> 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.

Fascinating! Have had a remarkably similar experience as you've outlined above. Exhiliration is the perfect word - when it is working, it's like there is music, or a beat that just drives you on, and you're sitting back watching (still with some semblance of control) while the characters dance, live and breath ...

> 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.

I truly hope you're wrong about this. Though I would be lying if that theought - that he has no idea how to end it - had not also crossed my mind ...


> 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.

There is truth in what you say, though it seems a little harsh perhaps.

> > 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.

LOL hmm, the Bible example seems to provoke a strong response; it was an ill-considered example. I shall have to remmeber to be more careful in future ; - )

> 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.

Without wanting to cross into a realm of which I'm definitely no expert, one of the comments i keep hearing about Jordan's books, from both New Age types and not, is that they 'resonate' with the reader; so many have commented that they feel like (intuitively) that there is a truthfulness to the stories; that on some level, they were/are real ... A lot of mystical hogwash? Perhaps - I cannot say. But I've heard it too many times from such a broad range of people (male and female) - none of them apparently stupid.

When I look at his work critically - there isn't anything particularly special about his use of language or whatever, however ... the books I've read so far do have 'something' ... I'm at a loss to find the words to describe it ...

> > 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.

Agreed! I've enjoyed this thread tremendously! And thank you for your opinions and for taking the time to respond (likewise Dave).

> > 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?

LOL My my, an interesting interpretation of The Mists of Avalon .... I didn't see it as terribly PC, and it was written some time before PC was fashionable, I believe ... As for uther, Arthur, Lancelot and Merlin being manipulated and destroyed by the wiles of women LOL very amusing - but i disagree; they're own choices, they're greed, desires are what destroyed them ... It is unfair to blame the woes in your life on another; all the characters you mentioned made choices that - eventually - lead them to their doom; some of them had opportunities to redeem themselves .... It is - IMHO - perhaps a little unfair to blame women on their collective fates ...