# Robert Jordan (what do you think?)



## Shadeslayer (Oct 10, 2004)

Robert Jordan is one of my absolute favorite authors.

He wrote the The Wheel Of Time Series (10 books in all)

Has anyone read those? If so, what is your opinion about the author and of The Wheel Of Time Series.


----------



## Pawn (Oct 10, 2004)

Absolutely terrible. Irritating characters, unbearably slow moving plot, unconvincing world and above all, abominably written. Gives fantasy a bad name.

You claim his writing is more 'complex' than Tolkien's. Possibly you lost your brain in an unfortunate accident? A monkey could write better prose.


----------



## Pawn (Oct 10, 2004)

Agreed. I've read six or so of Jordan's books, almost by accident. At one point I skipped a book by mistake - I didn't notice for weeks. I've just started reading George R.R. Martin's series, 'A Song of Ice and Fire'. I have high hopes.

Shadeslayer - don't be too discouraged. Jordan does have fans around here (this isn't the first time his name's been mentioned). Unfortunately.


----------



## Creative_Insanity (Oct 10, 2004)

I haven't read any, but I've heard that only the first couple books were any good, and the rest were . . . . not. I decided not to read any because it looks a bit cliche and derivative.


----------



## Shadeslayer (Oct 10, 2004)

Well, I suppose we all have our own opinion about the Robert Jordan. Don't worry, I'm not discouraged and I still do love his books very much. The Reason that I feel he is better than Tolkien is that he gives his character more depth, he doesn't just type up discription and everything. He focuses on the characters, which to me, he does a very good job. But yeah, the only that annoys me about the books is that the woman seem so...I don't know...concieted. They seem to think there better than everyone else. Don't get me wrong, I'm a girl, but its irritating.


----------



## Creative_Insanity (Oct 10, 2004)

*shrugs* It's a matter of personal opinion. But I have a few author recommendations:

Robin Hobb (start with Assassin's Apprentice)
George RR Martin (start with A Game of Thrones)
Lynn Flewelling (start with Luck in the Shadows)

I like these fantasy authors, and from what I've heard, people who like Jordan also like them. Also, these three authors have gotten a much better response from critics than Jordan has, so I think they're a better bet.

You should give them a try if you haven't already.


----------



## Shadeslayer (Oct 10, 2004)

I've given them a try already, and absolutely love George RR Martins work! His books are fantastic! To me, he isn't as good Jordan, but he is a fabulous author. But what do you think of Christopher Paolini? That kid author?


----------



## Pawn (Oct 10, 2004)

At least Tolkien's aren't plain irritating. Rand is up there with Harry Potter as one of the most retarded protagonists ever written.


----------



## Talia_Brie (Oct 10, 2004)

The only real problem I have with Joran is that the plot is so slow moving. I've seen people here say the world is unbelievable. I've just got to shrug my shoulders when I see that, because I just think it's not true.

Jordan spends an awful amount of time making the world believable, with different cultures and beliefs. It is this aspect of this writing, the realism, that is making the story so long. If the world were unbelievable the natiosn would be lining up behind the Dragon as quick as a wink. That they know he's the Dragon, and know what he has to do, and are still rebelling against him for religious and cultural (read racial) reasons, is very believable.

I saw someone question the sword forms. Again, I think you've oversimplified the art. You train the forms constantly so that in a fight they come instincually, but that doesn't mean you don't recognise thme when they do. Anyone who has studied any form of martial art would tell you the same thing.

The story is slow, and impossibly large, but it is complex in a way only a master storyteller could control, and I think the complexity shows Jordan's skill.

But I do understand the complaints. There's no pace, and a lot of the characters are annoying.


----------



## Shadeslayer (Oct 10, 2004)

Sure, I'll agree with some of the complaints. But there this one complaint that really bugs me, and its coming from Pawn. You say Jordan can't write for shit, right? Well, saying that, I think you may be overeacting or just exaggerating because you hate the story so much. If you really think he's a bad author, then I don't think he'd be #1 New Your Times Bestselling author. Reasons why he is better than Tolkien: (To me, personally)

1) When Jordan writes, he builds up the plots, but he keeps them in focus with all the discription around him. He does it so well, that we all sometimes forget we're in our rooms. Sure Tolkien does that, but if you have read The Wheel Of Time, you would notice that Jordan does it even better. The scenery he creates seem real, he adds more title and flavor to it. Don't get me wrong, Lord Of The Rings is an excellent collection to read. I love the trillogy.

2) The characters may be irritating at some points, but at least he takes the time to write out the depth of the character. He tells us who they are, and makes us feel as if they are real people. He not only gives them names and reasons to talk, but he writes their personality in a very complex situation, of where, if you read the books carefully, you would be able to understand each and everyone of them. But Tolkien, he just has them talk and they don't seem to fit well with the characters in the movies. All they do is speak with one another and enjoy a conversation, sure, it is a serious book, but he needs more depth and emotion in the character. Sometimes it even seem fake at a few parts in the story, because of the lack of emotion. I personally feel that the most weakest part in Tolkien's writing ability is to have us reconize the character. 

P.S. Don't hate me for what i've done, I really am allow my own point of view and cussing me out isn't going you or me in this. but I really do adore Tolkien's books.


----------



## Creative_Insanity (Oct 10, 2004)

Shadeslayer said:
			
		

> Sure, I'll agree with some of the complaints. But there this one complaint that really bugs me, and its coming from Pawn. You say Jordan can't write for shit, right? Well, saying that, I think you may be overeacting or just exaggerating because you hate the story so much. If you really think he's a bad author, then I don't think he'd be #1 New Your Times Bestselling author.



Okay, I've never read Jordan, so I really shouldn't comment, but I just had to get this in: just because it sold the most doesn't make the best. It's probably decent, but I repeat: that does not make it the best. All it means was that it was sellable. Think of any type of entertainment. Movies. Music. Whatever. Just because Resident Evil was #1 in the box office or Britney Spears sold a billion records doesn't mean that they're the best in the business. Okay, so maybe it's being disrespectful to compare Jordan to Britney Spears, but you get my drift.


----------



## Shadeslayer (Oct 10, 2004)

Nice combat, ouch! And yeah, I already know that the characters could be annoying (you don't have to be...err...a litter over that) But the point I'm trying to make is that at least takes the time to acually put depth in the character unlike Tolkien. And yeah, for your information, I did read George RR Martin, so you don't gotta get all over my damn ass back about that. So what if I like Jordan better, sue me you gotta problem with that! I'm entitled with my own opinion and the reason I like Jordan is because his spreads out his characters and has lots of them. Its not just told from Rand's point of view, and even if Rand didn't want to kill a woman, oh well. He may a sissy towards woman, but oh well. I still enjoy the books, and yeah, I like them. 
And I don't know why other people are insisting that I hate other authors when I don't. What is the fuc is up with that? In fact, if you should know, I acually enjoy Janny Wurts and Raymond E. Fiest, along with Drew Karpyshyn. 

Later


----------



## Creative_Insanity (Oct 10, 2004)

Hehehe . . . yeah, I totally respect your opinion, and I'm not interested in starting a huge argument, but I thought it was ironic you said you liked Raymond E. Feist because I just wrote a negative review about Talon of the Silver Hawk: http://www.ritro.com/sections/books/story.bv?storyid=2829

Don't get me wrong, I don't want to get on your bad side, but I just thought this was funny.

But anyways . . . as for different points of view, doesn't George RR Martin do this too? In fact, every chapter is titled with the name of the character whose view it's from. 

Whatever. Everyone has different opinions. There are lots of Jordan fans, so it's not like you're the only one.


----------



## Shadeslayer (Oct 10, 2004)

Although I do luv Raymond E. Fiest, I would have agree with you about the romances. There stupid, and sometimes give an urge to piss me off. If you've read the Riftwar Saga with Pug and Carline. You would get with what I mean. But overally, I really do enjoy his books. One of my favorite is:

The King Of Foxes


----------



## Creative_Insanity (Oct 10, 2004)

The only book I've read was Talon of the Silver Hawk. I wasn't overly impressed. 

Anyways, hmm, someone mentioned that Rand was the most annoying protagonist of all time. Again, I've never read the books, so I wouldn't know about that, but speaking of annoying protagonists, has anyone read Elizabeth Haydon's Symphony of Ages trilogy? Rhapsody, Ashe, and Jo are about the most annoying main characters ever invented! 

But I won't bash Elizabeth Haydon too badly, because although I disliked her characters, I still enjoyed reading her books because she has such a way with words. Her writing style is very vivid and polished. She is a very talented writer, and I think that with time and experience, she will learn how to create better characters.


----------



## Shadeslayer (Oct 10, 2004)

My friend mentioned that the book in all was horrible, along with the characters. But I won't say anything because I've never read it, but I would give it a chance as soon as I'm done with a book I'm readng right now:

Fugitive Prince by Janny Wurts

Anyone else read it?


----------



## Creative_Insanity (Oct 10, 2004)

Nope. But I heard it wasn't very good. Tell me when you're done with it.


----------



## A_MacLaren (Oct 11, 2004)

I've never read a book by Robert Jordan. All I know is that I hate him. I hate him less than I hate David Eddings, but frankly, I'd club David Eddings into senility with _The Redemption of Althalus_ is I could.
I might offer a humbleo opinion as to why so many of you people don't like Tolkien; you're all idiots.
That may sound harsh, I know, but come on. Those are great books. A damned sight better than nearly any other fantasy I can think of. Perhaps the reason you think he gets bogged down in description is because you're not thinking deeply enough. I'm not criticising you; a lot of modern literature is training readers to only see what's spelled out for them. Tolkien doesn't do it. _The Lord of the Rings_ has levels. Sometimes you have to think about the events and the characters and how you react to them to get meaning. Tolkien wasn't writing straight romantic fantasy, whatever some people might say. He was writing modern literature in an old-time way. There's a sense of irony, or melancholy in _The Lord of the Rings_, which people don't see because they're too busy bagging the book. For instance, when Théoden dies, people see the 'glorious death' thing and write off the book as pro-war crap.
Think about Tolkien's background. He lost his three best friends in the first world war. His son was in the second. Does he sound like he'd advocate war?
Théoden's death is so sad because he died in battle, 'gloriously', and he was _happy_ about it. The irritation some readers feel at this point makes me feel sad, because he died thinking it was good. It's so clearly anti-war that it's stupid to see people who take it as a shallow, romantic fantasy. There are levels that he's not telling you about. It's supposed to be about intelligent reading.
As for Elizabeth Haydon, don't even get me started. The most appaling book I ever read was _Rhapsody_. The woman is a talentless hack.
Generic writers lik Robert Jordan, Raymond Feist and David Eddings are giving the truly good, original writers, like Steven Erikson and Cecilia Dart-Thornton, a bad name.


----------



## Shadeslayer (Oct 11, 2004)

Err...A_MacLaren...I don't think I've ever mentioned that I didn't like Tolkien. Why does everyone assume I hate him? Yeesh, besides, Tolkien is a good writer, but he lacks depth and emotion in character. Sure, he's writing in a olden way, but I've read books from his style like a few King Arthur series and I've never seen them lack those special needed qualities to make a book interestng. But really, I do like Lord of the Rings.


----------



## A_MacLaren (Oct 11, 2004)

Oh no! Challenging writing! What shall we do?!
Sorry. I get angry.
I wasn't accusing you, but I've noticed a general 'Tolkien bites' feeling on this site. I don't think he lacks depth, or emotion, in his characters. People just can't see past the style.


----------



## Pawn (Oct 11, 2004)

Fortunately, I have a number of people arguing my argument for me, so I really don't need to contribute further. Jordan - If you think he's a good storyteller, read War and Peace. If you think his writing is immersive, read Robin Hobb. If you think his world is fascinating, read any other fantasy novel. Tolkien - spent twelve years creating a world that endures to this day beyond all other fantasy literature, which says more than enough in itself. I think that about covers it, eh.


----------



## asdar (Oct 11, 2004)

I liked Tolkein a lot but I don't think he's the begining and end of fantasy. 

I guess I'm somewhere in between. Tolkein was a master of language. I don't see how anyone can question that. The elven tongue, the poetry and songs all point to a certain mastery that's rare.

I loved his imagery and the size of his novel, I always felt that there was NO romance in the novel. You can inject some if you want but it's never a driving force. The closest thing is Eowyn but even that is brushed over.

The other thing is that nobody ever dies. Boromir does but even him it shows him as the evil traitor so that his death isn't biting. I wouldn't want any hobbit to die but it would have made the story more intense in my opinion.

Jordan had a good world and amazing start. I think if he'd focused on a three or four volume tale it would rank up there with Tolkiens but because he wanted to try and go to ten he threw in at least four useless volumes.

I'm a huge fan of Martin's. I think he's got the right balance.


----------



## Creative_Insanity (Oct 11, 2004)

A_MacLaren said:
			
		

> As for Elizabeth Haydon, don't even get me started. The most appaling book I ever read was _Rhapsody_. The woman is a talentless hack.



LOL! You really hated her that much? If anything, I thought it was worth reading for laughs. Rhapsody was so annoyingly hilarious. I've never seen a worse protagonist. :roll: But like I said, other than the characters, I thought Haydon was a fair writer as far as words go. She has a knack for description.


----------



## A_MacLaren (Oct 12, 2004)

> I loved his imagery and the size of his novel, I always felt that there was NO romance in the novel. You can inject some if you want but it's never a driving force. The closest thing is Eowyn but even that is brushed over.
> 
> The other thing is that nobody ever dies. Boromir does but even him it shows him as the evil traitor so that his death isn't biting. I wouldn't want any hobbit to die but it would have made the story more intense in my opinion.


Behold! My point in all it's glory, as displayed by an idiot.
First of all, the comment about romance. I'm not as picky about this one, but if you never read the Appendices (and I know a lot of people didn't), that's your problem. I'm not going to explain myself further.

As for the 'Boromir is evil' thing, I'd like to clear up a point, if I may.
A lot of people write Boromir's death off as a classic 'kill off the bad guy' strategy. He betrayed them, so he has to die.
Boromir's death is an example of the Ring's power. The ring destroys. It devours. Like Galadriel says; 'one by one, they will fall'.
Boromir own weaknesses were what killed him. They're not his fault, and they don't make him evil. His relationship with his father and brother, his sense of duty and honour, his love of Gondor, the death of his mother; all good motivators people don't see.
Boromir wants the Ring so badly that he'll betray anyone to get it. He betrays Frodo and Aragorn, as well as the rest of the Fellowship, not in greed, but because the ring has worked its influence on him. It plays upon his doubts and fears.
When he dies, it's just Tolkiens way of demonstrating how the Ring destroys everybody. It doesn't matter how noble or brave you are, it well get you. Boromir _dies_ defending Merry and Pippin. If he'd lived, what would you have thought of the Ring? Oh, it's okay, Boromir shook it off.
Then, add the narrative ripples it produces. Frodo's decision to leave the Fellowship, further enhancing the essential Sam/Frodo relationship, spurring Aragorn to defend Gondor, to fulfill a promise. It gives Merry and Pippin a reason to fight. It makes Faramir and Denethor, when they come along, much more important characters with more interesting backgrounds than they'd have if they were just random characters. Really, Boromir's death is the McGuffin; the plot enabling device that The Two Towers and The Return of the King spring from.


----------



## asdar (Oct 13, 2004)

What in my comment even comes close to drawing an insult?

I've read the LoTR about a thousand times including the Appendices. Open your eyes and read it with a critical eye instead of the eyes of a complete and total loser that has nothing better to do than dress like an elf.

It's a great book, like I said in my earlier post. 

It's not the best book ever written. There are weaknesses in style and substance throughout the books. Not the least of which is a lack of development in every character in the book.


----------



## Talia_Brie (Oct 13, 2004)

A_MacLaren said:
			
		

> I've never read a book by Robert Jordan. All I know is that I hate him.



Behold, my point in all its glory, as displayed by an idiot. :twisted: 

Read Jordan, and then comment on him.

You're not going to make a lot of friends here talking to people the way you do. You seem to take everyone else's opinions as personal affronts, and then attack them with pseudo-intellectual plagiarism in an effort to elevate yourself, and I suspect your own self esteem.

If you disagree with someone, fine. Tell them you disagree, and tell them why. Your point here may be valid, but the way you expressed it was grossly inappropriate.

This is a place where like-minded people come to talk, not a place for bullies to congregate.

Personal insults have no place here.


----------



## Shadeslayer (Oct 13, 2004)

I agree with Talia Brie.

Don't make comments unless you feel its nesscary and have an explanation of why you dislike or like something.


----------



## A_MacLaren (Oct 14, 2004)

All right, all right. I concede defeat. And yes, my idiot comment was very harsh. I'm sorry if I offended anyone.
I'm trying to be objective, by the way. Believe me, I've never dressed like an elf. Or a dwarf, or Aragorn. Though I do wish I could grow a rugged beard...uh...kidding.

I don't like Jordan based on hearsay. My friend (who tricked me into reading Feist) loves it, and he's spoken of it often. It's the American style of fantasy I often don't like, and that's the feeling I get from his book _based on what I've heard_. 
When I say American style, I mean the Feist style. The Eddings style. A group of hilarious misfits who go about in a group with faux-witty dialogue and supposedly 'realistic' relationships. Stories about 'fate'. Epic fantasy written with a sacharine twist. Guys who fight and then become great friends. People who act badly towards each other because they really like each other, underneath.
Please, stop me if I'm wrong. When, or if I ever do read Jordan, I'll happily eat all of the above words.
Let's say that I hate the reputation of Jordan and move on, shall we?

I do get frustrated when people write off Tolkien, because I think there's a lot more going on in The Lord of the Rings than people realise. Maybe I'm being a snob, I don't know. I should probably give you more credit. 
You see a lack of character development. Fine. Good for you. I see an intricate, delicate book that isn't going to _tell_ you what is going on. A book that has its meaning hidden in people actions and words. It's not making excuses for itself, and it doesn't take any easy way out.
And, admittedly, I'm probably not very objective, because they're my favourite books in the world and I believe that they're exactly the books that Eddings, Feist, Gemmel (and possibly Jordan, I'll never know until I read him) are ripping off. Their generic ideas and themes come from Tolkien, who at least made them original _and wrote them well_.
There are problems in the Lord of the Rings, mostly with structure. However, I think there is romance, especially in the Appendices. I think that Sam and Frodo's relationship does move forward and change. I think that Boromir does serve a purpose, and that he is a real character.
Just so you know, I can't speak elven, I don't dress up, and I don't think these are perfect books.
So, there we are. Like I said, I'm sorry if I offended anyone. I didn't want to bully anyone, but I've seen a lot of people on this site say 'Tolkien is crap because he does too much description', who don't appeared to have thought about them at all, because they don't read into anything, they just ingest what the books tell them.
So. There you are.


----------



## Talia_Brie (Oct 14, 2004)

Well said, and full marks for responding to my comments. I think you took them the right way.

From your comments, you probably won't like Jordan, so I'd say don't waste your money. If someone is willing to loan you "Eye of the World" think about it, but I don't think you'll enjoy spending money on it.

You made a comment that fantasy writers are "ripping off" Tolkein. I think that's misplaced, and ripping off is too strong, but that's my opinion. I think everyone accepts that Tolkein created modern fantasy, and everyone who writes in the genre owes something to him.

But this is wandering a little off topic.


----------



## A_MacLaren (Oct 14, 2004)

Topic is overrated.
'Ripping off' may be a little overstated. What I mean is that very few writers are ever adding, or changing, the way fantasy is written. And those who do are going unsung.
I don't think Feist, Gemmel and Eddings are advancing the genre much. They're reinforcing the fantasy stereotypes and making it inaccessible for much of the reading public. People are intimidated and also mocking of fantasy, and those writers do nothing to change it.
Feist is much like Eddings, Eddings is much like Gemmel. Actually, a worrying trend I noticed in these author's books (and I've brought this up before, somewhere) is the race issue. Bad guys are often Eastern. Feist's bad guys (I've forgotten the name) are Japanese/Korean, and Eddings and Gemmel's are Mongolian.
Weird, and interesting.
Before anyone points it out, I know Tolkien did the same thing.


----------



## Talia_Brie (Oct 14, 2004)

A_MacLaren said:
			
		

> Topic is overrated.
> 'Ripping off' may be a little overstated. What I mean is that very few writers are ever adding, or changing, the way fantasy is written. And those who do are going unsung.



I agree, and the fact that Steven Erikson has had so much trouble being published in the US is evidence of that.


----------



## A_MacLaren (Oct 14, 2004)

Ah, Steven Erikson. He's the best thing since sliced bread.
I need Midnight Tides. I must have it.
My nearest Angus and Robertson doesn't stock Memories of Ice or Midnight Tides. I'll have to go to Minotaur in Melbourne for them.
Sigh...


----------

