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

[Gneisenau]

As somebody who hasn't read Wheel of Time, was Sanderson really that bad ?

[Stanek's muse]

I think Sanderson is fun for what it is; what I'd like to see is a Sanderson world written by Bishop or Vandermeer. That'd be some badass collaboration. Anyway, his prose isn't the best, nor the closest to, but I enjoy a bit of the less-thinkery and I'll continue reading everything he writes.

[Sci-2]

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)

I'd add to this by noting that what [the criticism] we usually seem to get is what could charitably be called coarse grained criticism (Sanderson sucks, Proust rules!). Threatened by what they seem to perceive as critical relativism, the literati self-defense seems to be about trying to find rationalizations to justify the coarse grained evaluation.

What I'm proposing is much more fine grained criticism, some of which can be gleaned from the "Things a book can be good at" thread.

eta: my brain shorted out and put can after Things.

[Little Valkyrie]

The first question I usually start with is "What is this book/piece of music trying to do?" Here's where genre can be pretty useful: a thriller is probably not trying to do the same thing as a Bildungsroman, or a short story collection, or an epic poem. And there's not much point in castigating a Haydn string quartet for not being a Verdian opera. But then we can get into issues of technical execution, although taste inevitably plays a role here so it's best that the writer disclose her preferences clearly.

I would argue for the virtues of reading "higher" works in that they do things that can't or aren't done in other forms. Take the long-form Russian novel--great authors use all that space to develop characters intensely, to create plots where themes are brought out via comparison and contrast in seemingly disparate threads, etc. You need all those pages for that. And any time a reader is exposed to something new, there's a potential widening of horizon (assuming one is receptive, and allowing that each reader will process a work differently), an addition of something to the experience banks. I've found it useful in my own life to have that pool of fictional experiences at hand to deal with the crap I've found myself in.

[Spring Bass]

As somebody who hasn't read Wheel of Time, was Sanderson really that bad ?

No way. The Gathering Storm and Memory of LIght are some of the best Wheel of Time books in the series.

[Samsaptakas]

Only gathering storm is okay. memory of light is bad; feel like unfinished product.

Sanderson's best work is way of kings.

[Prosesskrift]

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.

My impression is that every time one of these threads turn up - in any forum - the majority of condescending sneering seems to come from the people condeming "lit-snobs" and not the lit-snobs themselves. The above quote being a good example.

[Sci-2]

My impression is that every time one of these threads turn up - in any forum - the majority of condescending sneering seems to come from the people condeming "lit-snobs" and not the lit-snobs themselves. The above quote being a good example.

Sorry, I actually wasn't using lit-snob pejoratively. The asshole part is meant to be separate from the lit-snob part.

Read that as "literati who happen to be assholes." My point is reading literature doesn't seem to have any strong correlation toward being a better person.

[Castel]

Sorry, I actually wasn't using lit-snob pejoratively. The asshole part is meant to be separate from the lit-snob part.

Read that as "literati who happen to be assholes." My point is reading literature doesn't seem to have any strong correlation toward being a better person.

Better in what sense? Is the goal to avoid being an asshole or to be exposed(from kuenjato) to works that "recalibrate your perspective of the world... and at best may influence how you interact with others and the world at large from said work?" It doesn't seem that you have to be "good" to gain something.

[Migey]

By the way guys, can I ask something I ask in like every Sanderson thread?

How many of you have actually read Warbreaker? Nobody talks about it, nobody seems to know about it. I think it's Sandersons best work, and while it is clearly Sanderson (complete with the occasional flat joke and awkward 'wit'), it is actually a great deal better in terms of, well, everything then most of his other works. I feel like a lot of people judge him based on Elantris and the Mistborn trilogy, which were at the beginning of his career, and he was obviously worse then. I wonder what more people who have read Warbreaker think (I personally think it's better then The Way of Kings).

[Galactus]

I always did say that whatever you say about Sanderson he's clearly improving: Mistborn is better than Elantris, The Alloy of Law is better than Mistborn. He seems to polish his craft for every novel.

[The Marquis de Leech]

I agree with GRRM's review.

I do wonder if GRRM is getting a tad passive-aggressive with his comment about how long it took to write.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Galactus,

No, that would be This

What the hell was that about?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

TUR,

Only gathering storm is okay. memory of light is bad; feel like unfinished product.

Sanderson's best work is way of kings.

I agree with you on TMoL and TGS. I've not read The Way of Kings. TGS had some really ineresting portions exploring Rand's madness and resolved that problem in a very interesting way. To me TMoL felt like a slapped together set peice where all the boxes that needed to be checked off were addressed and checked off. Nothing was fully or even adequately explored. Honestly, the battle scenes were dull and repeatative. They were not nearly as compelling as the battle scenes with Ituralde in tToM.

I'll read pulpy novels. I'm not above that but as I've gotten older I've found that the works that stick with me, that mean more to me, have more than simple worldbuilding and story they have a depth that provides deeper meaning to the reader. Does this make me a snob because I prefer a work with some resonance to it? Perhaps, but it's what I find entertaining at this point. I want to be able to chew over what I've read after I've read it.

Sci,

My problem with "lit-snobs" is not their appreciation of interesting literary works. It is their predetermined stance that "Genre fiction" is without literary merit because it is "genre fiction". I appreciate genre and non-genre works that are well written.

An example within one book is Redshirts. I found the main body of the novel to be a mildly funny and entertaining read. Now the three codas, written in first, second, and third person respectively were interesting in a literary sence in my opinion exploring the significant impacts the main novel would have on those with whom the characters from the novel interacted with in the "real" world. That I chewed over and thought about.

[Sci-2]

Better in what sense? Is the goal to avoid being an asshole or to be exposed(from kuenjato) to works that "recalibrate your perspective of the world... and at best may influence how you interact with others and the world at large from said work?" It doesn't seem that you have to be "good" to gain something.

I'm not saying reading literature and lit-fic is worthless, I'm saying there's no clear reason why judgmental hierarchies should exist.

IMO such judgements would be accurate only if reading lit-fic made you a morally superior person.

[Werthead]

Galactus,

What the hell was that about?

Blizzard, rather famously, 'borrowed' their WarCraft and StarCraft universes from the much-earlier-created Warhammer and Warhammer 40,000 settings (Blizzard wanted to make an official Warhammer game and Games Workshop turned them down, leading to them changing a few names and things to create the original WarCraft computer game back in 1994).

When someone on the Internet ignorant of these facts and the timeline turns around and accues Games Workshop of ripping off Blizzard, GW fans tend to get furious. It's a bit like when a J.K. Rowling fan accused Terry Pratchett of ripping off Harry Potter in his Discworld novel Equal Rites, which Pratchett pointed out was difficult given that Equal Rites was published ten years before the first Harry Potter book.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Wert,

Can you tell I don't play many video games.

[baxus]

Blizzard, rather famously, 'borrowed' their WarCraft and StarCraft universes from the much-earlier-created Warhammer and Warhammer 40,000 settings (Blizzard wanted to make an official Warhammer game and Games Workshop turned them down, leading to them changing a few names and things to create the original WarCraft computer game back in 1994).

When someone on the Internet ignorant of these facts and the timeline turns around and accues Games Workshop of ripping off Blizzard, GW fans tend to get furious. It's a bit like when a J.K. Rowling fan accused Terry Pratchett of ripping off Harry Potter in his Discworld novel Equal Rites, which Pratchett pointed out was difficult given that Equal Rites was published ten years before the first Harry Potter book.

some years ago i was discussing lotr elements found in harry potter with a friend of mine and he said: "how can it be so when 'harry potter' movie came out before 'fellowship of the ring'?"

i just stood there, dumbstruck, with my mouth open, trying to figure out how to clasify that info.

[Shryke]

I always did say that whatever you say about Sanderson he's clearly improving: Mistborn is better than Elantris, The Alloy of Law is better than Mistborn. He seems to polish his craft for every novel.

Have you tried Way of Kings?

The cycle is broken.

[Shryke]

some years ago i was discussing lotr elements found in harry potter with a friend of mine and he said: "how can it be so when 'harry potter' movie came out before 'fellowship of the ring'?"

i just stood there, dumbstruck, with my mouth open, trying to figure out how to clasify that info.

Especially when they only came out about 30 days apart.

How fast does he think a LOTR can be made????