Active Users:2924 Time:23/01/2025 11:39:44 AM
My thought was not that they "dumbed it down" Narg Send a noteboard - 26/09/2010 03:50:36 AM
But rather that they made a decision to worry less about chronological integrity in the interest of resolving at least some important story arcs in each book.

I don't think my argument about them agreeing with the WoT bashers is necessarily weird. Lets assume that for arguments sake that 90% of loyal WoT fans were extremely turned off by what happened in books 7-10 (with CoT being the low point). Lets say that the outrage among those who had helped support the series for more than a decade hit fever pitch with CoT and RJ understood that perhaps he had stubbornly turned off an enormous chunk of those who loved and supported him for many years by insisting on moving the story so little over the span of 6 years. If this is the case then I don't think it would be weird for Brandon and Harriet to acknowlege that it might be better to not produce a book that most previously loyal readers would greatly dislike, even if there was a small percentage of readers that didn't mind it at all.

Of course we don't know what the actual numbers are, but among readers that are not rabid enough to post on a message board I suspect much more than half were extremely turned off by what RJ allowed to happen in the second half of the series. Obviously I could be way off. My limited sampling pool of friends who read the series and became highly frustrated by the later books may be unrepresentative.

If RJ later acknowleged to Harriet that he perhaps should have done the later books a little differently (pure speculation on my part), then it wouldn't seem totally odd to me for Harriet and Brandon to decide to avoid what turned off so many loyal readers. It would seem at least as odd to me if they opted not to do such a thing just because there was a small percentage of extra loyal readers that liked how things went in the later books.

Even if my point is somewhat valid (it is just a guess on my part), it still doesn't address your point that they could have made the chronological split while still avoiding violation of RJ's customs regarding insertion of minor character view points only in the proper chronological spots. I am sure Brandon simply screwed some things up. But like you said, ToM could turn out to be much better stylisticaly than the prologue forebodes. Here is to hoping.
A little learning is a dangerous thing.
This message last edited by Narg on 26/09/2010 at 04:04:03 AM
Reply to message
Jason's review... Looks like DomA was right (Review is now removed) - 25/09/2010 05:40:18 AM 3462 Views
Re: Jason's review (spoilerish thoughts from me, so BEWARE!). Looks like DomA was right - 25/09/2010 06:00:46 AM 1284 Views
Pretty sure it's not Egwene... - 25/09/2010 07:07:00 AM 1221 Views
Oh well - I was wrong - 27/09/2010 03:56:59 PM 933 Views
Ituralde - 25/09/2010 06:29:26 AM 1058 Views
Read the ToM rules - 25/09/2010 07:44:22 AM 976 Views
I officially hate reviews of WoT (in general) - 25/09/2010 08:10:43 AM 1051 Views
I take Jason's reviews with a pinch of salt - 25/09/2010 09:45:10 AM 1119 Views
Re: I take Jason's reviews with a pinch of salt - 25/09/2010 03:50:40 PM 961 Views
Perrin will probably gather the wolves... - 25/09/2010 09:57:06 AM 1103 Views
I suppose Olver could be the one who takes off Mat's eye *NM* - 25/09/2010 10:01:17 AM 513 Views
The review is now gone. *NM* - 25/09/2010 04:10:59 PM 518 Views
Unfortunately, there's not much left for Elayne to do. - 25/09/2010 07:14:09 PM 1153 Views
I haven't read the review but... - 25/09/2010 07:22:48 PM 1543 Views
That's not what I meant... - 25/09/2010 08:25:42 PM 1138 Views
It's odd, I didn't see any reference to Rand descending from DM in his review. - 25/09/2010 08:39:33 PM 977 Views
It was the very last line... - 25/09/2010 08:55:49 PM 1071 Views
Re: It was the very last line... - 25/09/2010 09:03:14 PM 966 Views
Re: It was the very last line... - 25/09/2010 09:54:28 PM 944 Views
Re: It was the very last line... - 25/09/2010 10:09:58 PM 1206 Views
Mike quit being obsessed about 6 years ago (maybe longer?) - 25/09/2010 10:46:23 PM 1043 Views
Re: Mike quit being obsessed about 6 years ago (maybe longer?) - 26/09/2010 01:11:52 AM 1046 Views
I blame JordanCon too. - 26/09/2010 02:17:50 AM 1096 Views
Regarding the WOTFAQ, Tam, - 26/09/2010 10:04:40 PM 1019 Views
Re: Regarding the WOTFAQ, Tam, - 27/09/2010 07:20:11 AM 1000 Views
Re: Regarding the WOTFAQ, Tam, - 27/09/2010 11:03:35 AM 1010 Views
Re: I blame JordanCon too. - 27/09/2010 01:07:59 AM 1086 Views
Re: I blame JordanCon too. - 27/09/2010 07:35:04 AM 1041 Views
Re: That's not what I meant... - 25/09/2010 09:49:17 PM 1241 Views
Some thoughts on a potential meeting... - 26/09/2010 05:11:06 AM 1150 Views
Regarding Brandon's messing up of the timelines... - 25/09/2010 11:34:06 PM 1101 Views
To me it's two different things - 26/09/2010 01:48:13 AM 1197 Views
I agree - 26/09/2010 03:09:04 AM 1000 Views
My thought was not that they "dumbed it down" - 26/09/2010 03:50:36 AM 1073 Views
Re: My thought was not that they "dumbed it down" - 26/09/2010 11:42:12 PM 1269 Views
KOD and TOM show where TGS could have been 'fixed' - 26/09/2010 10:27:04 AM 1006 Views
Re: KOD and TOM show where TGS could have been 'fixed' - 26/09/2010 09:35:41 PM 1146 Views
Whose really to blame though? - 27/09/2010 03:43:30 AM 986 Views
A suggestion? - 26/09/2010 11:39:08 AM 1128 Views
Is there a copy of the review somewhere? *NM* - 27/09/2010 01:40:22 AM 600 Views
The review is back up... - 27/09/2010 01:59:50 AM 981 Views
It wasn't quite identical... It was missing the line about Rand walking down from DM - 27/09/2010 06:42:47 AM 982 Views
The line about Rand wasn't there when I read the review Saturday morning either. *NM* - 27/09/2010 01:57:00 PM 448 Views
It was... - 27/09/2010 04:22:24 PM 835 Views
I must have missed it then. It does fit with Tor's not releasing Chapter 1 early. *NM* - 27/09/2010 05:06:36 PM 456 Views
What do you mean? - 27/09/2010 11:33:15 PM 891 Views
It was at the very bottom of the post and hard to find - 28/09/2010 12:44:56 AM 782 Views
Olver - 27/09/2010 11:34:40 AM 1140 Views
He's Demandred, natch. - 27/09/2010 03:54:09 PM 877 Views
Re: Olver - 27/09/2010 05:42:25 PM 926 Views
Re: Olver darkfriend? - 28/09/2010 12:02:11 AM 992 Views
'Tis a shame. I love spoilers. - 27/09/2010 03:16:02 PM 1001 Views
One problem with the idea of a Rand-Egwene meeting in Chapter 1 beyond timeline issues - 27/09/2010 10:29:15 PM 911 Views
Not true... - 28/09/2010 01:00:40 AM 897 Views
Good call. I assumed, and still do, that the two events are one in the same. - 28/09/2010 01:10:13 AM 980 Views
I don't think so... - 28/09/2010 01:47:40 AM 828 Views
Re: I don't think so... - 28/09/2010 02:00:59 AM 882 Views
Re: I don't think so... - 28/09/2010 03:07:08 AM 1723 Views
Not true indeed... and.... - 28/09/2010 02:24:00 AM 1134 Views
Mesaana and the Foretelling... - 28/09/2010 03:31:24 AM 866 Views
Re: Mesaana and the Foretelling... - 13/10/2010 01:32:12 AM 1205 Views

Reply to Message