[Alucard]

Robert Jordan is considered by many to be the "master" of the fantasy genre as we know it. But I'm having a bit of trouble understanding why.

Let me start off by saying that I generally like Robert Jordan. I read all of his books, which is saying something. I wouldn't have read through that many pages if the books didn't have their redeeming qualities. But to say that he is the "master" is a bit of an overstatement. (and then again this is all just opinions. But's that's the whole point of discussion forum's unless I'm misunderstanding the point of this.)

I'll start with the pros.
Robert Jordan has a good story going. He has developed some good characters and the plot, although slightly typical in the beginning, is very interesting. I am genuinely interested to see how this whole saga turns out.

Now the cons.
Some of the characters and subplots are not only unnecessary, but annoying. Even some of the main characters get on my nerves to the point where I don't like to read about them(cough......Nyneave). The subplots, especialy in the later books, tend to bother me. They usually add very little in terms of plot advancement and don't seem at all a vital part of the story. If they are of little or no consequence, then why bother adding them? Is it simply for the sake of making the world seem more realistic? Because in my opinion, it's better to have a book that requires a little imagination if it saves the pace of the story.
Secondly, the writing. Throughout every one of Jordan's books I found myself skimming a lot. He uses too much description on things unnecessary, which in turn hurts the pacing and slows things down. For me, Jordan's books are very inconsistent. At times, his books can be real page turners, and I find myself reading for hours on end without even noticing. But at other times, the book simply drags, making it feel more like a chore than recreation. This problem alone makes the thought of him being a "master" sound out of place.

I'm sure that people will have their arguments so that's why I'm posting this. I'm curious to see why people have declared him as a master when he is-although good- far from perfect.

[lacorte]

Robert Jordan is the "master of Fantasy", but then I have to agree that his book are becoming very drawn out. I had heard that he had been signed up to complete the series in 10-12 books, which is far too many if you want a captivating story. I have read all of the books to date at least twice (I read the entire series when a new book comes out), and I admit that there are whole chapters that I miss out which seem to be totally irrelavent to the story itself. As to the detail well I have found that I pick up on things that I missed when I was initially caught up in the story and rushed on to see what happened next. While this makes for interesting re-reading, it really bogs down the story.

However, the story is great and I find that I can read the books over and over and still enjoy them. He is the master, not the only one by far, but he is one of the best at present. Yes he could have finished the story in ten books and made it a roller costa ride all the way through, but then I don't know what I would do if I wasn't on the edge of my seat waiting for the next book to come out. To me any ending will be a let down.

[FitzChivalry]

I don't think Robert Jordan is considered "the master of fantasy" by anyone besides his devoted fans, which is obvious because they are well, his devoted fans.
Don't get me wrong, i like Robert Jordan and The Wheel of Time is one of my favorite series although i recognize all the problems of bad characters and too long descriptions etc.
The reason why Jordan is sometimes heard to be referred to as the master of fantasy is because he has really a lot of fans, but readers who are not special fans of Jordan wouldn't agree with it, so i don't really see any special meaning to that definition.

[Crysania]

I agree with Fitz. I haven't ever heard Jordan lauded as such and it makes my skin crawl. WOT is entertaining, yes, it's drawn in legions of people who haven't read fantasy to the genre. I think his use of twisting and expanding the genre is groundbreaking. But how can he be "master" when he hasn't even FINISHED the series???? No, WOT has yet to stand the test of time. And that, my friend, is what will determine the true master.

C

[James Barclay]

How do you measure a 'Master of Fantasy' except by the number of fans he or she has? I know sales don't equal quality but they do equal popularity and that is surely a just quantifier of 'Master' status.

To be honest, I think asking the 'who is best' question is a right waste of time since all you are ever going to get are people telling you that their favourite author is number one.

About Robert Jordan, I personally find his books very dull and slow but that is just my opinion. He's no master but a lot of people love his books and that is fine by me.

If there is a master, it's the man who effectively started the ball rolling in the first place, and gave birth to the genre as we all enjoy it today. And, of course, he's sold an extraordinary number of books. JRRT.

End of story.

[FitzChivalry]

"Master of Fantasy" is not a really official title NOM... it's not given by some fantasy critic that comes from god...
It's just a way that people describe their favorite authors, no need to get into big debates about it, just assume if someone says some author is the Master, it just means he thinks that author is good....

About Tolkien, i have a problem with silly and BORING stories, so i wouldn't give Tolkien the title "Master of Fantasy" in the context you gave it.
Call me a rebel, but at least i have a cause.

[This message has been edited by FitzChivlary (edited July 28, 2001).]

[Duarh]

Every other fantasy book out there has ´master of fantasy´ ´rivals tolkien´ and ´is the best (new) author I have ever read´.

Regards,

Duarh

[Cadfael]

The blurb on books does not mean a thing IMHO, they are not going to put negative comments on the covers, and there may be ten negative reviews for every positive one... when have you seen blurb like...

"I have never read anything so boring in my life"... Washington Times http://www.sffworld.com/ubb/smile.gif

[This message has been edited by dennizm (edited July 28, 2001).]

[neologik]

<<The blurb on books does not mean a thing IMHO>>

Part of the reason that blurbs are worthless is due to the fact that many authors just sort of 'hand them out' as favors to friends, etc.

Here's a direct quote from an email that I got from Mike Moorcock, which I think is the best view I've seen on the subject of blurbs:

"...unless I hear from the specific author
asking for a blurb about an about to be published book, I don't reply to the dozens of publishers letters and manuscripts and proofs I get or I'd go mad. Also I won't
read unsold manuscripts. Long experience makes this a good rule. So personal letters always work best! I in fact took to using the manuscripts they sent me as rough draft paper. I had stacks of it. So my rough drafts look like cut ups on the other side. I thought it only fair to mix them first! I'm not being mean. It's just that I have made it clear to every publisher I know that I don't do more than four blurbs a year max and if I hear from the author I'm more likely to do one. It means, I hope, that an
endorsement I make has some meaning and the public needn't suspect I'm personally related to the author...
I often used to wonder who was blackmailing
Harlan..."

Pretty much sums my thoughts up.

(And no, I wasn't asking Mike to blurb anything for me, so don't even ask...)

all best,
--gabe

[James Barclay]

Fitz, the 'great debate' was started by another, I merely added an opinion. I guess I'm merely trying to establish why people give various authors the title 'Master' and pointing out that someone just being a personal favourite isn't enough - surely they have to in some way define the genre or further it in a significant way.

It's for that reason I call Tolkein a 'master' because his is the genre defining work whether you think it silly and boring or not. I think the term silly is somewhat disingenuous to a man who created the most extraodinarily detailed world right down to fully formed myths, legends and languages. Whether you enjoy the style or not (and I've mentioned before that it is a book of its time and hence is wordier and slower in places) Tolkein's imagination, in fantasy terms, will probably never be surpassed. (and anyone who thinks his imagination limited to LOTR and The Hobbit needs to look further...)

Right, lecture over. And yes, Fitz, you are a rebel but that's what debate is all about!