WoT

[Alaerien]

I don't think it's an actual quote, but I give props to whoever did write it for remembering Lan's favourite colour, the exact style of Domani dresses and a hundred other details I was only too willing to forget.

[Spring Bass]

That sounds like it could be a real quote, even if it isn't.

[Daeric]

Its quite realistic, but by the looks of it, its not a quote

[Shryke]

I think the comparison to Martial Arts is the most apt. How many of them have flowery names for the moves your taught? Especially those that are more about exercise then fighting these days, like Tai Chi (spelling?).

It's also kind of an artistic choice. You get a decent sense of what's going on, without going into what the author may feel is needless description. Especially when he may not know nearly enough about actual sword fighting to write a believable fight. I think it works well.

[BrainFireBob]

More, if you bother to actually read the names, many aren't just evocative, they're fairly descriptive. Jordan mashed kendo, fencing, and things he just thought sounded neat for his "forms"= but they give a far stronger picture to me as a reader than I ever found in Martin. Martin's fights, aside from a few general descriptors, seem far more vague- Jordan's are shorthand but descriptive, and Jordan deserves props in the fantasy field for remembering that actual combat is not "attack-block" or even "attack-counter", as if warriors were taking turns- it's strike-counterstrike, which is why some forms are used to counter others regularly- they're not just blocks.

My personal favorite is "the river undercuts the bank" for a disembowelling cut. Ever seen a riverbank? Ever see the effect of disembowelling- not even in a human, but in an animal? Ever notice how much their ribs do indeed look like a riverbank that's been worked on for awhile by a small river or stream?

[Sword of the Morning]

Jordan doesn't describe general combat with forms, he only uses it in the context of duels or when a BLADEMASTER fights. The forms aren't known to the general populace, only to an expert in the field.

And I've always found the descriptions to be very poetic. Personally, I think it's cool reading how one form flows into another as the two participants strike and counterstrike in a fluid "dance" and I agree with BrainFireBob that they are very evocative for me. I can almost see the forms in my head when I read about them.

Sadly, the majority of those here don't appear to have the background or subtlety to appreciate that. I suppose they much prefer Martin's descriptors of a sword hacking through an arm or ripping a man's guts out but I much prefer the understated elegance of the sword forms Jordan uses.

Differennt strokes for different folks . . . It is interesting that so many things that rub anti-Jordan fans wrong here are things I quite enjoy but there you have it.

[Caligula_K]

Sadly, the majority of those here don't appear to have the background or subtlety to appreciate that. I suppose they much prefer Martin's descriptors of a sword hacking through an arm or ripping a man's guts out but I much prefer the understated elegance of the sword forms Jordan uses.

Condescend much?

Personally, I prefer descriptions of what's actually happening rather than a bunch of phrases that could mean anything. There may be a grace to Jordan's fights, but its difficult to get a complete conception of what exactly is going on. While some of the phrases are evocative, it seems to me to be the lazy way out of describing fight scenes.

[Werthead]

I think it's also a viable method of avoiding overt descriptions of blood and gore. There are such moments in Jordan - such as the charnel house of Dumai's Wells at the start of Book 7 - but they are relatively few and far between. This is probably a contributing factor to the success of the series, that you can give young people the first book at a far younger age than you'd perhaps feel comfortable giving them the first ASoIaF book.

[BrainFireBob]

Jordan wrote out his forms, and which forms are used against which forms.

He's always used them consistently.

This means, rather than just describing lopping off a limp, he's actually worked out- even if sketchily- a system.

And you're telling me that's lazier than doing no work at all?

Werthead: I agree and disagree, in that I don't find blood and gore descriptions necessary, nor do they add mature content- not that you're necessarily saying that, but you are drawing the line they're more OK for younger readers. I would advance the question why is more overt gore necessary for older readers? I'm 26, and I've seen enough blood and pain in my life- even without serving in the military or growing up in inner-city gangland- that I don't need someone to describe it in loving detail, thanks. I prefer what I see as a more tasteful treatment, because with any amount of experience, you know it's there, and what it's like. There's no need to have it spelled out for you, it's just macabre and well, rather tasteless. That's to my mind, however.

[Spectralist]

I don't think anyone is saying that a book needs gore to be mature, but rather that having gore means it is more likely to be targeted at a mature audience.

[BrainFireBob]

There is that, there is also implied criticism as lack of gore as being suited for immature readers, which has an implicit bias toward the writing not being "up to" mature readers.

A lot of Jordan criticisms are of that stripe, I've noticed, and after years, it's really grating. The man spent two tours in the jungle in Vietnam. Half the guys he served with didn't survive. There's a reason he doesn't find it necessary to include descriptions of body parts lying all over battlefields- anyone who knows anything about battlefields knows they're there. They're not what's important. What's important is how people react to them- which is what Jordan takes pains to show.

I see too much- and I'm not saying I'm necessarily seeing it here, just that having seen too much makes me speak up when I see this debate, now- of the stripe that Martin is "cooler" than Jordan for showing so much more grittyness, as if grittyness or glorying in it creates maturity or proves one is an adult.

I greatly enjoy Martin's books, but I do have reservations about how much grit there is- it reeks of reactionary over-done to me, and detracts from the sterling quality of prose and character construction. At times I wonder if he's determined that something especially nasty happen to everyone, because nasty is underdone in fantasy. At other times, I feel guilty for being suspicious.

[Antonius Pius]

Personally, I prefer descriptions of what's actually happening rather than a bunch of phrases that could mean anything. There may be a grace to Jordan's fights, but its difficult to get a complete conception of what exactly is going on. While some of the phrases are evocative, it seems to me to be the lazy way out of describing fight scenes.

Echo that. AND Jordan seems to hide his fights. I've read the first four books so far (300 pages into Fires of Heaven), and I seem to recall that most fights are glossed over. Something about mist or it being over before the character knows what happened. This happens to Perrin several times in book four, especially with the big showdown at the end.

Oh, and I love how it takes years to become a true blademaster, but somehow Rand learns in a few months in Shienar. I'm quite glad Martin doesn't take those short cuts. Look at Jaime's gruelling efforts to learn to fight with his left hand.

Oh, and how wounded men go on and on... And how the women characters rise through the ranks of the Aes Sedai without effort, and get the most dangerous task of all before being anywhere near qualified full A.S.

[Padraig]

I see too much- and I'm not saying I'm necessarily seeing it here, just that having seen too much makes me speak up when I see this debate, now- of the stripe that Martin is "cooler" than Jordan for showing so much more grittyness, as if grittyness or glorying in it creates maturity or proves one is an adult.

Well...doh. You came onto this board and expected people to think that Jordan is cooler? Against most legitimate criteria, GRRM will win everytime on this board. If this bothers you, don't worry, its only their "opinion".

Obviously lots of people do gritty but GRRM does it (and many other things) well. That's why we are such fans. And thats why GRRM is directed at a more mature audience than Jordan. You'll never find YA versions of aSoIaF.

But equally, a work directed at a mature audience does not in itself make the work better than a work directed at a wide audience. OTOH, a lot of people on this board will think that GRRM is better than most of those other authors.

So yes, RJ's fights have a lot of poetic terms. But that kind of thing could never work in a gritty work like GRRMs.

[IheartTesla]

Sadly, the majority of those here don't appear to have the background or subtlety to appreciate that. I suppose they much prefer Martin's descriptors of a sword hacking through an arm or ripping a man's guts out but I much prefer the understated elegance of the sword forms Jordan uses.

Apparently I gave up too soon on reading Jordan. I'll try to come back to him after taking Background 101 and Subtlety 102. If an author doesnt please someone it is usually the readers fault.

[Sword of the Morning]

Condescend much?

Personally, I prefer descriptions of what's actually happening rather than a bunch of phrases that could mean anything. There may be a grace to Jordan's fights, but its difficult to get a complete conception of what exactly is going on. While some of the phrases are evocative, it seems to me to be the lazy way out of describing fight scenes.

Well by background, I mean background in martial arts, actual sword fighting, dueling, etc. I don't have a background in that either but that doesn't mean I minimize or criticize what I don't understand.

Most people here have no idea what they're talking about but assume that just because they don't understand something or appreciate something that there's NOTHING THERE to appreciate. How do you describe that but condescending, arrogant, and also egocentric?

If you spend enough time analyzing and looking at the sword forms and how they're used you'll see recurrent ones come up again and again and used consistently as well. If you take the time to imagine what's going on, you may have a better appreciation of the descriptions.

If you don't want to take the time to do that, if you don't have the imagination to understand that, then that's a limitation of you as a reader. But don't necessarily denigrate the author's work or the author's time with juvenile mockery (like the "cat taking a piss under the roof" etc). I've noticed that being a smartass hasn't gotten anybody on these boards published yet . . .

Some people prefer detailed and gory descriptions of battle but just because Jordan doesn't provide that doesn't mean it is a deficiency on the writer's part.

And failure to enjoy a book may be the writer's deficiency, the reader's deficiency, or often a mixture of BOTH. I am more than willing to accept the possibility that part of the reason I don't enjoy or like a book is my inability to appreciate something the writer is trying to get across and that there are people out there who may "get" something I simply don't.

Apparently on these boards, most people figure that if they don't enjoy a work, it must have very little value or worth for anyone else. Then they start ripping the work to shreds when all it does is underline their own ignorance.

As an example I've talked to many people including my wife who has dismissed Martin's saga because they are offended by what they feel are graphic and gratuitous scenes of sex, violence against women and chlildren, and excessive gore. They dislike his style and refuse to even try it. As a big Martin fan, I think that's tragic because they have also missed out on the world building, the incredible story, the deep characters, the witty and wonderful dialogue, etc. Is it then Martin's fault that they don't want anything to do with his books or is the problem the close-mindedness of the readers? If you don't take the time to dig through some things you don't like, you'll never find the gold underneath.

People like Ran who knows the books by heart, has written the Concordance, and even perhaps read various sources that Martin himself used will derive a deeper understanding and a deepr appreciation of Song of Ice and Fire than myself and probably a good 75 percent of the posters on the board.

Similarly, the truly dedicated and obsessed fans of Jordan who has read his novels 14 time over the last 19 years, who took the time to analyze and figure out who killed Asmodean, who knows exactly which Aes Sedai is in which Ajah, who has compiled the 1880 characters in the series, etc will be FAR more accomplished readers than any here on this board when it comes to Wheel of Time.

Now if you think Jordan's writing is a piece of shit and personally don't want to invest that type of time into the series, that's perfectly fine. But that is certainly not to say that Jordan's work is inherently stupid or trashy or that people who really love it and ARE willing to spend that type of time in it are idiots for instance.

Similarly to the guy in the other thread who dismissed Shakespeare as nothing special . . . it's assinine. Opinions are like assholes, everybody's got one but honestly the level of arrogance and self-absorption I've seen on this forum is something to behold. You'd think reading through some of these threads that the majority of you are Pulitizer Prize winning professors of literature who speak 7 languages. Sadly, I suspect this to be far from the case but many are perfectly comfortable commenting as if they were.

So contrary to what you may have read into my post, Bram_K, I may in fact be one of the most HUMBLE posters on this forum as I have respect even for Piers Anthony, Terry Goodkind, and David Eddings despite the savagery that various members of this forum have heaped upon all of these authors and more . . .

It's also ironic that Jordan is a recognized war hero who served two terms in Vietnam while George "gritty" Martin was a conscientious objector and spent that time running chess tournaments. Not to cast any aspersions on Martin, but of the two, Jordan may know a little bit more what it feels like to be in a real battle with your life on the life. Just because he chooses not to dwell on those details doesn't make him a less realistic or less powerful writer on that subject. Jordan fought for his life and the life of his comrades, he killed people and was almost killed himself. The man knows what he is talking about in a far more personal way than someone who got all his knowledge of battles from books on medieval warfare and the War of the Roses and comic books . . .

Martin and Jordan both have different styles and I enjoy both for different reasons. That doesn't make one necessarily superior over another in my mind.

Dennis

[Sword of the Morning]

Echo that. AND Jordan seems to hide his fights. I've read the first four books so far (300 pages into Fires of Heaven), and I seem to recall that most fights are glossed over. Something about mist or it being over before the character knows what happened. This happens to Perrin several times in book four, especially with the big showdown at the end.

Oh, and I love how it takes years to become a true blademaster, but somehow Rand learns in a few months in Shienar. I'm quite glad Martin doesn't take those short cuts. Look at Jaime's gruelling efforts to learn to fight with his left hand.

Oh, and how wounded men go on and on... And how the women characters rise through the ranks of the Aes Sedai without effort, and get the most dangerous task of all before being anywhere near qualified full A.S.

Martin and shortcuts? You mean how you're glad that he didn't decide to just skip 5 years to show us how the main protagonists have aged and gotten good but that didn't work and so he delayed Feast for Crows for 5 real time years to give us half his planned book and is still working on giving us some info on Dany and Jon and Tyrion that we've been waiting on for 7 years and coutiing now. You mean those shortcuts Martins hasn't taken?

Or the believability of kids in their early teens doing all the things Martin has planned for them which even HE felt was unbelievable necessitating the desire to add 5 years in the first place? Or the fact that he has gone on record wishing he'd aged them at least 2 years older from the very beginning?

A closer reading of Wheel of Time will reveal that Rand has gotten good mainly because Lews Therin is sharing his head space. And as Lews Therin along with Belial was one of the best swordsmen in the Age of Legends, it's not surprising that Rand would be very, very good. His skill has nothing to do with his actual training. There are also numerous examples of his prowess wielding the One Power that he shouldn't have had or constructing weaves he was never taught. You might not like HOW Rand has gotten good but this is consistent with the rules Jordan has set up in his world. Mat similarly is good because he has the memories of a few hundred of the best generals in history wrattling around in his skull. Perrin is nowhere near as accomplished a swordsman or tactician and it's easy to understand why.

Women Aes Sedai rising through the ranks should come as no surprise to you . . . once again if you decide to read carefully. Aes Sedai rank themselves based on inherent power and strength in the One Power. Deference is not based on age or experience but on strength alone. There are many subtle rules complicating this protocol but they are all there if you care to figure it out.

In any case because of stilling of men who can channel strength in the One Power among women had fallen precipitously as indeed the total number of new channelers period. Elayne, Nynaeve, and Egwene represent strength in the One Power that hasn't been seen in hundreds of years. Once promoted to Aes Sedai status, it woudn't be surprising at all to see them immediately command instant respect and deference from Sisters weaker than they. Of note, even before being raised, they already have more raw strength and talent than many full Sisters.

The choice to send them after the Black Ajah was a desperate one as Siuan Sanche had no one else she could trust. And this decision while desperate WAS BAD and the story reflects that. It directly led to a revolt against her, the splitting of the White Tower, the death of her Warder, and her stilling and planned execution. What more repercussion do you want in-story for that decision??

Dennis

[Caligula_K]

Whoa, that was long. Well, here I go.

Well by background, I mean background in martial arts, actual sword fighting, dueling, etc. I don't have a background in that either but that doesn't mean I minimize or criticize what I don't understand.

Just a little thing to start this reply off, but if I can't criticize something because I don't have a background in it, then you can't glorify it if you don't have a background either. I think your argument is flawed; having a background in something may help you to understand it better, but you still have a right to say "I like/don't like this" whether you know something about it or not. Which brings me to my next point.

Most people here have no idea what they're talking about but assume that just because they don't understand something or appreciate something that there's NOTHING THERE to appreciate. How do you describe that but condescending, arrogant, and also egocentric?

If you spend enough time analyzing and looking at the sword forms and how they're used you'll see recurrent ones come up again and again and used consistently as well. If you take the time to imagine what's going on, you may have a better appreciation of the descriptions.

I don't think I've seen anything in this thread that suggests that people are saying that there's nothing to appreciate in anything. Generally, comments (I'll address this with the sword fights specifically) say: "I like this" or "I don't like this" or "this sucks" "this doesn't suck" or "this is horrible." Now, you may say that there's a difference between the first two comments and the last three- namely, that one is a subjective statement and the other attaches objective value to something. If you're getting offended over people attaching objective value to something, then you shouldn't be: I think we've all reached the point where the two are mainly interchangable (albeit, objective value statements require more justification than subjective, but whatever). I say that things suck all the time; that does not mean that I'm saying that nobody can appreciate it and that anyone who does is an idiot. I'm expressing my opinion and using objective language to do so- which is quite common. You can't take all objective values as if people are actually stating that they're an absolute authority on the subject.

If you don't want to take the time to do that, if you don't have the imagination to understand that, then that's a limitation of you as a reader. But don't necessarily denigrate the author's work or the author's time with juvenile mockery (like the "cat taking a piss under the roof" etc). I've noticed that being a smartass hasn't gotten anybody on these boards published yet . . .

Some things work for different people. Just because somebody doesn't spend 20 hours analyzing each Jordan fight scene doesn't mean that their opinion is automatically invalid. And humour is humour; if you're trying to make a point, then why not do it in a funny way? Criticism should be encouraged; art was born to be criticized. People can say that they don't like an author's work, that it sucks, if they think that way.

Some people prefer detailed and gory descriptions of battle but just because Jordan doesn't provide that doesn't mean it is a deficiency on the writer's part.

And failure to enjoy a book may be the writer's deficiency, the reader's deficiency, or often a mixture of BOTH. I am more than willing to accept the possibility that part of the reason I don't enjoy or like a book is my inability to appreciate something the writer is trying to get across and that there are people out there who may "get" something I simply don't.

Jordan not writing detailed battles is a deficiency on the writer's part in that it doesn't appeal to me. Which is fine; Jordan isn't only writing for me. But as I don't like his battles, I have a right to now go online in this nice message board and say: "I don't like them." And yes, people react in different ways to different things; so what?

Apparently on these boards, most people figure that if they don't enjoy a work, it must have very little value or worth for anyone else. Then they start ripping the work to shreds when all it does is underline their own ignorance.

Yes, they criticize something they don't like, which is perfectly acceptable; thats how discussions are done. Someone may find a piece of shit beautiful for some unfathamoble reason; why should that stop the other person from criticizing the feces for its smell, texture, taste, etc..?

As an example I've talked to many people including my wife who has dismissed Martin's saga because they are offended by what they feel are graphic and gratuitous scenes of sex, violence against women and chlildren, and excessive gore. They dislike his style and refuse to even try it. As a big Martin fan, I think that's tragic because they have also missed out on the world building, the incredible story, the deep characters, the witty and wonderful dialogue, etc. Is it then Martin's fault that they don't want anything to do with his books or is the problem the close-mindedness of the readers? If you don't take the time to dig through some things you don't like, you'll never find the gold underneath.

Thats fine by me. Someone who doesn't like Martin for those reasons obviously finds the deficiencies of A Song of Ice and Fire to outweigh the good. It has nothing to do with closed-mindedness; its just personal taste.. you're making this out as if everytime someone doesn't like something in a book its a conspiracy to destroy the author.

People like Ran who knows the books by heart, has written the Concordance, and even perhaps read various sources that Martin himself used will derive a deeper understanding and a deepr appreciation of Song of Ice and Fire than myself and probably a good 75 percent of the posters on the board.

Similarly, the truly dedicated and obsessed fans of Jordan who has read his novels 14 time over the last 19 years, who took the time to analyze and figure out who killed Asmodean, who knows exactly which Aes Sedai is in which Ajah, who has compiled the 1880 characters in the series, etc will be FAR more accomplished readers than any here on this board when it comes to Wheel of Time.

So then, are only those who've done their PHD on the Iliad allowed to comment on it? Can you not have a discussion on a topic if you don't know every single detail about it? Certainly, the man with the PHD on the Iliad knows more about it than I do, but how is that going to stop me from making a subjective comment like "I like Achilles, for he is cool," or make that comment any more invalid? By your logic, you have as little right as me to discuss WOT, whether negatively or positively.

Now if you think Jordan's writing is a piece of shit and personally don't want to invest that type of time into the series, that's perfectly fine. But that is certainly not to say that Jordan's work is inherently stupid or trashy or that people who really love it and ARE willing to spend that type of time in it are idiots for instance.

Once again, noone's said that (well, maybe for Goodkind, but who can resist?

Martin and Jordan both have different styles and I enjoy both for different reasons. That doesn't make one necessarily superior over another in my mind.

Dennis

They certainly do. And the fact that I like Martin's more makes me say things like: "George RR Martin is a better writer than Robert Jordan" and "A Song of Ice and Fire kicks ass."

(Ha, and there's another response, just as long, to Antoninus Pius' post? Sorry, someone else is going to have to handle that one.)

[kuenjato]

Jay-sus, the WoT defenders have been breathing fire 'round here lately. I'm getting flashbacks of OS and Mystar, I am.

I've practiced martial arts for 13 years, starting with Tai Chi, which -- yep -- has names for every move. RJ's construct of combat forms was inventive (particularly as it hadn't been really done before WoT, I think) but as an adult I can definately see it becoming a crutch as the hundreds of pages roll on. RJ doesn't have to describe gushing arteries and all that but some details on what the forms entail would be nice. I'm not a stickler for "reality" in my fantasy by WoT does push the suspension-of-disbelief threshold occasionally, such as when Rand tackled all those training opponents at the beginning of LoC.

quote/

Martin and Jordan both have different styles and I enjoy both for different reasons. That doesn't make one necessarily superior over another in my mind.

/quote

IMO, RJ isn't even close to GRRM as far as the actual craft of writing goes. WoT's prose is servicable but very workman-like. It's the ideas that made his books good/decent (in the beginning), not the actual craft that went into detailing those ideas; and once the ideas started to run dry, well, you end up with books 8-10 and about half of book 11.

Also, making a mystery out of the death of one character -- who only appears for one and half volumes and was only marginally interesting in the first place -- and having 1880 characters for one to choose from as the "culprit" (though obviously it was one of the foresaken, dwindling the list to a very few possibilities) -- I don't find that "subtle". The very fact that Rj has nearly two thousand characters and all but a couple dozen or so are actually important -- that to me is not complex writing, simply a veneer of complexity; compensating breadth for depth.

EDIT: I realize that GRRM, Bakker and Erikson, to name a few, also list loads of characters from time to time. Regardless, any one novel by those three above far, far overshadows the whole of WoT in terms of depth and complexity. It's not comparing apples and oranges; its comparing Goosebumps with Takashi Miike. IMO.

[BrainFireBob]

Whoa, that was long. Well, here I go.

Just a little thing to start this reply off, but if I can't criticize something because I don't have a background in it, then you can't glorify it if you don't have a background either. I think your argument is flawed; having a background in something may help you to understand it better, but you still have a right to say "I like/don't like this" whether you know something about it or not. Which brings me to my next point.

I don't think I've seen anything in this thread that suggests that people are saying that there's nothing to appreciate in anything. Generally, comments (I'll address this with the sword fights specifically) say: "I like this" or "I don't like this" or "this sucks" "this doesn't suck" or "this is horrible." Now, you may say that there's a difference between the first two comments and the last three- namely, that one is a subjective statement and the other attaches objective value to something. If you're getting offended over people attaching objective value to something, then you shouldn't be: I think we've all reached the point where the two are mainly interchangable (albeit, objective value statements require more justification than subjective, but whatever). I say that things suck all the time; that does not mean that I'm saying that nobody can appreciate it and that anyone who does is an idiot. I'm expressing my opinion and using objective language to do so- which is quite common. You can't take all objective values as if people are actually stating that they're an absolute authority on the subject.

Some things work for different people. Just because somebody doesn't spend 20 hours analyzing each Jordan fight scene doesn't mean that their opinion is automatically invalid. And humour is humour; if you're trying to make a point, then why not do it in a funny way? Criticism should be encouraged; art was born to be criticized. People can say that they don't like an author's work, that it sucks, if they think that way.

Jordan not writing detailed battles is a deficiency on the writer's part in that it doesn't appeal to me. Which is fine; Jordan isn't only writing for me. But as I don't like his battles, I have a right to now go online in this nice message board and say: "I don't like them." And yes, people react in different ways to different things; so what?

Yes, they criticize something they don't like, which is perfectly acceptable; thats how discussions are done. Someone may find a piece of shit beautiful for some unfathamoble reason; why should that stop the other person from criticizing the feces for its smell, texture, taste, etc..?

Thats fine by me. Someone who doesn't like Martin for those reasons obviously finds the deficiencies of A Song of Ice and Fire to outweigh the good. It has nothing to do with closed-mindedness; its just personal taste.. you're making this out as if everytime someone doesn't like something in a book its a conspiracy to destroy the author.

So then, are only those who've done their PHD on the Iliad allowed to comment on it? Can you not have a discussion on a topic if you don't know every single detail about it? Certainly, the man with the PHD on the Iliad knows more about it than I do, but how is that going to stop me from making a subjective comment like "I like Achilles, for he is cool," or make that comment any more invalid? By your logic, you have as little right as me to discuss WOT, whether negatively or positively.

Once again, noone's said that (well, maybe for Goodkind, but who can resist?

They certainly do. And the fact that I like Martin's more makes me say things like: "George RR Martin is a better writer than Robert Jordan" and "A Song of Ice and Fire kicks ass."

(Ha, and there's another response, just as long, to Antoninus Pius' post? Sorry, someone else is going to have to handle that one.)

Read the very first line of the post right below yours. That kind of denigrating remark is what prompts extensive response, or long explanatory posts like Sword of the Mornings. It has no place in the kind of reasonable discussion you're presenting as happening. This is said dispassionately and without heat, it is observational- that is why you get such strong defense of WoT here. What you have posted, that I quoted, is fair, even-handed, and quite appropriate to discussion. I rather doubt you do not see the off-the-cuff put-downs, digs, criticisms, and general denigration of WoT that many posters have slung around this forum, which is what, again, has prompted the long posts defending WoT from often unfair criticisms that appear here.

Opinions are like assholes. Unlike assholes, they are not facts. If it's not to your taste, or does not satisfy your needs as a reader, well and good. This does not *prove* it is *shit,* to be blunt.

[Caligula_K]

I'd say rather that its oversensitivity and overprotectedness of things that people like that lead to long responses. Its a discussion; people are allowed to get into it. They're allowed to make jokes, to not say "but thats just my opinion" everytime they say something, to be harsh. Thats what a discussion is. If everytime my friends told me a band or book I liked sucked I went on about how rude they were being and how just because they think so doesn't make it so, well then, I wouldn't have many friends. I mean, besides this board, I mainly post on metal boards, and things here are pretty tame in comparison.