My opinions are as valid as anyone else's. I can be non-critical if someone asks a simple point regarding chronology in WoT. However, if someone starts asking questions about character motivation, pacing, story development or literary value, of course I'm going to be critical.

Even within genre, the story is very formulaic and the character motivations unfounded. Note that if you were to apply my experiment ("try writing down what any major character's motivations are and see if you can relate to them - in most cases you won't be able to") to other authors in the genre, such as Martin, you will get satisfactory answers. The guy can't finish a book for over four years (a book that was "almost done" by his own admission!), but he at least writes believable characters.

So no, I don't see the need to avoid trashing WoT when appropriate. I am glad that I found out who killed Asmodean. I am slightly interested to find out what Demandred's been up to. I have low expectations for the last book but I will buy it nonetheless because I am going to see the series to its "bitter conclusion" as Larry stated in his review.

One thing I will NOT do, that others do here, is trash Sanderson. I think he's doing the best with what he's been given. The pacing is not his choice - the staccato series of events after books of glacial development reflects Jordan's failure to advance the plot. The formulaic nature of the series was set in stone long before he started. Proper character development is not really an option this late in the series.

Oh, and by the way, I would never eat hot dogs for Thanksgiving. We're having filet mignon, roasted potatoes, tiramisu and some nice aperitifs, which is a proper way to have a nice dinner. My comment about hot dogs was with respect to outdoor grilling events, and even then I only like Hebrew National or Boar's Head.