Shop now Shop now Shop now  Up to 50% Off Fashion  Shop all Amazon Fashion Cloud Drive Photos Shop now Learn More Shop now Shop now Shop Fire Shop Kindle Shop now Shop now Shop now
Customer Review

10 of 12 people found the following review helpful
3.0 out of 5 stars Compelling Stuff, 13 Mar. 2007
This review is from: The Eye Of The World: Book 1 of the Wheel of Time: 1/12 (Mass Market Paperback)
This book has provoked such a diverse range of responses from the fantasy genre fanbase, I thought I would add my comments to the fray! Of course, this genre does attract people of all ages and backgrounds so it is perhaps not surprising that the reviews for this novel range from awful to sublime. As an old fan of Tolkien, Salvatore, Hobbs and (early) Eddings amongst others I was mildly impressed with the first of this seemingly ever expanding series. It is true that some of the English is somewhat dubious but less so than other American authors (Conn Iggulden et al) and is sometimes actually fairly amusing. (Granted, this is perhaps not a good thing where it's unintentional.) The descriptive narrative is excessive upon occassion, although I personally find this to be a positive attribute of the author; which does not get in the way of the plot and sets the scene well. Ah yes; the 'plot'. It is simplistic but not unimaginative and well paced for a novel of this size. In summary, there are several elements of this book that could be improved upon but I kept coming back to it and every time I picked it up I looked forward to reading the next few chapters. In fact, I read it in less than a week - Recommended.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No

[Add comment]
Post a comment
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Amazon will display this name with all your submissions, including reviews and discussion posts. (Learn more)
Name:
Badge:
This badge will be assigned to you and will appear along with your name.
There was an error. Please try again.
Please see the full guidelines ">here.

Official Comment

As a representative of this product you can post one Official Comment on this review. It will appear immediately below the review wherever it is displayed.   Learn more
The following name and badge will be shown with this comment:
 (edit name)
After clicking on the Post button you will be asked to create your public name, which will be shown with all your contributions.

Is this your product?

If you are the author, artist, manufacturer or an official representative of this product, you can post an Official Comment on this review. It will appear immediately below the review wherever it is displayed.  Learn more
Otherwise, you can still post a regular comment on this review.

Is this your product?

If you are the author, artist, manufacturer or an official representative of this product, you can post an Official Comment on this review. It will appear immediately below the review wherever it is displayed.   Learn more
 
System timed out

We were unable to verify whether you represent the product. Please try again later, or retry now. Otherwise you can post a regular comment.

Since you previously posted an Official Comment, this comment will appear in the comment section below. You also have the option to edit your Official Comment.   Learn more
The maximum number of Official Comments have been posted. This comment will appear in the comment section below.   Learn more
Prompts for sign-in
  [Cancel]

Comments

Track comments by e-mail

Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-3 of 3 posts in this discussion
Initial post: 22 Jun 2009 19:30:30 BDT
Moondog says:
Umm... Conn Iggulden is in fact English, not Amercian, so your point losses any impact. Sorry!

In reply to an earlier post on 1 Jul 2009 14:35:21 BDT
Last edited by the author on 1 Jul 2009 14:39:24 BDT
You're quite right, Conn is indeed English, although this I fail to see how this detracts from my point about the author of this particular book?! Also, I think the word you are looking for is 'loses' rather than 'losses', so your point also loses any impact - Hohoho!

In reply to an earlier post on 12 Feb 2010 12:09:19 GMT
ah children ......
‹ Previous 1 Next ›