Wheel of Time Discussion - Spoilers(with book spoilers)

[Parmandur]

So, looks like the start is strong in terms of viewership:

“'We can firmly say that Wheel of Time was the most watched series premiere of the year and one of the Top 5 series launches of all time for Prime Video,' Amazon Studios head Jennifer Salke told Deadline about the debut, acknowledging that the company — like most streamers — 'try to figure out how transparent we are going to be in the future' with ratings."

"Prime Video is among the SVOD platforms that do not disclose viewership data but Salke revealed that “there were tens and tens of millions of streams” for The Wheel Of Time in the first three days of its release, with the US, India, Brazil, Canada, France, Germany as the top countries."

‘The Wheel Of Time’ Makes Strong Debut As Amazon Prime Video Doubles Down On Genre With ‘Mass Effect’ Adaptation & Prepares To Usher In ‘LOTR’

Amazon Prime Video's series adaptation of Robert Jordan’s best-selling The Wheel Of Time fantasy novels has come out of the gate strong.

deadline.com

 

[Parmandur]

None of them are even similar to any of the others, and frankly I'm not sure any are similar to Polgara.

You might want to read up on James Oliver Rigney's other credits under other names and his other work under the pseudonym Robert Jordan, such as his many Conan works which are widely considered some of the best works by secondary authors, before calling either of those authors more "pro" than him.

I like Sanderson, but he is absolutely in Jordan's shadow in nearly every respect, and Martin is...fine, but overrated, and his impact is nowhere near that of Jordan's, nor is his body of work.

The small details are not a weakness, they're just a style of writing that you don't necessarily prefer.

On the contrary, I very much prefer Jordan's style in terms of personal taste: by "pro" I mean thst Sanderson and Martin were formed as professional writers, as their primary skill set. They are writers who learned the tricks of the trade in writers rooms and literature classrooms. Robert Jordan was not, and was a literate man who took up writing as a secondary or tertiary career after some long life experience. He does things that a Hollywood type like Martin or a M.F.A. like Sanderson wouldn't do, so it is not "professional." Not "professional" doesn't mean not good, and out if style isn't wrong (see also, J. R. R. Tolkien).

Beyond WoT, I've read the Conan Books, Warrior of the Altaii, and Cheyenne Raiders myself.

 

[Parmandur]

Every single real life human I have ever met puts lie to this claim.

Yeah, it's realistic, frankly. He had a deep knowledge of human nature.

 

[Maxperson]

Every single real life human I have ever met puts lie to this claim.

When I get mad sometimes I clench my fists. Other times I clench my jaw. Rarely I punch a pillow or something soft. Sometimes yell. Sometimes I speak very softly. Sometimes I say nothing at all and just stare. Sometimes I pace. I don't do any of those anywhere near all the time.

 

[Mordhau]

When I get mad sometimes I clench my fists. Other times I clench my jaw. Rarely I punch a pillow or something soft. Sometimes yell. Sometimes I speak very softly. Sometimes I say nothing at all and just stare. Sometimes I pace. I don't do any of those anywhere near all the time.

It's not the fact of the mannerism that draws attention, it's the repetitive elaboration of descriptive detail.

 

[Parmandur]

It's not the fact of the mannerism that draws attention, it's the repetitive elaboration of descriptive detail.

It's not all that repetitive, across hundreds of thousands of words.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

When I get mad sometimes I clench my fists. Other times I clench my jaw. Rarely I punch a pillow or something soft. Sometimes yell. Sometimes I speak very softly. Sometimes I say nothing at all and just stare. Sometimes I pace. I don't do any of those anywhere near all the time.

I guarantee, without the least thread of doubt, that someone that has known you for years could describe a behavior, tick, etc, that you perform reliably under a given type circumstance.

I am skeptical that an exception exists or has ever existed in all of human history.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

On the contrary, I very much prefer Jordan's style in terms of personal taste: by "pro" I mean thst Sanderson and Martin were formed as professional writers, as their primary skill set. They are writers who learned the tricks of the trade in writers rooms and literature classrooms. Robert Jordan was not, and was a literate man who took up writing as a secondary or tertiary career after some long life experience. He does things that a Hollywood type like Martin or a M.F.A. like Sanderson wouldn't do, so it is not "professional." Not "professional" doesn't mean not good, and out if style isn't wrong (see also, J. R. R. Tolkien).

Beyond WoT, I've read the Conan Books, Warrior of the Altaii, and Cheyenne Raiders myself.

Ah, I see. I disagree with the choice of terminology, but I won’t nitpick, knowing the intended meaning.

 

[Parmandur]

Ah, I see. I disagree with the choice of terminology, but I won’t nitpick, knowing the intended meaning.

I'd be open to a different way of saying it, but it seems the most efficient thst I can think of: "consensus mainstream style recommendations among late 20th century Anglo-American writers" might be more precise.

 

[Mercurius]

None of them are even similar to any of the others, and frankly I'm not sure any are similar to Polgara.

Well, that wasn't my impression 25 years ago, but again, it has been awhile. I remember thinking that--at the least--his female characters were more similar to each other than his males. It was a common view, iirc.

I like Sanderson, but he is absolutely in Jordan's shadow in nearly every respect, and Martin is...fine, but overrated, and his impact is nowhere near that of Jordan's, nor is his body of work.

What do you mean by "impact?" Impact on what? Fantasy literature? Culture? World events? Cosmic history?

The small details are not a weakness, they're just a style of writing that you don't necessarily prefer.

True. He is more Dickensian than Hemingwaysian (awkward). I think part of his appeal for many was how granular his descriptions were. But it is a stylistic preference, or a spectrum that he's on one end of and someone like Michael Moorcock is on the other (at least his earlier stuff, pre-Gloriana).