Wheel of Time Messageboard: Brain overload! This is really well thought out. by RabidWombat

Back to Messageboard

Post New Thread

Help

Stats

Rules

Brain overload! This is really well thought out. RabidWombat Send a noteboard - 23/02/2011 10:22:37 PM

I've read loyally and often, and my love for the series has only lessened over the last couple of years. Still, I never took much time to critique Jordan's skills or style as an author. His voice works for his world, and I like it a lot.

And as one of my French/literature teachers used to say, in the end a great writer is someone people enjoy to read. You do with Jordan, so he's one of your great writers and in many ways that should be enough.

True. To play the devil's advocate, though, my wife enjoys reading just about everything. Does that make everyone a good author? I am significantly more picky and dislike almost all fantasy and almost everything else I read. Am I a better critic?

If we look at the established canons of "good writing", Jordan just doesn't fit many of them (Sanderson even less). He's not a very good stylist. His metaphors are often ackward, cliché or downright non-sensical. His grammar and syntax are functional at best and his prose is for the most part utilitarian. He can carry on a story, but the language he uses isn't very imaginative, let alone exceptional.

I think a good portion of the great authors also have rather large weaknesses. The ones that come readily to mind is Shakespeare's anemic plot and character development. My experience with Dickens was that his descriptions were too terse and downright weird.

On the other hand, modern 'great' writers seem to pass most of the test you mention above, but can't seem to write a believable character that you can care for. I remember reading a novel by Toni Morrison where the main character drowns a baby then doesn't think about it nor care about it for the rest of the book.

In my opinion, restricting greatness to qualities like the ones you mention above leads to a poorer quality of authors. Authors are encouraged to become great at a very limited and relatively easily quantifiable set of skills such as the ones you mention. While at the same time there is no incentive to develop the skills that depend on taste and are extremely hard to quantify: character development, plot development, story telling ability, pulling the reader into a new world and to some extent a new understanding of the world around them, and most important enjoyability.

He's also extremely conservative in the literary devices he uses.

RJ has tried a number of times to use literary devices and failed, either because he isn't good enough or his audience isn't or probably a little of both. I am thinking of two instances in particular. The flashback in a flashback of Rand in EotW is one that failed and caused RJ to be more conservative. The other is the day in the life of WoT structure of the first part of KoD.

He was very decent when he decided to evoke through his descriptions - you get a very clear mental image of what he describes, but most often he failed to keep it fresh. When he said something once, he very often re hashed it later, when he had to describe the same thing. His descriptions were too often mundane, he failed to find that special something that make you look at something fairly mundane through a unique or entertaining perspective.

I think you are both correct and incorrect here. I am reading EotW now and it is in my opinion very good at describing things. hen RJ is introducing something new he seems to be good at describing it in my opinion. For example incidental comments and descriptions in the first chapters of EotW explain a good portion of the world quite compactly.

A good portion of the flaw you are describing is to the structure of the novel and the troubles involved in scaling up. (It has been a while since I read Dickens but I seem to remember the same type of problems there and for the same reason.) When there are literally hundreds of characters to memorize identical phrases such as 'fox-faced' (what ever that means) help to identify that character succinctly.

Personally, I think RJ is fairly good at looking at things from a different angle and in the middle books where he allows himself to have many dozens of points of views he really excels at it.

Contrary to a lot of people's opinion, Jordan just wasn't a "very descriptive writer" (they really should try Flaubert of Proust if they think Jordan is "descriptive"

. The problem is the opposite: his descriptions are too short yet too mundane and too abundant and too repetitive. A low cut yellow silk dress slashed with green is boring, utilitarian. A better descriptive writer will approach descriptions like this from a more unique and special perspective, making having to establish materially a scene an opportunity to tell something about the culture, the character or even the themes and motifs. In a way, Jordan kept it too short and was too systematic about it, creating a very repetitive and occasionally tedious effect - but thankfully these descriptions were always really short.

I definitely agree about the short descriptions. I have ranted quite a bit about it already. The trouble with telling something about the culture, the person, or the themes and motif's is that nine times out of ten we already know the character the culture and the themes and motifs. This isn't some 'short' 1000 page novel. We don't expect novels to be poems; neither should we expect epics to be novels.

Another problem with his writing comes from his very large ambitions with WOT. He's writing something epic that isn't an epic and isn't written or structured like an epic is expected to be written. Of course, there are reasons why epics came to be written in certain ways and not others. Jordan rather ambitionned to write the little and great stories in a world while a classic heroic epic is ongoing, so to mix many genres and enter uncharted territory. There's no "map" to writing something like WOT.

Is this a bug or a feature

. I plead ignorance about what a proper epic is. I haven't read too many epics HP, LotR, Thomas Covenant, WoT. By far my favorite of that very limited set is WoT. Personally, I like the many genres approach of RJ; It almost makes me want to read a historical novel. I can see why many people don't like that approach. If all you want is an epic it is disconcerting to read about.

The epic in WOT is just the backbone to which he returns when he's not focussed on what goes on around it. He's in some way merged the soap structure and devices with that of the epic. Even with his main hero, Jordan chose to make the mundane as important if not more than the telling of the epic episodes (which he didn't want to deprive of their mundane aspects as well). WOT also borrows from the tropes of the historical novel, but with the added challenge that Jordan couldn't rely on the reader's culture to fill the gaps: he had to include everything about the world he wished his readers to know about, and this space/time existed only in Jordan's own mind.

Exactly! To me this very 'bug' is the most endearing 'feature' of RJs writing. Perhaps, it is because I have grown out of the epic fantasy where the 'mundane' is considered trite but haven't fully grown into the more 'artistic' novels and historical novels where the 'mundane' is the central point but I enjoy RJ halfway house.

The other part of the problem comes from the fact Jordan wrote novels that aren't really novels but chapters of one giant story. It was very ambitious and risky, and in part Jordan has failed, literary speaking (storytelling wise it's another matter, and far more subjective). The first few books respected more the classic novel form and structure, but the later books of WOT function less and less as novels, but rather than simply abandonning the form, Jordan insisted on trying to wrote these as novels, with the conservative structure of a novel (he didn't meet the challenge of inventing a form of his own to carry this huge story, one could say). This of course slow down a lot the storytelling, as he added many things just to build up to a last act in each book, and in many of the later books his efforts were rather ackward. Jordan attempted to write novels that would only be large chapters, and sometime the result of that "bastard form" was ackward. As Jordan didn't finish the whole story first (an impossible task), he had to make many compromises a novelist normally won't make if he wants his story to be as good as it could be. Usually, after completion of a novel, the writer has the freedom to go back and fine tune his work, polish or fix the little structural problems, re balance his storylines by adding or removing episodes, take a look back at the development of his themes and fix issues, and so on. The way Jordan wrote WOT, he never had this opportunity. He rather wrote a very large chapter, trying to arrange it as a proper novel then he moved on to the next, never able to go back to fix problems he's created. He had to follow his plan, and trust he's not misjudge anything nor failed to spot any problem. That resulted in many compromises and flaws he had no choice to live with, compounded by his choice to keep using the classic novel structure, so to have his introduction acts, his development acts and his ending in each book. Some of his "episodes" turned out to be too short for the length he would have to carry them (Perrin's late series storyline is such a case, Rand's of course, and Elayne's). Rand Jordan pushed aside for a while, but with Perrin and Elayne Jordan had no choice but to expand and slow the pace, beyond what these storylines called for, and as they spanned many novels, he was stuck with adding a few intro chapters and find temporary conclusions/breaking points. A novelist, or even a writer of a trilogy, would simply look back at the end and tidy and tighten everything up. Once he had published a "chapter", Jordan rather had no choice but to live with his previous decisions, even when he misdjudged the pace at which he could develop the story in the next book. All this makes Jordan appear a worse writer than he actually is. One might say he was over ambitious to think he could keep control of something so vast and so long, as would a "normal novel". One might also say it's unfair to judge his abilities to structure a story in the circumstances, but no one forced Jordan to attempt writing this mammoth either.

Well said. Considering the challenges of keeping this mammoth story together, though, I think RJ did a good job. I agree strongly that the forced novel structure hurt individual books and the overall structure. I don't see an alternative, though, if he wants to sell the books.

As far as certain story lines being too long, that is a matter of taste, to some extent. Perrin's whining over Faile was extremely irritating and repetitive and Elayne's emotional problems were beginning to chaffe a little. That being said I wouldn't have minded a few more Elayne chapters here and there and even Elayne's roller coaster ride was funny and provocative. (My wife once couldn't stop crying after seeing a nature story about a baby elephant that was deserted by its herd and died when she was pregnant.)

All that said, I still very much enjoy the books and those flaws barely hindered my fun reading WOT. I also find him a lot of strengths as a storyteller, worldbuilder and character creator that for me more than compensate for his flaws as a novelist. There's plenty of other books to read for their amazing prose or depth of thought. When I read Jordan I ask for immersion into a story and not to bore me, and that's already more than enough. If anything, my respect for Jordan's skills and, for all the fact it's all from perfect, is relative mastery of something so huge (his mastery of WOT's continuity is in itself an achievement) has increased after seing what Brandon, working under the pressure of a deadline, without being the creator of the material and with much less experience as a writer could do in Jordan's shoes (ie: his AMOL re engineered on the go as a trilogy is so far is a barely enjoyable structural mess that makes Jordan's most poorly structured episodes/novels look really well written in comparison).

I agree that the last novels is a structural mess. To me they are in most ways close to equally enjoyable, though. That is probably because structure doesn't bother me too much. (Although, I must confess the chaotic time line irritates me a lot.) I routinely re-read the series randomly and mostly for the small scenes with great emotional impact for me. Often these scenes are mundane and not exactly the favorite scenes of those who prefer epic novels. One of these for example is Elayne reforming her miscreant brother in ToM.

Reply to message

Can someone explain to me how Jordan is not a particularly good writer? newyorkersedai - 21/02/2011 05:41:31 PM 3189 Views

I personally see it as more of RJ being a fantastic story teller, but not a well structured writer. darius_sedai - 21/02/2011 06:44:21 PM 1580 Views

Re: I personally see it as more of RJ being a fantastic story teller, but not a well structured Lo'oris - 22/02/2011 10:59:25 PM 1221 Views

What do you think about the Southern Gothic authors? Ghavrel - 23/02/2011 08:08:26 AM 1086 Views

Re: What do you think about the Southern Gothic authors? Lo'oris - 23/02/2011 10:51:57 AM 1181 Views

Oh, it really depends. Ghavrel - 23/02/2011 05:39:07 PM 942 Views

thanks, I'll have a look

*NM* Lo'oris - 23/02/2011 05:40:50 PM 768 Views

For the same reason that most people think they have above average intelligence. RabidWombat - 21/02/2011 11:13:34 PM 1549 Views

Thank you. Nargs - 21/02/2011 11:43:08 PM 1289 Views

Re: For the same reason that most people think they have above average intelligence. *NM* Gerbeaud - 22/02/2011 02:39:20 PM 864 Views

Re: For the same reason that most people think they have above average intelligence. Gerbeaud - 22/02/2011 02:41:37 PM 1023 Views

Well Said! Evil_Monkey - 22/02/2011 02:42:22 PM 1210 Views

That's possibly the best explanation of literary criticism I've ever seen. The Count - 23/02/2011 02:47:12 AM 1139 Views

I can take a shot at that, since nobody else seems willing to.

Ghavrel - 22/02/2011 07:29:20 AM 1588 Views

Do you enjoy reading Robert Jordan's ... Nargs - 22/02/2011 04:31:28 PM 1265 Views

Not particularly. Ghavrel - 22/02/2011 10:22:00 PM 1369 Views

Agreed. Tom - 22/02/2011 10:37:08 PM 1152 Views

Re: I can take a shot at that, since nobody else seems willing to.

Lo'oris - 22/02/2011 11:23:38 PM 1242 Views

That has very little to do with anything unless you can provide a real-world analogy to a channeler. Ghavrel - 22/02/2011 11:30:52 PM 1150 Views

Re: That has very little to do with anything unless you can provide a real-world analogy to a Lo'oris - 23/02/2011 12:02:24 AM 1195 Views

As far as I'm concerned, the only way to gauge whether an author is good or not is ... Velveti - 22/02/2011 03:58:17 PM 1127 Views

Amen *NM* Nargs - 22/02/2011 04:32:50 PM 755 Views

Re: Can someone explain to me how Jordan is not a particularly good writer? DomA - 22/02/2011 06:27:11 PM 1996 Views

Brain overload! This is really well thought out. RabidWombat - 23/02/2011 10:22:37 PM 1182 Views

thank you for the insight into the outside view lol Onarishma - 24/02/2011 04:34:57 PM 1246 Views

I think it has more to do with limitations imposed by how the story was organized and edited. RugbyPlayingAshaman - 22/02/2011 07:50:18 PM 1496 Views

That's interesting, and I have a weird agree/disagree here; also, that Adam Roberts sucks newyorkersedai - 23/02/2011 02:15:12 AM 1253 Views

Re: That's interesting, and I have a weird agree/disagree here; also, that Adam Roberts sucks Lo'oris - 23/02/2011 11:02:14 AM 1221 Views

adam roberts reviews uglycat - 23/02/2011 03:53:49 AM 1223 Views

And I suspect those who prefer the BS books are those who largely read WoT for the story. *NM* Ghavrel - 23/02/2011 08:06:16 AM 717 Views

Oh GAWD!... not another pointer to Robert Adam's incoherant muckraking HyogaRott - 24/02/2011 07:47:35 PM 1071 Views

I think DomA answered the question best, but the "do you like it" argument is weak. Tom - 22/02/2011 10:32:51 PM 1362 Views

Re: I think DomA answered the question best, but the "do you like it" argument is weak. Lo'oris - 22/02/2011 11:16:24 PM 1316 Views

The Necronomicon isn't actually a book, you know.

*NM* Ghavrel - 22/02/2011 11:28:29 PM 676 Views

There are nine, actually... Lo'oris - 23/02/2011 12:04:55 AM 1364 Views

Lovecraft's Necronomicon was fictitious. If you want to count fanfiction, fine. *NM* Ghavrel - 23/02/2011 12:38:07 AM 739 Views

Based on how poorly worded that response was, I'm not sure what to think of it. *NM* Tom - 23/02/2011 12:13:00 AM 721 Views

I hope I am misunderstanding you. Stephen - 23/02/2011 10:57:47 PM 1066 Views

Re: I hope I am misunderstanding you. Lo'oris - 24/02/2011 10:41:09 AM 1212 Views

If the core of the story is all that matters, why read a book Stephen - 24/02/2011 10:32:01 PM 1151 Views

Re: If the core of the story is all that matters, why read a book Lo'oris - 24/02/2011 11:23:42 PM 990 Views

So wait, style is good? Stephen - 25/02/2011 12:32:07 AM 1401 Views

Re: So wait, style is good? Lo'oris - 25/02/2011 08:53:55 AM 1040 Views

I'm not trolling Stephen - 25/02/2011 11:57:18 PM 1078 Views

That depends... DomA - 23/02/2011 03:00:35 AM 1286 Views

I didn't say aesthetics was the primary criterion. I named three criteria. Tom - 23/02/2011 05:39:03 AM 1160 Views

the "do you like it" is the most important criterion RabidWombat - 23/02/2011 10:45:17 PM 1153 Views

Re: the "do you like it" is the most important criterion DomA - 24/02/2011 01:53:59 AM 1142 Views

Thumbs up - IMHO, all discussion can end here Nargs - 28/02/2011 05:45:34 PM 1282 Views

Not for quality of writing. Tom - 24/02/2011 05:17:52 PM 1087 Views

Those who can do, the rest are critics. *NM* HyogaRott - 24/02/2011 07:55:50 PM 742 Views

I object, sir! People don't read WoT for the way it's told? newyorkersedai - 24/02/2011 12:58:58 AM 1197 Views

If you don't mind me asking... Fanatic-Templar - 24/02/2011 01:05:12 AM 974 Views

Re: If you don't mind me asking... DomA - 24/02/2011 02:19:17 AM 1088 Views

I still don't get it. Fanatic-Templar - 24/02/2011 08:27:50 AM 989 Views

Re: If you don't mind me asking... Lo'oris - 24/02/2011 11:29:14 PM 1036 Views

I don't mind that you ask, but I'm not going to engage in a defense of literature. Tom - 24/02/2011 05:35:27 PM 972 Views

Re: I don't mind that you ask, but I'm not going to engage in a defense of literature. Lo'oris - 24/02/2011 11:26:55 PM 1136 Views

I'm sure you have a wonderful job awaiting in fast food service. Tom - 25/02/2011 01:57:15 AM 1189 Views

Re: I'm sure you have a wonderful job awaiting in fast food service. Lo'oris - 25/02/2011 08:56:06 AM 1098 Views

Jack @$$ snobbery at its best. WOW *NM* Nargs - 28/02/2011 05:48:43 PM 769 Views

... Fanatic-Templar - 25/02/2011 01:07:22 AM 1048 Views

Maybe you should have used better prose?

fionwe1987 - 25/02/2011 01:23:17 AM 897 Views

It is not a serious question. Tom - 25/02/2011 01:53:59 AM 1033 Views

How so? fionwe1987 - 25/02/2011 02:59:05 AM 1176 Views

I have every right to use that tone. Tom - 25/02/2011 03:08:14 PM 1115 Views

Is that so? Fanatic-Templar - 25/02/2011 05:58:31 AM 1108 Views

I'm not fixated with Jordan. Tom - 25/02/2011 03:13:56 PM 1129 Views

Then why do you keep trying to qualify the passage in relation to him? Fanatic-Templar - 25/02/2011 06:29:31 PM 1170 Views

You're conflating two things. Tom - 25/02/2011 07:32:59 PM 1145 Views

All right, now we're getting somewhere. Fanatic-Templar - 26/02/2011 12:40:57 AM 1067 Views

you raise very good questions... *NM* Nargs - 26/02/2011 09:21:13 AM 675 Views

Okay, here you go. I am giving you the benefit of the doubt as to your sincerity. Tom - 26/02/2011 03:20:44 PM 899 Views

Thank you, and I agree with all your explanations. *NM* Fanatic-Templar - 26/02/2011 07:28:09 PM 688 Views

Glad to hear that. Tom - 27/02/2011 03:42:33 AM 986 Views

No problem, these things happen on the internet. *NM* Fanatic-Templar - 27/02/2011 04:36:57 AM 747 Views

No, it is a serious question, just one that can never be seriously answered. HyogaRott - 25/02/2011 03:28:48 PM 1057 Views

Your opinion isn't as valid as anyone else's if that's your opinion. Tom - 25/02/2011 04:44:57 PM 1216 Views

Re: Your opinion isn't as valid as anyone else's if that's your opinion. HyogaRott - 25/02/2011 06:05:18 PM 1626 Views

I'm not wasting my time proving something to an internet moron and troll like you. Tom - 25/02/2011 07:36:19 PM 982 Views

Ah yes, the wonderful "dissmiss the person who disagrees with me by insulting him tactic" HyogaRott - 28/02/2011 02:30:35 PM 991 Views

Re: Your opinion isn't as valid as anyone else's if that's your opinion. Lo'oris - 26/02/2011 11:06:26 AM 1033 Views

Jack @$$ snobbery at its best. WOW *NM* Nargs - 28/02/2011 05:51:48 PM 595 Views

double post. oh my! *NM* Nargs - 28/02/2011 05:52:17 PM 634 Views

Just makes you right twice

*NM* HyogaRott - 28/02/2011 09:42:19 PM 725 Views

Re: ... Lo'oris - 25/02/2011 08:59:37 AM 1086 Views

And part 2, on the analysis of writing. newyorkersedai - 24/02/2011 01:16:20 AM 1110 Views

Florid desciption is usually not a good thing. Tom - 24/02/2011 05:30:30 PM 1063 Views

Re: I find this whole thing elitist and more than a bit silly GarethBryne - 23/02/2011 06:45:05 AM 1199 Views

Why do you think mind-expanding literature is restricted to the classics? Ghavrel - 23/02/2011 08:03:59 AM 1031 Views

Re: Why do you think mind-expanding literature is restricted to the classics? GarethBryne - 23/02/2011 09:25:10 AM 1205 Views

Of course people read for pleasure. Ghavrel - 23/02/2011 09:04:24 PM 995 Views

Ok... Nargs - 24/02/2011 08:59:27 AM 1031 Views

"Yeah well, that's, like, just your opinion, man." Good argument. Ghavrel - 24/02/2011 03:43:24 PM 1107 Views

*NM* Tom - 24/02/2011 05:37:02 PM 633 Views

I find your above average tastes and intelligence uninspiring. Nargs - 24/02/2011 08:42:03 PM 971 Views

I'm curious to hear who Tom and DomA consider a "very good writer"? VTHokie - 24/02/2011 05:49:13 PM 1121 Views

Among living writers? Tom - 24/02/2011 08:16:08 PM 1156 Views

No Rushdie? fionwe1987 - 24/02/2011 09:22:46 PM 1048 Views

I was considering mentioning Rushdie. Tom - 24/02/2011 09:32:20 PM 996 Views

My list would be similar... DomA - 26/02/2011 07:24:11 AM 1258 Views

That was a very good list. Tom - 26/02/2011 03:07:31 PM 1092 Views

Re: That was a very good list. DomA - 27/02/2011 04:51:43 AM 1147 Views

Once I finish Hugo I'm probably going to read Druon. Tom - 27/02/2011 02:30:03 PM 938 Views

Oh, and another question Tom - 27/02/2011 05:28:47 PM 941 Views

Re: Oh, and another question DomA - 01/03/2011 03:42:02 AM 1094 Views

One final question, if you'll indulge me... Tom - 01/03/2011 06:43:23 PM 989 Views

Well, until I have time to return to your previous post but... DomA - 01/03/2011 07:45:13 PM 1129 Views

I think the two of you have taken too narrow a meaning of 'great' Iain83 - 27/02/2011 11:14:30 AM 1201 Views

You like Solzhenitsyn but not other Russian writers? Tom - 27/02/2011 02:43:46 PM 1117 Views

Re: You like Solzhenitsyn but not other Russian writers? Iain83 - 02/03/2011 11:47:19 PM 1206 Views

Re: I think the two of you have taken too narrow a meaning of 'great' DomA - 28/02/2011 11:51:49 PM 1227 Views

Re: I think the two of you have taken too narrow a meaning of 'great' Iain83 - 03/03/2011 12:01:30 AM 1134 Views

Link to DomA Post from up above: Nargs - 03/03/2011 12:20:11 AM 1368 Views

Re: I think the two of you have taken too narrow a meaning of 'great' DomA - 03/03/2011 02:17:06 PM 1081 Views

He's a great storyteller, but his prose is somewhat uninspiring. *NM* Marshall - 27/02/2011 07:28:00 PM 761 Views

Back to Messageboard

Post New Thread

Help

Stats

Rules

Reply to Message

Subject

Formatting

Smiley Codes

Body

<quote id="192636">
<quote id="192462"><quote id="192305">I've read loyally and often, and my love for the series has only lessened over the last couple of years. Still, I never took much time to critique Jordan's skills or style as an author. His voice works for his world, and I like it a lot.</quote>

And as one of my French/literature teachers used to say, in the end a great writer is someone people enjoy to read.  You do with Jordan, so he's one of your great writers and in many ways that should be enough.</quote>

<quote>If we look at the established canons of "good writing", Jordan just doesn't fit many of them (Sanderson even less).  He's not a very good stylist.  His metaphors are often ackward, cliché or downright non-sensical. His grammar and syntax are functional at best and his prose is for the most part utilitarian. He can carry on a story, but the language he uses isn't very imaginative, let alone exceptional.</quote>
  
I think a good portion of the great authors also have rather large weaknesses. The ones that come readily to mind is Shakespeare's anemic plot and character development. My experience with Dickens was that his descriptions were too terse and downright weird.

On the other hand, modern 'great' writers seem to pass most of the test you mention above, but can't seem to write a believable character that you can care for. I remember reading a novel by Toni Morrison where the main character drowns a baby then doesn't think about it nor care about it for the rest of the book.

In my opinion, restricting greatness to qualities like the ones you mention above leads to a poorer quality of authors. Authors are encouraged to become great at a very limited and relatively easily quantifiable set of skills such as the ones you mention. While at the same time there is no incentive to develop the skills that depend on taste and are extremely hard to quantify: character development, plot development, story telling ability, pulling the reader into a new world and to some extent a new understanding of the world around them, and most important enjoyability.

<quote>He's also extremely conservative in the literary devices he uses.</quote>

<quote>He was very decent when he decided to evoke through his descriptions - you get a very clear mental image of what he describes, but most often he failed to keep it fresh. When he said something once, he very often re hashed it later, when he had to describe the same thing. His descriptions were too often mundane, he failed to find that special something that make you look at something fairly mundane through a unique or entertaining perspective.</quote>

A good portion of the flaw you are describing is to the structure of the novel and the troubles involved in scaling up. (It has been a while since I read Dickens but I seem to remember the same type of problems there and for the same reason.) When there are literally hundreds of characters to memorize identical phrases such as 'fox-faced' (what ever that means) help to identify that character succinctly.

Personally, I think RJ is fairly good at looking at things from a different angle and in the middle books where he allows himself to have many dozens of points of views he really excels at it.

<quote>Contrary to a lot of people's opinion, Jordan just wasn't a "very descriptive writer" (they really should try Flaubert of Proust if they think Jordan is "descriptive").  The problem is the opposite: his descriptions are too short yet too mundane and too abundant and too repetitive.  A low cut yellow silk dress slashed with green is boring, utilitarian. A better descriptive writer will approach descriptions like this from a more unique and special perspective, making having to establish materially a scene an opportunity to tell something about the culture, the character or even the themes and motifs.  In a way, Jordan kept it too short and was too systematic about it, creating a very repetitive and occasionally tedious effect - but thankfully these descriptions were always really short.</quote>

<quote>Another problem with his writing comes from his very large ambitions with WOT.  He's writing something epic that isn't an epic and isn't written or structured like an epic is expected to be written. Of course, there are reasons why epics came to be written in certain ways and not others. Jordan rather ambitionned to write the little and great stories in a world while a classic heroic epic is ongoing, so to mix many genres and enter uncharted territory.  There's no "map" to writing something like WOT.</quote>
 
Is this a bug or a feature ;) . I plead ignorance about what a proper epic is. I haven't read too many epics HP, LotR, Thomas Covenant, WoT. By far my favorite of that very limited set is WoT. Personally, I like the many genres approach of RJ; It almost makes me want to read a historical novel. I can see why many people don't like that approach. If all you want is an epic it is disconcerting to read about.

<quote>The epic in WOT is just the backbone to which he returns when he's not focussed on what goes on around it.    He's in some way merged the soap structure and devices with that of the epic. Even with his main hero, Jordan chose to make the mundane as important if not more than the telling of the epic episodes (which he didn't want to deprive of their mundane aspects as well). WOT also borrows from the tropes of the historical novel, but with the added challenge that Jordan couldn't rely on the reader's culture to fill the gaps: he had to include everything about the world he wished his readers to know about, and this space/time existed only in Jordan's own mind.</quote>

<quote>The other part of the problem comes from the fact Jordan wrote novels that aren't really novels but chapters of one giant story.  It was very ambitious and risky, and in part Jordan has failed, literary speaking (storytelling wise it's another matter, and far more subjective).  The first few books respected more the classic novel form and structure, but the later books of WOT function less and less as novels, but rather than simply abandonning the form, Jordan insisted on trying to wrote these as novels, with the conservative structure of a novel (he didn't meet the challenge of inventing a form of his own to carry this huge story, one could say). This of course slow down a lot the storytelling, as he added many things just to build up to a last act in each book, and in many of the later books his efforts were rather ackward.  Jordan attempted to write novels that would only be large chapters, and sometime the result of that "bastard form" was ackward.   As Jordan didn't finish the whole story first (an impossible task), he had to make many compromises a novelist normally won't make if he wants his story to be as good as it could be.  Usually, after completion of a novel, the writer has the freedom to go back and fine tune his work, polish or fix the little structural problems, re balance his storylines by adding or removing episodes, take a look back at the development of his themes and fix issues, and so on.  The way Jordan wrote WOT, he never had this opportunity. He rather wrote a very large chapter, trying to arrange it as a proper novel then he moved on to the next, never able to go back to fix problems he's created. He had to follow his plan, and trust he's not misjudge anything nor failed to spot any problem.  That resulted in many compromises and flaws he had no choice to live with, compounded by his choice to keep using the classic novel structure, so to have his introduction acts, his development acts and his ending in each book. Some of his "episodes" turned out to be too short for the length he would have to carry them (Perrin's late series storyline is such a case, Rand's of course, and Elayne's).  Rand Jordan pushed aside for a while, but with Perrin and Elayne Jordan had no choice but to expand and slow the pace, beyond what these storylines called for, and as they spanned many novels, he was stuck with adding a few intro chapters and find temporary conclusions/breaking points.  A novelist, or even a writer of a trilogy, would simply look back at the end and tidy and tighten everything up. Once he had published a "chapter", Jordan rather had no choice but to live with his previous decisions, even when he misdjudged the pace at which he could develop the story in the next book.   All this makes Jordan appear a worse writer than he actually is.  One might say he was over ambitious to think he could keep control of something so vast and so long, as would a "normal novel".  One might also say it's unfair to judge his abilities to structure a story in the circumstances, but no one forced Jordan to attempt writing this mammoth either.</quote>

As far as certain story lines being too long, that is a matter of taste, to some extent.  Perrin's whining over Faile was extremely irritating and repetitive and Elayne's emotional problems were beginning to chaffe a little. That being said I wouldn't have minded a few more Elayne chapters here and there and even Elayne's roller coaster ride was funny and provocative. (My wife once couldn't stop crying after seeing a nature story about a baby elephant that was deserted by its herd and died when she was pregnant.)

<quote>All that said, I still very much enjoy the books and those flaws barely hindered my fun reading WOT.  I also find him a lot of strengths as a storyteller, worldbuilder and character creator that for me more than compensate for his flaws as a novelist.  There's plenty of other books to read for their amazing prose or depth of thought.  When I read Jordan I ask for immersion into a story and not to bore me, and that's already more than enough.  If anything, my respect for Jordan's skills and, for all the fact it's all from perfect, is relative mastery of something so huge (his mastery of WOT's continuity is in itself an achievement) has increased after seing what Brandon, working under the pressure of a deadline, without being the creator of the material and with much less experience as a writer could do in Jordan's shoes (ie:  his AMOL re engineered on the go as a trilogy is so far is a barely enjoyable structural mess that makes Jordan's most poorly structured episodes/novels look really well written in comparison).</quote>

I agree that the last novels is a structural mess. To me they are in most ways close to equally enjoyable, though.  That is probably because structure doesn't bother me too much. (Although, I must confess the chaotic time line irritates me a lot.) I routinely re-read the series randomly and mostly for the small scenes with great emotional impact for me. Often these scenes are mundane and not exactly the favorite scenes of those who prefer epic novels. One of these for example is Elayne reforming her miscreant brother in ToM. 
</quote>

Link title

Link url

Send notification emails?

Username

Password