It really is interesting to me how when Sanderson takes over writing the Wheel of Time books from Jordan, certain nuanced and complex plot themes turn from "these are systemic issues that need systemic solutions and revolutionary change" into "these are just a few individual bad people, the system will be just fine when the right people are running it". Just for example:
Whitecloaks and Galad: Jordan was trying to make a nuanced point here about how the Whitecloaks serve the Light, yet some do deeds as heinous as any Darkfriend does, in their zealous devotion to the Light, not to mention this is an extremely thinly veiled allegory to religious extremism. Under Sanderson, this turns from a systemic issue where the very core of the organization is flawed, and needs to be revamped from the root up, to "they just had a bad leader and Galad will now set them on the right path". Because confronting religious extremism as an institutionally ingrained problem, rather than as just individual bad people, is just too nuanced and scary a concept, I guess.
Weiramon and Anaiyella: Under Jordan, Weiramon and Anaiyella are stupid simpering nobles, who have no regard for the poverty-stricken lives of the peasants under their yoke. The whole point of them and (most of the) other Tairen and Cairhienin nobles is that they aren't Darkfriends, but are evil and callous anyways, because they're noble and don't have to deal with the consequences of their actions. Under Sanderson? They're now Darkfriends. Because that's the only reason they could be evil, right? It's not that there's systemic inequality between the nobility and the peasants in Tear, in Cairhien, in every city in the Westlands, and that the nobles can be genuinely evil in how they treat people under them, without needing to be Darkfriends at all. No, now it's just individual people like Weiramon and Anaiyella who are Darkfriends and therefore evil. This way, we don't need to confront the very mundane non-Dark evil of monarchies/nobility, and what that says about all the main characters who end up rulers of various countries.
Egwene and Siuan dying, and Cadsuane becoming Amyrlin: It's very interesting to me that Egwene and Siuan are the only two primary/secondary protagonists who weren't supposed to die in Jordan's original outline, but who were killed off under Sanderson's tenure. It makes perfect sense to me, though. Egwene is a revolutionary and visionary Amyrlin, who breaks down a lot of the ironclad "rules" that the Tower has stood by for millenia. If she were allowed to actually live on, she would have enacted revolutionary changes to how the Tower functions, that would have completely transformed it as an organization (and pretty obviously made it more inclusive and more helpful to the world at large). Siuan, meanwhile, stands as a reminder of the rot at the very core of the White Tower, of the women the Tower leaves behind when they've outlived their usefulness. Again, she's a reminder of the NEED for a revolutionary transformation in how the Tower functions. Ergo, she needs to be killed off too. Who, then, will lead the Tower? Why, Cadsuane of course. Cadsuane, the oldest of the old guard, a woman who benefited in every possible way from all the old rules of the Tower that Egwene sought to revolutionize, a woman who has no concept or imperative to enact any sort of meaningful change in the Tower, because the old way the Tower functioned benefited her in every way possible. Again, the need and the pathway for systemic change is neatly pruned out, instead turning into "Cadsuane will be a better leader than Elaida" when the whole point of the Egwene vs Elaida arc is that what was really at war was not Egwene and Elaida, but the old way of doing things vs a new revolutionary way of doing things.
Gawyn: Gawyn has always been a critique of toxic masculinity, but under Jordan, this is very much framed as a systemic issue which demands a transformative change in the gendered roles of the Westlands. When Gawyn was an infant, Gareth Bryne makes him swear over Elayne's crib to protect her with his life. Even his title is First Prince of the Sword - an object, a tool, a weapon, rather than a person. He's told by even the father figures in his life that his only value is in being the Most Manly Man Ever and dying for Elayne. He's an annoying motherfucker, but under Jordan I understand the underlying systemic issue that makes him so fucking annoying, and how it REQUIRES a transformation in how the Westlands defines and views gender and the roles required of people of different genders. Under Sanderson? Gawyn's problem now is that he thinks he ought to be the Most Special Boy ever and is pissed that it's Rand instead. Again, the issue turns from a systemic issue with gender roles that requires a systemic transformative solution, into "Gawyn is just individually an entitled asshole and wannabe chosen one, and this is in no way a reflection on the gendered culture that molded him, so don't think too hard about that."
It's just… very interesting, how every running theme is transformed/simplified in exactly the same way when transitioning from the Jordan books to the Sanderson books. When Jordan wrote that the Dragon would Break the world, he very much meant that the Dragon would also break the oppressive institutions of nobility, of religious extremism, gender roles, etc. Under Sanderson, this turns into "the nobility is not the problem, it's just that the right noble needs to be in power", and "gendered roles aren't the problem, it's individual assholes that are the problem". And so on.
