h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Has no one else become addicted to Robert Jordan's books? They have a greater scope and more detail than Tolkien and vivid, realistic characters. They're totally absorbing.

nope.

I couldn't force myself to get through book 5. Nothing origional whatsoever. Same formulaic old elements. And all the names are awful. Tolkein's were graceful and poetic. Jordan just slaps a couple clashing syllables together. And he can't write women characters to save his life. Granted, Tolkein had a few snags there too...

Jordan is stretching a dead end to get more money, pure and simple.
And boring. And slow. And lame.

And why is Perrin such a wuss? I'd be out howling at the moon every night. Rand is weak, too.

I can't stand this series. Jordan should have stopped with Tarzan.
Purely my opinion, of course. Speaking of which, you want a good book; read Jennifer Government by Max Barry.

Wusses? They're realistic. They're faced with choices and are often unsure which would be best. Perrin wishes to be a human, not a wolf. If you'd give up humanity, any chance of friendship with a human, any chance of marriage or love, and probably your sanity and health all in one blow...well, you wouldn't unless you had little sanity to give.

Tolkien's names were not satisfying to me. They were...too sweet and sugary, if you know what I mean. Too many liquids and glides, too few consonant clusters. 'Gandalf' is one of the most complex names he uses, and it's ugly. He couldn't make a beautiful Germanic-sounding word to save his life.

Robert Jordan, on the other hand, has many strong and beautiful names: Amys, Aviendha, Rhuarc, Davram, Cauthon, Ayellin (though that tends to Tolkien's oversweetness), Mandragoran.

If Robert Jordan's women are unrealistic, what would you prefer? Women that lie down and die whenever they're confronted with a problem? Simpering fools? Men? Tolkien couldn't write women, so he avoided them entirely. Robert Jordan can write women, and you're complaining because they don't follow a strict formula that your culture has defined for you. Randland isn't Leftpondia.

You call them boring and slow and lame. Tolkien's style was much worse, more repetitive, and lacked interest--he took it from Anglo-Saxon texts and couldn't adapt to modern styles. The one thing he did have is plot. Robert Jordan has a detailed world and characters, a complex and engaging plot, and a wonderful writing style.

I don't see the formulae that Robert Jordan is supposedly repeating. Perhaps it is a case of having common sources. Fantasy derives greatly from mythology, no?

Ok, heres the thing. I agree with both of you to an extent.

Jordan has a great series going, but he seems to have written himself into a dead end. The series seems to have gotten away from him. On the other hand, his plot is incredibly intricate, and the character development is spectacular.

Tolkein had a begining, a middle and an end. His books were focused and moved logically without the plot spinning wildly out of control. However, his pages upon pages with descriptions of the most pointless minutia borders on painful. "They came to a forrest, to the west was a large oak tree. The oak hard brown bark and green leaves. There were many leaves. There were many branches on theoak tree and on the branch on the west side of the tree 6th from the top was a birds nest. There were no birds in it at the moment, but there could have been. Moving north there was another tree, this time a Sycamore..."
Ouch.

Personally, I prefer Jordan but he is starting to annoy me with his seeming inability to move the plot forward. And the few times when he has recently, he has had to resort to cheap devices. Seriously, how many times is Egwain going to be kidnapped/captured?

My suggestion, try George RR Martin. He seems a very satisfying blend of Tolkein and Jordan.

Good Luck