Robert Jordan (what do you think?) - Page 2 - Writers Forum

Shadeslayer · 10-10-2004, 09:50 PM

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 · 10-10-2004, 09:58 PM

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

A_MacLaren · 10-10-2004, 11:11 PM

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 · 10-10-2004, 11:47 PM

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 · 10-10-2004, 11:54 PM

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 · 10-11-2004, 10:16 AM

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 · 10-11-2004, 11:47 AM

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 · 10-11-2004, 10:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by A_MacLaren

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.

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 · 10-12-2004, 01:26 AM

Quote:

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 · 10-13-2004, 10:23 AM

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 · 10-13-2004, 08:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by A_MacLaren

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.

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 · 10-13-2004, 09:09 PM

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 · 10-14-2004, 02:17 AM

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 · 10-14-2004, 07:37 AM

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 · 10-14-2004, 07:51 AM

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.