Readers who have a problem with that really to my mind fall into the 'wanting to be spoon-fed everything" category, and I prefer my entertainment to actually engage my brain.
I agree, with one addition: I approve of situations where the confusion is a deliberate choice on the part of the author in service to the story, and disapprove of situations where the confusion is lack of skill on the author's part and/or it does not serve the story.
For example, consider Niven & Barnes' "The Barsoom Project", in which the murderer gets a few lines and made significant changes to the plot in an early chapter; the authors included that scene to explain what happened later as well as in service to the story (the context of the murderer's actions caught the hero's attention; "That's not supposed to happen in this Game!")
without revealing who the murderer was until an appropriate point in the story.
Jarring is not inherently bad. Sometimes it is exactly the effect the author wants.
Exactly I agree, and that is precisely why I personally take issue with the "technique" when it's actually bad writing. Another example is in Alfred Bester's "The Computer Connection", when the story switches from first-person-narration to third-person halfway thrugh the book, then back again. The story flow is not only not interrupted, but enhanced by
both transitions. This would be a mark of a lesser writer and a soon-to-be-fired editor, but because it serves the story, the technique works.
Truth to tell, I can't have an educated opinion on Jordan's work, as I never managed to get past the first book. And my tendency to forget "bad" writing means that I can't remember any other examples to illustrate what I mean by that. So it goes...