>
> 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.

This is certainly possible - though a somewhat dark POV of a person (pressumedly) unknown to us ... but i respect you're POV.

> 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.

Hmm, cannot agree or disagree here - as i've not read that far as yet, cannot make a judgement. But one would assume, if it fits within the construct of the story and the story maintains its integrity (any story here, not just TWOT), then is it really a problem? If what you say is ture, and villains re-emerge not unlike Freddy Kruger or Jason Vorheeves, time and ridiculous time again, well, that would be another matter ...

> 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 dispationate 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.

I agree entirely with you on the above.

> 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.

This is an interesting fact I was not aware of. Don't think it's terribly wise for s pouse to edit their partners work ... that could well explain the reported "wordiness" of his later novels.

> 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, this is an interesting comment - you say that the Bible isn't just one story - but isn't it, Dave? I would not be so sure - or at least, that is IMHO ... I admit I used the Bible to illustrate an example in quite broad terms, but I do maintain that essentially the point I was getting at remains true ....

besides, just because we cannot imagine something, doesn't make it any less possible ...

I enjoyed your comments regarding differing writers and their works being more akin to interpretations of other writers, as opposed to interpretations of germanic mythology, for example. sounds like you have read/studied this to some degree. it's an intruiging thought - perhaps these various writer, by reinterpreting each others works rather than approaching them with fresh ideas/perspectives, will generate their own modern mythology (if they have not done so already?)

isn't myth human's interpreting their surrounds via stories? stories re-told and re-interpreted, crossing cultures and ages etc? while i've put it simjply, could these writers, then, be continuing the evolution of myth?

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

Hmm, this last comment ... should I be offended? LOL "snooty"? Personally I'm not into the pretentious intellectual writers scene ... that is reading something just because it is fashionable or whatever ... however, I'm grateful to you for the name, and also for the title 'Tigana'