is the WoT series worth reading

[Darth Richard II]

6 minutes ago, Werthead said:

Well, it was written literally for kids (the opening chapters, anyway, when it was Hobbit II: The Wrath of Khand), which WoT wasn't, although weirdly the first two books were later reissued in YA editions.

Yeah, I mean, I get that. Just, I think WoT fits the juvenile label a hell lot more than LotR (Hobbit non withstanding).

[Lord Patrek]

Wasn't it you, Wert, that wrote a piece after meeting with the Jordan people explaining that WoT was meant to be a lot more fucked up, but that Tom Doherty asked RJ to tone it down? 

Anyway, one of the reasons WoT achieved such enormous commercial success is undoubtedly due to the fact that it appealed to both younger and older readerships. I mean, seven consecutive #1 spots on the NYT list and 2 books that topped at #2, with 13 out 15 installments reaching bestseller status in hardcover, that's quite something!

Personally, other than the bickering between the girls and their juvenile behaviors (especially toward Rand) throughout the series, the overall juvenile label never really bothered me. The depth of the plot and the various storylines kept me coming back for more. 

[Mladen]

3 hours ago, TheRevanchist said:

Kind of disagree about depth of LotR (have not read Silmarillon). ASOIAF and Wheel of Time are far more superior in that aspect, in fact, I think that WoT's world building is comfortably the best I have seen in the entire genre. About writing, obviously LotR's writing is in another level (compared to anything in the genre) but personally, not great for my taste because it is a bit difficult to read (if not native speaker), almost poetic. Someone like Guy Gavriel Kay's writing for my taste is much better. Talking about WoT, I think that its writing was decent for the first half, but in the second half kind of suffered likely because a lack of editing.

I wasn't talking about ASOIAF v LOTR, but LOTR v WoT. WoT and ASOIAF are fundamentally different when it comes to writing characters and the depth of the personal conflict. I don't think WoT brought complexity and/or realism. I think Jordan's ideas about male/female dynamics is a thing of the past. I think that he never understood women nor he knew how to write them. Even Tolkien who had written LOTR 50 years before had inklings of modern views on feminism, even though LOTR, is truly traditional work. 

WOT is, in shortest possible way, a good exercise in RPG. But, as a literary product, it fails. On so many levels.

And as a non-native, I adored reading LOTR in English. You can sense the beauty of the English language and appreciate it when it is in service of Tolkien's prose.

[Werthead]

1 hour ago, Lord Patrek said:

Wasn't it you, Wert, that wrote a piece after meeting with the Jordan people explaining that WoT was meant to be a lot more fucked up, but that Tom Doherty asked RJ to tone it down? 

The original notes were flat-out insane, yup.

Quote

 

WoT and ASOIAF are fundamentally different when it comes to writing characters and the depth of the personal conflict. I don't think WoT brought complexity and/or realism. I think Jordan's ideas about male/female dynamics is a thing of the past. I think that he never understood women nor he knew how to write them. Even Tolkien who had written LOTR 50 years before had inklings of modern views on feminism, even though LOTR, is truly traditional work. 

 

In terms of psychological realism and character depth, both WoT and LotR come up short by the standards of Martin, Erikson, Abercrombie etc. But WoT certainly has far more character depth than LotR. Most of the characters in LotR are pretty flat. There's some evolution and growth but not much: Aragorn doesn't have an arc, at all. Gandalf dies as a character and comes back as a walking deus ex machina. Frodo does evolve and grow a bit, Merry and Pippin a bit more, Sam a fair bit, and Gollum arguably more than anyone else, but it's pretty limited stuff. Rand and Egwene go through far more complex emotional and psychological journeys than anyone in LotR (not always the best-handled, though).

No-one in their right mind is going to argue that LotR is better-written, more iconic and infinitely better-paced than WoT with far better dialogue, but I think characterisation and worldbuilding-wise (especially when you consider LotR alone) WoT has the edge on it.

Also, whilst Jordan's grasp of nuanced female characterisation (or male for that better) left something to be desired, he did actually have more than one actual functional female character in the span of a thousand pages.

[Mladen]

19 minutes ago, Werthead said:

In terms of psychological realism and character depth, both WoT and LotR come up short by the standards of Martin, Erikson, Abercrombie etc. But WoT certainly has far more character depth than LotR. Most of the characters in LotR are pretty flat. There's some evolution and growth but not much: Aragorn doesn't have an arc, at all. Gandalf dies as a character and comes back as a walking deus ex machina. Frodo does evolve and grow a bit, Merry and Pippin a bit more, Sam a fair bit, and Gollum arguably more than anyone else, but it's pretty limited stuff. Rand and Egwene go through far more complex emotional and psychological journeys than anyone in LotR (not always the best-handled, though).

For me, the entire "men are from Mars, women are from Venus" philosophy in Jordan's writing was something that not only banged my head on every other chapter, but also caused a lot of eye-roll whenever there is a conversation between a male and female character. I feel that volume of Jordan's prose allowed it to be somewhat deeper but nowhere near where it should have been. I know Tolkien never meant LOTR to be real life allegory but there are so many real life issues that have arisen in that fantastical setting he created. Even when I have read Harry Potter and Dumbledore's "those that don't seek power, are always best in wielding it", I instantly knew what Tolkien was talking about in LOTR.  

That is what I feel WoT lacked. After I have read it, I was "OK, that was awesome battle, he is now riding into sunset" But, that was that. It never challenged me in my views of anything, never offered anything else then what is already there. One of the reason why I like fantasy is because its setting can be interesting playground to tell the story. And I feel that fantasy can be used to tell those really important stories. About human nature, good and evil, love, power and loyalty. WoT was, at least for me, just nice, imaginative battle against evil. There were some great moments but nothing that would last with me. Simply, after reading it, I was truly uninspired. 

34 minutes ago, Werthead said:

Also, whilst Jordan's grasp of nuanced female characterisation (or male for that better) left something to be desired, he did actually have more than one actual functional female character in the span of a thousand pages.

But, does it mean it is better? Yes, we have over 300 named Aes Sedai, not counting other female channelers, royalty, etc. and yet I find Eowyn's story far more beautiful and poetic than 95% of female storyarc. It ended traditionally, fitting into what Tolkien's ideas about women were, but Eowyn for me remains one of those female characters who symbolizes everything that is equal in strength and desire. Jordan's women fade in memory. Eowyn, yes, lone as she is, lingers. 

[Lord Patrek]

There is something to be said about the fact that RJ is probably the contemporary fantasy author with the biggest number of female readers. Almost 50%-50% it always felt back in the day of the popular online WoT communities. 

For all the annoying bitching and braid-tugging, female readers always comprised a vast chunk of Jordan's readership. Not so with Abercrombie, Lynch, Erikson, and even GRRM. 

I got quite a few female friends interested in WoT back in my college days. Other than Robin Hobb, Robert Jordan was the fantasy author I was able to pimp the most to girls back in the day. . .

 

[Darth Richard II]

Pretty sure I read recently, possibly on this forum, that a majority of GoT fans, both books and tv, are female.

[Lord Patrek]

I think the TV series changed that over the years. Back then, though ASOIAF had its female fans, the proportion was more skewed toward male readers. Becoming a mainstream phenomenon, given that women read more than men, I figure that more female readers than ever have become fans of the series.

But back in the late 90s and early 2000s, I'm persuaded that RJ was the fantasy author that appealed the most to both genders. WoT had by far the most female charcaters with pivotal roles to play in the resolution of the saga, which I'm sure helped a great deal.

In the end, one cannot achieve the sort of commercial success that Jordan, Martin, or Gaiman enjoyed without appealing equally to both male and female readers, methinks.

[Durckad]

Seeing as I'm currently going through a very, very slow reread of the series (I'm only on TSR right now and I pretty much have to read something else between each book as a palette-cleanser), I don't really think I can recommend the series to anyone anymore. Which is really unfortunate, because I was biiiig into WoT back in the day. It was the first series I read after LotR and the depth, worldbuilding, and scale of the novels was simply astounding to me at the time. I hadn't delved into the Silmarillion or any of the LotR companion and background material yet, so the sheer size of Jordan's world and cast was beyond anything I could imagine at the time. I tore through those books, two, maybe three times, the WoT community back here and back on the WoT game forum were the first online communities I joined and participated, so the series holds a real nostalgic pull for me.

But now, I honestly am not sure if I can recommend them anymore, especially considering the time investment required to read the entire series. The first three books have some good moments in them but those are offset by some seriously clunky writing and juvenile character interactions and while the fourth I think has the potential to be a legitimately good piece of writing it's also way overwritten at times with too much time spent on pointless descriptions and bullshit that add little to the story. It remains to be seen how my opinions on the forthcoming books go, but since I've always been rather lukewarm on both tFoH and LoC (it has an awesome ending, but the rest of the book is a snooze fest), I can't imagine they'll improve on the reread.

So, no, if someone is looking for some good fantasy to read, I don't think I would recommend WoT. If someone was looking for some important and significant fantasy to read, then I might recommend it as a sort of historical novelty. Beyond that, I'm not really sure if it's worth it any longer especially when you consider how much more fantasy is around these days, much of it better written and way less bloated.

[Inkdaub]

This thread is seriously making me want to reread WoT so I guess I vote yes it's worthwhile. 

[Werthead]

9 hours ago, Lord Patrek said:

There is something to be said about the fact that RJ is probably the contemporary fantasy author with the biggest number of female readers. Almost 50%-50% it always felt back in the day of the popular online WoT communities. 

For all the annoying bitching and braid-tugging, female readers always comprised a vast chunk of Jordan's readership. Not so with Abercrombie, Lynch, Erikson, and even GRRM. 

I got quite a few female friends interested in WoT back in my college days. Other than Robin Hobb, Robert Jordan was the fantasy author I was able to pimp the most to girls back in the day. . .

Easily, WoT had and still has an enormous female fanbase. ASoIaF actually had more female readers (or at least commentators on forums) than male ones, although not by a lot, but the TV show has knocked that down to 50/50 it feels. Pratchett, Hobb, Gaiman etc seem to also be pretty evenly split.

With Erikson it feels like three-quarters of readers and commentators are male. With Bakker it's like 95%, unsurprisingly.

[TheRevanchist]

12 hours ago, Risto said:

But, does it mean it is better? Yes, we have over 300 named Aes Sedai, not counting other female channelers, royalty, etc. and yet I find Eowyn's story far more beautiful and poetic than 95% of female storyarc. It ended traditionally, fitting into what Tolkien's ideas about women were, but Eowyn for me remains one of those female characters who symbolizes everything that is equal in strength and desire. Jordan's women fade in memory. Eowyn, yes, lone as she is, lingers. 

Uh, yes. Moiraine in particular is a far better written character than Eowyn (who is the only interesting character in LotR). Egwene is annoying at times (though I liked) but it is far more complex than Eowyn. Siuan even as a tertiary character is better written than Eowyn, as is Min (Min is secondary character though). Heck, even Nynaeve is interesting in the second half of the saga. And did I mention Lanfear, an excellent femne fatale antagonist?

Let's be fair, if LotR would have been released today, it would have been criticized much more than WoT ever did.

[Mladen]

11 hours ago, TheRevanchist said:

Uh, yes. Moiraine in particular is a far better written character than Eowyn (who is the only interesting character in LotR). Egwene is annoying at times (though I liked) but it is far more complex than Eowyn. Siuan even as a tertiary character is better written than Eowyn, as is Min (Min is secondary character though). Heck, even Nynaeve is interesting in the second half of the saga. And did I mention Lanfear, an excellent femne fatale antagonist?

Let's be fair, if LotR would have been released today, it would have been criticized much more than WoT ever did.

Spoiler

 

Well, it is your opinion. Moiraine should have stayed dead, not to mention the forced relationship with Tom. Egwene and the rest of the girls suffer from the same sickness the boys in the series do. Resenting the opposite sex is something that I hate and WoT is full of that. Nyn spends the better half of her storyarc with her braid. And femme fatale antagonist? Wow, groundbreaking...

I truly liked Siuan and I felt cheated with her death. It was like she was some Jane Do who had no impact to the story. 

 

The problem with women in Jordan's prose is that even though they look differently and say different things, they are fundamentally the same. They all have issues with men, think they are much smarter than they are and overall are heroic. It's like one profile has been added different features countless times. There is no sense of who would do what. Like, in ASOIAF, we know how different Sansa, Arya and Dany would react. I never get that feeling from WoT women.

Yes, as would have Tolstoy, Dostoevsky or Alighieri, as for that matter. We can't separate the art from the time it is written. But, beyond the themes determined by its time, there are those which pertain and remain relevant. Tolkien's work was very much relevant in 2000s, when it brought almost $3 billion to the studios. Many have read it back when Jackson's movies arrived and many have liked it. It sold 150 million copies (and if we think about it as 3 books, which we really can't, but let we play along, that means that 50 million people have read it). On the other hand, WoT sold almost 100 million copies (divided with 15 installments, it means the readership is that of 6+ million people). So, it seems that people have and still do read LOTR in great numbers and that it still is relevant, even with its flaws. I understand that numbers ultimately mean nothing, but they do acknowledge the fact that LOTR is the most important modern fantasy series. 

 

11 hours ago, Werthead said:

Easily, WoT had and still has an enormous female fanbase. ASoIaF actually had more female readers (or at least commentators on forums) than male ones, although not by a lot, but the TV show has knocked that down to 50/50 it feels. Pratchett, Hobb, Gaiman etc seem to also be pretty evenly split.

With Erikson it feels like three-quarters of readers and commentators are male. With Bakker it's like 95%, unsurprisingly.

I remember when I joined the forum that I was positively surprised by the number of ladies on the forum. Back when I was commenting on the General ASOIAF subforum, I remember perhaps 5-10 male prominent posters and almost 20 prominent posters. That said, with my interest in Sansa, that can be a bit expected, but overall, I feel that this forum has more prominent female posters than male. And that is one of the many reasons why I find Martin so enjoyable.

[Loge]

44 minutes ago, Risto said:

Well, it is your opinion. Moiraine should have stayed dead, not to mention the forced relationship with Tom. Egwene and the rest of the girls suffer from the same sickness the boys in the series do. Resenting the opposite sex is something that I hate and WoT is full of that. Nyn spends the better half of her storyarc with her braid. And femme fatale antagonist? Wow, groundbreaking...

I truly liked Siuan and I felt cheated with her death. It was like she was some Jane Do who had no impact to the story. 

The problem with women in Jordan's prose is that even though they look differently and say different things, they are fundamentally the same. They all have issues with men, think they are much smarter than they are and overall are heroic. It's like one profile has been added different features countless times. There is no sense of who would do what. Like, in ASOIAF, we know how different Sansa, Arya and Dany would react. I never get that feeling from WoT women.

But that's part of Jordan's worldbuilding. It's how that particular age is, as a consequence of male channelers being insane. The forsaken aren't like that at all. 

[A True Kaniggit]

Haha. It's only because of the WoT series that I'm actually a part of this forum. After Lord of the Rings, WoT was the first fantasy series I read (I think I was about 12 when I started the series(2003)) Anyhow, in 2013, the day before the official release of the final book, I stumbled upon a forum discussing the series (yeah, I got the final book a day early because Walmart made a mistake).

Some months after this incident a thought came to me. "Maybe the other fantasy series I'm reading, ASOIAF (began in '08), has it's own forum! (yeah, I wasn't that internet savvy back then. Not all of us grew up with the same WWW access! So what, wanna fight about it?)

Anyways, after a google search I discovered this place. Then, after nearly a year of lurking, I finally joined.

So yeah, I'm probably a little positively biased toward the series because of fond memories while reading it at a young age. But I say give it a shot!

Edit: Spoilers for the ending of the series. Don't read if you haven't finished.

 

My take from the final battle between Rand and the Dark One.

Rand totally got played. He had the Dark One in the palm of his hand, and could have ended him any time he chose. But he let the "Father of Lies" trick him one last time. Rand thought that by destroying the Dark One, he would destroy part of what made humans, human, by taking away their capacity to choose to do bad. No Rand. Humans can be evil of their own accord. You based your decision on a terrible future shown to you by the evil entity who's absence made that future terrible in the first place. You got tricked. And because of your foolishness, thousands of years from now hundreds of thousands will die fighting the evil you let live.

Dumbass.

Edit 2: (continuation of rant)

Also, half your story was you feeling sorry for yourself that, unlike other people who chose to risk their lives fighting the Dark One, who only had the chance to die, you were fated to die. Which somehow made it worse for you? But in the end you never died. 

Damn I hate Rand.

[Corvinus85]

7 hours ago, Inkdaub said:

This thread is seriously making me want to reread WoT so I guess I vote yes it's worthwhile. 

Every time one of these threads pop up, and the discussion heats up, I keep wanting to re-read it. Alas, time...

[Darth Richard II]

Hey spoiler tag some of that shit, this topic is for a guy.gal that hasn't read it.

[A True Kaniggit]

19 minutes ago, Darth Richard II said:

Hey spoiler tag some of that shit, this topic is for a guy.gal that hasn't read it.

Just to be safe because of the new update and I've been having issues with the spoiler tag. Not directed at me right? On my end the post is in spoilers.

[Darth Richard II]

5 minutes ago, A True Kaniggit said:

Just to be safe because of the new update and I've been having issues with the spoiler tag. Not directed at me right? On my end the post is in spoilers.

No you're good I think

 

*scrolls up*

Yeah

[Astromech]

Speaking of rereads, er sort of, has anyone read the graphic novels?