Brandon Sanderson's Towers of Cash

[IFR]

48 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Yup.  And I absolutely do not understand Sanderson’s appeal.  He is the mac and cheese of fantasy fiction.

Hearing people talk about Sanderson it sounds like gushing over the packaging for processed food.  “It doesn’t taste all that great but… wow… the box is so cool.”

Don't you watch Star Wars and Marvel shows, which are the Mac and Cheese of the movie and television world? 

I'd imagine you can relate somewhat.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

3 minutes ago, IFR said:

Don't you watch Star Wars and Marvel shows, which are the Mac and Cheese of the movie and television world? 

I'd imagine you can relate somewhat.

I’ve tried to read Sanderson.  And after “Andor” the other Star Wars products don’t taste as good.

[baxus]

1 hour ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Yup.  And I absolutely do not understand Sanderson’s appeal.  He is the mac and cheese of fantasy fiction.

Hearing people talk about Sanderson it sounds like gushing over the packaging for processed food.  “It doesn’t taste all that great but… wow… the box is so cool.”

I doubt that when you see people having mac and cheese you go to them and tell them it's crap and they should eat something better. Get off your high horse, go back to your table, enjoy your gourmet meals, let people who like mac and cheese enjoy that and everyone can have fun.

And here's the best part - you can avoid listening to people talk about Sanderson if you just avoid this one thread about him. We can only wish it was that easy to avoid all the things that annoy us.

[IFR]

12 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I’ve tried to read Sanderson.  And after “Andor” the other Star Wars products don’t taste as good.

Well, I'm right there with you. Like I said, Sanderson isn't my kind of author. I'm not shocked that he's popular though. His books are long but easy. As mentioned, his world-building is interesting. And he's good at writing exciting climaxes that keep people interested.

For me, his deficiencies lie in his characters, the lack of moral complexity, and - as much as I generally am indifferent to prose - I find his prose to be insufficient enough to pass a certain threshold where it's distracting.

However, many others clearly aren't bothered by these points, or disagree entirely that they are points at all. I suppose that's the nature of opinions.

[Gaston de Foix]

On 3/25/2023 at 6:42 AM, ljkeane said:

Yeah, I’m not a particularly big fan of Sanderson’s books but that’s a pretty harsh article. I actually think something along the lines of ‘Sanderson’s widely accepted to not be a great writer but is very successful, why?’ would be quite interesting but the personal stuff just feels a bit mean.

I have to say, I thought the piece was provocative, and the writer was being uncomfortably snobby and direct, but I didn't find it mean.  But I have been told, in the past, that people have been mean (including to me) and I haven't noticed.  Since this seems to be a commonly accepted view,  I'm curious, what passages/claims did people find crossed the line?

The one I thought was bad was making fun of Sanderson's son for salting his food.  I mean the get the juxtaposition of this bitchy, acidic writer and Sanderson's Mormon-nice generosity and hospitality is uncomfortable and sometimes painful. 

But on one level what the author is trying to do is build credibility by dissing everything else to explain Sanderson's success and adulation.  Because he's right.  To write a successful fantasy novel, the story's the thing.  And Sanderson proves that.  Sanderson is capable of writing good, even great sentences that stick with you - "there's always another secret" comes to mind.  But his prose is consistently mediocre. 

But at his best, he's capable of telling a ripping great yarn that subverts expectations, paints on a dramatic canvas, plays around with philosophically interesting concepts,  and even writing a taut story (In his short stories/novellas, for example). 

It would be nice if the author actually made these points, or even drew out more carefully (and respectfully), the connections between Mormonism and fantasy rather than ending with those weird and ambiguous last couple of sentences.  I think he was trying for literary panache. 

Addendum:  I actually missed one page of posts - sorry, I see a number of people have identified what they thought was rude/inappropriate in the article. 

Edited March 28, 2023 by Gaston de Foix

[Gaston de Foix]

On 3/25/2023 at 2:38 PM, polishgenius said:

I'm no fan of Sanderson but that piece seems mostly to be the interviewer/writer throwing a tantrum about his own inability as a writer to portray Sanderson properly, and blaming it on his subject. It's a dreadful article.

If the Clarke piece was him, it honestly feels like he's a dude whose got a job at Wired because the management there simply just don't know anyone else who's interested in covering that kind of subject, and also don't have the knowledge to tell when he's being shit at his job. 

It reminds of that episode in Mad Men where they've started Sterling Cooper Draper Pryce and journalists are bored until Don Draper finds "the hook" of walking into Lane Pryce's office and saying "fire me".  Remember that?

Shit journalists need their subject to give them the hook, but not make it too easy so that the journalist can come away claiming to have discovered fire.  Brandon Sanderson didn't play that game.  

[Ninefingers]

My charitable interpretation of the Wired article is that the author was going for something like:

"People think Sanderson isn't that great, but if you really look there's quality buried there so his success isn't unwarranted"

but he just missed the mark badly by spending way too much time on the "reasons people think he isn't that great" and not enough on the "but there's quality". 

Or the author is just an asshole snob. I could be convinced of either. 

Edited March 28, 2023 by Ninefingers
typos

[Starkess]

4 hours ago, baxus said:

I doubt that when you see people having mac and cheese you go to them and tell them it's crap and they should eat something better. Get off your high horse, go back to your table, enjoy your gourmet meals, let people who like mac and cheese enjoy that and everyone can have fun.

And here's the best part - you can avoid listening to people talk about Sanderson if you just avoid this one thread about him. We can only wish it was that easy to avoid all the things that annoy us.

Oh please, this is a discussion forum. People are allowed to join the discussion even if they have negative things to say.

[Ormond]

I agree with Gaston de Foix that I didn't find the article especially "mean".  And also that I have had experiences where other people have thought someone was being "mean" to me and I didn't see that. 

Now, the only Sanderson novel I've read is Elantris.  Though I wouldn't list it in my top ten fantasy novels I've ever read, I did enjoy it and thought it was a good book. I do wonder, given the general criticisms of Sanderson's writing, if Elantris might actually exhibit his common failings a bit less simply because it was his first major novel to be published? I know that it seems to be common for authors who have become famous enough to fans to ensure any book written by them is an automatic bestseller to get less editing from their publishers. Certainly many of Sanderson's novels since Elantris have been the huge "doorstoppers" that might indicate the publishers are now not suggesting he cut anything. So do those of you who are real Sanderson fans see much difference in the writing of Elantris compared with his "Stormlight Archive" books or other more recent ones? 

Edited March 29, 2023 by Ormond

[DaveSumm]

On 3/28/2023 at 1:19 PM, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Yup.  And I absolutely do not understand Sanderson’s appeal.  He is the mac and cheese of fantasy fiction.

I really thought I’d have the same opinion from reading so many posts here and on Reddit saying his books weren’t well written. I had The Final Empire sat on my shelf for years and never bothered to read it. I finally got round to it, and I’m now 8-9 books deep into the Cosmere. I think it’s fantastic, and the comparisons to the MCU really don’t do it justice.

Yes, the prose is fairly basic and exists mainly to convey the story. It doesn’t hang around to win any poetry contests. But there are just so many things that Sanderson does better than anyone I’ve read; for starters, it’s so refreshing to have a fantasy author who can plan a book. After largely accepting that meandering travelogues were just part and parcel of fantasy, I loved reading a well paced book where there’s interesting twists at regular intervals, exciting events, and just a general sense of purpose and forethought throughout. His execution is excellent considering how quickly he writes.

Speaking of twists; his information control is superb. Keeping the reader at juuuust the right distance from the critical info so that you always feel like you’re circling a realisation, and to then feel like a revelation was surprising but also, obvious in hindsight. The way he breaks up the overarching mystery of who the Emperor is (in Mistborn Era 1) and what the circumstances were around him becoming Emperor and why, and how he so cleanly distributes that over a trilogy is wonderful.

Stormlight in particular is fiercely imaginative. There’s as many great ideas packed into a one off interlude chapter as there are in many other whole sequences of books. From the ground up, Roshar is utterly different from any other world I’ve read about - the flora and fauna, the customs, the history, the magic, the religions. He never rests on his laurels when there’s a chance to add some new element to the world. 

If prose is a deal breaker for some people, I get that. But it’s a shame to dismiss the whole thing as I nearly did, when I’ve now realised that prose is one element that isn’t a hurdle to the rest - I can still enjoy all these other parts very happily, and get my fill of beautiful and luscious writing elsewhere.

[DaveSumm]

53 minutes ago, Ormond said:

Now, the only Sanderson novel I've read is Elantris.  Though I wouldn't list it in my top ten fantasy novels I've ever read, I did enjoy it and thought it was a good book. I do wonder, given the general criticisms of Sanderson's writing, if Elantris might actually exhibit his common failings a bit less simply because it was his first major novel to be published? I know that it seems to be common for authors who have become famous enough to fans to ensure any book written by them is an automatic bestseller to get less editing from their publishers. Certainly many of Sanderson's novels since Elantris have been the huge "doorstoppers" that might indicate the publishers are now not suggesting he cut anything. So do those of you who are real Sanderson fans see much difference in the writing of Elantris compared with his "Stormlight Archive" books or other more recent ones? 

The common opinion is that Elantris is his weakest book, and that Mistborn Era 1 should be the starting point for most people. I don’t actually agree with that, I was surprised how much I enjoyed Elantris - if I were to have guessed, I would’ve assumed Elantris was written after Mistborn as the character work in Mistborn feels far less accomplished to me. He repeatedly spells out precisely what everyone’s feeling and doesn’t leave any space for the reader to fill in the gaps, and I did initially worry that I wouldn’t get along with Sanderson because of that. But it happens much less in Elantris, though I should add, it has occurred to me that I’ve just gotten used to his style of writing and so everything feels less egregious to me now. 

The world building in Elantris is nowhere near his best. It almost reminds me of those Star Trek episodes where they only have the budget for a few rooms and 2-3 actors, and they have to convey that some seismic cultural change is happening to a whole planet … through some dialogue in these few rooms. It feels under-populated.

Stormlight Archive is leagues ahead of that. So if you enjoyed Elantris, I’d say there’s definitely good reason to try either Final Empire (Mistborn Book 1) or Way of Kings (Stormlight Book 1) if you wanted to jump straight to Sanderson’s A game.

[Gaston de Foix]

57 minutes ago, Ormond said:

I agree with Gaston de Foix that I didn't find the article especially "mean".  And also that I have had experiences where other people have thought someone was being "mean" to me and I didn't see that. 

Now, the only Sanderson novel I've read is Elantris.  Though I wouldn't list it in my top ten fantasy novels I've ever read, I did enjoy it and thought it was a good book. I do wonder, given the general criticisms of Sanderson's writing, if Elantris might actually exhibit his common failings a bit less simply because it was his first major novel to be published? I know that it seems to be common for authors who have become famous enough to fans to ensure any book written by them is an automatic bestseller to get less editing from their publishers. Certainly many of Sanderson's novels since Elantris have been the huge "doorstoppers" that might indicate the publishers are now not suggesting he cut anything. So do those of you who are real Sanderson fans see much difference in the writing of Elantris compared with his "Stormlight Archive" books or other more recent ones? 

I think the best written Sanderson book is the first volume of the Stormlight Archive, the Way of Kings.  That novel exhibits careful rewriting and editing.  The next in terms of quality is the first Mistborn trilogy.  I'd also put Arcanum Unbound in the list of well-written story collections, as well as the Emperor's Soul.  

Elantris is pretty standard Sanderson.  I'd rate it higher than Warbreaker.  By contrast the penultimate Mistborn novel published so far was almost unreadable.  

Here's my theory which grossly oversimplifies and over-generalizes.  There's obviously a trade-off for any writer between quality and quantity.  Most successfully-published writers tend to be obsessive, neurotic types who polish their prose to the point of diminishing returns and beyond.  Sanderson is the complete opposite.  He admits he hates rewriting.  If he only wants to maximise output (and revenue) he should continue doing what he is doing.  If he wants to produce the best novels, he needs to slow down and work with better editors/beta readers as well as do much more rewriting. 

[Rhom]

3 hours ago, Gaston de Foix said:

  I'd also put Arcanum Unbound in the list of well-written story collections, as well as the Emperor's Soul. 

I think The Emperor's Soul is the best thing he has done.  As you say, the entirety of Arcanum Unbound is very well done.  Which is part of my frustration with him I think.  I slog through the endless repetition of the Stormlight Archive, while I know he can write really tight short fiction.

[Ran]

I suspect Sanderson's prolific dependability to produce dependably engaging (if perhaps rather formulaic) books that are approximately in the same wheelhouse is the #1 reason for why he's doing so well, and his skilled development of parasocial relationships with his fans is #2.

Esquire now has a piece out that they were about to publish when the Wired piece hit, and they held back to add some reference to it and to ask Kehe some questions about the reaction to it. Honestly, it feels more like a puff piece ("returning power to the readers" apparently means offering more items at different price points so that people can send more money to Sanderson?), but looking at Sanderson from a publishing innovator perspective rather than as a writer was at least an interesting approach. I can also see why he's so jealous that George got to work with From when he apparently spent most of last year playing Elden Ring. Apparently he likes playing glass cannon builds.

 

 

Edited March 29, 2023 by Ran

[baxus]

On 3/28/2023 at 8:29 PM, Starkess said:

Oh please, this is a discussion forum. People are allowed to join the discussion even if they have negative things to say.

And I'm allowed to join the discussion and say something about someone joining the discussion to whine about the topic of the discussion when there are so many other topics to discuss, am I not?

I mean, it's like going to the concert of a band you dislike just so you can call them shit and whine about having to listen to them when you could've just as easily stayed at home or went to another show. Going out of your way to complain about  someone liking something that you don't like is a stupid move, at the very least. When combined with the high horse approach, I'd call it an asshole move, even. You may disagree, of course.

Edited March 30, 2023 by baxus

[Gaston de Foix]

17 hours ago, Ran said:

Esquire now has a piece out that they were about to publish when the Wired piece hit, and they held back to add some reference to it and to ask Kehe some questions about the reaction to it. Honestly, it feels more like a puff piece ("returning power to the readers" apparently means offering more items at different price points so that people can send more money to Sanderson?), but looking at Sanderson from a publishing innovator perspective rather than as a writer was at least an interesting approach.

100%.  Of course, every business would like to be able to price discriminate and many do (airlines and hotels for example). 

What makes books so interesting is we've undergone several revolutions in the last three decades: 

1.  There is a notorious website that allows individuals to illegally download recently published books for free; 

2.  Amazon, Bookfinder and other sellers have revolutionized the second-hand book market so that you usually can buy all but the most recently published books for a few dollars; 

3.  Libraries have started lending e-books and expanded their collections through ILL considerably; 

4. The big money in writing highly-successful fantasy doesn't come from royalties but from licensing, merchandising and brand-recognition. 

5. Fantasy has come out from the underground.  It is in fact the dominant form of entertainment consumption if you define it generously and include video games, movies etc

I personally don't care for collectible editions, didn't contribute to Sanderson's Kickstarter, and haven't read his most recent two books.  But innovation in response to 1-5 is not just good, but necessary.  Sanderson's not the first author to sell deluxe versions of his book for a premium. 

[Werthead]

2 hours ago, Gaston de Foix said:

I personally don't care for collectible editions, didn't contribute to Sanderson's Kickstarter, and haven't read his most recent two books.  But innovation in response to 1-5 is not just good, but necessary.  Sanderson's not the first author to sell deluxe versions of his book for a premium. 

Yup. George very heavily pushed things like the Meisha Merlin versions of his books (and then the Sub Press, and later things like the Folio Edition) at a time when that kind of limited edition was limited really just to Tolkien and maybe the mega-seller market (like Stephen King, then Wheel of Time, Rowling etc). I see Sanderson treading a similar kind of path, but with more direct involvement and handling everything himself.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

10 hours ago, baxus said:

And I'm allowed to join the discussion and say something about someone joining the discussion to whine about the topic of the discussion when there are so many other topics to discuss, am I not?

I mean, it's like going to the concert of a band you dislike just so you can call them shit and whine about having to listen to them when you could've just as easily stayed at home or went to another show. Going out of your way to complain about  someone liking something that you don't like is a stupid move, at the very least. When combined with the high horse approach, I'd call it an asshole move, even. You may disagree, of course.

Yes.  How many threads dissing Goodkind did we have over the years… 

[baxus]

14 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Yes.  How many threads dissing Goodkind did we have over the years… 

Have you seen me in any of them?

[polishgenius]

Is what we're saying that we need a separate Sanderson hate-read topic, Varys-reading-wheel-of-time style? 

 

 

Seems extreme, would be more of a meh-read topic.