Where did I ever say it has anything to do with me being smarter than anyone else? My criticism of Sanderson was based entirely on his writing style, and failure to make WoT like WoT. It has NOTHING to do with me, except that these are my preferences. I am not saying that I am better than other people who like what they see in Sanderson's books or that disliking his books makes me smarter or superior to them. I already consider myself to be such, simply by my virtue of being me. I am what I like, and do what I like and agree with my tastes in things and therefore, by my standards, am better than anyone else. By objective standards, that might be an entirely different outcome, but this is about subjective stuff. I am no more better than others for disliking Sanderson's style, than I am better for appreciating Egwene's shortcomings. In one sense, of course that makes me the moral and intellectual superior to those who think differently. On the other hand, it is simply a difference and since it is not about me or them, that is irrelevant. I am not posting to show that I am superior to them. Those who agree with me already know this, and I don't care who among us does agree with me or not. I will defend liltempest and Fanatic-Templar to the death when they criticize Egwene, and savage them with equal gusto for being overly suspicious of Cadsuane. It is about the books, their characters and their author AND NOT ABOUT US. Hell, Egwene is more real to me than most people on this site, about whom I have much less insight into their characters or motivations. I find it easier to operate on the assumption that those who disagree with me are all malevolent aliens bent on destroying human culture and values through a complex plot whose first step involves the promotion of Min as a good or heroic character, because our knowledge of details regarding Min or Nynaeve or Perrin or Logain is absolute and identical.

In real life, there are complications of issues, regarding different perspectives and motivations and values and cultural outlooks and all that other hooey you have to take for granted as part of being a grown-up. It is a system of infinite complexity that cannot be boiled down as easily as "everything we see Egwene do is evil, selfish or malicious." We have the exact same knowledge and experience of Egwene's actions, there are no real or lasting implications on anyone's life, and the whole thing is trivial escapist fiction, so it is acceptable to go all out and overboard in ways that would be insane to do when discussing a real life issue or problem.

As long as RJ has the guts to kill enough good guys, amiright? Anyway, duh. But not all of that has been ruined by the change of authors. It's like watching a movie and the V-Hold & color on the picture goes on the fritz for the last 20 minutes. Even though you can still see everything that's going on, and it is just a movie, who's going to be happy about everyone having bright green skin, and the top half of the picture being below a black line in the middle of the screen, while the bottom half is above that line.

Hell no. That's why I read WoT.

But you DO expect a certain level of technical competence in a Michael Bay film. If all of a sudden the explosions are obviously and visibly balsa wood miniatures at the end of the movie, and the hot chicks in skimpy clothing have been replaced by obvious stunt doubles, you would be just as put out.

And you don't credit an author because his name happens to be on the books where all the long-planned action takes place. Brandon Sanderson did NOT do any of that. All of the "exciting" things in the last two books would still have happened if RJ wrote them. We simply would have had a better view.

This does not offend me in the least. My reaction to statements like that is borne entirely out of empathy and bewilderment that you cannot appreciate what is going on and accept it for what it is - a set up for all the great stuff that happens in KoD & aMoL. My defenses of CoT are no different than this post of yours - I am getting sick of people being unable to appreciate what I found obvious. Yes, I was not satisfied after reading it, but you were not supposed to be satisfied - you were supposed to understand the stakes for the next volume in the series. The difference between your criticism and mine, is that you are criticizing a book for its failure to be something it was not even attempting to be, and praising Sanderson for the one aspect of the books over which he had no control, namely the events which happened in them. Those events were JORDAN'S idea and planning. If he had died after Winter's Heart and left CoT and subsequent books for Sanderson to finish, CoT would have been no less "slow" or "boring." Your praise of Sanderson is akin to claiming that the actress who played The Oracle in the last Matrix movie ruined that film, since they were neat action films with the other actress in the same role, and a weird, inconsistent, plot-hole-ridden philosophic mess when she was in the film. The films were always going to be what they were, and her association with the failure of a finish is as coincidental as Sanderson coming on board right when the long-planned, long-foreshadowed climax of the series approaches.

Well that's fine for you, but that does not make your appreciation of a book that touches those bases to your satisfaction any better than my criticism of an author who doesn't really get how that stuff works bungling the explanations thereof.

In your opinion. I can take or leave it. You are the one going around offering your prescription for what a WoT book does or does not need, but I defy ANYONE to point out where I said something I dislike should have been left out of a book. I am even willing to concede those things I dislike as organic developments (such as the multiple relationships of Rand), rather than huffily folding my arms and dismissing it with "it's only in there because RJ said so." I may be a troll, but I am far more willing to give the series and authors the benefit of the doubt than most other people on this site.

Take a lesson from your imaginary version of her character then, and grow up. All you are doing here is saying "This is what she is, and I call 'argument over,' no reply or rebuttal allowed!" That's how the immature argue.

Me either, see also Asmodean, but neither do I begrudge any of the space devoted to it. Because I appreciate WoT for what it is, not just what it does for me.

How is this any better or worse than my expression of my own opinions?

HE DID! Early in LoC, in Mat's first PoV chapter! Don't you even read these books before forming an opinion on them?

No, he just has characters declare someone devious or cunning, and gives absolutely no evidence through characterization. But, yeah, sure. Everyone knows that stupid RJ was an idiot for telling us what things looked like. We CAN'T SEE STUFF IN WOT. That's why RJ tells us what stuff looks like. On the other hand, if a character does something clever, we can determine that for ourselves, by reading the account of their actions. A really inept writer just says, "Wow, that plan is so devious because it took into account the enemy's tendency to X." Not only does it cause unrealistic dialogue or uncharacteristic stream of consciousness when a character has to articulate this stuff to compensate for the author's inability to show us through an organic storytelling process, but it ruins the narrative flow. That's why I said in retrospect I would prefer someone with a better grasp of the series and characters (and superior language skills) simply read the books and tell me what happens in them, because that's all Sanderson has to offer - a summary of how the series, and all the storylines and character arcs we have followed for almost two decades, come to a conclusion. We read WoT for the journey, but with Sanderson in the driver's seat we have given up looking out the window, and simply are peering over his should to see what comes next and how we will get to the end.

My defense of CoT is an attempt to get the rest of you to stop bouncing on the seats & yelling "are we there yet" and get you all to check out the scenery.


Then where do you get off criticizing me, if by your own account (which I would never have given or expected anyone else to accept) I get it better than you, and am a more successful poster? You are not going to get me to stop ripping Sanderson, but I seem to have succeeded in what you claim is my goal - eliciting responses.

I have won again, Lew Ther...er, Ashaman Wannabe.

Seriously, though. What I got from your account is this: I have a complete and holistic and loving relationship with Original WoT. I appreciate it's quirks and foibles, and love it for what it is. You, on the other hand, were only interested in one thing - what the series offered you in the way of cheap gratification. I am mourning the loss of a long-time relationship partner, whom I loved, cherished and appreciated, and you are demanding that I be happy with the prostitute replacement, because the quick, cheap, rub-and-tug it offers is pretty much all you ever wanted out of your relationship with the same.

I miss my wife, and you are wondering what's the big deal because the hooker's blowjobs are just as good, but you don't have to talk her into bed.

And you wonder at the vehemence of my position.