[Terez]

Werthead, on 13 May 2016 - 10:13 AM, said:

Quote

Let's not pretend that the Seanchan aren't a bastardized, mixed-up-in-a-bowl Asian stereotype filtered into fantasy, up to and including their name.

Since the Seanchan are basically a hyper-exaggerated version of slave-owning Texans (even down to coming from the same continent, post-Breaking), I think it says more about the reader immediately assuming they're Asians than anything that Jordan put in the text The actual Asian-influenced cultures are Shara (which doesn't seem to bear much actual resemblance to Asia any more) and the Borderland nations.

WoT is mix-and-match when it comes to source material, and the Seanchan are no different. They're definitely based on far-Eastern cultures, despite the Texas accents. But they're no more or less derivative than other WoT cultures; these references to real-world cultures and mythology are pervasive in WoT.

Werthead, on 13 May 2016 - 10:13 AM, said:

Quote

As I said earlier, the main problem with books 7-11 is structure. RJ was in bad health and had to cut back on his writing time, so he wasn't able to finish his book outlines.

I haven't heard that before. I know he had a health issue between LoC and ACoS, but that sounds like it was related to stress rather than anything more fundamental, and he did say that no symptoms of his amyloidosis surfaced until the KoD book tour in late 2005.

Judging by how quickly his health took a nosedive after his diagnosis, it's likely he had amyloidosis for many years before it was diagnosed. I have no idea if his health problems in the mid-90s were related to amyloidosis, but it was apparently bad enough that Harriet feared for his life. He cut back his working hours, consulted a dietician, invested in some workout equipment, etc. He said publicly that the breakneck schedule required to honor his initial 6-book contract almost killed him.

Werthead, on 13 May 2016 - 10:13 AM, said:

On top of that, GoT's global success is unprecedented and unlikely to be replicated. Unless it was on Netflix or maybe Amazon, the WoT TV series will likely have a smaller audience and that audience will proportionally consist of more book readers than otherwise.

Yeah, I think a lot of people look at this through the lens of GOT and assume that the reader base doesn't matter, but GOT is popular for a number of reasons that don't apply to WoT. It's not the same situation at all. If they make a shitty adaptation that doesn't much resemble the books, it will flop. There's no doubt about that.

Werthead, on 13 May 2016 - 10:13 AM, said:

Quote

EDIT to add: Serious query Terez, do you honestly think that Rand's harem flies with casual TV audiences in 2016? I can actually visualize the social media shitstorm that would wash across the internet right now.

It's 2016. Polyamorous relationships are a lot more common now and depicting one on TV is unusual, so could be seen as progressive depending on how it's handled. I don't see that being a problem in itself, but I do see a lot of eye-rolling at the relationship involving one guy and three hot women. It would have to be handled sensitively. Although it is worth noting that the show would be in its third or fourth season before it really got going in a big way, so it's not like it'll be a big issue upfront. Also, the "harem" descriptor needs to die a death, as it's quite inaccurate: Rand is with Aviendha as they come out of the Waste, then she leaves and he's with Min, and then he gets to spend like one night with Elayne. He's not with all three of them at the same time, and I think all four of them are in the same room (with other people) once in the entire series.

I agree with Wert; it's not a show-killer. It would however be important NOT to cut Myrelle's relationship with her Warders to show some kind of balance. With the way Lan fits into that story, they should have no problem representing Myrelle's situation faithfully.

I think QT's logic is basically the conventional wisdom on the subject, but conventional wisdom says WoT should have never been popular/tolerable as a book series for the same reason. But it was. And it gives the fans something to talk about.

Werthead, on 13 May 2016 - 10:13 AM, said:

Quote

This cannot be true? Can it? I would argue that to disappear your primary antagonist for 80% of your third (and at one point final) book is not a literary smart move! Ther has to be a poll for this!

In twenty years of following the online WoT fandom, I've never once seen it come up as an issue.

It comes up occasionally, but most fans loved it. It's one of the things that helped me fall in love with the series. I remember the first time I read it, telling the friend who recommended the series how amazing it was that the protagonist could disappear for almost a whole book and I barely even noticed because the supporting cast was strong enough to keep the story going.

The sidelining of Rand was also incredibly helpful when it came to building the mystique of the Dragon Reborn. People like mystery, and Rand's absence in TDR is part of what helped RJ to transform a farmboy into a quasi-mythical character.

Werthead, on 13 May 2016 - 10:13 AM, said:

The two books-per-season structure and the fact that TDR would cover less episodes (being a shorter book) means that Rand would really only be 100% missing from maybe 2 episodes of the season, which isn't too bad at all.

We got brief glimpses of Rand throughout TDR that are meant to convey Rand's psychological decline (which really began here). And even in the chapters where we don't see him, there are signs of his passage that Moiraine and Perrin are following. Even the girls are focused on him to an extent.

[QuickTidal]

I should qualify the thing about Rand's Harem...it can be done on the show...but it will be massively changed to fit with what broad TV audiences would be comfortable with and will look more like a love triangle of sorts.

Quote

If they make a shitty adaptation that doesn't much resemble the books, it will flop. There's no doubt about that.

Right, but what you and I may think is a shitty adaptation of books we've read (which you love, and I'm a casual reader of)...other casual audience viewers (of which we've established that there are many millions more than WOT fans) may not. Things that bother you about the adaptation won't bother others. That's the line they ride. And frankly they need the latter viewers more than they need the former. WOT fans are a given statistic before episode one even rolls before the cameras. You are going to watch because you are fans. The people who need roping into the demographic are the casual people who have never read the books (or likely even heard of them). That's the level of importance that needs placed on the casual viewing public for any network peddling any show.

[Terez]

QuickTidal, on 13 May 2016 - 02:16 PM, said:

WOT fans are a given statistic before episode one even rolls before the cameras. You are going to watch because you are fans.

Some will, but most won't watch it if it's not a good adaptation because we don't want to see something we love destroyed. Just look at how the fandom reacted to the REE pilot.

QuickTidal, on 13 May 2016 - 02:16 PM, said:

The people who need roping into the demographic are the casual people who have never read the books (or likely even heard of them). That's the level of importance that needs placed on the casual viewing public for any network peddling any show.

Very likely, the same things that made WoT popular as a book series will make it popular as a TV series. They don't need to make it a fundamentally different story to rope in TV viewers; these are simply people who don't have time to read long book series. Again, the safest route is to stick to the original story as much as possible, because that story was popular for many reasons.

[QuickTidal]

Terez, on 13 May 2016 - 02:21 PM, said:

QuickTidal, on 13 May 2016 - 02:16 PM, said:

WOT fans are a given statistic before episode one even rolls before the cameras. You are going to watch because you are fans.

Some will, but most won't watch it if it's not a good adaptation because we don't want to see something we love destroyed. Just look at how the fandom reacted to the REE pilot.

QuickTidal, on 13 May 2016 - 02:16 PM, said:

The people who need roping into the demographic are the casual people who have never read the books (or likely even heard of them). That's the level of importance that needs placed on the casual viewing public for any network peddling any show.

Very likely, the same things that made WoT popular as a book series will make it popular as a TV series. They don't need to make it a fundamentally different story to rope in TV viewers; these are simply people who don't have time to read long book series. Again, the safest route is to stick to the original story as much as possible, because that story was popular for many reasons.

Sorry, I think I disagree. The network isn't looking for "bestseller fantasy series" numbers, again no matter how large you are as a group...they are looking for TV series numbers which are vastly larger. WOT fans, no matter how numerous, are still a niche group. TV fans are more fickle. They will drop a series for any number of reasons that don't apply to a book (boredom, wrong hard to access network [case in point MANHATTAN], bad writing, bad acting, bad CGI or sets...ect.) and as such the showrunners need to pay close attention to all that stuff AND still sell the story they are telling. I know you WANT it to stick to the original story as close as possible, I just don't think as the series goes on that it's feasible for network TV with regards to some things. WOT is a very sprawling story, and TV shows usually cut the extraneous sideroads for the straightforward narrative out of necessity, or if they are important, change them to fir that straightforward narrative.

[Terez]

At this point you're coming off as contrarian for the sake of being contrarian. I never said they should ignore things that make for a good TV show. I'm talking about the story. And keeping it as close to the original as possible incorporates the pragmatism of adaptation.

[Macros]

To he fair Terez, I think you have to try and look at this from an outsiders perspective.
What YOU and other superfans love about the series, other people merely enjoy, the bits you don't over mind or aren't annoyed by a lot of people hate about the series. There's a lot of meandering bullshit that simply has to go, you see the significance of it all, because you love the books, you've spent years dissecting the books and rereading them. Average reader doesn't, they see them as a bloody drag, and so will studio heads. Of those 100 million sales, how many are still active fans? How many even finished the series? Even taking a sample for this forum, there's many many members have read upwards of 8 of the books but haven't looked back at them in years, and still wont finish the series as it well so badly to shit circa book 9? (I forget, it still hurts to think of the boredom) like ot or not, this will be aimed as mass marketing, not a niche fan market. Fan markets don't make money. Look at LotR, 100 million sales or there about, only over 3 books. Most fans of the films haven't read the books.

The owners of the network, well Id be surprised if they have ever read any of the books, hell have read any fantasy books. They see the behemoth that LotR was, that GoT is and they want a piece of the action. I can see the meeting now "well there's this epic fantasy series rights are up for grabs..."
"epic fantasy? Like a game of thrones????"
"well yeah, not really but yeah fantasy world, politics, war"
"Interesting tell me more"
"well there's been millions of copies of the book sold"
"Millions? SOLD! Here's the tagline, 'based on the 100 million selling book'"
"well, there's 14 books, so individual sales wo...."
"Never mind that Jeffrey, this stuff sells! We'll need back room politico's, shady dealings and swords. You say the main character is a DRAGON?? WONDERFUL!!!11111one"

They categorically will not give a single fuck about being true to RJs vision, they will want a cool world and a sellable story, they'll see 100 million books sold, they'll point to the butchery Jackson got away with and do whatever the fuck they want.

[Terez]

Macros, on 13 May 2016 - 03:21 PM, said:

To he fair Terez, I think you have to try and look at this from an outsiders perspective.

Who says I don't? There is no one outsider's perspective, but I've spent years discussing WoT with relative outsiders on places like this forum, so I'm hardly ignorant about outsiders' perspectives.

Macros, on 13 May 2016 - 03:21 PM, said:

Of those 100 million sales, how many are still active fans? How many even finished the series? Even taking a sample for this forum, there's many many members have read upwards of 8 of the books but haven't looked back at them in years, and still wont finish the series as it well so badly to shit circa book 9?

And how many of those people would watch the TV series? I'm sure some would, but many wouldn't and don't care about anything WoT-related at all. But the final books of the series (including COT and KOD) sold better than previous books, so there was always an upward tick in sales. Some people put down the series; others picked it up.

Macros, on 13 May 2016 - 03:21 PM, said:

They categorically will not give a single fuck about being true to RJs vision...

Maybe, maybe not. Depends on who the producers are.

Macros, on 13 May 2016 - 03:21 PM, said:

...they will want a cool world and a sellable story, they'll see 100 million books sold, they'll point to the butchery Jackson got away with and do whatever the fuck they want.

Maybe, maybe not. LOTR is one example of what might happen, Legend of the Seeker is another. They can't depend on the success of LOTR and GOT as a basis for butchery; they have to do what they can to make it a good story. And again, the safest (not the only, but the safest) route is to stick with what made the story popular in the first place. I don't see why this is so hard to grasp.

[QuickTidal]

Terez, on 13 May 2016 - 03:08 PM, said:

At this point you're coming off as contrarian for the sake of being contrarian. I never said they should ignore things that make for a good TV show. I'm talking about the story. And keeping it as close to the original as possible incorporates the pragmatism of adaptation.

I'm not. I think you're too close to this to see it objectively.

Macros, on 13 May 2016 - 03:21 PM, said:

To he fair Terez, I think you have to try and look at this from an outsiders perspective.
What YOU and other superfans love about the series, other people merely enjoy, the bits you don't over mind or aren't annoyed by a lot of people hate about the series. There's a lot of meandering bullshit that simply has to go, you see the significance of it all, because you love the books, you've spent years dissecting the books and rereading them. Average reader doesn't, they see them as a bloody drag, and so will studio heads. Of those 100 million sales, how many are still active fans? How many even finished the series? Even taking a sample for this forum, there's many many members have read upwards of 8 of the books but haven't looked back at them in years, and still wont finish the series as it well so badly to shit circa book 9? (I forget, it still hurts to think of the boredom) like ot or not, this will be aimed as mass marketing, not a niche fan market. Fan markets don't make money. Look at LotR, 100 million sales or there about, only over 3 books. Most fans of the films haven't read the books.

The owners of the network, well Id be surprised if they have ever read any of the books, hell have read any fantasy books. They see the behemoth that LotR was, that GoT is and they want a piece of the action. I can see the meeting now "well there's this epic fantasy series rights are up for grabs..."
"epic fantasy? Like a game of thrones????"
"well yeah, not really but yeah fantasy world, politics, war"
"Interesting tell me more"
"well there's been millions of copies of the book sold"
"Millions? SOLD! Here's the tagline, 'based on the 100 million selling book'"
"well, there's 14 books, so individual sales wo...."
"Never mind that Jeffrey, this stuff sells! We'll need back room politico's, shady dealings and swords. You say the main character is a DRAGON?? WONDERFUL!!!11111one"

They categorically will not give a single fuck about being true to RJs vision, they will want a cool world and a sellable story, they'll see 100 million books sold, they'll point to the butchery Jackson got away with and do whatever the fuck they want.

Indeed, the outsiders view is important here.

And Hollywood is Hollywood. They always have been, and they always will be this way.

[Terez]

QuickTidal, on 13 May 2016 - 03:38 PM, said:

Terez, on 13 May 2016 - 03:08 PM, said:

At this point you're coming off as contrarian for the sake of being contrarian. I never said they should ignore things that make for a good TV show. I'm talking about the story. And keeping it as close to the original as possible incorporates the pragmatism of adaptation.

I'm not. I think you're too close to this to see it objectively.

I could just as easily argue that you can't see it objectively because you were predisposed to be critical of WoT before you even started reading it. I think I see it as objectively as is needed to be pragmatic about adaptation, but the last people whose opinions should shape any adaptation are people who didn't even really like the source material.

[Macros]

Its something we're not likely to agree on, IMO there is a lot that should be cut period. But that's another day.
Whilst it would he nice to think that WoT is such a well rounded piece of literary genious that Holywood will look at it and go 'holy shit balls let just slap this book on the script as is!!'
A) it isn't
they wont.

Even the slow parts of GoT get shit from the fans, and there's a hella lot more slow stuff in WoT. Tv producers don't want that, a series cant sustain that, practically every episode will have to have an umph point, a wow factor that people gabble about after. Such is the world of modern media, if there isn't people will.switch to something else at the drop of a hat, there's so much out there now its easy to do.
And before we get back into wether WoT has those moments, yes to you it does. I vaguely recall RJ being shocked when most readers weren't shocked and awed by his massive plot thing where a lot of people killed themselves. Most people nothing'd it. They weren't characters we were invested in, they were red shirts.
And that's the problem, WoT has far too many red shirts, and average joe, lying sprawled on his sofa scratching himself in the intimate areas wo t give a damn about character #500 who appears I. Season one and again as a pirate hooker from whore island in season 5 (actually that would sell, write that down Jeffery)
It will be chopped down and made much tighter than the meandering mess the series devolved into.
I'll lay money on it right now with you. $50 says they'll butcher the source material and most WoT proper fans wont be happy, but the unwashed masses will probably lap it up.

[Terez]

Macros, on 13 May 2016 - 03:46 PM, said:

Its something we're not likely to agree on, IMO there is a lot that should be cut period. But that's another day.
Whilst it would he nice to think that WoT is such a well rounded piece of literary genious that Holywood will look at it and go 'holy shit balls let just slap this book on the script as is!!'
A) it isn't
they wont.

You appear to be arguing with a straw man. Have fun with that.

[QuickTidal]

Terez, on 13 May 2016 - 03:42 PM, said:

QuickTidal, on 13 May 2016 - 03:38 PM, said:

Terez, on 13 May 2016 - 03:08 PM, said:

At this point you're coming off as contrarian for the sake of being contrarian. I never said they should ignore things that make for a good TV show. I'm talking about the story. And keeping it as close to the original as possible incorporates the pragmatism of adaptation.

I'm not. I think you're too close to this to see it objectively.

I could just as easily argue that you can't see it objectively because you were predisposed to be critical of WoT before you even started reading it. I think I see it as objectively as is needed to be pragmatic about adaptation, but the last people whose opinions should shape any adaptation are people who didn't even really like the source material.

I was not critical of it beforehand. I was leery of it, but not critical. I liked lots of it once I started reading it, and whole books of it I think are fantastic. I don't care for the ending, nor do I feel that it was worthy of the long set of books in the end and as a result the ending I think suffered...but to say I disliked the source material is flat out wrong. Just because I have issues with it doesn't mean that I "didn't even really like it"....it just means that I'm not a fanboy. And in fact that makes me even MORE the person who could look at it objectively...because I allowed myself to be critical (in hindsight) about the flaws, and still note that I enjoyed portions of the whole (especially early on). That's a pretty balanced way of looking at a long ass book series. On that note, I think a TV series could go a long way to cleaning up the flaws and making it a better narrative by being more straightforward and tightening up the extraneous.

I don't think you can do that simply by the virtue of how invested in this series you are. That's not a slight mind you. I happen to think your excessive knowledge on the series is exhaustively complete and makes for you and those you discuss the series with able to enjoy it that much more...it just means that any modifications they make for a TV show might sting you more than others.

And actually, let's bring it back to SHANNARA for a second as an example. Series bought by MTV, Brooks himself is brought in as an advisor all season, so not only did they buy it, but they brought the still living author in to make sure they were getting things right. Massive, sweeping character, setting, design, world building, and arc changes to the entire series. He's even gone on record as saying that "I agreed and gave my blessing to a companion work with the TV show, primarily to bring new readers to the books. I did read the scripts and now and then did not necessarily agree with some of the plotlines or ideas. Most of the changes I did agree with though. But my showrunners are good guys and talented writers, and sometimes you just have to back off. TV, like movies, is art by committee, so other voices have to be paid attention to. Overall, I thought they did a good job. But if you are displeased, just remember the books never changed and never will." And I think that's the thrust of it. Here is a living author who was sent scripts and gave input and still the story was majorly changed in TV form. And his view of that is you either accept that and allow it to be a different thing, or you go back to the books and ignore the show.

This post has been edited by QuickTidal: 13 May 2016 - 04:16 PM

[Cause]

Thinking on it some more, some of the most important aspects of the story will be at risk.

Making the main antagonist slowly descend into madness over 5 seasons is gonna be crazy difficult and require an amazing actor. Showing his madness and paranoid and yet still keeping him likeable.

[Abyss]

Also, all the trollocs have to have vaginas on their faces.

[Tsundoku]

Sounds like that would be ...

[Manderley]

What exactly is it about Rand's "Harem" that's so controversial?

It's been a while since I read the books but as I remember Rand is in a polygamous relationship with 3 willing women. If it's Polygamy people have an issue with then maybe they should have a look at themselves for being too judgmental...

On a side note, I thought Shannara was horrible. As someone who hadn't read the books, some of the plot made no sense whatsoever.

[Cause]

Manderley, on 14 May 2016 - 08:33 AM, said:

What exactly is it about Rand's "Harem" that's so controversial?

It's been a while since I read the books but as I remember Rand is in a polygamous relationship with 3 willing women. If it's Polygamy people have an issue with then maybe they should have a look at themselves for being too judgmental...

On a side note, I thought Shannara was horrible. As someone who hadn't read the books, some of the plot made no sense whatsoever.

I think the biggest problem will be (again this is how I read it) is that Jordan really struggled to write good relationships. I struggled for ages to understand why Egwene broke up with him. The best I have ever been able to come up with is despite what she says she already sees that his being a male channeller and her being an Aes Sedai will be a problem. My younger self could not accept that in the End Egwene and Rand were never really in love and Egwene never cares for Rand the way the other villagers he grew up with. Which also makes her passing Rand to her new friend really strange. Which brings us to Rands Harem, Min loves him because she is trapped by fate and being the seer. She knows her prophecies are always true so she just goes with it (not the romance of the ages). Elayne loves Rand because of his Taveren nature, it gives him Andor and it does so in the most convoluted and least effective ways possible (not the romance of the ages). Aviendah for me is the one person who spends enough time with him to fall in love with him and has reasons too. She is attracted to the fact that he is a great leader, warrior, person and fighter of the shadows. Yet since she buries her feelings for him behind antagonism we will need to show her divided feelings more clearly. Add to the fact that he literally never spends time with Elayne, and only spends time with Aviendah and Min separately its going to be hard to portray him in a relationship with 3 loving women who all accept him as opposed to he finds a new girl every time the old girl vanishes.

The TV series would be more along the line of Rand the player, Season 1 (Egwene), Season 2 (Elayne), Season 3 (Aviendah), Season 4 (Min)


Speaking of Taveren that is another thing that will be tricky to pull of. The wheel of time, the pattern, prophecies and Rands Taveren nature vs Rands free will etc. Rand is the ultimate tool for either the light or the shadow to Win. Fate is not absolutely predetermined in the world of WoT especially as the shadow can influence it. Yet still they need to showcase these metaphysics of the world without robbing Rand of Agency. It must be clear he is not fated to win, even though in a way he is. Rands Taveren nature is one of the hardest ideas to wrap your head around. Its been a long time since I grappled with some of these issues. I sometimes hated the fact that being a taveren or the pattern etc seemed to rob Rand of him being a hero. Did the pattern influence in some way the creation of Mashadar as a way for the dragon to one day have a means to cleanse the taint? In the age of legends I dont believe there is any hint that the dragon was taveren.

[Tsundoku]

Cause, on 16 May 2016 - 03:30 PM, said:

It must be clear he is not fated to win, even though in a way he is.

So, Rand is ... more Schroedinger than cat?

Or is that just putting Descartes before the horse?

[Werthead]

Macros, on 13 May 2016 - 03:21 PM, said:

They categorically will not give a single fuck about being true to RJs vision, they will want a cool world and a sellable story, they'll see 100 million books sold, they'll point to the butchery Jackson got away with and do whatever the fuck they want.

The "this has sold well so let's get the rights and butcher the thing" mentality was pervasive in Hollywood 30 years ago, was still around at a lower ebb 20 years ago and then pretty much left the building with LotR, which was an extraordinarily close and faithful adaptation as these things go (being about 80% true to the books, and what was changed was more wholesale removals of sections that couldn't be fitted in due to time and a couple of gross oversimplifications). If we look at faithful adaptations since then, they've been far more successful and more likely to succeed than things that have changed things wholesale: GAME OF THRONES was incredibly close to the books in the first season, reasonably close in Seasons 2-4 and has only really deviated strongly in areas from Season 5, but still remains close in others. HARRY POTTER was very faithful, it just had to jettison vast swathes of subplots and secondary characters for time reasons. THE HUNGER GAMES was reasonably faithful, and so on.

The Hollywood mentality now is that the source material is successful for a reason, so staying close to the source material whilst making changes required for practical/expense/time reasons is generally considered a better approach and idea. Move away from that and the risk of the whole thing collapsing into an unsuccessful mess grows. The only adapted works we've seen recently have been massively successful despite massive deviations have been where the source material has been relatively obscure or not very good (TRUE BLOOD and THE 100). Studios have no doubt been looking at THE HOBBIT trilogy, where each movie made less money than the one before (and all three vastly less profit than the LotR trilogy) and the critical response was very mixed, and taken on board what happened there: changes made to drag 2 short movies out to 3 long ones because there were three studios involved and one of them was going under and wanted as much money as humanly possible to try to save itself. And as a result of that they lost their cutting-edge, badass director and had to settle for a guy whose creative spark had long since departed this mortal plane.

Quote

I struggled for ages to understand why Egwene broke up with him. The best I have ever been able to come up with is despite what she says she already sees that his being a male channeller and her being an Aes Sedai will be a problem. My younger self could not accept that in the End Egwene and Rand were never really in love and Egwene never cares for Rand the way the other villagers he grew up with.

I think it was pretty straightforwardly explained: everyone just assumed that Rand and Egwene would hook up because their fathers were friends, they were of a similar social level (innkeeper/mayor's daughter and the son of a farmer/homesteader/war hero) and they were both good-looking. Rand and Egwene just went along with it. I must admit it was a bit odd because of the 3-year age gap, although that may also factor into why it didn't go anywhere: Egwene saw Rand more of a big brother figure and vice versa, although in Rand's case that was complicated by the fact that Egwene had become quite attractive as she got older. Ultimately I can see why it didn't pan out and they were both attracted to new people they met along the way.

[acesn8s]

Cause, on 16 May 2016 - 03:30 PM, said:

Manderley, on 14 May 2016 - 08:33 AM, said:

What exactly is it about Rand's "Harem" that's so controversial?

It's been a while since I read the books but as I remember Rand is in a polygamous relationship with 3 willing women. If it's Polygamy people have an issue with then maybe they should have a look at themselves for being too judgmental...

On a side note, I thought Shannara was horrible. As someone who hadn't read the books, some of the plot made no sense whatsoever.

I think the biggest problem will be (again this is how I read it) is that Jordan really struggled to write good relationships. I struggled for ages to understand why Egwene broke up with him. The best I have ever been able to come up with is despite what she says she already sees that his being a male channeller and her being an Aes Sedai will be a problem. My younger self could not accept that in the End Egwene and Rand were never really in love and Egwene never cares for Rand the way the other villagers he grew up with.

In the beginning of the series, (and when I was much younger), I had similar feelings.

Looking back, I now think that if they had stayed at home, they would have married and loved each other under Rand died from the taint, just like in Egwene's trial visions. Once they went out into the world, they changed. They both still have fond feelings for each other, but have changed as individuals. It's amazing what a "move" will do for some people.