The Wheel of Time and Lord Varys (second attempt)

[Lord Varys]

4 hours ago, Lessingham said:

Having read TSR (albeit some time ago...) I think I have an idea what they mean by that. TSR has a decent ending, and I write that having in mind previous instalments in the series (what I managed through that is). It has some nice worldbuilding, it explores the prophecy of the Dragon Reborn through different cultural lenses, it’s suitably epic in execution and it has a lot of gravitas – okay, that last one I made up, I don’t exactly know if it does but I imagine it should, considering what’s going on... There are some nice sequences near the end of this book, flashbacks are utilised in a fun and engaging way. That’s at least how I remember this book. My overall experience with this saga, and now I’m referring to my first time with it (and final up until yesterday), is that first two books were at best mediocre and full of inanities, TDR was decent, it somewhat hooked me with its narrative decisions and plot direction (though, I’ll be perfectly honest, I remember little to nothing from the Tarabon plot), and TSR had an engaging second part of the story (which was boosted by the fact that in my native language the book was, in some older editions [I happened to have such one back then], divided in two parts) and really good ending.

Well, I've only a shady recollection of the later parts ... don't look forward to 'Aiel culture', though, but perhaps the Rhuidean stuff is mildly intriguing. I hope the whole Two Rivers plot is interesting, although I must say I already resent how the author has Padan Fain attach himself to basically any evil faction in the world.

I once tried to make a joke, saying if things don't go well with the Seanchan he could try the Children next ... but he actually does that. And then even the 'evil Aes Sedai', the Shaido, etc.

4 hours ago, Lessingham said:

My main problem with this series is that Jordan seems incapable of thinking out politics of his world on a level more intricate than schoolyard plots engineered by not particularly bright children. I already mentioned ‘game of houses’ which was played in Cairhien. I don’t want to broach this subject in much more detail, but I don’t know, I just can not imagine an adult person reading about this without laughing. The way these people ‘plot’ is silly and, frankly, breaks my suspension of disbelief. These are supposed to be members of an old, old aristocracy who had generations to master their craft of diplomatic subterfuge, 4D chess moves and subtle plot-weaving... and yet, amazingly, what they manage to accomplish is some public harassment (through means of correspondence) of a farmer in an open, public inn. ... What? Ron arguing with Harry Potter through Hermione had more finesse to it (Rowling is an amazing character writer in my opinion, just by the way). But wait. There’s more. Opening scene of TFoH reminded me of aforementioned problem. It was a painful experience.

Yes, you just sit there, your jaw drops, and you don't understand how an adult person can take that seriously.

And so far this doesn't get better. The 'high lords' of Tear are not presented in any better way, not to mention that Thom's understanding of plotting is basically faking love letters of aristocrats.

4 hours ago, Lessingham said:

Okay. So there sit, in a room, a bunch of Aes Sedai, all of them powerful players of Tower’s internal politics (and, extrapolating from that I don’t believe is an overinterpretation, of the global politics at large) – these are women who topped Siuan Sanche and installed new Amyrlin Seat after all. Decades of experience. A lot of agenda on their backs. So they discuss the happening in the world. One case in particular made me just... sad. Apparently there’s a civil war in Arad Doman and some other country (Tarabon?), I don’t remember which one, doesn’t matter (literally, LOL). These wars are waged because of what happened at Falme. Because of Rand al’Thor. Women gathered in the room all know or at least highly suspect that this Rand al’Thor IS THE DRAGON REBORN, that he is a real deal, no fooling around this time, this is THE guy and The Last Kafuffle is just around the corner. So, these conflicts are, most probably, a sign of what’s going to be happening ALL OVER THE WORLD. And it’s going to be happening SOON. This is quite obviously an important matter to discuss. What are the sides in these wars? Where do formal governments stand? Who even are the governments, that is who are kings and queens of this countries, what’s their stance on Dragon Reborn problem? Who are the leaders of the Dragonsworn (I just Googled it, apparently that’s how you call folks who swear fealty to the Dragon)? What are their goals? Do these wars have primarily a social underpinning, a religious one, is it all politicking of some parties inside these states? WHAT THE HELL IS GOING ON THERE. These women should be CONCERNED about this. They are supposedly old, wise and politically both powerful and experienced.

And YET they are AFRAID or ASHAMED to even speak Rand al’Thor’s name. THEY DON’T LOOK AT THE PICTURE OF HIM VERSUS ISHAMAEL which Elaida hanged on the wall. What is even going on here? Why am I supposed to take these people seriously? They dismiss these wars as nothing of any importance. You absolute ham sandwiches, you should be endlessly debating this stuff, you should be brining all of my aforementioned questiones up in your discussions. But no. And it’s two things. One: Jordan does not know how to write competent female characters who are not Moiraine Sedai. Two: Jordan apparently has no idea that these questions should be asked. He wrote a saga of novels which heavily feature politics and yet all this politicking is shallow as a puddle. And it bothers me.

I'd actually say that even Moiraine is not really competent. While she isn't portrayed as a simpleton, she rarely suggests or acts in a really competent manner - the way you would expect from a very powerful sorceress with experience in many fields.

She fails to tell the guys that the Forsaken - especially Lanfear - are a thing, she fails to tell her own buddy the Amyrlin that the Forsaken are on the loose (as I tooks steps to document here because most of the fans of the series either have forgotten that this is the case, deny that it is true, or don't seem to care about it), she doesn't actually try to win the trust of the people around her - not with Nynaeve and not with the boys.

It cannot be that hard to have some sort of adult conversation with them, to really discuss the stakes, their options, and then to try to get on the same page.

Instead, Jordan constantly uses this silly 'scheming woman' trope and nobody lets that go, ever.

I mean, in TDR we have Moiraine manipulate Perrin into doing her chores for her ... which is basically the most unnatural thing a woman can do in this setting, I imagine.

[Lord Varys]

It still can get worse:

Now we come to the farewell scenes, and I got physically sick throughout that silly 'Faile got to Loial first and had him swear a sting of silly vows so she could blackmail Perrin'.

1. What shit is this???

2. How abusive and asinine is this towards Loial, who just used as a pawn by Faile (and to a lesser degree, Perrin) in all that? When did you last use a friend's traditions/beliefs against him just you could force yourself into the company of your 'boyfriend'.

[Talking about that - Jordan doesn't really treat Loial as a proper character, does he? They just drag him into the plot when they need Ogier stuff, no? When he first showed it seemed he could be a proper character but that's no longer the case at this point.}

3. How stupid can you be to actually force your presence on your 'boyfriend' against his will? Seriously, who does that? And in what way does this make you sympathetic?

These people behave like preteen children.

Also ... why don't Perrin's friends not realize he intends to throw away his life? The FUCKING DRAGON REBORN is his best buddy. Shouldn't he have the means to take, you know, AN ARMY to the Two Rivers?

But it gets worse:

Lan isn't allowed to accompany the girs to Tanchico. Why??? There is actually no good answer to that shit. And then we get a rapey forced kiss scene which again hammers home the fact that women actually like it to be forced into kisses (and one imagines sex) against their will since they secretly crave it to be dominated and disciplined by a strong man.

I also think Jordan constantly reminding us that men are taller than women is connected to this. My personal guess is that you can interpret this 'small woman dominates a room full of tall men' as usurped power - something that is only possible because there are no longer any male Aes Sedai. If they were there, they would, on average, naturally dominate such a room both physically - as tall men in the presence of small women should - as well as mentally since men are the more powerful channelers.

 And then Moiraine has to push Thom to accompany Elayne and Nynaeve pretty much against his will.

What is this? Thom loved Morgase, once. Elayne could have been his daughter. Any consistently written character would be (1) interested in Elayne, (2) possibly caring for Elayne, (3) would have no issue with the idea to watch over her once he was informed she might need him.

But - overall, Lan would be a much better support there in light of the fact that his Warder juice allows him to sniff out Shadowspawn, no? And they are looking for the Black Ajah who might have Trollocs, etc. with them.

And don't get me started on 'the success' Thom has at his 'game' by means of faking love letters. And what was that about planting seeds - spreading rumors like a tabloid journalists does now count as scheming?

Seriously - at this point the good guys clearly are neither good nor are they actually friends or allies.

The entire book up to that point was a waste of time - and full of completely unrealistic, internally contradictory scenes. No person would actually behave in this manner - not Rand, not Thom, not Perrin, especially not Mat, not Moiraine, not Berelain (who isn't even a person), etc.

[Arakan]

On 10/21/2021 at 5:15 PM, Lord Varys said:

Oh, I understand the symbolism, alright. It is not exactly subtle. But in a sense it is like taking a homoepath seriously trying to beat a proper physician at his own game. That's not going to work because he wouldn't have the means to do so.

Meaning how the hell could Mordeth come up with something that could seriously rival or threaten the powers of the Dark One?

Even more so, considering that the finale apparently reveals that everything evil/dark in humanity comes directly from the Dark One, that he is necessary for humanity to exist the way they are, anything dark or evil in the original Mordeth would come directly from the Dark One, too. The same the dark thoughts/feelings of other people Mordeth might have somehow harvested. At best this could have played into the general thing of the Dark One's minions constantly fighting each other, but the idea that Mordeth-Fain could ever become a rival power in his own right, challenging the Dark One himself and his plans somehow doesn't seem to make much sense to me.

For that Jordan should have given Mordeth a backstory making it clear that his power was grounded in something completely different from the Dark One. A power he could, for one reason or another, not touch or influence or interact with. But without such a background this whole idea doesn't seem to make much sense.

May I interrupt here? I didn’t read the series but was thinking about it. So the last few days I was quite intensively reading about the WOT world (main concepts, history, setting, not so much Plot). Main sources the WOT wiki and @Werthead extensive WOT articles. 

Oh Jesus. Not only am I happy that I didn’t waste my time but I am angry as well. Works like WOT are the reason why „Fantasy“ will never ever get rid of the Label juvenile pulp. WOT is one big piece of pseudo-profund, pseudo-philosophical, totally contradictory bullshit. It’s simply ridiculous. But this metaphysical garbage sells, same as Terry Goodkind while other works really have a true profundity to themselves (albeit not perfect but nothing is) but they are branded with the label „Fantasy“ and that’s that. 

I don’t even want to call it a children‘s book because there are so many great children book out there with deep and profund humanism and an astonishing psychological and philosophical depth. WOT is just trash. 

[A wilding]

1 hour ago, Arakan said:

<snip/>

Don't hold back! Tell us what you really think.

[Arakan]

3 minutes ago, A wilding said:

Don't hold back! Tell us what you really think.

Sorry for the rant .  But I hate it when philosophical topics are abused to „spice up“ fantasy to give it some extra credibility or to make it more „profund“ and „mystical“ but it’s all completely superficial, wrong and contradictory. That leaves me with two options:
1) the author himself/herself didn’t really understand what he/she was writing about 
2) the author is very well aware of that BS window dressing but he does it anyway which makes the work a snake oil business

By all accounts Robert Jordan was a very intelligent man, so it’s Option two. 
 

[A wilding]

No need to apologise to me, I am just lurking in this thread. I described my experience of WOT here:

https://asoiaf.westeros.org/index.php?/topic/159630-the-wheel-of-time-and-lord-varys-second-attempt/page/13/#comment-8737310

[fionwe1987]

3 hours ago, Arakan said:

Sorry for the rant .  But I hate it when philosophical topics are abused to „spice up“ fantasy to give it some extra credibility or to make it more „profund“ and „mystical“ but it’s all completely superficial, wrong and contradictory. That leaves me with two options:
1) the author himself/herself didn’t really understand what he/she was writing about 
2) the author is very well aware of that BS window dressing but he does it anyway which makes the work a snake oil business

By all accounts Robert Jordan was a very intelligent man, so it’s Option two. 
 

I don't get why "window dressing" is an insult, here. Yes, of course WoT isn't some deep philosophical work that has anything much new to say about any of the topics it touches. But so what? Are we arguing that any exploration that isn't good enough to make it to a textbook shouldn't happen?

The people who bundle all of fantasy as juvenile pulp based on one book they read, or one wiki article they read are they real problem here. If your propensity for bias is so strong, that's the thing that needs to change.

Mildly entertaining epic fantasy should not give up on whatever philosophical concepts authors want to borrow to spice up their tales, and it is ridiculous, and appallingly elitist, to argue that it should.

[Lord Varys]

LOL, Elayne is such a stupidly created character. When she and Nynaeve take the ship to Tanchico Nynaeve is the one telling others what to do and how things are while Elayne - a pampered princess! - is the conciliatory one.

That's just ridiculous. One is a backwater peasant who never interacted with truly powerful people from different classes until she left her tiny little village at the end of the world. The other grew up in a palace surrounded by servants.

Yet Nynaeve is the entitled one, while Elayne acts as if she is one of 'the people'.

My ass. This guy cannot even properly depict the class distinctions he himself created.

Also, what a silly thing of Jordan to turn Elayne into Rand's quiet little adviser ... actually telling him he should say to anyone that some woman was giving him good advice he is going to use.

I'm very much looking forward to the men giving Elayne advice when she is queen - I'm sure nobody is going to mention their contribution, either.

[fionwe1987]

We’ve really come to “If princess not snooty, then writing bad” level of criticism?

In the WoT world, Andor’s royalty is very much an idealized one. Perhaps due to the political alliance with the White Tower, which defined Andor’s inception, which calls for the Queen to be a student among women from all walks of life who become Novices, or because Souran Meravaille was a commoner, Andor’s royalty, and more broadly, its nobility, at least the “good” ones among them, is way less concerned with the commoner-nobility distinction. 

Morgase is definitely shown as someone who’d heavily frown upon her daughter acting entitled in any way, and Elayne is clearly shown to be very influenced by the need to earn her mother’s praise and approval. 

Nynaeve, on the other hand, is used to getting her way, In her tiny village in the middle of nowhere, sure, but she went from that straight to inducing awe in Aes Sedai about her strength in the Power, to the point where they didn’t even make her a Novice for any length of time.

If you get to bother with the specifics of the characters rather than blunt preconceptions of their class, their behavior here is exactly true to type. And that’s going to continue. Elayne tends to be the conciliator. That’s her personality, so I guess we’re going to see a lot more of these “critiques” of her not being a sufficiently assholish noble.

[Morte]

First, sorry @Lord Varys for disturbing your - for lack of a better word - "Selbstkasteiung" again, but I have to reply to some posts here:

1 hour ago, fionwe1987 said:

Mildly entertaining epic fantasy should not give up on whatever philosophical concepts authors want to borrow to spice up their tales, and it is ridiculous, and appallingly elitist, to argue that it should.

On the contrary, it's elitist to argue that one can not expect anything better from entertaining literature, because you not only cultivating anti-intellectualism here, but also are implying that a) interesting thoughts aren't entertaining and b) - and that's driving me up the wall, sorry - that normal people are too dumb to enjoy and understand philosophical concepts, so they should be happy if someone fools them with crumbs

No, exactly this spicing up is the problem here, counter examples:

GRRM isn't spicing anything up, he uses topoi to show something (or hint at something, but it's not even necessary to recognize the topoi used) and ponders on philosophical questions in ASoIaF.

Peter S. Beagle did not spice anything up in The Last Unicorn, but was able to present philosophical questions in a manner anybody could think them with him.

Michael Ende did not spice anything up in his works, but created worlds for children and adults to enjoy full of philosophical questions.

Terry Pratchett and Walter Moers also don't have to spice their tales up with philosophical concepts, they simple discuss them.

And because @Arakan just decided to give The Witcher a try in another thread: Sapkowski also doesn't spice his work up, but uses fragments of mythology and fairy tales for his story, but he knows what he is doing and also doesn't use philosophy and ethics as mere decorum.

All this have something in common: They tell stories with - more or less - realistic characters in a - more or less - realistic constructed world, who have to deal with different viewpoints, agendas etc. So in such works there is no need for "spicing something up" as the philosophical concepts unfold naturally.

 

Second, I have to thank @Lord Varys. Your torture (combined with the new main story line of a certain RPG... No I got it, really: sugar-coated crapsack worlds are so much better than almost-utopian-societies... Arrgh!) got me back to Iain Banks: I'm rereading The Culture again.

[fionwe1987]

I’m not saying fantasy cannot be entertaining AND deep. I’m saying you cannot insist that anything that isn’t both shouldn’t be allowed because someone will get their panties in a twist and reject an entire genre of literature based on one or two examples the read that didn’t satisfy those conditions.

I’m also saying that if you think every single philosophical aspect of WoT is bad based on reading a wiki article, your criticism isn’t worth a whole lot, but that’s a separate point.

[Arakan]

8 minutes ago, fionwe1987 said:

I’m not saying fantasy cannot be entertaining AND deep. I’m saying you cannot insist that anything that isn’t both shouldn’t be allowed because someone will get their panties in a twist and reject an entire genre of literature based on one or two examples the read that didn’t satisfy those conditions.

I’m also saying that if you think every single philosophical aspect of WoT is bad based on reading a wiki article, your criticism isn’t worth a whole lot, but that’s a separate point.

Thank you @Mortefor your wonderful examples.

The thing is: you can read what you want, that is not the issue. But I am also free to call WOT an dishonest cashgrab lacking integrity. I didn’t want to discuss here to which concrete aspects and topics I am referring to because this isn’t the thread for it. Open one and we can discuss there @fionwe1987

And finally, even if WOT is mostly a cashgrab without literary integrity, that’s still somehow ok because that’s the kind of society we live in. But at least be honest about it. You won’t find a novelist who writes tie-in lit for Star Trek who will pretend he is writing sci-fi masterpieces. But works like WOT are presented as if they are representative of the upper quality of the Fantasy genre. 

No. For all I know so far, WOT is the fantasy equivalent of Star Trek tie-in lit. And in the same way the latter doesn’t speak for sci-fi, the former isnt a representative of Fantasy. 

[fionwe1987]

You’re free to call WoT whatever you want. After all, 20 page hate threads about WoT are not unknown. That isn’t my point, though. Call it what you want, but you can’t ask for a certain type of fiction to not exist because it doesn’t tick every box for you.

I’ll continue to point out the absurdity of criticism by way of wiki entries and blog posts, though. That’s an attention grab without any integrity, to use your own language. I can’t quite square the circle of expecting a story to deeply delve into every philosophical concept it touches on, but not expecting that the person critcizing said story to have read it first. 

Specific to WoT, I think the criticism that too many concepts and philosphies are dropped in and explored in a half-assed way is fair. But the author also clearly examines some other themes well.

Take non-violence. The exponents of this in the books, the Tinkers, aren’t particularly well developed, nor are the historical Dashain who followed non-violence in the utopia that preceded the current age. The concept exists more as contrasts to the warlike Aiel, and to add a sense of loss and pathos to their history in that they descended from a group firmly dedicated to pacifism.

But while non-violence itself doesn’t get its due in the series, the trauma of violence and how people inure themselves to the violence they commit is well explored, and RJ’s own experiences in Vietnam and his understanding of his own PTSD and the tocxic masculinity that he and others use to cover up trauma shines through pretty well. 

As for the Mordeth post you replied to, Fain’s role in the story definitely is up there in terms of examples of bad writing in WoT, but there isn’t anything bizarre about it conceptuallt. It IS the Dark Ones evil (hence Aginor calling it an old friend, and why later we get descriptions of Mashadar’s evil as being similar but opposed to the Dark One’s). It is the Dark One’s power but turned in hatred against him and his followers. Chaos and destruction definte the Dark One. There’s nothing conceptually absurd about that power turning in on itself. Nothing particularly unique, either.

[Lord Varys]

@Arakan

From what I know about @Werthead - both from his posts here on the board as well as what he's writing on his blog - and from what I know about Jordan - I daresay Wert's writings about WoT are clearly of higher quality than the books themselves... ;-).

And yes - WoT would definitely be a badly written children's books series. Children should not have to suffer through this nor take any kind of inspiration in the role model department from anything depicted therein.

That said - children do come up at times in my discussion of those things because the character behave in such an infantile manner. Many of them behave worse than clichéd caricatures of adolescents. Especially when you consider Perrin and Faile.

But as I said - I'm really at a loss how grown-up people can still defend or like this stuff. I mean, I get it that you might have formed a connection with the books in childhood and youth. We all do that. But anyone doing a reread of this in later life not realizing how bad it is - and this badness affecting their emotional connection with the material to a point - definitely doesn't live on my planet. At least not mentally...

I mean, it is the same with beloved childhood cartoons, etc. You still like your memories of them, but when you rewatch them then things are put into perspective.

[Although Darkwing Duck and the Gummi Bears do hold up pretty well, all things considered ... But I guess that's mostly due to great meta humor and stuff.]

5 hours ago, fionwe1987 said:

We’ve really come to “If princess not snooty, then writing bad” level of criticism?

It is just annoying as hell when the author doesn't even understand proper class differences he himself created. Yes, the Andorans might have a liberal monarchy. So what? Their princess is still a pampered princess living in a castle her entire life. She has at best theoretical knowledge about how other classes live. Her social reality is shaped by the way she lived - in a palace, with servants, attendants, etc.

Newsflash: The Brits also have a parliamentary monarchy now ... but Prince William is still born to wealth and privilege very few other people ever know and it shows in his behavior. As it would in Elayne's behavior and character if she were not written by Jordan.

Vice versa, Nynaeve is a completely unrealistic character. Her own social reality was completely limited and lacking. She cannot tell other people what to do in the manner she does and expect to be taken seriously by anyone. She would become a laughingstock immediately, a tone-deaf, backwater woman with no manners. And people would teach her place.

Instead, we get a timid princess who doesn't act like a princess at all ... and an overconfident, sassy peasant who thinks just because she bossed around her fellow peasants she has the rights or abilities to do that with every other person she meets. That makes no sense.

@Morte

What RPG are you talking about if I may ask?

Overall, I'm not sure fionwe1987 can see beyond the 'fannish point of view' ... I think I touched upon some of the problems the basic worldbuilding WoT has (the Dark One fails for an eternity of cycles and must thus be the greatest moron in existence if he couldn't succeed in light of the fact that everything hinges on one soul, apparently) but we could actually gloss that over to a point - it isn't really trying to be 'high (fantasy) literature'.

But the fact that the author basically treats the characters - and, by extension, the reader - with so much contempt with bad characterization, clumsily constucted plots, etc. makes the whole series basically unbearable.

I mean, there isn't even character assassination here - in the sense that the author has somebody suddenly act completely out of character - since there are no believable characters in this series the reader could care about.

I've spoken a lot about the women already, but I start to loathe the boys much more at that time, for their silly refusual to develop or at least act in accordance with what they are and what they have lived through so far.

Perrin insisting to throw away his life for no reason and Mat refusing to go back home when his folks are in danger (including Perrin after he decided to go there) and they all still blaming Moiraine or 'the Aes Sedai' for their problems borders on insanity.

[El Kabong]

Oh fuck me, someone did not just try and claim The Witcher has realistic characters. Fuck no.

[El Kabong]

11 hours ago, Arakan said:

Sorry for the rant .  But I hate it when philosophical topics are abused to „spice up“ fantasy to give it some extra credibility or to make it more „profund“ and „mystical“ but it’s all completely superficial, wrong and contradictory. That leaves me with two options:
1) the author himself/herself didn’t really understand what he/she was writing about 
2) the author is very well aware of that BS window dressing but he does it anyway which makes the work a snake oil business

By all accounts Robert Jordan was a very intelligent man, so it’s Option two. 
 

Yeah you're going to want to avoid Bakker and Erikson.

[Arakan]

47 minutes ago, El Kabong said:

Yeah you're going to want to avoid Bakker and Erikson.

Yeah…no. Can’t speak for Erikson and Bakker‘s work has its problems that’s for sure. Doesn’t change the fact that at least PoN is so far ahead of WOT in terms of conceptual integrity, plausible worldbuilding (ethnogenese) and trying to shine an honest light on age old existential questions that any comparison is laughable. Like really now. I am aware that after TGO and especially TUC the mood towards Bakker on these forums shifted quite a lot. Still putting PoN and WOT on any kind of similar level is like saying a Trabbi is as good a car as a Mercedes. Or Vin Diesel as good an actor as Al Pacino. 
 

 

[El Kabong]

https://tenor.com/view/john-jonah-jameson-lol-laughing-hysterically-laughing-out-loud-funny-gif-17710543

[fionwe1987]

10 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

But as I said - I'm really at a loss how grown-up people can still defend or like this stuff. I mean, I get it that you might have formed a connection with the books in childhood and youth. We all do that. But anyone doing a reread of this in later life not realizing how bad it is - and this badness affecting their emotional connection with the material to a point - definitely doesn't live on my planet. At least not mentally...

Back to the “if you like this you’re dumb” argument eh? Classy. Its amazing how you will not address counterpoints to your “arguments” (still waiting on these books where the magic is so well developed that you claim exist) but continue to insist on your own planetary level intelligence.

Keep wanking here. You’ve just convinced me to not bother to read your posts in the future.

[Werthead]

Erikson and Bakker are both certainly more ambitious than Jordan, but I'm not sure they managed to fulfil that ambition (Bakker came closer than Erikson, but Bakker's ambition is also kind of weird and all over the place). Jordan set his sights lower and, helped by Sanderson, I think executed what he was aiming for, with massive caveats.  Jordan is certainly much more approachable than either and is far less problematic than Bakker.