Jump to content

WoT


Tears of Lys

Recommended Posts

I know (although the Persians' total force number was closer to 250,000, at least according to most historians).

As for the Breaking - was that only the Companions of Lews Therin, or all the male Aes Sedai (who all eventually went insane)? We have to keep in mind that, at least according to the WoT Encyclopedia, the percentage of channelers in the pre-Breaking world was around 3%, so if you had a world with a population in the high hundreds of millions or billions, there would be millions of them, and millions of male Aes Sedai. Even assuming that the War wiped out a lot of them, that's still a lot of insane male channelers running around.

Yeah, Wikipedia has a pretty long section on analysis of numbers. Various historians looking at multiple sources state that the size of the Persians may have been greatly overestimated but there is also evidence that the numbers may have been realistic:

Wikipedia:

Based on the fact that Xerxes I led a multi-ethnic army and not just a Persian one, a second school contends that some ancient sources do give realistic numbers. According to the texts, the Greeks at the end of the Battle of Plataea mustered 110,000 (Herodotus) or 100,000 (Pompeius) troops: 38,700 hoplites and 71,300 or 61,300 peltasts respectively, the difference probably being 10,000 helots. In that battle, according to Herodotus, they faced 300,000 Persians and 50,000 Greek allies. This gives a 3-to-1 ratio for the two armies, which proponents of the school consider a realistic proportion.

Furthermore, Munro[58] and Macan[59] argue for realism based on Herodotus giving the names of 6 major commanders and 29 μυÏίαÏχοι (muriarchoi)—leaders of the baivabaram, the basic unit of the Persian infantry, which numbered about 10,000 strong.[60] As troops were lost through attrition, the Persians preferred to dissolve crippled baivabarams to replenish the ranks of others.[61] It is therefore likely that the units were at full strength. Adding casualties of the battles and attrition due to the need to guard cities and strategic objectives obtains a force of 400,000 minimum.

According to this view, there was no lack of water. The available surface water in Greece today satisfies the needs of a much larger population than the number of Xerxes I's troops, though the majority of that water is used for irrigation

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Note to RJ/WOT apologists: you are the reason fantasy and fantasy readers will never be taken seriously. Congrats.

You know what 'the problem' with WOT is? Robert Jordan is a horrible fucking writer. To discuss the issue any further is to debase yourself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The hoplites did the bulk of the fighting. After the betrayal, Leonidas sent everyone home except 700 Thespians.

...

300 Spartan hoplites plus a few thousand support troops who were not warriors slaughtered upwards of 70,000 to 90,000 troops over three days.

...

My point is simple: There's no room in that narrow pass for more than a hundred or so Spartans anyway. If you think that the Arcadians or Phocians did much, you're sadly mistaken.

Don't forget about those Thespians. 70,000 may be an overestimation of how many were killed, too. We don't know too much about what happened besides the last stand on the hill. Assuming the Spartans did all the work or were fighting constantly could be a mistake; the pass was supposedly only wide enough for one chariot, so less than a hundred would fight at a time. And why would only the Spartans be in the pass?

If a few hundred flesh and blood men can kill that many, then Rand and company with unlimited One Power on their side could easily take down 100,000 Trollocs and much more quickly.

Whatever the numbers, it's an incredible feat holding their own for so long against such vast numbers. Various estimates placed the Persian combined force at over 2 million. Absurd . . .

MFC's point was that the Spartans and Thespians had the advantage of terrain. Rand &co. didn't. With less men and without such an obvious advantage, they managed to take down more people than the Spartans did. Either way, saidin's a huge advantage. The fact that the Forsaken couldn't kill off Mat, Perrin, or Rand when they were still Callow Youths is even more suprising in this regard. The inability of the Aes Sedai to break Hawkwing's siege is equally surprising.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought that 70,000 was a very conservative number. If the course of the combat was followed exactly and you added everything up, there were close to 90,000 casualties before the Spartans even made their last stand on the hill.

The pass was extremely narrow. What makes this even more amazing is that not all 300 Spartans fought at the pass at the same time. Leonidas rotated city state phalanxes in and out to keep them fresh but the first day was so easy (against the conscripted, poorly armed, poorly trained Medes) that there was little need to rotate.

The Thespians have been sadly ignored in the histories as they too stood with the Spartans to the last man (the only group to do so). Leonidas sent everyone else off and used the last stand to buy them time to retreat.

I'm sure the rest of the thousands contributed but remember that the Spartans were the premier fighting units of the day and they fought in tightly organized and trained phalanxes. I think (though I could be wrong) that the bulk of the real fighting was done by the 300 with support from the rest of the amateur soldiers. The reason we know so much about the exact details of the fighting and the waves of Persians is because there WERE thousands of survivors: the rest of the troops that Leonidas sent away before the last stand. So while the numbers could be exaggeraed, they weren't by much. We also know from the histories that the Persians organized their troops into units and that they preferred these units to be full strength. Each unit had 10,000 soliders each and Herodotus named upwards of 29 individual names as heads of their units.

The point of superior terrain is important but missing the big picture entirely. Try taking 300 buddies and holding a pass agains 40,000 unarmed people. And I'll give you swords and spears and make them unarmed. By sheer force of weight and numbers, you would be overwhelmed. You may kill a few thousand but eventually you would be pushed back. The pass made it possible (hence their death when they were outflanked) but the amazing thing is not that they did it but that they did for so long and killed so many opposing soldiers.

And of course Saidin is a whole nother matter. You need terrain advantage and incredible soldiers to have the Battle of Thermopylae happen in the first place. With the One Power you can do the same damage on a flat battlefield as long as you had back up to prevent being pincushioned by arrows.

Now as for why the Forsaken didn't kill Rand . . . we have to read the last book. It could be that killing the Dragon Reborn is not the way to achieve lasting victory for the Dark One. Remember that Time is a Wheel and everything revolves. The Dark One doesn't actually want that. He wants to break the Wheel of Time and actually get free for good. The way to do that apparently is to turn the Dragon rather than kill him. So for most of the story even up to book 9, the orders were to keep him alive. As for Mat and Perrin, they really weren't important enough I think to specifically go after. Where would you find them anyway? They're two guys in a sea of faces and generals and kings. And in case you forgot, Rand has been killing Rahvin and Sammael and Belal and making things hot for Demandred etc, etc. The Forsaken need to watch their own skins as well as launch the offensive. And Rand is a far bigger prize than any of his ta'veren buddies. The prophecy that if one dies, all fails is known to a few guys on the good side (and not really, WE THE READERS know this but not the characters) and the Forsaken certainly do NOT know that. All in all, there's seems little point in going after Matt or Perrin when the real prize and the real danger remains at ALL times the Dragon Reborn.

The inability of the Aes Sedai to break Hawkwing's siege is surprising how?

Think about it. The Aes Sedai CAN NOT use the One Power as an offensive weapon except against Shadowspawn or if they feel they or their Warders are in immediate danger. And a ring of armies that are not actively attacking in a siege is not considered immediately threatening. Riding out in force agains half a million soliders would force the issue certainly and what do they do with a half a million arrows falling on them? The weaves were not as sophisticated or as strong then. There's no Nynaeve or Elayne or Egwene or Alise or sa-angreal. Few Aes Sedai would have the strength to protect themselves from that many projectile weapons. So while the armies couldn't invade Tar Valon (in an enclosed environment with the One Power unleashed, that would be suicide) neither could the Aes Sedai kill all the men just waiting around.

This points up again the fact that true, careful reading of Jordan's work reveals a depth that many here absolutely do not appreciate. Things do make sense. People who love the book and read the books over and over again find things that none of you ever do. The Wheel of Time Faqs predated Ran's Concordance. As much detail if not more could be written about Wheel of Time as Song of Ice and Fire. Part of the reason Song seems more layered and nuanced is that you spend more time reading it, discussing it, and analyzing it.

Just because people don't like Jordan's style or his characterization or his plot doesn't mean you should minimize his work or the people who like them. There's a lot of layers to his writinig, it's not Jordan's problem that the haters either are too dumb to figure it out or simply don't like him enough to devote the necessary time to do it.

A few weeks back there was a healthy discussion about some of the issues people had with Wheel of Time and with few exceptoins, most simply demonstrated a lack of attention to detail and careless reading. Now part of that perhaps is the Jordan isn't writing well enough to captivate the attention of the reader so that people tend to skip around and skim through the boring stuff.

But most of it is the carelessness and deficiency of the reader. Like with all things, the more time you spend on something, the more you get out of it. And people who think they're too smart to have to do that rarely are. I've known them all my life and God bless em. Without them to bring down the curve, I'd never be where I'm at today.

I think it's perfectly fine to say that Jordan's work is a piece of shit, you don't like how he writes, you hate the stories, and the characters just don't resonate with you. As such, you don't want to spend any time at all delving any deeper into a work that you think is an utter and complete waste of your time.

That's obviously your opinion and you're entitled to it. But you cross the line when you say that the work itself has no inherent value, that it is simplistic, that there's NOTHING more than what you've gotten out of it and that people who DO read it and enjoy it are simpletons. All that means is you need to go back to school and learn how to read better.

Dennis

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally, I've been expecting something like the 100k scene from KoD from the first book, when 'Dreadlords' and 'Last Battle' were introduced. I don't think Jordan pulled it off, however: it felt ridiculous in conception ("from out of nowhere!!!?!") and poorly written to boot, with a notable lack of tension (for me). But then, my perception has been corrupted ever since the scene from PoD when Elayne etc. start hurling fireballs out of a jouncing wagon -- it seemed like something out of a comic book.

I believe it was that scene, actually -- the climax to the Bowl of Winds arc -- that sealed my negative impression on RJ's saga. Dozens and dozens of pages of squabbling women, then an action scene that felt more comical than tense.

Here's an interesting analogy.

I hate romance novels and see no point in them. But I do have to respect them because they consistently sell millions and millions of copies.

Why?

Because the chicks are buying them!! Well, I hope the chicks are buying them cause I don't think the guys are.

I think many here would be shocked at how different you are from the average reader on the streets whether you're in America or Britain or German or whatever.

The minute you spend any appreciable amount of time on the Internet, the minute you join a forum, the SECOND you start posting . . . you have now immediately become outside the norm . . . abnormal so to speak.

As frightening as it may appear, the very things you, me, and others dislike about Jordan's writing or find fake, contrived, and boring I suspect the mass audience (especially WOMEN) love.

Remember that one woman actually told Jordan she was shocked that he was a man because he wrote women so well she thought Robert Jordan was a penname by a woman.

I remember Isabel another Jordan fan who posted that she felt Jordan's portrayal of females quite realistic and so did many of her female friends. The majority of women who've read Wheel of Time that I know who are otherwise normal average people who don't read epic fantasy loved the catfights and jealosies and insecurities and inner musings of Elayne, Egwene, Min, etc. They can appreciate them because they've DONE THE EXACT SAME THING. Hell, Mormont said he tugs his ponytail sometimes when he's nervous or thinking about something!!

I don't share that. It's an aspect of Jordan's writing I'm not crazy about. BUT . . . BUT . . . BUT!! I do appreciate that I might be in the minority.

As much fun as you make of those bath scenes and sniffing and braid-tugging I dare say NOT ONE OF YOU has EVER considered the fact that more people than everyone on these boards and thier friends put together may actually enjoy the very scenes you hate. This is what I call the Egocentric Trap. That just because you and a few friends and friends of friends have a certain opinion that also happens to be shared by 2400 people on Amazon.com you think your opinion and viewpoint must be the dominant majority. It's possible sure but far from certain.

Think about it, it makes me understand my insignificance in the overall scheme of things a lot more.

Dennis

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A lot of people have put forward great arguments for why the series is still worth reading or why they've given up on it.

For what its worth, here's my two cents.......

Wheel of Time was never my start into fantasy, Eddings and Weis and Hickman had done that way earlier. But WoT was what made me realise just how..... mind bendingly kick ass awesome fantasy could really be. The cliff hanger ending of The Eye Of The World, where Moirane whispers, "The Prophecies will be fulfilled. The Dragon is Reborn," when I read that I was jumping up and down shouting Yes! F***ing yes! And like people have already said, it's what made me give other multiple volume fantasy epics a chance. Having read EotW, I deliberately kept an eye out for stuff that would recreate that first magic.

The series has definitely dropped in quality over the last few volumes, but I still enjoy the books, and I will be buying A Memory of Light soon as its released.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A few weeks back there was a healthy discussion about some of the issues people had with Wheel of Time and with few exceptoins, most simply demonstrated a lack of attention to detail and careless reading. Now part of that perhaps is the Jordan isn't writing well enough to captivate the attention of the reader so that people tend to skip around and skim through the boring stuff.

But most of it is the carelessness and deficiency of the reader. Like with all things, the more time you spend on something, the more you get out of it. And people who think they're too smart to have to do that rarely are. I've known them all my life and God bless em. Without them to bring down the curve, I'd never be where I'm at today.

Wow. Do you actually mean to come across as condescending? Because if not, you really should look at your argumentative tone. Your words remind me a lot of Terry Goodkind's, i.e. if people don't enjoy his books, it's because they aren't mature enough to understand them. As if the only reasonable conclusion a smart, attentive reader could come to is that the books are excellent, and all those who disagree are deficient at one level or another.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow. Do you actually mean to come across as condescending? Because if not, you really should look at your argumentative tone. Your words remind me a lot of Terry Goodkind's, i.e. if people don't enjoy his books, it's because they aren't mature enough to understand them. As if the only reasonable conclusion a smart, attentive reader could come to is that the books are excellent, and all those who disagree are deficient at one level or another.

Oh, I see we have reached the point where we are told that we dislike The WOT not because it is a turgid, pointless, written solely for the money, waste of paper! but because we just dont GET it!

Onions have layers! Ogres have layers! The WOT on the other hand does not!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, I wouldn't agree that WoT doesn't have layers. You see things from various characters' viewpoints, and there ARE clues buried within seemingly innocuous passages, that do lead to important plot lines. The quibble I have with it is that there's so many "innocuous passages" to dig through, that it requires way too much work from the reader, while not being entertained sufficiently to warrant the payoff.

When GRRM does it, you're chuckling at a witticism tossed off by Tyrion or Jaime, or a hair-raising scene with Arya, et al.

ETA: Yes, you can smile at Perrin's or Mat's view of the Aes Sedai, for example, and see how the unfolding events can be distorted through their lens. I guess it's just that some authors are a bit better at it. The exciting parts, however, have been worth the investment thus far. I'm whimpering because it seems as though I've seen the last of them for a while.

Speaking of exciting parts, I'm coming to the end of Lord of Chaos and wondering how the hell Rand's going to get out of THIS one! Don't spoil me, though. I'm almost there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Speaking of exciting parts, I'm coming to the end of Lord of Chaos and wondering how the hell Rand's going to get out of THIS one! Don't spoil me, though. I'm almost there.

Ah, Dumai's Wells. Probably Jordan's last piece of good writing, but it is extremely good. I'd even go so far as to say it's one of the best battles in modern fantasy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's obviously your opinion and you're entitled to it. But you cross the line when you say that the work itself has no inherent value, that it is simplistic, that there's NOTHING more than what you've gotten out of it and that people who DO read it and enjoy it are simpletons. All that means is you need to go back to school and learn how to read better.

Dennis

I've never said that the work has no inherent value or that people who read it and enjoy it are simpletons. I used to hang out on WOT boards and analyze the books. I used to reread the books and study the FAQ. I don't think I "need to go back to school and learn how to read better." Nothing you've mentioned in this thread is new to me, whether it comes to the books or to defense of the books. I'm disillusioned after CoT and NS, but just because I find some flaws in Jordan's writing doesn't mean I'm attacking Jordan's fans.

As for Thermopylae, I'm skeptical. I was a classics major, and I was inundated with so much Greek and Latin propoganda disguised as letters or history that I don't trust most of the histories. The Spartans made an impressive stand regardless, but the fact that so much of the battle is debated shows that we can't prove what happened. Herodotus and Ctesias don't even agree, and they wrote within fifty years of each other.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As much fun as you make of those bath scenes and sniffing and braid-tugging I dare say NOT ONE OF YOU has EVER considered the fact that more people than everyone on these boards and thier friends put together may actually enjoy the very scenes you hate. This is what I call the Egocentric Trap. That just because you and a few friends and friends of friends have a certain opinion that also happens to be shared by 2400 people on Amazon.com you think your opinion and viewpoint must be the dominant majority. It's possible sure but far from certain.

The criticism is around the quality of the books, Sword, not that we think that everyone shares our opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The criticism is around the quality of the books, Sword, not that we think that everyone shares our opinion.

I was going to post a reply but Guardsman Bass said it for me. The mouthbreathers and nerdish drama queens can love braid tugging and redundant, poorly written status struggles all they want, but I think from any clear technical standard of fiction -- particularly the fantasy genre -- Jordan has gone way downhill from his peak, in terms of prose, plot development, character development (precious little and increasingly contrived), pacing, description, world-building, theme exploration etc. etc.

IMO:

Eye of the World was pretty good, a well written cookie-cutter.

The Great Hunt was pretty good, a notable increase in ambition.

The Dragon Reborn was decent with some great moments.

The Shadow Rising was probably the overall peak of the series in terms of consistancy.

The Fires of Heaven was OK, some good moments.

Lord of Chaos was bloated and had a great climax.

A Crown of Swords was where it began to slide, the last book with decent world building. Comic book climax.

The Path of Daggers was a piece of crap.

Winter's Heart was 200,000 words of description building to a decent ending.

The Crossroads of Twilight was 250,000 or so words of nothing, weak climax.

Knife of Dreams was like a jigsaw puzzle of Jordan at his worst and best, though that "best" was more the ghost of his former talent than a return to form.

Memories of the Light....?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I read the series at the end of last year. I really don't think they were as bad as everyone says. I for one really enjoyed them and I loved the world building and the depth of the world. I also like the development of Mat's character through the series. In the beginning he is just a naive country boy and in the middle he is obsessed with girls. In the last few books he really matures and starts trying to take care of others and starts trying to create a stable relationship with a girl for once.

I personally really enjoyed the books. The middles were a little slow at points, but tolerable for the most point. Almost all of the climaxes were extraordinary. I think it was only slow from around 7-10, but I think KoD really picked up the pace. I am glad that the Perrin subplot was finally resolved after going on for about 5 books. I think that A Memory of Light will be a very good book because it will have to have less information and more action to resolve all of the plotlines.

The most annoying thing was the braid tugging, but it wasn't horrible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've never said that the work has no inherent value or that people who read it and enjoy it are simpletons. I used to hang out on WOT boards and analyze the books. I used to reread the books and study the FAQ. I don't think I "need to go back to school and learn how to read better." Nothing you've mentioned in this thread is new to me, whether it comes to the books or to defense of the books. I'm disillusioned after CoT and NS, but just because I find some flaws in Jordan's writing doesn't mean I'm attacking Jordan's fans.

As for Thermopylae, I'm skeptical. I was a classics major, and I was inundated with so much Greek and Latin propoganda disguised as letters or history that I don't trust most of the histories. The Spartans made an impressive stand regardless, but the fact that so much of the battle is debated shows that we can't prove what happened. Herodotus and Ctesias don't even agree, and they wrote within fifty years of each other.

What I said was obviously not directed at you then.

But if you read the thread, you'll notice that your views are not the only ones expressed and a few others DO make general remarks not only about the WORK ITSELF but also the people who READ it.

I guess a few of them might just be hecklers looking to get a rise out of the only Jordan defender in these parts to which I say . . . fine, you got me, good job.

But in a serious vein, I would like to analyze what is "arrogant" or "condescending."

For instance, I might be characterized as "condescending" by saying that people who don't like Wheel of Time or Jordan must obviously not be smart enough or dedicated enough to read it carefully enough to appreciate its true "genius."

That is not precisely my intent. If it was, I would agree that it would be awfully condescening of me and assinine as well. So please let me clarify.

I speak of people (which obviously does not include you Average Guy) who have gotten fed up with Jordan's writing but then posts on these message boards critiquing his books and then admitting that they barely read them at all. I've read numerous times how they "skimmed the books" or "read a paragraph a page" or "skipped a few chapters" or even "skipped a book or two" and then dismissed Jordan's writing as poor. Then, the comments start about not only Jordan's writing but the TYPE OF PEOPLE who would still like Jordan's writing.

AverageGuy, this thread isn't about only you and the comments certainly isn't about only you. Do a search or just read through some posts and you'll appreciate what I mean.

My point is that for me and I hope for others to take criticisms somewhat seriously, the critic must have some CREDIBILITY. And quite a few of Jordan's most vociferous critics (which I will not deign to name) also come across as having the least CREDIBILITY. The depth and the characterization and the detail and the layers of Wheel of Time are all there if you choose to delve into it and look for it and appreciate it.

I do. You did, AverageGuy before giving up because you no longer felt it was worth your time. But my point is, I can tell easily by reading comments who to actually take seriously and who not to.

As a Classics major, how would you respond if I came along and said for instance that I'd read through Plato and Socrates in an hour or so, skipped what I felt were the boring parts, and that Classics really didn't have very much importance. Or that I'd skimmed through the Odyssey, read all the good parts, and came to the conclusion it was a rather average adventure yarn that could have used a bit more depth of characterization?

Would you have respected me, Average Guy . . . respected me for basically putting down your entire major or would you have thought I was some sort of arrogant idiot?

That's my point.

I guess if I'm going to say ANYTHING about an author, I'm going to give that author the fair shake of at least finishing the book. Read every line, read every word.

Coincidentally, I've never badmouthed Terry Goodkind because I only read the first 50 pages or so of Wizard's First Rule and couldn't get into it. Never finished it. Does that mean it's bad? Well, no. It just means I personally didn't like it, couldn't get through it. Who knows? If I had the perseverance to read through it all the way, study it, and analyze it then by all means I may see the greatness that Goodkind feels is there. Who knows, it MAY BE THERE! He's a New York Times bestseller with millions of fans and certainly is doing something that no one on these boards are close to approaching. Whatever you want to say about him, he wrote the book, got it published, and people LIKE it and want to read MORE and what's more, Sam Raimi is even interested in adapting it to the big screen.

So I think it would be very ARROGANT of me to think that just because I DON'T LIKE IT or I couldn't finish it that it must then be a piece of shit.

Because in a sense that is probably disrespecting a few million people who may feel otherwise. And while the masses may indeed be stupid or crass I'm sure there's quite a few out there who are more educated, smarter, more insightful, and plain sharper than I am who LOVE Terry Goodkind. So notice, I don't really make any snide comments about him because from my point of view, while I have the RIGHT to say anything I want, I don't really think I'm QUALIFIED to do so without sounding like an idiot . . . at least to myself.

Now . . . with Goodlkind as an example, let's return to Jordan. AverageGuy as you are then aware and appreciate, there is STILL a great amount of depth to Jordan still. If you've read the FAQ then you are aware of this. I quite like his characterizations. I like his style. And in general I like his story and world-building. Is he perfect? Not at all. Has his more recent work suffered a bit? Indisputably. But overall, he is nowhere near as bad as some of his critics say who haven't devoted close to the amount of time and energy I have in reading Jordan. The more time you spend on something, the more you get out of it. The fact that you don't like Jordan enough or that his writing style has alienated you to the point where you DON'T WANT to spend any more time is NOT THE SAME as saying there's nothing there.

Because there is.

My last point is one of credibility again. We have one individual giving a negative critique of Jordan's work who referenced an interview 4 years ago to say that Jordan had stated each book stood alone and distinct from every other one. This was a blatantly absurd mistake but the poster honestly believed it. When actually held up to a simple standard of references and no bullshit, he was forced to admit that he was wrong. The quote he had remembered had absolutely NOTHING to do with whether each book could stand by itself or not but how Jordan wanted to approach his work so as not to be complacent.

And now I'm supposed to take him seriously when he says that X book was poorly written and had no depth of characterization or Y book was lame because the plot didn't advance.

Ummm, if I can't even trust you to get your references on something SO SIMPLE as an interview quote, I'm supposed to take you seriously when you tell me a book is crap? How the heck do I even know whether you READ the book or maybe you read the dusk jacket blurb or skimmed it in an hour and then just started making things up?

Once again, credibility. And for people who haven't already made up their minds, watch for it.

Or how many times has Werthead and Ran posted to correct minute misquotes and misinterpretations of what Martin has said? This is especially relevant since Dance has been delayed quite a bit and we have quite a few angry fans who feel that George has somehow "lied" to us. While I don't believe that myself, it's nice when Werthead and Ran and Mormont and the rest come along and post correrctions often giving Martin's speeches to the word and dating them to boot.

Credibility.

If you say something, back it up. If you have an opinion, support it. Give me a link, give me a quote, give me some facts. At least to me, it makes it worth reading and debating and thinking about.

You don't see me getting worked up becaues Ran and Werthead or Gerald Hightower think Wheel of Time sucks. That's fine, that's their opinion and they have reasons for it, reasons which they've articulated quite well. More importantly, they have CREDIBILITY with me because they've shown me that they've at least READ the fucking books.

Others? Once somebody (who is a longtime member but will go unnamed) came on here saying how he swore he would never read Jordan again but finally caved in and bought Knife of Dreams in paperback. He then proceeded to state that he had no idea what was going on because he remember "nothing" from the previous books and then started complaining about the book "sucking" and being "confusing." I mean . . . what the hell? What an idiot?? Did he want us to wipe his butt for him too? There's plenty of sites with plenty of excellent chapter and book reviews that he could have read. If he didn't want to take the time to do that, then why the hell buy the book in the first place and then come on and waste bandwidth complaining that he doesn't understand anything? It's assinine.

Similarly, if you're reading Knife of Dreams cause you think you can just throw away Crossroads of Twilight (as bad as it was) without missing anything then I have to beg to differ. That's arrogance again. It's cute but it's arrogant. And as badly written as many here think Crossroads was (I disagre by the way on that), I would be beside myself if I read ANYTHING ANYBODY on this forum wrote which was half as good (myself included). Certainly for all the savagery it received on Amazon.com, it had no problems becoming Jordan's 3rd straight number 1 New York Times bestseller.

Wuzzup3003's response is typical and representative of many of the more casual fans who read Jordan. Read his post carefully and understand THAT is the attitude of most of the tens of millions of people who read Jordan and enjoy him casually. There are good parts, there are bad parts but most of the time, it's a great story and a great time. That tends to happen when you don't wait 2.5 years for each book only to get Crossroads. Expectations are less and more is forgiven when you read straight through.

And finally, Guardsman Bass, it is quite clear that there would be no problem if the criticism was ONLY about the quality of Jordan's writing but it is equally evident that quite often it is NOT, it is also about people snidely putting down Jordan fans who enjoy his work and thinking that they're smarter or more sophisticated or more witty than us. I'm not saying everyone does it but there's quite a few that do.

Well, I don't know. If I could read something, ANYTHING by any of these people . . . a poem, a short story, ANYTHING?? Seems to me that if the geniuses who think the 95th joke about braid-tugging, sniffing, gown smoothing, or Elayne bathing is STILL witty and funny would take half the time writing their own story as they do showing us all how razor sharp their wit is, we wouldn't be waiting around for Dance with Dragons. We'd be reading awesome epic fantasies every other day!

Sadly enough though the truth is nobody on here is that good, nobody on here is that talented and so here I am, waiting for Dance with Dragons and Memory of Light and doing my best to ignore the immaturity that any thread about Jordan inevitably degenerates into.

I'm certainly not saying that you have to be a best-selling author to have a negative opinion of a book by the way. That's far from the case. But if you're going to criticize then at least criticize thoughtfully, constructively, and with some respect and class. Just because you bought a book or borrowed it and have the RIGHT to embarrass yourself or your upbringing on a public forum doesn't mean you need to.

Dennis

P.S.: The REAL authors like Scott Lynch and Joe Abercrombie are of course excluded from above rant. They've actually made it. I also notice they have much better things to do with their time than bash Goodkind, Jordan, or indeed any other author. They're too damn busy writing outstanding stories and publishing them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sword of the Morning (who is not SwordoftheMorning, our LoveMachine) gets a royalty check every time he defends Robert Jordan. You can ignore him like any other ballot stuffer.

I'm really starting to believe this now. Does this guy sit naked in a dark corner of his basement with a container of KY and a ballgag, drooling himself silly as he eagerly awaits the next WoT thread? Honestly, you don't even get this level of fanboyism at WoTmania (or the other sites). Just disturbing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

AverageGuy, this thread isn't about only you and the comments certainly isn't about only you. Do a search or just read through some posts and you'll appreciate what I mean.

Sorry. About half that post was in response to me, and you often address individual posts, so I assumed more was directed at me when I shouldn't have. Sometimes it's too easy to take things personally on a message board :)

As a Classics major, how would you respond if I came along and said for instance that I'd read through Plato and Socrates in an hour or so, skipped what I felt were the boring parts, and that Classics really didn't have very much importance. Or that I'd skimmed through the Odyssey, read all the good parts, and came to the conclusion it was a rather average adventure yarn that could have used a bit more depth of characterization?

Would you have respected me, Average Guy . . . respected me for basically putting down your entire major or would you have thought I was some sort of arrogant idiot?

That's my point.

Well, as I realized even when I chose them as majors, neither Classics nor Philosophy actually have much importance :) But point taken.

I guess if I'm going to say ANYTHING about an author, I'm going to give that author the fair shake of at least finishing the book. Read every line, read every word.

That's a pretty high standard. If you know someone is making a false statement, like Jordan saying every book is self-contained, then I agree you should call them on it. But you're looking for credibility when people are stating opinions (since almost everything written on a message board is opinion), and like you said earlier, opinions are like assholes. By their nature, they don't need the same sort of backing facts do. In fact, I think you should be able to say you didn't like a book even if you didn't finish it. I tend to think anyone who says the work's a "piece of shit" is expressing an opinion, just a stronger version of, "It wasn't my thing." And sometimes you can form an opinion like that after reading fifty pages. However, I can understand that you see it as an attack on the intrinsic value of the work, and I agree that a greater understanding of something leads to a more well-founded opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm really starting to believe this now. Does this guy sit naked in a dark corner of his basement with a container of KY and a ballgag, drooling himself silly as he eagerly awaits the next WoT thread? Honestly, you don't even get this level of fanboyism at WoTmania (or the other sites). Just disturbing.

Sorry if this post carries no worth because I'm new, but is there really a need for this? He likes WoT, you guys don't, where do personal insults come into it?

Personally I hate WoT, I never even made it through The Great Hunt. I just keep in mind we all have our guilty pleasures when it comes to Speculative Fiction. A book doesn't have to be brilliant for someone, somewhere, to enjoy reading it. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...