Active Users:384 Time:01/05/2025 08:01:56 PM
My thought was not that they "dumbed it down" Narg Send a noteboard - 26/09/2010 03:50:36 AM
But rather that they made a decision to worry less about chronological integrity in the interest of resolving at least some important story arcs in each book.

I don't think my argument about them agreeing with the WoT bashers is necessarily weird. Lets assume that for arguments sake that 90% of loyal WoT fans were extremely turned off by what happened in books 7-10 (with CoT being the low point). Lets say that the outrage among those who had helped support the series for more than a decade hit fever pitch with CoT and RJ understood that perhaps he had stubbornly turned off an enormous chunk of those who loved and supported him for many years by insisting on moving the story so little over the span of 6 years. If this is the case then I don't think it would be weird for Brandon and Harriet to acknowlege that it might be better to not produce a book that most previously loyal readers would greatly dislike, even if there was a small percentage of readers that didn't mind it at all.

Of course we don't know what the actual numbers are, but among readers that are not rabid enough to post on a message board I suspect much more than half were extremely turned off by what RJ allowed to happen in the second half of the series. Obviously I could be way off. My limited sampling pool of friends who read the series and became highly frustrated by the later books may be unrepresentative.

If RJ later acknowleged to Harriet that he perhaps should have done the later books a little differently (pure speculation on my part), then it wouldn't seem totally odd to me for Harriet and Brandon to decide to avoid what turned off so many loyal readers. It would seem at least as odd to me if they opted not to do such a thing just because there was a small percentage of extra loyal readers that liked how things went in the later books.

Even if my point is somewhat valid (it is just a guess on my part), it still doesn't address your point that they could have made the chronological split while still avoiding violation of RJ's customs regarding insertion of minor character view points only in the proper chronological spots. I am sure Brandon simply screwed some things up. But like you said, ToM could turn out to be much better stylisticaly than the prologue forebodes. Here is to hoping.
A little learning is a dangerous thing.
This message last edited by Narg on 26/09/2010 at 04:04:03 AM
Reply to message
Jason's review... Looks like DomA was right (Review is now removed) - 25/09/2010 05:40:18 AM 3523 Views
Re: Jason's review (spoilerish thoughts from me, so BEWARE!). Looks like DomA was right - 25/09/2010 06:00:46 AM 1338 Views
Pretty sure it's not Egwene... - 25/09/2010 07:07:00 AM 1286 Views
Oh well - I was wrong - 27/09/2010 03:56:59 PM 986 Views
Ituralde - 25/09/2010 06:29:26 AM 1120 Views
Read the ToM rules - 25/09/2010 07:44:22 AM 1036 Views
I officially hate reviews of WoT (in general) - 25/09/2010 08:10:43 AM 1112 Views
I take Jason's reviews with a pinch of salt - 25/09/2010 09:45:10 AM 1181 Views
Re: I take Jason's reviews with a pinch of salt - 25/09/2010 03:50:40 PM 1020 Views
Perrin will probably gather the wolves... - 25/09/2010 09:57:06 AM 1165 Views
I suppose Olver could be the one who takes off Mat's eye *NM* - 25/09/2010 10:01:17 AM 539 Views
The review is now gone. *NM* - 25/09/2010 04:10:59 PM 543 Views
Unfortunately, there's not much left for Elayne to do. - 25/09/2010 07:14:09 PM 1219 Views
I haven't read the review but... - 25/09/2010 07:22:48 PM 1606 Views
That's not what I meant... - 25/09/2010 08:25:42 PM 1196 Views
It's odd, I didn't see any reference to Rand descending from DM in his review. - 25/09/2010 08:39:33 PM 1031 Views
It was the very last line... - 25/09/2010 08:55:49 PM 1126 Views
Re: It was the very last line... - 25/09/2010 09:03:14 PM 1023 Views
Re: It was the very last line... - 25/09/2010 09:54:28 PM 1009 Views
Re: It was the very last line... - 25/09/2010 10:09:58 PM 1264 Views
Mike quit being obsessed about 6 years ago (maybe longer?) - 25/09/2010 10:46:23 PM 1104 Views
Re: Mike quit being obsessed about 6 years ago (maybe longer?) - 26/09/2010 01:11:52 AM 1105 Views
I blame JordanCon too. - 26/09/2010 02:17:50 AM 1157 Views
Regarding the WOTFAQ, Tam, - 26/09/2010 10:04:40 PM 1077 Views
Re: Regarding the WOTFAQ, Tam, - 27/09/2010 07:20:11 AM 1061 Views
Re: Regarding the WOTFAQ, Tam, - 27/09/2010 11:03:35 AM 1064 Views
Re: I blame JordanCon too. - 27/09/2010 01:07:59 AM 1159 Views
Re: I blame JordanCon too. - 27/09/2010 07:35:04 AM 1106 Views
Re: That's not what I meant... - 25/09/2010 09:49:17 PM 1307 Views
Some thoughts on a potential meeting... - 26/09/2010 05:11:06 AM 1215 Views
Regarding Brandon's messing up of the timelines... - 25/09/2010 11:34:06 PM 1139 Views
To me it's two different things - 26/09/2010 01:48:13 AM 1252 Views
I agree - 26/09/2010 03:09:04 AM 1068 Views
My thought was not that they "dumbed it down" - 26/09/2010 03:50:36 AM 1126 Views
Re: My thought was not that they "dumbed it down" - 26/09/2010 11:42:12 PM 1346 Views
KOD and TOM show where TGS could have been 'fixed' - 26/09/2010 10:27:04 AM 1059 Views
Re: KOD and TOM show where TGS could have been 'fixed' - 26/09/2010 09:35:41 PM 1205 Views
Whose really to blame though? - 27/09/2010 03:43:30 AM 1047 Views
A suggestion? - 26/09/2010 11:39:08 AM 1187 Views
Is there a copy of the review somewhere? *NM* - 27/09/2010 01:40:22 AM 624 Views
The review is back up... - 27/09/2010 01:59:50 AM 1042 Views
It wasn't quite identical... It was missing the line about Rand walking down from DM - 27/09/2010 06:42:47 AM 1045 Views
The line about Rand wasn't there when I read the review Saturday morning either. *NM* - 27/09/2010 01:57:00 PM 476 Views
It was... - 27/09/2010 04:22:24 PM 899 Views
I must have missed it then. It does fit with Tor's not releasing Chapter 1 early. *NM* - 27/09/2010 05:06:36 PM 477 Views
What do you mean? - 27/09/2010 11:33:15 PM 955 Views
It was at the very bottom of the post and hard to find - 28/09/2010 12:44:56 AM 837 Views
Olver - 27/09/2010 11:34:40 AM 1194 Views
He's Demandred, natch. - 27/09/2010 03:54:09 PM 926 Views
Re: Olver - 27/09/2010 05:42:25 PM 985 Views
Re: Olver darkfriend? - 28/09/2010 12:02:11 AM 1054 Views
'Tis a shame. I love spoilers. - 27/09/2010 03:16:02 PM 1058 Views
One problem with the idea of a Rand-Egwene meeting in Chapter 1 beyond timeline issues - 27/09/2010 10:29:15 PM 977 Views
Not true... - 28/09/2010 01:00:40 AM 956 Views
Good call. I assumed, and still do, that the two events are one in the same. - 28/09/2010 01:10:13 AM 1040 Views
I don't think so... - 28/09/2010 01:47:40 AM 887 Views
Re: I don't think so... - 28/09/2010 02:00:59 AM 934 Views
Re: I don't think so... - 28/09/2010 03:07:08 AM 1781 Views
Not true indeed... and.... - 28/09/2010 02:24:00 AM 1191 Views
Mesaana and the Foretelling... - 28/09/2010 03:31:24 AM 917 Views
Re: Mesaana and the Foretelling... - 13/10/2010 01:32:12 AM 1259 Views

Reply to Message