Quite honestly, I hated it. I thought it was predictable, boring, laughable, and way to long. I thought the prose was thick, heavy, dry, and sleep-inducing. It took me a week to sludge through his 800-odd pages, and there is no way I want to repeat that experience a dozen more times.
Does this mean it is a bad and terrible book? No. It does not. Not necessarily, at least. I have said some of those same things after reading Sense and Sensibility, The Brothers Karamazov, The Divine Comedy, and even The Lord of the Rings. Call me a heretic, apostate, blah blah blah -- I still never want to read those books again.
So I'm a bit wary of going after Jordan. I know that once there's a gut-reaction dislike of a book or movie, it's quite easy to find myriad reasons why it's so terrible. And I know that once I have a gut-level liking for a book or movie, I'm very good at gleefully ignoring its faults. Things that would arouse mocking laughter and criticism in one case get shrugged off in another. (I'm thinking here of the reactions I've seen to everything from A Tale of Two Cities to The Scarlet Letter to Oedipus Rex to Underworld to Star Trek to Firefly to Harry Potter to CS Lewis to Pullman to GRR Martin to GG Kay). Shucks...I could tear and nitpick the Star Wars original trilogy to pieces if I wanted to. But I don't want to. I tell people to get a life. "It's a rollicking fun story; just roll with plot holes and forget about the metaphysical ramifications."
On the other hand, I'm still scratching my head over Jordan. What on earth did I miss? Why are people so crazy about him? I can understand the attraction of Jane Austen, The Lord of the Rings, the Divine Comedy, and Russian writers, even though I can't stand to read any of them. I can agree that those books contain elements that are worthwhile, enjoyable, or thought-provoking. I can appreciate the artistry that went into that literature. I can agree that I am something of a blockhead for being incapable of appreciating it. But I CANNOT understand this attraction to Jordan. Not liking Jane Austen feels akin to saying, "I don't like to eat gourmet Chicken-spinach casserole." Not liking Jordan feels akin to saying, "I don't like Coke."
Or, looked at from another angle...I appreciated the fact that I could recommend The Eye of the World to my friends and sisters if I wanted to. There's no sex (graphic or otherwise) in it, and I don't think any horridly terrible language or violence, either. But I didn't like the fact that there was no reason to bother recommending it. Was there any outstanding prose and description, like in Kay? Was there any incredible plotlining and characterization, like in Martin? Was there any knockout satire and worldbuilding, like in Fforde? I've a limited amount of time on my hands, here...why should I sludge through 800 pages of pure mediocrity when there's better stuff out there?
Sure...there were occasionally things I enjoyed. I rather liked the way Jordan played with the concept of cyclical history. Perrin turning into a wolfman was awesome. I liked watching Mat and Rand having to live as apprentice gleemen. But other than that, I didn't find much of interest. There's a Dark One bound by the Creator in the Mountains of Dhoom (honestly -- they're CALLED that) with his Trollocs and wraith-things, intent upon taking over the world. There's a farmboy who's actually heir to a some ancient bloodlines, a cool sword, and a Prophecy. He and a party of companions (ax-wielding blacksmith boy, archer boy, bard, warrior, magic-wielding lady, two more magically inclined girls) flee the village pursued by the Dark One's minions. They get separated, run into lots of trouble, finally get back together (the bard is replaced by an animal-thing), finish reaching the spot where a semi-final showdown will occur, and defeat the Dark One when the farmboy calls on heretofore unused magical ability. There's some politicking and political discontent going on in the world, and some vigilante groups, some gypsies, and the magic-wielding Aes Sedai who have their own purposes in mind.
It's not bad, per se. Conceivably, it might have been a cool book. Some of it has definite potential...the "group gets scattered" part, or the "naive farmboys hit outside world" theme, or the "politicking/divisions/ulterior purposes" idea. Shucks -- even Dark Lords, Chosen Ones, and Quests (though rather overdone by now, and a bit of a turnoff for me) have been executed well. But compared to other writers, Jordan manages these poorly.
Por ejemplo...Tolkien also separated his guys. Each group then went and did crucial things that united nations of good guys and/or set up the bad guys. When the storm broke, evil got defeated. Everyone was reunited in a denumount. The End. Where did Jordan miss the "scattered groups do important things on an international level to unify the factions against the looming threat before at last being reunited" idea? Do I have to read the next
Somewhat related to this...did Jordan also miss the "scattered groups get caught up in the international/national troubles and have to fend for themselves" idea? Politicking and vigilantes and groups of people at cross-purposes with one another are cool. Wars with multiple contesting factions, focused on their own very troubles, while shadows of deeply evil things loom on the horizon(s)... THAT is awesomely cool. But Jordan is no Martin, any more than he is a Tolkien. When do run-ins with these factions/cultures/politicking ever cause deep and lasting changes to the character's life-purposes, character, and goals? Aside from Perrin, who becomes a wolfman tied into the rebirth of legendary magic, everyone seems to glide through any contact with the outside world unscathed. Why not just teleport them to the Eye, give them a few lectures on magic, and have done with it? With all the other magic pulled out of thin air when it's convenient (applications of elemental magic, the passageways, the green man, Rand), WHY NOT throw in teleportation?
Final verdict? I guess it's OK fantasy. But with Martin-Kay-Pullman-Lewis-Tolkien (and maybe Robin Hobb or Stephen Brust, too) out there, what makes you think I'd even bother with Jordan? Perhaps his books do get better. But after the first one, I'm not inclined to give him another chance.
No comments:
Post a Comment