As for Jordan and Rowling, I don't see much reason to consider either "important as a writer."
As hinode observed, this list isn't judging importance as a writer, and I'm not sure where you got the idea I thought it was? Looking back, it's when I said "I respect their importance as writers" but went on to say that wasn't how either of us were judging this list! So if neither of us is, let's just drop this point and admit we're sniping over subjectivity.
. This isn't a matter of preferring one style over another; this is a matter of him not really having any.
And this is the kind of logic that infuriates me, because I disagree very strongly. Jordan DOES have a style. It's a style that appeals to millions of readers, a good number of critics, and well,
me. Same goes for Rowling. These styles do not appeal to you. That's okay! Say the style sucks if you must (I'm obviously quite willing to do this!), but not that it doesn't exist (and therefore we are inferior because we can't even see this). Maybe I'm touchy but I find that insulting. And if you insult everyone who enjoys Jordan and/or Rowling, that means you're insulting the vast majority of my friends. Hence my being less than nice towards you in the last post.
If what to me seems like dry and uninventive writing constitutes an actual "style," then I have to wonder what makes it so compelling to you.
Obviously, just because you find it dry and uninventive doesn't mean everyone does. In fact it should be incredibly obvious that a huge number of people don't. The fact that intelligent adults, and people you respect, are able to read, enjoy, and praise these books should be evidence enough of that.
I can post a defence of the appeal of Jordan's writing if you want. (Actually I wrote a brief one already, then decided not to post it for sake of not derailing the topic.) But yeah, that probably doesn't belong here.
