Brandon Sanderson

[macaroni]

I think this argument is the whole so-called high literature v lowly geeky fantasy genre.

By definition, the literati think this genre of books is inferior therefore Sanderson is an inferior author.

I don't think he should be castigated for writing readable books, quite the opposite, in fact. No, he isn't Joyce or Dostoevsky...but as a fantasy author, he's extremely talented and profligate and I can honestly see a gradual improvement in his writing year-on-year.

[thx4allthefish]

<snip>

and I can honestly see a gradual improvement in his writing year-on-year.

Which most of the contributors on this thread already agreed on. Nonetheless: improving to mediocre is what I can see between Elantris, Mistborn (at least volume 1), and finally Warbreaker. I actually enjoyed Warbreaker. No skimming, no skipping: so I am improving in enjoying Brandon Sanderson as well (might be due to his improving in writing).

That being said, I still have trouble with the sequence of dialogues - I find them disturbing - as in: I really want to talk to that other character, only I don't know how to, so let's go for the obvious or a complete sideline.

Same goes for characterisation: mostly you have 2-dimensional bad-ass people; if you don't, then you have Sazed or Lightbringer and both of them do not dive too deep, but revel close to the surface - like trout, occasionally breaking the waterline to snap a fly.

Maybe the Way Of Kings is further improvement. Maybe quite much so. To a level apar with GRRM? Parker? And to use a 10 volume-epic-fantasy to watch all the progress? Ambitious, to say the least.

[Zappster]

You don't have to use the 10-volume epic fantasy to watch his progress. What he has said all along is that it won't stop him doing relatively shorter works like trilogies or even some standalone fantasy books.

[Liadin]

I think this argument is the whole so-called high literature v lowly geeky fantasy genre.

By definition, the literati think this genre of books is inferior therefore Sanderson is an inferior author.

I don't think he should be castigated for writing readable books, quite the opposite, in fact. No, he isn't Joyce or Dostoevsky...but as a fantasy author, he's extremely talented and profligate and I can honestly see a gradual improvement in his writing year-on-year.

Nobody's castigating Sanderson for not writing readable books. That's unless you think the likes of GRRM (or other living fantasy authors.... you know, the people we're actually comparing him to) are unreadable or too "literary" for you.

[Liadin]

I think this argument is the whole so-called high literature v lowly geeky fantasy genre.

By definition, the literati think this genre of books is inferior therefore Sanderson is an inferior author.

I don't think he should be castigated for writing readable books, quite the opposite, in fact. No, he isn't Joyce or Dostoevsky...but as a fantasy author, he's extremely talented and profligate and I can honestly see a gradual improvement in his writing year-on-year.

Nobody's castigating Sanderson for not writing readable books. That's unless you think the likes of GRRM (or other living fantasy authors.... you know, the people we're actually comparing him to) are unreadable or too "literary" for you.

What I think is weird about the reaction to Sanderson on this board is how many rabid fans he has. The last few posts' attempts to discredit everyone on the board who's not that impressed by Sanderson aren't something I've seen here a whole lot. (The other example that comes to mind is Bakker, and maybe Robert Jordan, but generally people on here are able to shrug off differences of opinion about books.)

EDIT: To clarify a little, I'm not calling Sanderson's fans belligerent, because you aren't especially. But the continued hyperbole and the inability to understand why other than snobbery some people might not like him confuses me, especially after the sheer number of posts explaining why not quite rationally (you point out that those who aren't impressed with Sanderson agree that there's some entertainment value there; thus, they're not rants).

[Roland_85]

Uhm, I think the problem is with quantity. Sure, there is no author that everybody likes, but the number of people who seem determined to point out in no uncertain terms how utterly horrible he is, is just surprisingly high, or at least gives the impression of being high. And it's a trend on this board, as I've never seen a place where Erikson or Bakker are so vehemently "criticized" (and I use the word freely, as criticizing implies argumentation, which is rarely the case in any forum) either.

[Liadin]

Uhm, I think the problem is with quantity. Sure, there is no author that everybody likes, but the number of people who seem determined to point out in no uncertain terms how utterly horrible he is, is just surprisingly high, or at least gives the impression of being high. And it's a trend on this board, as I've never seen a place where Erikson or Bakker are so vehemently "criticized" (and I use the word freely, as criticizing implies argumentation, which is rarely the case in any forum) either.

All I can say to that is what I've said before, which is that it seems to me that he's hyped beyond his skill level and it's only natural that there's going to be a backlash. People keep starting praise threads about him. People don't keep starting praise threads for Feist, although I expect the response would be similar if they did.

[Roland_85]

Well, even if they were similar in all other aspects in terms of quality (which I don't think they are), Sanderson has something Feist doesn't - originality.

[Migey]

Well, even if they were similar in all other aspects in terms of quality (which I don't think they are), Sanderson has something Feist doesn't - originality.

That is a very large point and probably why i like Sanderson. Anyone can write a fantasy epic or trilogy or two, and it may have fantastic prose, great plot, good characterization, etc, but its still been seen before. Sanderson interests people because he has a good imagination and is able to bring it to life in his books with a reasonable degree of sucess. tWoK is still in the mail, unfortunately, so i have to wait a few more days, but by all accounts the world (Roshar or Rosher, i don't remember) is a very vivid and interesting world that actually works. His world in Mistborn wasn't so drastic, but it was still interesting, and of course there are his interesting magic systems. I liked the metal jumping in Mistborn, and i loved the awakening in Warbreaker, so im interested to see what he will be able to dow ith his magic in 10 books.

Brandon Sanderson is by no means my favorate author, but i do like him a fair bit and think he is getting steadily better. Although -1 point for being a mormon. Atheism ftw!

[Imagica]

as I've never seen a place where Erikson or Bakker are so vehemently "criticized"

Criticized? I've thought Bakker is hyped to death here. Just look how many threads he has.

And Erikson, well, deserves all the criticism, and more.

Although -1 point for being a mormon.

Ugh, really? I hope his new series won't slide to polygamy or something.

[Migey]

Ugh, really? I hope his new series won't slide to polygamy or something.

Dont worry. I doubted it would anyway, and by all accounts and some posts in this thread, he keeps his religious views out of tWoK admirably.

[Liadin]

All the criticism of books is one of the things I like best about this board. It shows good judgment. If I just wanted to read praise, there are plenty of other boards full of less intelligent people on which I could spend my time.

That is a very large point and probably why i like Sanderson. Anyone can write a fantasy epic or trilogy or two, and it may have fantastic prose, great plot, good characterization, etc, but its still been seen before. Sanderson interests people because he has a good imagination and is able to bring it to life in his books with a reasonable degree of sucess.

C'mon, have you ever tried to actually write a novel? "Anyone" can certainly not write a fantasy epic with fantastic prose, great plot and good characterization. It takes skill, and few people have it. Hell, even setting aside the things you mentioned, few people can write a merely coherent fantasy novel with logical pacing. I'm trying to think of even the published authors I know who've written fantasy novels with fantastic prose, great plots and good characterization, and frankly most of them aren't quite that good. (Fantastic prose, in particular, is not all that common in the genre.)

Fundamentally though, I just don't think strength in one area makes a great writer. It makes an original writer, but you have to have more than good ideas to be a great writer. If I limited myself to reading in the epic fantasy genre, maybe I'd be more excited by Sanderson, same if "unique magic systems" were something I was looking for in a book, but since neither is true he just don't seem like all that. Fine for light entertainment, but not an author whose works I'd seek out or re-read.

[Migey]

I misworded that. Let me rephrase it to ; Anyone who can write a fantasy epic or trilogy or two, etc, can sell well, but it will still have been seen before.

I have tried to write before, just to see what its like, and i know what you mean, it IS difficult :P So sorry for that. But my point still stands that Brandon Sanderson is liked alot for his originality, because so much in the fantasy genre has already been done, so when something truly new and interesting comes along, people will like it.

I also agree that strength in one area doesn't make a great writer, and even if Brandon Sandersons magic systems and settings were 10 times more innovative, if they were accompanied by unreadable prose, robotic/mary sue character, and an awful plot (and i do admit that some of the prose and characters in Mistborn and Elantris do fit those descriptions) then nobody would read them. At current, however, he has decent characters, some of which can be highly amusing, readable, if not exceptional prose, and more then passable plots. This, combined with said originality is what makes him so good. Average in most areas and alot of strength in 1, while it doesn't make a great writer, it does make a fairly good one, whos books i wouldn't hesitate to buy.

Edit: I would also like to reword my statement 'because so much in the fantasy genre has been done before'. That is true, but so much in ANY genre has been done before, that it really is difficult and takes geniune inspiration and skill to think of something really new.

Ok, mabye im exaggerting. Sanderson isn't 'really' or 'totally' new in his ideas, but his worlds are certainly interesting, much better then generic earth makeovers of most books, and his magic systems certainly do trump the stereotypes and typical systems.

[Mexal]

He's entertaining and accessible. He writes well enough to not be turned off by the writing. That's enough for me.

For more of the literary types, that's not enough and that's fine. It's their choice. For me, I just want to be entertained and Sanderson does it better than most fantasy authors today.

[David Selig]

Sanderson deserves an lot of credit for brining WoT back on track, I didn't think this was possible after the terrible books 8-11. Somehow he succeeded not only in finally moving the plot forward in a way which wasn't rushed or dumb (unlike in Knife of Dreams), but in making me care again for the characters.

I've been reading Mistborn lately, taking breaks after each volume (currently I am the start of the last volume). It's very good, the first volume especially, but I wouldn't call it great. The prose style is a bit bland (Though clear and highly readable) and the way the characters keep analysing their every action and motivation at length (including during heated battles) gets tiresome. The political intrigues feel overly simplistic too. The main plot about the Deepness, Hero of Ages, etc, is fascinating though, hopefully the resolution in the final volume will be as good as I've been led to believe.

[Roland_85]

All the criticism of books is one of the things I like best about this board. It shows good judgment. If I just wanted to read praise, there are plenty of other boards full of less intelligent people on which I could spend my time.

Criticism is one thing. Three-word declarative "Author X is trash" sentences are something else. And something that I've seen a lot of here. Also, Bakker has so many topics here because people pursue the topic of whether he's a sexist sociopath with an assassin's determination, not cause he's hyped to death.

As for Sanderson, I never said his originality is all he has. I think he is decent enough storyteller, and one that noticeably improves with each subsequent book. He is better than many best-selling writers, and said originality is only a plus that makes him stand out. It is also the reason why he might seem overhyped.

[Shryke]

Ugh, really? I hope his new series won't slide to polygamy or something.

The only way in which his Mormonism effects his writing is he's very very coy about showing sexuality.

[peterbound]

The only way in which his Mormonism effects his writing is he's very very coy about showing sexuality.

That and his flair for making up religions, no naughty words, and slightly juvenile humor.

[The Evil Hat]

He's far from the only author that deals with fictional religions, and I don't think you can ascribe his humor to his beliefs.

[fionwe1987]

All I can say to that is what I've said before, which is that it seems to me that he's hyped beyond his skill level and it's only natural that there's going to be a backlash.

The question is, is it right because it is "only natural"?

Because I don't really see praise threads that say anything other than that he's interesting, entertaining, readable, prolific and ever-improving. If he was being touted as a fantasy god, its one thing. That isn't what's happening here.