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.
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
Jason's review... Looks like DomA was right (Review is now removed)
25/09/2010 05:40:18 AM
- 3424 Views
Re: Jason's review (spoilerish thoughts from me, so BEWARE!). Looks like DomA was right
25/09/2010 06:00:46 AM
- 1249 Views
Everyone seems to think Rand will talk to Egwene, but a male channeler also makes sense
25/09/2010 10:44:18 PM
- 995 Views
No Elayne hopefully, but again it looks like Egwene has everything fall in her lap
25/09/2010 08:10:54 AM
- 1161 Views
No Elayne hopefully, but again it looks like Egwene has everything fall in her lap
25/09/2010 08:11:37 AM
- 886 Views
Perrin will probably gather the wolves...
25/09/2010 09:57:06 AM
- 1068 Views
this "we like it because it's family" stuff is worrisome
25/09/2010 10:18:22 AM
- 1039 Views
After his COT review, a less then gushing review isn't great
25/09/2010 11:42:39 AM
- 980 Views
But he is specifically trying to avoid being overly fanboyish BECAUSE of that CoT review. *NM*
27/09/2010 04:19:21 PM
- 499 Views
Damn, his COT review was infinitely more enthusiastic. What could it all mean? *NM*
25/09/2010 01:06:00 PM
- 515 Views
But his CoT review was also more enthusiastic than his KoD and TGS reviews *NM*
25/09/2010 01:07:15 PM
- 522 Views
Hmm, interesting point. Could a guilty conscience be setting in? *NM*
25/09/2010 01:26:30 PM
- 476 Views
I'm guessing Olver will sacrifice his Snakes and Foxes game his father made for him *NM*
25/09/2010 06:09:10 PM
- 655 Views
I haven't read the review but...
25/09/2010 07:22:48 PM
- 1500 Views
That's not what I meant...
25/09/2010 08:25:42 PM
- 1096 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
- 935 Views
It was the very last line...
25/09/2010 08:55:49 PM
- 1036 Views
Re: It was the very last line...
25/09/2010 09:03:14 PM
- 922 Views
Re: It was the very last line...
25/09/2010 10:09:58 PM
- 1170 Views
I blame JordanCon too.
26/09/2010 02:17:50 AM
- 1064 Views
Regarding the WOTFAQ, Tam,
26/09/2010 10:04:40 PM
- 978 Views
Regarding Brandon's messing up of the timelines...
25/09/2010 11:34:06 PM
- 1064 Views
To me it's two different things
26/09/2010 01:48:13 AM
- 1156 Views
I remember the timeline was discussed much at TL prior to TGS release.
26/09/2010 03:04:24 AM
- 991 Views
Re: I remember the timeline was discussed much at TL prior to TGS release.
26/09/2010 08:31:00 PM
- 1076 Views
My thought was not that they "dumbed it down"
26/09/2010 03:50:36 AM
- 1028 Views
KOD and TOM show where TGS could have been 'fixed'
26/09/2010 10:27:04 AM
- 959 Views
The review is back up...
27/09/2010 01:59:50 AM
- 935 Views
It wasn't quite identical... It was missing the line about Rand walking down from DM
27/09/2010 06:42:47 AM
- 938 Views
The line about Rand wasn't there when I read the review Saturday morning either. *NM*
27/09/2010 01:57:00 PM
- 428 Views
It was...
27/09/2010 04:22:24 PM
- 792 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
- 439 Views
What do you mean?
27/09/2010 11:33:15 PM
- 848 Views
I read somewhere that they'd release two different chapters this time. Could well be wrong though. *NM*
28/09/2010 02:15:28 AM
- 460 Views
Olver
27/09/2010 11:34:40 AM
- 1088 Views
doubt he'll die. Jason's review is too much of a spoiler if he actually dies *NM*
27/09/2010 11:46:16 AM
- 478 Views
One problem with the idea of a Rand-Egwene meeting in Chapter 1 beyond timeline issues
27/09/2010 10:29:15 PM
- 871 Views
Not true...
28/09/2010 01:00:40 AM
- 860 Views
Good call. I assumed, and still do, that the two events are one in the same.
28/09/2010 01:10:13 AM
- 939 Views
Not true indeed... and....
28/09/2010 02:24:00 AM
- 1096 Views