[no_survivors]

So I finally have a RL life friend who's favourite author is also SE!! (YAY) He suggested Robert Jordan's series as my next read. Has anyone else read this series, if so what are your opinions?

[Venerus]

Maddog, on 23 September 2009 - 09:41 PM, said:

So I finally have a RL life friend who's favourite author is also SE!! (YAY) He suggested Robert Jordan's series as my next read. Has anyone else read this series, if so what are your opinions?

Fun for the first few books, then he gets waaaay too ambitious, isn't able to hold all the story threads together, adds a bunch of new threads and characters while letting old ones die/stagnate, drops the pace of the books to a snail's pace over a salt-flat.... and then he died without finishing the series. So, to get any closure, you'll have to read the last book(s) as written by others who took his notes to craft the last pieces.

[Slow Ben]

While all that is true, I still really enjoy it.

That said, there's much better series out there than his for you to read.

[Sinisdar Toste]

some say it went down-hill after shadow rising, some say after fires of heaven. i say it went downhill after lord of chaos. in any case... it goes downhill.

into a bog of sniffs and braid tugs and thousands of different outfits and only mats story-line remains very likable

[presumingpete]

yes definately read, it does slow down a bit 7-10 but then picks up in book 11

[Raymond Luxury Yacht]

I read it for the historival sense of it, it was a big part of the genre and so I felt as a reader of fantasy it was something I should have read. That's really the only reason to read it I can think of. Some good ideas and fun parts, a whole lot of barely readable crap. Others will disagree, but I had to force myself through about 75% of that series. There are much better options.

[amphibian]

Maddog, on 23 September 2009 - 09:41 PM, said:

So I finally have a RL life friend who's favourite author is also SE!! (YAY) He suggested Robert Jordan's series as my next read. Has anyone else read this series, if so what are your opinions?

Does your friend think you're dim?

If he hated you, he'd have recommended Goodkind.

[Abyss]

Wait for about 2 years til the series is actually finished. That way when you hit the downhill parts in the middle you can at least be sure it gets better.

- Abyss, trusts in Sanderson.

[Aptorian]

If you have grown accustomed to intelligent, new thinking, thought provoking fantasy like the MBotF, then the Wheel of Time will seem laughable. The series shows its age and is terribly generic.

[Skywalker]

I have very fond memories of WoT, and am looking forward to the series' conclusion. Sanderson is a very capable writer, and Robert Jordan was a trendsetter in many ways. I think you should read WoT, but don't expect it to be very (or as) profound as the Malazan series, or Bakker's or Donaldson's work and so on.

It is very enjoyable reading for the most part (just parse through book 10, nothing happens) and you will find yourself invested in the conclusion of the series I'm sure...

[Abyss]

You'll know fairly quickly if WoT is your thing or no. If you enjoy the first one, it gets better for 4-5 more books, stumbles along painfully for about 3, then picks up again.
hence, if you enjoy the first 5 or so, you'll be more likely tough it out to see it recover and end. if it doesn't grab you at the outset, just go reread MBF and pretend WoT never happened.

- Abyss, mindwipes himself regularlfish.

[Nina]

Some parts are awesome, others are your average fantasy "road movie" stuff with mean innkeepers, mystery knights, gypsies etc., etc.; some are just boring. Give it a try. I would advice, however, to start with the 'big' version of the "New Spring" (I know it's arguable). "Eye of the World" as the first book may seem rather bleak, especially after SE))

[Abyss]

I found New Spring extremely YA. One plotline is fine but the others don't add much. I suspect if i had read that first i might not have continued with the series.

I'd say start with the first three, then jump back to NS if you enjoyed them.

- Abyss, chronologically illogical.

[LadyMTL]

It seems like everyone here shares my opinion about Jordan's work. I started reading Eye of the World when I was 17 (and trust me, I'm no longer anywhere near 17) and I liked it but it was the first fantasy novel I'd ever read so I had nothing to compare it against. If you're used to writers like SE you will most likely find RJ to be very simplistic at times, but his stuff isn't horrible. Yes, some of the "middle books" are very dull but he's nowhere near as eye-bleedingly bad as Goodkind.

Anyway, long story short, give the series a go.

This post has been edited by Maia Irraz: 25 September 2009 - 07:04 PM

[no_survivors]

Thank you so much for all of your opinions. I think I will give it a shot, it just seems a lot of fantasy comes up short after reading SE and ICE.

[no_survivors]

amphibian, on 24 September 2009 - 04:56 AM, said:

Maddog, on 23 September 2009 - 09:41 PM, said:

So I finally have a RL life friend who's favourite author is also SE!! (YAY) He suggested Robert Jordan's series as my next read. Has anyone else read this series, if so what are your opinions?

Does your friend think you're dim?

If he hated you, he'd have recommended Goodkind.

*LAUGHS* Oh man I hope not... Now you have given me something else to ponder...

[Terez]

Maddog, on 25 September 2009 - 08:15 PM, said:

Thank you so much for all of your opinions. I think I will give it a shot, it just seems a lot of fantasy comes up short after reading SE and ICE.

Hmm...I think RJ is a much better writer than ICE. I'd put RJ and SE about equal - very different styles, but both of them are very good at what they do. I don't think WoT is anywhere near 'simplistic' - there are more details in that series than in perhaps ANY fantasy series save Malazan, and I think that the details fit together more smoothly than in Malazan (as in, there are lots of clues to what is going to happen later in the series, and it's not always what it appears to be from a casual read). There are some cliché elements to WoT, but they are always more than the basic cliché, as if RJ took the cliché and made something original out of it - a unique twist on familiar details.

It is my opinion that hard core fans in any given fandom tend to have a 'There can be only one' attitude - they will praise the works of authors who don't quite fit into the category of the 'home author', but heavily criticize authors inside that category. Here, that category is something like Hugely Long Epic Fantasy. Something around a 10-book series with each book being well over 500 pages, that has also been quite successful. There aren't many authors that fit in that category here - you have SE, RJ, GRRM (who has only made it to book four), and Goodkind, and a few others. RJ and GRRM and Goodkind have had the most success, but I think only Goodkind deserves the criticism he gets, and he deserves it mostly for being such an asswipe, rather than for his books being all THAT horrible. I've read much worse, really. Much, much worse.

But I can understand the frustration of hard core Malazan fans, that SE's books have not proven to be as marketable as Goodkind (gives a bad impression of the masses, for sure) - apparently most people can't read them because of all the details to keep up with. In WoT, there are a lot of details to keep up with, but they're delivered in a way that makes it easier, I think - anyone can read the books and enjoy them, but not just anyone can read them and understand everything that is going on. But the people who don't understand exactly what is going on are just surprised when the truth comes out - it's not confusing to read.

Anyway, I think that this problem is only temporary for Malazan - I think there are plenty of people out there who could handle them just fine that simply haven't been turned on to them yet. I've managed to get several people to read them. Part of that is that there is still a bit of a stigma against 'fantasy' fiction among 'proper' people. Hopefully that is changing as well.

Also, I'm not saying that anyone who has spoken against Wot in this thread is guilty of having that 'there can only be one' attitude - obviously, they have reasons for not liking WoT any more (or never having liked it in the first place). I just think it's odd that there is Malazan-hating, GRRM-hating, and Goodkind-hating on WoT forums; there is WoT-hating, GRRM-hating, and Goodkind-hating here; and there is WoT-hating, Malazan-hating, and Goodkind-hating at Westeros.

[Aptorian]

I was going to hear you out, but then you wrote this:

Terez, on 26 September 2009 - 11:14 PM, said:

I'd put RJ and SE about equal - very different styles, but both of them are very good at what they do.

And you topped it off with this:

Terez, on 26 September 2009 - 11:14 PM, said:

Goodkind deserves the criticism he gets, and he deserves it mostly for being such an asswipe, rather than for his books being all THAT horrible. I've read much worse, really. Much, much worse.

There's nothing worse than Goodkind. What could be worse? Have you been reading the first edition of the Necronomicon again?

I don't understand how you can compare Erikson and Jordan. Is there some kind of incredible leap in thought process or storytelling talent that happens in Jordans work after book 4? Because What I read up until book 4 was not good. Cliché upon cliché. The noble rogue who likes money and women but feels a need to help his friends, the strong warrior who doesn't understand women but likes to lift things, the wonderful farmboy who has the world on his shoulder but is always struggling with his destiny which he is struggling with because he can never just get a fucking clear message from his so called mentors, the dark lord who is dark because that is what dark lords do, the noble born who are assholes and rich because that is what the noble born do, the farm hands who are farmhand like because they live on farms and work with their hands, endless travel in every fucking book where the only thing to happen during hundreds of pages of horseback riding or boat sailing is one POV after another of OH WOE IS ME, WHY IS IT SO HARD TO BE A HERO, OH I WISH I WAS HOME IN THE VILLAGE SMOOTHING MY SKIRTS AND JACKING OFF TO ANIMAL PORN.

I really would like to enjoy WoT but it's like he takes 300 or 400 page books and then just crams bullshit in between the good stuff. He starts every book off slow, using some 100 to 200 pages to tell you everything you just read in the last book in between showing that people are like, really worried and like don't want to travel some place or like really need to travel some place, then they travel for some 300 to 400 pages and then finally, Jordan realises that he has to wrap everything up, so he spends the last 100 pages trying justify the first 600 pages of a mess he just wrote. Which makes for an awesome but unsatisfying convergence. It is a lot like Goodkind actually, he can't finish his books properly either.

Jordan is a writer that assures me that one day I could get published and have a book(series) become a success. Erikson is a writer that intimidates me and challenges my idea of what I could write and what I should write.

This post has been edited by Aptorian: 27 September 2009 - 08:05 AM

[Terez]

Aptorian, on 27 September 2009 - 08:02 AM, said:

There's nothing worse than Goodkind.

When you take his interviews into account, maybe you're right. But I'm just talking about writing.

Apt said:

What could be worse?

I think Goodkind is a better writer than ICE. I'd take Malazan world over SoT world any day, but when it comes to actual writing, ICE isn't very good at all. Goodkind is much better at making things interesting.

Apt said:

I don't understand how you can compare Erikson and Jordan. Is there some kind of incredible leap in thought process or storytelling talent that happens in Jordans work after book 4? Because What I read up until book 4 was not good.

See, this is why you are a prime example, I think, of this 'there can only be one' mentality, and the way that it prejudices fans of one series against another. Because there are several WoT fans here, many of which were disappointed with elements of the later books, but they all seem to agree that the earlier WoT books are great. But you read them after having been exposed to the WoT-hating here, and I can't help but think that has something to do with your attitude.

Apt said:

Cliché upon cliché. The noble rogue who likes money and women but feels a need to help his friends, the strong warrior who doesn't understand women but likes to lift things, the wonderful farmboy who has the world on his shoulder but is always struggling with his destiny which he is struggling with because he can never just get a fucking clear message from his so called mentors, the dark lord who is dark because that is what dark lords do, the noble born who are assholes and rich because that is what the noble born do, the farm hands who are farmhand like because they live on farms and work with their hands...

If that was all there is to these characters and plot elements, then you might have a point, but it isn't.

Apt said:

endless travel in every fucking book where the only thing to happen during hundreds of pages of horseback riding or boat sailing is one POV after another of OH WOE IS ME, WHY IS IT SO HARD TO BE A HERO, OH I WISH I WAS HOME IN THE VILLAGE SMOOTHING MY SKIRTS AND JACKING OFF TO ANIMAL PORN.

This doesn't resemble the books at all. I could cook up a sarcastic few sentences to describe Malazan books, too - wouldn't make it accurate.

Apt said:

I really would like to enjoy WoT but it's like he takes 300 or 400 page books and then just crams bullshit in between the good stuff. He starts every book off slow, using some 100 to 200 pages to tell you everything you just read in the last book

RJ doesn't do this at all. Also, every SE book starts out slow - that's one of the things I like better about WoT...I think RJ was better at keeping the first 2/3 of the book interesting.

[Aptorian]

[quote name='Terez' date='27 September 2009 - 12:04 PM' timestamp='1254045880' post='681640']
[quote name='Apt']What could be worse?[/quote]

I think Goodkind is a better writer than ICE. I'd take Malazan world over SoT world any day, but when it comes to actual writing, ICE isn't very good at all. Goodkind is much better at making things interesting.
[/quote]

LIES!

Well, okay, in pure experience, it's obvious that Goodkind beats Esslemont. Goodkind does know how to make a scene interesting that's for sure. But the difference lies what the two does with their stories. Goodkind writes as though he thinks the reader is an idiot ([s]republican[/s]). Esslemont writes as though he expects you to be smarter than the average fantasy reader. Time will tell with Esslemont, Goodkind has already proven that his series is a half-assed money scheme.

[quote name='Terez' date='27 September 2009 - 12:04 PM' timestamp='1254045880' post='681640']
[quote name='Apt']I don't understand how you can compare Erikson and Jordan. Is there some kind of incredible leap in thought process or storytelling talent that happens in Jordans work after book 4? Because What I read up until book 4 was not good.[/quote]

See, this is why you are a prime example, I think, of this 'there can only be one' mentality, and the way that it prejudices fans of one series against another. Because there are several WoT fans here, many of which were disappointed with elements of the later books, but they all seem to agree that the earlier WoT books are great. But you read them after having been exposed to the WoT-hating here, and I can't help but think that has something to do with your attitude.
[/quote]

Actually I started reading the WoT after hearing a lot of good stuff about the series from people on this forum. I knew that I was going to be reading old school 90s fantasy, but I was ready for that. What I was not ready for was poor storytelling choices. The stories are just too longwinded and illogical in places for me to stand them.

And I don't figure that there's nobody better than Erikson. In fact in the last couple of years I've begun to resent some of Eriksons choices. I'm one of the people that thinks Erikson doesn't have enough focus on the over all arch of the series.

I am very fond of the likes of Butcher, Bakker, Weeks, Rothfuss, etc.

[quote name='Apt']Cliché upon cliché. The noble rogue who likes money and women but feels a need to help his friends, the strong warrior who doesn't understand women but likes to lift things, the wonderful farmboy who has the world on his shoulder but is always struggling with his destiny which he is struggling with because he can never just get a fucking clear message from his so called mentors, the dark lord who is dark because that is what dark lords do, the noble born who are assholes and rich because that is what the noble born do, the farm hands who are farmhand like because they live on farms and work with their hands...[/quote]

If that was all there is to these characters and plot elements, then you might have a point, but it isn't.
[/quote]

No, but it's still awfull... Smooths skirt, tugs braid.

[quote name='Terez' date='27 September 2009 - 12:04 PM' timestamp='1254045880' post='681640']
[quote name='Apt']endless travel in every fucking book where the only thing to happen during hundreds of pages of horseback riding or boat sailing is one POV after another of OH WOE IS ME, WHY IS IT SO HARD TO BE A HERO, OH I WISH I WAS HOME IN THE VILLAGE SMOOTHING MY SKIRTS AND JACKING OFF TO ANIMAL PORN.[/quote]

This doesn't resemble the books at all. I could cook up a sarcastic few sentences to describe Malazan books, too - wouldn't make it accurate.
[/quote]

Oh but it does. Matt IS the good natured thief, Perrin IS the noble warrior with a chequered past and Rand is the farmboy turned hero saviour.

And from the very moment they meet the first Trollock in the first book we get to hear about regretting leaving home, being scared, not knowing this and that, blah blah. I would be loving all of this if I was in the 90s or 80s. But we're in the 00s now, and this kind of story and character building is weak and cliché. I can't fault Jordan for what he wrote back then, but if you're a new reader having read some the good, mordern fantasy, then the WoT can be something of a bore.

[quote name='Terez' date='27 September 2009 - 12:04 PM' timestamp='1254045880' post='681640']
[quote name='Apt']I really would like to enjoy WoT but it's like he takes 300 or 400 page books and then just crams bullshit in between the good stuff. He starts every book off slow, using some 100 to 200 pages to tell you everything you just read in the last book[/quote]

RJ doesn't do this at all.
[/quote]

He does too. The last book I read, the 4th, was some 150 pages of people running around in the big rock or in the village below, re-telling everything I just read in the old book or thinking about leaving. But they just don't they just think a lot and act misserable. They need a session with Dr. Phil.

[quote name='Terez' date='27 September 2009 - 12:04 PM' timestamp='1254045880' post='681640']
Also, every SE book starts out slow - that's one of the things I like better about WoT...I think RJ was better at keeping the first 2/3 of the book interesting.
[/quote]

There's a difference between starting slow and just stagnating. Erikson doesn't give recaps. And he doesn't use the first 100 pages setting the stage. He just starts the tale, throws in some new characters and settings and lets the story unfold.