[Cyphon]

http://www.theguardi...n-robert-jordan

Have to agree a little bit with this blog

[D'iversify]

I agree that I wouldn't give WoT a Hugo on balance but the arguments in this article are ridiculously bad and superficial, and the tone is generally rather insulting towards high fantasy fans. I have made my views known on the site (I am Idioplasm).

This post has been edited by D'iversify: 19 January 2014 - 12:18 AM

[Tattersail_]

First impression is that I don't care if they do or don't. I am a fan of WOT but dont care for the award. Out of all the authors I know of two. I am baffled as to why some people are not on the list. Just look at it. ..

[Egwene]

Not difficult to guess that I am a WoT fan

My view is that regardless of any perceived similarities with LotR the bulk of the series is quite original and deserves to be up there with the best of them. I do not believe that awards should only recognise 'academic' works. Stories are not told to pass exams - they are told to engage listeners and readers. Any writer who is able to still successfully sell the 14th book in a series obviously got that bit right. How can one not appreciate the scope of the world buiding in WoT? Some people write reviews based on researching what others have written on the internet about a book rather then their own experience. Hope the reviewer at least read the entire series...

I do sometimes wonder where these efforts to find LotR in every fantasy story originate. Lets face it, LotR also took many ideas from other stories. Bottom line is that pretty much everything and anything has been said or heard somewhere at some point. Considering that a lot of fantasy writers like the medieval type setting... well, a quick look at historical evidence will make it quite obvious that to be born on a farm was a pretty common thing in those days. I see nothing wrong with books starting out from the same place. Where they go with it from there is what I am interested in.

I am grateful to Brandon Sanderson for finishing the series but I still wish that RJ had been able to do it himself because for me the longer a story, the better. Might have had another two or three books... *sigh* Maybe us fans of looooooong stories should come up with our own award for those writers that even many books down the line still give it their all!

By the way... anyone interested in a more informed opinion on WoT ought to read Werthead's contribution amongst the comments on that page.

[Baco Xtath]

Wow. His proof that WoT "bears a startling resemblance" to LotR is a link to a goodreads list. That's some fine journalism.

[Goaswerfraiejen]

I don't care much one way or the other if it gets the award (or even gets nominated) but, as some of you will know, I do think that the Wheel of Time series marks a phenomenal literary achievement in its own right. And it opened up fantasy for properly gritty (yet also long) series such as MBOTF and ASOIAF, which is a pretty important service. To class it with the plethora of derivative garbage in the genre (including Goodkind) is to do it a serious disservice.

[Tattersail_]

There are 4 series of books I will always own. Wheel of time, Harry Potter, Malazan Book of the Fallen and The Dresden Files. Nothing else I have read has come close to dismounting any one of these series or joining them.

[Abyss]

Saying WoT is derivative of LoTR is like saying Casablanca was derivative of The Maltese Falcon because both are black-and-white and star Bogart.

[The_Wanderer]

Due to its popularity and due to the fact that it opened the door for larger fantasy series' to be published, Wheel of Time at the very least should be nominated for a Hugo.

Should it win?

I've got to admit I would kind of like to see Wheel of Time win. Although it's flawed and not the most critically sound series, these awards never truly award the "best" written work, but instead give into the politics of publishing and popularity. An instance of this that truly bothered me occurred when J.K. Rowling won a Hugo for Goblet of Fire, defeating George R.R. Martin's A Storm of Swords in the process. I love Harry Potter, but A Storm of Swords is one of the single greatest installments of a fantasy series ever written. To see ASoS lose to Harry Potter due to its popularity was ridiculous. If that isn't politics, I don't know what is.

I don't think Wheel of Time could top the Harry Potter upset, if it really won over a book that will change the fantasy landscape forever, then I would be upset. I guess the point is: critically Wheel of Time will probably not deserve the award, but personally I wouldn't be opposed to seeing it win.

[lastname]

The_Wanderer, on 21 January 2014 - 02:44 AM, said:

I've got to admit I would kind of like to see Wheel of Time win. Although it's flawed and not the most critically sound series, these awards never truly award the "best" written work, but instead give into the politics of publishing and popularity. An instance of this that truly bothered me occurred when J.K. Rowling won a Hugo for Goblet of Fire, defeating George R.R. Martin's A Storm of Swords in the process. I love Harry Potter, but A Storm of Swords is one of the single greatest installments of a fantasy series ever written. To see ASoS lose to Harry Potter due to its popularity was ridiculous. If that isn't politics, I don't know what is.

That doesn't surprise me too much. The Hugo doesn't work like say the Nebula (peer voting). You don't even need to attend Worldcon to cast a Hugo vote. All you need to do is to buy a "supporting membership" (see here).

The Goblet of Fire sold some 66 million copies. ASoS, I think, pushed about 15 million copies by 2011. More readers possibly translates to more votes.

I haven't read Harry Potter (and probably won't) and ain't arguing in favour. I'm just saying the Hugo is basically a popularity contest rather than a peer/critic voted award.

This post has been edited by lastname: 21 January 2014 - 04:49 AM

[D'iversify]

Abyss, on 20 January 2014 - 05:39 PM, said:

Saying WoT is derivative of LoTR is like saying Casablanca was derivative of The Maltese Falcon because both are black-and-white and star Bogart.

Yeah, its pretty much another intolerable anti-genre argument where the only literature escaping criticism is automatically apotheosised into the 'literary fiction' category and so can escape the pain of being considered 'lowly' genre work.

[Terez]

I was in the neighborhood, so I just wanted to zombie-post that the Guardian article is one of the most blatant examples of trolling that I've ever seen in a mainstream publication, on any topic. It's good to see that there are some critics of WoT who didn't fall for it. Jennifer Liang posted it on Facebook when it was published, but if she hadn't been mentioned in the article I doubt anyone in the fandom would have paid much attention to it. It doesn't even pretend to make a rational argument; it's like the most boiled-down-to-nothing presentation imaginable of the extant body of WoT criticism.

PS—What I meant to say is that actually reading this thread made me happy, because I'm subscribed to the forum and thus got an email notification when the OP was posted. And at the time, I thought, "really"? This forum rarely disappoints.

This post has been edited by Terez: 12 March 2014 - 12:42 AM

[D'iversify]

Terez, on 12 March 2014 - 12:39 AM, said:

I was in the neighborhood, so I just wanted to zombie-post that the Guardian article is one of the most blatant examples of trolling that I've ever seen in a mainstream publication, on any topic.

Much as I enjoy the Guardian, its website is full of clickbait. And whilst they do get some people who have a clue to cover science fiction and fantasy (Ursula Le Guin and Robert MacFarlane write reviews every so often for them), a lot of the rest of the work is covered by journo-types pretending they know something about the genre and its clientele when really a nine year old [insert YA fantasy author whose work you consider amateur at best] fan could write more incisive articles than them.