Brandon Sanderson

[kuenjato]

Meh, that Bakker excerpt just strikes me as pretentious. What's the point of stringing together a bunch of words that sound nice together if there's no clarity to it? I can't picture that. It sounds to me like he's trying too hard to be literary and falling far short.

I agree about Sanderson though; the quality of his prose is below average for a published author, although that particular excerpt is better than a lot of the Mistborn trilogy. ("Skeletal in shape" is rather unfortunate.)

Here we come to personal preference, then -- those words give me more clarity as to the scene depicted. Such is life (and the art that mirrors it...)

[fionwe1987]

Judging from what I've read of Sanderson (not much, really) and Lynch, I feel the latter has a much stronger voice/writing style than the former. While I disliked certain elements of RSoRS (the unlikely PC pirates; structural issues), Lies was one of the stronger first-author entries for the '00's. Not that it wasn't without flaws, but I was interested enough after the prologue to continue reading -- something I couldn't say after reading the prelude and prologue for Way of Kings.

Different strokes, as they say...

I should mention that I am a bit of a prose-snob. Originality is nice and all but if the writing doesn't sound exemplary, then I'm liable to pass it on by. Which is why, for example, I'll probably check out Wise Man's Fear from the library after its release, for though I find Rothfuss's work overrated in the extreme and rather lacking in originality, his prose is crafted enough for me to at least give the sequel a shot.

Let’s check out some examples, while I’m in a comparing mood.

“Kalak rounded a rocky stone ridge and stumbled to a stop before the body of a dying thunderclast. The enormous stone beast lay on its side, riblike protrusions from its chest broken and cracked. The monstrosity was vaguely skeletal in shape, with unnaturally long limbs that sprouted from granite shoulders. The eyes were deep red spots on the arrowhead face, as if created by a fire burning deep within the stone. They faded.

Even after all these centuries, seeing a thunderclast up close made Kalak shiver. The beast’s hand was as long as a man was tall. He’d been killed by hands like those before, and it hadn’t been pleasant.

Of course, dying rarely was.”

These are the first lines from Way of Kings. Now, let’s check out the opening lines from The Judging Eye:

“A horn pealed long and lonely beneath the forest canopies. A human horn.

For a moment all was quiet. Limbs arched across the imperious heights, and great trunks bullied the hollows beneath. Shorn saplings thatched the intervening spaces. Starlings burst into the squinting sky.

They came, flickering across bands of sunlight and shadow.

Running with rutting fury, howling with rutting fury, through the lashing undergrowth, into the tabernacle deep. They swarmed over pitched slopes, kicking up leaves and humus. They parted about the trunks, chopping at the bark with rust-pitted blades. They sniffed the sky with slender noses. When they grimaced, their blank and beautiful faces were clenched like crumpled silk, becoming the expressions of ancient and inbred men.”

Now, to my ear, the latter passage has precision, power and a poetic touch, with just the right amount of words applied to create visuals far beyond what their order suggests. The other is a ‘what you see is what you get,’ and about typical from what I would expect from a mid-list author, like Fiest or Brooks or Eddings. Glancing at it technically, Bakker employs one passive verb; Sanderson uses six. Sanderson does have an interesting hook with the whole "dying" bit, but the execution afterward is clumsy and reads like outline exposition rather than being integrated in a stylistic manner.

(I should note that I compare these two mostly because TJE is one of the only fantasy books I currently have in my apartment; the rest are all boxed up. I have A Feast for Crows, but have to run off and do something now – I might make a comparison between GRRM and Sanderson later, though it might seem redundant by this point.)

Oh, I'll agree that Bakker easily has better prose than Brandon. Whatever it was that stopped me from carrying on with Bakker, it wasn't anything as simple as bad prose/characterization/story. Maybe I was just lazy.

My point was about Lynch. I'm sure a random paragraph from his work will have better flow than Sanderson's work, but the author seems so in love with his own sense of humor that the text seems to lose weight, and seems to be constructed just so the author has more opportunities to be witty. It gets old really soon.

Apart from that, while his dialogue doesn't serve him in this, Brandon's characters just seems more real and better drawn out, rather than a bunch of wise asses. His plotting and world-building are better too. And there are few instances of rambling, which Lynch certainly failed to control in his second book (I'm all for rambling, but it needs to be done well. I just couldn't care, with Lynch, what happened to his characters).

[russjass]

Bakkers prose was why I couldnt finish the Darkness that comes before. Sure it is very "adult", but what the hell. For me the metaphors just jar, and seem unnecessary, put in just for the sake of it.

An example from above, the trunks "bullying" the hollows. This does not immediately connect in my mind, you really have to go through a thought process of "bullying, okay, err looming, right, got it" which for me slows down the flow of the text and hides the story. I found myself just ignoring the metaphors, instead of thinking what the hell is a "bullied hollow", i was just "ah, a hollow". But i got sick of this quickly.

Edit: typo

[kuenjato]

Bakkers prose was why I couldnt finish the Darkness that comes before. Sure it is very "adult", but what the hell. For me the metaphors just jar, and seem unnecessary, put in just for the sake of it.

An example from above, the trunks "bullying" the hollows. This does not immediately connect in my mind, you really have to go through a thought process of "bullying, okay, err looming, right, got it" which for me slows down the flow of the text and hides the story. I found myself just ignoring the metaphors, instead of thinking what the hell is a "bullied hollow", i was just "ah, a hollow". But i got sick of this quickly.

Edit: typo

russjass: no offense intended, but this is exactly why Sanderson (as one example) will ship more and sell more books than Bakker. Bakker's prose requires more intellectual involvement (or reading experience, I dunno) and that tends to get in the way of escapism, which is a large percentage of the market.

I maintain, technically, that the prose quoted above is brilliant. But different strokes...

Fionwe:

Mostly what I was doing was puzzling out why Sanderson's prose struck me as so... dull, to my ear. I wanted to get sucked in; a ten-book series by a prolific author sounded exciting, and the synopsis ideas, though convoluted, at least hinted at some seriously epic possibilities. The pedestrian prose stopped me in my tracks, though.

Given that my experience with the content of Sanderson's style is limited to that sample, (and the sample chapters to The Gathering Storm), I can't argue comparison between the authors. I do remember Lynch striking me as still... young, and a little immature in some ways (the plethora of curse words, some awkwardly used), but for a guy in his mid-20's, Lies was very impressive as a first novel.

[Liadin]

russjass: no offense intended, but this is exactly why Sanderson (as one example) will ship more and sell more books than Bakker. Bakker's prose requires more intellectual involvement (or reading experience, I dunno) and that tends to get in the way of escapism, which is a large percentage of the market.

I dunno. I get your point here, but most of the truly literary books I've read don't sound much like the Bakker excerpt. He uses original metaphors, yes, and original metaphors are good, but the really good ones serve to clarify rather than obscure. When I'm reading a truly literary author, I'll come across some turn of phrase and think, "Wow, that's exactly what it looks/sounds/feels like! That's clever!" When I read that excerpt, I was more like, "Bullying hollows? Squinting sky? Huh?" It's original, but it felt more show-off-y than actually intelligent.

[russjass]

I dunno. I get your point here, but most of the truly literary books I've read don't sound much like the Bakker excerpt. He uses original metaphors, yes, and original metaphors are good, but the really good ones serve to clarify rather than obscure. When I'm reading a truly literary author, I'll come across some turn of phrase and think, "Wow, that's exactly what it looks/sounds/feels like! That's clever!" When I read that excerpt, I was more like, "Bullying hollows? Squinting sky? Huh?" It's original, but it felt more show-off-y than actually intelligent.

I agree with this, it seemed faux intellectual, to the extreme detriment of the story. But as you say, i read books for escapism, the only thing i want to think about is the story, not puzzle out obscure and unnessecary metaphors. I have no literary background, and dont really want one, so as you say, different strokes for different folks.

[russjass]

Bakker's prose requires more intellectual involvement (or reading experience, I dunno) and that tends to get in the way of escapism, which is a large percentage of the market. I maintain, technically, that the prose quoted above is brilliant. But different strokes...

I wonder if you can clarify your point here? When you say intellectual, do you mean a higher level of intelligence or a greater background in literature?

Trying to decide whether to be insulted or not :P

Sorry for the double post

[fionwe1987]

Fionwe:

Mostly what I was doing was puzzling out why Sanderson's prose struck me as so... dull, to my ear. I wanted to get sucked in; a ten-book series by a prolific author sounded exciting, and the synopsis ideas, though convoluted, at least hinted at some seriously epic possibilities. The pedestrian prose stopped me in my tracks, though.

Given that my experience with the content of Sanderson's style is limited to that sample, (and the sample chapters to The Gathering Storm), I can't argue comparison between the authors. I do remember Lynch striking me as still... young, and a little immature in some ways (the plethora of curse words, some awkwardly used), but for a guy in his mid-20's, Lies was very impressive as a first novel.

So this excerpt in Tor's website is all you've read of Sanderson? Then I'd advise reading some more. Not that his prose is very great in other works or anything, but the man has definite story-telling chops. I'd say skip Elantris. I couldn't get into it (because of the prose, now that I come to think of it), though it has quite a decent story, from what I could tell. But Mistborn is worth a read, and Warbreaker is a pretty good books. Warbreaker is, in fact, a great place to start, because the ebook is available for free on Sanderson's website (at least, that is how I read it first).

[Migey]

You cant judge Sanderson by Elantris, and anyone who tries to tell you he is good or bad because of that book is wrong. Consider that he spent 6 years writing in between Elantris and Mistborn while he got it published.

Anyway, thats beside the point, what i mean is, just by reading a little bit of Sanderson, you cant get a really good idea of what he is like. He is an author who is amazing at some things, but just doesnt have the feel for some others. His prose isnt the best, but ive read worse. What really draws to me his books are his vivid and imaginative worlds, the awesome magic (The magic is a matter of taste. Too mechanical for some, but great for others.) and the great twists (he has quite a few of those)

Elantris was decent, Mistborn was much better, and Warbreaker was a little better still. From the exeprt of WoK, im confident that it will be a good enough book, and i will definately read it, although i can already tell that Kaladin will get on my nerves, and so will Shallans 'humor'.

[Liadin]

So this excerpt in Tor's website is all you've read of Sanderson? Then I'd advise reading some more. Not that his prose is very great in other works or anything, but the man has definite story-telling chops. I'd say skip Elantris. I couldn't get into it (because of the prose, now that I come to think of it), though it has quite a decent story, from what I could tell. But Mistborn is worth a read, and Warbreaker is a pretty good books. Warbreaker is, in fact, a great place to start, because the ebook is available for free on Sanderson's website (at least, that is how I read it first).

I wouldn't recommend any of Sanderson's work to a self-described prose snob. Mistborn may be better than Elantris (I haven't read Elantris), but whatever its other merits it's not well-written. If Kuenjato was turned off by this excerpt, he/she is best off avoiding Sanderson altogether.

[End of Disc One]

I'd say Sanderson's biggest strength is his plotting, and that's something you won't realize unless you read a full book of his. I doubt we'll be seeing very many inconsistencies in The Stormlight Archive.

[Gigei]

"squinting sky"??? :crying: That's Bakker? Remind me never to read him, ever. :stillsick:

[fionwe1987]

"squinting sky"??? :crying: That's Bakker? Remind me never to read him, ever. :stillsick:

While I generally like his prose, I've got to admit this is pretty ridiculous. What does it MEAN?

[Grogsmash]

"squinting sky"??? :crying: That's Bakker? Remind me never to read him, ever. :stillsick:

If you think that is bad, then you really want to stay away from his sex scenes!

[Peter Ahlstrom]

Glancing at it technically, Bakker employs one passive verb; Sanderson uses six.

You're confusing stative verbs + participles, or just participial adjectives, with passive verbs. Bakker uses no passive verbs in the quoted text, and Sanderson uses two. ("created by a fire" and "killed by hands")

Personally I prefer reading a transparent style, where the words don't get in the way of the story.

(I assume that "squinting sky" means the sky is visible from below only as narrow patches through the tree branches overhead.)

[Liadin]

(I assume that "squinting sky" means the sky is visible from below only as narrow patches through the tree branches overhead.)

I thought it meant either a] looking at it makes you squint or b] it's sort of a bright pale blue.... not sure why I'd think that, it just feels appropriate somehow. Kind of like a "metallic sky."

Pretty unfortunate either way. Start writing about squinting skies and pretty soon you're falling down the slippery slope toward Robert Stanek and his feral clouds....

[Old Nan]

Sanderson handles plot fairly well. All the other aspects of storytelling are sometimes there - sometimes good - and sometimes absent, and his writing itself is choppy.

I think that of the two Mormon novelists I've read, he's currently on a slightly lower level than Stephanie Meyer. But he could improve.

[fionwe1987]

I thought it meant either a] looking at it makes you squint or b] it's sort of a bright pale blue.... not sure why I'd think that, it just feels appropriate somehow. Kind of like a "metallic sky."

Pretty unfortunate either way. Start writing about squinting skies and pretty soon you're falling down the slippery slope toward Robert Stanek and his feral clouds....

Without having read (or ever planning to read) Stanek, "feral clouds" is better than squinting sky. The meaning, at least, is clear.

As for squinting sky, I think you're right. The sky is causing people to squint, because it is that bright, I suppose. But what a horrible way to say bright sky.

There's also "howling with rutting fury". How do you do that? Yell loud enough to gouge the earth?

And in "tabernacle deep", does tabernacle used in the sense of a niche to display artwork or a dwelling place? Because neither makes sense in the context of the sentence.

I must say, upon further review, this piece of Bakker's prose, at least, is utter tripe. Way too contrived, and obscuring meaning rather than making things clearer.

[MattL86]

I think that of the two Mormon novelists I've read, he's currently on a slightly lower level than Stephanie Meyer. But he could improve.

Wow, poor Sanderson, that's really a low blow. :P

[TrishB]

There's also "howling with rutting fury". How do you do that? Yell loud enough to gouge the earth?

I'm guessing he's going for a different meaning of the word rutting here, such as animals in rut. That would seem in keeping with his propensity for weird sexual imagery.