Okay, so I know there are already a million threads about Wheel of Time...

[Galactus]

So, CoT isn't as bad as people say it is? Is just another another trendy thing to say "Oh, COT is the worst book ever written!"

Don't get me wrong. It's a bad book. It's long tedious, nothing happens an it's repetitive.

But it doesen't committ any wanton cruelty against sanity, morals or common sense. It's just boring, it's prose isn't even awful, just kind of bland.

Put it like this: COT is still better than the best of Goodkind.

[Galactus]

I generally agree with you, except I'd put Tolkien on the top and Bakker on a par or slightly behind Jordan, rest as stated.

Thus I struggle to see Bakker as average...

Jordan's world building is v strong, I give him that - in fact its the part of his books I most enjoy. However, I also feel that the amount of time he spends "world building" should make it better than he actually is - Bakker conveys as much with less word count.

I think my problem with Tolkien is that my historian's training kind of gives me an aversion to the kind of world-building Tolkie does. It's all "Yes, but how does it REALLY work? What's the social stucture of the Noldor? How does Gondolin survive cut-off from everyone else like that?" Tolkien's world is very surface-pretty, but, to use marxist terminology, it's all superstructure, where's the base?

Which wasn't really what Tolkien WANTED to do, but that is still a real flaw. His world-building comes across more as creating a genuine mythology or historiographical tradition rather than a world itself, if that makes sense?

[Condesln]

Don't get me wrong. It's a bad book. It's long tedious, nothing happens an it's repetitive.

But it doesen't committ any wanton cruelty against sanity, morals or common sense. It's just boring, it's prose isn't even awful, just kind of bland.

Put it like this: COT is still better than the best of Goodkind.

Well, how does it compare to AFFC? A lot of people say that they are on equal footing. I liked AFFC, but it wasn't as bad as people said.

[Apathete]

Well, how does it compare to AFFC? A lot of people say that they are on equal footing. I liked AFFC, but it wasn't as bad as people said.

Less action, but similar in that their awfulness is overstated by people who had their hopes up before reading the book.

[Vestrit]

Well, how does it compare to AFFC? A lot of people say that they are on equal footing. I liked AFFC, but it wasn't as bad as people said.

The difference can be summed up like this:

- Up-thread someone stated that they skipped CoT (and even the next book) and managed to pick up the story again in book 12 fine. I quit the series after CoT so I can’t confirm whether this is possible, but I see no reason to doubt the claim.

- AFfC had its weaknesses (although I don’t think it is as bad as people say). But do you think you could skip it and go to the next GRRM book (or the latter chapters of ADwD) and pick up the story easily and without missing anything important?

WoT fans say that very important things happened or were set up in CoT. Like I say, I quit the series after reading it, so I don’t know whether that is true or not.

But when the only half-way interesting moment in the entire 800-odd pages is the aforementioned two and a half page description of Elayne having a bath, you know it's not good. And even that was pretty crap; somehow RJ made a lengthy description of a gorgeous, fit, powerful young woman undressing and having a bath into something quite turgid and dull.

Less action, but similar in that their awfulness is overstated by people who had their hopes up before reading the book.

Hmm, interesting and possibly fair point.

But I’m not sure that many people had particularly high hopes of CoT. The decline in the WoT series had set in before then; I think it was more that people were shocked at just how bad CoT was. And, as others have said, people had waited a few years for it on the back of a couple of reasonably mediocre predecessors, and knew they had to wait another few years for the next one.

[Alytha]

Just out of curiosity, does anybody know how much time has passed in-world since the first book? It can't be more than a year or so, can it?

Reading those last couple of books, it struck me that people said: oh yeah, 3 weeks ago we

Spoiler

cleansed Saidar

, and that was 3 books ago, and about 10 years in the real world, and you've just been reading 2000 pages about washing silk, people taking baths, novices getting spanked, and Rand going slowly nuts...

I quite liked the first two books of the ending trilogy (Gathering Storm was the first time I actually liked Nynaeve because she got some dignity instead of being a shrieking random harpy), and I'm definetely going to stick with it to the bitter end now, but there was still a lot of bloat in it, especially Towers of Midnight. I think the ending could have been achieved in two book max, or one dictionary-sized one.

[Kosciuszko]

Actually, nearly three years have passed since WoT's opening chapter. It starts in 998 NE and is currently in 1000 NE. An exact day count is somewhere around 800 days have passed.

ETA: This isn't including ToM. I'm assuming it's due to how crazy the timeline in that book is. Getting this from the WoT Chronology.

[nickg]

Eh, depends. Both are what I consider very uneve stylists, Jordan plods around a whole lot saying nothing, Bakker repeats himself to ridicilous extents. Both have phrases they tend to repeat almost verbatim.

Both OTOH can bring out some pretty damn beautiful prose occasionally. (especially in battle-scenes) but it's overshadowed by their greater faults. Martin has his own faults when it comes to writing, but purely on the basis of prose I think he whips B&J handily.

And I think you can argue pretty convincingly that Bakker is actually rather heavily inspired by Jordan in some of his concepts. (If you squint kind of hard Kellhus is Rand from a different perspective)

Maybe its just me then, I just don't have a very high opinion of Jordan's writing ( although i do think there is a great story buried under it ). It just seems so..... juvenile i guess. The way he writes and the way his characters seem to interact like bickering 13 year olds. Alot of his descriptions can be pretty meh, and everything else seems to be handled awkwardly for the most part. He has a great world and story, just not the skill as a writer to pull it off.

Again that's my opinion, i know there are literally millions that disagree.

I will say that Bakker does have faults, but prose wise, he is head and shoulders above Jordan.

[AUyushu]

Maybe its just me then, I just don't have a very high opinion of Jordan's writing ( although i do think there is a great story buried under it ). It just seems so..... juvenile i guess. The way he writes and the way his characters seem to interact like bickering 13 year olds. Alot of his descriptions can be pretty meh, and everything else seems to be handled awkwardly for the most part. He has a great world and story, just not the skill as a writer to pull it off.

Again that's my opinion, i know there are literally millions that disagree.

I will say that Bakker does have faults, but prose wise, he is head and shoulders above Jordan.

I think pretty much everything you write there is true. I think the millions of people just read for the world and action (myself included), not the prose itself. I do think his descriptions are pretty decent for the most part, but most of the characters are too much like bickering 13 year olds. I think the writing itself is tremendously better in the last two books written by Sanderson, which kinda points to Jordan's weaknesses as an author in a big way.

Bakker is one of the tops in fantasy when it comes to prose IMO, though he is prone to the type of repetitive philosophy masturbation to page that drug the Dune series down towards the middle of the series. Otherwise his prose is simply top notch.

[Shryke]

Don't get me wrong. It's a bad book. It's long tedious, nothing happens an it's repetitive.

But it doesen't committ any wanton cruelty against sanity, morals or common sense. It's just boring, it's prose isn't even awful, just kind of bland.

Put it like this: COT is still better than the best of Goodkind.

Yeah, COT is basically a really long prologue from any of the other WOT books. It's not terrible in the sense of being actively bad, it's just bloated and thus boring.

It's 100 pages of material stretched into a whole book.

The reason it gets such a backlash against it was the anticipation, especially in light of what happened at the end of Book 9. When reading it after the fact, when you didn't wait 2 years for the book and don't have to wait another 2 for the next, it's just sorta like a long, slow intro to Book 11.

[fionwe1987]

I think pretty much everything you write there is true. I think the millions of people just read for the world and action (myself included), not the prose itself. I do think his descriptions are pretty decent for the most part, but most of the characters are too much like bickering 13 year olds. I think the writing itself is tremendously better in the last two books written by Sanderson, which kinda points to Jordan's weaknesses as an author in a big way.

Bakker is one of the tops in fantasy when it comes to prose IMO, though he is prone to the type of repetitive philosophy masturbation to page that drug the Dune series down towards the middle of the series. Otherwise his prose is simply top notch.

Wait... you think Sanderson's prose is better than Jordan's? From the little I've read of Bakker, I'd agree he has better prose, but Sanderson doesn't come close. Clunky dialoge, trains of thought that end abruptly, clunky description...

Don't get me wrong, I admire how well he has taken over a series as complex as WoT and done such a good job with it, but goo at prose he is not. He is improving, though.

[fionwe1987]

I have to take issue with this though. The politics in WoT are weak to non-existent. The most political characters usually win their arguments and struggles because the plot requires them to rather than out of any attempt at realism. Some political elements in the books are more nuanced, but overall WoT is far behind ASoIaF in any attempt at depicting realistic politics in a medieval (even a magic-tinged medieval) world.

Sorry, I have to disagree. The issue with aSoIaF for me is that politics relies too much on master manipulators, surrounded by idiots who are used for their purposes. There really isn't a true sense of chaos and unintended consequences.

That's where WoT excels. You have many mid level players, and the clash of their various machinations creates a believably complex political situation (not everywhere, mind). In storylines like the White Tower's, this leads to a more sophisticated political situation, more so than anything in aSoIaF except possibly what's happening at the Citadel.

The issue with WoT politics is that a lot of these mid level players are cardboard cutouts. We have a basic idea of their motivation, usually, and their plots make sense in that context, but they don't come across as real people, so you're left with a realistic political situation in the hands of mostly two-dimensional characters, with only the chief actors in the plot being more nuanced and developed.

aSoIaF excels at making the small players well drawn out, but most of them are just reacting to situations that the direct result of the plots of the big players, which makes the political situation less interesting, and too dependent on cliffhangers to maintain tension.

It's better than Malazan, sure, but Malazan focuses so little on political intrigue and what little is there happens mostly off-page, it's not really an issue.

I wouldn't say that. There's a lot of political intrigue in Malazan. It just isn't usually between different rulers, or different countries. Its between gods and humans, and fails by carrying the "master manipulator" cliche even further than aSoIaF.

[AUyushu]

Wait... you think Sanderson's prose is better than Jordan's? From the little I've read of Bakker, I'd agree he has better prose, but Sanderson doesn't come close. Clunky dialoge, trains of thought that end abruptly, clunky description...

Don't get me wrong, I admire how well he has taken over a series as complex as WoT and done such a good job with it, but goo at prose he is not. He is improving, though.

I consider the writing in Sanderson's to be much better than Jordan's from like book 7 on, but as to actual prose I dunno, it'd be a tossup. Jordan is pretty bad from a prose standpoint as well. It's funny you mention descriptions, as Jordan's overly long and pointless descriptions of the same thing over and over are a big weakness of his as a writer to me. I do agree that Jordan is much better at dialogue, Sanderson is pretty weak at that from what I've read from him in the Mistborn trilogy and the two WOT books.

[Grack21]

Sorry, I have to disagree. The issue with aSoIaF for me is that politics relies too much on master manipulators, surrounded by idiots who are used for their purposes. There really isn't a true sense of chaos and unintended consequences.

Wait what?

You don't think the politics in ASOIAF have unintended consequences? :stunned:

[fionwe1987]

Wait what?

You don't think the politics in ASOIAF have unintended consequences? :stunned:

Mostly? No. The problem is with characters like Littlefinger. While they may be great for the readers to squee over, they're a little too much in control for it to be realistic.

[fionwe1987]

I consider the writing in Sanderson's to be much better than Jordan's from like book 7 on, but as to actual prose I dunno, it'd be a tossup. Jordan is pretty bad from a prose standpoint as well. It's funny you mention descriptions, as Jordan's overly long and pointless descriptions of the same thing over and over are a big weakness of his as a writer to me. I do agree that Jordan is much better at dialogue, Sanderson is pretty weak at that from what I've read from him in the Mistborn trilogy and the two WOT books.

Sanderson wrote books that were more pacey (though how much of that is because the series was wrapping up anyway is up in the air, for now), but his writing is in no way better, especially in ToM.

As for Jordan's descriptions, they were extensive, and many times pointless, but they weren't badly written. I'm not saying they were gems of literature, mind.

Jordan's prose is actually quite crisp in the climaxes. More than anything else, I'd say his prose was functional. It was rarely beautiful, but it rarely took you entirely out of the story either. Sanderson isn't quite there yet.

[AUyushu]

Jordan's prose is actually quite crisp in the climaxes. More than anything else, I'd say his prose was functional. It was rarely beautiful, but it rarely took you entirely out of the story either. Sanderson isn't quite there yet.

Functional would be a good word to describe Jordan I'd say, yes, and I'd also agree he wrote very good climaxes(hell, the ending of Winter's Heart was the only worthwhile thing in books 9 and 10 combined). I'd put Sanderson in the same boat though his dialogue and characterizations are weaker. You can't say Sanderson was crisper than Jordan became of where the books were at when the series was basically treading water in books 8-11 for the most part, any lack of pace in books 8-11 was entirely due to Jordan's writing style, or lack their of.

[nickg]

Sanderson wrote books that were more pacey (though how much of that is because the series was wrapping up anyway is up in the air, for now), but his writing is in no way better, especially in ToM.

As for Jordan's descriptions, they were extensive, and many times pointless, but they weren't badly written. I'm not saying they were gems of literature, mind.

Jordan's prose is actually quite crisp in the climaxes. More than anything else, I'd say his prose was functional. It was rarely beautiful, but it rarely took you entirely out of the story either. Sanderson isn't quite there yet.

Jordan's prose is the main reason why I haven't made it through The Dragon Reborn, and I have been told/shown examples of it not getting any better. Alot of times the dialogue makes me want to drop it. So I disagree

Now, with that being said, I brought The Dragon Reborn to work today and am making progress. Simply going to ignore what I dont like and immerse myself in the world/story.

[Zach H]

Jordan's prose is the main reason why I haven't made it through The Dragon Reborn, and I have been told/shown examples of it not getting any better.

I made it up to Crossroads, and it was definitely in spite of the prose, which gets worse as the series goes on, imo. A few years ago I went back to Eye of the World after reading books 8-10 and remember thinking that the first book seems like the work of different writer. Still not great line by line prose maybe, but a lot more readable than the rest of the series.

[Galactus]

Well, how does it compare to AFFC? A lot of people say that they are on equal footing. I liked AFFC, but it wasn't as bad as people said.

It has the same problems but to a greater extent, and since WOT in general isn't really as good it's also more noticeable.