Eye of the World

[SpaceChampion]

The things I remember that drew me in was first of all Tam's backstory as a captain in the Aiel War. I wanted more of that. The gender-specific One Power and its rules, along with political divisions between genders, was innovative and refreshing. At least I haven't encountered it elsewhere. I haven't read any other fantasy where the magic was a rational system rather than a set of arbitrary effects. The plight of men who can channel turning mad, with history of several false Dragons was also interesting.

I see no justification to dismiss it as a Tolkien ripoff, when the important parts of Tolkien and WOT are extremely different. You are complaining about the trivial.

Also, the early extreme hatred for the Aes Sedai from Rand and Nynaeve doesn't really make sense either. If Rand really thought they were Darkfriends, he wouldn't go along with Moiraine, Trollocs or no.

That's assuming Rand has a fixed and static opinion on the matter. She helped saved his village and his father. He owed her some trust. Then as he was introduced to the reality of the wider world, his naturally began to question his assumptions, and wonder if the folk tales were true. Learning that there is a grey area in between took him some time, which was a part of his maturing.

[kuenjato]

Is this the new trend around here? bashing WOT to look kewl? I personally think the series are great, additionally I think its stupid for the kind of reader who starts an epic fantasy with the 12th book to bitch about shit they donno.

A new trend? Bashing WoT has been pretty steady around these parts and elsewhere on the internet from around the dual release of The Path of Daggers and the World guide -- 1998. There was significantly less vitoral before that, but RJ had been criticized for the usual stuff years before that.

Personally, I still like books 1-5, despite how the flaws of the later books tend to magnify the flaws of the early volumes. Even in 1992 EotW felt somewhat derivative, but there was enough scope and potential to make it stand out from the usual bookseller dross those days. These days, with Martin et al.? Not so much. But the influence of WoT, both as a piece of literature and its success, cannot be denied.

[Grogsmash]

Is this the new trend around here? bashing WOTsomething to look kewl?

Fyp. This isn't a fan site, more of an anti-fan site. Don't let other people's hate take away your pleasure in the series. However, amongst all the gratuitous bashing you do get some very good argumentsdiscussions.

[Sheep the Evicted]

I read EoTW when i was like 12 and even then i could tell it pretty heavily ripped off LoTR, however i could tell there was potential there; the opening, the back story, the novelty of the men not being able to use magic all pointed to greater depth. Books 3-6 where well deserving of their megasales status IMO but after that they just got worse and worse up until Sanderson took over.

[Prince Who Was Promised]

I'm doing a reread of the Wheel of Time series, and read Eye of the World not too long ago. While I agree the first book was very Tolkien-ish, I think the author had a reason for doing it. While that doesn't excuse it's lack of originality, I think the later books make up for it. Jordan seemed to use Tolkien's work as a way of introducing the reader a semi-familiar world before branching off into a more original story.

Using the "band of heroes", "backward country bumpkin who turns out the be the Chosen One", "beatiful princess sorceress", the "previously sealed away Dark Lord" and other cliches, Jordan branches out and adds some original elements to the story.

He takes the Chosen One and tortures him inside and out, bringing him to the brink. He makes the reason for (some of the) Forsaken (such as Ishamael) for joining the Shadow legitimate reasons, and humanizes them rather than having them be the traditional looming force that's always talked about but never seen. He gives his characters flaws (which are often pointed out by readers), and makes a unique world inhabited by a dualistic presence of Light and Darkness that seem to be locked in a literal eternal war.

So, while the first book of the serious is quite cliche, Jordan takes his readers on an interesting ride after he's established the setting and characters. Themes of internal struggle, reincarnation, and never-ending and seemingly unwinnable fight (which has a strong bearing on both Ishamael's and Rand's thinking), an unprepared world, predjudices, use of magic, and so on, make the series very interesting (to me at least). So I think you should go further on in the series before making a judgement on whether you like it or not. Though, I'll admit the series can be a bit tedious in later books, but it picks up.

[Edward the Great]

He makes the reason for (some of the) Forsaken (such as Ishamael) for joining the Shadow legitimate reasons,

Ishmael is interesting. He'd fit right in as a member of Dethklok. The prologue was great. A story that starts with evil having the last laugh. But I'm not convinced Jordan can string the ideas together to form an interesting narrative. It just seams that it would have worked better if the story were a lot shorter.

[add-on]

Ishmael is interesting. He'd fit right in as a member of Dethklok. The prologue was great. A story that starts with evil having the last laugh. But I'm not convinced Jordan can string the ideas together to form an interesting narrative. It just seams that it would have worked better if the story were a lot shorter.

Well, that is the common complaint wrt the entire series.

To answer the original question, no, you're not really missing anything special. Books 2-5 and parts of 1 and 6 are still truly wonderful for me, but after 7-11, I'm only still reading the series because I've invested so much time in it. My advice to you would be to turn around now.

[Liadin]

I quite liked EOTW when I first read it, although I liked books 2-4 more. Sure, it's derivative, but there were enough differences to keep me entertained and at any rate I really liked the sense of danger and excitement. Of course, since I originally liked the book for those reasons, I found it deadly boring when I tried to re-read.

For a huge fantasy series, it makes a lot of sense structurally to have a lot of set-up, so I'd encourage people who've decided to try it in spite of the series' reputation to at least get a couple hundred pages in. Or maybe to the second book, if the only thing bothering you is that it's derivative. But if you really don't like it, don't worry, you just saved yourself a lot of time and frustration.

[wolverine]

I love it all. I do not read near as much or as fast as the average poster on this site, but when a new WoT book comes out, even the later slower ones, I tear into them and finish them very quickly.

I also read WoT before I ever read LotR so I may have a different perspective than many on the first book. The first book was slow for about 50 pages and then I mowed through it enjoying it immensely. Keep in mind I had read very little fantasy at this point. After going back and reading LotR I appreciated what Jordan did with the story. I would call it more of an homage to Tolkien than a rip off like some other authors.

Now when I pick up a WoT book it still is very enjoyable. I have been learning about the same people for years, some I like some I would like a Trolloc to tear their throat out, but it is still a wonderful adventure to me. I have no idea whether I would feel the same way if I had read ASOIF, Abercrombie, Kearney, and others first.

[Ahimsa]

Rand and company as wide-eyed country kids stepping into the world had me buying into the story in a manner that pretty much completely stopped when they all became Lords and Leaders.

Wow. That's one of the most well-expressed sentiments I've read about this series. Once I can't identify with the characters, no matter the series, no amount of epic battles or political intrigue is going to keep me interested.

[Old Nan]

That's a large part of the reason I dislike the early books' plots and characterizations. I simply can't bring myself to care about farmboys and village girls.

[Liadin]

That's a large part of the reason I dislike the early books' plots and characterizations. I simply can't bring myself to care about farmboys and village girls.

Huh? Sure, it's a cliche, but much of fantasy is a cliche. Their station in life shouldn't affect whether or not you care about the characters.

[Old Nan]

I don't care that it's a cliche.

Their station in life shouldn't affect whether or not you care about the characters.

Why on earth not?!

[Gertrude]

Why on earth would it? If they are good characters, they are good no matter what they are.

[Lightning Lord]

EotW was the first fantasy book I read outside of Tolkein. Even as a kid I could see the similarities between the two series. But, it drew me in. Only seven books had been released to that point, so I blew through them. I didn't know what faced me in the years to come. But my complaints have been read here already.

Perrin back then was a cool character. The slow-moving but intelligent, duty bound sidekick. Mat showed promise when he was channeling his inner Old Tongue. Moiraine...well even then she seemed like she was alternately over-powerful and vulnerable. Egwene was kind of an irritating know-it-all already, but I knew she had a good heart. Nynaeve showing some emotion other than anger or pride made her likeable. Lan was uber-badass. I liked reading about these people.

Btw, because it was my introduction to fantasy, I skipped the prologue on my first read, almost fifteen years ago. It wasn't until about three years ago that I read the prologue. That changed my perception of the entire beginning.

[Old Nan]

Why on earth would it? If they are good characters, they are good no matter what they are.

Because a crucial part of whether or not they're a good character is what they are, and a large part of what they are is their station in life. I am not an egalitarian; lovingly-crafted, believable characters with whom I can identify are semi-necessary but by no means sufficient. The majority of people are, like me, worthless garbage of little interest to anyone, and it follows that the majority of realistic fictional characters are as well.

That is, after all, why I enjoy epic fantasy.

[L’Age d’or]

Because a crucial part of whether or not they're a good character is what they are, and a large part of what they are is their station in life. I am not an egalitarian; lovingly-crafted, believable characters with whom I can identify are semi-necessary but by no means sufficient. The majority of people are, like me, worthless garbage of little interest to anyone, and it follows that the majority of realistic fictional characters are as well.

That is, after all, why I enjoy epic fantasy.

You are trying to say you dont give a shit about the characters in an epic fantasy unless they are princes/princesses?

[Gertrude]

You prefer your flavor of escapism as powerful princes and glittering princesses, cool. I don't get it, but we'll just have to disagree on that one. I'll take a well drawn and motivated character over the trappings of glamour any day.

[Old Nan]

No. I said "a large part" of what makes a character interesting is their socioeconomic status, not all of it. In WOT, for instance, my favorite characters were Nynaeve and Mat before they became Aes Sedai Queen of Malkier and Prince-consort of Seanchan, because they're entertaining; contrariwise, Gawyn Trakand is probably my least favorite because he is not. Nor does being the Dragon, chosen champion of the Light, chief-of-chiefs of the Aiel, King of Illian, feudal overlord of Cairhien, Tear, Mayene, and Andor, etc., etc. make Rand al'Thor more than dull.

But on balance... yes, an aristocrat stands a better chance of being an interesting character than a peasant. Even more-liberal-than-thou GRRM tells his story through lords and ladies rather than farmers and bankers and gutter trash and people who get up at 5 in the morning and come home at 6 at night and do nary an interesting thing in their lives.

[Cantabile]

I agree, though it certainly depends upon the world in question. In many fantasy and sci-fi novels characters in low socioeconomic positions are still brilliantly designed and fascinating. However, in societies in which a due to poverty a character's entire life is spent in drone work from dusk till dawn, at which point they come home and feed their families, make love to their wife, then go back to sleep to repeat the process over again until death, there's very little room for characterization. Humans with more education, wealth, and a higher social class simply have more opportunities than the worker drone can imagine.