Is the Wheel of Time a good read?

[Mordor]

I have the first book (but it has a misprint and is missing about 40 pages). Is it worth reading? Is it as good a fantasy as Lord of the Rings?

 

[ChrisW]

umm yes and yes.

Take the book back get one with all the pages then read it. You should be able to tell from the first book if the others are worth reading.

 

[phil_geo]

well

I definitely think Cal gave good advice - read the first book yourself and decide. The first book is definitely good enough to spend your time reading - Jordan is a good writer and story teller, and the plot is plenty deep.

For myself, I don't think I will be reading any past the second book - the plot moves too slowly for me. A massive epic that foreshadows events that are several thousand pages away is frustrating for me. I concede that Jordan fills his books with plenty of intrigue and action, but I found myself very impatient to move on to what I already knew was going to happen. Even a very interesting chapter had me skimming ahead to get to the next part.

But that's just my opinion - I cheer on the people who are disciplined enough to let themselves enjoy the books as they were meant to be. You have to read it for yourself and see if they are the kind of book for you.

 

[snake0024]

Quite a few people think that the Wheel of Time is good until the 7th book where the story begins to slow down, so if you enjoy the first book, then I would advise getting them up to the 6th, and if you still enjoy it, then read the rest.

And to answer your last question, I enjoy reading WoT, but I found LotR better

 

[milamber_reborn]

Beware that the pacing slows down in the last few books.

I have enjoyed every book in this series so far and am glad that it'll weigh in at about 13 books. IMO, it's better than LOTR.

Give Jordan a try and get hold of a decent copy.

 

[Bond]

Is the Wheel of Time a good read?

Are you kidding? Of course it is! But I guess it mainly depends on what kind of fantasy you like to read.

As far as I'm concerned it is the best fantasy soap opera series out there bar none from what I have read. The clueless guys, nattering girls, and overly wordy yet still banal descriptions at times were a minor price to pay for the rivetting edge-of-your-seat suspense filled plot and grand world building.

LotR is for people who like ornately crafted words and revel in grim seriousness. WoT is for people who like convoluted plots and mysteries and who can appreciate attempts at a little whacky levity in the midst of an epic. Where LotR is aloof, WoT is familiar. LotR is not WoT. Thank goodness! I like WoT a whole lot more.

BTW, my opinion on WoT book one: it was mediocre. Books 2 to 5, however, are a different story altogether. From about page 150 of The Great Hunt on, I was hooked like with no other series.

That this question still needs to be asked I think means it's time I resurrected an older thread I started to address this very question.

Read this: Robert Jordan General Discussion

 

[Zeratul]

BTW, my opinion on WoT book one: it was mediocre. Books 2 to 5, however, are a different story altogether. From about page 150 of The Great Hunt on, I was hooked like with no other series.

I completely agree, books 2-5 are much better than book 1, which is tto slow and predictable.
And it's a much better series than Lotr IMO.

 

[Iskaral Pust]

All I can say is there is plenty of worse and better stuff out there. IMO, WOT is better than LotR, but I don't have a high opinion of LotR. If you consider LotR to be the best fantasy out there, the basemark for judging others, then you propably won't suddenly convert to Jordan. If you have nothing excellent pressing and can borrow or hire the books (the price does build up with 10 in the series) then read it. You won't be able to form your own opinion and argue in these threads until you've read them. WoT is one of the most controvesial amoung fantasy fans. I suggest reading it so you can have your own opinion if for nothing else. And no harm done if you don't like them.

 

[Loras Tyrell]

Robert Jordan is easy-to-understand, slow-paced young adult fantasy. If you've read little books and are relatively young, there's a good chance you'll like it. Personally, I don't think it measures up to LoTR in any respect (and that is bearing in mind that, arguably, any work of fantasy, and this work in particular, is standing on the shoulders of LoTR and Tolkien's other work).

I used to love the series, and I have read all the books once and eight twice and three thrice, I think. But reading it now, it's so riddled with clichés, repetitions and truisms that it is practically unbearable to read. I can still remember not noticing this at all, and even defending it from "attacks" such as this, but now I cannot fathom how or why.

To Jordan's credit, it should be said that his world is pretty diverse, complex (in sheer scope) and well thought out (although much is borrowed and copied from our world, more or less disguised) (and it all pales in comparison with Tolkien's world), and the pace of the first few books is good, in my opinion.

But it's not great literature, by any means. But then, not much fantasy is (unfortunately).

Just thought a little counterweight (or a more nuanced view, all depending on where you stand) was in order.

Greetings
Artaxiad

 

[Ouroboros]

Originally posted by Loras Tyrell
. But reading it now, it's so riddled with clichés, repetitions and truisms that it is practically unbearable to read. I can still remember not noticing this at all, and even defending it from "attacks" such as this, but now I cannot fathom how or why.

I don't quite think of Jordan as being as bad as all that, but I can certainly identify with the feelings you're talking about above. I felt much the same thing re-reading David Eddings and indeed Hickman & Weiss. Loved them as a kid, but not so much now.

Jordan, for all his condsiderable flaws, isn't a bad way to pass your time. The majority of the series is workmanlike and enjoyably soap-opera-ish in tone. If you last it out to the more recent novels then you'll probably be hooked enough to overlook their poor quality just to get rid of nagging curiosity.

As far as how it compares to LOTR ... Clearly a matter of personal taste. Can't say they're even remotely comparable, from my own perspective.

 

[Bond]

Originally posted by Loras Tyrell
Robert Jordan is easy-to-understand, slow-paced young adult fantasy. If you've read little books and are relatively young, there's a good chance you'll like it. Personally, I don't think it measures up to LoTR in any respect (and that is bearing in mind that, arguably, any work of fantasy, and this work in particular, is standing on the shoulders of LoTR and Tolkien's other work).

I used to love the series, and I have read all the books once and eight twice and three thrice, I think. But reading it now, it's so riddled with clichés, repetitions and truisms that it is practically unbearable to read. I can still remember not noticing this at all, and even defending it from "attacks" such as this, but now I cannot fathom how or why.

To Jordan's credit, it should be said that his world is pretty diverse, complex (in sheer scope) and well thought out (although much is borrowed and copied from our world, more or less disguised) (and it all pales in comparison with Tolkien's world), and the pace of the first few books is good, in my opinion.

But it's not great literature, by any means. But then, not much fantasy is (unfortunately).

Just thought a little counterweight (or a more nuanced view, all depending on where you stand) was in order.

Greetings
Artaxiad

I'll consider this a counterweight viewpoint but I don't know if I'd exactly call it nuanced.

You seem to imply one needs to be young or just beginning as a reader to enjoy it. I'd contest that.

No doubt LotR has WoT beat in terms of linguistic craftsmanship, but that's something I'd say most popular writers of the last century and the early part of this one have the upper hand in over most modern fantasy writers. I would contend, however, that inspite of all its florid prose and tonal tuning--or probably because of it--LotR comes off as an overly mannered endeavor bordering on conceit. Unlike a work such as WoT, if you chose to not take LotR seriously, you are left with a lifeless adventure that in stark contrast to what many say I think could be summed up quite cogently. Let's face it just how much more is there to it than a cross between the legend of the Ring of the Niebelung and Robert Louis Stevenson's Kidnapped? I find myself rolling my eyes in derision when I hear how utterly new LotR is and how all of fantasy owes its being to it. Perhaps some people should read more? I find with the sheer scope of WoT that the myriad of sources it draws from are harder to distill.

As for WoT in particular standing on the shoulders of LotR moreso than other fantasy, I concur with Ourobouros. I don't see them being that alike at all. But do please feel free to rebuke me.

By the way Ourobouros, I'm curious, what Weis and Hickman didn't stand up to your more mature scrutiny? I was just reading DL Legends recently and while there are lines worthy of a Harlequin novel I was surprised to see it still gripped me at least War of the Twins. Test of the Twins wasn't quite as momentous as I remember reading it the first time.

 

[Loras Tyrell]

Thank you for your courteous and eloquent replies, Ouroboros and Bond.

As for the likenesses between LoTR and WoT:

Country bumpkin destined to save the world.

In the third age (this was almost too much, I thought. I guess it could be considered a homage, though).

Orcs, trollocs, trollocs, orcs...

Lan, Aragorn, Aragorn, Lan...

Mat, Perrin, Merry, Pippin... hmm... (again, this was almost too much)

ringwraiths, forsaken, forsaken, ringwraiths... (I laugh especially hard in the first chapter of book one, when the dark rider appears. Black horse, cape not moving in the wind, dark dark dark...)

Frodo gets a wound that never completely heals, and which constantly pains and plagues him.

Rand gets a wound that never completely heals, and which constantly pains and plagues him.

Loial, Treebeard, Treebeard, Loial (not as blindingly obvious, but still, they talk slow (and use quicker language for the oh-so-rash humans), they have barky skin and there are few female ents/ogiers. Granted, Loial has a stick, but they're both slow to anger, though ferocious in combat.

Padan Fain, Gollum, Gollum, Padan Fain... (both goes from being essentially good people to being twisted by a "cursed" artifact which they long for and which drives them crazy, and furthermore they stick with the story and will, on Jordan's part as well, I suspect, play a significant role right up till the end)

Beorn, Elyas Machera, Elyas Machera, Beorn (ok, maybe a bit far-fetched, but they're both shapeshifting (ok, maybe there's no actual proof, but I suspect that Elyas can shed his moult), talking-to-animals loonies )



But if you guys say they're not alike...


However, to be fair, there are differneces as well:

Jordan masterfully portrays extremely realistic males and females (no stereotypes here!) and acutely accurate their dynamic interactions.

There is no wheel in LoTR (not one of time, anyway)

There are no elves in WoT, nor are there any hobbits.

There's no Sam in WoT.

Only men are wizards in LoTR, and they don't go crazy from no taint.

Frodo never gets to sleep with three women and get away with it. Actually, he never gets to sleep around, period (unless Galadriel was showing him more by that mirror than is explicitly stated...).

There's no flaming c*nt in WoT (and there is in LoTR, judging by the films, at least).


Aside from all this, Jordan has an annoying habit of introducing elements and people in his story at his convenience.

"have you ever heard of the grey men, Rand?"
"No"
"They're extremely dangerous assassins whose faces none seem to remember. Here's one now!"

And the way The Great Lord constantly has to pull out new evil subjects, each more deadly than the last and none ever heard of before, I'm starting to pity the guy.

They also both make extensive use of descriptions and setting, only where Tolkien settles for describing things once, Jordan not only describes everything ad nauseam, he describes different things and people in exactly the same way (often only with degrees of traits separating them)!
'She was a handsome woman, but noone would ever think to call her pretty' (come on, how many women have we heard that about?). 'and what do you know, the serving girl Mat had laid his eyes on was a plump one with a cute smile. Mat wanted to cuddle her in his lap'.

Maybe I'm being too harsh here.

But the plot and the setting has potential, and some of the storytelling as well, but it hardly seems Jordan is applying his best efforts to make the books as good as possible. He doesn't seem to strive for a higher ideal, he seems very content to drag out the action to such an extent that absolutely nothing can happen in 6-700 pages.

But, oh well, to each his own.

I just wish people would stop saying that WoT is better than LoTR. You may not like LoTR, but it is decidedly a work of higher artistic value and greater quality than Jordans never-ending story.

Greetings
Artaxiad

 

[Ouroboros]

Originally posted by Bond
By the way Ourobouros, I'm curious, what Weis and Hickman didn't stand up to your more mature scrutiny? I was just reading DL Legends recently and while there are lines worthy of a Harlequin novel I was surprised to see it still gripped me at least War of the Twins

I've got both omnibus editions, and I made a start at re-reading the DL chronicles... I would hardly say it's awful stuff, but the whole thing was a little more flat and two-dimensional this time around.

Maybe it's my imagination, but W&H's more recent stuff in the same world seems slightly more adult...?

 

[Bond]

Originally posted by Loras Tyrell
Thank you for your courteous and eloquent replies, Ouroboros and Bond.

As for the likenesses between LoTR and WoT:

Country bumpkin destined to save the world.

In the third age (this was almost too much, I thought. I guess it could be considered a homage, though).

Orcs, trollocs, trollocs, orcs...

Lan, Aragorn, Aragorn, Lan...

Mat, Perrin, Merry, Pippin... hmm... (again, this was almost too much)

ringwraiths, forsaken, forsaken, ringwraiths... (I laugh especially hard in the first chapter of book one, when the dark rider appears. Black horse, cape not moving in the wind, dark dark dark...)

Frodo gets a wound that never completely heals, and which constantly pains and plagues him.

Rand gets a wound that never completely heals, and which constantly pains and plagues him.

Loial, Treebeard, Treebeard, Loial (not as blindingly obvious, but still, they talk slow (and use quicker language for the oh-so-rash humans), they have barky skin and there are few female ents/ogiers. Granted, Loial has a stick, but they're both slow to anger, though ferocious in combat.

Padan Fain, Gollum, Gollum, Padan Fain... (both goes from being essentially good people to being twisted by a "cursed" artifact which they long for and which drives them crazy, and furthermore they stick with the story and will, on Jordan's part as well, I suspect, play a significant role right up till the end)

Beorn, Elyas Machera, Elyas Machera, Beorn (ok, maybe a bit far-fetched, but they're both shapeshifting (ok, maybe there's no actual proof, but I suspect that Elyas can shed his moult), talking-to-animals loonies )



But if you guys say they're not alike...


However, to be fair, there are differneces as well:

Jordan masterfully portrays extremely realistic males and females (no stereotypes here!) and acutely accurate their dynamic interactions.

There is no wheel in LoTR (not one of time, anyway)

There are no elves in WoT, nor are there any hobbits.

There's no Sam in WoT.

Only men are wizards in LoTR, and they don't go crazy from no taint.

Frodo never gets to sleep with three women and get away with it. Actually, he never gets to sleep around, period (unless Galadriel was showing him more by that mirror than is explicitly stated...).

There's no flaming c*nt in WoT (and there is in LoTR, judging by the films, at least).


Aside from all this, Jordan has an annoying habit of introducing elements and people in his story at his convenience.

"have you ever heard of the grey men, Rand?"
"No"
"They're extremely dangerous assassins whose faces none seem to remember. Here's one now!"

And the way The Great Lord constantly has to pull out new evil subjects, each more deadly than the last and none ever heard of before, I'm starting to pity the guy.

They also both make extensive use of descriptions and setting, only where Tolkien settles for describing things once, Jordan not only describes everything ad nauseam, he describes different things and people in exactly the same way (often only with degrees of traits separating them)!
'She was a handsome woman, but noone would ever think to call her pretty' (come on, how many women have we heard that about?). 'and what do you know, the serving girl Mat had laid his eyes on was a plump one with a cute smile. Mat wanted to cuddle her in his lap'.

Maybe I'm being too harsh here.

But the plot and the setting has potential, and some of the storytelling as well, but it hardly seems Jordan is applying his best efforts to make the books as good as possible. He doesn't seem to strive for a higher ideal, he seems very content to drag out the action to such an extent that absolutely nothing can happen in 6-700 pages.

But, oh well, to each his own.

I just wish people would stop saying that WoT is better than LoTR. You may not like LoTR, but it is decidedly a work of higher artistic value and greater quality than Jordans never-ending story.

Greetings
Artaxiad

Well it is recognized that Jordan was paying homage to Tolkien in his first book of the series, probably one reason it came off as such a mediocre book in my eyes, so that does explain some of the similarities you mention. But let's face it many of these similarities were superficial to begin with and quickly get lost and become irrelevant in the succeeding books if they were relevant to begin with at all or if they do remain they develop into something original. Let's face just how often have readers been running into trollocs or Loial lately?

Oh that brings up again the disdain I have for suggestions that Tolkien invented every fantasy trope out there. Orcs are Tolkien's creation? Grotesque demonic grunt troops are old hat. Maybe you could make a case that they're goblins but really what's the difference? Cursed skeletal minions new? I guess Tolkien invented the stories surrounding King Tut then? In the final analysis Tolkien uses and abuses the monsters and fantastic creatures of folklore more than Jordan does.

Aragorn? Glamorized copy of one of the main characters in Stevenson's Kidnapped who happened to be a (was it the last?) descendent in a line of Stuart kings. Fights pretty well too and protects his charge. Maybe Jordan was recalling Stevenson? Or maybe Twain? Some shades of The Prince and the Pauper here and there but I guess the connection to Kidnapped is stronger. I mean come on our protagonists running around in a bog hiding from enemies is a direct lift.

Mat and Perrin's names may have been chosen to make it easier for Tolkien readers to acquaint themselves and become comfortable with Jordan's world but please are they really similar to Merry and Pippin? Or are you saying Tolkien came up with the idea of sidekicks too?

Gollum reminds me of a crazy dwarf in the Ring cycle. You don't think?

Country bumpkin destined to save the world is probably older than legends of King Arthur. But no of course Tolkien deserves credit for it right?

Considering all the above cliches Tolkien emabarasses himself in does he deserve to be called literature? Please.

WoT's plot is easily more complex and probably as original at least if not having as groundbreaking an effect. I'll give Jordon kudos for that. But more than that Jordan's story excited me, Tolkien's did not. Come up with whatever definition of literature you want but that is how the dice settled. You suggest beauty is in the eyes of the beholder, but then in the lines right after seem to ignore your own words. No, the claims of higher artistic merit and greater quality of LotR over WoT will remain suspect with me thank you very much.

**************

Ourobouros, after the disaster of a book that was The Dragons of Summer Flame, I decided not to touch another book about Krynn that might impair the memory of the Legends trilogy. Maybe I'll change my mind.

 

[Loras Tyrell]

And there goes courtesy...

Got a bit upset there, Bond?

Could you please tell me where I state that any of the points I bring up are Tolkien's inventions?

Thought not.

The point is that while Tolkien sought inspiration and thematics in other kinds of work of art (epic poems, opera,) and religion, his work takes on a new shape and, additionally, is a part of the whole mythology Tolkien created for the English culture.

And while he wasn't the first author in the world to write epic fantasy, he was (and is) the most important one, and without him, I doubt fantasy would be where it is today.

I'm not saying that anyone should invent something new each time they write a book. It's practically impossible to think of something someone hasn't already thought of, or that isn't a mix of two or more exisitng ideas.

Jordan, however, is much more blatant, and copies from the same genre (and this isn't illegal or unusual, it's rather the norm). And his plot is just more messy, not better.

BTW, Tolkien created several complete, unique languages, with grammar and pronounciation rules and the whole shebang. Jordan has "al"="son of", a couple of lines of gibberish and that terribly exciting "do be" dialect of those crrrrrrazy Ilians.

Tolkien wrote several works on the genesis of his "world", early history and scripture, as a basis for LoTR. Jordan has nothing to answer to, so to speak, and can insert new historical facts and other things as he pleases, to fit everything together.

LoTR has also been voted the greatest novel of the 20th century on several occasions. I could be wrong, but I think hell will freeze over before any such distinction is bestowed upon any of Jordan's books.

And to say "to each his own" is not equivalent to saying "beauty is in the eye of the beholder", at least not in my book.

I strongly believe in the absolutes of aesthetics, and in the crapness of subjectivity.

So if my next few lines contradict the principle of subjectivity, I'm glad.

Besides, you obvioulsy missed the light-hearted tone of my post. It wasn't meant to be deadly serious.

People today (and probably always) suffers from delusions of omniscience. They think that if something doesn't appeal to them on first sight, it must be because of the quality (or lack thereof9 of the object, not because of any limitations in the perceptive abilities of the agent. Even though I might enjoy reading George R.R. Martin more than Shakespeare, I do not automatically assume the former to be the greater poet or writer.

Instead, I realise that due to my limitations when it comes to 17th century english and the contemporary verse and prose, I might not be able to fully comprehend and appreciate Shakespeare's work.

So, again, feel free to say you don't like Tolkien but do love Jordan (whom I begin to suspect you're related to or something, considering your rather fervent and hostile reaction to some points I made), but do not claim that Jordan is the better writer. It's too ridiculous.

Greetings
Artaxiad

 

[Loras Tyrell]

Originally posted by Bond


Let's face just how often have readers been running into trollocs or Loial lately?

You think this is a good thing? That suddenly, what was the biggest threat and the enemy's main foot soldier is suddenly nowhere to be found? And that important characters suddenly disappear, only to be brought out when needed to solve whatever tangle Jordan has gotten himself into?

Oh that brings up again the disdain I have for suggestions that Tolkien invented every fantasy trope out there. Orcs are Tolkien's creation? Grotesque demonic grunt troops are old hat. Maybe you could make a case that they're goblins but really what's the difference? Cursed skeletal minions new? I guess Tolkien invented the stories surrounding King Tut then? In the final analysis Tolkien uses and abuses the monsters and fantastic creatures of folklore more than Jordan does.

Tolkien was in fact the first to use elves in the way he does, as anything other than faeries with cute little wings flying from flower to flower. Hobbits? Where are they before Tolkien? I'm not saying they were necessarily unheard of or that they don't bear resemblance to any other mythological or historical creature, but there is a good deal more credit in finding some untouched/unused creatures/races and make them public property than taking that public property and giving it a new name.

Country bumpkin destined to save the world is probably older than legends of King Arthur. But no of course Tolkien deserves credit for it right?

It is? Why don't you show us an example, then?

Considering all the above cliches Tolkien emabarasses himself in does he deserve to be called literature? Please.

Disregarding the fact that I am rather unsure it it is actually possible to embarass oneself in clichés, I have never thought, nor do I think, Tolkien deserves to be called literature. Please. I think he deserves to be called one of the greatest writers ever.

Greetings
Artaxiad

 

[Bond]

Originally posted by Loras Tyrell


And there goes courtesy...

Got a bit upset there, Bond?

There goes courtesy? How so? I'm sorry if you've taken it that way, you shouldn't. My irony can be sharp at times but hey words were meant to be a little wild at times don't you think? I'm not intending to be light-hearted or frivolous with my words but neither am I trying to be overly serious. I'm just calling it as I see it and sharing an opinion and arguments to support it. I might be disdainful of some commonly held thoughts but I'm not planning on cleaving someone else's head over it anytime soon. You think I should? But to some of your thoughts.


Tolkien was in fact the first to use elves in the way he does, as anything other than faeries with cute little wings flying from flower to flower. Hobbits? Where are they before Tolkien? I'm not saying they were necessarily unheard of or that they don't bear resemblance to any other mythological or historical creature, but there is a good deal more credit in finding some untouched/unused creatures/races and make them public property than taking that public property and giving it a new name.

and then later

Could you please tell me where I state that any of the points I bring up are Tolkien's inventions?

The first paragraph answers your own question. I know the question came later but it does show your true thoughts on the matter. But to respond: Has anyone had magic users used the particular way Jordan has? But he's just given them a new name in your book. What's Gandalf then? Just another wizard? What is it Tolkien lovers keep saying then about Gandalf belonging to some sort of strange race? Sounds like he's just giving them a new name too. Ah but hey I'm sure other authors have put their own spin on a number of commonly accepted fantastic creatures.

As for hobbits, strike me like munchkins they do. Frank Baum must be rolling in his grave. Oz was a richer world and at least in my book at least as worthy of mention in the conversations of today. Too bad people cannot appreciate children's oriented works.


It is? Why don't you show us an example, then?

An example of country bumpkin saving the world? Well if you consider the current King Arthur mythos pretty recent. Do try reading a few of the stories in The Arabian Nights for starters. There must be more than a couple there alone about how street urchin overthrows the evil despicable tyrant. IIRC, Aladdin isn't the only one. There must have been a whole slew of other Asian and European folktales too that used the model but I was young when I read them so I cannot recall the exact details. The nobleman saving the world was more prevalent true but the poor bumpkin was there doing the same thing.

Jordan, however, is much more blatant, and copies from the same genre (and this isn't illegal or unusual, it's rather the norm). And his plot is just more messy, not better.

As I've been showing Tolkien is just as blatant if not more so. Since I consider folklore part of fantasy I think your accusation of copying from the same genre applies to Tolkien as well. As for Jordan's plot being messier and not necessarily better I think the same charge could be levelled at Tolkien's writing style. Round and round the words go where it stops it's hard to follow....

I think it is offensive to a lot of today's writers to hold a double standard on them. It is also an insult to other writers of the past to whom Tolkien and today's writers as well owe as much gratitude to as those writers of today owe Tolkien. The way some people talk of Tolkien they aren't talking just about Tolkien, they are talking about Tolkien and everyone else before Tolkien but with Tolkien taking all the credit. No blame to Tolkien, but I think it does fall upon his adherents.

Tolkien wrote several works on the genesis of his "world", early history and scripture, as a basis for LoTR. Jordan has nothing to answer to, so to speak, and can insert new historical facts and other things as he pleases, to fit everything together.

I don't see what your point is. Ultimately Tolkien still made the rules didn't he? In any event I don't see this as a competition where bonus points are given for tying your hand behind your back.

I strongly believe in the absolutes of aesthetics, and in the crapness of subjectivity.

Uh huh, and then you'll go on to say somewhere else how you like all the grays and how black and white is phooey right?

Disregarding the fact that I am rather unsure it it is actually possible to embarass oneself in clichés, I have never thought, nor do I think, Tolkien deserves to be called literature. Please. I think he deserves to be called one of the greatest writers ever.

Your opinion, but not mine.

People today (and probably always) suffers from delusions of omniscience. They think that if something doesn't appeal to them on first sight, it must be because of the quality (or lack thereof9 of the object, not because of any limitations in the perceptive abilities of the agent. Even though I might enjoy reading George R.R. Martin more than Shakespeare, I do not automatically assume the former to be the greater poet or writer.

Instead, I realise that due to my limitations when it comes to 17th century english and the contemporary verse and prose, I might not be able to fully comprehend and appreciate Shakespeare's work.

So, again, feel free to say you don't like Tolkien but do love Jordan (whom I begin to suspect you're related to or something, considering your rather fervent and hostile reaction to some points I made), but do not claim that Jordan is the better writer. It's too ridiculous.

Fair enough but I do find it strange that people are given a brain and their own judgment but then in the end feel unworthy to take up a position on a matter leaving it to others to make judgments for them. I do not know the whole either but then who does? Even if there was such a one acquainted with the lot how would one know the person really had a clue in interpreting it or if it had any bearing whatsoever to one's own position? I will claim Jordan is the better writer for the task I have in mind and will also state that I'm pretty sure he will do a better job than Tolkien for the task quite a few other people have in mind too when they buy a book.

What I find ridiculous is the idea that Tolkien is the panacea to all our fantasy reading wants.

Greetings
Artaxiad

Let me extend my salutations as well

 

[Loras Tyrell]

Originally posted by Bond
Originally posted by Loras Tyrell


Tolkien was in fact the first to use elves in the way he does, as anything other than faeries with cute little wings flying from flower to flower. Hobbits? Where are they before Tolkien? I'm not saying they were necessarily unheard of or that they don't bear resemblance to any other mythological or historical creature, but there is a good deal more credit in finding some untouched/unused creatures/races and make them public property than taking that public property and giving it a new name.

and then later

Could you please tell me where I state that any of the points I bring up are Tolkien's inventions?

Urhm... you need to read my posts in chronological order, my man. The last of your quotes came in my first reply, and refers to my previous post, where I indicated nothing of the kind. Then, after that, I made a couple of points as to what I see as Tolkiens inventions. So that is taking the words out of context and purposely misconstruing them.

What's Gandalf then? Just another wizard? What is it Tolkien lovers keep saying then about Gandalf belonging to some sort of strange race?

Gandalf is actually a Maiar, one of the "holy ones" who had existed since before the creation of the world.

Sounds like he's just giving them a new name too. Ah but hey I'm sure other authors have put their own spin on a number of commonly accepted fantastic creatures.

What were their old names, pray tell???
It would be helpful if you tried to be as clear as possible when making points or statements, and at least tried to back them up and/or prove them. As it is, you're just throwing accusations around and asking rhetorical questions. But I guess it's kind of hard doing anyhting else if you don't have a case .

As for hobbits, strike me like munchkins they do. Frank Baum must be rolling in his grave. Oz was a richer world and at least in my book at least as worthy of mention in the conversations of today. Too bad people cannot appreciate children's oriented works.

I haven't read Frank Baum or seen (any of?) the movie(s) about Oz (have seen the tv series, though, but they seem to be about something else entirely ), so it's hard for me to comment on that.

An example of country bumpkin saving the world? Well if you consider the current King Arthur mythos pretty recent. Do try reading a few of the stories in The Arabian Nights for starters. There must be more than a couple there alone about how street urchin overthrows the evil despicable tyrant. IIRC, Aladdin isn't the only one. There must have been a whole slew of other Asian and European folktales too that used the model but I was young when I read them so I cannot recall the exact details. The nobleman saving the world was more prevalent true but the poor bumpkin was there doing the same thing.

Now, Aladdin doesn't exactly save the world, does he? I think that's a bit of an overstatement. Again, all else you supply are vague hints and statements. There must have been? You have to be able to back up your assertions. At least if you want to appear credible.

As I've been showing Tolkien is just as blatant if not more so.

Really? You have? Where? You mean that you showed it just by making that claim?

Since I consider folklore part of fantasy I think your accusation of copying from the same genre applies to Tolkien as well.

That's nice, but let's stick with the conventional categories here, shall we? Folklore is the collective story memory of a culture, if you will. Folklore has uncertain origins and certainly no known author. They have traditionally been passed from generation to generation orally, and so are the work of entire societies, not individuals. They have only been written down and collected systematically the last few hundred years. If you want to categorize that alongside modern novels written by a known writer with the purpose of publishing a book, fine. Don't think you'll find many who agree with you, though. So that, I'd say, is a bit far-fetched.

As for Jordan's plot being messier and not necessarily better I think the same charge could be levelled at Tolkien's writing style. Round and round the words go where it stops it's hard to follow....

If you can't follow it, then it must be bad, right? Wrong. That's like a musician saying "I can't play or understand this piece. That must mean it sucks." Not very logical, I'm afraid.

I think it is offensive to a lot of today's writers to hold a double standard on them.

Would you at least care to explain what you mean by this? A sentence or two?

It is also an insult to other writers of the past to whom Tolkien and today's writers as well owe as much gratitude to as those writers of today owe Tolkien.

And these poor, neglected writers would be? Again, accusations totally devoid of any backing up of facts or even names.

I don't see what your point is. Ultimately Tolkien still made the rules didn't he? In any event I don't see this as a competition where bonus points are given for tying your hand behind your back.

It's called discipline. It's about coherency, credibility and a certain niveau of professionality. "Tying your hand behind your back" is your way of paraphrasing "take into regard what you have written before and try to make things fit". You don't see Tolkien suddenly coming up with a new bad ass wizard after Saruman is defeated.

"Then, all of a sudden, Sauron called out a new and even more dangerous wizard, Blaruman!!! He lived in Isenfield, and had even bigger and badder orchs. Or no, wait, even better, he had a whole new type of guys noone has mentioned so far in the books, like gholams. YEAH! That's neat."

Uh huh, and then you'll go on to say somewhere else how you like all the grays and how black and white is phooey right?

Again, would you please confirm your sources? Submit some sort of proof of what you're talking about? This is getting ridiculous.

Disregarding the fact that I am rather unsure it it is actually possible to embarass oneself in clichés, I have never thought, nor do I think, Tolkien deserves to be called literature. Please. I think he deserves to be called one of the greatest writers ever.

Your opinion, but not mine.

This was meant as a jab at your somewhat strange thoughts about calling a writer literature. But I see that the point was not taken.

Fair enough but I do find it strange that people are given a brain and their own judgment but then in the end feel unworthy to take up a position on a matter leaving it to others to make judgments for them. I do not know the whole either but then who does? Even if there was such a one acquainted with the lot how would one know the person really had a clue in interpreting it or if it had any bearing whatsoever to one's own position?

I'm with you up to that last sentence, but damn it, man, that's incoherent. Mind you, I'm not saying that it sucks, only that I don't understand it.

I will claim Jordan is the better writer for the task I have in mind

for the task you have in mind? Now we're getting mysterious... if you won't even state what your opinions are, it's going to be quite hard to argue with you

and will also state that I'm pretty sure he will do a better job than Tolkien for the task quite a few other people have in mind too when they buy a book.

Now I'm really curious. What is this "task"? Does it involve world domination? Or overthrowing the government?

What I find ridiculous is the idea that Tolkien is the panacea to all our fantasy reading wants.

Taking the liberty of using your own bullet-proof method of arguing: You're wrong. I win! Yippi!

Once again,
Greetings
Artaxiad

 

[Bond]

Originally posted by Loras Tyrell

Urhm... you need to read my posts in chronological order, my man. The last of your quotes came in my first reply, and refers to my previous post, where I indicated nothing of the kind. Then, after that, I made a couple of points as to what I see as Tolkiens inventions. So that is taking the words out of context and purposely misconstruing them.

My apologies Loras instead of "and then later" I should have put "but earlier". Sorry if they seemed to be taken out of context but actually that is my point in a way--but as it refers to you. As shown in those two paragraphs, you are answering your own question. What makes it strange is that your question, which as you say comes first seems to insinuate with an air of affront that I was mistaken in the stand you are taking when your later response shows that I was perfectly correct in interpreting your stand. You were basically saying "Where did I say that?" in an accusatory tone and then right afterwards you said it. Why bother with the pretense?

Gandalf is actually a Maiar, one of the "holy ones" who had existed since before the creation of the world.

What were their old names, pray tell???
It would be helpful if you tried to be as clear as possible when making points or statements, and at least tried to back them up and/or prove them. As it is, you're just throwing accusations around and asking rhetorical questions. But I guess it's kind of hard doing anyhting else if you don't have a case .

Just call them wizards and be done with it, either that or don't bother tooting Toklien's horn when someone like Jordan comes up with his trollocs.

Haven't read Frank Baum or seen (any of?) the movie(s) about Oz (have seen the tv series, though, but they seem to be about something else entirely ), so it's hard for me to comment on that.

Okie dokie. Have you read Kidnapped?

Now, Aladdin doesn't exactly save the world, does he? I think that's a bit of an overstatement. Again, all else you supply are vague hints and statements. There must have been? You have to be able to back up your assertions. At least if you want to appear credible. Well the save the world aspect is hinted at in the Siegfried legend. I mean something that can send the gods to their doom is pretty big. Or do you not think so?

As for the poor boy being the hero, I gave you Aladdin as an example and said that there are probably more just in the Arabian Nights alone, but my equivocation if it's just Aladdin seems to displease you, even though it alone should be enough. Fine, throw in Jack and the Beanstalk and Dorothy.

Really? You have? Where? You mean that you showed it just by making that claim? I've been showing it in my previous posts, but I cannot help it if you do not understand whether it be because you are deliberately closing your eyes or you simply are ignorant of the examples I've given.

That's nice, but let's stick with the conventional categories here, shall we? Folklore is the collective story memory of a culture, if you will. Folklore has uncertain origins and certainly no known author. They have traditionally been passed from generation to generation orally, and so are the work of entire societies, not individuals. They have only been written down and collected systematically the last few hundred years. If you want to categorize that alongside modern novels written by a known writer with the purpose of publishing a book, fine. Don't think you'll find many who agree with you, though. So that, I'd say, is a bit far-fetched.

So fantasy owes it sole being to Tolkien because he's there to claim the credit? If he was the first individual fantasy author around to claim credit it would be preposterous, moreso since he isn't.

If you can't follow it, then it must be bad, right? Wrong. That's like a musician saying "I can't play or understand this piece. That must mean it sucks." Not very logical, I'm afraid. Oh this is lovely. Makes me really wonder why Tolkien's adherents love his work. So they can brag how masochistic they are as readers? Because they need something to sound remotely Shakespearian in twang to have the confidence to label a work as good? Don't worry I can follow it if I really wish to, it's just that I actually believe clear crisp writing is in the main preferable to heavily ornate obsolete writing. The style of writing in LotR is quaint and sets it apart but why it should be viewed as more than a curiousity is not clear. Is this what authors are really trying to emulate? I don't think so.

Would you at least care to explain what you mean by this? A sentence or two?

Tolkien copies a trope from a folktale or an adventure author, no complaint. Another author copies that same trope, he's ripping off Tolkien!

And these poor, neglected writers would be? Again, accusations totally devoid of any backing up of facts or even names.

Didn't I mention Baum and Stevenson quite explicitly already? There are more of course but if you cannot even recall these two perhaps I should conclude you are feigning blindness and are simply being disingenuous.

It's called discipline. It's about coherency, credibility and a certain niveau of professionality. "Tying your hand behind your back" is your way of paraphrasing "take into regard what you have written before and try to make things fit". You don't see Tolkien suddenly coming up with a new bad ass wizard after Saruman is defeated.

"Then, all of a sudden, Sauron called out a new and even more dangerous wizard, Blaruman!!! He lived in Isenfield, and had even bigger and badder orchs. Or no, wait, even better, he had a whole new type of guys noone has mentioned so far in the books, like gholams. YEAH! That's neat."

Thanks for clarifying your point.

Again, would you please confirm your sources? Submit some sort of proof of what you're talking about? This is getting ridiculous.

I was being rhetorical. I was wondering if your professed espousal of aesthetic objectivity was really as definite as you seem to make it appear. As for sources, you asking for philosophical texts on the nature of subjectivity? I know I was assigned something along that line when I took philo ages ago that might suffice but honestly I couldn't remember it if I cared to.

This was meant as a jab at your somewhat strange thoughts about calling a writer literature. But I see that the point was not taken.

It was too subtle for me or perhaps I simply don't agree with your terms.

I'm with you up to that last sentence, but damn it, man, that's incoherent. Mind you, I'm not saying that it sucks, only that I don't understand it.

Well this is where subjectivity comes in. A blender is better than a knife at shredding stuff but you'd probably take the knife over the blender to assasinate someone.

for the task you have in mind? Now we're getting mysterious... if you won't even state what your opinions are, it's going to be quite hard to argue with you

Now I'm really curious. What is this "task"? Does it involve world domination? Or overthrowing the government?

The task? To entertain me. To impress me. Largely subjective true but there are more objective points as well. To hold me in a suspenseful story that has me by the seat of my pants in rapt attention compelling me to keep turning pages and skip everything else I'm doing. On this score Jordan at least for me wins easily. I got through the three books of LotR in about a month. I was finished with 7 books of WoT in a week.

WoT I would say clearly also has a more intricate plot with subplot after subplot and mystery after mystery. You going to argue with this?

Taking the liberty of using your own bullet-proof method of arguing: You're wrong. I win! Yippi!

How people tend to oversimplify and deliberately misunderstand! But I guess I shouldn't have expected you to take the effort given your intractibility in your stance, contempt of subjectivity, and ignorance of my references.

 

[Calandra]

I have to admit that when I first read EotW, I was bothered by what I also felt was more of a "rip-off" than a "homage" to Tolkien(the black rider/mydraal, Mat/Perrin, Loial/Treebeard etc.) - all as pointed out by Loras.

However, as WOT progresses, I think that it is able to throw off this initial problem, and comes into its own around books 2-5. I think that the sheer detail of world building is worth the read alone (at least to book 6 or so).

I've definitely got my problems with WOT, all of which are detailed by others on this site ad nauseum, but I think overall it is a great read and I don't regret at all getting sucked into it.