[williamjm]

Werthead;138531 said:

Large book series (more than three books) that were published before Jordan:

Also Zelazny's original 5-book Amber series.

Was King's "The Dark Tower" originally conceived as a 7-book series? Obviously it wasn't finished before Jordan came along, but I thought it was started a long time before.

Quote

Erikson is the only author I know who actually planned a ten-book series, had a contract for a ten-book series from the outset, and is actually writing a ten-book series with no immediate chance of it expanding further.

That's a good point. Weis & Hickman's 7-book "Death Gate Cycle" (and possibly the Dark Tower as well) is the next-longest series I can think of that was planned that way.

[fan_83]

compare the page count of the books you are talking about and compare that to the malazan series...
5+ book series are not taht uncommon but its the page count that makes it hard to take...

each malaz book is about twice the length of each individual eddings and death gate cycle book..
thats the trail that jordan blazed ... 600+ page books series
not the usual 300 + ones

[Werthead]

Nope. Tolkien established much huger-sized books long before Jordan (although the one-volume editions didn't become commonplace until the 1970s) and then Brooks had much larger-than-normal books, as did Feist (with Magician), Richard Adams (with Shardik and Maia) and then Williams (with The Dragonbone Chair), all before Jordan started publishing. Donaldson's books weren't short either.

Interestingly, Erikson's longest books are longer (by about 130 pages) than Jordan's longest books (Memories of Ice clocking in at around 1150 books in paperback versus The Shadow Rising at 1020).

[fan_83]

werthead my point is that jordan started teh way for huge volume serieses..

not individual books..
shannara: is i remember correctly are about 600 on the first book and 300 on the next 2
magician is a standalone and the first print was a much shorter than the nowadays extended version.

[Astra]

fan_83;138668 said:

werthead my point is that jordan started teh way for huge volume serieses..

not individual books..
shannara: is i remember correctly are about 600 on the first book and 300 on the next 2
magician is a standalone and the first print was a much shorter than the nowadays extended version.

Also Magiciam consists of two books I think. Apprentice and ..don't remember.

[Dolorous Menhir]

Well, is Jordan not the longest series to date? (restrictions: longest series by one author, concerning one "cycle" of characters in an unbroken storyline, written and published constantly without substantial interruption)

I can't help but think that giving a ten-book contract to an untried author (ie Erikson) would've been far less likely if WoT wasn't there to prove such a thing could succeed.

Werthead listed many series of some length, but I think it's safe to say none of those have had anywhere near the level of success of WoT.

WoT is the big example that this formula can succeed. True, it was not originally planned to be that long, but that's not relevant. The point here is that it demonstrated such long series are commercially viable.

[GardenGnome]

As usual, Dolorous Menhir appears, and makes sense of everything

[High House Death]

Ahh, Jordan. Made it till about a couple hundred pages into Book 8, then just lost interest. Some very good bits in there though.

[ChrisW]

What, everyone here has 'pea brains'? I would expect a more robust debate than that.

Well as my last post got deleted i'll try again. Apparently fuck tard is worse than pea brain. Go figure.

Yes you and your buddies are a pea brains. Are you unable to consider that two authors could have similiar themes/cultures in there books due to the fact they used common sources and that both wanted women to have more power?

Here are just a few of RJ's sources.

Judeo-Christian and Biblical Parallels
Norse Mythology
Greek and Roman Mythology
Celtic Myths
Arthurian Legend
The Fisher King
Asian Influences
Native Americans
The Zulu

Now i'm sure if you compared that to Frank Herberts list your'd see some of the same.

Jordans use of common and sometimes obscure myths and legends is one of the reasons why his books appeal to so many people.

So unless you can provide a quote from RJ acknowleding the influrence(I'm sure he would), mb you should accept that what you and your fellow pea brains are just expressing personal opinions/prejudece and not fact.

robust debate from me, that's funny.:lachen70:

bah i should really stay out of Jordan threads. They get me in trouble. Not my fault people are can't appreciate good literature;)

[GardenGnome]

We can't appreciate bad litterature, you mean?

Anyway, I've allways thought Jordan as inspired by Herbert - some of the parallells are just too striking, considering those desert people - I can't remember the name, years since I read any Jordan, but it kinda screams "FREMEN!" Of course they share the same sources and inspirations - anyone from our western culture would, to some degree, have the same inspirations. However, the similarities between Jordan and Herbert are so striking. On the other hand, both use arabic words. IIRC, the bad guy in WoT is called Shai'tan - litterally "big devil" or the like. Shai Hulud is a work everyone should recognize, and I seem to recall the word tan too, from Herbert. So maybe they do just share sources, and Jordan is not inspired by Herbert.

[QuickTidal]

ChrisW;139489 said:

What, everyone here has 'pea brains'? I would expect a more robust debate than that.

Well as my last post got deleted i'll try again. Apparently fuck tard is worse than pea brain. Go figure.

Yes you and your buddies are a pea brains. Are you unable to consider that two authors could have similiar themes/cultures in there books due to the fact they used common sources and that both wanted women to have more power?

Here are just a few of RJ's sources.

Judeo-Christian and Biblical Parallels
Norse Mythology
Greek and Roman Mythology
Celtic Myths
Arthurian Legend
The Fisher King
Asian Influences
Native Americans
The Zulu

Now i'm sure if you compared that to Frank Herberts list your'd see some of the same.

Jordans use of common and sometimes obscure myths and legends is one of the reasons why his books appeal to so many people.

So unless you can provide a quote from RJ acknowleding the influrence(I'm sure he would), mb you should accept that what you and your fellow pea brains are just expressing personal opinions/prejudece and not fact.

robust debate from me, that's funny.:lachen70:

bah i should really stay out of Jordan threads. They get me in trouble. Not my fault people are can't appreciate good literature;)

Dude, I should likely only say this once.....Jordan....NOT exactly literature. I mean "literature" in the fancy, elitist, book freak kind of way. Jordan is fiction..and fantasy....but I wouldn't consider it literature. Though make no mistake I know it is included in the general definition of the word.

What surprises me is how many other hacks (Sean Russell comes to mind) copy Jordan in his quest for bad fantasy...hacks copying hacks....how very dreary...

Jordan can go hang out with Goodkind as far as I am concerned, on the far side of Hoods gate.

[Kage-za]

Well... it's not quite this simple but...
woulda never read Jordan if I hadn't read Tolkien
woulda never read Martin if I hadn't read Jordan
woulda never read Erikson if I hadn't read Martin

So I am pretty glad I got into Jordan, even though the latter half of the series has been painful. If I had somehow arrived at Erikson and Martin without it, I don't know if I would start it before it was finished.

Honestly, regardless of whether book 12 is a worthy ending to the series, I wish all the best to Jordan healthwise, and hope he gets to finish what he started.

[GardenGnome]

So then, QuickTidal, where do you draw the line? Is Tolkien litterature? How about Lewsi Caroll?

[Whelp]

ChrisW;139489 said:

Are you unable to consider that two authors could have similiar themes/cultures in there books due to the fact they used common sources and that both wanted women to have more power?

No, using similar sources is very likely - however, I think Jordan also added the previous authors (Herbert, etc.) to the sources. Plus, sometimes the similarities are simply glaringly obvious - still, if he is able to make it entertaining I do not care (most of the time he does, imho; at least in the first 6-7 books).

ChrisW;139489 said:

Here are just a few of RJ's sources.
...
Now i'm sure if you compared that to Frank Herberts list your'd see some of the same.?

Very likely, yes - but again, I do not think that many people disputed this...

ChrisW;139489 said:

Jordans use of common and sometimes obscure myths and legends is one of the reasons why his books appeal to so many people.

You forgot to add that he manages to present these in a very interesting fashion - most of the time, anyway .

ChrisW;139489 said:

So unless you can provide a quote from RJ acknowleding the influrence(I'm sure he would), mb you should accept that what you and your fellow pea brains are just expressing personal opinions/prejudece and not fact.

Well, being a pea brain, I can only express my personal opinions - I am not the Zeus of the Literature, making pronouncements from the Olymp

ChrisW;139489 said:

Not my fault people are can't appreciate good literature;)

Define 'good'
Imho, Jordan is a good read (first 6-7 books, anyway), but he is weaker than Martin, Erikson, Mieville, or Gaiman.

@QuickTidal:
Is Kafka, or Borges literature? Or Umberto Eco?

[GardenGnome]

Oooh, Umberto Eco... Anyone read "Fragments"?

[Morgoth]

Got it in my read list, is it worth it?

When it comes to the question of litterature, I do not really draw lines between normal fiction and sci-fi/fantasy. I'm pretty much equally critical to both. for instance, American Gods is much much more a work of good literature than say the DaVinci Code. Or the Mermaid Chair by Sue Monk Kidd, or whatever. In my opinion, genre has nothing to with it, and the elitists can go screw themselves

LotR for instance, is a much much more important book than say My Name is Red. The influence on the litterary world cannot even be compared.

And the way Brave New World is not considered sci-fi by these elitists.. Bah i say! ..

[Whelp]

GardenGnome;139545 said:

Oooh, Umberto Eco... Anyone read "Fragments"?

Read it at university - it was a compulsory read, so maybe that's why I did not really enjoy it...

@Morgoth:
DaVinci Code...ehh Especially after The Crying of Lot 49 and The Foucault Pendulum...

Quote

And the way Brave New World is not considered sci-fi by these elitists.. Bah i say! ..

WTF??? You've got to be kidding...

[GardenGnome]

Whelp, I haven't read it, but I've had the content retold to me, and it sounds awesome. Maybe because I can identify myself/my profession in it I study history, and so use a lot of fragmented texts to find meaning. One of my professors handed out "Fragment" out to her professors when she was a student... it wasn't so well received

And Brave New World is amazing. Anyway, this thread it starting to drift towards that other thread, about the quality of fantasy. Back to Jordan, or are we bored by him already?

[Werthead]

@ Astra Lestat

No, Magician is one book and published everywhere bar the US as one book (although I believe one-volume editions do exist there). Exactly why this is is unclear: there are far, far longer books than Magician that appear in one volume even in the USA (Jordan, Erikson and Martin to name three).

Getting into the literature-versus-entertainment argument is really not a good idea as it is so point-of-view driven. There are a few works which I think are inarguably literature: Gene Wolfe's Book of the New Sun, Mervyn Peake's Gormenghast and Tolkien's Lord of the Rings and Silmarillion, unpopular as that would be with the literati. Brave New World is also in that vein. However, arguments rage over Dune, Perdido Street Station, A Game of Thrones, Prince of Nothing etc incessantly. However, I've never seen anyone seriously argue for Wheel of Time's place in the pantheon. It's simply a reiteration of previous ideas. A very good reiteration to start with, certainly, but there is little there that takes the genre forward. It's a consolidation of what has gone before, not exactly pushing the boundaries. Erikson is debatable. His main contribution to the development of the genre has been making the in media res device more acceptable and also in coming up with a very different, very complex structure for telling the story. However, his actual prose is often clunky and the characters lack true depth (although they are paragons of literary development compared to Goodkind, Brooks, Eddings and others of their level).

Quote

bah i should really stay out of Jordan threads. They get me in trouble. Not my fault people are can't appreciate good literature

Not at all, your posts make for excellent comedy reading!

[QuickTidal]

Yeah, I really haven't the foggiest clue where the literature dividing line is....I'm just talking out my a$$....