Of course it's formulaic: It's a genre book to a large extent ABOUT the genre. - Edit 1
Before modification by Joel at 23/11/2010 08:52:38 PM
My opinions are as valid as anyone else's. I can be non-critical if someone asks a simple point regarding chronology in WoT. However, if someone starts asking questions about character motivation, pacing, story development or literary value, of course I'm going to be critical.
Even within genre, the story is very formulaic and the character motivations unfounded. Note that if you were to apply my experiment ("try writing down what any major character's motivations are and see if you can relate to them - in most cases you won't be able to") to other authors in the genre, such as Martin, you will get satisfactory answers. The guy can't finish a book for over four years (a book that was "almost done" by his own admission!), but he at least writes believable characters.
So no, I don't see the need to avoid trashing WoT when appropriate. I am glad that I found out who killed Asmodean. I am slightly interested to find out what Demandred's been up to. I have low expectations for the last book but I will buy it nonetheless because I am going to see the series to its "bitter conclusion" as Larry stated in his review.
One thing I will NOT do, that others do here, is trash Sanderson. I think he's doing the best with what he's been given. The pacing is not his choice - the staccato series of events after books of glacial development reflects Jordan's failure to advance the plot. The formulaic nature of the series was set in stone long before he started. Proper character development is not really an option this late in the series.
Even within genre, the story is very formulaic and the character motivations unfounded. Note that if you were to apply my experiment ("try writing down what any major character's motivations are and see if you can relate to them - in most cases you won't be able to") to other authors in the genre, such as Martin, you will get satisfactory answers. The guy can't finish a book for over four years (a book that was "almost done" by his own admission!), but he at least writes believable characters.
So no, I don't see the need to avoid trashing WoT when appropriate. I am glad that I found out who killed Asmodean. I am slightly interested to find out what Demandred's been up to. I have low expectations for the last book but I will buy it nonetheless because I am going to see the series to its "bitter conclusion" as Larry stated in his review.
One thing I will NOT do, that others do here, is trash Sanderson. I think he's doing the best with what he's been given. The pacing is not his choice - the staccato series of events after books of glacial development reflects Jordan's failure to advance the plot. The formulaic nature of the series was set in stone long before he started. Proper character development is not really an option this late in the series.
Calling it formulaic on that basis strikes me as no more fair than accusing Jordan of plagiarizing everyone from Moiraine to Galad (I DO wish it were less formulaic there, because even the Monty Python Galahad is a self-righteous prick I can't stand; I usually refer to him, in all versions, as "F--KING AVATAR111" ). I don't pretend to be satisfied with the pacing, but I also think it was pretty good until around the time RJ must've begun feeling the effects of the disease that killed him. How big a role that played is hard to guess, but we KNOW it affected things a great deal by the end (hence Sanderson is writing the last three books based on notes) so without that knowledge I can't really fault Jordan much for pacing. I think some of the characters have developed a great deal, Rand and Mat probably being the most obvious ones (Perrin, I concede, does still seem fairly monolithic, and that is a bit embarrassing since he's rather obviously the one most modeled on RJ; if Harriet's anything like Faile I pray I never meet the horrible harridan....
) Reasonable men can differ though; the very reason I gave up on ASoIaF after the first book is because NONE of his characters seem plausible to me. Usually I describe them as "evil, insane, or evil and insane".The difference is I don't visit Martin fan boards telling anyone who'll listen what an untalented hack their favorite author is. I read things I actually respect, or at least enjoy (hard to say I really RESPECT Xanth, but it is fun) and if someone brings up the series on boards I do frequent, I THEN state my opinion and leave it at that. I'm not going to change their minds and they won't change mine, and literary criticism, rightly, intentionally, or not, is often as much about taste as it is writing. For example, when I mentioned Sansamillas comment on KoD to my fiancee earlier tonight, I also stated that, "it wasn't that bad, and I'd even say it was GOOD, much better than CoT, Heart of Darkness or TPoD". Of course, what I MEANT to say was, "Winter's Heart" not "Heart of Darkness" but I stand by the comment; nonetheless, the reason I'm in a position to give my opinion is because SOMEONE thought Conrads book good enough to require my entire AP English class to read it. Personally, I prefer The Secret Sharer if I MUST read Conrad; if nothing else, it's a lot shorter, so the torture is sooner ended.
My point is that while I don't deny your right to post consistently disparaging comments about TWoT and/or RJ on the WoTMB, I'm not sure why you bother. We get it, the series is beneath you, and no one's likely to forget that (though I won't forget you used to be TVoLT either, and giggle a little inside when I see you Jordan bashing. 
)Oh, and by the way, I would never eat hot dogs for Thanksgiving. We're having filet mignon, roasted potatoes, tiramisu and some nice aperitifs, which is a proper way to have a nice dinner. My comment about hot dogs was with respect to outdoor grilling events, and even then I only like Hebrew National or Boar's Head.
That, I must confess, was a cheap shot, for which I apologize. You responded to it a lot more reasonably than I deserved. The two comments were rather jarring to me at the time, so they stuck in my head, and I remember thinking that about the only way to reconcile them was Hebrew National (I didn't consider Boar's Head, but that's a good choice as well). Still, while I'm gratified to see you're consistent about such things, it's really none of my business, and insinuating it was an example of differences in taste masquerading as culture was little more than an ad hominem. Which I suppose makes it a default concession. Go, me....
