r/WoT • u/marsinedar (Tai'shar Manetheren) • 1d ago
All Print Jordanian Literalism Spoiler
So I’ve been on this sub for a year now, and I s noticed something in comments. There’s a real struggle between people who see things in the story behind events and people who only see what is written. The latter group tend also to have a hierarchy of authority, with RJs books being highest and BSs books less authoritative.
It’s interesting because upon re-reads you see a TON of stuff that isn’t explicitly said. Looks, people’s clothes changing in TAR, people reacting to someone that you don’t realize until later why they’re doing this. And yet, people still insist that only things explicitly said actually happened. It’s akin to Biblical Literalism, where readers negotiate with the text in similar ways.
Anyone else notice this?
24
u/TopJimmy_5150 1d ago
It’s a tired sentiment on Reddit, but this is kinda the “media literacy is dead” thing. People don’t seem to pick up subtext, inferences, symbolism, metaphors, allegory, etc… these days. Everything that isn’t explicitly said is a “plot hole”, even though that’s not what a plot hole is, lol. Like they can’t put together the missing dots around anything and so claim the writer was lazy.
I’m sure a lot of it is just age and life experience, but at the risk of sounding like an old (well, middle aged 😉) man yelling at clouds - I seriously wonder what the heck they’re teaching kids in school these days.
I wouldn’t say that this sub is really like that though. Sometimes you can tell a first time reader is a teenager who is just not getting certain elements (or RJ’s boomer life experience is a turn off). But this sub has lots of veteran readers who re-read WoT obsessively and pick out fascinating details and deep perspectives.
8
u/geomagus (Red Eagle of Manetheren) 1d ago
People don’t seem to pick up subtext
Honestly, I think this side of it is in large part the result of decades of lowest common denominator entertainment media. People don’t pick up subtext because in so much of the media they see, there isn’t any. You don’t practice a skill, you lose it.
Sure, education is an issue too - there have been steady pushes to diminish arts and humanities education in favor of STEM. It’s a two-pronged thrust that’s dumbing down the public in a lot of ways.
14
u/shaolin_tech 1d ago
People who only see what is written have RJ's books being highest in authority? I was under the impression that most people, including those who have seen events and things in the story foreshadowed in previous writings, also feel RJ's books to be more authoritative.
Brandon did a great job of finishing the story, but his tellings will always be a little less because they were not all directly from RJ.
13
u/sixminutes 1d ago
Yeah, I wouldn't be quick to lay a line down between these two types of readers, but if anything, that seems backwards. RJ's subtlety in laying out clues and nuanced characterization is mostly lost in Sanderson's books. The people who can't tell a difference between characters written by each author seem more likely to be the ones reading only the surface level.
4
u/shaolin_tech 1d ago
Exactly my thinking as well. Makes me wonder if OP meant the 2 groups to be swapped in positioning when they said the "latter group".
64
u/VenusCommission (Yellow) 1d ago
I regard RJ's books as more authoritative than the BS books because it's RJ's series. It's his world that he created. BS's books are still canon, but if there's a direct contradiction, RJ wins every time.
5
u/Pielacine (Band of the Red Hand) 1d ago
Yeah I don’t see the link OP sees here (Jordan:literalism::Sanderson:looser interpretation).except in very extreme cases.
44
u/GovernorZipper 1d ago
If you stick around here for a while, you’ll see a clear difference in how teenagers read these books versus how grown-ass adults read them.
IMO, the worst thing to happen to these books was selling them on the YA shelf. They’re not YA books, even if they have young protagonists. When someone comes to these books directly from Harry Potter or Percy Jackson, they’re going to sadly disappointed. These books are about the inherent complexity and compromises of being an adult. These books should be sold on the shelf beside the James Michener novels.
Once a person has had enough life experience to pick up on all that Jordan DOESN’T say, then you really get what he was trying to convey. So I don’t think it’s really about “literalism” but how the context of the information. Nyneave is a total funhammer spoilsport until you’ve been in her shoes as someone who is in a situation completely over your head and floundering with responsibilities. Then you become deeply sympathetic to how hard she trying to do her best (and failing, despite those best efforts). It just hits differently and there’s no way around it except life experiences.
14
u/EpiphanaeaSedai 1d ago
I read these books as they first came out, starting when I was ten. In my mind the EF5 were totally adults. Moiraine was mysterious and a little scary.
Now? Dear lord Moiraine should be sainted for dealing with those children. Also the woman may be very skilled at performative social interaction but she has the emotional intelligence of a brick. It’s endearing.
10
u/UpbeatEquipment8832 1d ago
It's an entirely separate tangent, but the entire *concept* of the YA genre has destroyed a *lot* of the way we understand sci-fi / fantasy novels written before 2000. A huge swath of sff had been adult novels read initially largely by teen audiences. If you read a book and ask "why is this so shallow?" it's probably because it was read by a lot of teenagers. (See: Sword of Truth, which is deep and sexy when you are fifteen.) The same goes if you read a book and think it treads on a lot of old ground - the first time you read something, it's awesome.
So I don't think it's *wrong* to list it as YA, in the sense that it was definitely a novel with a heavily teenage audience and I would argue it is far more fun if you read it for the first time while young. But it is definitely wrong to label it as YA, in the sense that it is expected to fill the cliches of that genre.
9
u/DirectionIndividual7 1d ago
I think it's unfair to categorically separate readers by age group. I read the books for the first time in high school (long time ago) and had an awesome experience. (I've also never found Nynaeve annoying)
I think there's a richness to the experience of re-reading and noticing things I didn't see then, because I am in a new phase of life now. That doesn't mean the experience was a waste at seventeen.
4
u/geomagus (Red Eagle of Manetheren) 1d ago
I don’t think they’re saying teens can’t enjoy them - a lot of us read them in high school and enjoyed them. It’s just that there’s a depth that isn’t really apparent until you’ve lived and loved and lost. The more life experience you’ve had, the more of that depth you get (on average). Since teens don’t have much life experience (though some have more than others), they catch less of the depth and might be more likely to get bored.
It’s one of the same reasons rereads are so enjoyable. As you live more, you catch more on rereads.
2
u/Hot-Freedom-1044 1d ago
I started on this series when I was twelve and finished them when I was 33, when the last book came out. Did a reread, and being an adult definitely changed the way I read and appreciated them. Some things went over my head. I’d agree.
1
u/LetsDoTheDodo 22h ago
WoT was/is on the YA shelf? I haven’t been in bookstore in a while, but that strikes me as a singularly stupid thing.
15
u/NotAShittyMod 1d ago
Yes, OP. Different people have different ages, life experiences, and intelligence levels. And this impact how they’re read and understand stories.
3
u/EpiphanaeaSedai 1d ago
I take a “death of the author” approach wherever possible when reading fiction; I treat everything as if it were a depiction of true events (though possibly through the eyes of an unreliable narrator.) Considering what the author intended involves reminding myself that none of it is real, and where’s the fun in that?
3
u/wRAR_ (Brown) 1d ago
I only see a struggle between people who read only the text, and most of the time only superficially, and people who read supplementary books, interviews, and fan discussions and know hidden things even if they didn't notice them themselves. Interestingly, the number of re-reads doesn't help here: people could do many re-reads and still have wrong understanding conflicting with the actual text. Also interestingly, people subscribing to Death of Author and rejecting anything not explicitly in the text are rare here.
As for RJ vs BS, if your goal is learning what RJ planned then of course there is a hierarchy and BS books are not as helpful for that and contain things explicitly contradicting RJ.
5
u/duffy_12 (Falcon) 1d ago
people could do many re-reads and still have wrong understanding conflicting with the actual text.
Not to mention where they proudly brag that they skip certain chapters they are not interested in can be frustrating as heck when trying to have a discussion with them.
2
u/logicsol (Lan's Helmet) 20h ago
This crops up a lot.
I've even had people accuse me of disrespecting Jordan to the point of making them sick because I work largely in the implications of the text rather than taking things at face value.
WoT is a fascinating series in how practically nothing in the books is authoritative outside representing each individual characters experience and one of it's core themes is the dissonance and conflict that comes from multiple people experiencing the same event in different ways, lights or lenses.
6
u/fudgyvmp (Red) 1d ago
Aslan can't be voiced by a woman, he's a boy lion. The books literally say he has a mane. Boy lion. A woman can't voice a lion with a peepee.
Meanwhile, Lewis in the book: "his voice was deep and resonant, like Gaia herself singing."
That's what listening to literalists is like.
3
2
u/Schrodingers_Nachos 13h ago
Slightly off from your point, but I think it's funny how most of the time (at least early on, I'm only on book 10) it's not explicitly said when characters have sex. I had to reread the passage where Rand and Aviendha have sex for the first time because I wasn't totally sure what was going on at first.
1
u/DirectionIndividual7 1d ago
OP, it happens with all written material - look at views around constitutional law.
I think it's logical that those who rely on the printed word have a leg up, because they inherently come with a bit more evidence ready to go. What I would say about noticing new things on re-reads is that this actually favors the literal interpretation - foreshadowing, etc exist as literary tools for authors.
One thing that irks me with literal interpretations is cherry-picking to suit your interpretation and ignoring context that is inconvenient or contradictory to your interpretation. That happens plenty on these forums.
Brandon's books are less authoritative. If Jordan had been able to give every little detail of the rest of the story, he would have written it himself. The best Sanderson can offer is an interpretation of Jordan's intent mixed in with the parts he did manage to write. I'm happy we got the end of the story but it's undeniable that RJ would have shared it differently.
1
u/JimmyTurx 1d ago
I am right there with you on the cherry picking! "Here's a single line that could be charitably interpreted to suit my narrative, but let's ignore the myriad lines to the contrary." Followed by a thinly veiled insinuation that anyone disagreeing hasn't read the books. Irksome, as you say!
2
u/duffy_12 (Falcon) 1d ago
"Here's a single line that could be charitably interpreted to suit my narrative, but let's ignore the myriad lines to the contrary."
Light! I know that feeling.
1
u/DirectionIndividual7 1d ago
It reminded me of this other comment I made a few months ago where someone was talking about Egwene mistreating Nynaeve in TAR and ignoring the context that was literally on the pages before & after the moment they were talking about: Egwene Appreciation Post
To clarify, I was not OP of this appreciation post^
1
u/fweaks 1d ago
Literal interpretation is the opposite of a literary interpretation. In fact these two are the two types of people we're talking about.
1
u/DirectionIndividual7 1d ago
OP said: It’s interesting because upon re-reads you see a TON of stuff that isn’t explicitly said. Looks, people’s clothes changing in TAR, people reacting to someone that you don’t realize until later why they’re doing this. And yet, people still insist that only things explicitly said actually happened. It’s akin to Biblical Literalism, where readers negotiate with the text in similar ways.
All of the examples listed above are things taken directly from the words of the text. Re-reading and discovering that a character's words don't match their feelings or catching a hint you missed is not literary interpretation.
Let's reexamine what I said. Foreshadowing is a literary device.
With literary devices we aren't talking about the symbolism of the curtains being blue. That is literary interpretation.
We're talking about Moiraine explaining the process of unguided channeling in wilders and then Rand later experiencing those same symptoms. The two things have direct, specific parallels.
-2
u/here-comes-the-end 1d ago
Shocking that a wealthy Mormon couldn't handle finishing the magnum opus of a Vietnam war veteran. Guy has never struggled in his life.
1
u/cmgr33n3 1d ago edited 1d ago
Weird to make this claim without some explicit examples. As though you want the implication in your statement to carry over to your post, which, if so, is just trite.
•
u/AutoModerator 1d ago
SPOILERS FOR ALL PRINTED MATERIAL, INCLUDING SHORT STORIES.
BOOK DISCUSSION ONLY. HIDE TV SHOW DISCUSSION BEHIND SPOILER TAGS.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.