Brandon Sanderson

[aidan]

How much of the novel did he write after working on WOT? I seem to remember that it was mostly written pre-WOT and the editing (albeit heavy editing) happened post-WOT.

[SpaceCoyote]

How much of the novel did he write after working on WOT? I seem to remember that it was mostly written pre-WOT and the editing (albeit heavy editing) happened post-WOT.

I think that's about right. From what I understand the first draft was written before Misborn, even. Although I think the 'heavy-editing' was more of a page one rewrite than anything. Sanderson writes stupidly fast. He basically polished off this entire book between Wheel of Time drafts. Despite being a little underwhelmed with Mistborn (especially the ending of the trilogy) I'm optimistic for this series. I'm a fan of huge fantasy epics, and with both Malazan and WOT winding down, I'm hoping this can jump into the breach. I like my fantasy books big and weighty, and Sanderson seems to have turned out a cinder-block. But then I also like prog-rock, so maybe I just have a thing for artistic works that last 5 times longer then they should.

[Werthead]

Thanks for the great review!

I've asked others who've reviewed this book, and I'm still curious to know: how do you think Sanderson's work with WoT has influenced this book? I'm sure that a lot of what makes this book great is due to Sanderson's own maturation as an author, but do you think writing WoT contributed?

Further, with this series being touted as the next WoT (and for Tor, they're definitely going to hope this series does as well), are there any similarities? Brandon is one of the few current writers who names Jordan as an influence. Is that felt here?

You could probably go through and pick out the influences. Shallan's sense of humour feels a lot like Mat's in The Gathering Storm (great for her, less so for Mat), and Kaladin has some Rand-esque moments although generally he's a very different character.

However, Sanderson is a bit of a student of epic fantasy and you can see influences from all over the shop. The more offbeat, non-traditional world and races are vaguely reminiscent of Erikson; there's some theological and philosophical discussions that briefly recall Bakker; there's treachery, unexpected reversals and character deaths Martin would be proud of; and there's the well-realised magic system and sense of history that are more like Jordan. Yet it also feels like its own thing. An interesting balancing act.

[Imagica]

Characterisation is an area where Sanderson takes a significant step forward in quality. His characters in The Way of Kings are considerably more flawed and more real than those in Mistborn or Elantris, but he also avoids turning them into grim, grey ciphers. These characters are given motivations and rationales for what they do which make sense, and then evolve satisfyingly over the course of the book. It has to be said that of the three major protagonists Shallan is the one who is not developed very satisfyingly in this way until the very end of the book, when her last three or four chapters transform the reader's understanding of her character and motives in a very impressive manner.

Ooh, that's promising! Characterization was my biggest gripe with Sanderson's writing (had to stop reading Mistborn in the middle because of the lack of interesting and memorable characters - well, there were two, but both were killed off), so I really hope he got better.

How about idealism vs cynicism? On what side of the spectrum are the main characters? I just have a headache when I remember Elend and how much I wanted to punch him in the face during book 2 of Mistborn...

[Larry.]

Ooh, that's promising! Characterization was my biggest gripe with Sanderson's writing (had to stop reading Mistborn in the middle because of the lack of interesting and memorable characters - well, there were two, but both were killed off), so I really hope he got better.

How about idealism vs cynicism? On what side of the spectrum are the main characters? I just have a headache when I remember Elend and how much I wanted to punch him in the face during book 2 of Mistborn...

No real world-weary characters, but more of a balance between hope and cynicism so far, nearly halfway-done with it.

[Gormenghast]

Since I don't have the book yet I guess I can polemize a bit without things getting too personal.

From the descriptions I'm reading it seems that the book's main traits can be summarized as "darker", "grey characters", "unexpected deaths", "elaborate worldbuilding + magic system". Along with specific elements like "seasonal" cycles that threaten human life (winter is coming), or the book, in Werth's claim, having 200 pages or so more than it needed.

Then I read: "a student of epic fantasy who's made it his business to test the limits of the subgenre".

But from the previous claims it seems to me that more than challenging the "limits" (what limits?) of a genre, Sanderson's book is meant to fall precisely within the CANON of the market idea of epic fantasy, sounding like a mishmash of popular elements taken out of the most famous series. A book that perfectly fits in a mold. For a specific purpose, and a specific public that has specific demands about the specific genre. Like a book made with "marketing" in mind, if you get my provocation.

I'm not arguing about the quality of execution, but the book appears to be the perfect match of what we were discussing on the MJH thread. In particular those very specific canons and criteria that are used to define the genre.

So I ask TO LARRY, since he's the one who's allergic to categorizations, how do you feel about this book in regard to the greater picture, and not in regard to its position in the specific genre? How does it stands on its own, regardless of what Sanderson wrote before? Regardless of canons or expectations from its target audience?

In particular I was a bit turned off about the writing style of the first pages of the Prologue: the constant namedropping, Thunderclasts, Surgebinders, Dustbringers. This inflated used of noun + noun without previously contextualize them and only relying on the familiarity of the use of "jargon" in fantasy books. It's a language very specific of a genre but that also feels like a wall you crash against since those names are used before they even begin to mean something. Like if the author is writing to someone who knows everything already and has a perfect control of the jargon. The text is assertive and kind of inimical. Or even the overall style that's neither directly influenced by the PoV, nor impersonal or neutral, somewhere in the middle and seemingly belonging to none.

So I'd like Larry's point of view on this since I remember he also got turned off sometimes when the writing style of fantasy books relies so much on jargon and self-referential arguments specific to the genre.

[Larry.]

You'll have to wait until the 31st before you get the full review. I'm not past p. 450, so all I can say is that it is "more of the same, just executed a bit better." There is nothing experimental, nothing that rivals Camus, Calvino, Borges, Ligotti, VanderMeer, or Gene Wolfe in the way the prose is crafted or the characterizations are constructed. It will not make my top 10 and probably not my top 25 for the year. But considering the books that will make it, that is no shame. It is a work that is inoffensive, mildly interesting, and an improvement for the author from his previous efforts. It is not the sort of story that I would remember in the way that I remember "The South" or Invisible Cities, however. But I don't evaluate works based on wildly disparate themes in other works, so your comments here are a bit odd, to say the least. What the story attempts to achieve, it appears to achieve much more than it comes up short, but I still have a little over 550 pages left to read tonight and perhaps tomorrow, so even the "shortcomings" that I perceive might be cleared up, so I'll withhold judgment until I've actually read the book, unlike some others I've seen comment on it ;)

[Gormenghast]

But I don't evaluate works based on wildly disparate themes in other works, so your comments here are a bit odd, to say the least.

Yeah, I didn't ask to remove the fantasy comparisons to use more literary ones as replacement ;) Remove comparisons altogether, including all other books you've read this year, fantasy or not.

I just wanted to know a specific point of view on the book without using fantasy epic canons to frame it. So an opinion outside of the book's specific target audience.

In particular what you think about the writing style and things I felt irritating in the first few pages.

[Larry.]

Yeah, I didn't ask to remove the fantasy comparisons to use more literary ones as replacement ;) Remove comparisons altogether, including all other books you've read this year, fantasy or not.

I just wanted to know a specific point of view on the book without using fantasy epic canons to frame it. So an opinion outside of the book's specific target audience.

In particular what you think about the writing style and things I felt irritating in the first few pages.

You'll have to wait until the 31st for that. As I said, I haven't finished reading the book yet and I'm not posting the review until the release date.

[Roy Ryders]

Way of Kings, like everything else he's written, is no doubt going to be overly simplistic and formulaic. It's fine to have Jordan as an influence (...I guess...if you really have to...), but not to simply take standard fantasy ala jordan and turn it on its head. Mistborn's just, like, WoT but were it went the other way so the Dark Lord won, yada yada yada, but the rest is the same, and later you learn that he (spoiler) didn't even win, so it's all just the same except that it's advertised that it's not!

And Elantris sucked, too, because all the characters were stupid and the zombies were too stupid to actually work on bettering their situation. oh no, pain never goes away, stuff, so just don't do stuff where you can get hurt, duh!

[Arlingzen Bill]

The point where I felt the biggest WOT influence was at a point where he started describing a dress...It was a bit Jordanesque.

[aidan]

Way of Kings, like everything else he's written, is no doubt going to be overly simplistic and formulaic. It's fine to have Jordan as an influence (...I guess...if you really have to...), but not to simply take standard fantasy ala jordan and turn it on its head. Mistborn's just, like, WoT but were it went the other way so the Dark Lord won, yada yada yada, but the rest is the same, and later you learn that he (spoiler) didn't even win, so it's all just the same except that it's advertised that it's not!

And Elantris sucked, too, because all the characters were stupid and the zombies were too stupid to actually work on bettering their situation. oh no, pain never goes away, stuff, so just don't do stuff where you can get hurt, duh!

So despite numerous opinions (by people who have, you know... read the book) that Sanderson continues to grow and expand his versatility as a writer, you've judged and categorized the book before it's even been released?

[Gabriele]

So despite numerous opinions (by people who have, you know... read the book) that Sanderson continues to grow and expand his versatility as a writer, you've judged and categorized the book before it's even been released?

Maybe he's getting a bit bored under that bridge. ;)

[Humble Asskicker]

There is nothing experimental, nothing that rivals Camus, Calvino, Borges, Ligotti, VanderMeer, or Gene Wolfe in the way the prose is crafted or the characterizations are constructed.

Wait - you're literate in French and Italian in addition to English and Spanish? Or are you commending translators in the case of prose?

As for the characterization, I still haven't gotten to Wolfe or Borges, and this is the first I've heard of Calvino, Ligotti and Vandermeer, but I certainly have read works of Camus and no fucking way is he a genius of characterization. Far, far from it (unless tedium is considered a factor in your measurement). He's good with ideas, but even the protagonist of The Stranger was flatly characterized, aside from the characteristic that connoted to the philosophy that drove the book.

And Camus also writes conventional literature; a different convention than what Sanderson approaches, but just as prolific in content as Sanderson's.

Sanderson is easily the more entertaining of the two.

[cseresz]

Way of Kings, like everything else he's written, is no doubt going to be overly simplistic and formulaic. It's fine to have Jordan as an influence (...I guess...if you really have to...), but not to simply take standard fantasy ala jordan and turn it on its head. Mistborn's just, like, WoT but were it went the other way so the Dark Lord won, yada yada yada, but the rest is the same, and later you learn that he (spoiler) didn't even win, so it's all just the same except that it's advertised that it's not!

And Elantris sucked, too, because all the characters were stupid and the zombies were too stupid to actually work on bettering their situation. oh no, pain never goes away, stuff, so just don't do stuff where you can get hurt, duh!

I share your opinion but

/troll on

It is generally believed that Sanderson is the greatest fantasy author of all time.

Mistborn 1: Book of the Year. That's a fact.

Mistborn 2: Book of the Year. That's a fact.

Mistborn 3: Book of the Year. That's a fact.

Elantris: Book of the Year. That's a fact.

Warbreaker: Book of the Year. That's a fact.

The Gathering Storm: Book of the Year. That's a fact.

Way of Kings: Book of the Century. That's a fact.

It is clearly that you have a bad taste. No offence! That's a fact.

I make no secret of it: you are an unintelligent person. No offence! That's a fact.

/troll off

[Horselover Fat]

this is the first I've heard of Calvino, Ligotti and Vandermeer

I agree completely with most of what you have to say (especially about Camus' ordinariness as an author). If you like horror at all you should definitely check out Thomas Ligotti. Very literate, well written, kind of philosophical. Good stuff. I would start with The Nightmare Factory (a short story collection).

I have heard good things about Jeff Vandermeer (Finch and Shriek to name two of his books) but I have not yet read him. I intend to at some point. He is supposed to be "New Weird" I guess similar to Mieville.

I have no idea about Calvino.

I do wonder about people who are determined to despise Sanderson until he writes something along the lines of The Sound and The Fury or Ulysses. And if he does they will likely discount it as derivative or something. I understand everyone has different tastes but the level of abuse heaped upon Sanderson I see as unreasonable. He's not Stanek or Goodkind for crap's sake.

[Liadin]

I do wonder about people who are determined to despise Sanderson until he writes something along the lines of The Sound and The Fury or Ulysses. And if he does they will likely discount it as derivative or something. I understand everyone has different tastes but the level of abuse heaped upon Sanderson I see as unreasonable. He's not Stanek or Goodkind for crap's sake.

I have to wonder at posts like this. If Sanderson produced some excellent work of literature, people would recognize that, but in reality he's a rather mediocre and overhyped genre author. You'd do better to stop taking offense when people recognize the fact. He writes stuff that appeals to you, which is great, but don't treat him like the next Tolkien and then wonder why people feel the need to counterbalance your comments.

[Horselover Fat]

Oh I take no offense at all, after all I didn't write it. I was not holding Sanderson up as one of my most favored writers even. I simply said that in MY opinion, he is not as bad as many here have made him out to be. That is all. Of course he is a mediocre genre writer, almost all genre writers are. We are not discussing great lit-ra-cher here. BTW where in my post did I compare him to Tolkein? Unless you mean where I said he was better than Goodkind or Stanek...faint praise indeed.

edit; OK I do plead guilty to hyperbole in the case of Ulysses et al.

[Larry.]

Interesting sidetrack there. There's nothing condemnatory in noting that Sanderson doesn't write like an acclaimed prose stylist, only that he doesn't and one shouldn't praise the story as being on the level of the greats. But as an epic fantasy, it is a pleasing read, just nothing mind-blowing about the prose, characterizations, or situations to date. If that's what you seek, you'll find some diversion here.

[Horselover Fat]

OK this will be my last try, I evidently am not being at all clear.

IMO Sanderson seems to garner much more negativity than other authors of the same approximate skill level.

That is all, nothing else. I regret my earlier (I thought) clearly hyperbolic suggestion that Sanderson could write something on par with some of the great English language novels and still be found wanting my many. This seems to have been taken more seriously than I intended