However, the prologue is big on the 'Huh factor', not to mention the 'who cares'? It has such dense description and incomprehensible happenings. When I picked it up years ago, this is what stopped me. But from Chapter 1 on it's an easy read. But it really doesn't get good until halfway through the book. That's quiet a bit to ask of a reader.

What makes me roll my eyes is the LOTR references. I keep thinking, "Does he think I wouldn't notice?" The plot does veer in a different direction but it's all thinly diguised.

While the people of the Two Rivers aren’t hobbits, they have a similar rural mentality, Rand is Frodo, Mat is Merry, Perrin is Pippin, while at the same time, they play on the sword/bow/axe triad of Aragorn, Legolas, and Gimli. Yeah, Rand’s destiny is vastly different than Frodo’s, but it’s like looking into a funhouse mirror. Lan serves as Aragorn, Thom shows a side of Gandalf, while Moraine functions as a blends some of Gandalf’s role, while being Galadriel-like. There is no Samwise, but Eugwene seems to function as a Rosy Cotton, sort of a what if, Rosy tagged along? Then there are the equilvents of Sauron, the Nazgul, the Orcs, the Ents. In an underwhelming twist, the peddler that came to the Two Rivers, functions as Gollum, though he is human.

Baerlon is like Bree. I forgot the name of the ruins, but that functions as the place where group splits into three, going in three directions. In a reverse plot, part of what happens in Moria happens in Whitebridge. The Blight seems to be Mordor. What have I left out?

Perhaps, in part, because I've rea through to book nine, the comparisons you've made seem laughable. First of all, Tokien's characters are all incredibly superficial. There is never any depth to them. I was sure that by the first book we had already seen more depth than we saw in the entire LOTR trilogy, but perhaps some of that came later.

There were no women in LOTR, either. At least, not any worth noting. Perhaps this is from the POV of a woman, but I find no comparison at all between the women of Two Rivers and anyone at all in the LOTR.

The sword, axe, quarterstaff thing is reminiscent of the entire fantasy genre. What impresses me about the series, though, is that the characters actually learn to use them as time goes on. This is soemthing that is almost always ignored or brushed over in other fantasy.

Prologue: That never should have been written. It only makes sense after you've read several books. I reread it a few years ago and all of a sudden I understood, but the first run-through there is no way.

Rand: Frodo and Rand have almost nothing in common. That they both come from rural villages and begin as the "average joe" means nothing to me except this: Readers like starting with this character, with someone they can relate to and grow with. It is a common writing device, no more.

Matt and Perrin: I don't remember them much in the first book so I don't want to speak too absolutely about them. I know they are unidentifiable in later books after they change so much. In this case, Merry and Pippin area lso Tokien's true change characters, but keep in mind that Tokien wrote a milieu story, not a character story.

All fantasy borrows from TOkien. He pioneered the field. But Whereas in many cases I cannot find the difference between the modern fantasy and the pinoeered classic, in Jordan's books I have to look harder for the similarities. I have no trouble finding differences, mostly in depth, scope, and characterization.

I humbly suggest trying to read the book for its own merit and I encourage you to continue reading. Yes, you'll find the typical fantasy themes of good, evil, and the like, but I think you'll find more than that.

Tarran (sp) Ferry is Bree. Baerlon is definitely more of a "city" than bree ever was. I don't see much of analogue for Baerlon in Tolkein's work.

And as far as imporvement it takes 2 more books to get any significant developments and even then Jordan has taken 8 more to kill a character or two and bring romances along etc.

My advice....drop the book. Get out while you can.

His first few books are good enough to suck you into spending $$ on nine more books that do nothing for the story or the characters.

My buddy is hooked on them just because he wants to see an end. He readily admits that absolutely NOTHING has happened in a long, long time.

I have been told that the subsequent Shannara books go in their own direction and are not so Tolkien-derivative, but I never wanted to try them.

Maybe people who start a fantasy series and appear to be ripping off LOTR need to set that book aside until later books are written. Then, if they go back and rewrite the first book so it is more in tune with their own vision and adventure, it might be better.

I have a friend who read Brooks and Jordan before Tolkien, so they really liked it.

Ok, with that out of the way I can comment on the things that I think Jordan has done a very good job on.

World building: This is one of the most intricate and rich fantasy worlds I have ever been in. I say that, because(at least for most of the books)I feel like it is a place I have visited. Like the trip I took to Jackson Hole this summer on my bike. The only world builder better than Jordan (in my opinion) is Tracy Hickman(Weis included, but I think Hickman does most of the world building in their partnership).

Characters: Although it has been stated here that Jordan's characters are Tolkein rip-offs, I don't buy that. The Characters in Wheel of Time series are much more complex, and get even deeper as the story goes on, and on(I couldn't resist). Anyway, There isn't any comparison in my book. Jordan's characters are very much "stand alone" charcters. I guess you could tie any group of characters to Tolkein if you tried hard enough. It's a group of people on a quest for heaven's sake! How many profiles can there be? At some point all fantasy characters have been done. That is why TSR has the profiles or classes they do for D&D. You can only make one PB&J sandwich. Oh sure, you can change-up the jelly, but at the end of the day it is still PB&J!

As much as I appreciate the imagination and originality that LOTR represents, not to mention the gratefullness for basically creating the genre...

Tolkein could give paint drying a lesson how to put people to sleep.

I was very down on Jordan, and still think he is milking this series like the who ended up with Jacks cow after selling him the magic beans...

That said, each book does have points of redemption and each book moves the characters, though not the story, forward. The last book, Knife of Dreams, was actually pretty good.

The Jordan books are something I would advise staying away from til he actually finishes them, if you read up to the current book it will just piss you off.

Also the last few he's written take more than one read through to appreciate.

He always brings a nice perspective to the threads he posts in.

When I can get a change to go to a used bookstore, I think I'll get the next if nothing else catches my eye. If I do, I'll definitly keep in mind stopping after the third book.

Conundrum.

-----------
Wellington

The first 3 books are some of the best fantasy ever written, IMHO.

But the difference between Jordan and Tolkien? Tolkien only needed 1200 pages or so to tell his story.

The wheel of time is CRAP!! I hate those books!! I just have to say it AGAIN.. sorry if anyone thinks this unbecoming.. but man what crap. I don't have much better things to say about the brooks series. Oh well.
If u want to read a nice long fantasy series... that does have its moments of suck/boring/preaching... but mostly over all good...
Take a look at the sword of truth series..
Long as Sh*t.. but GOOD.. Oh.. I love those books.
Anyone else??

"Don't hold back leaf, tell us how you really feel :P"

1. good point.

There isn't a single character to connect with, and the setting... what setting? It is pretty much non-existant. I think even King says he thought the book would never sell. He has to my knowledge gone back to re-write the first book twice, just to make it more coherent. (I am sure of once, but was told it was twice. I'd have to investigate to be sure.)

Now from what I've been told, the series really doesn't start until the third book. I am just not willing to invest the time with King to get to book three.

I think you might be able to draw some parallels from Jordan to King in this sense. King took the first few books to get the series started, and Jordan started off well but ended after the fourth book. Both authors have books going nowhere. Again, I'll state that this is my own opinion. I also realize that in cases like this, an opinion is only good until it leaves your lips, or fingers in this case. So no worries.

However...

... Volume II: The Drawing of the Three is one of King's very best books. Period.

Volume IV: Wizard and Glass was also extremely good.

I agree with King's assessment that the style of the first volume didn't gel with the rest of the series. A few years back he revised it, but I haven't read it yet, so can't comment on whether or not it's an improvement.

Volume III: The Waste Lands, whilst containing some nice vignettes, is a turd of a book.

Five and six are enjoyable entertainments, and I haven't yet read the denoucement.

Top five King titles?

Pet Sematary
It
Eyes of the Dragon
Hearts in Atlantis
The Girl Who Loved Tom Gordan

And for sheer knock-about fun try these King titles:

The Regulators
The Talisman (with Peter Straub - the sequel, Black House, is fun too)
The Dark Half
Misery

King titles you should BURN on sight and never so much as read the blurb on the back of them:

Gerald's Game
Needful Things
Insomnia
Dreamcatcher
'Salem's Lot

Even though I've only read the one book of it, I admire J. K. Rowling for (apparently) sticking to a plan to keep "Harry Potter" at only seven books. (I read the other day she's written a non-Harry book...when it'll be published, the writeup didn't say.)

I read the parts that make up King's first "Dark Tower" book when they were published in "F & SF"...they were okay but somehow, and even when I went through a period of obsessive reading of all of King's work I could find, I was never motivated to pick up further volumes.

I do have a reluctance to put money down on a series with no ending in sight. (There are libraries for sampling, but the libraries I frequented didn't carry any volumes of this particular King work.)

More recently, I did pick up and read a "revised" edition of Volume One...again, it was good, but I didn't pick up the others.

Oh well. I don't hear anything on the last 2 books in the Dark Tower.. maybe you couldn't make it there.. but those are the sweet, creamy, rewarding center of the series. Yeah... the first book was kind of strange... oh well.. praise it for its oddness and not because it was lord of the rings book IV.. thats what I say.. but of course I guess I'm an optimist.

On a side note... and this is way off the topic of the thread... who else here thought the His Dark Materials trilogy is the greatest thing they've ever read by someone who isn't tolkien, king, or goodkind (or rowling... cuz she F***ing rules the school)...

Cuz i definately thought this..

As to not having a connectable character...thats in the eye of the beholder issue for you. I like Roland alot. I'm not like roland at all and there are parts of him that I could never be I'm more of Jake like man myself with a tinge of eddy's loonyness thrown in or vice versa.

I hated the Sword of Truth books. I felt that Terry Goodkind tried every conceiveable way to put in things that glorified the ugliest things that humankind is capable of and portrayed it as just another thing we need to swallow as being a part of life or the way things are. Don't get me wrong, bad things happen to people but it was almost like he reveled in the violence/gore/masochistic things he wrote about. I got to book three before I was so repulsed I took the book back to the library the same day.

In regards to Terry Brooks, I agree that the Sword of Shanarra is very heavily influenced by LOTR, as fully admitted by Brooks himself. He wrote it at a time when Tolkien was hot, hot, hot. I read it recently and scene for scene I could identify LOTR. However, past that, Elfstones and Scions are excellent books. Elfstones always makes me cry at the end. I haven't had a chance to read the new Shanarra books so I couldn't tell you about those.

The problem we seem to come to is that everyone always wants constant action and excitement. That's not what WOT is about. Jordan spends an enormous time developing his characters and its world in the most fascinating way. Personally, it just takes a little time and empathy to really get into these sections. Then the plot is quite complicated, with multiple stories going on at the same time. These things really lead to a spectacular and powerful climax that really outdoes most other things I've read.

As far as him being like Tolkien, I really fail to see the comparison beyond the first book. Jordan's world is so complex that there is little beyond the basic themes of fantasy that are really in common with Tolkein.

Doesn't an enormous amount of fantasy imitate Tolkein anyways? I mean, you can go on about how Terry Brook's books are so lacking in originality, but I really don't think he was going for originality. He was using the basic constructs that Tolkein setup and creating his own plots out of them. There's nothing wrong with that, Tolkein was good stuff. So, I don't mind Terry Brooks, even though you almost have to be in a certain mood to really enjoy him. And for those who think he doesn't have originality, read the "Running With the Demon" series...strange stuff, but rather interesting and original (as far as I can remember...its been a while).

Well, I finally finished The Great Hunt. I'm pretty hooked. Last night, I went to the library and picked up The Dragon Reborn. Volume 2, does veer into an original direction, the Tolkien parallels, seem mere nods here and then.

For instance, Thom is essentially a nod to Gandalf. Gandalf was a parttime gleemen, but with fireworks. He sacrifices himself against a vicious monster in the middle of the first volume and comes back in the second. So does Thom. The difference being that Thom does little else in the second volume but make an appearance, whereas Gandalf came back stronger than ever.

So far, the prologues are tough to tackle at first, at least the openings. As always, Jordan begins with incredibly dense description that I don't care about. The Great Hunt's prologue distances itself from the reader, by having the viewpoint character named "the man who called himself Bors" who we eventually learn in Volume 3's prologue is the leader of the Questioners. How is that not withholding in volume 2? At least, volume 3's prologue is more intriguing, taking the reader into the mind of the Whitecloak's leader.

I hope we get to follow a character's descent into becoming a Darkfriend. So far, every Darkfriend viewpoint character was already that way when we meet them. Ingtar was a bit of a twist, but his reasons did not seem credible to me. After seeing how the Darkfriends are treated by thier superiors, I don't see what draws them into it, nor why they don't try to get away from it.

quote:

---

I think that the Wheel of Time series obviously isn't for everyone. Yet, I absolutely loved it when I read it.
The problem we seem to come to is that everyone always wants constant action and excitement.

---

I would disagree here.

What people want is closure. Did you read book 10? NOTHING happens. It was terrible.

Nothing has happened since book 7.

Do I want constant action? No.

Do I want descriptions of pottery, lace, dresses, hair pulling, sniffing, tea, brewing tea, harvesting tea, making tea, drinking tea, sipping tea, smelling tea, etc? Hell no.

Also, Jordan's characters seemed deep at first, but when we are still told how stupid men are, and how much smarter women are, it gets a little old.

Jordan, IMO, is just milking the series for all its worth. I will never spend another $ on a Jordan book, period.

And yet...I absolutely love the Wheel of Time. I have no explanation for it, except maybe that I didn't start reading it until a couple years ago, so I haven't been waiting sixteen years for Jordan to wrap the damn series up. Book Ten had just barely come out when I finished Winter's Heart, and that one was such a disappointment. Fortunately, in number eleven, stuff happened! There was closure for Mat and Perrin's quests, and it's finally in the open that Rand's crazy. The best part: there's only one more book to go.

Just one, and the Wheel of Time is over. Trust me.

And Chris, the prologues only get longer. Around Lord of Chaos, they get to be sixty to eighty pages on average. The upside, is that most of the time, they center on people you already know.

As for the motives of Darkfriends, I know too much about humans to find them even slightly unbelievable. Unintelligible, yes. But people end up like that all the time. If you read past the trilogy proper, you'll at least find out why people almost never quit being Darkfriends. As for what draws them in at the beginning...I can't answer a question like that. C. S. Lewis might have touched on it in That Hideous Strength, along with an essay/oration by the title of The Inner Ring.