Active Users:650 Time:03/08/2025 03:15:41 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 3558 Views
Re: Jason's review (spoilerish thoughts from me, so BEWARE!). Looks like DomA was right - 25/09/2010 06:00:46 AM 1377 Views
Pretty sure it's not Egwene... - 25/09/2010 07:07:00 AM 1321 Views
Oh well - I was wrong - 27/09/2010 03:56:59 PM 1025 Views
Ituralde - 25/09/2010 06:29:26 AM 1158 Views
Read the ToM rules - 25/09/2010 07:44:22 AM 1073 Views
I officially hate reviews of WoT (in general) - 25/09/2010 08:10:43 AM 1145 Views
I take Jason's reviews with a pinch of salt - 25/09/2010 09:45:10 AM 1213 Views
Re: I take Jason's reviews with a pinch of salt - 25/09/2010 03:50:40 PM 1055 Views
Perrin will probably gather the wolves... - 25/09/2010 09:57:06 AM 1200 Views
I suppose Olver could be the one who takes off Mat's eye *NM* - 25/09/2010 10:01:17 AM 556 Views
The review is now gone. *NM* - 25/09/2010 04:10:59 PM 560 Views
Unfortunately, there's not much left for Elayne to do. - 25/09/2010 07:14:09 PM 1254 Views
I haven't read the review but... - 25/09/2010 07:22:48 PM 1641 Views
That's not what I meant... - 25/09/2010 08:25:42 PM 1232 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 1070 Views
It was the very last line... - 25/09/2010 08:55:49 PM 1162 Views
Re: It was the very last line... - 25/09/2010 09:03:14 PM 1058 Views
Re: It was the very last line... - 25/09/2010 09:54:28 PM 1041 Views
Re: It was the very last line... - 25/09/2010 10:09:58 PM 1300 Views
Mike quit being obsessed about 6 years ago (maybe longer?) - 25/09/2010 10:46:23 PM 1133 Views
Re: Mike quit being obsessed about 6 years ago (maybe longer?) - 26/09/2010 01:11:52 AM 1140 Views
I blame JordanCon too. - 26/09/2010 02:17:50 AM 1197 Views
Regarding the WOTFAQ, Tam, - 26/09/2010 10:04:40 PM 1113 Views
Re: Regarding the WOTFAQ, Tam, - 27/09/2010 07:20:11 AM 1097 Views
Re: Regarding the WOTFAQ, Tam, - 27/09/2010 11:03:35 AM 1107 Views
Re: I blame JordanCon too. - 27/09/2010 01:07:59 AM 1211 Views
Re: I blame JordanCon too. - 27/09/2010 07:35:04 AM 1141 Views
Re: That's not what I meant... - 25/09/2010 09:49:17 PM 1340 Views
Some thoughts on a potential meeting... - 26/09/2010 05:11:06 AM 1245 Views
Regarding Brandon's messing up of the timelines... - 25/09/2010 11:34:06 PM 1175 Views
To me it's two different things - 26/09/2010 01:48:13 AM 1282 Views
I agree - 26/09/2010 03:09:04 AM 1106 Views
My thought was not that they "dumbed it down" - 26/09/2010 03:50:36 AM 1161 Views
Re: My thought was not that they "dumbed it down" - 26/09/2010 11:42:12 PM 1383 Views
KOD and TOM show where TGS could have been 'fixed' - 26/09/2010 10:27:04 AM 1099 Views
Re: KOD and TOM show where TGS could have been 'fixed' - 26/09/2010 09:35:41 PM 1240 Views
Whose really to blame though? - 27/09/2010 03:43:30 AM 1088 Views
A suggestion? - 26/09/2010 11:39:08 AM 1218 Views
Is there a copy of the review somewhere? *NM* - 27/09/2010 01:40:22 AM 641 Views
The review is back up... - 27/09/2010 01:59:50 AM 1076 Views
It wasn't quite identical... It was missing the line about Rand walking down from DM - 27/09/2010 06:42:47 AM 1078 Views
The line about Rand wasn't there when I read the review Saturday morning either. *NM* - 27/09/2010 01:57:00 PM 494 Views
It was... - 27/09/2010 04:22:24 PM 937 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 499 Views
What do you mean? - 27/09/2010 11:33:15 PM 995 Views
It was at the very bottom of the post and hard to find - 28/09/2010 12:44:56 AM 876 Views
Olver - 27/09/2010 11:34:40 AM 1235 Views
He's Demandred, natch. - 27/09/2010 03:54:09 PM 959 Views
Re: Olver - 27/09/2010 05:42:25 PM 1021 Views
Re: Olver darkfriend? - 28/09/2010 12:02:11 AM 1094 Views
'Tis a shame. I love spoilers. - 27/09/2010 03:16:02 PM 1091 Views
One problem with the idea of a Rand-Egwene meeting in Chapter 1 beyond timeline issues - 27/09/2010 10:29:15 PM 1063 Views
Not true... - 28/09/2010 01:00:40 AM 993 Views
Good call. I assumed, and still do, that the two events are one in the same. - 28/09/2010 01:10:13 AM 1075 Views
I don't think so... - 28/09/2010 01:47:40 AM 928 Views
Re: I don't think so... - 28/09/2010 02:00:59 AM 971 Views
Re: I don't think so... - 28/09/2010 03:07:08 AM 1822 Views
Not true indeed... and.... - 28/09/2010 02:24:00 AM 1229 Views
Mesaana and the Foretelling... - 28/09/2010 03:31:24 AM 958 Views
Re: Mesaana and the Foretelling... - 13/10/2010 01:32:12 AM 1295 Views

Reply to Message