: So the subject matter of a fantasy realm in danger of an evilness taking over and subjecting all to its power, and the desperate plight of its inhabitants, trying to overcome the evil power is a topic which should be given the distinction of "sux"?

: Somehow, it sounds very familiar to the plot-line of someone else, but I can't for the life of me remember who that would be!

: But seriously, while Jordan may be milking the story for all its worth, it is still a worthwhile read. Jordan may not have the depth and distinction of Tolkien in his ability to create languages and history, but Jordan does make an excellent attempt, and better then many that I have read over the past two decades. To say that he "sux" is a bit of a dubious distinction. He obviously does not lack maturity, or creativity or depth. He is not some second-rate hack printing his own books in his garage. He has a huge following, and while that in itself doesn't necessarily mean that he is great, it is definately a sign that he has something worthwhile to say.

: I would rather not discount him with a simple "sux".

: -RobRoy

I do admit that I was a bit harsh. It was the assertion that Jordan surpasses Tolkien that got my dander up, as they say. But I do think that Jordan does lack somewhat in creativity and depth. He lacks creativity in that he has constructed a plot (or should I say some 40 odd subplots) that is devoid of originality, in my opinion. He shamelessly copies Tolkien, albeit weakly, and utilizes the common mechanisms, stereotypes and other tropes of the fantasy genre. I do not find a whole lot of creativity in his work, which to me is exemplary of the pulp fantasy fiction market of the 90's. As for depth, I think that his many subplots, often seeming to be a rehashing of each other, display a certain amount of breadth, but little depth. Given that he has written 8 books in the series, and in my opinion has not engendered any real passion or power, nor has he sculpted any truly engaging characters, or managed to conclude anything, I am forced to assert that he has not achieved depth. The fact that Tolkien was able to succeed at all of these in three books (one really) and Jordan has yet to do so in eight, indicates the depth of the two works. As for maturity, I think that his rambling, undisciplined style of storytelling, along with the ideas I have presented above, indicate his lack of maturity as a wrtier. It also suggests to my mind a certain arrogance and narcicism (but this is my own take on the matter). I did enjoy Book One (relatively speaking), and Book Two was not bad, but he failed to take me anywhere, or introduce me to anything, and by the third and fourth books I was disappointed, greatly.

It is true that his works are better than a lot of the other stuff out there. Whether that is an accolade or not I will let you all decide. I am not typically one to stamp something with a simple word like "sux." In fact, that type of boorish labelling is something I dislike. I did it because I thought it would be a funny way of launching into this discussion (given what I said in my message proper). Whether Jordan is a poor/fair/good writer is up for debate. I do NOT think that he is better, nor even as good as Tolkien in any way. And, though I do not mean this as an attack at all, I think that those who feel that he is should reexamine both Jordan and Tolkien, and the ways in which they judge literature.