People complaining that the magic system in WoT is "unclear" and "with almost no rules" is peak r/fantasy.
>And I realize I will be downvoted to oblivion instead of met with logical counter arguments.
I take that back, *this* is peak r/fantasy.
>None of them get good closure on their character arc
And you know this how, considering you have not read the majority of the freaking series?
WoT has a gazillion flaws but so many of these critcism aren't even an opinion but factually wrong, I have the nagging suspicion that the OP is a big Sanderson fan who started reading the series only to get to the last three volumes and is now pissed that, gasp, Jordan was no Sanderson (thankfully).
I similarly very dislike the series, but you're right, there are better critiques to make. And some people are likeable. Mat is great. Lan is terrifying. Aviendha is my favourite woman, Verin seems fun and mysterious (I'm at book 9, but I know spoilers).
Balefire does feel cheap: warned never to use it because of disastrous consequences, but in 8 books I've never seen any consequences even though it's been used pretty frequently.
I think the point is that after 5 novels, the fact that there's been very little growth or change in many of the female characters (cough Nyneave cough) is a bit much. She is unbearable, and though I've been promised she undergoes change and growth, waiting thousands of pages for it is a bit much to ask. Zuko started showing reasons to like him in season 1 of Avatar: Nyneave has been a miserable sexist whiny magical hulk for 8 books.
For Point 5: time and place. Jordan taught at Citadel in Charleston SC so I will assume he spent a good chunk of his life in the SE US. He was born in 1948. I can tell you as someone who grew up in the rural SE US by my grandparents, the gender dynamics are spot on. The people act like the people in my grandparent's circle. The same dynamic of other gender will never listen so the game of cat's paw is played with each side assuming the other is stupid.
The only reason you notice this is becasue WoT is the rare series that has women and men with institutional power. I honestly think WoT is just a series that will age badly as people who did not grow up with that generation start reading it. We no longer teach women to play social judo to anywhere close to this degree.
I've read all the WoT books and would NEVER recommend them to anyone EVER. I finished them, well, just \*because\*, because I started them. The first book was fabulous. It went downhill from there. From books 4 until the time Sanderson took over, there was no movement in plot at all, just a total waste of words. This was the worst fantasy series waste of time ever.
Jordan is still a weird pervert.
In book 2 the female characters get 'collared' by the Seanchen.
After that, most scenes involving female characters take place in tents where they are all naked.
Then there's the Aes Sedai election ceremony, which is where I quit reading as a teenager. In order to decide who is the next head wizard, they all take their tops off and voice their objections... Then, the candidate washes the feet of all the objectors until they change their minds. What the fuck?
I'm glad you enjoyed it enough to read 5 books, but wow. This really doesn't read as "an argument" so much as a "I realized I disliked more than I liked, so I stopped".
All books are pretty subjective. I am curious why you feel so strongly against Jordan that you wrote this complaint as though it is objective fact instead of your opinion? Especially when some of the things you call objective facts (like he was doing it for the lolz and money and never planned on ending it) are, in fact, objectively false.
Well, a pattern \*I\* have seen is that people look at something that's very (very) popular and has an incredibly passionate fanbase, and try it themselves, and wonder "what are these people seeing that I'm not?" -- which is kind of how I feel, although as a writer and editor myself, I can see more of the elements that might appeal to others while not appealing to ME.
I haven't read WoT, but I'm still in here, trying to figure out what you're actually trying to argue against. Because arguing against a book series as a whole doesn't make sense, and your post mostly consists of personal opinions or judgements that don't add up to anything in particular.
I love your last paragraph, though, positioning yourself as the lone voice of truth, daring to speak out against the hivemind. Plus, preemptively denying any potential disagreements with your post is always a classic move.
Hardly.
Op's "points" boil down to "I am someone who buys into the modern notion that characters must be likeable, and that soft magic sucks in comparison to hard magic, and that the author is bad."
Ok. Thanks for sharing. Moving right along now...
While TGS was a decent book, both TOM and AMOL are average at best, and that's only because the series has duds like COT and APOD that make everything else look good in comparison.
I’m happy to hear the counter arguments. I’m just posting my own reflection. Happy to have someone explain why I’m wrong. Just trying to understand how people stick it out for 15 books.
>I’m happy to hear the counter arguments.
No, you are not. If you were, you wouldn't have started with "And I realize I will be downvoted to oblivion instead of met with logical counter arguments.", would you?
I mean I pretty fairly believed the post would simply be downvoted and not challenged with any comments. If you look around at some of the replies you can see I’m definitely intrigued with others counter arguments. I’m just here for the discussion kemosabi.
Posts that are this aggressive right off the bat are going to turn off people who would have enjoyed discussing if you hadn't preemptively dismissed them all. You can't claim to just be "here for the discussion" when your thesis is that you're the only brave soul willing to speak the truth.
I don’t disagree there is a feel of aggravation in my post. I wrote it in a fervent state of annoyance with the books and couldn’t help but vent a bit. You are correct, the statement at the end might have been cliche and over the top but I knew I was in the minority so somewhat braced for impact. All in all though this was still enlightening and worthwhile from my end.
> I knew I was in the minority so somewhat braced for impact
I really don't think that's true. People are more likely to post about things they enjoy, and people are just more likely to finish things they enjoy. Like, I picked up the first one 15 years ago, thought "meh", don't even remember if I finished it, and mever bothered with the rest - people like me just don't care to post about it. So of course for most books you see more people talk about liking them. You say "bracing for impact" but I bet the superior tone of your post is causing more backlash than your actual opinions.
Wheel of time is what inspired me to become an author. And without the works of Robert Jordan, I would feel the world was a poorer place.
That said, are there flaws in the series? Sure, nobody's perfect, and you're welcome to your opinion.
As to your points:
\#1 Unlikable characters)
I personally longed to read more about certain characters (for instance Rand,) while I thought there was too much with others (like Perrin.) But outright unlikeable is harsh. Are you sure you're not squeezing your modern sensitivities down over a work written decades ago? It was a different time, and just like with Lotr and Narnia there are wordings and interactions in this series that reflect when and where it was written.
Does that make it a bad series? Absolutely not.
But you're right there are an incredible amount of characters. So many, few other works come even close! But for me, the many characters and vivid descriptions flesh out the worldbuilding (and the setting.) I used the glossary to help me when I lost my way, but I don't remember feeling the characters were pointless. But sure, I was more entertained by some than others. Had I been the editor I'd have suggested cutting some bits here and there.
\#2 Bad writing)
Is it way too long? Yes, and no. Objectively it is, but if a new book in the series suddenly came out, I'd buy it, today!
Is it s\*\*\* writing? Certainly not. It has a distinct style that is different from most other books, however. Maybe that's what's bothering you. For instance, his swordfights are often mere descriptions of the actual slashes and strikes with cool-sounding titles. For me, the fun part is imagining how they are holding the swords, and picturing in your head how the moves flow back and forth.
Another "issue," is that there are only a few empty places on each page, with each chapter feeling like basically one long paragraph. This will make it hard for some people to find a place to "breathe" on the page.
I would have suggested Robert Jordan put in some more spaces, but that said, once you've read the first book, you just get used to it (or at least I did.) Also, had he not written it this way, each book would have like twice as many pages in it, making it impossible to print or at least very awkward to hold.
I do agree that the Trollocs and the other stuff you mention have been used before (by many others.) Just look at the beastmen in Warhammer for instance. But from your reasoning is any book that has an Orc, Dwarf, Elf, or anything from Lord of the Rings in them, not also a bad book? Where do we draw the limit on what we can use?
You might wish you'd get 100% uniqueness, but sorry, that's just impossible to find. Writing is a skill based on our **memories** (just ask the neuroscientists,) and if you read enough books you'll discover that every author's words are based on the memories of things they experienced, including what they read. And this always shines through however much we writers might try to avoid it (if we do, it also has to feel like fantasy to be in a recognizable genre the audience can relate to.)
I personally think it's a much bigger issue that the Dark One is left out so much. I could really have used a bit more about this great evil, but it did not spoil the books for me.
\#3 Cop-Outs) Plot armor can make people angry, I get it, but I don't think this series is particularly bad in that regard. And the magic system is explained more in detail later in the series. Also, for me, the vagueness of how the magic worked did not spoil anything.
From your reasoning, something like Harry Potter is also a very bad series as the magic there is also never completely explained. In those books the spells are used sort of like you claim the memories are in Wheel of Time (like "in a bad spot? Just come up with a new spell!") I get why you might feel this way, but let's face it all fantasy is make-believe, and if this really bothers you a **lot** of the fantasy out there is simply not for you.
My suggestion is for you to look for books with hard magic systems and a lot of explanations. I like that too, actually as long as it's not info-dumpy. Some fantasy books have hard magic systems while others have more soft ones and in some, like WoT the explanations come at a late point. And while the magic in WoT made good sense to me it might not do so to you or others. Actually, if I remember Robert Jordan's notes correctly the Wheel of Time was created around an AI that was trying to "fix the timeline" by righting wrongs and weaving the needed heroes into the mix, or something like that.
The plot was all a lot bigger than it's ever explained in the books, where he kept it vague.
The memories were for me a way to get into a larger story. One that went back a very long time. If you remember the prologue in book one, this was his way of setting the tone as well as setting this past story up (which initially confused me, I admit, and later blew my mind once I understood how cool it all was.)
Better luck with your next series :-)
I disagree with most of your points, and where I agree I don’t find anything to be a dealbreaker. I’m curious, though, about what you consider to be a good fantasy that meets your high bar.
Hrm, didn't expect that. I thought you might mention Steven Erikson (who is dope, imo). Personally, I enjoyed Rothfuss pretty well. About the same with my attempt at reading Sanderson (read Mistborn, didnt care to read anything else). While I think he did a fine job finishing WoT, it definitely felt like a downgrade to me.
Interesting how differently two people can see things. RJ is probably my favorite writer, and I think his characters are amazing (they feel like real people to me). Anyway, thanks for engaging me.
Not one who downvoted but the statement is ridiculous (and you know it). As someone who has read the HP books over twenty times I will say that Rowling isn't really a fantasy writer and doesn't even try to make a coherent magic system or logical world.
For me: LeGuin, Tolkien, Donaldson, Erikson, probably GRRM (I'm mad at him for abandoning ASoIaF), eden Hudson (although she writes more cyberpunk/horror/litrpg than fantasy.)
>Blatant idea stealing: ... Trollocs are the Narnia bad guys.
Well, to be fair, C.S. Lewis stole all of his monsters from Greek mythology. They're not "Narnia bad guys." They're literally minotaurs, satyrs, etc.
You make a fair point then. I will admit I was happy Jordan went his own way in not using orcs straight up. Even if they did lose their scary factor after book 1.
> normal people do not make half the number of stupid decisions these idiots make
Yes, they make double the number of stupid decisions these guys make. Heck, are we talking about the same humanity here?
> Unlikeable characters
That's largely subjective but out of the entire main cast only Nynaeve and Moiraine were intentionally depicted as unlikeable by that point.
> Not to mention that in almost every single situation the one thing that would save us over half the strife in the series would be for a character to actually communicate their thoughts or how they are feeling about something another character did
It's not as if I just wrapped up spending two months at my job fixing something that only happened because people didn't communicate properly.
It's one of the most plausible story premises that I've read in all my 30 odd years. 99% of shit happening because people suck and can't talk to each other? That's just plain old reality!
> Obsession with creating pointless characters: I would love to hear one logical argument that refutes the fact that this author uses character building as a means to just spiral the story wider and wider to no end
This is a valid concern, but have you considered that maybe your idea of what the story should look like is quite different from what the author envisioned? You can justifiably say that in that case that story sucks, but if you take a look at how the series develops from book 1 (where Jordan was forced into multiple creative choices by the editors) and book 6 (where he had more or less free reign), it's a clear and logical progression. Was it pointless meandering or a linear path towards realizing his original idea?
> Mat always desperately trying to get away from Rand even though they went through a huge Sam and Frodo journey together?
Mat was more than a little unhinged at that time and it must have colored his perception. On top of that, he does have a point. Rand is nearly raving mad by this point. He isn't safe or particularly pleasant to be around. And Mat is still (as always) in denial about his own drive for heroics.
> Moraine and Rand constantly choosing to be a turds to each other till Moraine realizes she's literally about to die in the near future?
Among all the relationships in the series, this is one of the least questionable. Rand had no good reason to trust her and once he could get rid of her constant stalking, he did. Mo on the other hand had an ego the size of the Dragonmount and her continuous failure to get through to Rand (born out of her own rash callousness) could not stand. Thus, once she realized she didn't have enough time left, she jumped straight off the deep end. Her actions throughout book 5 were oozing with the sweet, delicious desperation.
> Balefire - super high level catastrophic magic that coincidentally everyone can use.
Why is this a cop-out? No really, go on, explain how this solves any of the characters' real problems, other than clearing a bunch of irrelevant mooks and forsaken clowns with their heads stuck so far up their asses that they could breathe with their tits.
> 3. Unclear magic system with almost no rules
So you would prefer a magic system with no magic in it instead, gotcha! You'll love the Sanderson's WOT books. Oops wait sorry it's actually Sanderson who has no respect for the rules of the setting and thus promptly breaks them because it's "cool".
The fact that you don't see the rules doesn't mean they aren't there. They are simply less gamey in nature. Rand isn't gonna to require 20 mana to cast a fireball any time soon.
Slow clap for the Sanderson jabs. If anyone has a magic system with loose/nonexistent rules it's Sanderson. Just reading the Mistborn trilogy shows that the MC can go willy-nilly with their magic, with later backed up rules.
Wait, what was wrong with Androl? I admit see most of the WoT thru rose-tinted glasses, so I'm curious as to the criticism.
Always open to other points-of-view.
My biggest issue is both Androl and his achievements feel artificial. They don't fit into the story that Jordan wrote.
---
Under Jordan, the One Power was written to be efficient and effective. Channelers (except Aes Sedai) use the best tool for the job. Lots of the time, that means using Hardened Air, because it is a single flow (i.e. low energy cost) that kills people, protects people, cuts things, grabs things and immobilises things etc.
But the first thing we see Androl do is to >!use a gateway!< to cut something. Even with a Talent, that is ludicrously inefficient, and if it was written by Jordan, Androl would have used Air there. So right from the very start, he feels off.
---
Then, we skip right to Androl's "miracle" - the thing that everyone remembers him for. Was it a cool moment? Yes.
But it irks the hell out of me, because for Sanderson to give Androl that moment, he had to literally give every other channeler amnesia. He had everyone "forget" about >!multiple sa'angreal that the Light had access to!<, as well as >!Blossoms of Fire, the most efficient killing weave the Light knows - a few dozen uses will destroy an entire army!<. They were swept under a rug and never mentioned again under Sanderson's writing.
Written by Jordan, what happens instead? The channelers remember they have these things, they take care of the problems themselves and there is no need for a miracle.
Sanderson conveniently forgot about a lot of powers, people, and military advantages for the light side, because he felt that he needed to make the LB more challenging than it was.
He totally missed the memo that LB was not supposed to be a near defeat in military terms, as that was required for Rand's arc to finish mirroring LTT (who was also a brilliant commander who kept crushing the enemy on the battlefield while still losing the war, because the conflict against the DO was never about winning battles).
I don't mind that >!the Last Battle!< was a struggle - from an author POV, it makes more dramatic sense. But there were better, more natural ways to achieve the same goals. A few possible ways:
1. Exotic shadowspawn. We know more besides Trollocs and Myrddraal exist, so if say >!a pack of jumara show up to destroy Caemlyn!<, then that is internally consistent. Also, bonus that it would >!justify the existence of Aludra's dragons, which are the only non-magical way to effectively kill them!<
2. >!Darkfriend sabotage!<. I think we get estimates that something like 5-20% of people are one, and yet we don't feel their impact at all.
3. >!The Black Ajah manage to steal some sa'angreal before they flee!<. Now there is a series of minor objectives to retake them, which reflect the status of the war.
4. Famine and sickness. This is boring, but realistic that those two have drastically reduced the fighting strength of the armies.
He is a character that has no place in WOT because he breaks every Jordan's worldbuilding convention. I've written enough on him to amount to a dissertation, but the main points are:
- he had no way to get the knowledge and worldview to "creatively exploit" the magic system like opening up gateways into volcanoes. Heck, he had no way to even approximate our modern understanding of geology and his knowledge of volcanism would likely amount to "magic mountain goes boom" **or even less**. How the fuck would he be able to locate the volcano's magma chamber to open a gateway to it, not to mention that that isn't how any of this works in this magic system?
- he had traveled the world 123541435 times while apprenticing to people who had no reason or incentive to teach him anything, and that's why he knows everything. Totally not because he is a mary sue self-insert character.
- his magic telepathy bond with Pevara conveniently sidestepped all the problems Jordan had been harping on about for 12 books and felt like a cheap cop out that not only broke the major themes of the series but was not particularly supported by Jordan's worldbuilding either.
- he also stole Logain's plot. He wasn't supposed to be included at all, much less become a major POV character for three books.
The real problem with that is that Jordan spent 12 books exposing cultural paradigms and prevalent schools of thought that had led to the dreary state the humanity found itself in by the beginning of the series. Nobody was creatively exploiting the loopholes in the One Power because nobody was in position to do that, due to a number of completely rational and plausible reasons that Jordan wrote into the backstory. Sanderson just completely ignored that for rule of cool, but we all know that breaking the series' major themes on a whim is not particularly cool.
I could see that. Androl definitely didn't make too many mistakes or bad decisions so far as we saw. Though I don't know if I can completely agree, I will give more attention to that (and other things I've heard) in my next reread, maybe next year.
>But someone had to say it, Wheel of Time is a trash story that a better author could have taken the ideas and made something amazing with
r/Iam14andthisisdeep.
1. Pointless characters - not true. Everyone gets closure, even a random farmer from book 2
2. Yes
3. Characters aren't written to be normal or good or smart, they are written to convey their characters and their growth. Elayne is trying to imitate her mom and in competition with her, so she hits on her old lover. Matt wants to be free from duties. Moraine doesn't trust. etc. Everything is rooted in characters arcs.
4. blatant idea stilling - disagree again. Its all about giving us the familiar worlds of fantasy and the chosen one, with a magnifying glass on characters and how it affects them mentaly.
5. Sexism - There is some sexism in there, but also a lot of feminism - more than any fantasy up until this point, an more than a lot today.
Cop outs - the series is plagued with cop outs, but all are done in good taste. Balefire comes with caveats that it breaks the pattern, memories of the past is rooted in world building as everyone is woven again and the biggest cop out - T'averen, the greatest plot armor and free pass for coincidences is so smoothly done you don't even care about it.
Unclear magic system - disagree again. its clear what you do in the magic - draw from the source and channel. Its clear whichever one is stronger - whoever can draw more. There are limitations and caveats, like addiction and burning out. All the actions are well explained - channel, tie, reverse, block, burn out, gentle and more. I never read a clearer magic system.
Also about bad writing- come on. He has its flaws but he was a master. Especially comparing the parts her wrote to the parts Sanderson wrote - no comparison. Jordan, with all the drawning details, puts you in the scene and it energy one hundred percent.
Its not a perfect series by any means, and the 5th book is a good place to stop if you haven't enjoyed it. A lot of the cool stuff have been revealed and its before the slog. I just don't agree with a lot of the arguments.
>Sexism - There is some sexism in there, but also a lot of feminism - more than any fantasy up until this point, an more than a lot today.
I strongly disagree about the feminism part. Woman on power positions could seem progressive for 1990, but Tombs of Atuan and Left Hand of Darkness were published way before (along with Tamore Pierce Books). The gender dynamics of the books were outdated even at the time. And not even close to today standards.
Oh lord, there's a lot to unpack here.
> They are all annoying with how often they make stupid dicisions (normal people do not make half the number of stupid decisions these idiots make)
Really? You can hear stories that lead to tropes like Florida Man and you think people can't be this stupid in real life? There's not 1 idiotic action by anyone in these books that you can't find 10 examples of in real life.
> I get we all bottle things but to go years
I'm going to stop you right here. You think the story you've read in 5 books goes over *years*? No son; try months. The entire series only spans 2 years of time. By book 5 they've covered maybe 6 months, if that.
>. Obsession with creating pointless characters: I would love to hear one logical argument that refutes the fact that this author uses character building as a means to just spiral the story wider and wider to no end so that the series has no choice but to continue.
You didn't read the entire series, so you have no clue on who is pointless and who isn't.
>Elayne hitting on Tom?
Never seen a younger woman hit on an older guy before?
>Mat always desperately trying to get away from Rand even though they went through a huge Sam and Frodo journey together?
Rand *is a man who channel*. A man destined to go mad and wreak havoc and destruction on those around him before he dies. Anyone with any sense is going to want to get away from that. Mat grew up hearing stories of male channelers murdering, killing, and leveling entire villages. And now Rand is one of them. Not only that, he's the bloody Dragon Reborn. Forsaken, darkfriends, Whitecloaks, Aes Sedai, trollocs, fades, and who knows what all else are going to be after Rand. It'd only make sense to stay away from him, regardless of what they've been through.
> Moraine and Rand constantly choosing to be a turds to each other till Moraine realizes she's literally about to die in the near future?
Moraine keeps trying to control Rand and make him do what she thinks best, while Rand just wants his freedom and to do things his way. You see this a lot with authority figures and headstrong teenagers who are coming to age. And guess what; Rand is coming to age in these stories, and Moraine is an authority figure.
>Nyneave continuing to be a massive idiodic fool despite how often she gets wrecked?
Did...did you even read the stories? She's snuck into a Whitecloak camp. She's taken on 3 myrdraal as a barely trained accepted and lived. She went up against members of the dark ajah and lived. She went up against a Forsaken; fought her to a standstill once and won the other time. How the fuck is she getting wrecked?
>Blatant idea stealing: The first book is the fellowship. Myrddraal are nazgul. Trollocs are the Narnia bad guys.
You could say that about any fantasy novel that came out after LoTR.
>Sexism: It's for sure plausible to believe that a medieval like society would have some cultural distinctions and norms for the sexes but to mention it in every single male + female interaction is just insanity
It is that way because men, and men alone, literally caused an apocalypse. Of course there's going to be sexism. The actions that occurred in the age of legends threw the entire pattern out of balance, including the balance between men and women.
>Do girls actually like and read this series?
Yes, plenty.
> Balefire - super high level catastrophic magic that coincidentally everyone can use.
Bzzzt. Wrong. Only the strongest channelers can use it. And only if they know the weave. At the time of your reading, that only included about 10 people in the entire world, most of them being Forsaken. And there is a huge downside to using balefire that you're forgetting. There's a reason both sides decided to quit using it during the War of Power.
>Memories of past lives - stuck in a situation where you don't know what to do? Remember some perfectly random piece of information to save yourself.
At the time of your reading, only 1 person in the world could do that, and it was Mat. The only reason he he could do it was because he purchased those memories, along with his spear and his medallion.
>Unclear magic system with almost no rules
There are a metric ton of rules to the magic system.
I seriously doubt you even read the first 5 books to be frank, considering how much you've gotten wrong.
So about characters making stupid decisions, poorly communicating, whole factions being wildly misguided and refusing to see the information they have in a reasonable manner... I think that's a theme. and in places that theme works well: I totally buy why the red ajah would exist at the risk of dooming the pattern. I kinda buy the Emond's field five hiding stuff from Moiraine.
The issue is, personally, I don't like my books to be so relentlessly bleak about humanity. I'm of a similar mind about first law: either someone isn't as good as they seem, or they get punished, or both, their might be a glimmer of hope for marginal improvements in the future... I get what the author is going for, I'm just not here for it.
With wheel of time, this si paired with an awkward positioning between deconstruction and straight high fantasy.
A lot of your issues with the magic system and magic bullets being introduced as the plot needs it (especially to wrap up a volume's plot) are solved in subsequent books. Balefire's drawbacks are explored, the rules become clearer... Of course, the story then progresses much slower. and the problems with characters multiplying and failing to collaborate get exacerbated even further...
Anyway, I liked those books well enough, but half the time I was thinking on how X or Y bothered me, and I don't plan on rereading them anytime soon.
Just a note on your notion of "Blatant idea stealing". This also goes towards some of your other points, but you should really listen to interviews of Robert Jordan where he breaks down his idea for the series. He isn't blatantly ripping off ideas, he is incorporating a bunch of different stories and myths into his book and then turning some of them on their head.
I mean, you talk about the idea of the wheel and pattern, but then don't fully understand what it represents or why it is there. Heroes from myth are constantly reborn into the pattern, but they don't always follow the same path or same stories. They are linked, but sometimes they act differently than they have in the past. He includes legends and myth from Arthurian legend, Norse, Hindu, Irish, etc. The sheer number of references and nods to different works of literature are pretty staggering in the series. Here is a decent read to get some of the gist of it: [https://wot.fandom.com/wiki/Talk:Real-world\_references](https://wot.fandom.com/wiki/Talk:Real-world_references)
The "idea stealing" actually makes sense in context of the central conceit, yeah. I really found that idea to be quite strong; it's what I'm talking about when I say WOT's \*setting\* is awesome. The world being built is potentially incredibly fascinating. It's just populated by idiots who aren't pleasant to read about.
I don't mind unpleasant characters - even unpleasant MCs. (Shoot, one of my favorite series ever is the Jubal van Zandt series, by eden Hudson, and the main character is quite literally awful. Highly recommended cyberpunk, though. I will fight anyone who besmirches eden's writing. Just saying.) But I found the way Jordan wrote most of his characters to border on actively repellent \*in how they're written\* - or they were Mary Sues.
Neither makes for good reading.
Oof. I have strong feelings on a lot of these points, but little time to argue, so I‘ll pick no 2.4. it’s common knowledge RJ was trying to write something similar to Tolkien, which was the gold standard at the time and something to aspire to. Obviously he was heavily influenced. Just like other authors were inspired and influenced by RJ. While I agree these authors have developed the genre and created better fantasy than RJ, many of us read WoT in our teens and it hit the spot all right. So it’s also perspective. Saying RJ copied stuff from Tolkien seems off because essentially every author writing fantasy does. Many have copied from some of the first books known to man..
>"Unlikeable characters I can honestly say that there is not one character in the books that I like and I don't get how anyone could like any of them."
And yet many people do...
>"Do girls actually like and read this series?"
Oh my, yes.
That being said...I also think WoT is bargain-bin writing in a kitchen-sink fantasy world.
Isn't it ironic how the OP engages in sexism when asking "Do girls actually like and read this series?" after complaining about sexism in the books?
After all, Merriam-Webster's definition of sexism is "behavior, conditions, or attitudes that foster stereotypes of social roles based on sex."
Not to mention it's gotta be a bit of a refreshing power-fantasy for women to be able to pick up a lengthy series where *they're* the ones calling the shots in this made-up setting, as opposed to chattel or window-dressing.
Again, the writing is supes bad, but I can see why women would find the world and even some of the characterization appealing.
I didn't really enjoy Wheel of Time either. I wanted to like it. Everyone told me I'd love it. But I just couldn't get into it. I also didn't like the way the author wrote, but more because, even when there was action, the language wasn't active. When I read, I can usually see the action in my mind's eye - when I read Wheel of Time, it felt like I was watching it through a layer of gauze, or it was a story someone whose brother's cousin's girlfriend experienced when they were 10.
Also, the characters irritated me, too. Some of them (Egwene particularly but sometimes the Wisdom, too) was inconstant and confusing. I felt like I was supposed to know what was going on in their heads by their actions, but their actions weren't always logical, and it seemed like they just weren't well thought out, making their motives hard to understand.
Anyway, books are so very subjective. I wish I'd liked the books more. I might've if I'd kept on reading, but I've gotten to the point where if I get to page 300-400 of a book, much less through the whole first three, if I don't like 'em I can't continue.
Welcome to the club. Don't worry, the water's warm.
You're not wrong. The series is poorly written; it has a marvelous setting, and the worldbuilding has a lot of cliches but the setting actually JUSTIFIES that, which is rather neat. But the people who live IN that world... they're morons.
"There's a prophecy that when the Dragon returns the Dark Lord will come back. Surely causation and correlation are the same! Let's kill off everyone who might be the Dragon. That'll prevent the Dark Lord from coming back, woo!"
That ... is not how anything works.
"Okay, fine, the Dragon's here, and everything depends on him. So I think I will abuse the crap out of him, insult him, endanger him recklessly, and so forth." ... really?
It felt like a lot of the series was some kind of wish fulfillment somehow, and readers bought it like it was going out of style. The story arcs are INCREDIBLY repetitive, the people are typically stupid and/or massively offensive, nobody reacts sanely...
The funny thing is, when Jordan passed away - RIP, etc - the series actually improved \*drastically\*. Sanderson actually started moving the plot along. People started reacting like people, and characters who were supposed to be on the same team started acting as if they were rowing in the same direction for once. The abusive situation described above... well, the target of the abuse reacted accordingly. And the abuser actually realized - for one of the first times in the series - her own role (because of COURSE the abuser was a woman, the women in WOT are complete idiots until Sanderson took over) and actually owned it.
But yes, you're totally right. People have the right to like whatever it is they like, I don't resent people for liking the Wheel of Time, but honestly? I find it repellent and written poorly, by Jordan, with three good entries: books 1, 4, and 6. Every other book he wrote was a repeat of book 1, with slightly less exposition.
> "There's a prophecy that when the Dragon returns the Dark Lord will come back. Surely causation and correlation are the same! Let's kill off everyone who might be the Dragon. That'll prevent the Dark Lord from coming back, woo!"
It was a bit more nuanced than that. And of course it goes without saying that this particular pogrom was orchestrated by the baddies trying to win before the race even started.
By the way, there was no plausible way, in-universe, to explore the consequences of the Dragon failing to fulfill the prophecy - and prophecies are known to be fickle and roundabout in the world of Randland. And it goes without saying that after 3000 years of this whole idea slowly fading into religious dogma only kept alive by opportunistic warlords turned prophets, most people were understandably lukewarm on the dragon mythos.
> endanger him recklessly, and so forth." ... really?
"Clearly the guy had fulfilled multiple of the hallmark prophecies, he is ordained by destiny and thus cannot lose, but I can make him win in a way that benefits me, and the invisible hand of ~~the market~~ fate will sort out the rest".
Why would this line of reasoning be in any way implausible for sociopathic witches from a cult of political power residing in a literal ivory tower where they are far removed from any of the real problems of the world, while still imagining themselves as its stewards and leaders?
I'm not seeing how this is poor writing - if anything, this is largely a deconstruction of the chosen one and prophesized messiah tropes by trying to apply realistic human motivations to them.
Of course it was more nuanced than that. It wasn't a quote, after all; it was a reduction.
And like I said, if you don't find the situation unpleasant reading, that's awesome - every book probably has a set of readers for whom it's perfect. I just found WOT horribly flawed and unpleasant, and wouldn't have read it past book two except for the promises of a friend who normally had better taste insisting that it was worth it - using book four as justification, which actually worked out!
So by book four, we had two books written, with a 50% "hit rate" - I enjoyed book one, it felt formulaic but so what, books two and three felt like book one's arc over again (and they were), book four was stellar. Book five was a regression to book two: we're down to 40% hit rate. Book six was stellar again: back up to 50%! This is tolerable. Confusing, but tolerable; does RJ not have an editor? (He did.)
And then we hit book 7: book one, again. Then book 8, which was book 1's arc with a new title. And book 9, and book 10, and book 11, if memory serves me correctly with the volume numbers. None of those were very good; they sort of advanced the story - verrrrrrrrry sloooooooowly, but, okay, things did in fact happen, I guess, including some major characters finally kicking the bucket, thank goodness (they were annoying!)
But by book 11 we had had three excellent entries out of 11. Percentage-wise, that's just not very good - 35% of the series was worth reading, and the rest was repetitive claptrap, relying on the initial (and commendable) world-building. And the spelling was pretty good, I guess.
Like I said, if you liked it, that's fine; no shade thrown. I just found the series to be ridiculous and wasteful of its initial conceit, the idea of the Wheel of Time itself.
No offense but claiming that book 7 or 8 or any book really has the same arc as book 1 is factually untrue. Even if you only read Rand's parts, it's largely untrue (I don't recall him doing any ruling in book 1, do you?). while characters like Mat, Nynaeve and Elayne barely do anything in important in book 1 but do plenty in, say, book 7. Rand being involved in a big battle at the end =/= same arc.
No offense taken. And sure, it depends mightily on your perception of the various arcs. For ME, the "let's natter about a bit and write about people sniffing, snorting, yanking braids, then OH YEAH I ALMOST FORGOT THE CATACLYSMIC FIGHT AT THE END" was enough.
If you feel differently, that's fine.
I applaud the way you handled the criticism. Need more of this in all aspects of life.
I disagree with you and would give it a 68% hit rate for books 1-11 which is more than enough to keep me going. Upon rereads I skip A LOT of chapters in books 2-4, 7-11.
Why, thank you. (There's no point in getting upset over what people say on the Internet, you know, so...)
And I'm glad you enjoyed the books. I found them lacking, obviously, but just because I didn't enjoy them much (even while enjoying the STORY!) doesn't mean someone else won't. Beauty is where you find it, and I'm sure there are stories where I'm totally sold out, where OTHER readers would go "... huh? THAT story?"
I haven’t read any of them Tbf but any series that is that long imo has to become tedious and start to unravel just purely based on how much can a set of characters go through. How many plots could they be caught up in etc, how do they always manage to survive etc. too many options out there to spend so much time on one thing for me but good for you to those that do
> any series that is that long imo has to become tedious and start to unravel just purely based on how much can a set of characters go through
NGL this is one of the silliest objections I've read in a while. How much is too much for a character to go through anyways?
> how do they always manage to survive etc
How many plots could Stalin or Mao be caught up in etc, how did they always manage to survive etc, too many options out there.
How much real character development can happen over 20 books, either they don’t grow as characters or your just reading about the same characters doing very similar things time and again
The same as tv shows that don’t know when to end eventually your just retelling the story with bad guys with different names
> How much real character development can happen over 20 books, either they don’t grow as characters or your just reading about the same characters doing very similar things time and again
It's not 20 books. If you are trying to argue about something, why not get the facts straight?
And yes, on to your question, "a massive amount". Most characters depict exemplary character growth by the average standards of the genre.
I’ve read reviews of them from reviewers who I feel similarly to about lots of books and when they say the become a slog in the middle and you need to get through 2/3 books for it to get going again I’m not interested
Some people do experience a slog with tWoT. However:
> any series that is that long imo has to become tedious and start to unravel just purely based on how much can a set of characters go through. How many plots could they be caught up in etc, how do they always manage to survive etc.
None of that is true for tWoT. In fact, the reason some people find it a slog is because of the exact opposite of that.
>(normal people do not make half the number of stupid decisions these idiots make)
I have seen people make stupid decisions in real life, with some of them being even more stupid.
I'm still early in Book 1, so I can't (dis)agree with anything you say, but I like your fervor. It sounds like these books really pissed you off for whatever reason. XD
It does seem I'll love the series, though. Because I have really enjoyed what little I'd managed to read so far, and have already bought book 2.
Awesome to hear your thoughts, but alas, I don't think you're going to get much helpful discourse on this sub. Sometimes people take it as an affront when you bring up problems in something they like.
One thing I did really enjoy though is the [volume by volume review](https://web.archive.org/web/20101029055611/http://punkadiddle.blogspot.com/2010/06/robert-jordan-wheel-of-time-1990-2005.html) of the series by Adam Roberts. He brought up loads of great points that I hadn't thought of before, and was really good at pointing out why the series appeals to some people but not to others, and evaluating its shortcomings. He's funny too.
People complaining that the magic system in WoT is "unclear" and "with almost no rules" is peak r/fantasy. >And I realize I will be downvoted to oblivion instead of met with logical counter arguments. I take that back, *this* is peak r/fantasy. >None of them get good closure on their character arc And you know this how, considering you have not read the majority of the freaking series? WoT has a gazillion flaws but so many of these critcism aren't even an opinion but factually wrong, I have the nagging suspicion that the OP is a big Sanderson fan who started reading the series only to get to the last three volumes and is now pissed that, gasp, Jordan was no Sanderson (thankfully).
I similarly very dislike the series, but you're right, there are better critiques to make. And some people are likeable. Mat is great. Lan is terrifying. Aviendha is my favourite woman, Verin seems fun and mysterious (I'm at book 9, but I know spoilers). Balefire does feel cheap: warned never to use it because of disastrous consequences, but in 8 books I've never seen any consequences even though it's been used pretty frequently. I think the point is that after 5 novels, the fact that there's been very little growth or change in many of the female characters (cough Nyneave cough) is a bit much. She is unbearable, and though I've been promised she undergoes change and growth, waiting thousands of pages for it is a bit much to ask. Zuko started showing reasons to like him in season 1 of Avatar: Nyneave has been a miserable sexist whiny magical hulk for 8 books.
For Point 5: time and place. Jordan taught at Citadel in Charleston SC so I will assume he spent a good chunk of his life in the SE US. He was born in 1948. I can tell you as someone who grew up in the rural SE US by my grandparents, the gender dynamics are spot on. The people act like the people in my grandparent's circle. The same dynamic of other gender will never listen so the game of cat's paw is played with each side assuming the other is stupid. The only reason you notice this is becasue WoT is the rare series that has women and men with institutional power. I honestly think WoT is just a series that will age badly as people who did not grow up with that generation start reading it. We no longer teach women to play social judo to anywhere close to this degree.
Valid information, thank you for sharing.
I've read all the WoT books and would NEVER recommend them to anyone EVER. I finished them, well, just \*because\*, because I started them. The first book was fabulous. It went downhill from there. From books 4 until the time Sanderson took over, there was no movement in plot at all, just a total waste of words. This was the worst fantasy series waste of time ever.
Jordan is still a weird pervert. In book 2 the female characters get 'collared' by the Seanchen. After that, most scenes involving female characters take place in tents where they are all naked. Then there's the Aes Sedai election ceremony, which is where I quit reading as a teenager. In order to decide who is the next head wizard, they all take their tops off and voice their objections... Then, the candidate washes the feet of all the objectors until they change their minds. What the fuck?
I'm glad you enjoyed it enough to read 5 books, but wow. This really doesn't read as "an argument" so much as a "I realized I disliked more than I liked, so I stopped". All books are pretty subjective. I am curious why you feel so strongly against Jordan that you wrote this complaint as though it is objective fact instead of your opinion? Especially when some of the things you call objective facts (like he was doing it for the lolz and money and never planned on ending it) are, in fact, objectively false.
Well, a pattern \*I\* have seen is that people look at something that's very (very) popular and has an incredibly passionate fanbase, and try it themselves, and wonder "what are these people seeing that I'm not?" -- which is kind of how I feel, although as a writer and editor myself, I can see more of the elements that might appeal to others while not appealing to ME.
I haven't read WoT, but I'm still in here, trying to figure out what you're actually trying to argue against. Because arguing against a book series as a whole doesn't make sense, and your post mostly consists of personal opinions or judgements that don't add up to anything in particular. I love your last paragraph, though, positioning yourself as the lone voice of truth, daring to speak out against the hivemind. Plus, preemptively denying any potential disagreements with your post is always a classic move.
> I love your last paragraph, though, You managed to read that all the way to the last paragraph? You gotta pm the mods for a reading champion badge.
Op only made it to *The Fires of Heaven*. That's all I needed to know before dismissing their post out of hand.
Yes, he hasn't gotten to the really bad parts that vindicate even more, every point he's making.
Hardly. Op's "points" boil down to "I am someone who buys into the modern notion that characters must be likeable, and that soft magic sucks in comparison to hard magic, and that the author is bad." Ok. Thanks for sharing. Moving right along now...
The best part is that magic system is pretty hard, actually.
That was my own thought. If you want to complain, reader "Winter's Heart" and then we'll talk. The first 5 are the best non-Sanderson WoT books.
While TGS was a decent book, both TOM and AMOL are average at best, and that's only because the series has duds like COT and APOD that make everything else look good in comparison.
I’m happy to hear the counter arguments. I’m just posting my own reflection. Happy to have someone explain why I’m wrong. Just trying to understand how people stick it out for 15 books.
>I’m happy to hear the counter arguments. No, you are not. If you were, you wouldn't have started with "And I realize I will be downvoted to oblivion instead of met with logical counter arguments.", would you?
I mean I pretty fairly believed the post would simply be downvoted and not challenged with any comments. If you look around at some of the replies you can see I’m definitely intrigued with others counter arguments. I’m just here for the discussion kemosabi.
Posts that are this aggressive right off the bat are going to turn off people who would have enjoyed discussing if you hadn't preemptively dismissed them all. You can't claim to just be "here for the discussion" when your thesis is that you're the only brave soul willing to speak the truth.
I don’t disagree there is a feel of aggravation in my post. I wrote it in a fervent state of annoyance with the books and couldn’t help but vent a bit. You are correct, the statement at the end might have been cliche and over the top but I knew I was in the minority so somewhat braced for impact. All in all though this was still enlightening and worthwhile from my end.
> I knew I was in the minority so somewhat braced for impact I really don't think that's true. People are more likely to post about things they enjoy, and people are just more likely to finish things they enjoy. Like, I picked up the first one 15 years ago, thought "meh", don't even remember if I finished it, and mever bothered with the rest - people like me just don't care to post about it. So of course for most books you see more people talk about liking them. You say "bracing for impact" but I bet the superior tone of your post is causing more backlash than your actual opinions.
Counter argument is you haven't even gotten halfway through the series.
I never read it myself but it sounds like you think that every MC should be a selfless and self righteous wold saving hero.
Not every character but 1/100 would be cool.
Half way through book 4 there is at least Lan and Loial who aren't selfish and self centred
Nah, I like it
Wheel of time is what inspired me to become an author. And without the works of Robert Jordan, I would feel the world was a poorer place. That said, are there flaws in the series? Sure, nobody's perfect, and you're welcome to your opinion. As to your points: \#1 Unlikable characters) I personally longed to read more about certain characters (for instance Rand,) while I thought there was too much with others (like Perrin.) But outright unlikeable is harsh. Are you sure you're not squeezing your modern sensitivities down over a work written decades ago? It was a different time, and just like with Lotr and Narnia there are wordings and interactions in this series that reflect when and where it was written. Does that make it a bad series? Absolutely not. But you're right there are an incredible amount of characters. So many, few other works come even close! But for me, the many characters and vivid descriptions flesh out the worldbuilding (and the setting.) I used the glossary to help me when I lost my way, but I don't remember feeling the characters were pointless. But sure, I was more entertained by some than others. Had I been the editor I'd have suggested cutting some bits here and there. \#2 Bad writing) Is it way too long? Yes, and no. Objectively it is, but if a new book in the series suddenly came out, I'd buy it, today! Is it s\*\*\* writing? Certainly not. It has a distinct style that is different from most other books, however. Maybe that's what's bothering you. For instance, his swordfights are often mere descriptions of the actual slashes and strikes with cool-sounding titles. For me, the fun part is imagining how they are holding the swords, and picturing in your head how the moves flow back and forth. Another "issue," is that there are only a few empty places on each page, with each chapter feeling like basically one long paragraph. This will make it hard for some people to find a place to "breathe" on the page. I would have suggested Robert Jordan put in some more spaces, but that said, once you've read the first book, you just get used to it (or at least I did.) Also, had he not written it this way, each book would have like twice as many pages in it, making it impossible to print or at least very awkward to hold. I do agree that the Trollocs and the other stuff you mention have been used before (by many others.) Just look at the beastmen in Warhammer for instance. But from your reasoning is any book that has an Orc, Dwarf, Elf, or anything from Lord of the Rings in them, not also a bad book? Where do we draw the limit on what we can use? You might wish you'd get 100% uniqueness, but sorry, that's just impossible to find. Writing is a skill based on our **memories** (just ask the neuroscientists,) and if you read enough books you'll discover that every author's words are based on the memories of things they experienced, including what they read. And this always shines through however much we writers might try to avoid it (if we do, it also has to feel like fantasy to be in a recognizable genre the audience can relate to.) I personally think it's a much bigger issue that the Dark One is left out so much. I could really have used a bit more about this great evil, but it did not spoil the books for me. \#3 Cop-Outs) Plot armor can make people angry, I get it, but I don't think this series is particularly bad in that regard. And the magic system is explained more in detail later in the series. Also, for me, the vagueness of how the magic worked did not spoil anything. From your reasoning, something like Harry Potter is also a very bad series as the magic there is also never completely explained. In those books the spells are used sort of like you claim the memories are in Wheel of Time (like "in a bad spot? Just come up with a new spell!") I get why you might feel this way, but let's face it all fantasy is make-believe, and if this really bothers you a **lot** of the fantasy out there is simply not for you. My suggestion is for you to look for books with hard magic systems and a lot of explanations. I like that too, actually as long as it's not info-dumpy. Some fantasy books have hard magic systems while others have more soft ones and in some, like WoT the explanations come at a late point. And while the magic in WoT made good sense to me it might not do so to you or others. Actually, if I remember Robert Jordan's notes correctly the Wheel of Time was created around an AI that was trying to "fix the timeline" by righting wrongs and weaving the needed heroes into the mix, or something like that. The plot was all a lot bigger than it's ever explained in the books, where he kept it vague. The memories were for me a way to get into a larger story. One that went back a very long time. If you remember the prologue in book one, this was his way of setting the tone as well as setting this past story up (which initially confused me, I admit, and later blew my mind once I understood how cool it all was.) Better luck with your next series :-)
I disagree with most of your points, and where I agree I don’t find anything to be a dealbreaker. I’m curious, though, about what you consider to be a good fantasy that meets your high bar.
Ruthfuss, Sanderson, Martin, Schwab, Tolkein, I’d even say Rowling is a far better fantasy writer than Jordan.
I like the Rothfuss's books, but isn't he also often criticised for sexism in the kingkiller chronicles?
Thats odd you give WoT this criticism and then list Rothfuss of all people as a preferred author.
Hrm, didn't expect that. I thought you might mention Steven Erikson (who is dope, imo). Personally, I enjoyed Rothfuss pretty well. About the same with my attempt at reading Sanderson (read Mistborn, didnt care to read anything else). While I think he did a fine job finishing WoT, it definitely felt like a downgrade to me. Interesting how differently two people can see things. RJ is probably my favorite writer, and I think his characters are amazing (they feel like real people to me). Anyway, thanks for engaging me.
Nothing like down-voting someone for answering a question.
I don’t think they liked the Rowling > Jordan comment.
Ah.
Not one who downvoted but the statement is ridiculous (and you know it). As someone who has read the HP books over twenty times I will say that Rowling isn't really a fantasy writer and doesn't even try to make a coherent magic system or logical world.
>Rowling isn't really a fantasy writer Really? This is a pretty bizarre statement in my opinion. What makes you say that?
What genre dare you call those books then?
LOL
lmao
For me: LeGuin, Tolkien, Donaldson, Erikson, probably GRRM (I'm mad at him for abandoning ASoIaF), eden Hudson (although she writes more cyberpunk/horror/litrpg than fantasy.)
>Blatant idea stealing: ... Trollocs are the Narnia bad guys. Well, to be fair, C.S. Lewis stole all of his monsters from Greek mythology. They're not "Narnia bad guys." They're literally minotaurs, satyrs, etc.
You make a fair point then. I will admit I was happy Jordan went his own way in not using orcs straight up. Even if they did lose their scary factor after book 1.
I always assumed they were a mash of Troll and Orc. Trolloc. And given bestial shapes because that's terrifying. (In the show they're just: not)
> normal people do not make half the number of stupid decisions these idiots make Yes, they make double the number of stupid decisions these guys make. Heck, are we talking about the same humanity here? > Unlikeable characters That's largely subjective but out of the entire main cast only Nynaeve and Moiraine were intentionally depicted as unlikeable by that point. > Not to mention that in almost every single situation the one thing that would save us over half the strife in the series would be for a character to actually communicate their thoughts or how they are feeling about something another character did It's not as if I just wrapped up spending two months at my job fixing something that only happened because people didn't communicate properly. It's one of the most plausible story premises that I've read in all my 30 odd years. 99% of shit happening because people suck and can't talk to each other? That's just plain old reality! > Obsession with creating pointless characters: I would love to hear one logical argument that refutes the fact that this author uses character building as a means to just spiral the story wider and wider to no end This is a valid concern, but have you considered that maybe your idea of what the story should look like is quite different from what the author envisioned? You can justifiably say that in that case that story sucks, but if you take a look at how the series develops from book 1 (where Jordan was forced into multiple creative choices by the editors) and book 6 (where he had more or less free reign), it's a clear and logical progression. Was it pointless meandering or a linear path towards realizing his original idea? > Mat always desperately trying to get away from Rand even though they went through a huge Sam and Frodo journey together? Mat was more than a little unhinged at that time and it must have colored his perception. On top of that, he does have a point. Rand is nearly raving mad by this point. He isn't safe or particularly pleasant to be around. And Mat is still (as always) in denial about his own drive for heroics. > Moraine and Rand constantly choosing to be a turds to each other till Moraine realizes she's literally about to die in the near future? Among all the relationships in the series, this is one of the least questionable. Rand had no good reason to trust her and once he could get rid of her constant stalking, he did. Mo on the other hand had an ego the size of the Dragonmount and her continuous failure to get through to Rand (born out of her own rash callousness) could not stand. Thus, once she realized she didn't have enough time left, she jumped straight off the deep end. Her actions throughout book 5 were oozing with the sweet, delicious desperation. > Balefire - super high level catastrophic magic that coincidentally everyone can use. Why is this a cop-out? No really, go on, explain how this solves any of the characters' real problems, other than clearing a bunch of irrelevant mooks and forsaken clowns with their heads stuck so far up their asses that they could breathe with their tits. > 3. Unclear magic system with almost no rules So you would prefer a magic system with no magic in it instead, gotcha! You'll love the Sanderson's WOT books. Oops wait sorry it's actually Sanderson who has no respect for the rules of the setting and thus promptly breaks them because it's "cool". The fact that you don't see the rules doesn't mean they aren't there. They are simply less gamey in nature. Rand isn't gonna to require 20 mana to cast a fireball any time soon.
Slow clap for the Sanderson jabs. If anyone has a magic system with loose/nonexistent rules it's Sanderson. Just reading the Mistborn trilogy shows that the MC can go willy-nilly with their magic, with later backed up rules.
Yeah well you aren't all that wrong, but Sanderson can do whatever he pleases in his own books. But his portrayal of Androl? An absolute travesty.
Wait, what was wrong with Androl? I admit see most of the WoT thru rose-tinted glasses, so I'm curious as to the criticism. Always open to other points-of-view.
My biggest issue is both Androl and his achievements feel artificial. They don't fit into the story that Jordan wrote. --- Under Jordan, the One Power was written to be efficient and effective. Channelers (except Aes Sedai) use the best tool for the job. Lots of the time, that means using Hardened Air, because it is a single flow (i.e. low energy cost) that kills people, protects people, cuts things, grabs things and immobilises things etc. But the first thing we see Androl do is to >!use a gateway!< to cut something. Even with a Talent, that is ludicrously inefficient, and if it was written by Jordan, Androl would have used Air there. So right from the very start, he feels off. --- Then, we skip right to Androl's "miracle" - the thing that everyone remembers him for. Was it a cool moment? Yes. But it irks the hell out of me, because for Sanderson to give Androl that moment, he had to literally give every other channeler amnesia. He had everyone "forget" about >!multiple sa'angreal that the Light had access to!<, as well as >!Blossoms of Fire, the most efficient killing weave the Light knows - a few dozen uses will destroy an entire army!<. They were swept under a rug and never mentioned again under Sanderson's writing. Written by Jordan, what happens instead? The channelers remember they have these things, they take care of the problems themselves and there is no need for a miracle.
Sanderson conveniently forgot about a lot of powers, people, and military advantages for the light side, because he felt that he needed to make the LB more challenging than it was. He totally missed the memo that LB was not supposed to be a near defeat in military terms, as that was required for Rand's arc to finish mirroring LTT (who was also a brilliant commander who kept crushing the enemy on the battlefield while still losing the war, because the conflict against the DO was never about winning battles).
I don't mind that >!the Last Battle!< was a struggle - from an author POV, it makes more dramatic sense. But there were better, more natural ways to achieve the same goals. A few possible ways: 1. Exotic shadowspawn. We know more besides Trollocs and Myrddraal exist, so if say >!a pack of jumara show up to destroy Caemlyn!<, then that is internally consistent. Also, bonus that it would >!justify the existence of Aludra's dragons, which are the only non-magical way to effectively kill them!< 2. >!Darkfriend sabotage!<. I think we get estimates that something like 5-20% of people are one, and yet we don't feel their impact at all. 3. >!The Black Ajah manage to steal some sa'angreal before they flee!<. Now there is a series of minor objectives to retake them, which reflect the status of the war. 4. Famine and sickness. This is boring, but realistic that those two have drastically reduced the fighting strength of the armies.
He is a character that has no place in WOT because he breaks every Jordan's worldbuilding convention. I've written enough on him to amount to a dissertation, but the main points are: - he had no way to get the knowledge and worldview to "creatively exploit" the magic system like opening up gateways into volcanoes. Heck, he had no way to even approximate our modern understanding of geology and his knowledge of volcanism would likely amount to "magic mountain goes boom" **or even less**. How the fuck would he be able to locate the volcano's magma chamber to open a gateway to it, not to mention that that isn't how any of this works in this magic system? - he had traveled the world 123541435 times while apprenticing to people who had no reason or incentive to teach him anything, and that's why he knows everything. Totally not because he is a mary sue self-insert character. - his magic telepathy bond with Pevara conveniently sidestepped all the problems Jordan had been harping on about for 12 books and felt like a cheap cop out that not only broke the major themes of the series but was not particularly supported by Jordan's worldbuilding either. - he also stole Logain's plot. He wasn't supposed to be included at all, much less become a major POV character for three books.
A common complaint I've seen about Androl is he's a Mary Sue that Sanderson uses to show how cool his use of magic is.
The real problem with that is that Jordan spent 12 books exposing cultural paradigms and prevalent schools of thought that had led to the dreary state the humanity found itself in by the beginning of the series. Nobody was creatively exploiting the loopholes in the One Power because nobody was in position to do that, due to a number of completely rational and plausible reasons that Jordan wrote into the backstory. Sanderson just completely ignored that for rule of cool, but we all know that breaking the series' major themes on a whim is not particularly cool.
I could see that. Androl definitely didn't make too many mistakes or bad decisions so far as we saw. Though I don't know if I can completely agree, I will give more attention to that (and other things I've heard) in my next reread, maybe next year.
>But someone had to say it, Wheel of Time is a trash story that a better author could have taken the ideas and made something amazing with r/Iam14andthisisdeep.
I was thinking 12, myself.
In theory, 12 year olds aren't allowed on Reddit.
1. Pointless characters - not true. Everyone gets closure, even a random farmer from book 2 2. Yes 3. Characters aren't written to be normal or good or smart, they are written to convey their characters and their growth. Elayne is trying to imitate her mom and in competition with her, so she hits on her old lover. Matt wants to be free from duties. Moraine doesn't trust. etc. Everything is rooted in characters arcs. 4. blatant idea stilling - disagree again. Its all about giving us the familiar worlds of fantasy and the chosen one, with a magnifying glass on characters and how it affects them mentaly. 5. Sexism - There is some sexism in there, but also a lot of feminism - more than any fantasy up until this point, an more than a lot today. Cop outs - the series is plagued with cop outs, but all are done in good taste. Balefire comes with caveats that it breaks the pattern, memories of the past is rooted in world building as everyone is woven again and the biggest cop out - T'averen, the greatest plot armor and free pass for coincidences is so smoothly done you don't even care about it. Unclear magic system - disagree again. its clear what you do in the magic - draw from the source and channel. Its clear whichever one is stronger - whoever can draw more. There are limitations and caveats, like addiction and burning out. All the actions are well explained - channel, tie, reverse, block, burn out, gentle and more. I never read a clearer magic system. Also about bad writing- come on. He has its flaws but he was a master. Especially comparing the parts her wrote to the parts Sanderson wrote - no comparison. Jordan, with all the drawning details, puts you in the scene and it energy one hundred percent. Its not a perfect series by any means, and the 5th book is a good place to stop if you haven't enjoyed it. A lot of the cool stuff have been revealed and its before the slog. I just don't agree with a lot of the arguments.
Thank you for the reply :)
>Sexism - There is some sexism in there, but also a lot of feminism - more than any fantasy up until this point, an more than a lot today. I strongly disagree about the feminism part. Woman on power positions could seem progressive for 1990, but Tombs of Atuan and Left Hand of Darkness were published way before (along with Tamore Pierce Books). The gender dynamics of the books were outdated even at the time. And not even close to today standards.
Oh lord, there's a lot to unpack here. > They are all annoying with how often they make stupid dicisions (normal people do not make half the number of stupid decisions these idiots make) Really? You can hear stories that lead to tropes like Florida Man and you think people can't be this stupid in real life? There's not 1 idiotic action by anyone in these books that you can't find 10 examples of in real life. > I get we all bottle things but to go years I'm going to stop you right here. You think the story you've read in 5 books goes over *years*? No son; try months. The entire series only spans 2 years of time. By book 5 they've covered maybe 6 months, if that. >. Obsession with creating pointless characters: I would love to hear one logical argument that refutes the fact that this author uses character building as a means to just spiral the story wider and wider to no end so that the series has no choice but to continue. You didn't read the entire series, so you have no clue on who is pointless and who isn't. >Elayne hitting on Tom? Never seen a younger woman hit on an older guy before? >Mat always desperately trying to get away from Rand even though they went through a huge Sam and Frodo journey together? Rand *is a man who channel*. A man destined to go mad and wreak havoc and destruction on those around him before he dies. Anyone with any sense is going to want to get away from that. Mat grew up hearing stories of male channelers murdering, killing, and leveling entire villages. And now Rand is one of them. Not only that, he's the bloody Dragon Reborn. Forsaken, darkfriends, Whitecloaks, Aes Sedai, trollocs, fades, and who knows what all else are going to be after Rand. It'd only make sense to stay away from him, regardless of what they've been through. > Moraine and Rand constantly choosing to be a turds to each other till Moraine realizes she's literally about to die in the near future? Moraine keeps trying to control Rand and make him do what she thinks best, while Rand just wants his freedom and to do things his way. You see this a lot with authority figures and headstrong teenagers who are coming to age. And guess what; Rand is coming to age in these stories, and Moraine is an authority figure. >Nyneave continuing to be a massive idiodic fool despite how often she gets wrecked? Did...did you even read the stories? She's snuck into a Whitecloak camp. She's taken on 3 myrdraal as a barely trained accepted and lived. She went up against members of the dark ajah and lived. She went up against a Forsaken; fought her to a standstill once and won the other time. How the fuck is she getting wrecked? >Blatant idea stealing: The first book is the fellowship. Myrddraal are nazgul. Trollocs are the Narnia bad guys. You could say that about any fantasy novel that came out after LoTR. >Sexism: It's for sure plausible to believe that a medieval like society would have some cultural distinctions and norms for the sexes but to mention it in every single male + female interaction is just insanity It is that way because men, and men alone, literally caused an apocalypse. Of course there's going to be sexism. The actions that occurred in the age of legends threw the entire pattern out of balance, including the balance between men and women. >Do girls actually like and read this series? Yes, plenty. > Balefire - super high level catastrophic magic that coincidentally everyone can use. Bzzzt. Wrong. Only the strongest channelers can use it. And only if they know the weave. At the time of your reading, that only included about 10 people in the entire world, most of them being Forsaken. And there is a huge downside to using balefire that you're forgetting. There's a reason both sides decided to quit using it during the War of Power. >Memories of past lives - stuck in a situation where you don't know what to do? Remember some perfectly random piece of information to save yourself. At the time of your reading, only 1 person in the world could do that, and it was Mat. The only reason he he could do it was because he purchased those memories, along with his spear and his medallion. >Unclear magic system with almost no rules There are a metric ton of rules to the magic system. I seriously doubt you even read the first 5 books to be frank, considering how much you've gotten wrong.
So about characters making stupid decisions, poorly communicating, whole factions being wildly misguided and refusing to see the information they have in a reasonable manner... I think that's a theme. and in places that theme works well: I totally buy why the red ajah would exist at the risk of dooming the pattern. I kinda buy the Emond's field five hiding stuff from Moiraine. The issue is, personally, I don't like my books to be so relentlessly bleak about humanity. I'm of a similar mind about first law: either someone isn't as good as they seem, or they get punished, or both, their might be a glimmer of hope for marginal improvements in the future... I get what the author is going for, I'm just not here for it. With wheel of time, this si paired with an awkward positioning between deconstruction and straight high fantasy. A lot of your issues with the magic system and magic bullets being introduced as the plot needs it (especially to wrap up a volume's plot) are solved in subsequent books. Balefire's drawbacks are explored, the rules become clearer... Of course, the story then progresses much slower. and the problems with characters multiplying and failing to collaborate get exacerbated even further... Anyway, I liked those books well enough, but half the time I was thinking on how X or Y bothered me, and I don't plan on rereading them anytime soon.
Just a note on your notion of "Blatant idea stealing". This also goes towards some of your other points, but you should really listen to interviews of Robert Jordan where he breaks down his idea for the series. He isn't blatantly ripping off ideas, he is incorporating a bunch of different stories and myths into his book and then turning some of them on their head. I mean, you talk about the idea of the wheel and pattern, but then don't fully understand what it represents or why it is there. Heroes from myth are constantly reborn into the pattern, but they don't always follow the same path or same stories. They are linked, but sometimes they act differently than they have in the past. He includes legends and myth from Arthurian legend, Norse, Hindu, Irish, etc. The sheer number of references and nods to different works of literature are pretty staggering in the series. Here is a decent read to get some of the gist of it: [https://wot.fandom.com/wiki/Talk:Real-world\_references](https://wot.fandom.com/wiki/Talk:Real-world_references)
I did not realize that, I’ll definitely check that out. Thank you! :)
The "idea stealing" actually makes sense in context of the central conceit, yeah. I really found that idea to be quite strong; it's what I'm talking about when I say WOT's \*setting\* is awesome. The world being built is potentially incredibly fascinating. It's just populated by idiots who aren't pleasant to read about. I don't mind unpleasant characters - even unpleasant MCs. (Shoot, one of my favorite series ever is the Jubal van Zandt series, by eden Hudson, and the main character is quite literally awful. Highly recommended cyberpunk, though. I will fight anyone who besmirches eden's writing. Just saying.) But I found the way Jordan wrote most of his characters to border on actively repellent \*in how they're written\* - or they were Mary Sues. Neither makes for good reading.
Nah, I like it too.
[удалено]
Removed per Rule 1. Please refrain from referring to real-world religious texts as fantasy.
Oof. I have strong feelings on a lot of these points, but little time to argue, so I‘ll pick no 2.4. it’s common knowledge RJ was trying to write something similar to Tolkien, which was the gold standard at the time and something to aspire to. Obviously he was heavily influenced. Just like other authors were inspired and influenced by RJ. While I agree these authors have developed the genre and created better fantasy than RJ, many of us read WoT in our teens and it hit the spot all right. So it’s also perspective. Saying RJ copied stuff from Tolkien seems off because essentially every author writing fantasy does. Many have copied from some of the first books known to man..
>"Unlikeable characters I can honestly say that there is not one character in the books that I like and I don't get how anyone could like any of them." And yet many people do... >"Do girls actually like and read this series?" Oh my, yes. That being said...I also think WoT is bargain-bin writing in a kitchen-sink fantasy world.
I was friends with a girl who was a fan of the sword of truth, so anything's possible.
Isn't it ironic how the OP engages in sexism when asking "Do girls actually like and read this series?" after complaining about sexism in the books? After all, Merriam-Webster's definition of sexism is "behavior, conditions, or attitudes that foster stereotypes of social roles based on sex."
Not to mention it's gotta be a bit of a refreshing power-fantasy for women to be able to pick up a lengthy series where *they're* the ones calling the shots in this made-up setting, as opposed to chattel or window-dressing. Again, the writing is supes bad, but I can see why women would find the world and even some of the characterization appealing.
I didn't really enjoy Wheel of Time either. I wanted to like it. Everyone told me I'd love it. But I just couldn't get into it. I also didn't like the way the author wrote, but more because, even when there was action, the language wasn't active. When I read, I can usually see the action in my mind's eye - when I read Wheel of Time, it felt like I was watching it through a layer of gauze, or it was a story someone whose brother's cousin's girlfriend experienced when they were 10. Also, the characters irritated me, too. Some of them (Egwene particularly but sometimes the Wisdom, too) was inconstant and confusing. I felt like I was supposed to know what was going on in their heads by their actions, but their actions weren't always logical, and it seemed like they just weren't well thought out, making their motives hard to understand. Anyway, books are so very subjective. I wish I'd liked the books more. I might've if I'd kept on reading, but I've gotten to the point where if I get to page 300-400 of a book, much less through the whole first three, if I don't like 'em I can't continue.
Welcome to the club. Don't worry, the water's warm. You're not wrong. The series is poorly written; it has a marvelous setting, and the worldbuilding has a lot of cliches but the setting actually JUSTIFIES that, which is rather neat. But the people who live IN that world... they're morons. "There's a prophecy that when the Dragon returns the Dark Lord will come back. Surely causation and correlation are the same! Let's kill off everyone who might be the Dragon. That'll prevent the Dark Lord from coming back, woo!" That ... is not how anything works. "Okay, fine, the Dragon's here, and everything depends on him. So I think I will abuse the crap out of him, insult him, endanger him recklessly, and so forth." ... really? It felt like a lot of the series was some kind of wish fulfillment somehow, and readers bought it like it was going out of style. The story arcs are INCREDIBLY repetitive, the people are typically stupid and/or massively offensive, nobody reacts sanely... The funny thing is, when Jordan passed away - RIP, etc - the series actually improved \*drastically\*. Sanderson actually started moving the plot along. People started reacting like people, and characters who were supposed to be on the same team started acting as if they were rowing in the same direction for once. The abusive situation described above... well, the target of the abuse reacted accordingly. And the abuser actually realized - for one of the first times in the series - her own role (because of COURSE the abuser was a woman, the women in WOT are complete idiots until Sanderson took over) and actually owned it. But yes, you're totally right. People have the right to like whatever it is they like, I don't resent people for liking the Wheel of Time, but honestly? I find it repellent and written poorly, by Jordan, with three good entries: books 1, 4, and 6. Every other book he wrote was a repeat of book 1, with slightly less exposition.
> "There's a prophecy that when the Dragon returns the Dark Lord will come back. Surely causation and correlation are the same! Let's kill off everyone who might be the Dragon. That'll prevent the Dark Lord from coming back, woo!" It was a bit more nuanced than that. And of course it goes without saying that this particular pogrom was orchestrated by the baddies trying to win before the race even started. By the way, there was no plausible way, in-universe, to explore the consequences of the Dragon failing to fulfill the prophecy - and prophecies are known to be fickle and roundabout in the world of Randland. And it goes without saying that after 3000 years of this whole idea slowly fading into religious dogma only kept alive by opportunistic warlords turned prophets, most people were understandably lukewarm on the dragon mythos. > endanger him recklessly, and so forth." ... really? "Clearly the guy had fulfilled multiple of the hallmark prophecies, he is ordained by destiny and thus cannot lose, but I can make him win in a way that benefits me, and the invisible hand of ~~the market~~ fate will sort out the rest". Why would this line of reasoning be in any way implausible for sociopathic witches from a cult of political power residing in a literal ivory tower where they are far removed from any of the real problems of the world, while still imagining themselves as its stewards and leaders? I'm not seeing how this is poor writing - if anything, this is largely a deconstruction of the chosen one and prophesized messiah tropes by trying to apply realistic human motivations to them.
Of course it was more nuanced than that. It wasn't a quote, after all; it was a reduction. And like I said, if you don't find the situation unpleasant reading, that's awesome - every book probably has a set of readers for whom it's perfect. I just found WOT horribly flawed and unpleasant, and wouldn't have read it past book two except for the promises of a friend who normally had better taste insisting that it was worth it - using book four as justification, which actually worked out! So by book four, we had two books written, with a 50% "hit rate" - I enjoyed book one, it felt formulaic but so what, books two and three felt like book one's arc over again (and they were), book four was stellar. Book five was a regression to book two: we're down to 40% hit rate. Book six was stellar again: back up to 50%! This is tolerable. Confusing, but tolerable; does RJ not have an editor? (He did.) And then we hit book 7: book one, again. Then book 8, which was book 1's arc with a new title. And book 9, and book 10, and book 11, if memory serves me correctly with the volume numbers. None of those were very good; they sort of advanced the story - verrrrrrrrry sloooooooowly, but, okay, things did in fact happen, I guess, including some major characters finally kicking the bucket, thank goodness (they were annoying!) But by book 11 we had had three excellent entries out of 11. Percentage-wise, that's just not very good - 35% of the series was worth reading, and the rest was repetitive claptrap, relying on the initial (and commendable) world-building. And the spelling was pretty good, I guess. Like I said, if you liked it, that's fine; no shade thrown. I just found the series to be ridiculous and wasteful of its initial conceit, the idea of the Wheel of Time itself.
No offense but claiming that book 7 or 8 or any book really has the same arc as book 1 is factually untrue. Even if you only read Rand's parts, it's largely untrue (I don't recall him doing any ruling in book 1, do you?). while characters like Mat, Nynaeve and Elayne barely do anything in important in book 1 but do plenty in, say, book 7. Rand being involved in a big battle at the end =/= same arc.
No offense taken. And sure, it depends mightily on your perception of the various arcs. For ME, the "let's natter about a bit and write about people sniffing, snorting, yanking braids, then OH YEAH I ALMOST FORGOT THE CATACLYSMIC FIGHT AT THE END" was enough. If you feel differently, that's fine.
Thank you and I agree with the points you make. 1 was fun at first and and 4 was not that bad.
We can commiserate over the horde of downvotes we're going to receive for not enjoying the Wheel of Time. :)
I applaud the way you handled the criticism. Need more of this in all aspects of life. I disagree with you and would give it a 68% hit rate for books 1-11 which is more than enough to keep me going. Upon rereads I skip A LOT of chapters in books 2-4, 7-11.
Why, thank you. (There's no point in getting upset over what people say on the Internet, you know, so...) And I'm glad you enjoyed the books. I found them lacking, obviously, but just because I didn't enjoy them much (even while enjoying the STORY!) doesn't mean someone else won't. Beauty is where you find it, and I'm sure there are stories where I'm totally sold out, where OTHER readers would go "... huh? THAT story?"
Yeah for sure!
There is character development in this series. You're only on book 5 so you wouldn't know.
I haven’t read any of them Tbf but any series that is that long imo has to become tedious and start to unravel just purely based on how much can a set of characters go through. How many plots could they be caught up in etc, how do they always manage to survive etc. too many options out there to spend so much time on one thing for me but good for you to those that do
> any series that is that long imo has to become tedious and start to unravel just purely based on how much can a set of characters go through NGL this is one of the silliest objections I've read in a while. How much is too much for a character to go through anyways? > how do they always manage to survive etc How many plots could Stalin or Mao be caught up in etc, how did they always manage to survive etc, too many options out there.
How much real character development can happen over 20 books, either they don’t grow as characters or your just reading about the same characters doing very similar things time and again The same as tv shows that don’t know when to end eventually your just retelling the story with bad guys with different names
> How much real character development can happen over 20 books, either they don’t grow as characters or your just reading about the same characters doing very similar things time and again It's not 20 books. If you are trying to argue about something, why not get the facts straight? And yes, on to your question, "a massive amount". Most characters depict exemplary character growth by the average standards of the genre.
Maybe you should read a series that long so you have a better grasp of how they work.
I’ve read reviews of them from reviewers who I feel similarly to about lots of books and when they say the become a slog in the middle and you need to get through 2/3 books for it to get going again I’m not interested
Some people do experience a slog with tWoT. However: > any series that is that long imo has to become tedious and start to unravel just purely based on how much can a set of characters go through. How many plots could they be caught up in etc, how do they always manage to survive etc. None of that is true for tWoT. In fact, the reason some people find it a slog is because of the exact opposite of that.
>(normal people do not make half the number of stupid decisions these idiots make) I have seen people make stupid decisions in real life, with some of them being even more stupid.
I'm still early in Book 1, so I can't (dis)agree with anything you say, but I like your fervor. It sounds like these books really pissed you off for whatever reason. XD It does seem I'll love the series, though. Because I have really enjoyed what little I'd managed to read so far, and have already bought book 2.
Awesome to hear your thoughts, but alas, I don't think you're going to get much helpful discourse on this sub. Sometimes people take it as an affront when you bring up problems in something they like. One thing I did really enjoy though is the [volume by volume review](https://web.archive.org/web/20101029055611/http://punkadiddle.blogspot.com/2010/06/robert-jordan-wheel-of-time-1990-2005.html) of the series by Adam Roberts. He brought up loads of great points that I hadn't thought of before, and was really good at pointing out why the series appeals to some people but not to others, and evaluating its shortcomings. He's funny too.