. Tolkien does it himself...the reason for his varying languages is that he has multiple species. All the humans in LotR speak the same language. IT also makes a lot of sense that the various nations on the main map have similar culture...this can be observed in Asia and Europe today. The great geographical divides separate the more disparate cultures, and this is exactly how such things happen in reality.

4) Incorrect. The red hair and gray eyes resemble the Vikings or Celts, but the height is more African. The hair and eyes are more likely a response to some evolutionary pressure other than temperature, though even trying to isolate that variable is problematic. There is also the point to be made that the Aiel did not evolve in the Waste, but moved their after the AOL, when they already looked something like they do "now." Finally, it isn't even clear that evolution, per se, happens in Randland.

5) I disagree, but I can't argue whether you have trouble believing it or not.

6) Not really true...he does often use height as a descriptor, but often it is "taller than so-and-so, but not as tall as so-and-so.

7) Again, not really true. We are never introduced to a more handsome mane than Galad (book 1) or a more beautiful woman than Lanfear or Berelain (I think Lanfear is tops, but it's not that clear to me which) introduced in books 2 and 3. Besides, who ever heard of an ugly hero?

8) Sometimes this one is true.

10) I disagree...they are very powerful but held back by their infighting. This is one of the most compelling things about the series to me, because it is more realistic than a united front of evil, just as the squabbles among the "good guys" add realism.

11) Well, yes and no...at times the Dark One's motivatons are different than Rand's mere death, and the aforementioned infighting made things difficult. I do think it would have been extremely easy for him to pick off Mat or Perrin in the early books, though.

12) This used to bother me too, but the more I thought of it the more I realized that people operate this way. No one gives complete information to their allies, or can anticipate what information will be useful. Rmember, this is a low-tech world, and the sharing of information across great distances is not that easy, even with the power. There are also major trust issues.

13) This one is admittedly kind of a hole. I scratch my head at the sudden competence of everyone but Gawyn.

228

Fourth Age Historian: 2008-08-20

Thank you, soranar. I have a degree in anthropology myself, and I agree that Jordan has achieved much closer to a realistic world than Tolkien ever did. Part of that is probably because we understand much more now than then, but that doesn't make the original argument valid.

I should add that the Spine of the World, the Aryth Ocean, and the Waste separate the major cultural differences we're aware of, which is how such things develop differently.

The language thing is certainly a stretch, but one is supposed to suspend disbelief in this case - it is a standard convention in the genre.

I also note that there isn't really enough to claim the Aiel are fitted to "cold weather" and actually I remember reading an article stating that a shorter, more spread-out build is more natural to cold weather, as they can absorb more of the sun's energy that way, which certainly described Two Rivers folk better than Aiel. I think he focused more on the red hair than anything in linking the Aiel to Vikings or Celts.

229

theory master: 2009-03-19

i just wanted to ask who is taller than rand among the wetlanders, and who is copied from LOTR (the greatest fantasy ever :)) in any significant way?

not challenging, just wondering and definetly not flaming!

230

Tragon: 2010-02-13

This is an old post so maybe I shouldnt even bother to comment it. But it just annoyed me a bit when I read it. "1) Most of the characters are stolen from The Lord Of the Rings and Dune. " Im suspecting that you mean that Lan is Aragon? Thats the only similarity I can find. Lan is far from one of the major characters in the series, however not unimportant. And you seem to forget that theres about 50x of characters in WoT than Lotr. And as others have said, a lot of authors are inspired by real ppl or other books. And fantasy authors seem to be especially inspired by folklore etc. Tolkien was to say the least. Im getting quite sick of saying that games or books have stolen things from other games and books... I dare you to mention a single game and book that is 100% original. You won't find any. It does not matter if you pick a 2000 year old story. It will still have borrowed details from other stories. The only time this is a valid critique is if its a 100% copy. "2) Some people claim he is as good as Tolkien when he is obviously not; tolkien wrote in perfect English prose, Robert Jordan calls a telescope a looking-glass (i.e. a mirror) and gave account of an "infintesimal nod"(just impossible) " Tolkien wrote in very old english. Some stuff he wrote was hardly understandable. Jordan writes simple but elegant. Its easy to understand and it captures you. His POV system is fantastic. And anyway who decides whats the "correct" way to write? language evolves and words change. The point is, that its VERY SUBJECTIVE. Imo Tolkiens books are...boring to read (and yeah, I can understand the text just fine). "3) Jordan has a mono-cultural world, Tolkien spent most of his life creating the world in which LotR is set in. It is linguistically impossible that when a united continent with one language (ie the old tongue) breaks apart the various factions speak in entirely new common language. " Why is that? The Westland, Aiel Waste, Sea Folk and Shara was connected. And I suspect that there are slang and other variations but Jordan just don't bother with it. Also, we do not know if they spoke a completely different language in Seanchan before Hawkwings son came and conquered. And there ARE variations in how they speak. For example Seanchan speaks slowly and the Westlands fast. "4) Anthropologically, the Aiel's features result from a cold climate (e.g. vikings or celts) while the two river's folk are more suited to warmer climes. " It was intentional. He wanted them to be like Irish but have a culture more like Native American and some African tribe. Anyway you forget that they wandered there. Of course you can argue that their skin should have changed after 3000+ years. But it's fantasy so who really cares. "5) It is very hard to believe that in 3-5 thousand years no-one did the jigery pokery required to make angreal that Elayne did. " It's very possible that Aes Sedai tried but failed because they didn't have the talent. And we don't really know when the last angreal was made. It could also be dangerous to experiment, so a social norm was developed that you just shouldn't try it. "6) Every character is taller than the next " Really? The Aiel is tall and there are not many among the "wetlanders" as tall or taller than them. Plus there are plenty of short people mentioned. Davram and Moraine for example. And Im pretty sure that Perrin is more of average height. "7) Every character is more handsome (beautiful) than the next " You can be pretty/beautiful/sexy in different ways. Lanfear is the most beautiful female and Galad the male. As someone else said Gaidal Cain, Lan and Olver is described as ugly. Take a character like Mat. "8) Concepts in his world are not constant but used whenever it suits him (e.g. when a man travels he must know his destination, but Taim could just appear in the nick of time to help rand) " We have no idea how or why Taim really came to his rescue. It is not impossible, as shown during the battle with Seanchan, that he simple told his Ashaman to travel around and find them. Then report back and bring him there. The scout that found them would make a gateway back to Taim and the Ashaman. And they would then through the gateway come close to the battle. When they have it in sight they would be able to make the gateways WE saw in the books. There are explanations for everything. "10) The forsaken aren't powerful or dangerous in any way. " Oh really. A man with a nuclear bomb can kill millions. But he can still be shot with one bullet. Its the same with the forsaken just worse. Because they can protect themselves better. They also got knowledge than none other have. They can create illusions and pose as whoever they want. They can compulse you to do things you don't want to. Honestly it feels like I have to explain why a crazy man with a gun is dangerous... not dangerous jeez "11) The Dark Lord is a bumbling Idiot in that he could easily have killed Rand in every book or set all the Forsaken to sit in wait in a link of 13 to kill him. " We have no idea what the dark one really wants. Nor if there are limits to his powers. And you are also forgeting that the Forsaken does not trust each other. They could have killed him alone when he was at Tear. But after that he grew stronger. They could possible have taken him if they linked up. But they knew that he had channelers around him all the time. There is one thing that all forsaken are: Selfish. They would not risk there life if they did not have too. The only ones that possible would, imo, is Be'lal, Demandred, Lanfear and Ishamael. Be'lal did so and died because of Moraine. Lanfear wanted to turn him but failed, then she opposed him and failed because of Moraine. Ishamael wanted to turn him but failed twice and did oppose him. Would probably have beaten him if not for the Horn of Valere effect and Callandor. Demandred seems to have other plans. There are probably a lot going on with Demandred and I think the DO have been steering him from the start. " 12) Most of the 'suspense' in the book relies on people not knowing whats going on but assuming something. If Mat told Egwene what he had to do, she would not assume he was an idiot etc. " And just exactly is this different from real life? That is whats great in WoT. They are all so realistic. And for that matter it does happend plenty of times that they speak their thoughts. And that other people understand and agrees with that. "13) Professional, disciplined and long-experienced soldiers and trained generals are incompetent compared to Aiel and warders, yet a few younglings can dispatch warders, Aiel, you name it without any of the skills of the other armies. He doesn't even offer any "taver'en" explainations for this. " We do not know how the fight with the warders went. Younglings and other probably outnumbered the warders. The younglings are probably very skilled. More skilled than the average soldier. The warders do not exactly train any untalented mongrel. As for the Aiel beating "long-experienced" soldiers. Well first of all the military training and tactics in the Westland is not what it used to be. With some exceptions. The Borderlanders are a lot better than the southerns in general. Remember that the Trolloc wars were mentioned as the height of the military. The Aiel is a warrior society. They basically start training when they are kids. And the warders get extra strength, agility, fortitude etc from the warder bond. Why do I think WoT is the best every written. The story is intriguing, exciting, complicated and rich with incredible strong and realistic personalities. The world is also amazing. He IS very original. He does not just use the old Elf, Dwarf, Orc format. He invents new creatures. His writing style is excellent. The POV is better than any other author I have read. I could go on for a while.

231

PillowFriends: 2010-02-19

Tragon, I can clearly understand your point of view, but the point of view you are arguing against is valid, too, in my opinion. I think the truth is somewhere in-between. But, come on, surely you can see more parallels to characters from The Lord of the Rings besides just Lan and Aragorn, not that there is anything wrong with that.

232

MatOdin: 2010-02-21

FIrstly, RJ's writing style is supposed to be entirely different from JRRT. I hope I do not flame. Okay, I continue. Also, the Lord of the Rings and The Wheel of time are about two different things. TLOTR is supposed to Be Tolkien's attempt at a mythology, and worldbuilding, largely based on Norse and Icelandic myths, and borrowing from stories and fables of many cultures. On the other hand you have TWOT which is more based upon telling the story, and showing the characters and how they change. Also American and British English are different. Tolkien wrote in British English, Robert Jordan in American. (I know that seems minor. On #3 "Jordan has a mono-cultural world, TOlkien spent most of his life creating the world in which LOTR is set." If you pay attention, and I'm sorry if you didn't cause you missed a book that is equally great to LOTR-You notice cultural differences, i.e. Cairhien backstabbing, Tear a rather Louis the XIVth air of aristocracy dominating the common people, Arad Doman seductive, and so on. YOu also find monumentally different cultures that you simply can not call the same, i.e. Seanchan, Aile, Sea Folk, TInkers, SHarans, and the Tremalkings.

233

LewsTherinTelamon: 2010-02-25

i know this is a little late, but it's the thought that counts right? anyway, here are my response to some of the comments you have raised: (i) "1) Most of the characters are stolen from The Lord Of the Rings and Dune. " False. Dune, LOTR and WoT have this in common: they are merely rehashing the old knight and dragon storyline. so of course, these three titles, as well as thousands others, shares a similar story arc. but that's about it. (ii)"Some people claim he is as good as Tolkien" the question is, how good was tolkien in the first place? i think you, along with many, have mistakenly assume that tolkien was applauded on literary merits alone, when in fact, he is honoured for the breadth and detailed background (historical including)created. (iii)" Jordan has a mono-cultural world" I was a little stumped at this initially, because even a five year old knows this is inacurate. however, i think your point was, all the characters are human - no dwarfs, elfs, balrogs, etc. having said that, isn't it more impressive then that RJ has managed to create a diverse world consisting mainly on human characters? (iv)"Anthropologically, the Aiel's features result from a cold climate " You have missed a major point, since your taking an anthropological approach here. the three-fold-land came after the breaking, aBabout 3.5k years ago. they did not originate from there, my friend. the only clues we had about their origin was from rands's vision when he visited rhuidean - and that was barely skimming the surface. (v)"It is very hard to believe that in 3-5 thousand years no-one did the jigery pokery required to make angreal" Why is that hard to believe? Consider that a lot of other tweaves has disappeared over the ages, travelling being one of them. besides, as mentioned repeatedly before, elayne/egwene/nynave/alivia/nicola/and the seafolk teen are the strongest in the one power for at least a millenia - and making angreal requires massive ability in earth and fire. (vi) "Every character is taller than the next " This is too silly to rebut - you know it's false (vii)"Every character is more handsome (beautiful) than the next " same answer as above (viii) Concepts in his world are not constant but used whenever it suits him (e.g. when a man travels he must know his destination, but Taim could just appear in the nick of time to help rand) bad example. the fact that taim appeared in the nick of time is just a literary device to create suspense. as for how he reached there in the first place, he could've easily skimmed there. or as has been suspected that taim is under the DO influence, he could've been sent there by the DO himself or one of the Forsaken. (ix) "The forsaken aren't powerful or dangerous in any way " say that again? (x) "The Dark Lord is a bumbling Idiot in that he could easily have killed Rand in every book or set all the Forsaken to sit in wait in a link of 13 to kill him. " sigh. The Dark One does not want to kill, or injure Rand. This has been mentioned several times. Even the Forsaken are forbidden to do so. To quote an example, look at what happened to Semirhage after she injured Rand and her conversation with Shadar-whathisname (xi) "Most of the 'suspense' in the book relies on people not knowing whats going on but assuming something. If Mat told Egwene what he had to do, she would not assume he was an idiot etc." sigh. sigh. doesn't that applies to any book, movie or cartoons out there? what does suspense means in the first place, my friend? (xii) Professional, disciplined and long-experienced soldiers and trained generals are incompetent compared to Aiel and warders, yet a few younglings can dispatch warders, Aiel, you name it without any of the skills of the other armies. He doesn't even offer any "taver'en" explainations for this The younglings, led by Gawyn and Galad, are trained to be warders, and are way superior in their numbers compared to the few warders that sided with siuan. nothing surprising there. besides, in TGS, there was a scene where Gawyn easily bested two warders. as for the aiel, they are full time warriors - trained from infancy in the art of fighting with unhuman stamina (running a whole day anyone) and they have learn the art of embracing the pain and are not afraid of death. again, what's surprising there? (xiii) "I could go on, but you get my point. I am not out to drag RJ through the mud for no reason, but I want someone to tell me why they think WoT is so great (some say better than Tolkien). " no, i doubt you could go on without looking anymore sillier that you already do. and unfortunately, you are dragging RJ in the mud for no reason. and to answer your final question: LOTR has 9 major characters and another 12 secondary characters. It's diverse with the participation of a number of non-human characters. It has excellent flow in the story as well as a number of interesting story arc and more importantly, as i have indicated above, it was groundbreaking. WoT, on the other hand, have over 100 primary characters, and over 1500 secondary characters. it has multiple plotlines that intertwined with each other, it has excellent story arcs, the pay-offs are wonderful, the historical and sociological background are complex, but expertly woven in the storyline. and most importantly, read in sequence, impossible to put down. hope that clarifies things for you, john. cheers

234

graeylin13: 2010-07-04

I'm just going to simply answer his question....I actually enjoy Tolkien and RJ...now when very young I loved the Hobbit, then older (middle school years) a stepbrother gave me Fellowship of the Ring..I loved it and the rest, then in high school I discovered the Silmarellion (probably misspelled) and loved it...Yet all three are written on different levels and in different ways... and takes age to get them in book form. I enjoyed the first because it was fairy talish..a weak seeming character saving the day, then LotR was the Hobbit grown up, and the Silm was a history.

The stories matured in how they were told from a simple fairy tale to a history book (yes I also enjoyed the appendixes at the end of LotR).. Now RJ...some people get down on his way of describing things, tell how some books are boring and make no sense or etc... I loved them all because they tell the story...even an extremely long description of a chair (ever been in a conversation or a part of one where you centered your attention on one thing while taking it all in? I have...often because my grandmother had a very intimidating mole/wart on the side of her face and took offense if you stared at it..So I learnt to look elswhere and often found amazing details in the other things I was noticing while still listening to the conversation)... I like the length and breadth of the story, the number of plots, counter plots, characters..et al.

But then again I borrowed SK's It and His work with Peter Straub the Talisman (1500 and 900 pages) from a friend one day and returned them the next morning fully read...SK is agreat writer but it takes a bit to get through the first part of most of his books. I also love the strong female characters...In Fantasy/Sci-fi female characters are generally either evuil or the damsel in distress, or barely mentioned. RJ is one of the few male writers who have been able to create so many who can hold their own under any situation...and this adds to the entire work. You say he copies Dune and Tolkien...In Dune the female group was out to rule the known universe...the Aes Sedai are trying to protect and guide humanity , even if misguided in ways...and Tolkien had very few fleshed out and strong female Characters in LotR..in fact they were allstereotypes..The Romance Interest, the "scorned" suicidal female, the wise woman....Arwen, Eowyn, and Galadriel.

You do have a few others but also they are stereotyped. That fact alone would place RJH in a different place then Tolkien. Then add in the shear number of characters (2000 or so for RJ, maybe 100 named by Tolkien) and plots. In LotR the main plot..destroy the ring, the subplots Aragorn becoming king, defeating Saruman...hmm are their more (there are)...but not many. RJ has every one trying to conrol Rand, you have the plots of the various groups..Whitecloaks, Seanchan, AS, etc..the subplots among their members, so on and etc. Basically you get at least one plot per group and then another per character. The AS wants to control rand and lead him to TG...Nyn wants to protect him from everyone pulling him this way and that... Egwene wants to punish him for what he's done to the AS, Elayne wants to marry him, the BA wants him dead or controlled..so on and etc. The thing is RJ folds every character, group, and plot into the greater whole making for a truly epic and enjoyable tale.

I have friends who enjoy his books and some who don't...meaning no offense here but generally those who do are able to keep up with all the various twists and turns...where as many who don't get confused by it all. Now you admitted to attempting to read two books...one of which RJ has clearly said the opening he based on the opening of LotR so readers started off in a familiar way..and probably also in his eyes paid his respects to Tolkien.....

Now to answer each of his points. 1) Most of the characters are stolen from The Lord Of the Rings and Dune. I have read both of those series and WoT is neither a copy of each. Now it does have a resmblence to both, but then again every story does that...and all three works are masterships of the craft. Fact is it is very hard not to write a familiar story since most have already been covered...heck you can say RJ also copies the StarWars saga in parts. It's a very ancient formula and the reason why is because it works. Some just do it better then others and RJ, FH, and JRR are all three considered masters of the craft rightly so. Their characters appear similiar because those are the character types that draw us in and make us interested in them. Now the big difference to me between the three is RJ is more descriptive of the surroundings. He goes into details the others do not...which I love, but then I loved Dune and LotR also. But are the character direct copies..nope..yes all 3 do center around a young hero at start...but they diverge from there. My guess..nonflame this..is you never really got past the first part so assumed another clone book.

2) Some people claim he is as good as Tolkien when he is obviously not; tolkien wrote in perfect English prose, Robert Jordan calls a telescope a looking-glass (i.e. a mirror) and gave account of an "infintesimal nod"(just impossible) So Tolkien's characre's used Palantir and RJ's use "looking glasses" which is what mirror's were often called before they became mirrors...and you can say a Palantir is just a video communication and surveillance device...but that ruins the setting. RJ uses archaic terms often to place things in there setting..which is more of a late middle ages period. Tolkien used old english to do the same...and often made sure he followed the proper forms of grammar and language while doing having been a student and proffessor concerning such much of his lifeand laboring under the rules often found in actual English literature we haven't had to deal with here in America where such rules are a bit looser. RJ is as good if not better because Tolkien's main character's all appear noble..even in the Shire where he supposedly uses a more countryfide language it is still noble sounding unless he's trying to make a point about certain characters (Bill Ferny, Orcs)..notice how they never curse or etc. RJ's character's are more human. Where-as Tolkien's main Characters would say something flowery even when in combat...mat would say 'Og blood and bloody ashes..." which is more human.

3) Jordan has a mono-cultural world, Tolkien spent most of his life creating the world in which LotR is set in. It is linguistically impossible that when a united continent with one language (ie the old tongue) breaks apart the various factions speak in entirely new common language. Lol...he has several different nations with different customes and etc...monocultural. Then there's the part of the world you don't see Shara, Seanchean..and all the cultures therabouts...Tolkien centered on basically 4 cultures..the elves and edain..who's cultures were basically built on one another and whom the others flowed...and the dwarves and hobbits...he generally passed over cultural references to orcs and the other groups of men except for basically calling them uncouth and barbaric. RJ has several nations with a variety of cultures among them all interconnected by being in small part of a larger world where you did not have the mass migrations as in our own history causing radical changes on a regular basis for centuries. Randland as it is called is cut off by a great desert and the ocean from having to face the upheavels of having radically different cultures like the Huns coming in and changing things. The Aelare the most different having separated themselves from all other and having developed totally different cultures and etc..yet share the same root language. Tolkien spent a life building ME and its people...yet RJ did equally as well with his world even having several languages and such...not a monocultural place at all.

4) Anthropologically, the Aiel's features result from a cold climate (e.g. vikings or celts) while the two river's folk are more suited to warmer climes. Explained by Rj wanting fair haired and skinned desert dwellers...and also can be explained..if the pre-breaking Ael were like that..how many long does it take for the genetic change to darker skin and hair take? You forget they were not originally desert dwellers...Anthropologically speaking...their history and place of origin would have been taken into why they retain the fair hair and skin.

5) It is very hard to believe that in 3-5 thousand years no-one did the jigery pokery required to make angreal that Elayne did. A lot was lost after the breaking..and earlier experimentation resulted in As being killed, burnt out, and etc...so naturally they stopped and stuck with what they knew...study was done carefully and every failure made the rules against some things harsher...not because the AS didn't want to know how to do some things...but because they couldn't afford the constant deaths from trying. The amazing thing you fail to notice was the things they discovered that wasn't even known in the AOL...it wasn't 3500 years of nothing..the surviving AS took what they had and did miracles with it.

6) Every character is taller than the next Meh..don't recall many after Loial being taller then him...in fact Bashere..and others were noted for being shorter.

7) Every character is more handsome (beautiful) than the next Nope...just RJ does note those who are attractive and those who are not..and a lot of times when we ourselves look at people we look for things we find pleasent..so he comments on those..he also, like we do, makes note of the bad things also. Now he uses "handsome' when describing women a lot...which is not the same as pretty and even beautiful..a good example is the evil step mom in the Disney cartoon 'Cinderella" is a very handsome older women, but far from beautiful or even pretty...i also think you're assuming ageless is also beautiful and gloss over the other aspects of describing the AS...and RJ is rather quite descriptive in giving their faults. (almost pretty, stout, would be considered pretty if smaller...he's actually quite harsh)

8) Concepts in his world are not constant but used whenever it suits him (e.g. when a man travels he must know his destination, but Taim could just appear in the nick of time to help rand)

Actually RJ has actually gone back and made corrections so things do have a "logical" reasoning...he didn't have to, but does. Now plot driven devices do seem to alter things (taim showing up to save Rand was plot driven...we now know Taim is at least a darkfriend..so showed up just in time to save Rand to make himself look better in rand eyes..in otherwords that was part of the whole plot.)

10) The forsaken aren't powerful or dangerous in any way yes they are..the problem was they were too often working aginst each other and messing each other up more then Rand and the good guys were. Remember at first they were just now becoming free of the patch...all fighting to become the NB and etc...and Ishy running around screwing everyone up. Even when ordered by the DO to take certain actions they would get side tracked by personal things ...Moggy balefiring Nyn's ship.

11) The Dark Lord is a bumbling Idiot in that he could easily have killed Rand in every book or set all the Forsaken to sit in wait in a link of 13 to kill him. Not really..he's working through humans..you know those imperfect beings who often have their own agendas. lanfear wanted to use anything of power to rule over even the DO and creator with LTT(Rand)...Others want to be Nae Blis...as rand was learning they were dying until now they are less in number and Rand and the good side have been learning every step of the way. Basically overnight the bad side went from 1 guy running things for thousands of years to 13...chaos and confusion in the ranks...and remember the DO is not free, he cannot reach far from SG...the further away the weaker or less time he has to do things. Even his big Number 1 (Ishy) often acts against what would seem to be the DO's best interest for personal reasons. Look how often he has saved Rand from the others.

12) Most of the 'suspense' in the book relies on people not knowing whats going on but assuming something. If Mat told Egwene what he had to do, she would not assume he was an idiot etc. Nope most of the suspense is all the plotlines running around the books..and how readers want to answer them all, frankly it amazes me how even RJ kept up with them all, even with notes and Team Jordan's help. It is also part of his story telling..the breaks in POV and etc. build up the suspense and a lot of times you are actually taken by surprise when you didn't see a plot turning and twisting the way it did.

13) Professional, disciplined and long-experienced soldiers and trained generals are incompetent compared to Aiel and warders, yet a few younglings can dispatch warders, Aiel, you name it without any of the skills of the other armies. He doesn't even offer any "taver'en" explainations for this.

So you criticise RJ for this yet Frank herbert in Dune gets a slide...as does Tolkien with Aragorn among others? The Ael are organised and live by a code much like the Bushido code of the Japanese Samurai...from birth to death they live in a militant society...they also live in a land where any break in discipline results in death...the warrior societies among the Ael are even trained. look at regular Ael as the Spartans of randland...then the Warrior societies like the Navy societies as the King's Guard...the best of the best. Now what you call trained soldiers and generals in randland is a misconception..every house and monarchy has a corp of trained men that the army is built around..usually of farmers and etc. Elayne says it best when explaining about the difference between Andor's "army" and the borderlanders. Most of Andor's army would have been pushing a plow or some other trade the day before...the borderlanders are born armsmen ready to face a raid out of the blight at any given time. This is far from trained armies and generals. The only real armies are among the borderlanders...well trained and armed...maybe all of them together can field an army half the size of just the Ael under Rand...and that is just the fighting Ael..this doesn't include women, children, and artisans. Ael warrior's who train in the harshest environment wearing no armor...and spend their lives doing so..plus they also often have to face raids out of the Blight,plus they do fight amongst themselves constantly. Mats dancing the band among the Shaido winning every encounter was a miracle not the norm. The Borderlanders generally do better against them, but then again it took an alliance of virtually every nation to slow them during the Ael war..the Ael won in that they took Laman's head and went back home. As for real generals...there are only five (not including Mat) spoken of in Randland and one of those is dead now. The Shaido alone numbered like 180,000...now multiply that by 11 other clans...the Ael also outnumber any Randland army on a clan versus Nation basis..So you have a society that lives a martial lifestyle against armies and soldiers that actually don't exist. Just from shear numbers the Ael would win, but they are better trained and disciplined then the randland armies. Another point about this is Ael tactics are used to confuse and break up group of soldiers...when you take soldiers of the style the Randland armies would have and break their units and formations they suddenly become warriors..and none are as good as the Ael....What amazes me is you failed to point out how Perrin could come up with a plan and defeat an Ael army that outnumbered him..Perrin has far less experience at war and fighting then Ael and even those who agreed to follow his plan...Mayner, Seanchean, and etc. yet he followed the most basic rule of warfare many soldiers and generals forget. he picked the battlefield and the form the battle would take.
Now let's once again dissect thos disciplined, long-experienced soldiers and trained generals...Okay most nations in Randland have a corp which an army is built around...Let's use Andor as an example. The Core is the Queen's Guard...during war (against an outside force) they'd be formed up and the house troops would be called in under their lord's and ladies (the quality of whish varies)...then they'd call up all the men of age to serve...the Queen and the houses...so You'd have how ever many that core is then a bunch of draftees who may have trained a few days a month with there weapons....Now let's look at recent history...a lot of your long serving and disciplined soldiers fought and died in the Ael war against just a part of the full force the Ael could muster. Ael chieftens like Rhuarc are all as good if not better then Randland's best generals..especially if your consider the fact the Ael didn't lose the war..they did what they had come to do then went home. Now the long-experienced soliers would naturally be the underofficers and non-coms...with most soldiers being well trained but not very experienced. mat probably has the best experienced army in Randland short of the Borderlands. The best would naturally gravitate to him for his reputation. So you basically have a militant society grown in a harsh environment which is very disciplined and well trained versus armies mainly made up of ill trained conscripts...hmm now tell me who you think would win?

As for dragging RJ through the mud...I doubt you could. You asked a question very relevant to you...and that should be applauded..You are obvious a Tolkien and Frank herbert fan, but also not very well read outside those books or you would have realised even Tolkien and Herbert used formula from ancient times when they wrote their stories. (Frank Herbert's short stories are even better then the Dune books..if you can find them, worth the time to read)...I could suggest other great authors from fantasy and Sci-fi..Mercedes Lackey, David Drake, John Ringo, Eric Flint....mostly newer Authors because I didn't get into it hardcore until the late 80's and missed the classics (I've never read asminov)...I can give more titles then Authors...like the first book I read with strong female characters was "The Mists of Avalon" the Authorian legends from the women's point of view...The Black Company series..and more. If they're ever reprnted the Thieves World novels are great also...and are written by many authors using each others characters...any of which (the authors) are good to read outside those novels.In otherwords there are more then just Tolkien, herbert, and RJ out thre (melanie rawn, tad williams, terry goodkind, etc..etc..I read a lot and am only limited by my budget..come on if I can read It and The Talisman in one night and get enough sleep for school the next day...basically if not bothered I can probably put the Whole WoT series when complete away in one day...without missing anything..in one hour I did read Eye-path of daggers...so no biggie.)

Theoryland of the Wheel of Time

hardcore fan freaks of the wheel of time

Theoryland Resources

WoT Interview Search

Wheel of Time News

An Hour With Harriet

The Bell Tolls

Theoryland Community

Theoryland Tweets

Theories

Recent Comments

Recent Theories

Home | Index | Archives | Help

obert Jordan doesn't appeal to everyone

by Johnamdor: 2003-08-31 | 1 out of 10 (11 votes)

Previous Categories: Miscellaneous

Comments

Tamyrlin: 2003-09-06

Jiana: 2003-09-07

Callandor: 2003-09-07

Particleman: 2003-09-07

Isabel: 2003-09-07

TheNetweaver: 2003-09-07

Johnamdor: 2003-09-07

Priest: 2003-09-07

moridin68: 2003-09-07

shane: 2003-09-08

Friar: 2003-09-08

Callandor: 2003-09-08

Rhodric: 2003-09-08

Rand-althor: 2003-09-08

CJH68: 2003-09-08

rubbernilly: 2003-09-09

ranman38: 2003-09-09

TheNetweaver: 2003-09-09

Rhodric: 2003-09-09

Flinn: 2003-09-09

rubbernilly: 2003-09-10

Jiana: 2003-09-10

Korell: 2003-09-10

Rand-althor: 2003-09-10

Him-who-may: 2003-09-10

Lorddragonwolf: 2003-09-10

Caramoor: 2003-09-10

Callandor: 2003-09-10

Isabel: 2003-09-11

rubbernilly: 2003-09-11

Jiana: 2003-09-11

ranman38: 2003-09-11

Rand-althor: 2003-09-11

heronblade: 2003-09-11

spearmaiden: 2003-09-11

TheNetweaver: 2003-09-11

CJH68: 2003-09-11

ranman38: 2003-09-12

Therilon: 2003-09-12

rubbernilly: 2003-09-12

heronblade: 2003-09-12

Callandor: 2003-09-12

golem22: 2003-09-12

A Wild One: 2003-09-13

Callandor: 2003-09-13

heronblade: 2003-09-15

Rhuark: 2003-09-17

rubbernilly: 2003-09-18

Callandor: 2003-09-18

Anubis: 2003-09-19

Someshta: 2003-09-21

Jalwin Moerad: 2003-10-12

Jalwin Moerad: 2003-10-12

Rhodric: 2003-10-13

jackmisfit: 2003-10-14

Cor Shan: 2003-10-14

dave: 2003-10-14

OKflyboy: 2003-10-16

salem: 2003-11-01

Murrin: 2003-11-10

Sidhe: 2003-11-11

Sensir: 2003-11-15

Alanna Mosvani: 2003-12-14