Jump to content

An accurate commentary on my stance vis-a-vis Brandon Sanderson


Yagathai

Recommended Posts

Yeah, the snobby SFF fan is always in a bit of conundrum given other works that are supposedly "better". It's like attacking someone for playing Farmville because other simulation games have better AI and are more complex.

Of course AFAICT no one has given a truly definitive reason why reading "better" books matters.

Because the experience is more enriching? Because you can learn about the world / writing / etc. from the pages of skilled writers, whereas semi-skilled writers only flail and ape and make shoddy copies of well-worn tropes? Because the "better" books, IMO, recalibrate your perspective of the world, give you the benefits that result from literary "work", and at best may influence how you interact with others and the world at large from said work?

Again, IMO, hopefully, etc. I'm a better reader and writer for having read V., Blood Meridian, Mao II, Carpenter's Gothic, etc.etc.etc. ... even with their flaws and tedious sections. The Sword of Shannara, The Wheel of Time, The Belgariad? ... Not so much.

I think there is a place for both, but there is nothing subjective about comparing capital-L lit and base genre fiction, or even well-written genre fiction with the boilerplate standard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because the experience is more enriching? Because you can learn about the world / writing / etc. from the pages of skilled writers, whereas semi-skilled writers only flail and ape and make shoddy copies of well-worn tropes? Because the "better" books, IMO, recalibrate your perspective of the world, give you the benefits that result from literary "work", and at best may influence how you interact with others and the world at large from said work?

Again, IMO, hopefully, etc. I'm a better reader and writer for having read V., Blood Meridian, Mao II, Carpenter's Gothic, etc.etc.etc. ... even with their flaws and tedious sections. The Sword of Shannara, The Wheel of Time, The Belgariad? ... Not so much.

For you. This is true (and important) for you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the crux of the matter (and of elitism in some ways) lies in the fact that there are some certainly greatly talented authors, who are clearly more skilled and deserving of praise then many others, and they are not as successful as many authors who deserve their success far less. I admit, maybe I shouldn't hate on authors like Meyer so much, but what rubs me up the wrong way is not only that she's awful, but that so many people who don't know better like her and she is so insanely successful, when there are so many authors I could name who deserve that success so much more.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

For you. This is true (and important) for you.

Sure, which is why I put IMO.

Look at it another way... there's this kid in the middle school I work in who is pretty good at basketball. Is he ready to join varsity in the high school? "Some" people might say so, probably his parents. Is he ready to get on a college team, go pro?

Silly analogy, but look: in pretty much every field, "some" people are superior at their craft. Some people are middling. I know it twists certain people all up to state that the arts isn't completely subjective, and often raises the hackles of the "elitist" nerve, but it's also the way it is. Those Capital-L books I listed have more intellectual caliber and superior writing on a technical level than the base-genre books listed. Whether "some" people will enjoy them for those factors is a different, far murkier subject.

(why do I feel like I'm stating the obvious? this is what I get for answering one of Sci's prompts :P)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because the "better" books, IMO, recalibrate your perspective of the world, give you the benefits that result from literary "work", and at best may influence how you interact with others and the world at large from said work?

I've met too many lit-snob assholes to be convinced by any of this. If there's some research papers involved I'd be glad to read them.

Again, IMO, hopefully, etc. I'm a better reader and writer for having read V., Blood Meridian, Mao II, Carpenter's Gothic, etc.etc.etc. ... even with their flaws and tedious sections. The Sword of Shannara, The Wheel of Time, The Belgariad? ... Not so much.

If you want to be a "better" reader/writer, that's on you. A lot of people don't give a fuck and just want to be entertained.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



(why do I feel like I'm stating the obvious? this is what I get for answering one of Sci's prompts :P)






Because it's simultaneously obvious for you and impossible for you to apply to others. Sci loves fucking with people by pointing out that you can't create "oughts" :P


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because it's simultaneously obvious for you and impossible for you to apply to others. Sci loves fucking with people by pointing out that you can't create "oughts" :P

Just to be clear, while this is an accurate description of my MO, what I'm not doing is claiming all quality is relative.

Sanderson is not a good prose writer. His dialogue is stilted, and his characters at least a bit cliche.

But there are things he does well, and if people enjoy that it's not a tragedy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sci,

You don't find reading superior prose that is written for more than mere entertainement enlighting and entertaining?

I do. But reading reviews of varied works a lot of people dislike flowery prose and think it ruins their immersion.

Does music have to be complex for you to enjoy it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why would superior = flowery?



Edit: Also just touch on the "lit-snob assholes" part I actually feel it has gone in the other direction. We've reached a place in which people are forced to defend great works of art due to inherent bias against any percieved literary elitism. I mean asking why people prefer well written literature is a little like asking why they prefer a well done television series to reality tv. It really just comes down to what each individual is looking for at any given time.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

You don't find reading superior prose that is written for more than mere entertainement enlighting and entertaining?

For myself, I can enjoy both, depending on my mood. Sometimes I want Shakespeare. Other times, I'll read dime thrillers. Enlightenment isn't something I'm always looking for in a book.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've met too many lit-snob assholes to be convinced by any of this. If there's some research papers involved I'd be glad to read them.

If you want to be a "better" reader/writer, that's on you. A lot of people don't give a fuck and just want to be entertained.

Why are you repeating what I already wrote? I stated the exact same thing (twice!). "IMO" isn't just thrown out as a hashtag, ffs, -- I specifically applied that as my personal experience as an answer to your more general question, "Why does your preference for good prose mean there is something important about reading "better" books?"

(hmm, sounds like I'm frustrated in the above post. lack of sleep from watching BB finale last night, I suppose ;))

It's inherently obvious that many (not all) bestsellers and popular books are that way because they offer easy entertainment, usually written at a 6th grade level for efficiency of information transmission. But look at it another way (the "lit snob theory" referenced above, which I have little direct experience of, being in history / education) -- am I going to consider people who sit in front of a couch and watch Two and a Half Men as 'healthy' as a yup* on a treadmill watching the latest international news? Fuck, no. The same applies to 'elite' books, which often require work and the investment of energy for (hopefully? IMO? there's those word again) a greater payoff than sheer immersive wish-fullfillment following the same structures, often from a hegemonic hierarchy model as-discussed in the Bakker threads a couple weeks back that simply reinforce juvenile conceptions of reality.

*lingering residual influence from Bleeding Edge.

Edit: On-topic: Sanderson has perfected this 6th-grade level writing with "cool" ideas and prolific output. There has emerged a fierce fanboy contingent for many authors who, through a combination of loud and repeated, gloss over inadequacies in one-or-more area(s) for positives in others, or who regurgitate subjectivity/objectivity arguments to discredit clear and precise criticisms concerning authorial deficiencies. For the record, I'm no fan of ivory-tower dismissal of popular genres as inherently inferior; I like me epic fantasy and sci-fi, thank ye very much; but I also like complex, difficult books, and I can see in my own experience (and, as a teacher, like to believe) that engaging in challenging material facilitates growth of the individual, as opposed to swaddling oneself in the same.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, because pretending criticism is elitism is "meaningful discussion".....

I already said I wasn't trying to argue that quality is inherently relative.

But saying one book is "shit" and another is "literary" doesn't really mean much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I already said I wasn't trying to argue that quality is inherently relative.

But saying one book is "shit" and another is "literary" doesn't really mean much.

You said you aren't, but that's all that's going on here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, because pretending criticism is elitism is "meaningful discussion".....

Criticism is criticism. The question is to what extent criticism of aestethics (as opposed to say, politics) is any meaningful. (especially when considering issues of context, and the general relativity of aestethics)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...