What is your favourite aspect of the Wheel of time books?

This is only my second read through but my main memory (aside from the story) of the books is the links to Arthurian legend. The obvious character names, place names or objects are what first intrigued me and i read up on it more and found far more links than id expected.

So what was the key aspect aside from the main story that grabbed you?

The magic and how it worked.

For me it was the intrigue of a magical world.

For me, the very personable style of character writing.

For me it was how absolutely REAL everything felt as I read. Robert Jordan and Brandon Sanderson made this world so real and almost touchable. I love that the characters have real personality traits that hang true throughout the books.

The key aspect I loved was also how real and complex it feels. I am on my 6th read through of the series (I'm currently on Path of Daggers; Book 8) and there have been things I missed in each read through.

My favorite aspect was how every one of the main characters, through all the books, became like a second family. We got to see them grow up and become all they were meant to be. Their pain was sometimes something we felt personally. It just makes a book more when they characters become more than just that...characters on a page.

I really enjoyed the character growth. For the most part, it felt very believable. I mean, it wasn't like Mat went from "likeable rogue" to "responsible citizen" - he kept his personality, while growing as a person. I feel this made all the characters feel "real", and gave a depth to the series that it otherwise may have lacked.

I also liked how even ancillary characters were given lives, and we saw things from their POV sometimes. We got to know people who were maybe only in one book for a few chapters, and that attention to detail really worked for me.

I think that's it - it's the attention to detail that makes you feel like you're right there, down to the braid pulling, skirt smoothing, and what people eat for breakfast.

First, the worldbuilding: it felt very complete and well thought from the first chapters. I liked the start setting (women rules, channelers are rare, and many more) and how it was piece by piece proofed wrong. Every re-read I get still amazed how much TEOTW has bits and tiny information about the happenings in the future (some no doubt are later applied but I think majority came from the great outline RJ had).

The story is interesting, very captivating. It has very familiar feature (from well known legends) but also something new and fresh.

The characters are great and no other like. In some books the charters are only copies from another with tiny changes, but not in WOT. The roles that characters have are not black and white. I'm talking about the roles generally every story (and esp. movies) has: wise old man (Thom & also Cadsuane), a jest (Mat), a guide (Moiraine), antagonist (DO & co) and that kind of roles. For instance in LOTR those roles are rather one dimensional for instance Gandalf (old wise man, also a guide) is a prisoner of his role which makes him more that a normal human. WOT characters are much more humane and probably we meet people in real life that are described in wot (without the magic )

Deiria Sha'Veer said:

The characters are great and no other like. In some books the charters are only copies from another with tiny changes, but not in WOT. The roles that characters have are not black and white. I'm talking about the roles generally every story (and esp. movies) has: wise old man (Thom & also Cadsuane), a jest (Mat), a guide (Moiraine), antagonist (DO & co) and that kind of roles. For instance in LOTR those roles are rather one dimensional for instance Gandalf (old wise man, also a guide) is a prisoner of his role which makes him more that a normal human. WOT characters are much more humane and probably we meet people in real life that are described in wot (without the magic )

Click to expand...

This is a brilliant point. I remember reading "The Rivan Codex" by David Eddings, and in that he says there is pretty much a formula for fantasy novels - you need a quest of some kind, you need a hero, you need a guide/mentor character, blah blah. But the way he then applied that formula, I felt was very "cookie cutter" - for instance, there isn't really a lot of difference between the characters of Sephrenia and Polgara when it comes down to it. Ce'Nedra is almost identical to whatever the red-haired spoiled princess in the diabolically-bad "Redemption of Althalus" was called. Whereas in the Wheel of Time, although you do have the "young, clueless hero" (Rand), there is another dimension to him, particularly once LTT's memories start on the scene. You have the guide (Moiraine initially) who is working to her own end, we're not 100% sure of her intentions. It's fantasy, so some bits are "obvious" (that Rand is the Dragon Reborn for example) but the rest is much more intricately dealt with.

^that is the reason why I don't appreciate Eddings' books that much. I have read the books many times and I do love them, but it just could have been so much more. And every re-read makes me sad...

If you read theories how to write a movie, there are lots of "cookie cutters" for plot making and for character making. Same applies for books as well. But, but point is: how to break the rules to create something better and RJ has done exactly that.

Deiria Sha'Veer said:

^that is the reason why I don't appreciate Eddings' books that much. I have read the books many times and I do love them, but it just could have been so much more. And every re-read makes me sad...

Click to expand...

I'm the same. David Eddings was the first "grown-up" fantasy author I read. I do still love the Belgariad as an easy read, and I quite like the novels "Polgara the Sorceress" and "Belgarath the Sorcerer". But I'd read the Elenium/Tamuli before touching the Mallorean again. And everything he wrote after that was dreadful I mean, really? How many times did he play out "Oh, we've done this before but that's because history is stuck/this time we have foreknowledge/whatever". Very sad.

Its a fully formed world, it feels like it could be a retelling of things that really happened. This world doesn't just have a present, it has a well developed history and its going somewhere as we've seen hints from the future. I love how he snuck knowledge from our world in there, as if the Third Age is one of the spokes on our very own wheel of time. I like the idea of different religions being mixed into their belief system, I love the characters, the descriptions, and honestly, I love the society a lot better than our own I just love everything about it, the world lost a genius and a great man when Robert Jordan died.

What I like most about the books is the way they are so alike to our world but yet so different. The story is so easy to depict in your head and it feels like it is real. But then you also get the fantasy and the creativeness of the magical world. These are probably my favorite books ever!

What I like about the series is how almost every culture in our world is depicted throughout the storyline. Robert Jordan was a genius! He did his research well! There's cultures depicted that haven't been around for 100 years or more.

I echo all the others who were captivated by the characters and their growth, the complexity, and the real feeling (=the world, cultures, geography, magic are all complete and solid) of it all. Even though WoT is not my favourite fantasy series any more (it used to be, but it also was one of the first fantasy series I ever read ) it still holds a special place in my heart.

Kallarn Lo'Vosh said:

This is only my second read through but my main memory (aside from the story) of the books is the links to Arthurian legend. The obvious character names, place names or objects are what first intrigued me and i read up on it more and found far more links than id expected.

So what was the key aspect aside from the main story that grabbed you?

Click to expand...

Precisely. This series is riddled with Arthurian legend. AND of course numerous Dungeons and dragons references!! Every dang tribe of trollocs ( trolls?LOL) is a different D&D monster! Kobal=Kobolds Gho'blin(goblin etc etc etc...so yeah thats not very hard to pick up on! BUT what i always liked about jordan is this: he does take a LOT from numerous exsisting resouirces, and he is able to rearrange these things and make them his own to waeve a great story together!

Deiria Sha'Veer said:

^that is the reason why I don't appreciate Eddings' books that much. I have read the books many times and I do love them, but it just could have been so much more. And every re-read makes me sad...

If you read theories how to write a movie, there are lots of "cookie cutters" for plot making and for character making. Same applies for books as well. But, but point is: how to break the rules to create something better and RJ has done exactly that.

Click to expand...

I agre that when u read Eddings ( which i still adore actually) that his characters all sort of start to meld after a while and take on eachothers personality traits, and thats not great!
BUT on that same note i think Jordan does have a slighht problem with that too. All the females ( Nynaeve, egwene , elayne , mim) They do have some differences obviously buit they have WAYYYY more similarities. They all complain about exactly the same things, im exactly the same way and their is a LOT of overlap in these charcaters. I mean you could argue that when u spend a LOT of time with someone in REAL LIFE , you start to take on their traits and mannarisms? Because i do think thats true.

I second a lot of you: I love the feel of the world, and the magic system. So good. So entertaining. So captivating.

I want to be Aes Sedai. I would absolutely Egwene-out and channel without guidance every time I could.