Should I read Robert Jordan's books?

[WrathOfTinyKittens]

How many times do people have to point out that TEOTW was an homage to Tolkien setting up the very non-Tolkien later books?

Again, people who haven't read the whole thing come in and bash the series.

[peterbound]

How many times do people have to point out that TEOTW was an homage to Tolkien setting up the very non-Tolkien later books?

Again, people who haven't read the whole thing come in and bash the series.

I have read the whole thing, and i'm bashing the series. Surely that counts for something.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

It already existed in the 19th century. (Little Women is famous for the author being so fed up with the ship letter that she wrote a sequel to shut up the fangirls)

Poor phrasing on my part. I know that people have been discussing fictional romances for a very long time. I was referring to the specific use of "shipping" as a term. Never heard that until WoT.

For 1 person to have built Randland and have it being a living breathing and huge world that it is pretty much the pinnacle of world building.

Just to make sure the opposing viewpoint is out there, I do not think RJ's world-building was anything close to the pinnacle. I think the scope of what he wrote was large, but it was about six inches deep. It did not feel "lived in" to me, though I will say that the initial chapters of the first book led me to believe that it might be the case, because I thought the Two Rivers initially showed the promise of being fully fleshed out.

I've described it previously as if he had a list of possible characteristics in terms of geography, clothing, etc., and then just did a "pick one from list A, and one from list B" type of deal, then slapped-on fantasy-sounding names. The most interesting ideas in his world, with the most depth, were the Aes Sedai and the Aiel, yet they weren't anything more than essentially a wholesale robbing of the Bene Gesserit (two-word name, even) and Fremen, respectively.

Randland was built from scratch and to date the world building in WoT keeps people glued to at least the first five books alone.

I think this is very much dependent on the individual, and how much fantasy/SF they read before coming to Jordan.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

I have read the whole thing, and i'm bashing the series. Surely that counts for something.

Speak the Truth!

And I don't get the argument that you're not entitled to criticize if you didn't finish the series anyway. If you didn't like the first 3-4 books, then that is a valid commentary on the series as a whole because you shouldn't have to suffer for multiple books that you don't enjoy to get to the ones you do. And in this case, that's especially true because even most Jordan fans will admit that the series was best in the earlier books, with the exception of the last few chapters of Book 6.

I don't think I've ever heard anyone argue "just get through the first four or so books, because then it picks up and gets really good."

[baxus]

How many times do people have to point out that TEOTW was an homage to Tolkien setting up the very non-Tolkien later books?

Again, people who haven't read the whole thing come in and bash the series.

yeah, it was such an homage i was waiting for gandalf to show up.

and guess what? i haven't read the whole thing because after 3 or 4 books they've left their village, rand learned a bit about swordplay, girls learned a magic trick or two, perin's (that's his name, right?) eyes started turning yellow and mat beat some guys with a stick.

there! i just saved people thinking whether or not to read the wheel of time a lot of time since now they can start reading from the book after "the dragon reborn" and not miss a thing

[Shryke]

yeah, it was such an homage i was waiting for gandalf to show up.

and guess what? i haven't read the whole thing because after 3 or 4 books they've left their village, rand learned a bit about swordplay, girls learned a magic trick or two, perin's (that's his name, right?) eyes started turning yellow and mat beat some guys with a stick.

there! i just saved people thinking whether or not to read the wheel of time a lot of time since now they can start reading from the book after "the dragon reborn" and not miss a thing

"Gandalf" is there right from the start.....

[Shryke]

Just to make sure the opposing viewpoint is out there, I do not think RJ's world-building was anything close to the pinnacle. I think the scope of what he wrote was large, but it was about six inches deep. It did not feel "lived in" to me, though I will say that the initial chapters of the first book led me to believe that it might be the case, because I thought the Two Rivers initially showed the promise of being fully fleshed out.

I've described it previously as if he had a list of possible characteristics in terms of geography, clothing, etc., and then just did a "pick one from list A, and one from list B" type of deal, then slapped-on fantasy-sounding names. The most interesting ideas in his world, with the most depth, were the Aes Sedai and the Aiel, yet they weren't anything more than essentially a wholesale robbing of the Bene Gesserit (two-word name, even) and Fremen, respectively.

Not really. There's obvious inspiration going on, but the Aiel/Aes Sedai are only superficially similar to those two organizations from Dune.

The rest of the world-building is well done too.

[Errant Bard]

I don't think I've ever heard anyone argue "just get through the first four or so books, because then it picks up and gets really good."

I have. In a recent thread on this very board, someone asked if it got better after five books, there replies in that vein.

Not really. There's obvious inspiration going on, but the Aiel/Aes Sedai are only superficially similar to those two organizations from Dune.

Same way the sisters of light from Sword of Truth are only superficially similar to the Aes Sedai, yet there were complaint about Goodkind "cribbing" Jordan in this very thread.

The rest of the world-building is well done too.

The world building always felt mediocre, flat, in WoT, but it's true that the real crippling flaws of the series are plot, characterisation and pacing rather than worldbuilding.

[Shryke]

Same way the sisters of light from Sword of Truth are only superficially similar to the Aes Sedai, yet there were complaint about Goodkind "cribbing" Jordan in this very thread.

I don't remember enough about SoT to care. Doesn't affect my point at all.

[Errant Bard]

I don't remember enough about SoT to care. Doesn't affect my point at all.

It just adds a little perspective to it, and to the argument that Jordan was "cribbed".

[fionwe1987]

Same way the sisters of light from Sword of Truth are only superficially similar to the Aes Sedai, yet there were complaint about Goodkind "cribbing" Jordan in this very thread.

Not really. The extent of similarity between the Aes Sedai and the organization (Sisters of Truth?) in SoT is much greater. SoT has Black Sisters secretly sworn to an unnamable evil overlord, who occupy a similar position in society as Aes Sedai do in WoT. Similar to WoT the organization represses male practitioners of magic. They are opposed by an order that thinks using magic is evil. I can keep going on...

[Suttree]

It just adds a little perspective to it, and to the argument that Jordan was "cribbed".

It comes down to the number and nature of similarities between The Sword of Truth and the Wheel of Time. Their placement and use within the plot are just too similar to result from the idea that both men drew from the same mythologies. It is far more than superficial.

I've always found these quotes rather telling as well.

Goodkind' said

From USA Today 4 August 2003

:

Haddonfield, NJ:

Second Question - I've noticed similarities between your Sword of Truth series and Robert Jordan's Wheel of Time series...(Black Sisterhood vs. Black Ajah; The Order vs. The Seanchan; Richard vs. Rand both discovering their powers, both have Nameless evil Gods...etc.) I've often voiced my suspicion that these two series might be occurring on the same world...how crazy am I?

Terry Goodkind:

If you notice a similarity, then you probably aren't old enough to read my books.

'Robert Jordan' said

From USA Today 5 January 2004

:

Delmar, NY:

Have you ever read or heard about the Sword of Truth series by Terry Goodkind? After reading the series it is obvious many of the main ideas are copied from the WoT.

Robert Jordan:

I'm aware of Mr. Goodkind.

'Robert Jordan' said

Robert Jordan's blog 15 July 2006 - NO CHAMPAGNE YET

For Richard Scholten, I have never discussed anything whatsoever with Terry Goodkind. I suggest that you check the publication dates of his books and mine. Of course, he says he has never read me, or so I'm told, and I would never contradict a statement like that. Just check out the pub dates on his books, and the pub dates on mine, those that contain the similarities you speak of.

[Darth Richard]

OK, I'm not a huge WoT nut, but I have to say the world building in WoT is pretty good. Top tier? Maybe not. But better than a lot that's out there. Now, saying that Randland was built from scratch....you need to take a Mythology course at a decent school. Or maybe read some actual interviews with Jordon. Or..something. Maybe through in a History class.

[baxus]

"Gandalf" is there right from the start.....

i meant actual gandalf, pointy hat, staff, beard... the lot.

[Shryke]

i meant actual gandalf, pointy hat, staff, beard... the lot.

Why would you expect Gandalf to show up in an homage when the role is already filled?

[wolverine]

I have read a lot of SFF at this point, not as much as many on here, and WoT is some of the best IMO.

EDIT: I meant to say some of the best world building, not best overall. I still liked it, but there is a lot I would rank ahead of it.

[baxus]

I have read a lot of SFF at this point, not as much as many on here, and WoT is some of the best IMO.

and i have no problem with people liking WoT - it's a matter of taste and personal preference which are not categories that can be objectively measured.

i have a problem with people saying that you have no right to bash a 10+ books long series if you got absolutely bored with it after book 3 and had no wish to continue reading it.

that is, IMO, a very good indicator of the series' quality. worldbuilding - shmorldbuilding... it was plain boring to me as things were moving very slowly and the series spent more time on girls/women straightening their skirts than on plot actually advancing.

i'm perfectly willing to admit to a possibility of the series improving later on, but i've given jordan 3 books to hook me (which is 2,5 or 2,75 books more than a great series should need) and he failed miserably.

[kingofashes]

I can understand people not loving the series but I do have a problem with people saying it's worthless and shouldn't be read. The gods know the problems in the series are well documented but I feel theres enough to entertain most people.

I generally like most fantasy writers(I've not read all; nor all the main ones. But I'm getting there), hell I love most of them, but even the ones I felt were weaker I still found some bits to enjoy even if overall I didn't really like the books.

What I'm trying to say is that I feel people are unjustly harsh in their criticism. Just my opinion though but I don't like the idea of giving something a 1 or 2 star, or worse, just because it didn't blow them away.

As for above post, well if you still didn't enjoy yourself after 3 books, then of course you're right in stopping. I don't think anyone would claim you didn't give it a fair chance or that your opinion is meaningless. Still, I would say your opinion on the whole series is worth less than someone who has read the whole thing, if only because they have more to have opinions about.

[WrathOfTinyKittens]

Holy shit fellas.

I'm not saying you can't criticize the books if you've not read them all. Maybe it was poorly worded on my part. I meant that you shouldn't bash them as Tolkien ripoffs when you've only read the beginning of the series. I also think it's pretty stupid to criticize it as a whole when you've not read it all, but there's been enough talk that I suppose one may have formed an opinion.

And EB - Again, holy shit fella. I said cribbed. Shryke didn't. We are separate people who may have different opinions. So don't use my wording to attack his viewpoints. FWIW, I haven't read in Dune beyond the original novel, but I still think there are huge similarities between the Fremen and the Aiel (can't remember as much about the Bene Gesserit).

[Errant Bard]

I can understand people not loving the series but I do have a problem with people saying it's worthless and shouldn't be read.

I feel that the implicit argument is usually "should your time be spend on reading it rather than on other, better series", and really what you're doing when telling someone to read WoT is also to not read these better* series (after all not everyone has time to read every book out there like you.)

*Yes, I know that some people think WoT is the best time investment possible for someone having only read three Fantasy novels before.

As for the "one or two stars" thing, you are arguing tastes there, getting close to telling people what they should think.

And EB - Again, holy shit fella. I said cribbed. Shryke didn't. We are separate people who may have different opinions. So don't use my wording to attack his viewpoints.

Huh, "fella", he was answering someone who answered something you wrote, on a point about cribbing Tolkien, it was entirely warranted.