Wheel of Time - final book publication date

[Camy]

For those of you who have read (or are reading) Robert Jordan's humongous series The Wheel of Time: the final book 'A Memory of Light' is due to be published on 8th January 2013. The series, that began publication in 1990, and is being finished twenty three years later by Brandon Sanderson (after Jordan's death in 2007), will end up with sixteen volumes, including one prequel and a companion book. The series has literally thousands of characters and more than a few major protagonists.

Luckily, I was introduced to it last year so I won't have long to wait as, at the moment, I'm reading book ten. If you haven't read it then do. The first three books will suck you in. Admittedly, there are some painfully slow parts, and in places Jordan seems overly interested in describing women's dresses in minute detail. For all its length Wheel of Time is a great read. Its characters, lands and peoples are more than captivating. Be warned! If you read book one you'll read book two ... and so on.

Here's what Brandon Sanderson says about the final book - he's been harangued for holding it up. And here's a website with loads of information.

[Guest Dabeagle]

I was reading this series, and had loved it with Robert Jordan. Unfortunately I'd read Brandon Sanderson was anti-gay and I try never to support anyones work who is.

[Camy]

I was reading this series, and had loved it with Robert Jordan. Unfortunately I'd read Brandon Sanderson was anti-gay and I try never to support anyones work who is.

I don't know if this helps, but here is a comment (top of the essay) Sanderson made about some furore he seems to have created. Given that he is a Mormon he comes across as quite liberal. All that aside: personally, having nearly finished book ten, I want to know what happens. Maybe I'll have a bonfire and burn his novels once I've read them, but as he has written them from Jordan's highly detailed notes (and Jordan's wife is editing) I'll consider it Jordan's work with Sanderson as a sort of copyist.

[Merkin]

Picturing Sanderson's fingers on the WeeGee board pointer with Jordan's wife giving it a little shove in the right direction....

[colinian]

I agree with the idea of separating Marriage and Civil Unions. Marriage is a church thing. Civil Unions are a government thing. The first step is everyone who wants to be partnered (I can't think of a better term right now) has to have a civil union which is accompanied by a state license. If that's all you want, fine because it's the equivalent of what today we call being married and carries all state and Federal rights. Anyone who wants to be married takes their civil union license and goes to a church that will accept them and goes through a marriage ceremony. Some churches will marry gay couples, some won't, and that's fine. This will be a Federal law that all states have to recognize.

Just my opinion. It will terminate all of this stupid marriage discussion that we're arguing about.

Colin

[dude]

Picturing Sanderson's fingers on the WeeGee board pointer with Jordan's wife giving it a little shove in the right direction....

Isn't that Ouija Board? I thought Wee Gee was what Mr. Whillickers called his ... erm... you know.

[Cole Parker]

I agree with the idea of separating Marriage and Civil Unions. Marriage is a church thing. Civil Unions are a government thing. The first step is everyone who wants to be partnered (I can't think of a better term right now) has to have a civil union which is accompanied by a state license. If that's all you want, fine because it's the equivalent of what today we call being married and carries all state and Federal rights. Anyone who wants to be married takes their civil union license and goes to a church that will accept them and goes through a marriage ceremony. Some churches will marry gay couples, some won't, and that's fine. This will be a Federal law that all states have to recognize.

Just my opinion. It will terminate all of this stupid marriage discussion that we're arguing about.

Colin

I think you make a good point, and a valid argument. There is another viewpoint, however. As long as gay people cannot do something that straight people can do, something straight people celebrate as a right they have, then gay people are marginalized. Taking away one of those marginalizations is one step closer to bringing gay people into the common fold.

Your way is to taking straight people out of the common fold into a separate box they can choose ofr themselves. And that works. But I'd rather have everyone in the same box.

C

[DesDownunder]

Isn't that Ouija Board? I thought Wee Gee was what Mr. Whillickers called his ... erm... you know.

Wee Gee, please pee, so big Gee can go, ooh ah, or is that ouija board for wee pees?

[Gee Whillickers]

Isn't that Ouija Board? I thought Wee Gee was what Mr. Whillickers called his ... erm... you know.

Ahem. I'll have you know there's nothing wee about...ahh never mind...hang on and I'll post the proof later...

[Gee Whillickers]

I think you make a good point, and a valid argument. There is another viewpoint, however. As long as gay people cannot do something that straight people can do, something straight people celebrate as a right they have, then gay people are marginalized. Taking away one of those marginalizations is one step closer to bringing gay people into the common fold.

Your way is to taking straight people out of the common fold into a separate box they can choose ofr themselves. And that works. But I'd rather have everyone in the same box.

C

It's called, "othering." Like having separate, but "just as good" bathrooms for "coloured folks." Separate, but just as good, schools, etc. As soon as a distinction is made, we've created a separation, a distinction, a sense of, "us vs them." We all know how well that's worked in history.

[Guest Dabeagle]

I don't know if this helps, but here is a comment (top of the essay) Sanderson made about some furore he seems to have created. Given that he is a Mormon he comes across as quite liberal. All that aside: personally, having nearly finished book ten, I want to know what happens. Maybe I'll have a bonfire and burn his novels once I've read them, but as he has written them from Jordan's highly detailed notes (and Jordan's wife is editing) I'll consider it Jordan's work with Sanderson as a sort of copyist.

You can take this view of course, I won't argue that you can't. I will simply insist that I can't.

[colinian]

I think you make a good point, and a valid argument. There is another viewpoint, however. As long as gay people cannot do something that straight people can do, something straight people celebrate as a right they have, then gay people are marginalized. Taking away one of those marginalizations is one step closer to bringing gay people into the common fold.

Your way is to taking straight people out of the common fold into a separate box they can choose ofr themselves. And that works. But I'd rather have everyone in the same box.

Cole,

With what I propose everyone is in the same box. It's the box of civil unions. Anyone can also opt for religious marriage; there will be churches that limit marriage to those who are members of that church (just as they do today), there will be churches that limit marriage to those who are straight (just as they do today), and there will be churches that will perform marriages for anyone, including those who are gay (just as they do today). This proposal eliminates the rallying cry of "religious freedom" that gives them the "right" to not perform gay marriages by making "marriage" a strictly religious institution. No one can get married without a civil license; no one has to get married to have tax and relationship benefits (which are [and always should have been] strictly secular): the civil union grants all of those benefits. The only benefits of a "marriage" are pomp and circumstance and religious patina.

Colin