An honest assessment of WOT?

[Myrddin]

You can expect lengthy, vociferous responses both for and against the series, some accusations of the late author being a "sellout", and perhaps some wistful memories of OsRavan's disdain for spell check ;)

But generally, most will agree that the first 5-6 books were good to very good, then the action began to creep to a crawl by books 8-10, with some claiming some improvement for the last book.

This. :agree:

We can close the thread now.

Before OSRavan is summoned.... :stunned:

[Borque]

Overall, your not gonna get level headed opinions with this series.

That is very true.

My opinion for what it's worth: I read volumes 1-7 (or possibly 8, don't really remember). The first 5-6 books I enjoyed tremendously. Then I skimmed through one volume more and after that lost interest to a level where I was entirely happy with reading summaries on the web.

What made me lose interest was starting reading Martin, which made Jordan's flaws obvious, in combination with the deteriorating quality of the later WOT books.

Anyway, there are several authors out there that I prefer but I won't discourage you. I have a couple of friends who think Jordan is on par with Tolkien.

[Nichole]

I'm another who started this series when I was young and when it was one of the better series out. I loved it. I did find myself very frustrated by how the series seemed to be going nowhere for mulitple books. I almost just gave up completely, but decided I was going to finish. Book 11 got me excited again, but I still don't see why what happened in 11 couldn't have happened much sooner.

I'm planning a reread this summer before The Gathering Storm comes out. I do find myself liking Jordan's world once I go back to it. The skirt smoothing and braid tugging might drive me insane, though.

[Wastrel]

There's also the "Jilted Readers" who once loved the series but after some book or other, hated it. They hate VERY intensely too.

Overall, your not gonna get level headed opinions with this series.

Oh, I don't know. I think a lot of us jilted readers have been jilted for so long now that we've regained some sense of proportion (yes, if you'd asked me a couple of years ago I'd have given a more vituperative evaluation).

I'd like to take issue with three other opinions on this thread:

- Werthead: he does indeed hand-wave language. Firstly, his "Old Tongue" is a poor simulacrum of a language, and it's galling to see the esteem some fans (and the author) hold it in. It's little more than a cipher with some apostrophes thrown in for fantasyness. Secondly, it is not only unlikely but entirely impossible that the entire continent, and even the Seanchan, have all stayed speaking the same language for so long. The continent isn't that tightly bound (far less bound than, say, Spain and France - or even just France, in which at least half a dozen Romance languages have developed). The idea that the Seanchan could be sundered from Randland for longer than the division between Irish and Catalan or Lithuanian and English and still have no more difference than a slight drawl is patently absurd. Third, when he does give examples of language change over time it's clear that he doesn't understand the concepts involved - his etymologies look to be just "what happens if I say this word quickly and lazily?" rather than anything showing awareness of regular sound change laws.

Now, I don't mind that too much. Yes, I like worldbuilding, but I'm happy to allow handwaving - Martin, for instance, has a painfully cliche-fantasy "language" and even more time/space "why is everything the same?" difficulties. What I don't like is that Jordan seems to think he's NOT handwaving. That is, I can accept that everybody speaks English (because then it's "I know this isn't realistic, but for the sake of the story let's just say that..."); I can't accept that people from one town randomly insert copulas into their sentences for no apparent reason or that everyone from one continent slurs. That's calling attention to what the author is doing, and if attention is called to something it should be good. If you can't realistically deal with language, don't try.

An analogy: I don't mind people writing stories set in, say, Northern Ireland, without acknowledging the differences between Catholics and Protestants. If it's not relevent to the plot, I'm fine with them ignoring it. But I'm not fine with the author saying "look at my nuanced treatment of religion!" when all he's done is make all the Catholic characters wear silly hats.

- Several people: Jordan's worldbuilding really isn't all that good. Yes, he is to be commended for attempting to put diversity into his world. Unfortunately, none of his cultures are convincing. In the same way that much fantasy is modern America with a veneer of an American's view of medieval Europe, Jordan's cultures are "modern America with a veneer of an American's view of medieval Europe" with an additional veneer of exotica. Everything feels caricatured, cartoonish misunderstood. The Aiel don't feel like a genuine nomad society - they feel like a modern American caricature of what they've heard the nobly savage nomad societies are like.

I never really felt that, say, Andor and Carhien and Tear were truly different - only that the people in Carhien and Tear wore (metaphorically speaking) silly hats.

Martin is no paragon of worldbuilding himself, but he's far, far better than Jordan. Without question, Westeros in particular feels more real and immersive than Randland, as though Martin's actually done his research (outside Westeros, it gets a bit thinner, but given that we see less of it, and that we see it through Dany's European eyes anyway, this isn't a problem for me).

On the other hand, I certainly agree that Jordan is more ambitious in hi worldbuilding than Martin is.

Again, the weakness of worldbuilding shouldn't be a problem. Even I, a worldbuilding enthusiast (on my blog I have thousands and thousands of words on the evolution of clothing norms in one single invented culture), am fine with fantasy that doesn't have much of it. There's no reason Martin needs imaginative worldbuilding (he's concentrating on the plot and the characters, and benefits from a recognisable near-historical setting) or why Jordan needs depth (if he's only passing his characters though a place, how much depth does its culture need?) - so it's not a flaw, necessarily. I just wouldn't want it held up as a virtue, either.

- Zach: I'm not convinced there's any more depth than D&D books, in terms of emotions and resolutions and whatnot. Lots of Forgotten Realms books aren't hack-and-slash - and even fewer when you go into other TSR lines. I'd say WoT was vastly inferior, in terms of emotional depth, to something like the original Dragonlance Chronicles (which is less directly hack-and-slash, and has more consequences for most of the characters).

Not that I'm putting any TSR, even the Chronicles (which AIR were among the best of TSR), up as great literature - or even better than WoT. It's just that I don't think WoT is much better in terms of inflicting consequences on its characters.

[Hmm. There's an idea. Maybe I should reread the Chronicles? I haven't read them in ten years, I don't think, so maybe I should see how good they really are. When you find better books, you sort of get revulsed by what you liked before and sometimes rate it as worse than it is. And sometimes you think you're underrating it when actually it is exactly as bad as you think it is... hmm.]

EDIT: I'd also like to agree that they work better back-to-back. I read the first 8 back-to-back, and the slow pace didn't bother me too much (though the lack of resolution did). The waits between 8 and 9 and 9 and 10 killed it off - it doesn't do well when you've got time to think about it.

I'll also agree about New Spring. Although it's written later, it doesn't massively spoil anything, so far as I can recall. I seem to recall it being reasonable writing for the series, too. And stuff happens in it. I don't think book 1 is a good way to judge the series. It's badly written and derivative, and not that well integrated into the later series, imo. On the other hand, if you DO like book 1, I imagine you'd like the rest.

[Serious Callers Only]

Sucks. Possibly the only worse reading experience comes from reading SoT for the first time and thinking "WTF".

[Zach H]

I'm not convinced there's any more depth than D&D books, in terms of emotions and resolutions and whatnot. Lots of Forgotten Realms books aren't hack-and-slash - and even fewer when you go into other TSR lines.

I suppose we're simply interpreting the material differently (or perhaps looking at different material) in that case, and will have to look to the ol' agree to disagree thing. I read a fair bit of Salvatore, and he's as straight up hack and slash as you can get. I've read one Ed Greenwood book, and it was probably the worst piece of published fiction I've ever read. Made Jordan look like a modern day Tolstoy. Beyond that, I don't have any experience with D&D books, so maybe I was a bit too quick to generalize. I have heard good things about Paul Kemp, for instance.

On the other hand, if you DO like book 1, I imagine you'd like the rest.

I wouldn't be so quick to say this given that the mid/later books largely ditch trolloc encounters in favor of the more stationary style of storytelling that has become one of Jordan's primary criticisms. Book 1 might have been derivative, but I can sympathize with the notion that it's still a fun and even a charming read in a manner that is totally lost during the later stages of the series.

[kuenjato]

Oh, I don't know. I think a lot of us jilted readers have been jilted for so long now that we've regained some sense of proportion (yes, if you'd asked me a couple of years ago I'd have given a more vituperative evaluation).

---

I'd say WoT was vastly inferior, in terms of emotional depth, to something like the original Dragonlance Chronicles (which is less directly hack-and-slash, and has more consequences for most of the characters).

Not that I'm putting any TSR, even the Chronicles (which AIR were among the best of TSR), up as great literature - or even better than WoT. It's just that I don't think WoT is much better in terms of inflicting consequences on its characters.

[Hmm. There's an idea. Maybe I should reread the Chronicles? I haven't read them in ten years, I don't think, so maybe I should see how good they really are. When you find better books, you sort of get revulsed by what you liked before and sometimes rate it as worse than it is. And sometimes you think you're underrating it when actually it is exactly as bad as you think it is... hmm.]

I agreed with your entire post - particularly about the world building - but that last bolded bit threw me.

If you want to savor your memories of Chronicles, don't re-read them.

[Shryke]

Dragonlance is shit. Your opinion is wrong.

[Durckad]

Dragonlance is shit. Your opinion is wrong.

Shryke. Making compelling arguments since 2006.

[Galactus]

Mind, I think it also depends on how *difficult* you find reading. I read kind of like I breathe (if I may say so) and so the length is more of an advantage than anything else (even if it gets repetitive) I can see the flaws getting to you more if you have a limited amount of time or feel like there's a lot of other things you need to do.

- Werthead: he does indeed hand-wave language. Firstly, his "Old Tongue" is a poor simulacrum of a language, and it's galling to see the esteem some fans (and the author) hold it in. It's little more than a cipher with some apostrophes thrown in for fantasyness. Secondly, it is not only unlikely but entirely impossible that the entire continent, and even the Seanchan, have all stayed speaking the same language for so long. The continent isn't that tightly bound (far less bound than, say, Spain and France - or even just France, in which at least half a dozen Romance languages have developed). The idea that the Seanchan could be sundered from Randland for longer than the division between Irish and Catalan or Lithuanian and English and still have no more difference than a slight drawl is patently absurd. Third, when he does give examples of language change over time it's clear that he doesn't understand the concepts involved - his etymologies look to be just "what happens if I say this word quickly and lazily?" rather than anything showing awareness of regular sound change laws.

Now, I don't mind that too much. Yes, I like worldbuilding, but I'm happy to allow handwaving - Martin, for instance, has a painfully cliche-fantasy "language" and even more time/space "why is everything the same?" difficulties. What I don't like is that Jordan seems to think he's NOT handwaving. That is, I can accept that everybody speaks English (because then it's "I know this isn't realistic, but for the sake of the story let's just say that..."); I can't accept that people from one town randomly insert copulas into their sentences for no apparent reason or that everyone from one continent slurs. That's calling attention to what the author is doing, and if attention is called to something it should be good. If you can't realistically deal with language, don't try.

An analogy: I don't mind people writing stories set in, say, Northern Ireland, without acknowledging the differences between Catholics and Protestants. If it's not relevent to the plot, I'm fine with them ignoring it. But I'm not fine with the author saying "look at my nuanced treatment of religion!" when all he's done is make all the Catholic characters wear silly hats.

Totally agree about the language issue.

- Several people: Jordan's worldbuilding really isn't all that good. Yes, he is to be commended for attempting to put diversity into his world. Unfortunately, none of his cultures are convincing. In the same way that much fantasy is modern America with a veneer of an American's view of medieval Europe, Jordan's cultures are "modern America with a veneer of an American's view of medieval Europe" with an additional veneer of exotica. Everything feels caricatured, cartoonish misunderstood. The Aiel don't feel like a genuine nomad society - they feel like a modern American caricature of what they've heard the nobly savage nomad societies are like.

To be honest, I agree about the Aiel (but I always figured they were more of an homage to the Fremen than anything else in the first place) what I think Jordan DOES very well is the details that people hate him so much for: The small little things like fashion and customs and greetings and manners and stuff like that. Way too many authors impose a homogenous culture on their worlds and ignore these little things.

Basically, I don't think Jordan has that *deep* a sense of world-building, but he does take care to address a large chunk of cultural diversity that most authors simply don't. Someone put it that "Even if Jordan doesen't explain how the people of Caemlyn deal with their sewage, it's clear that he's been thinking about it."

I never really felt that, say, Andor and Carhien and Tear were truly different - only that the people in Carhien and Tear wore (metaphorically speaking) silly hats.

I'd disagree actually. Sure, he has problems differentiating between people... But that's because of his generally poor characterization. I think Tear and Cairhien are *reasonable approximations of cultural differences in say, the middle-ages or renaissance* they're different, but not so wildly different that you start wondering how they ever could coexist (although the Aiel gets that to some degree)

Martin is no paragon of worldbuilding himself, but he's far, far better than Jordan. Without question, Westeros in particular feels more real and immersive than Randland, as though Martin's actually done his research (outside Westeros, it gets a bit thinner, but given that we see less of it, and that we see it through Dany's European eyes anyway, this isn't a problem for me).

On the other hand, I certainly agree that Jordan is more ambitious in hi worldbuilding than Martin is

.

I think the reason Martin's worldbuilding feels more real is that he's not building a world at all. He's basically importing the Hollywood version of medieval England, tacking on magic and dragons and making the Pope english, and then leaving it there. Now, there's nothing wrong with that per se, it serves his story well, but it's not really that good world-building (and that ignores the FUBARED scale of the thing)

- Zach: I'm not convinced there's any more depth than D&D books, in terms of emotions and resolutions and whatnot. Lots of Forgotten Realms books aren't hack-and-slash - and even fewer when you go into other TSR lines. I'd say WoT was vastly inferior, in terms of emotional depth, to something like the original Dragonlance Chronicles (which is less directly hack-and-slash, and has more consequences for most of the characters).

Not that I'm putting any TSR, even the Chronicles (which AIR were among the best of TSR), up as great literature - or even better than WoT. It's just that I don't think WoT is much better in terms of inflicting consequences on its characters.

[Hmm. There's an idea. Maybe I should reread the Chronicles? I haven't read them in ten years, I don't think, so maybe I should see how good they really are. When you find better books, you sort of get revulsed by what you liked before and sometimes rate it as worse than it is. And sometimes you think you're underrating it when actually it is exactly as bad as you think it is... hmm.]

Mind, i found the Chronicles to be awful even for pulp fantasy. And they left me with an irreconcilable grudge against Dragonlance in general. (I believe I had Orcus nuke Krynn in one of my campaigns...)

[TheEvilKing]

Overall, your not gonna get level headed opinions with this series.

Completely untrue. I didn't 'grow up with the series' or anything, and I read it after awesome stuff like GRRM and Hobb, so obviously I knew right away that it wasn't fantastic.

I just got more bored with it as the series drawled on, and certain characters became a chore to read about.

[VarysTheSpider]

In a nutshell - tedious cliched childish nonsense.

[Fatuous]

I can't be objective as I like the series. Not in spite of the flaws but because of them. Braids and all, you could say.

My reasoning behind the whole non development of language and technology: It's all the Dark One's doing {Well, "you know who"}. Every 800-900 years, whatever advances made in the world get reset back to square one through mass warfare. The Seanchan is completely unchanging though plot specific elements, which I will not mention but they're fairly obvious. The Aiel is tied together as their Leader base get all the same "training" {again, plot points}; No new ideas are allowed to come to fruition in such a situation for very specific reasons {It's the "why" of books 4-6 after all}.

It's all there, you just have to "believe" it {it's easier to swallow than the One Power anyway}. Also, you shouldn't compare it to reality 100%. For starters, it's a Matriarchal society, and that's not even part of its Fantasy structure. It is because of it, however.

One last thing: Rand is destined to "break" the world, not save it, right? All this "farmboy/ world savior" talk made me wonder if I have read the right series. Yes, the Dragon Reborn is more Darth Vader than Luke Skywalker as the guy dresses all in black in the later half of the series for a reason. It's obvious, right? Well, I thought it was obvious anyway...

[Wastrel]

I agreed with your entire post - particularly about the world building - but that last bolded bit threw me.

If you want to savor your memories of Chronicles, don't re-read them.

Let me be clear: I don't think Chronicles is good. I think it was pretty good for D&D, and I think specifically that it was more emotionally deep than WoT. Depth doesn't require competence of execution (nor vice-versa).

Try for a moment to cast from your mind the triteness of the writing and the cliche of most of the characters. Consider instead the story arcs of, amongst others, Raistlin, Caramon, Tanis, and Sturm - are they not more traumatic than the arcs of Perrin and Mat at least, and arguably Rand? Mat essentially has nothing happen to him; Perrin gets a little worried that he's having to kill people, has a relationship with Faile, and then is a bit annoyed that Faile's been kidnapped. Rand... manages to make becoming the destroyer of the earth indistinguishable from conventional teenage angst. Rand has a romantic decision to make, and gets out of it. Tanis likewise, but he mostly chooses the evil one (and it's unclear, iirc, whether he actually does intend to betray his friends or not). Sturm has his honour tested severely and gets killed off. Raistlin is conflicted between power and his love for his brother; Caramon, between his love for his brother and the fact that his brother is obviously Really Really Evil. Or look at the death rate - of the say, seven main characters, two die in Chronicles, one is tortured in hell for all eternity in the sequel, and a fourth is killed in Summer Flame. Significant death toll so far in WoT: zero.

I'm not denying Chronicles is shit (though now I'm tempted to go back and see how shit exactly it is), and indeed almost certainly worse than WoT overall - I just think it's got more conflicted and traumatic story arcs for the characters.

Galactus: I agree, Jordan's worldbuilding is diverse and ambitious, but shallow. I think what gets me about Carhien/Tear/etc is that much of the difference seems to be in the vein of people shouting "look, we're exotic, honestly!" when they don't seem to be that exotic at all. But as I say, it's not a major flaw in the books. And yes, a lot of it is the lack of good characterisation. [Though not all - something like Davram's view of wives, for instance, looks like a Silly Hat Exotic Culture thing].

I also agree that Martin's worldbuilding isn't good. It's just deeper than Jordan's. Is that because he's less ambitious? Yes, mostly. But even if you're importing a world, you need to give it flesh and scent, and Martin does that well - and I think that that's part of worldbuilding too. But no, I would never recommend Martin on the strength of his worldbuilding.

I came to Dragonlance very early on - I'd read Tolkien, Eddings, a bit of Pratchett, a little Shadowrun, and Gemmell. Dragonlance was then my entry into D&D - so I've always had great affection for the setting, if not for the quality of writing.

[My irreconcilable hatred is for Forgotten Realms, which seems to be Dragonlance with all character and feeling extracted. It's the "I can't be bothered" of fantasy settings.]

Shryke: you've misread my opinion (regardless of its correctness or otherwise)

Zach: Well, yes, Salvatore is hack and slash. Not quite entirely (Icewind Dale had occassional nuances; Dark Elf had at least some non-violent story trajectory (it's not 'kill the dark elves!' its 'run away from the dark elves!'), but overwhelmingly. Salvatore is also rubbish - I've never seen the attraction (I found Dark Elf, particularly Sojourn, appealing in a teenage-angsty way, but never thought they were good; I thought the Entreri-based novel later on was actually good relative to D&D, but other than that his books range from abysmal to passably bad).

Ed Greenwood has a reputation for being awful even by D&D standards. That said, I have a weird affection for Silverfall - I think the awfulness actually made it a little endearing to me (particular the way it tries to reconcile the fantasy elements with the quotidian).

I don't think there's any genuinely good D&D writing - but there are varying levels and species of bad.

[Lyanna Stark]

Also, you shouldn't compare it to reality 100%. For starters, it's a Matriarchal society, and that's not even part of its Fantasy structure. It is because of it, however.

I completely agree. Tha matriarchal society bit is really odd, since you are told the Aes Sedai are in power, but there is no real effects on society. It's an interesting idea, and very poorly thought through.

I'm not going to repeat what others have all said: only that the more you read, the worse WOT seems.

[Wastrel]

I completely agree. Tha matriarchal society bit is really odd, since you are told the Aes Sedai are in power, but there is no real effects on society. It's an interesting idea, and very poorly thought through.

I'm not going to repeat what others have all said: only that the more you read, the worse WOT seems.

I don't even think it IS a matriarchal society. Yes, a female organisation wields substantial power, but only at the very top.

[And yes, this is a missed opportunity. It takes a fair bit of fantasy hand-waving to create the conditions for a matriarchal society, and it feels like a waste to actually do all that handwaving and then not bother exploring the consequences of it.]

[ljkeane]

I completely agree. Tha matriarchal society bit is really odd, since you are told the Aes Sedai are in power, but there is no real effects on society. It's an interesting idea, and very poorly thought through.

I'm not going to repeat what others have all said: only that the more you read, the worse WOT seems.

I don't know that there are no effects, you do see a disproportionate number of women in positions of power compared to comparable periods in the real world but there are admittadly some issues with Jordan's depiction of women.

[Lyanna Stark]

I don't know that there are no effects, you do see a disproportionate number of women in positions of power compared to comparable periods in the real world but there are admittadly some issues with Jordan's depiction of women.

Yes, that much is painfully obvious. Jordan put women in positions of power and told us that basically only women can hold these positions.

However, where are the social and anthropological consequences of completely upending the patriarchal standards of society? There are none. Void. Empty.

Women still tug their braids and fight with eachother over men. Old fashioned gender roles are still in effect, despite women being the gender of power. Jordan never investigates the effects of how a matriarchy would change his society or gender roles, because there is no change. The whole premise of his story (with the all powerful female Aes Sedai) is just left hanging since it's forced into a standard fantasy world without any explanation. And this is where Jordan really fails.

On top of that his female characters are flat, annoying and badly written.

[Galactus]

Yes, that much is painfully obvious. Jordan put women in positions of power and told us that basically only women can hold these positions.

However, where are the social and anthropological consequences of completely upending the patriarchal standards of society? There are none. Void. Empty.

Women still tug their braids and fight with eachother over men. Old fashioned gender roles are still in effect, despite women being the gender of power. Jordan never investigates the effects of how a matriarchy would change his society or gender roles, because there is no change. The whole premise of his story (with the all powerful female Aes Sedai) is just left hanging since it's forced into a standard fantasy world without any explanation. And this is where Jordan really fails.

Agreed to a large extent. (although I'd like to point out that men fight each other over women in the real-world too, stupid as it may sound, so that's not really a good argument) He clearly does not follow it to it's logical conclusion. (although I think the... tension, is reasonably because the power-differential on an individual level really only applies to channelers... there is a spillover effect onto ordinary women, and it should have been more marked but isn't explored)

I wouldn't classify Jordan's society as matriarchal, but it is put as much more equal than any (that I know of) comparative historical society.

It's just deeper than Jordan's.

I'd disagree. Martin beats Jordan in just about every category *except* worldbuilding. (incidentally I think he's actually far more exoticising, both with the Beyond-the-Wall and the areas Daenrys travels through, than Jordan is) but I think Jordan is actually the better worldbuilder. Flaws and all. (Not that Jordan doesen't have his flaws, but they are smaller than Martin's)

I came to Dragonlance very early on - I'd read Tolkien, Eddings, a bit of Pratchett, a little Shadowrun, and Gemmell. Dragonlance was then my entry into D&D - so I've always had great affection for the setting, if not for the quality of writing.

[My irreconcilable hatred is for Forgotten Realms, which seems to be Dragonlance with all character and feeling extracted. It's the "I can't be bothered" of fantasy settings.]

I was the same, except I hated Dragonlance with a passion. I kind of like the FR as a setting for RPG's *precisely* because it is so Fantasy-kitchen sink (which I realize makes it absolutely bonkers for any other purpose :P), and therefore I tend to use it for my "basic" D&D campaigns (When I don't play Planescape or Ravenloft).

EDIT: I think to some degree it depends on what you expect. I came to WOT expecting the standard cliché fantasy and found, for the first time, something that was *not*. It's not a radical deconstruction, but it is starting to play around with the genré a bit.

[ljkeane]

Yes, that much is painfully obvious. Jordan put women in positions of power and told us that basically only women can hold these positions.

However, where are the social and anthropological consequences of completely upending the patriarchal standards of society? There are none. Void. Empty.

I don't think he has actually set out to depict a matriachal society he just has one avenue to power which is open to women which is not open to men, and the consequence of this is that women are more common in positions of power not restricted only to women.

I agree that there are flaws with how he depicts his female characters and his ideas could have been better explored but I do think he has come up with a reasonably interesting and believable (within the context of his story) way of having a relatively equal society.