Should I read Robert Jordan's books?

[kingofashes]

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.)

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

I never said I've read every book. In fact I'm sure I said I hadn't.

It's been pretty worthless anyway. 10 ppl say read it, 10 people say don't. At what point do you find out for yourself? hell it doesn't take that long to read the first book. Most people have enough time time to do something they love and if they don't love reading then they probably aren't going to love WOT.

Plus reading a bad book every so often is probably good for you as you can better appreciate the good stuff ;-)

I'm not telling people what to think either. I am saying that I think they are being harsh. Am I not allowed to think this? are you not getting close to telling me what to think?

I don't even like the 5 star rating system either.

[DemonKing]

I picked up the first book dirt cheap, didn't like it at all, and the author died shortly afterwards which made me glad I had no investment in the series what so ever.

If you really feel like picking up a massive series where the author didn't even live long enough to finish it leaving it to be completed in three bloated volumes by another, than by all means go for it. Otherwise, IMHO, there are much better authors out there to choose from most of whom managed to limit themselves enough to complete their series in trilogies or even single volumes.

[Darth Richard]

Wow.

Fuck you, buddy.

[wolverine]

I picked up the first book dirt cheap, didn't like it at all, and the author died shortly afterwards which made me glad I had no investment in the series what so ever.

If you really feel like picking up a massive series where the author didn't even live long enough to finish it leaving it to be completed in three bloated volumes by another, than by all means go for it. Otherwise, IMHO, there are much better authors out there to choose from most of whom managed to limit themselves enough to complete their series in trilogies or even single volumes.

Right, if you take more than three books your stuff is not worth reading.

If you really like listening to the opinion from someone who is glad the author died, apparently read one book but still comments on how bloated books they did not read are, then go for it.

[peterbound]

I picked up the first book dirt cheap, didn't like it at all, and the author died shortly afterwards which made me glad I had no investment in the series what so ever.

If you really feel like picking up a massive series where the author didn't even live long enough to finish it leaving it to be completed in three bloated volumes by another, than by all means go for it. Otherwise, IMHO, there are much better authors out there to choose from most of whom managed to limit themselves enough to complete their series in trilogies or even single volumes.

Ya, you're not going to last.

[baxus]

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.

well, i said that the eye of the world, not the entire series, was a tolkien ripoff, and it is.

but if you like, you can still try to get people to believe that "homage" story ;)

[WrathOfTinyKittens]

Well that kind of gets into a sticky area, doesn't it? Exactly what is the functional difference, if any, between ripping somebody off and creating an homage to their work?

For me the difference is in intent and differentiation. And here's the sticking issue between fans of a series and detractors - I am willing to give Jordan the benefit of believing his intentions were to craft an homage as a launching point for an original story. Others may not be so generous.

The second point is a little less subjective. When you compare (in this case) Tolkien and Jordan, how many common elements are there, really? Some, certainly. The Two Rivers is extremely reminiscent of the Shire. There is a quest. There are Orc and Ringwraith analogues. There's a Dark Lord. But once you get past these obvious similarities - what is there? I personally don't feel like the plot or characters are particularly close to Tolkien at all, though I'm sure someone will be more than happy to correct me. I really don't see the accusation of a ripoff at all TBH.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

I personally don't feel like the plot or characters are particularly close to Tolkien at all, though I'm sure someone will be more than happy to correct me.

I agree. The commonalities are largely at the Joseph Campbell level. One thing that didn't give me a LOTR feel right from the start was the far more militaristic background of the Two Rivers, and how some of the residents themselves were real people of power. Then there were the whole romance strands, "mooning", etc.., which was a completely different feel from LOTR. The Two Rivers may have been confused for the Shire until the Manetheren speech, and after that, the similarities never really struck me. Dark Lord type figures are so common in fantasy literature that I don't think that's a LOTR-specific element.

On the other hand, I remember reading the Sword of Shannara 30+ years ago, and being gobsmacked by how blatant a ripoff of LOTR it was.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

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).

The Bene Gesserit/Aes Sedai and Fremen/Aiel comparisons both leapt out to me, and I hadn't read Dune in at least 15 or so years at the time. The only reason I personally mentioned those two comparisons was in response to the supposed great world-building of Jordan. Those were the only two part of the WoT world that actually felt to me like they had some depth, and both of them were at least heavily "inspired" by Dune.

[Darth Richard]

Ya, you're not going to last.

Ha. When PB thinks you're being rude. Wow.

[kingofashes]

Still, a people that come from an extreme barren desert are going to be a bit alike. The whole "waste water", "they give water to the dead" when someone cries is a pretty obvious thing to be writting about in a desert society. I would even bet that Dune was not the first novel to feature the idea. Has anyone heard of it before?

It's got to be said that RJ did put an extra twist in the Aiel that is different from the freemen? There were also laws, ways of cleaning, ways of warring, the type of people who are held in highest regard are different, they have unique sayings and they have an insane sense of humour and honour code. To say that the Aiel are exactly like the freemen is just wrong... def influence, but isn't that the difference between a rip off and an influence? that you add to it and make it your own and not just copy it?

Although, it's been a while since I read Dune and I remember how the freemen change in the future but their past is nothing like that of the Aiel, or is it?

[Captain Sheepf*cker]

Wow.

Fuck you, buddy.

^This

Ha. When PB thinks you're being rude. Wow.

I don't think rude is applicable. There's rude (see also asshole, douchebag...etc), trolling (see also gobble'n), and then there's being just stupid, not sure how to communicate with other humans, unable to befriend even a dog.....etc. I'm thinking this case falls in the latter (latest, last?). "Stupid fucker done died before he done finished" = that review.

[WrathOfTinyKittens]

king and FLOW - I agree with you... for whatever reason Jordan spent far more time developing the Aiel as a people and a culture than anyone else except perhaps the Seanchan and Aes Sedai. Most of the rest are pretty much nations of hats (though Jordan then admirably subverts himself by not generally applying this on an individual level).

[Shryke]

king and FLOW - I agree with you... for whatever reason Jordan spent far more time developing the Aiel as a people and a culture than anyone else except perhaps the Seanchan and Aes Sedai. Most of the rest are pretty much nations of hats (though Jordan then admirably subverts himself by not generally applying this on an individual level).

I think the nations are fairly distinct in their customs and consistently applied. It's just that what kind of people they are is generally more important.

[Shryke]

...

[Isalie]

Yes.

Do it.

I guess we are all different (or not) but for me, between the ages of like 11-20, Robert Jordan, Terry Pratchett and JK Rowling were the gods of literature. Since those years wont come back I doubt I'll ever feel the same way about an author again, but if like I say in each and every one of these threads, I'll definitely recommend these books to my children when they are that age. If you are older or feel that you have outgrown the light fantasy genre then just consider it a opportunity missed and move on to whatever books are right for you.

[Frey Pie]

For my two cents i say read them. I think its a great series-not the best writing ever but some great moments of fantasy writing in there. Ya its long but i feel you get your moneys worth.

As for the LOTR ripoff i dont see it. In any case your always going to have characters and plots that are alike. Its only natural when there are so many fantasy novels out there. Did George ripoff Robin Hobb and his Fitz character? The bastard with the wolf? No

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

The decision to read WoT essentially means you're not going to be reading whatever 14 books you'd have read instead. I wager most of us here could come up with a list of 14 books that we'd considered a better investment of our reading time.

That being said, I still think WoT is such a colossus in terms of sales, controversy over quality, etc.., that at least starting it to get a sense is probably a good idea, if only to find out what all the fuss is about. I think I've read 11 of the 14, and while I'm not a sufficient fan of self-flagellation to read the two I skipped (one I skimmed) plus the last one, I'm still glad to have an informed opinion on the quality.

[wolverine]

The decision to read WoT essentially means you're not going to be reading whatever 14 books you'd have read instead. I wager most of us here could come up with a list of 14 books that we'd considered a better investment of our reading time.

That being said, I still think WoT is such a colossus in terms of sales, controversy over quality, etc.., that at least starting it to get a sense is probably a good idea, if only to find out what all the fuss is about. I think I've read 11 of the 14, and while I'm not a sufficient fan of self-flagellation to read the two I skipped (one I skimmed) plus the last one, I'm still glad to have an informed opinion on the quality.

You can make a decision to TRY the series and not have to commit to all 14 books. Unless you think it is so engrossing that you can't just try it without reading all 14?

[Errant Bard]

You can make a decision to TRY the series and not have to commit to all 14 books. Unless you think it is so engrossing that you can't just try it without reading all 14?

Most people finish what they begin, even if it is mediocre. Especially likely if like the OP they only read three Fantasy books in their life. If one can try WoT, one can try other books instead. Better books.