|
A human heart posted:the worm ouroboros has women in it and it's from 1922. hell, it looks to me like fantasy fans don't even know anything about the history of their genre of choice In 1924 there was a cinematic fantasy epic with feminist themes, a female protagonist, and sympathetic orcs, before anyone complained about the lack of those in LOTR 
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2019 23:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 22:30 |
|
|
BravestOfTheLamps posted:In 1924 there was a cinematic fantasy epic with feminist themes, a female protagonist, and sympathetic orcs, before anyone complained about the lack of those in LOTR yeah that's a wonderful film
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2019 23:14
|
|
|
FWIW, I like to remind myself from time to time of how trope-subverting Tolkien was at the time. When he was writing, it was against a backdrop of classical mythology and Arthurian legend, which was full of champions and princes and demigods as the protagonists, and as often as not they were on quests to seek out a talisman of legendary power. LotR was kind of a crazy departure in that it made fat little gluttonous Edwardian smurfs into the heroes, and they were trying to get rid of their magic doohickey, not win it from a dragon or whatever.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2019 23:15
|
|
|
The Ninth Layer posted:I would argue that what you describe in the first paragraph is what the Wheel of Time does. The ruling class of wizards are all women and very early on they attempt to gain control of the make protagonist for reasons tied directly to the character's gender. Essentially they believe that the main character (or any man) will go mad if allowed to wield power, and there are women dedicated to put men down when they show signs of exercising this power. On the topic of gender reversals, I feel like the genderswapped version of the 2016 presidential debate was a particularly interesting method of examining the issue. https://www.nyu.edu/about/news-publications/news/2017/march/trump-clinton-debates-gender-reversal.html
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2019 23:16
|
|
|
Data Graham posted:FWIW, I like to remind myself from time to time of how trope-subverting Tolkien was at the time. When he was writing, it was against a backdrop of classical mythology and Arthurian legend, which was full of champions and princes and demigods as the protagonists, and as often as not they were on quests to seek out a talisman of legendary power. LotR was kind of a crazy departure in that it made fat little gluttonous Edwardian smurfs into the heroes, and they were trying to get rid of their magic doohickey, not win it from a dragon or whatever. Hobbits weren't a particularly radical choice for heroes back when The Hobbit was successful novel in recent memory. Not to mention that the Hobbits serve as a bourgeois viewpoint in an alien world, which makes them extremely conventional characters. BravestOfTheLamps fucked around with this message at 23:21 on Feb 8, 2019 |
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2019 23:19
|
|
|
Our heroes are cheery Englishmen. Trope busted!
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2019 23:25
|
|
|
Pretty much what Taffer said. You can quit reading at any point you want, that's up to you. But don't say "I read it" when you barely scratched the surface. Never mind to then go on to demand how the book subverts tropes while saying think the book is "cliche as hell" before having read any substantial amount of the series to base that off of. Like, wow the beginning of the first book started out familiar?  Clearly the rest of the series couldn't possibly be any different.Anyways, the work day is over so I'm going to stop responding and enjoy my weekend 🙃
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2019 23:48
|
|
|
~*subverting tropes*~ is bullshit But I like the world-building.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2019 23:50
|
|
|
Sab669 posted:Pretty much what Taffer said. You can quit reading at any point you want, that's up to you. But don't say "I read it" when you barely scratched the surface. Sure, you can't claim to have read the whole thing, but 100 pages is not "barely scratched the surface". In 100 pages I can fit The Nine Billion Names of God, The Lottery, Chesterton's "The Invisible Man", and have room to spare: there's no excuse for taking that long to say anything meaningful even if we stick to mostly genre fiction examples. Yes, it's only a small portion of the overall WoT series, but again, at what point is someone allowed to say "I'm pretty sure I have a good feel for this"? Having read the books (especially the first) a long time ago, I'd have a hard time clearing my mind and thinking what it would be like to read those first 100 again for the first time, but I think you'd have a fair idea by then whether or not you care for Jordan's writing at that point, just because 100 pages is enough to tell you if anyone is worth reading. quote:Never mind to then go on to demand how the book subverts tropes while saying think the book is "cliche as hell" before having read any substantial amount of the series to base that off of. I also said that there's more to a book than plot. Fantasy fans have been making fun of Jordan's writing for decades; he doesn't even get the "poetic" plaudits that Rothfuss gets. Even assuming for no reason that there would be a "trope subversion" or radical transformation in plot quality at some undetermined point in the future that we should just keep slogging towards still doesn't mitigate any obvious failures of prose and characterization, which Jordan is full of and which are screamingly obvious by page 100. It's kind of funny that you completely ignored the part where I point out that "the plot eventually redeems it" is only an acceptable argument for people who think you can ignore everything but plot. "This guy writes terribly and his characters are idiots and the plot is bad." "Yeah, but in another two books the plot gets better." Serious question: about how many pages into a book or series do you, specifically, go before you have an accurate feel for it and are comfortable tossing it aside? And if the author then adds another X books to the pile connected to that book, do you then feel that you have to re-evaluate your decision because maybe it's better down the road / your understanding of the whole as a percentage has markedly dropped? Xotl fucked around with this message at 00:46 on Feb 9, 2019 |
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2019 00:33
|
|
|
Sab669 posted:Pretty much what Taffer said. You can quit reading at any point you want, that's up to you. But don't say "I read it" when you barely scratched the surface. Every book in a series has to be able to justify its own existence regardless of the larger story. If the story in the first book isn't complete enough to judge its contents without the context of later books, then the author did a crappy job, and the whole series suffers for it. Hell, I'd even go so far as to say that later books should probably be enjoyable even if you haven't read the first one (though obviously you'll get more from it if you read the whole thing.) The series as a whole should be cohesive and add up to more than the sum of its parts, but that doesn't excuse one of those parts being bad by itself. To be clear, this is a different argument from the one Mel's been making (that if the first book is bad he doesn't think the rest are going to be good.) To continue with the multi-course dinner metaphor: if the appetizer is awful, then no matter how good the rest of the meal is, I'm only ever going to remember it as that meal where they served me a crappy appetizer. The memory of the worst part will taint the rest. In short: a series is only ever as good as its weakest book.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2019 00:35
|
|
|
If the plot is the only good thing about the books, why recommend the books at all instead of their summaries on Wikia?
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2019 00:49
|
|
|
Sham bam bamina! posted:If the plot is the only good thing about the books, why recommend the books at all instead of their summaries on Wikia? Gosh, no one has ever suggested that before. I'm glad you said that, you've freed us from our horrible fates of actually reading the books. hint: the only people who have ever said the plot is the only good thing about a given book are not the people you're asking this question of. Some people actually *gasp* enjoy reading works by authors like Brandon Sanderson and Robert Jordan, and your mystification at what we see in them is completely meaningless.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2019 00:56
|
|
|
If you have a reason to read the books beyond advancing the plot, I wasn't asking you. Neither was I trying to set up some kind of straw man. There have been a fair few low-end pulp sci-fi novels I've come across in a book store, looked up on Goodreads, and happily contented myself with "reading" via some particularly lengthy review's summary. I enjoyed engaging with the cleverness of the plot there, while actually reading the book would offer me nothing more but the obligatory stuffing to make it a book. This is something that pulp writers themselves acknowledged; I can't remember who said it, but I once found a quote saying that if you knew even the premise of a pulp story, you didn't need to read it, since that was the interesting thing about it in the first place. Kurt Vonnegut's character Kilgore Trout is an awful writer, but Vonnegut happily summarizes his books so the reader can appreciate their ideas without having to chew through their assuredly dreadful presentation. There's nothing wrong with reading a particularly good plot for its own sake if it would only be encumbered by an actual novel. Sham bam bamina! fucked around with this message at 01:26 on Feb 9, 2019 |
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2019 01:23
|
|
|
Xotl posted:Serious question: about how many pages into a book or series do you, specifically, go before you have an accurate feel for it and are comfortable tossing it aside? And if the author then adds another X books to the pile connected to that book, do you then feel that you have to re-evaluate your decision because maybe it's better down the road / your understanding of the whole as a percentage has markedly dropped? Apply this same line of thinking to movies and ask yourself how seriously you would take any opinion of someone who walked out of a film after the first twenty minutes beyond that they found the movie distasteful and did not like it. Like yeah, nobody has to force themselves to read something they are not enjoying, especially if they feel they could use their time more productively elsewhere. But, like, why should I or anyone else take seriously the thoughts and critique of someone that made it five chapters into a forty chapter book? My mom watched three episodes of The Wire before she decided it was boring and a waste of time. A friend of mine quit Breaking Bad after four episodes, he thought it was dumb Walt didn't just call the police in the second episode instead of killing Krazy 8. They're not authorities on whether these shows are actually good or not. I watched the first three episodes of Burn Notice and stopped watching because I thought the characters were boring and had no interest in what would happen to them. That doesn't mean I have the authority to tell someone who watched the whole thing that actually it's bad. I watched Dexter seven seasons in, largely enjoyed the first four and then hated the last three to the point that I did not watch the final season. I thought the show was awful by the end and from what I heard the eighth season did not get any better, but if someone told me otherwise and had a persuasive argument with it I would be forced to consider their dissenting opinion and I might even be compelled to discover if they were right, if for no better reason than to have reason to disagree with them. I'm not saying the Wheel of Time is a work of art as profound or full of quality as The Wire or Breaking Bad, two TV shows that I think are among the best television series of all time. In fact I would struggle to recommend it to anyone who did not already have a specific interest in the fantasy genre. But I do think people should probably judge it on more information than the equivalent of the first three episodes of Burn Notice, in the same way I think someone who left a meal because the appetizer was fried brussels sprouts probably should not be reviewing the main course. The Ninth Layer fucked around with this message at 01:39 on Feb 9, 2019 |
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2019 01:37
|
|
|
I don't think it's possible for someone to be "an authority on whether it's good or not" regardless of how much they read or watched
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2019 01:41
|
|
|
borges: why write a book of fiction when i can simply write a review of a fictional book thread geniuses: why read a book when i can simply shitpost about it based on the wikia
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2019 01:43
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:I don't think it's possible for someone to be "an authority on whether it's good or not" regardless of how much they read or watched Okay then replace this with "whether it's bad or not," since you obviously felt qualified to claim the book sucked.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2019 01:50
|
|
|
The Ninth Layer posted:Okay then replace this with "whether it's bad or not," since you obviously felt qualified to claim the book sucked. I dont think I ever said the book sucked to be honest. Btw, not ignoring your larger post from earlier but it's late and I want to engage with it with a fresh head
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2019 01:52
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:why not Maybe you're just talking 100 pages here and not the whole book which is fair enough but this certainly looks like you dismissing a whole book because it's bad. Mel Mudkiper posted:I dont think I ever said the book sucked to be honest. No worries. I'm enjoying the conversation and would rather get you at your best anyway.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2019 01:52
|
|
|
Also re: looking up the plot summaries of things on wikia instead of reading them, I did this for the second two hunger games books because even though I enjoyed the first for what it was I didn't care enough about the characters to want to spend a few more hours with them. I also looked up the plot of star wars episode 8 instead of seeing it in theaters and have no regrets on that one.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2019 01:58
|
|
|
The Ninth Layer posted:Maybe you're just talking 100 pages here and not the whole book which is fair enough but this certainly looks like you dismissing a whole book because it's bad. Yeah that's the thing. Take your mom and friend. They are perfectly just in deciding the shows are not for them after only a few episodes. Yeah, I thought the hundred pages sucked. I am not saying the whole series is bad because I havent read it. What I am saying is that what I have read is bad and makes me feel skeptical about claims it gets better.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2019 01:58
|
|
|
Not to open a new can of worms but you should see episode 8 it's probably the best star wars since empire
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2019 01:59
|
|
|
Sure, we all have our own likes and dislikes and I wouldn't want anyone to sit through any bit of entertainment media they did not find enjoying or personally fulfilling. I think it's a shame my mom will never watch The Wire, but at least I tried. I'm not even recommending you return to the Wheel of Time, even if my personal experience was that the Two Rivers intro was pretty uninteresting but that the story became a lot more intriguing once the characters left. In the end it's a long, sprawling and often meandering fantasy story in a world that doesn't exist, and as other posters have pointed out you could read several other books in a fraction of the pagecount of just the first Wheel of Time book. It's hard for me to relate to your experience because I generally make an attempt to read through every book I buy and finish every movie I start. Sometimes it takes me a while (it took me three tries to get into Ulysses) but once I start a book it's pretty rare that I intentionally quit a book. The only exception I can think of is the second twilight book which was too boring to enjoy ironically. Mel Mudkiper posted:Not to open a new can of worms but you should see episode 8 it's probably the best star wars since empire I did see it when it came out on Netflix and thought it was alright. I enjoyed the Luke and Rey and Kylo stuff (Adam Driver carries the movie for me) but found Poe a lot less likable than in 7 and was disappointed with what they did to Finn who was probably my favorite character from 7. I dunno if I'd say it was the best since Empire but mostly because I like ep 3 a lot for Palpatine.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2019 02:23
|
|
|
The weirdest thing about the claim that WoT subverts gender tropes (beyond the simplistic fetishization for trope subversion in general) is that it fails at even doing that much. Women in Jordan's world are still socially expected to be chaste and polite. The Aes Sedai's exploitation of their power is limited to whispering in kings' ears. Non-magical women's power is almost entirely restricted to "the women's circle", which is at most equally potent as whatever the men's equivalent was called. Warriors are still predominantly male and badass female fighters are an anomaly. In what way is there a matriarchy that even approaches the imbalance of power seen in more traditional medieval European fantasy knockoff?
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2019 02:50
|
|
|
The Ninth Layer posted:We live in a society whose norms are heavily shaped around the Bible and Eve's original sin. The Wheel of Time is an inversion if this where instead it is Adam who committed original sin and the society it portrays conveys this from.the ground up. So it's a twist that goes beyond simply rearranging the pieces on a fantasy board. Men are still men and women are still women in the series, but the power dynamics between them are radically different. we sure do live in a society (That’s not a meaningful critique of the “trope”, nor is it “subverting” anything. That Save the Pearls YA series didn’t “subvert” the “trope” of racism by making white people the oppressed, and black people the oppressing, class. It’s exactly just rearranging the pieces. It offers no substantive critique beyond “what if the same thing but opposite” which does absolutely nothing to question the fundamental structures in play. This is the kind of superficial critique that passes for “subversion” in fantasy, in line with Thomas covenant’s “what if an underdog had access to unlimited power but was kind of a sick about it”)
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2019 03:23
|
|
|
The Ninth Layer posted:Apply this same line of thinking to movies and ask yourself how seriously you would take any opinion of someone who walked out of a film after the first twenty minutes beyond that they found the movie distasteful and did not like it. I don't think that's a reasonable analogy because "distasteful" is a vague and often shallow complaint. You're more talking about being offended on some arbitrary level than the sort of discussion I was trying to have, which was more about "the prose is bad, or these characters are grating, or I've seen this before and just how long should I be waiting to find out that it changes?" Those are meaningful critiques, and could be backed by ample evidence 100 pages in. If we're going to extend the movie analogy, I'd accept someone walking out after 20 minutes if they realized it was an Adam Sandler movie, and that would be the whole of their critique, because I'd know what that meant. I think something more accurate to what we're discussing though is that you're X minutes in and all you've seen so far is a renegade cop who's a loose cannon and he won't play by the rules and the chief upstairs doesn't understand and he works alone not with this snot-nosed rookie and I have absolutely no sign, either from the film or from outside reviews, that any of this is ironic or going to change in some other meaningful way. In that case, I could see someone both walk out and make a meaningful critique of the film despite it being early on, because things like that almost inevitably proceed according to tedious formula. quote:I'm not saying the Wheel of Time is a work of art as profound or full of quality as The Wire or Breaking Bad, two TV shows that I think are among the best television series of all time. In fact I would struggle to recommend it to anyone who did not already have a specific interest in the fantasy genre. But I do think people should probably judge it on more information than the equivalent of the first three episodes of Burn Notice, in the same way I think someone who left a meal because the appetizer was fried brussels sprouts probably should not be reviewing the main course. I get that. I'm more arguing that the threshold for understanding that a novel is weak is lower than you think. Or do you not think that you have a feel for a guy's writing style after a 100 pages (regardless of how long the work in question is)? From a plotting level, I think it's safe to say that a reader has no idea as to the details of what's going to happen in the various individual volumes, but you certainly know the broad outline (prophecied / chosen one must battle the big evil), which is enough to turn people off. Even if that doesn't bother you, from a prose level, Jordan's writing style doesn't really change much over the series; I think it's fair to say it gets worse, as he indulges in more and more padding (not in terms of plot--though that definitely goes downhill--but of physical description). From a characterization level, Rand and Matt and Perinn are remarkably similar from start to finish despite what they experience over the course of the series; you'll probably be annoyed by Nynaeve the whole way through, etc. More to the point, I'm trying to think of a fantasy novel where 100 pages isn't going to give you a very good idea as to what kind of experience you can expect. The writer is always going to come through by that point. But I'm focusing less on plot here, and if that's by far your main interest, then I see how I could agree with you (the events of books 4, 5, and 6 I remember as being very satisfying, and you'll never see those coming at the very start of volume 1). Anyways, I'm fine to let this go if it's getting tiresome. I just think the varying thresholds for identifying the point of no return as a reader are pretty interesting.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2019 03:24
|
|
|
The Ninth Layer posted:Apply this same line of thinking to movies and ask yourself how seriously you would take any opinion of someone who walked out of a film after the first twenty minutes beyond that they found the movie distasteful and did not like it. Edit: Pretend it's the '90s, I guess. Sham bam bamina! fucked around with this message at 04:17 on Feb 9, 2019 |
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2019 04:13
|
|
|
Sham bam bamina! posted:What about someone who catches the movie on TV, doesn't like it after 20 minutes, and changes the channel? We should all only spend 20 minutes reviewing media and make definitive decisions as to the overarching quality of said media and all artists involved with its creation.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2019 04:30
|
|
|
Zoracle Zed posted:The weirdest thing about the claim that WoT subverts gender tropes (beyond the simplistic fetishization for trope subversion in general) is that it fails at even doing that much. Women in Jordan's world are still socially expected to be chaste and polite. The Aes Sedai's exploitation of their power is limited to whispering in kings' ears. Non-magical women's power is almost entirely restricted to "the women's circle", which is at most equally potent as whatever the men's equivalent was called. Warriors are still predominantly male and badass female fighters are an anomaly. In what way is there a matriarchy that even approaches the imbalance of power seen in more traditional medieval European fantasy knockoff? I was going to post the above as well. I think part of it is WoT is so couched in gender essentialism that even as it attempts to conceive of a world with more powerful women, Robert Jordan can't see beyond his own societal biases. What feels particularly hard to read about WoT in 2019 is how gender essentialism and 'biotruths' are baked into the metaphysics of the universe. Women and men have fundamentally different sources of magic, with the women better at "working together" in order to compensate for the fact that men are more individually powerful. Magic isn't a muscle, but the setting posits that men (on average) are magically stronger than women because in real life men are (on average) physically stronger than women. I feel like a work attempting any level of gender critique would have avoided something as simple as this at least. I think the reverse in fact might have made for a more interesting story—we can't let male channelers work together, because as a group they're more threatening. As far as I know, WoT also never addresses even the idea of how transgender people (or, heaven forbid, intersex or non-binary people) intersect with the world's metaphysics. Someone can correct me if I'm wrong. I realise of course that Robert Jordan was writing decades ago, but I can't help but be reading his work in the present, so this part really jumped out at me.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2019 04:34
|
|
|
The Gardenator posted:We should all only spend 20 minutes reviewing media and make definitive decisions as to the overarching quality of said media and all artists involved with its creation. How far into the series does it get good? We’ve already been told that the whole first book is a LotR ripoff, so should be obligated to read that and the second book before saying it’s bad? and then how long does it stay good, since we’ve also been told that the entire second act is a slog, and that Sanderson does a middling job of concluding it?
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2019 04:49
|
|
|
Daphnaie posted:What feels particularly hard to read about WoT in 2019 is how gender essentialism and 'biotruths' are baked into the metaphysics of the universe. Women and men have fundamentally different sources of magic, with the women better at "working together" in order to compensate for the fact that men are more individually powerful. Magic isn't a muscle, but the setting posits that men (on average) are magically stronger than women because in real life men are (on average) physically stronger than women. Oh yeah that's completely dead on. Apologists claim that all the men are from mars / women are from venus talk is satire of ignorant folk belief but the entire mythos is constructed on the foundation of the gender binary. quote:As far as I know, WoT also never addresses even the idea of how transgender people (or, heaven forbid, intersex or non-binary people) intersect with the world's metaphysics. Someone can correct me if I'm wrong. I realise of course that Robert Jordan was writing decades ago, but I can't help but be reading his work in the present, so this part really jumped out at me. iirc the closest thing to trans folk in the story were the baddies who died and were intentionally reincarnated by the dark lord into oppositely sexed bodies in order to further his evil machinations.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2019 04:56
|
|
|
Zoracle Zed posted:Apologists claim that all the men are from mars / women are from venus talk is satire of ignorant folk belief but the entire mythos is constructed on the foundation of the gender binary. Really? Jordan was critiqued pretty hard for his views even back in the day, and very emphatically responded that yes, that's what he meant, and if you saw it differently you were blind to the realities of how gender worked. I'm sure there's still interviews with him that cover the subject out there.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2019 05:04
|
|
|
Zoracle Zed posted:iirc the closest thing to trans folk in the story were the baddies who died and were intentionally reincarnated by the dark lord into oppositely sexed bodies in order to further his evil machinations. Yeah. Its cringeworthy to read. He brings a womanizer forsaken back in the body of a very pretty woman but she still has her use of the male half of the source. Also then she realizes that she just wants to gently caress anyone male/female. There was room to do something with this, but he doesn't explore it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2019 05:11
|
|
|
The Gardenator posted:We should all only spend 20 minutes reviewing media and make definitive decisions as to the overarching quality of said media and all artists involved with its creation. In any case, and to get back to the original point instead of this increasingly strained metaphor, I actually can get a pretty good sense of how likely I am to like a book after spending even ten minutes with it in a book store. I blind-buy books all the time and almost never get buyer's remorse. Having formed opinions on a novel by the hundred-page mark is in no way unreasonable, even if they aren't set in stone.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2019 05:14
|
|
|
Xotl posted:Really? Jordan was critiqued pretty hard for his views even back in the day, and very emphatically responded that yes, that's what he meant, and if you saw it differently you were blind to the realities of how gender worked. I'm sure there's still interviews with him that cover the subject out there. I've never read any interviews with him about the subject, I'm just talking about what I've seen from WoT fans who claim that the series is progressive / was progressive for the time.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2019 05:19
|
|
|
I understand; I'm just shocked that they would try to offer up such a defense when Jordan himself was on the record as contradicting them.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2019 05:25
|
|
|
They're merely employing Death of the Author.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2019 05:28
|
|
|
Sham bam bamina! posted:What about someone who catches the movie on TV, doesn't like it after 20 minutes, and changes the channel? Commercials would make The Godfather unwatchable.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2019 05:30
|
|
|
Sham bam bamina! posted:In any case, and to get back to the original point instead of this increasingly strained metaphor, I actually can get a pretty good sense of how likely I am to like a book after spending even ten minutes with it in a book store. I blind-buy books all the time and almost never get buyer's remorse. Having formed opinions on a novel by the hundred-page mark is in no way unreasonable, even if they aren't set in stone. If I only gave WoT 10 mins, I’d be like 10% through the prologue and toss it in the garbage and swear off the whole series. Despite its glaring pacing issues for like 6 books, I’m glad I didn’t.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2019 05:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 22:30 |
|
|
Henrik Zetterberg posted:If I only gave WoT 10 mins, I’d be like 10% through the prologue and toss it in the garbage and swear off the whole series. Despite its glaring pacing issues for like 6 books, I’m glad I didn’t. Where are you now?
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2019 05:40
|
|