Has anyone read The Way of Kings yet?

[wolverine]

Storm-it, I wish there was a way I could "like" your comment.

 

Me? Sanderson's dialogue is so immature it's cringe-worthy. Just my opinion. I'm well aware of how many people think he's the best around but he's just not for me.

Like 3 or is it up to 4?  I was apparently unaware of his popularity, at least around here.  I thought general opinion was that he was alright, but nowhere near the upper echelon of even fantasy genre writers.  If you were starving for fantasy his books could sustain you until you found real nourishment.

 

I think the best thing I can say about The Way of Kings is it is plotted well enough to not read like it's thousand pages. But Sanderson's dialog (especially when being 'witty') makes me cringe. And his info dumps are especially egregious in their timing; often breaking up action scenes to explain what's going on.

Way of Kings came free on ibooks on my phone so I have only read the first 262/4342 pages, but I already know exactly what your talking about.  When the young noble woman is trying to be herself with the ship crew, which they openly find her frankness breathtakingly original and humorous, she is actually immature and annoying.

[illrede]

Unreliable narrator, you know.

Yes, she is being immature and annoying. But class differences have sharp edges in this setting, and besides, they're swindling her blind.

EDIT: Well, "swindle" isn't quite the right word... but she is very much in the hands of the kindly sales associate there, so to speak.

[SkynJay]

Unreliable narrator,

No.  Not the correct use of the term.  Way of King has a consistent third person narrator and never is it hinted that it is hiding facts from the reader.

[illrede]

No.  Not the correct use of the term.  Way of King has a consistent third person narrator and never is it hinted that it is hiding facts from the reader.

Correct enough. Her impressions are conveyed to the reader, taken as reliable, and they're wrong.

 

EDIT: I'm also boggling that you're saying that about the Shallan POV. You have read this, right?

[SkynJay]

Correct enough. Her impressions are conveyed to the reader, taken as reliable, and they're wrong.

 

EDIT: I'm also boggling that you're saying that about the Shallan POV. You have read this, right?

Yes.  And you don't know what the phrase you are using means.  The narrator's reliability is not compromised, Shallan's impressions are.  Unreliable narrator's are almost by definition 1st person barring some very specific narration choices.  Sanderson is doing nothing unusual with his narration; it is presented in a very typical rotating POV 3rd person with an omnipresent voice narrating out the characters actions and thoughts. 

And none of it has to do with the conversation you originally butted in to which was the Sanderson's 'wit' is as clever as my drunk uncle's political jokes.

[illrede]

Yes.  And you don't know what the phrase you are using means.  The narrator's reliability is not compromised, Shallan's impressions are.  Unreliable narrator's are almost by definition 1st person barring some very specific narration choices.  Sanderson is doing nothing unusual with his narration; it is presented in a very typical rotating POV 3rd person with an omnipresent voice narrating out the characters actions and thoughts. 

And none of it has to do with the conversation you originally butted in to which was the Sanderson's 'wit' is as clever as my drunk uncle's political jokes.

I know what it means; in this case it gets the point across, succinctly. Look at that pedantic paragraph you had to use to do what I accomplished with two words used imprecisely, man.

Shallan's being a twit, those people knew she is being a twit, those people fawning over her were for the most part taking her for a ride, she will be called on it later, presenting things to prospective readers as if this wasn't so implies at best that the reading wasn't taken to completion. Goes downhill from there.

 

EDIT: I mean, it's explained thoroughly by an immediate authority figure. They even go on to speculate how she picked up that personality flaw and what to do about it.

[Muwhahaha]

I know what it means; in this case it gets the point across, succinctly. Look at that pedantic paragraph you had to use to do what I accomplished with two words used imprecisely, man.

Shallan's being a twit, those people knew she is being a twit, those people fawning over her were for the most part taking her for a ride, she will be called on it later, presenting things to prospective readers as if this wasn't so implies at best that the reading wasn't taken to completion. Goes downhill from there.

 

EDIT: I mean, it's explained thoroughly by an immediate authority figure. They even go on to speculate how she picked up that personality flaw and what to do about it.

Nope.  You're wrong.  You don't know what unreliable narrator means.  He explained exactly what the term means and you still don't understand.  And it's not pedantic if it's a definition - it's just a definition.  

[Muwhahaha]

I know what it means; in this case it gets the point across, succinctly. Look at that pedantic paragraph you had to use to do what I accomplished with two words used imprecisely, man.

Shallan's being a twit, those people knew she is being a twit, those people fawning over her were for the most part taking her for a ride, she will be called on it later, presenting things to prospective readers as if this wasn't so implies at best that the reading wasn't taken to completion. Goes downhill from there.

 

EDIT: I mean, it's explained thoroughly by an immediate authority figure. They even go on to speculate how she picked up that personality flaw and what to do about it.

Nope.  You're wrong.  You don't know what unreliable narrator means.  He explained exactly what the term means and you still don't understand.  And it's not pedantic if it's a definition - it's just a definition.  

[Magnar of Skagos]

The only real problem I have is with some of the "humour." It's like Sanderson has to explain every single joke as if he assumes the readers are all under the age of 13 or something. Not that the "jokes" are all that great to being with, but...

[illrede]

Nope.  You're wrong.  You don't know what unreliable narrator means.  He explained exactly what the term means and you still don't understand.  And it's not pedantic if it's a definition - it's just a definition.  

It's a term being used imprecisely to get a concept across, and it did its job fine. We're using the Shallan POV (3rd person limited) as window and it's handing out bad data. She's not being clever, she's not being particularly charming, the reactions she is perceiving from the characters around her aren't their actual reactions and she's too much on an ingenue to see all of it. We have to get told later by Jasnah. We are.

 

EDIT: For her "wit", it had its roots in a "game" she would play with her tutors to get the first flip remark that crossed her mind out of her mouth before she thought better of it and kept her mouth shut to avoid punishment, and for her charming the crew, it's something along the lines of "how many of these proposed favors are things you have already paid these people to do?"; hits her like a bucket of water.