> Hmm, an interesting POV. Certainly you could
>look at his proliferation of novels in that
>manner, but as I can only go on what I've
>experienced so far, if - as a writer - you
>encounter/create a world and a set of characters
>and a culture that works so well that it does -
>almost literally - take on a life of its own,
>that would seem to be a very special thing. A
>good story ought to have a life of its own, and
>should not be a regimented thing that must star
>here and end there.

If this were truly the case (that the world took on a life of its own) then I might be inclined to agree with you. But even so, I'd sooner think he'd tell the *one* story he had, then go on and tell different stories in that living world, instead of writing one endless story.

No, what I think happened was the first book made a buttload of money, and the people at TOR said "WOW! Quick Robert, write MORE! MORE! MORE!!" Because the people were snarfing them up just as quickly as he could churn them out. He's sitting on top of one of the biggest cash cows in publishing right now.

>
> Someone told me once (and they may have been
>quoting someone else) that a story ends when it
>ends, and not before. But as I've still got a
>way to go with this series, perhaps there is a
>chance I'll find his work becoming tired and
>overlong ... We shall see : )

I've been told he's starting to bring villians back to life in his later books. If that's not prolonging things beyond their normal endpoint, I don't know what is.

> Agreed - it is important for a writer to know
>'what to leave out'. But this sounds more like a
>fault in his editors - if it should be proven so
>- than in the writer himself. Most writers have
>a strong sense of ego and ownership of their
>characters and the worlds they make, and thus
>tend to be exactlingly precise or overly wordy
>in how they describe things ... hence, God gave
>us editors : )

Yes and no. This is, I think, one of the best reasons to have a good editor--he or she will look over your story with a trained and dispassionate eye and take out all the stuff that you put in that didn't need to be there. However, this doesn't mean that a writer shouldn't also be his or her own first editor. If you can't stop yourself from running off at the mouth (so to speak) in your first draft, then fine, let yourself go. But the whole point of revision (after you've worked the story itself into a cohesive whole) is to take out all the crap you stuck in the first time around because you weren't sure exactly what you were doing at that point. It's my (admitedly limited) experience as a writer that once you have an acceptable story draft (meaning you have the actual story down the way you want it) the next revisions are almost always about cutting out the crap.

The problem is that neither of these things is happening for Jordan. He's not editing himself, and his editor isn't editing him either. This probably stems from the fact that his editor is also his wife, but it's also probably because the people at TOR know that as long as he's happy with the story, the public will eat it up, so it doesn't much matter what they do with it after that.

>
>> I can't imagine *any* story that can't be
>>told in less than twelve 1000-page books.
>
> I cannot imagine the possibility that there
>isn't a story that can't be told in such a
>manner ....

Although I have to agree with this statement (although I don't think for one minute that "The Wheel of Time" is said story) I have to take issue with--

>how long is the Bible, for example? How many
>books are encompassed in it? ; - )

--this. This isn't a fair comparison. The Bible isn't just one story. It's about fifty kazillion stories all rolled into one. Also, it's only about as long as a whole as two or maybe three of Jordan's books, depending on how big of a typeface you use (I have no idea what the wordlength of either the Bible or WOT is). Plus, the individual "books" of the Bible aren't nearly as long as your typical Jordan book.

> Hmm, well I'm not sure I meant he was a great
>writer as in the classical sense of the word;
>perhaps I ought to have been more careful with
>the word I used; talented and clever,
>certainly. Will this series of books hold up to
>the passage of time? I've no idea - it is
>possible; it includes thematic archetypes that
>have the potential to translate over many
>generations, borrowing from myth, legend and
>ancient religious beliefs ... So IMHO the series
>is clever, and a great series (so far) ...
>purely a personal reaction.

It may seem to borrow heavily from myth, legend, and ancient religious beliefs, but I'd much sooner believe that what it actually borrows heavily from is Tolkien and Tolkien's many "admirers". Not having read Jordan, I can't and won't say that and stick right by it, but I'd much sooner believe that Jordan's scholarly bent leans more towards reading other fantasy books than actually reading old Germanic myths like Tolkien did.

I hate to be the one to say "so and so is copying Tolkien" because I almost never believe it in the way that people usually mean it. Meaning, when people say "Brooks copied Tolkien" they usually mean that Brooks sat down with a copy of Lord of the Rings and consciously tried to write the same story, or, if they're feeling generous, that he was unconsciously "influenced" strongly by Tolkien while writing his story. While this may be the case with Brooks first book, it's probably not the case with Jordan's books.

However, I do believe that most fantasy authors today (Jordan included) get their "training" by reading other fantasy authors. So instead of getting "Writer X's interpretation and use of Germanic myths" we get "Writer X's interpretation and use of Tolkien's interpretation and use of Germanic myths." There is an extra layer of interpretation there, and that usually means a more watered down, more pedestrian use of the underlying myth. The first couple of times, that might still be good (using the same concept in a new way), but once you get up to "Goodkind's interpretation of Jordan's interpretation of Brooks's interpretation of Tolkien's interpretation of Germanic myths" what you end up with is mostly garbage. And please don't anyone get on my case about bashing Goodkind now. It was only an example, and didn't mean anything. Plus, I've actually read Goodkind and kind of liked his work (the first two books, anyway.)

>I admit that these novels have been my first
>outting into fantasy that has been agreeable -
>have tried other novels (can't recall the titles
>now) that were dull, lacking characters and
>seemed liked wordy nintendo games ... The only
>other novel I've enjoyed in a similar vein was
>The Mists of Avalon ... read it?

Well, I guess now I'll spit out the name of the novel that a great many people have suggested Jordanites read, as an example of what fantasy "should" be like. I haven't read it, so I can't comment, but I can at least pass on the name. "Tigana" by Guy Gavrial Kay.

Also, the more snooty members of rec.arts.sf.written seem to like Gene Wolfe too.