> 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.

I'm not saying the writer should retain that much control. Actually if he does, that's bad too. In my first novel (the only one I've ever completed) that kind of happened. It was exhilarating. I resented it when one particular character that I intended to be a minor character but seized third billing on his own, but on the whole I felt the story was well-served when that happened. On the other hand, I didn't lose control of the *story*. By the time I finished, the framework of the story was as I envisioned it, but the details, the manner, and the color all sort of came to life on their own. I'm not saying I'm a great writer -- the book has other problems, and the sequel that I'm working on is irritatingly *not* taking on that life of its own which is probably why it's still only half done after seven years. But my gut instinct tells me that part of the writing process worked.

With Jordan, my perception, which may be incorrect, is that he's lost complete control of the story, he doesn't have the faintest idea how to end it, and he's drawing the series out in the hopes that a conclusion will come to him. In this case, the story hasn't just come to life, it's popped out of his computer, taken over the writing chores, and developed a survival instinct.

> 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.

I don't buy it. Editors may or may not be a helpful guide at times, but unless an editor forces something against the writer's wishes, any and all blame has to go to the writer. He wrote it. He's responsible for it. If his ego gets in the way of his story, it's a failing as a writer.

> I cannot imagine the possibility that there isn't a story that can't be told in such a manner .... how long is the Bible, for example? How many books are encompassed in it? ; - )

66, but trust me, not a one of them is a thousand pages long, and roughly half are under 10. Without looking, I'd guess the Bible, if published in a standard mass market paperback, would be somewhere on the order of 1500-2500 pages long.
Wheel of Time is about three times that length and it's still not done yet. I can't imagine Robert Jordan having more to say than God.

> 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.

I can see how that could be. In spite of my precariously-founded knocking of him, he's obviously written something that appeals to a great many people, and that can't just be dismissed.

> Sam, I would be interested to hear what you think of the books if/when you have the opportunity of reading them.

They're pretty low on my list. (Higher on Dave's.) But if I ever read them, I'll most certainly talk about it here. Thanks for your opinions, by the way. This is a fun thread.

> I've enjoyed in a similar vein was The Mists of Avalon ... read it?

Darleen has that book, but neither one of us has read it yet. I'll take that as a recommendation.
To adopt a more facetious tone, however, I find it humorous that this book bills itself as a chronicle of the "women behind King Arthur's throne." Try as I might, I can't picture a Marion Zimmer Bradley-style politically correct take on a legend that essentially boils down to assorted great men being destroyed by the wiles of women. (Uther, Arthur, Lancelot, Merlin, you name it.) I wonder what MZB would do with the Iliad/Odyssey?