Like in that ancient Martin discussion, disagreeing with what most people seem to think, makes me feel stupid and that my opinion is worth nothing. Silly attitude but I can't really help it.
So after think about Jordan as "prominent worldbuilder" I decided to be brave and stand up for my opinion this time. I don't really agree with that at all. Jordan has some rather good ideas but his world seems to me to be very uninteresting, with no real sense of history and change (like I get from Tolkien and Erikson), even though he tells about ancient things. His world just doesn't feel real, it seems more like a stage and I don't like the shape of it, it just seems to be a rectangle with random kingdoms and towns scattered around. Erikson's world seems real, it has real history and it has known change and different civilisations, it's real and Jordan's world seems more like a stage or a movie prop. Of course I stopped reading Jordan some years ago and haven't read him in English so I don't know if it was the translator's fault. But in my eyes for example Robin Hobb is a lot better at building worlds.
I read mostly for pleasure, Martin gave me none so I stopped reading him, Erikson, on the other, hand gives me a lot of pleasure. I guess that's what makes a book good in my simple eyes. Of course, ASoIaF (I hope I got that right, I'm bad with acronyms) isn't really bad.
Edit/ Out of boredom I digged for the thread I mentioned earlier. I'm quite shocked that it all happened in 2002. Maybe it really is time for me to stop talking about Martin and start talking about Erikson.