You could and I believe those familiar with epic fantasies would get the joke behind that comment as well



I don't think that's all there is to it, or else I wouldn't have posted it here (or at best, it would have been posted with a disclaimer noting that it was nothing but snark, to be taken lightly). The issues he raises about the nature of the sex/violent scenes, the way the prose is constructed, the plot branches, character development (or perceived lack thereof) are issues that are worthy of discussion. How well he explores those issues is the matter of contention, I suppose.




Actually, I agree that a single overarching review would have worked better, but since he chose to review each of the 12 individually, I guess the main sticking points will be made over and over. But here's a question that just occurred to me - How much "growth" do we see in the series from a technical aspect? Is the structure of the prose and scenes relatively static, or do we see discernible shifts in how characters and situations are presented?



Those are indeed aspects I wonder if Roberts has seen. Perhaps it'll appear in a later review? If it doesn't, then I'd agree with you that it was a major oversight on his part.



I don't know if it's as much this book or it appears in the next two, though. But yes, this is an important issue. Question is, how well did Jordan execute this vision?




I'd probably do what I've been trying to do online for years (and in the classroom), which is tease out elements of contention and then ask questions in such a way as to (hopefully) get the student to ask deeper questions without being told by me that s/he was wrong.



How many Anglo-Americans do you expect would make any sort of connection to the Jains? Sometimes, the xeroxed source becomes viewed as being the original source because of cultural differences/ignorance of other societies. Viewing this through the lens of privileged information makes interpreting his conclusions tricky. Yes, you are aware of those parallels, but for someone who is not and this being an issue where relatively few readers would be aware, are you interpreting his stance as being one that should reflect a deeper, more reflective understanding, an understanding that usually doesn't occur the first time something is read? It's the very fact that his WoT posts are so obviously that of someone who's never read the various arguments on the books' sources/influences that fascinates me - you don't often get that around forums like this...because oftentimes, some regulars are so used to their pet interpretations or have come to view neophyte reader interpretations as facile or just wrongheaded that sometimes they lash out at the new readers, often silencing them in the process.



Not because of who he is and what he does, but because the perspective is different from those who post regularly on the topic. May not agree with some (or any) of it, but having such perspectives to consider from time to time can be invaluable in getting experienced readers to reflect back on their own development. Or at least I'd hope something like that would be taking place.




Perhaps compared to those, but I'm comparing it to itself here.



I don't know if that's the case or not. Will be curious to see what he has to say to your blog comment, though.



Who knows? I'm trying not to, but it may be a case where I'm downplaying certain aspects because I can see the point, even if I don't always agree with the delivery!