Jordan mentioned finishing in one when he reached the one with which he meant to finish. - Edit 1
Before modification by Joel at 24/11/2010 03:59:10 PM
Prior to that he never really said anything definitive about the length of the series since his infamous "it'll be a trilogy" statement early on. I stand by my appraisal of his reasons for dragging out the series prior to his decline around the time of Knife of Dreams. The statement about finishing in one book was made when fans were apprehensive he would die prior to finishing the series (or rather, when fans had good reason to be apprehensive that he would die). But we disagree on why he padded the series.
I think he also definitely let the series get away from him and lost focus entirely, and that this loss of focus manifested itself as Crossroads of Twilight.
I think he also definitely let the series get away from him and lost focus entirely, and that this loss of focus manifested itself as Crossroads of Twilight.
Which was well after he knew he had a terminal illness. I'm not sure he knew the odds had beaten him until the last few months, perhaps weeks. The fact is, none but he and God can answer these questions, and I'm reluctant to impute guilt based on speculation. The same applies to discussing the reasons he padded the series. Personally, I think he let it get away from him at least as early as TPoD, when there's a noticeable decline in quality even from ACoS, which was already not as good as the three books immediately preceding it.
There's one thing I keep neglecting in that analysis, and shouldn't: Jordan was as aware as I of what Tolkien did with the Lay of Leithian, and I think it no coincidence that the series' most lamentable (in the narrative, not emotional, sense) plotline is introduced in the final pages of the worst volume, then stretches like a pall over it and all the other truly awful books. Jordan's on record that there's some of him in all the ta'veren, but both his phsyical appearance and descriptions of him by those who knew him seem to best correspond with Perrin, which implies Faile is a stand in for Harriet. That would explain a lot, if justify little; the Faile kidnapping is then just a poorly written version of Beren and Luthien, right down to the dramatic rescue from within the heart of enemy forces. Of course, neither John nor Christopher Tolkien spent an entire third of the Silmarillion on that (though more was written about it than anything except perhaps Turin and Gondolin). It would be easy for Jordan to get carried away with, revel in it (especially if he knew it might be his last chance to pay tribute to his wife) but for the rest of us it's just copious amounts of brooding and smarm. Again, speculation, but when we're discussing the unstated motives of a dead man that's all we've got (once again, that's why I don't want to be too hard on him: There's no way to be certain any accusation is just).
It cuts both ways though: If neither you nor mierin cared about character and world development then, why did it suddenly become so important when the series began declining?
To address this directly and succinctly: the series never had pretensions of literary greatness, but the first six books were engaging and fun, with a fast pace and great endings. When the quality started to decline, the apologists began to invent excuses for Jordan. He was "character building," his work was "literary" and the pace necessarily slowed as a result. I didn't ever presume to mock Jordan for what he wrote - much as I don't attack Dan Brown. HOWEVER, when his fans began to speak of him as though he were a veritable Dostoevsky, or on a par with Milan Kundera or even (gasp) Marquez, I took umbrage with their spurious claims.
He's not Ovid, but if the series finishes well it might qualify as literature, IMHO. Of course, I think the Metamorphoses and Faustus also qualify, despite their speculative nature, but that's another debate for another thread.
I saw and appreciated character and world development in TWoT long before I entered the lists to debate how poor a writer Jordan is; if I hadn't I wouldn't have stayed with it (and I've made that decision with so MANY fantasy series that I'd all but given up on finding a good one until circumstances brought RJ to my attention). I can certainly see how attempts to elevate Jordan to the level of great masters would annoy anyone who considers him a hack, but I also think the truth lies somewhere between the two.Finally, I'll note that Sanderson is a good read, but he shares some of the same flaws that Jordan has. His characters could use more depth. He has, to his credit, been working on this, but if by criticizing Jordan I criticize Sanderson, then so be it. Sanderson could use some improvement. Regardless, if Jordan is his teacher then I believe the student has already overtaken his teacher and is excelling beyond what the teacher could have done.
To that I cannot speak; the only Sanderson books I've read are TGS and ToM. Part of that is time constraints, but, ironically, part of it is that I've been disappointed by so many fantasy authors recommended by people I've always thought to have excellent literary taste. After all the gushing, reading Pratchett was mediocre enough I'm afraid to try Gaiman, for example. I think the last fantasy recommendation that lived up to its billing for me was The Watchmen, and that was 20 years ago. So I DO understand, but I think you're demanding too much of Jordan, particularly given the circumstances under which he was forced to complete his work. Circumstances don't justify the undeniable flaws, but reducing it to greed, conceit and incomptence with no way to be certain, and with knowledge of alternate potential explanations, seems very unfair.