Why is multiple POVs an important criteria? For the most part, I prefer NOT having multiple POVs, unless they are very well done, I primarily find switching viewpoints (especially in books that do it every chapter) annoying. I admit, that if you're trying to paint on a large canvas (Tolkien & Brin) and it is done well, it can give you a better picture of "the grand scheme of things". But I certainly wouldn't use it for a criterion for selecting books. I also find it strange when people say "If you like Tolkien, you'll like..." when the commonality they're basing it on is that they both Fantasy, and attempting the "World-Spanning Epic". But the writing is entirely different. Don't get me wrong, I _like_ world-spanning epic, but I don't think calling authors similar on that basis is a good idea. Which brings us to my views on Robert Jordan. It is pretty clear that Robert Jordan presents something that folks like, although I can't identify what it is. I personally have only tried the first book of the Wheel of Time series, which I did not finish (which is very rare...in fact, most books I tend to read in one sitting...regardless of quality. "It was so good I read it in one sitting" doesn't mean much to me. ;)). The biggest problem I had was that I passionately hated the characters. Every last one. Most of them struck me as whiny and gripe-y (if I can abuse the word gripe) and the only character that wasn't, I didn't like either...it boggled my mind how _stupid_ he was. Eventually, I gave up entirely and went and read something else. :) I'll try to comment quickly on some of the other authors, since this already too long. :) Tolkien: Always will be a favorite of mine. But I have to recognize that his style of writing isn't for everyone. MZB: Darkover is cool. I greatly enjoyed the "idea & science" of Darkover And I do enjoy the fact that her characters aren't perfect, often have tragic flaws. Sadly, I got tired of reading MZB's work because of the constant pushing of her (politics?) in her novels. I probably enjoyed them best when I was young enough to be oblivious to them. :) Piers Anthony: I have such mixed feelings about Anthony. He often comes up with very cool ideas (Apprentice Adept, Incarnations, Xanth), but he has a tendency to go too far over the top (Xanth, 2nd Apprentice Adept Trilogy, portions of Incarnations) which detracts from my continued enjoyment of the books. Anne McCaffrey: Early and Middle works are the best. I loved the Dragonriders series, although I've read them to death. I enjoyed the Pegasus books and the related series I'm blocking on the name of (although again, later ones aren't as good as earlier ones). Zelazny: Amber ruled. Haven't got into the other stuff as much. The last may be the same problem I have with Heinlein's "Stranger in a Strange Land": I didn't grow up in the period/culture that makes the book especially relevant. It also may be I'll get better appreciation on a second or third pass. It'll have to wait until I complete my run through Silverberg's Lord Valentine and the Brin run I promised a friend, and I complete my "newly acquired" book pile. :) Donaldson: Um well, I did finish the entire Covenant double-trilogy. I don't think I have time or room to explain why I hate it. :). Hobb: Only read one book, "Assassin's Apprentice" I wasn't impressed enough to go get any more, although I may revisit it. :) Hubbard: Hee Hee Hee... Brin: Brin is a good example of where the author genuinely needs changing points of view, and I really enjoy the "Uplift Universe" of books....but I do find it frustrating that I get attached to a character, only to have the character snatched from me in the next book. ;) Have I committed sufficient acts of heresy now? :) Iain