Maybe I'm just not a super-fan or don't take fantasy seriously, but when I read them, I'm using my imagination - I'm not engaging my belief system and in many cases, not even the full extent of my critical thinking (that is what separates WoT from most other stories of this genre - I actually think about the series and the overarching narrative).

For example, I never "ignored the implausibility of the possibility of animals talking and etc". I never had to, because I never took the story literally and thus, it never had to contend with my understanding of reality. It resembled a logic argument to me, versus an actual reflection of reality - "If x is given as true and y is given as true than z is the result" is often used in fantasy series, and most readers (I feel) don't really try to disprove the rules of the author, because it would be counter-productive.

I don't agree with Coleridges' idea in the first place, as that has never been my reading experience. It seems to me that the main difference is that I have always had an active imagination, and never had a problem separating reality from the fantastic.

Basically, I've never had to suspend my disbelief to read a story about fairies. Maybe other readers have to do this, but I, personally, do not take a fairy story seriously enough to have to go to that step.

Keep in mind from the first that I had already disagreed with core elements of Coleridges' theory - I don't think human interest or a semblance of truth is in "The Wheel of Time", thus it follows my opinion that "suspension of disbelief" doesn't apply in this case. I still think that a series more grounded in truth and human experience, such as Butlers' "Kindred", inspires the need to invoke this suspension whereas a comic book or serial fantasy doesn't.