Okay, so I know there are already a million threads about Wheel of Time...

[Myrddin]

YA is usually defined by the age of protagonists, not the level of "adult" material.

The lack of swearing, sex, and graphic violence are not indicators for what's shelved in YA. In fact, some YA is probably more graphic than more of what's shelved in general fiction. (I recently read about a YA book addressing self-mutilation in a very graphic manner and had more F-bombs than GoT, but the protagonist was a high school girl).

Since all the main characters are 18+ (thus adults), WoT isn't considered YA. Yes, they tried repackaging it, but that was a marketing ploy to draw some of the Harry Potter crowd.

[Humble Asskicker]

Bakker's books are rated on places like Goodreads about the same as the middling of the WOT books. Simply being gritty and dark does not make one mature, nor does not being so equal young adult writing IMO.

Intelligence, density and originality does make one mature. It's something Goodkind lacks and Bakker's series has in abundance. More than any other currently ongoing fantasy series. In fact, considering the newly acquired and growing flaws of Martin's books, I'm just about ready to put Bakker ahead of him too.

People can go on about the didactic nature of the story, if it's not their cup o' tea, or complain about the relentlessly pessimistic tone, but it's hard to dispute that the series offers a lot of fresh concepts and a deep, well developed world.

OT: The distinction between Young Adult and Adult stories is not just specious, it's pure fucking stupid.

[RobMRobM]

My few cents

- as you can see, many ASOIF folk denigrate WoT. I wouldn't accept that at face value for the many reasons discussed above. (Also, note that RJ gave a big rave to GoT that GRRM credits for helping ASOIF get rolling on the sales front, so a bit of respect should be granted for that alone).

- IMO, WoT is highly enjoyable, especially if you are the type who likes to puzzle out buried clues/nuggets/puzzles from unreliable POV perspectives (kind of like GRRM in that respect, perhaps even more than GRRM).

- It's not YA. It is PG, with some disturbing scenes throughout. Definitely not R, with little or no graphic sex/violence.

- RJ has a slow build, almost baroque, writing style but he can come up with some beautfiul prose and he can especially really kick the ass out of a big ending. It is awfully fun to watch certain plot lines develop over the course of a book or even multi-books.

- Be warned that while Book 1 is fun but it is very (and apparently intentionally) LOTR derivative, and Book 2 is slow in parts. Series really rounds into form in books 3-5 so patience can be rewarded.

- Agree that books 8-10 are the weakest (not enough positives to outweigh length and plodding plots) but book 11 is strong and BS has done a nice job of getting books back on a strong course in 12 and 13 for the big finale next year (or so).

- I really enjoy many of the characters and several have reached my pantheon of favorites in SFF (my list would include Mat, Thom, Egwene, Birgitte, Tam and in particular Verin).

- So ... feel free to dive in. It's a good (if long) ride.

Rob

[RobMRobM]

I'm not sure if it's the ideal way to read the series, but my personal experience has been that you can skip both CoT and KoD (and possibly WH as well) and still have an easy time picking up and continuing on with The Gathering Storm. All I did was read a brief plot synopsis of both books.

(Of course I've been slogging though TGS for near half a year now, but that's more to do with my lack of interest in the series as a whole than any confusion to do with the plot :P)

KoD is a top 5 or 6 book in the series. It effectively and enjoyably wraps up many plot points from the preceeding lesser books. Not a skip book. I also wouldn't skip WH, as it has one of the best big finishes of any of the books.

[Barnes]

- It's not YA. It is PG, with some disturbing scenes throughout. Definitely not R, with little or no graphic sex/violence.

I agree with the PG, I think that's a better way of looking at it.

[AUyushu]

Intelligence, density and originality does make one mature. It's something Goodkind lacks and Bakker's series has in abundance. More than any other currently ongoing fantasy series. In fact, considering the newly acquired and growing flaws of Martin's books, I'm just about ready to put Bakker ahead of him too.

People can go on about the didactic nature of the story, if it's not their cup o' tea, or complain about the relentlessly pessimistic tone, but it's hard to dispute that the series offers a lot of fresh concepts and a deep, well developed world.

Whoa, who brought up the Tairy up in this thread? :laugh:

I don't think you are going to get many arguments about the terrible or immature nature of Goodkind's writing. I think what Bakker is doing with Kellhus as a character is somewhat original, but the setting and world is hardly original in the slightest. It's simply Crusades era earth mixed in with a reverse version of Tolkien's world. Basically emigrating a period history to a fantasy setting is not particularly original, and he's hardly the first with an Anti-hero led storyline.

I really don't care all that much about the pessimistic tone, my problem is the sections of the new trilogy that don't involve Akka or Kellhus's crazy as hell youngest son are just plain tedious and not interesting. The plot just plods along, and the most interesting parts were twists on older books like the Moriaesque scenes in TJE.

Like I said, I enjoy the series a good deal, but it has it's severe faults, one of the largest being the lack of well developed and interesting characters. Cnaiür, Akka, Kellhus (at least in the first trilogy), Kelmomas, and the nonman were all very well done, but beyond that the characters are very weak and lack depth. But anyway, to each their own, I find Bakker's prose to be superb but his world building and characters to be merely average.

[haLobEnder]

KoD is a top 5 or 6 book in the series. It effectively and enjoyably wraps up many plot points from the preceeding lesser books. Not a skip book. I also wouldn't skip WH, as it has one of the best big finishes of any of the books.

Perhaps from the perspective of someone who has stuck with the series through thick and thin that's true, but the only thing that brought me back on the series was Sanderson coming on board and the promise of completion. I hate to say it, but had RJ been able to complete it himself, I'd probably have continued to read the remaining books in synopsis form; I was that disheartened with RJ's writing at that point.

Also,

What other than Ran cleansing the male half of magic and losing a hand would you consider being big resolutions that weren't set up by the three mediocre books that preceded it?

I much prefer coming back to the series Perrin already having rescued Faile then have to endure another chapter of his brooding on the matter. (Though at the point I'm at now in TGS he seems to be brooding about the brooding so I don't know if that's much of an improvement).

Egwene was another PoV I was able to pick up and just roll with the things I missed.

In fact, the only plot points I'm a little confused on are to do with Mat and Tuon, and that's mostly because I can't be bothered to investigate further.

[Calesta]

I have been a big fan since book one. While you will be able to tell it is a different writer for the last books they were done from R Jordan's notes and I fould them good also.

[nickg]

Yeah, flaws and all I'd definitely say Bakker's work is (thus far) inferior to WOT.

Sales-wise, that is true.

WoT is by far inferior in nearly every other aspect imo ( outside of worldbuilding possibly ) especially when you compare the quality of writing

[Shryke]

You can skip books in WOT in that you can continue to read book 9 after reading book 7 without having read book 8. It is physically possible. You will probably even be able to roughly understand the events transpiring.

You will not understand WHY they are happening though or what they mean. Which kinda defeats the purpose.

It's like reading ASOIAF and skipping all the Dany chapters because shit, you'll find out what happened from other POVs right?

You can criticize WOT for many things, but the plotting is very well planned and skipping books will lead you to missing alot of stuff.

[Werthead]

YA is usually defined by the age of protagonists, not the level of "adult" material.

I don't think there's any hard and fast rules on what is YA and what isn't. ASoIaF has a lot of main characters under 18, but I don't think anyone would call it YA. I've seen people argue quite ferociously on other forums on if Ender's Game is YA. The distinctions between YA and non-YA are pretty arbritary (one of the reasons why I don't undertand people who pointblank refuse to read YA, since it's a marketing buzzword at best).

Since all the main characters are 18+ (thus adults), WoT isn't considered YA. Yes, they tried repackaging it, but that was a marketing ploy to draw some of the Harry Potter crowd.

Elayne and Egwene are both 16 when the series opens, IIRC.

[Grack21]

I know I tend to rant about this a lot, but just because a book doesn't have people saying "fuck" it doesn't mean the book is targeted at a younger audience.

Movie example:

Dark City. No swearing. Now try and tell me Dark City was aimed at a young audience.

[Cot]

Whoa, who brought up the Tairy up in this thread? :laugh:

I don't think you are going to get many arguments about the terrible or immature nature of Goodkind's writing. I think what Bakker is doing with Kellhus as a character is somewhat original, but the setting and world is hardly original in the slightest. It's simply Crusades era earth mixed in with a reverse version of Tolkien's world. Basically emigrating a period history to a fantasy setting is not particularly original, and he's hardly the first with an Anti-hero led storyline.

I really don't care all that much about the pessimistic tone, my problem is the sections of the new trilogy that don't involve Akka or Kellhus's crazy as hell youngest son are just plain tedious and not interesting. The plot just plods along, and the most interesting parts were twists on older books like the Moriaesque scenes in TJE.

Like I said, I enjoy the series a good deal, but it has it's severe faults, one of the largest being the lack of well developed and interesting characters. Cnaiür, Akka, Kellhus (at least in the first trilogy), Kelmomas, and the nonman were all very well done, but beyond that the characters are very weak and lack depth. But anyway, to each their own, I find Bakker's prose to be superb but his world building and characters to be merely average.

Right, I could understand your perspective up to the last paragraph, then you lost all credibility. Bakker's world building average? I'm stunned. Do we share the same definition of world building??

A quick question - could you please rank the following authors in terms of world building - Martin, Jordan, Bakker, Tolkien, Abercrombie, Lynch.

For what its worth, I think Bakker does a better job of world building in the appendix of TTT than some of the above.

[Galactus]

Sales-wise, that is true.

WoT is by far inferior in nearly every other aspect imo ( outside of worldbuilding possibly ) especially when you compare the quality of writing

Eh, depends. Both are what I consider very uneve stylists, Jordan plods around a whole lot saying nothing, Bakker repeats himself to ridicilous extents. Both have phrases they tend to repeat almost verbatim.

Both OTOH can bring out some pretty damn beautiful prose occasionally. (especially in battle-scenes) but it's overshadowed by their greater faults. Martin has his own faults when it comes to writing, but purely on the basis of prose I think he whips B&J handily.

And I think you can argue pretty convincingly that Bakker is actually rather heavily inspired by Jordan in some of his concepts. (If you squint kind of hard Kellhus is Rand from a different perspective)

[Galactus]

Right, I could understand your perspective up to the last paragraph, then you lost all credibility. Bakker's world building average? I'm stunned. Do we share the same definition of world building??

A quick question - could you please rank the following authors in terms of world building - Martin, Jordan, Bakker, Tolkien, Abercrombie, Lynch.

For what its worth, I think Bakker does a better job of world building in the appendix of TTT than some of the above.

I'd rank them as Jordan, Tolkien, Bakker, Martin, Lynch, Abercrombie (with the caveat that I have only read the First Law trilogy)

Tolkien's world suffers from it's lack of... Reality. It's very mythical, but it doesen't feel like a real place. (although it kind of feels like a real mythology, which is an interesting effect but not really about world-building) Jordan for all his flaws has a world that I kinda, sorta, could see xisting.

Martin i pretty much just the middle-ages transposed. BAkker's is slightly better in that he mixes it up in a pseudo-believable way, Lynch at least has some interesting descriptions, even if I never feel the gravity of his world. Abercrombie... He hs world-building?

EDIT: I should probably mentioned that my criteria for good world-building is "good, original concepts executed in a believable way." Martin executes his fairly well, but the concepts aren't that original, for instance.

[Myrddin]

I don't think there's any hard and fast rules on what is YA and what isn't.

Not hard and fast, no, but the age of the protagonists is a pretty strong guideline publishers follow when deciding what's YA and what's not. Same with middle grade (age 10-12 or something). Some exec decided that kids can only relate to protagonists their own age going through the same issues. :rolleyes:

This is a guideline I've seen expressed on countless literary agent and editor blogs posts and interviews. There are always exceptions, of course, but that doesn't invalidate the general rule of thumb.

Good literature touches all ages, regardless of the label. I read Lord of the Rings at age 12 and Harry Potter in my 30's. ;)

[RobMRobM]

Perhaps from the perspective of someone who has stuck with the series through thick and thin that's true, but the only thing that brought me back on the series was Sanderson coming on board and the promise of completion. I hate to say it, but had RJ been able to complete it himself, I'd probably have continued to read the remaining books in synopsis form; I was that disheartened with RJ's writing at that point.

Also,

What other than Ran cleansing the male half of magic and losing a hand would you consider being big resolutions that weren't set up by the three mediocre books that preceded it?

I much prefer coming back to the series Perrin already having rescued Faile then have to endure another chapter of his brooding on the matter. (Though at the point I'm at now in TGS he seems to be brooding about the brooding so I don't know if that's much of an improvement).

Egwene was another PoV I was able to pick up and just roll with the things I missed.

In fact, the only plot points I'm a little confused on are to do with Mat and Tuon, and that's mostly because I can't be bothered to investigate further.

Re your spoiler question, key ones (excluding R) are: completion of rescue plan (well executed and introduces important new characters); E undermining E under tough conditions; M getting out of hiding and reuniting with his group (and T going back to her people); discovery of D and H as not being what they seem; and resolution of A succession issue by strategy and battle. More importantly, the writing in resolving many of these issues and others is truly excellent, especially in view of all that has come before.

"[] looked at him, squatting there by the map, moving his fingers over its surface, and suddenly she saw him in a new light. A buffoon? No. A lion stuffed into a horse-stall might look like a peculiar joke, but a lion on the high plains was something very different. [] was loose on the high plains, now. She felt a chill. What sort of man had she entangled herself with? After all this time, she realized, she had hardly a clue."

[Cot]

I'd rank them as Jordan, Tolkien, Bakker, Martin, Lynch, Abercrombie (with the caveat that I have only read the First Law trilogy)

Tolkien's world suffers from it's lack of... Reality. It's very mythical, but it doesen't feel like a real place. (although it kind of feels like a real mythology, which is an interesting effect but not really about world-building) Jordan for all his flaws has a world that I kinda, sorta, could see xisting.

Martin i pretty much just the middle-ages transposed. BAkker's is slightly better in that he mixes it up in a pseudo-believable way, Lynch at least has some interesting descriptions, even if I never feel the gravity of his world. Abercrombie... He hs world-building?

EDIT: I should probably mentioned that my criteria for good world-building is "good, original concepts executed in a believable way." Martin executes his fairly well, but the concepts aren't that original, for instance.

I generally agree with you, except I'd put Tolkien on the top and Bakker on a par or slightly behind Jordan, rest as stated.

Thus I struggle to see Bakker as average...

Jordan's world building is v strong, I give him that - in fact its the part of his books I most enjoy. However, I also feel that the amount of time he spends "world building" should make it better than he actually is - Bakker conveys as much with less word count.

[AUyushu]

I generally agree with you, except I'd put Tolkien on the top and Bakker on a par or slightly behind Jordan, rest as stated.

Thus I struggle to see Bakker as average...

Jordan's world building is v strong, I give him that - in fact its the part of his books I most enjoy. However, I also feel that the amount of time he spends "world building" should make it better than he actually is - Bakker conveys as much with less word count.

I guess I should say for my part that the lack of originality of the world really detracts from me considering Bakker as a very good world builder. It's basically real world history carted over and mix and matched with reverse Tolkien. I'd say 75% of his world (particularly in the first trilogy) reads like the crusades. To me that's not much in the way of world building.

To answer your question though, I'd pretty much rank them in the order you do, Tolkien, Jordan, Martin, Bakker, Lynch, Abercrombie. I rank Martin higher than Bakker based on his other works rather than ASOIAF though, I'd probably rank Bakker higher or dead even based just on the two fantasy series. Martin has pretty good world building going on in his Science fiction short stories and stuff like Tuf Voyaging. But that being said, only two of those guys do I consider two be above average world builders. I don't read any of the latter four for their worlds. Lynch and Martin I read because of the amazing characters and superb plots, and Abercrombie when I'm in the mood for something dark and gritty.

I dunno, we could just have different definitions of what we consider good world building. I consider good world building to be original and creative, not just making twists on history and putting it into a new setting. Lynch is basically the Italian city states, Martin in ASOIAF is the Wars of the Roses, Bakker is Crusades era Middle East, Abercrombie is Medieval Europe in general with the European style country in the middle, barbarian north, Italian style city states, southern Islamic type nation setup. To me it's how they twist those settings to make them their own that make the stories great, not the worlds themselves.

When I think of good world builders I think of folks like Tolkien, Steven Erikson, and Jordan.

[Condesln]

So, CoT isn't as bad as people say it is? Is just another another trendy thing to say "Oh, COT is the worst book ever written!"