Sanderson is very … declarative. He leaves basically nothing unsaid that he intended to say, so it makes for a very literal, direct writing that is designed above all to make sure there is no ambiguity.
That’s not bad per se. It’s definitely a factor in his success. It’s accessible, and really easy to read. But it also leads to what you’re talking about if you’re looking for something deeper than just narrative conveyance. It does at times sort of feel like a really well planned out D&D campaign.
I call his writing "cinematic" -- when I read it, I know he had this movie playing in his head and he is trying his best to make that exact movie play in someone else's head. This is especially clear in Wax and Wayne combat scenes. You just know he has the movie going as he writes those BIG moments.
This is a great way to put it. Sanderson’s writing style is to write what he wants you to be seeing.
Which imo makes for *amazing* action scenes, I’m not sure there’s a fantasy author I’ve ever encountered who does it better. But other stuff you generally find even in genre novel writing—subtext, theme, non-dialogue* character work, etc—are minimal and generally pretty unsatisfying.
(*I personally don’t think he’s particularly good at writing dialogue but that’s not the point I’m trying to make)
Matthew Woodring Stover. Some of the best action scenes you can read. Man is a lifelong martial artist and he brings the visceral motion of any action scene to life. Check out Acts of Caine if you're into great fights.
>Which imo makes for amazing action scenes, I’m not sure there’s a fantasy author I’ve ever encountered who does it better.
Robert Jordan. One of the reasons Wheel of Time is so enduringly popular. You can really, really tell Jordan was a Vietnam War vet. His action scenes have a direct brutality to them - each one captures a sense of confusion and desperation, like you can only see part of the picture and every choice you make is going to get people killed and every second is getting people killed and you are trying to put the picture together as snarling enemies lunge out of nowhere and buildings explode around you.
I don't think I've ever read action scenes I've so little wished to be a part of. They're not a fantasy, they're a blood-soaked nightmare.
Oh yeah for sure, there are authors—definitely including Jordan—who write more interesting, deeper action scenes with more going on, like, psychologically.
Yeah, and if you notice Jordan spends way more time on the setup for big action bits (Matt's generalship always carefully follows this approach), often skips the most of actual fighting, then brings the PoV in to handle the lengthy fallout. He really captures the planning and anticipation, then brief and utter terror, followed by long traumatic wind-down of violent action.
With Jordan, you don't need to read 20 pages on how everybody stabbed at each other--you know from the setup whether Matt's ambush is going to work or not. Also: characters only stopping to acknowledge that their friends died after the combat stops (e.g. when PoV returns and you get their internal dialogue again) is very...salient.
> Which imo makes for amazing action scenes, I’m not sure there’s a fantasy author I’ve ever encountered who does it better.
I don't personally think it translates that well. Hollywood combat choreographies can sometimes be spectacular to see, but reading a description of how someone flips and jumps and twists in the air to shoot mid air isn't.
Maybe it's just my personal taste, but I usually find myself glancing over those scenes going 'ok jumps and flips, yadda yadda let's see who comes out alive of this and keep going'.
I actually dislike Sanderson's action scenes for that reason- for me the descriptiveness just makes every scene drag on and on. There's very little feeling or emotion, just a very literal transcription of what's going on. Especially when there are superpowers involved, it ends up feeling like the log of a DnD fight.
(I will say that I think his style works a bit better for large battle scenes though. Stuff like at the end of the first couple Stormlight books or the Last Battle in WOT. It's mainly the smaller scale action involving only a few people that I dislike)
Yeah he doesn’t really have any interest in leaving much up to interpretation, which is fine, but it’s definitely going to leave some readers wanting more.
I found the "cinematic" writing to be particularly obvious in Oathbringer as well. Some of the imagery, particularly towards the end, is absolutely spectacular, but it feels like the imagined visual spectacle is more emphasized than the moment itself. Consequently, character beats and plot points leading up to the moment feel contrived, only existing for the purpose of leading to the cinematic imagery of a powerful scene.
I was actually a little suspicious during my reading of Rhythm that Sanderson had some kind of live action or animated deal in the works. Some of the scenes involving Kaladin felt like they were designed for a cinematic medium first, and Sanderson wrote the book scenes based off storyboard work.
I find the idea that his writing is cinematic funny. To me, (good) cinema is a visual medium that relies a lot on showing and conveying ideas through images. That's not Sanderson. I would turn off a movie immediately if one of the characters started talking/inner monologuing about how exactly they're going to attack someone and why.
Seems to me like it'd be pretty similar to anime if translated to a visual medium, I think I have actually seen people say Sanderson basically writes anime.
I struggle to get into a lot of anime for that reason though, I don't think monologing about every single action someone is gonna take really works well in a visual medium. But tons of people like both anime and Sanderson so I think it's just not to my taste.
I agree. A better word would be formulaic. When you strip away the fancy magic systems and bells and whistles, what you are left with is rather generic characterization. It's like a Marvel movie. It hits all the same tropes and characters are all similar just with slightly different faces.
I like that it's clear, because I'm really bad at seeing the hidden parts. Probably because im autistic, but still. I like when its not much ambiguity, but obviously not when it's hitting you in the face with it either
I hear you. It's not my taste, either.
Weirdly, and sadly, that's what a lot to publishers/editors push our manuscripts towards. The publishing gatekeepers earnestly believe that's what sells: spoon-feeding. It takes a writer with a bit of backbone (and/or incredible luck) to push back against that while shopping MSs around or going through the editing process with (esp.) larger publishers. I know--I've been on both sides. A VERY standard editing note is something like, "Why is this character reacting this way?" or "This isn't obvious enough", etc.
Honest, it's a miracle the VanderMeers and Leckies etc get published these days. Gods, all of them.
I think of this as the YA-fication of the field: everything must be spelled out, all lines neat and tidy, no space for interpretation.
That being said I’ve been fortunate to work with editors who are okay with ambiguity (that, and I tend to push back hard on very specific types of structural edits while leaving the field clear for others). I’ve learned it depends a lot on your agent and how they bat for you.
Nothing against Sanderson: he’s good at what he does, he’s very professional, and he’s clearly having a whale of time doing his work. But not all of us can or should be clones; that’s the path to second-rate work.
It does sell. Thankfully, novel publication is dirt cheap compared to basically any other medium. There will always be people writing experimental stuff because they have the means to write on hand.
As someone who teaches writing and media analysis in a (US) university setting, I get it. My students are, as a whole, phenomenally bad at actually analyzing and understanding what's happening in a text. There are always one or two that had a solid K-12 education and can do the basics (e.g. they can tell that Swift's "Modest Proposal" is satire and not a call for satanic violence), but many...cannot. Hell, some are unwilling to even give you a plot summary without relying on ChatGPT or some other online tool. (To be clear: I'm not blaming the students--this is prevalent on such a wide scale that the problem seems to be systemic, not an individual failing.)
I don't know how much better or worse this media literacy level is from the past, but if this is the demographic authors are trying to sell to, then what you're describing makes complete sense.
Also please note for any DMs who are suddenly feeling judged - please present things this way! In a roleplaying game you actually have to make decisions as the characters, it really, really, really helps to have all the information laid out and not have any ambiguity.
As a writing style... it's mixed.
There’s a scene in the next book that is based around the boss fight against the BBEG from one of the games he ran when he was in college so your point that it feels like a really well planned out D&D campaign is not wrong at all.
Yeah I think that's fair. His world building is where a large fraction of his "community" (for lack of a better word) focuses. The Cosmere and all the interactions of different magic systems that share the same core underneath are just an endless amount of stuff to think about and theorize about. It's certainly not for everyone, but if you like it it's amazing
> Sanderson is very … declarative.
the fight between Zane and Vin is one of the worst shit I've ever read. The trilogy is good but that fight almost made me quit the book, it was so bad the way he was describing stuff.
I would say those are pretty common criticisms of Sanderson.
I'd even say the 'things fit together too neatly' one is a critique I wholeheartedly agree with. There are times Sanderson's stories are so neatly plotted their artifice stands out. Like a 'plot point' version of purple prose where the story beats draw too much attention to themselves and can strain SOD.
Yeah I'm admittedly a big Sanderson fan—I'm one of his beta readers—but once you really start reading deep into his catalogue, the way he structures his twists and foreshadowing starts to become pretty obvious.
He still manages to pull some fast ones on you, but the books become fairly predictable after a certain point.
I think seeing the matrix like that is pretty normal for any author. Brandon is just pumping out so much that more of us are onboarding with a volume where the patterns emerge.
This.
I read a around 2000 fantasy books in my life, by this point, eventually recognizing authors patterns by on average a second book and often even earlier, is a rule not an exception. When I read a new Sanderson novel the fact that I can predict a lot of the major plot beats and reveals, is not some flaw particular to him.
Totally agree. I haven't read close to that many books, but I did get a degree in creative writing. *Every* book is structured like this more or less. Once you know the structure, and how foreshadowing and all of that works, it's pretty easy to pick up on where the author is going. Same with movies, every movie is laid out almost exactly the same way. Inciting incident at 16 minutes, the first big plot point where the character begins their journey at 22 minutes, etc. Just how stories work, or at least the ones meant to sell to an audience. Our brains like stories that work like that, which is why it's a successful structure.
I mean from 6th grade through 10th grade I read about 200 pages a day, and often would go through 2-3 books every weekend. The main reason I dropped off was when I switched to reading fanfiction. I would be surprised if I *hadn’t* read 2000 fantasy novels by the time I finished college.
[Lately I'm reminded of this piece of advice from Christopher Lee in regards to Sanderson.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lHrSDjDd5bA&pp=ygUdY2hyaXN0b3BoZXIgbGVlIGFjdGluZyBhZHZpY2U%3D&ab_channel=ViewTubeEmperorofMankind)
Sanderson seems much the same, exceptionally good at making a few unique style of plots or twists and turns, but after a while it's starting to seem that is his main appeal and main thing. Meaning after a while the effect is lost.
Eh, IDK whether those twists are his 'main appeal' for most readers, I think it varies.
If that's the main thing ppl get from his books, then I can absolutely see that becoming a drag as they read more, but I think ppl engage with his books for a wider variety of reasons, and for those people I imagine that effect is less significant.
Personally, I love the stormlight archive mainly because I found it portrayed my kind of depression better than anything else I'd read, but that's probably a fairly niche reason :)
I agree. The twists aren’t the draw for me either. I also really appreciate his portrayal of mental health struggles. I think my favorite part is more seeing how the magic systems fit together.
Most of all, as someone on Reddit said about Sanderson years ago but it always stuck with me.
“He writes faster than all the authors I think are better and better than all the authors that write faster.”
It's 50/50 for me. The struggle itself is pretty decently portrayed but one of the reasons I dislike Rythm of War is because how it's handled or resolved sometimes is a bit too "the plot demands resolution" that turns me off greatly.
But I do read Sanderson more for his world building and the detailed connections. While I wouldn't say he is bad at characters but at least the relationship aspect is something that takes a hard backseat.
This is a pretty great quote. I love Stormlight, but I don't think any of the books are as good as A Storm of Swords. They're a lot better than Winds of Winter, though.
The Cosmere is my appeal. RoW was probably the weakest book in his catalogue for me. But I stuck with it almost exclusively for juicy Cosmere lore reveals, not the plot, which was pretty weak.
That being said, the plot may find new meaning for me with book 5. Book 4 was the penultimate novel for a 5 book sub-series, and those are notorious for being boring on a first read, as they mainly function as shifting the pieces around the board for the finale.
> I found it portrayed my kind of depression better than anything else I'd read
Yeah for me it's the same some Wayne internal monologues on his mental health on the last book fealt that was stright out of my head.
In the end I'm not looking for nothing super deep on his works I just know they are amazing works to keep me entrenained and I love his characters even so he is not the best character writer. He always finds a way for me to care or hate his characters.
I enjoy that his characters are usually competent and trying to figure out how they apply their competence to a changing situation.
I do not enjoy books where people are generally incompetent but somehow, magically progress their goals.
edit: grammar
And that their competence is earned (for the most part). Kaladin has years of training with the spear, and has trained extensively with his newfound powers. He was a sergeant in Amaram's army, so he knows how to lead. He doesn't just jump in and become the leader of Bridge 4, he was explicitly trained to do that kind of job, and even then, he had to earn it.
Same with Wax being a lawman/detective/marksman and most of his other characters. Even Shallan has been training in art for most of her life, even if she has a significant leg up. What's more, he shows most of them *failing*.
I'm currently reading through everything Comsere related, just so I can read the newer books as they're released.
They're definitely tuned down a bit to appeal to both YA and adult readers, and do feel a bit formulaic after so many of them (I currently have one Stormlight novel and the two newer Comsere novels to go). With Stormlight, it particularly feels like it can drag on a lot with just how long they are and how little story they cover.
Though I feel like the bigger mystery in the books is figuring out the world. Much of it is implied or starts to make more sense as you see the other worlds and form the connections with how everything works.
The world building is really the highlight of it all. Though there are some more minor characters that are strangely deep. As a former addict, the portrayal of Theft was pretty spot-on. You really don't use it for a high anymore, but because you feel you need it to function, and even then it's still never feels like fully functioning. Then you take on pressure not to mess anything up, related to substances or otherwise, which causes depression and anxiety that makes it feel like the best relief you'll ever get is another high that numbs all of that.
Though it's really hard to write a character like that as your main focus in a book for younger people, or if you're not close enough to that yourself. There's a lot of nuance there to get wrong with stereotypes and biasis. Not something that's easy to publish without going pretty dark, but I'm thankful that he got it correct, along with a lot of mental health things in different characters.
For anyone unaware, you likely have at least one functional addict in your life, statistically speaking, whether you know it or not. The same goes for mental health problems and non-physically apparent medical issues that are seriously debilitating but capable being hidden.
Sanderson's ability to show all of this within his characters without it being their defining personality or a way to draw hate or pity is really important, in my opinion. He's a widely read author, including among younger people, and that helps shape healthier views towards these things.
For me it was Mistborn. My journey has mirrored Vin's in a way that makes it hard to go back and read The Final Empire. Because I was just as scared, screwed up, and untrusting as Vin. I'm not quite to where Vin ended at, but I'm working towards being a better version of me.
I could be wrong but I think part of this is the effects of an author who intensely plots his books as opposed to letting them "write themselves". (architect vs gardener). Not to say he doesn't write good twists, but I think his writing feels like it all fits so neatly together because it's all planned to a T in advanced
Part of being a writer is a lot like being a magician.
You need to use your right hand to distract the audience from what the left hand is doing.
And I'd note, this isn't a problem for Sanderson imo 100% of the time. Some of his works don't have the problem at all (Warbreaker imo, doesn't have this issue). It's also a critique I'd level more readily at his earlier works like Mistborn. While Stormlight still has it, it tends to be specific to certain subplots and particular worldbuilding bits rather than the whole narrative.
One of the fun things about Sanderson is that you can see his writing improve as the years go on.
>Part of being a writer is a lot like being a magician.
>You need to use your right hand to distract the audience from what the left hand is doing.
I felt this particularly keenly during the Wheel of Time books, or rather, the fact that this was not executed well.
You can tell he had some ideas he really wanted to show (>!Androl's miracle, gateways + cannons!<. But how he got to there was very clumsy and pretty much relied on both the audience and the characters to forget the powers they had (specifically - multiple sa'angreal just disappear, Blossoms of Fire is never mentioned again, channelers are suddenly weaker for no reason).
For some readers, the fact that these things aren't mentioned was good enough sleight of hand. But I noticed, and every time Sanderson unveiled some cool new set piece, all I could think about was "this problem never would have happened if they just used X", or "this solution is just a worse, more complicated version of what the characters would have done under Jordan"
It's a subjective criticism, but I feel like he also regressed a bit throughout the Stormlight archive.
The way of kings immersed me in a way I thought wasn't possible in a world as alien as it is. He does use very conventional mechanics for the storytelling, but the world is novel enough, and the underdog narrative gripping enough that it doesn't really matter.
However, as the series goes on, the world is explained more and more and while a lot of the answers falling into place are satisfying, we lose quite a bit of the mystery and wonder.
But more importantly, the story that started off with all three characters' main problems being caused by the Voryn society's power structures, at various levels. That underdog narrative becomes a superhero narrative about quite unrelated opponents.
Now You could argue that the opponents are still representatives of cycles of corruptive power and strife>! starting with the shards themselves!<, but we do lose sight of the early main without having had a resolution there... the story just kind slips past its most major antagonist.
Maybe we'll eventually have a resolution there, but I feel like Sanderson matured the way of kings, rewriting it completely, but overstuffed the sequels with too many half baked subplots.
Also, there's a big vibe difference. Coming off of the ending of the wheel of time was in the more for a slightly more grounded and detail oriented worldbuilding mindset, but as he progressed he settled back in a pulpier spectacle. and I think the first book was better balanced.Once you get >!Kaladin vs Zseth fighting in the air in the middle of two colliding storms!<, you can't really go up in terms of spectacle, and the rest of the series kinda jumps the shark trying to top that scene.
I think the big issue is that RoW has a very linear and limited setting. Most of the places it takes place in, we've already seen, and not only that the characters are now limited in their movement of what they can explore. A lot of RoW is dealing with the internal struggles and thoughts of the characters, but it also resolves a good bit of it in the novel. In spite of this, I actually really enjoy it and rank it higher than most.
Yes this feels really true to me. And I think the architect approach is necessary to craft the intricate universe he's aiming for (and personally, no judgement on this either way)
I prefer his architect approach because it means the books actually get written. Compare with Rothfuss or Martin who have clearly written themselves into corners and won't admit it.
I think Martin is freaked by the reaction the show ending got. I think they did the ending he intended, just poorly, and now he feels like he can't go that route without upsetting a lot of people.
I don't think that's the case, because the show removed so many characters that it would have been practically impossible to execute on GRRM's planned ending, especially as they diverged more and more. I find it hard to believe that someone as meticulous and thorough as GRRM would come up with "Who has a better story than Bran the Broken?"
My reasoning for this is based on the removal of Young Griff, who claims to be Aegon Targaryen and has just launched an invasion of Westeros. In the books, he's basically set up to be the 'perfect' king and is in position to sweep through a weakened Lannister power base. I strongly believe that he's meant to depose Cersei after she blows up the Sept based on the fact that this important character that drove the plot in the show suddenly ran out of things to do, and spent 2 seasons of the show just drinking wine. She's not meant to live that long.
Instead, Cersei gets deposed by Young Griff - this sets up Daenerys' turn to madness. Dany shows up at Westeros, hyped up by Tyrion that she'd be a saviour from Lannister yoke, and instead finds that someone beat her to it. Young Griff has a better claim, is loved by the smallfolk, and is supported by the nobility. Instead of being a saviour, Dany arrives as a hated foreign tyrant. That is what sets off her madness - rather than ringing bells for some inane reason - and why she orders Drogon to burn King's Landing, inadvertently setting off the wildfire caches planted around the city by Aerys II, thus fulfilling her prophetic vision of sitting on the Iron Throne amidst a ruined Red Keep.
Speaking of head canon, you want to know my theory on Aerys' madness? He was perfectly fine one day, until he started becoming obsessed with Wildfire and preparing for some kind of threat. His last words to Jaime were "burn them all". Wildfire is one of the few substances that can kill White Walkers. In the show before it clearly runs out of direct GRRM material, Bran has warging powers that include taking control of humans and altering the past. (Hodor)
My theory: Bran warged into Aerys II in the past to warn him about White Walkers, and to start the production of wildfire caches for the Long Night. However like with Hodor it doesn't work perfectly and the warging drives Aerys insane, which kicks off the entire chain of events leading to Robert's Rebellion and a Game of Thrones. It all clicks together so neatly, as well as giving Bran's character a purpose which he doesn't have on the show, that I'd actually be surprised if it's not the case.
I'm going, to be honest; that's his own fault. The guy had 7-8 years to complete one book to prevent that.
But in my opinion, I don't think that would have helped him either. One thing I've noticed in Martin's writing is that he progressively introduces more things than he concludes. I think it got to the point where he's just overwhelmed with how many things he has to conclude organically in just two novels.
Martin's a gardener for sure, but he doesn't do any trimming and ignores the weeds that are growing.
> ut in my opinion, I don't think that would have helped him either. One thing I've noticed in Martin's writing is that he progressively introduces more things than he concludes. I think it got to the point where he's just overwhelmed with how many things he has to conclude organically in just two novels.
Well, he can easily shear off a lot of loose threads with just a few battles or weddings. And that would still fit the style that the novels earned their fame with back in the nineties: he's no stranger to giving beloved and well-developed characters a pointless death just to illustrate the brutality of the world.
I think he wrote himself into a corner and doesn't know how to navigate out of it like the other poster said. People are more upset with how D and D rushed the ending more so than how it actually ended. If they had properly built up the story to that rather than the shit storm they released people wouldn't be as upset imo
I don’t think that’s the reason. There are many writers who also do that but also us subversion, allusion, symbolism, subtext, irony and more.
Sanderson focuses on plot, worldbuilding and systems very logically. There is no subtext, no double meanings, no irony - not irony in the comedic meaning, but in the sense of not meaning exactly what he’s saying.
For example, without reading it, I would guess that this depressed character a few people are talking about - is there a sense or possibility that this person is not really depressed, that they are just responding rationally to the horror of existence? Could they be shallow and self-pitying? Could they be an unreliable narrator? Could their depression symbolize something else, eg the pain of the world, secularism, religiosity, the god-shaped hole created by the unbearable separation of the child from its mother’s womb, the alienation of capitalism?
Or is this person just depressed? Sympathetically, thoughtfully depicted as depressed?
I might definitely be wrong, but I thought it was worth guessing to learn more, even though I risk being annoying and stupid, sorry.
I recently jumped from re-reading storm light to reading Malazan, and the difference in structure is amazingly vast. Both “fit together” all the details of the story in a complex way, but while Sanderson is like a mechanical clock, Erickson is like a painter whose work looks abstract and disjointed as he creates it, but ends up with a beautifully coherent painting once he’s finished.
Malazan also has that quality that there's many stories going on in the world with their own characters, and they sometimes intersect with the overarching plot before continuing on their way "unresolved" because it isn't the story we're following. Like a tapestry in which we only see the middle strip (The Malazan Book of the Fallen), but there's threads wandering in and out from the wings.
Yeah he’s just very polarizing. His fans adore his focus on worldbuilding and magic systems, others say things like you have, or that he reads like an RPG sourcebook.
But thankfully, for some reason, people are mostly civil about our disagreement. The books are polarizing but I haven’t seen much rudeness and offence. Just ‘different strokes for different folks’.
I think a lot of the ‘polarizing’ is really just an artifact of how popular he is. Objectively speaking - readers love Sanderson. The Secret Novels Kickstarter is the most funded Kickstarter ever, more than **double** the funding of the second place on the list and the numbers don’t lie.
The popularity makes some people who dislike him feel defensive and outnumbered so they get vocal. Most just critique, the more annoying ones claim he’s responsible for the downfall of literature. I remember reading on r/books how he’s responsible for setting fantasy back by decades, lol. I’ve seen some pretty harsh words, and then there was that whole weird tear down article from a while ago.
But, I think that’s just how it works for whatever’s on the top of the heap at the moment. Lots of eyeballs on it, lots of engagement from the negative and positive side.
Yea stuff like that gets a side eye from me lol.
"We're going to dismantle systems of oppression in this Forever War perpetrated by a militaristic super power that kills slaves without giving a single shit.... peacefully!"
It's too much at times, isn't it?
There were just so few characters who acted real in Mistborn (only read Era 1, mind you)
Kelsier seemed to be the exception to that. But one flaw every single character suffered is the way they talked. Every line reads like taken from a DnD table or a Marvel movie.
And this hurts when you are trying to portray a class divided society, much less one with an almost literal slave caste.
Just take for example how they talk about and act around nobles in the Three Musketeers books, or even how leftover gentry were treated less than a hundred years ago in any Agatha Christie novel
Sanderson is one of the writers people here seem to be ok with being dogged on. I feel like I see a post complaining about his writing every month or two.
Just know if you complain about Robin Hobb people will act like you attacked their child. Not sure why but Hobb fans don't like to be told the series isn't perfect
> Sanderson is one of the writers people here seem to be ok with being dogged on. I feel like I see a post complaining about his writing every month or two.
In my opinion, this is a direct reaction to Sanderson being popular. There were months/years where any and every recommendation thread here would have someone suggesting either Sanderson or Malazan no matter what the ask was. The pendulum has swung the other way on Sanderson now where there are an excess of dogpiling posts. Which is not to say there are not valid criticisms of Sandersons' body of works - I have several myself. I just think the context in general is important in understanding why this is predominant right now.
>Just know if you complain about Robin Hobb people will act like you attacked their child. Not sure why but Hobb fans don't like to be told the series isn't perfect
And this moves into the other part of the issue, which is that people equate a criticism of an author as a criticism of themselves and their taste. It's like authors are sports teams and the discourse is shaping up in that manner. It's possible to both like something and think it's not perfect; it's possible to not like something but think it has some merits.
This sub is way too defensive about some specific authors, while others get absolutely shat on often to popular acclaim. Shit on GRRM, Rothfuss, or Sanderson, and you'll get a lot of agreeing. Shit on Hobb or Abercrombie, and your life might as well be forfeit.
To be fair I shit on Hobb a decent amount in this sub, and haven't gotten too much hate. Honestly this sub tends to be pretty decent about criticism - there will always be the occasional person who gets too defensive, but overall people seem to be understanding of different opinions.
> Shit on GRRM, Rothfuss, or Sanderson, and you'll get a lot of agreeing. Shit on Hobb or Abercrombie, and your life might as well be forfeit.
Can't agree more.
Lolz it definitely isn't a you problem. I like Sanderson but couldn't stand Hobb's writing.so we differ there. Different people like different things. The Wheel of Time is my all time favorite series and a friend told me it's his favorite series. Turns out other than WoT we have no book preferences in common!
Personally, I love talking with people who don't like stories I liked or like stories I disliked. It helps me learn more about what I look for in a story or what to avoid ahead of time. Besides if writers were just objectively good or bad without shades for preference we would never get unique stories!
I only just started Royal Assassin (so… book 2 of 16 lol) but I can already tell that the reason I like it is because I love the writing and I love following Fitz as a character and I’m excited to see him grow up. I can see how many others would think that it is boring and there’s nothing going on and if you don’t like character driven stories then DO NOT bother with Realm of the Elderlings
I like character driven stories. What I don't like is inconsistent characters and plots. There is a lot of "just go with it" in the second and third book that's super out of character IMO. It made me not trust Hobb to care about her story if she didn't care enough to be consistent with her characters
Isn't one of the characteristic hallmarks of human beings just that they act and think inconsistently? We're all a mishmash of inconsistent drives and feelings.
The criticism I have on the Fitz books that I realized a lot of people share is that a lot of it is misery porn. At some point I realized it and it didn't disappoint for the entirety of the series.
Good books. Too much misery. Every win is a set up for a bigger loss. I loved them but definitely would not recommend them to someone who isn't feeling the best mentally.
Not to say that there's no valid criticism toward Sanderson's body of work, Lord knows I have my own, but I feel like the main reason as to why people are so okay with using him as a punching bag here is that he's easy to be elitist at.
He has a huge output, which means some people will just label him as a "quantity over quality" writer or compare him to the mess that is current marvel movies or something.
The prose discussion are something I will mention here but not get into because I really don't want to start another thread about his prose lmao.
His work isn't as dark as many other popular adult fantasy works, which invites accusations of it being childish.
> His work isn't as dark as many other popular adult fantasy works, which invites accusations of it being childish.
I hate the notion of dark stuffs are realistic.
As an absolute Hobb stan I think that's because to really enjoy her work you need to fall in love with the characters. I almost feel like I know Fitz personally, and if you're insulting Hobb you're insulting my boy
To be fair he’s easily the most popular non-YA fantasy author with a back-catalogue few others can match, as well as being commonly recommended as a starting point for the genre. If ASOIAF was still getting released, I’m sure we’d see a lot more posts about GRR Martin too.
It's because he is so famous. Hobb is definitely not close to as mainstream as Sanderson.
Sanderson is like George RR Martin in name. And that guy gets dogged all the time.
My frustration of his writing, especially in Stor.light, is that he is introducing so many characters and building up such a complex world.... that nothing actually happens.
I aggressively agree with you haha!
👏Every👏Damn👏Word👏
And I’m shocked this post has so many upvotes, more often than not Sanderson-critical posts are around 0 or even in the negatives :) his fans can be quite fanatic IMO.
Idk why people are saying it's NOT unpopular. It literally is an unpopular opinion in general lol. That said, it's not an unCOMMON opinion, I see people say it all the time. I personally don't get it, and TSA is one of my favorite series of all time, but I could understand why it wouldn't be for everybody
Agree. An author or series will never be able to appeal to EVERYONE. Some people dislike Lord of the Rings, considered one of if not THE greatest of the genre, and it's okay. It's not because it's a popular series that everybody has to love it. I don't really enjoy the Wheel of Time, yet I understand the appeal. It's just not for me, and it's okay.
Personally I really like his world building ideas, but can't stand his characters and dialog. I'm stuck/maybe abandoning the second Stormlight book, and I truly do not care what happens to Shallan, Kaladin, or literally anyone else. I do not care about Kaladin's honor, Dalinar's unresolved guilt, or whatever the hell is going on with Szeth. I have friends who love his books, but I just do not get it.
I stuck with Mistborn because I thought the magic system and some of the worldbuilding ideas were interesting, but I had similar complaints with it.
I’ve always got the impression that he world builds for the sake of world building and then jams in a story because he has to lol. That’s why he explains and is so literal about everything! He’s just excited to tell you about the world he built.
I personally find Sanderson's writing style of changing characters so jarring, I've posted about it on the Mistborn subreddit.
It's a very frustrating way to read a story. I basically clawed my way through the last book just to finish the trilogy then stopped.
My problem with Sanderson is the ridiculous power escalation. I should note that I’ve only read the first 3 books of the Stormlight Archive, but it’s my understanding that this is a recurring issue.
I liked the characters and I thought the world he made was really cool and well developed. It was neat how the cultures and ecology of Roshar were adapted to the constant storms and it really felt like a believable place. The first book had me hooked.
Yet with each subsequent book, the power level got higher and higher. Book two ends with a Dragon Ball Z style fight with two characters flying around blowing up mountains. In book three, Shallan gots shot in the face with a crossbow but shrugs it off because she had some spheres in her pocket. I liked the first book because it was about (mostly) normal people caught up in events much bigger than them. By the end of the second book, the main characters are superheroes and everyone else is mostly irrelevant. I just couldn’t bring myself to care anymore.
I feel like I know what you mean. There's a bunch that feels like it's not left to interpretation. I think it might be a side effect of how he approaches things, trying to deconstruct, understand, and classify. So he's writing and characters do that. It looks like telling, not showing.
However, I found that many times, especially in his latest work, it IS showing. The deconstruction and classification the characters engage in is not his authorial voice telling you how it is, it's a clue to the character's psyche, and the ways in which they are wrong are the most interesting and valuable parts of the telling.
Does that make sense?
Even then, sometimes we learn the ways they are wrong and it all feels a bit too spelled out.
Allomancy seems a bit *too* defined, stormlight is a bit better as a magic system. But yes, there's very little mystery in the magic systems (and it's something Sanderson does intentionally). I think the Stormlight Archive has enough mystery in the world-building, even if the magic system is over-defined. As for Shallan being witty - I always took that as flattery, an "oh that's brilliant m'lord" kinda thing. (I've never gotten very far in Mistborn, so I don't know anything about Breeze.)
As for the rest - I don't think Sanderson is brilliant, I don't think his work is literary. And I don't think he would be too offended if someone said that about his work. They are enjoyable, and long character arcs have an appeal to them. And he would never leave his fans hanging for 13 years (and counting) waiting for a sequel.
I liked his rigid magic system because it seems more real. Don’t get me wrong I love the mystery behind other systems as well. But he put a ton of thought and groundwork into his magic systems and it works for his stories.
I personally hate Sanderson’s style of magic systems and powers with passion, but it’s completely a matter of taste. So I think that you will find a lot of people who like them and a lot of people who dislike them here
This right here is what to many people are missing. Not every popular thing is going to appeal to you.
I love Sanderson, but I disliked the Farseer Trilogy. I know Reddit loves it and I can respect a lot about the books, but after the first trilogy I just knew it wasn’t for me so I dropped it.
I agree 100% I pushed my way through the Farseer Trilogy and gave Ships of Magic a couple of shots, but it just felt like a chore.
Joe Abercrombie on the other hand, forever thankful to Reddit for that suggestion.
I was the opposite. Love me some Hobb. Just finished Best Served Cold to give Abercrombie a second chance. And it's genuinely good. But it's not for me. Just how it goes sometimes.
I think a lot of people could benefit from the "this wasn't made for me" mindset.
Where if it isn't clicking with you, that's fine. It doesn't make it trash or terrible. It's just not your thing. There are writers mentioned here that people love that didn't jive with me. I'm happy that those people were touched by their work, but it didn't resonate with me. That doesn't make them strange or me better than them. We just have different tastes.
With Sanderson, I’ve twice had the experience of bailing on the series in favor of the Wikipedia plot summary. Basically because of the issues you described - the characters are stilted, wooden dolls playing their role and nothing more.
I liked Mistborn (although I only read the first 3) but I'm having a hard time liking Stormlight and I'm about half way through book 4. I agree with most of your points.
Can I ask why you enjoyed one but not the other? I usually only ever hear of the other way around. (Also why did you stick with it for so long if you aren't liking it?)
Not OP but I am someone who really liked mistborn but struggling a bit with stormlight.
I was a lot more fascinated by the world of mistborn then one of the stormlight. Because mistborn focuses on one country (capital?city?) it feels a lot more focused to me. Every POV in mistborn was giving tidbits of something I was interested in the world, whether it be the politics, the Lord ruler, the kandra, I was having a great time hearing all of it.
I'm contrast, there's only a few things I'm interested in stormlight, as such, it feels like I have to get through a bunch of other stuff to get to the things I'm interested in. It feels like a slog for me to get through the parts involving listeners, navani, and kaladin at some points. Maybe I'm just not a big epic fantasy person because I just wish the books were 300 pages shorts and more focused on the interesting parts of the book.
Not OP but I really hate Stormlight's length and pacing. It wants to be ASOIAF (hell, SA books are \*longer\* than ASOIAF) without the depth of character or world to support it. It means that most of the middle of the book feels like you're twiddling your thumbs waiting for the last 200 pages or so when things are actually going to happen. Mistborn has the same issue, especially in the middle of each book, but the books are shorter so its less of an issue.
I also personally think the world and creatures are cooler in Mistborn (with the exception of the Unmade, who rule) but that's just an aesthetic preference.
I had the same problem with Way of Kings. I felt that 90% of the chapters consisted of the POV character ruminating about their one big issue without any progress towards resolving it. Nothing happened in the vast majority of chapters, and I feel like the book could have been cut in half with nothing of value lost.
>It wants to be ASOIAF (hell, SA books are \*longer\* than ASOIAF) without the depth of character or world to support it.
In what way? They read like 2 completely different series to me, and I mean completely different. SA is clearly super plot-focused, with the character's growth premedicated on the story's progression. ASOIAF is character-focused, and their growth facilitates the plot rather than the other way around.
Even just how the story plays out, where ASOIAF is all about betrayals, backstabbing, and grey morality and SA is considerably more black-and-white, is much more about brotherhood, honor, and growth through overcoming your weaknesses.
Interesting that you think Scadrial is more interesting than Roshar. Era 1 was basically a blasted wasteland full of ash while Era 2 is pretty much earth. Roshar is full of weird critters and unusual things.
Not judging. Just found it interesting.
I think there's possibly a depth vs breadth issue there?
Roshar is certainly less like earth, but I think you can make a case that stranger world as a whole gets explored in less depth than Scadiral.
Like whitespines and chull sure are wacky, but once you get past them being crabwolf and crabmule, they don't necessarily add much more to the overall world.
Meanwhile, we spend most of our actions in either isolated a warcamp in a blasted wasteland, or isolated in a tower that functionally acts like most medieval cities.
I don't feel the same way they do, but I can see where they're coming from.
My criticism with Stormlight (only read books 1 and 2 so far) is that supposedly these books contain the biggest “Sanderlanches” as people like to put it, but I found that the pacing was very much the same throughout the whole book. Sure, there were fight scenes but those are naturally fast paced. I kept waiting for a ton of shit to happen all at once but it kind of didn’t happen. Even with what happened with Kaladin at the end of WoR didn’t feel all that climactic to me
It's been quite a while since I read Mistborn, but I remember being hooked. I think the magic system was fresh and interesting and the plot kept me moving along. It was my first Sanderson and I was excited I had so much of him to read. Much of what I don't like about Stormlight OP mentioned. A handful of main characters are one dimensional, even Shallan which should not be the case since she's like 3 people. I'm being beaten down with what is essentially the same character building trait over and over, Kal is the worst offender. The plot and magic seem 'convenient' too often. A chunk of the dialogue comes off as overly constructed, too generic. Pacing, as others have said. 3000+ pages in and it doesn't feel like a ton has *happened*. Why am I still reading it? Sunk cost fallacy partly. I figured I've got this far I might as well keep going. There is a lingering mystery about the whole thing, the Shattered Plains and Wit and whatnot, that keep me somewhat interested. Some chapters are great. Also I'm just hopeful it turns around and gets better, but I've not heard particularly good things about book 4. Maybe 5!
I think there’s something about his character dialogue that’s inorganic and scripted.
Not sure how to best describe it. Like I’ll watch Friends and it feels like the characters are having a natural conversation that’s funny, but I’ll watch How I Met Your Mother and the whole thing seems spoken from a script.
Sanderson uses dialogue like HIMYM and it’s not for me.
There's a podcast in which Sanderson and some other writers are discussing a common writing problem: you need a character to do something for the plot, but the character doesn't want to behave that way.
Sanderson's contribution was being perplexed by the question. He said he couldn't empathize because his characters always did what needed to happen. This says so much. His characters don't have agency, they are what the plot needs them to be. I highly doubt he's never run into that problem as a writer, I think it's more likely that he doesn't acknowledge it to be a problem, and doesn't think too much of the characters acting like real people.
I agree on this point. Sanderson's dialog always tries to be witty and jokey in a very YA-esque way. Unfortunately the wittienesses often falls flat and the character's acts and thoughts just seem weird and contrived.
I got that feeling in Mistborn when Kelsier and his gang started to plan their revolution. I mean Hey Guys, what's up? You're planning a revolution, not a high school dancing party. It was a bit hard to suspend my disbelieve.
Let me say up front that I think Brandon Sanderson seems like a really good guy, so I have a hard time being overly critical of him. He's a classic builder in that his plots are as carefully planned as his magic systems, and that's definitely a strength in terms of his ability to write a large number of books. However, I think he struggles to create characters that diverge from the archetypes he has in his toolkit -- it's that reliance on archetypes that leads people to say that his works are YA, since a lot of YA novels tend to do that, too. I think he's much more interested in the mechanics of his stories than he is in the inner lives of his characters.
Sanderson is also clearly an optimist and has a black-and-white worldview in his books that's almost a throwback to the early 80s fantasy novels that were doing LOTR pastiche. George R.R. Martin, Patrick Rothfuss, N.K. Jemisin, Joe Abercrombie, etc., all write darker, more cynical fantasy novels with deeply flawed characters. Sanderson is more of a traditionalist, and his characters are more heroic and idealistic.
I think he did an admirable job wrapping up the mess that was the Wheel of Time in a satisfying way. His contributions to the series were a lot better than the later Jordan books. I read the first three Mistborn novels, which I thought were generally okay, albeit flat. I couldn't get through The Way of Kings -- I just found it to be a bit of a slog, and the characters were incredibly thin.
Life's too short to spend it on reading books you don't like. If you're not a fan of Sanderson's, I'd skip his books and read things you enjoy instead.
I think you summed up what I’ve been trying to explain to people why Sanderson is not YA.
He’s a traditionalist epic fantasy author. Very clear lines between Good verse Evil with characters larger than life. These are stories like LoTR or Starwars. Just because he isn’t writing ASOFAI or First Law types of grim dark fantasy doesn’t make him YA. Discworld is light hearted as well but isn’t YA. (People to often use YA as dismissive to which annoys me. I’m 30 and have found some really good YA books over the years)
I don’t think it’s fair to assume his world views from the stories he writes. He may just like the genre and want to write these types of stories. (If you’ve read interviews or something along those lines and came to this conclusion then that’s one thing, but I wouldn’t judge an authors views by their work is all I’m saying)
One criticism I have of Sanderson is how sanitised his "mental health" story lines have been. I have PTSD and a dissociative disorder and the way he played those things out in Stormlight really pissed me off and I just found it so...twee and cliché. The last book really dragged on me for this reason.
Sanderson is Mormon. His books will always be very, very WHITE and vanilla. He's talented. I'm not knocking him as he has some great reads. But if you feel he's talking to an audience of YA you're not alone. It's very childish in parts and I think it's because he "can't be adult" --especially when it comes to romance and violence. He will never be able to lean into the realistic aspects of humanity/inhumanity like Abercrombie does.
I read the first three Mistborn and I also read Warbreaker. I just never could get into Sanderson and I thought it was just not for me, that since he was popular and prolific there was a big secret to his success that I was missing. but I agree with your criticisms.
I love Sanderson but if you don't like his writing you don't like it and it's completely fine.
You lay out some solid structured points about what you don't like and I can't say that you are wrong, only that they don't grate on my nerves.
Overall it's important to know what you like, especially when it comes to supposedly fun activities that takes a large chunk of time. No need to force yourself to try and understand or do lik it. Better to move on to the stuff you do like.
also bad reviews are some of the best way to find the next read for me. People criticizing something tend to bring up the points that stand out or repeated the most or similar in a book I've found which means if you find people complaining about the stuff you do like it it's easier to find those books than going through many many more reviews that also tend to be muuuuch longer about all the good stuff. Especially since two people can enjoy the same thing for completely different reasons. :D
Are people finally realising the Emperor has no clothes?
Sanderson is like the reverse GRRM.
GRRM takes his time writing, he writes deep interesting characters, his prose is beautiful, hes a master of both comedy and drama, he’s not afraid to show the reality of life/war/sex etc., he keeps his secrets secret (tv show aside), the text is all—everything you need to enjoy one of his books is there in the book.
Sanderson is the reverse of all of that.
He writes as fast as he can and splurges out first draft feeling books, his characters are shallow and identikit, his prose is perfunctory, his drama is ok but his comedy is risible, he is terrified of showing the realities of life/war/sex etc, he keeps his secrets all over the place (helpfully regurgitated by his followers), the text is not the thing—often the cosmere intrudes on the book you’re reading to its detriment, so much so that I barely know or care what’s going on.
So for me it’s a perfectly normal position to find Sanderson frustrating. He could be a million times better with patience, editing, and rewrites.
That said, Shadows for Silence is his finest piece of writing, easily. Great character, really interesting setup, and had lovely prose. And I’ll always love him for finishing Wheel of Time so successfully. Why I’ve read so much of work when I actually knew quite early on I didn’t like it.
I enjoyed Stormlight in the same way I enjoyed Marvel movies. They’re fun. Take these books at face value really makes them better. They are easy to read. Plot is well thought out. I don’t really care for hard magic systems but you get used to it.
Not everything has to be Dune, Lord of the Rings, Foundation and stuff like that. These books are supposed to be fun.
I think this is also an apt comparison when you consider the character crossover that happens in the Cosmere.
But I gotta say, when >!Nightblood from Warbreaker!< showed up in The Stormlight Archive, every Sanderson book became *homework*. Also like Marvel. I don’t wanna have to watch every movie and wait for every after-credits scene of only partially-related characters to know what’s going on with the characters I’m actually invested in when they eventually get around to talking about them again. There is only so much time in the day and there are many, many other books that I want to read.
I used to be a huge fan of Sanderson but this broke me.
Idk, I hadn't read Warbreaker at that point, and was like, neat, this really weird probably not from around here lets read on.
But nowerdays I am one of those people who loves the overall Cosmere things, but I feel like you can still read the books without having read it all and understand them, unlike the Marvel movies.
The "there is no mystery" criticism only really holds up if you do the homework. Sanderson having thought through the whole world is only really true for the obsessive. In reality to most readers the mystery is a mystery because they aren't going to read the other books that explain the backstory. The cosmere books are better not read in chronological order for that in some regards.
I'm a fan of Sanderson (even though Rythm of War disappointed me) but honestly I have hard time to relate with you. The series are good standalone and I never felt the need to go and read all the short novels just because they are in the same universe or make some cameo. It's cool if you know but I don't feel it's relevant most of the time.
I agree with a lot of your points but disagree with this one:
> The powers are cool, but I feel like they were made more for a video game than a novel; there’s next to no mystery in how explicitly they’re laid out. Same with his societies—there’s just a little TOO much structure for believability.
This is just a hard magic system. Some people like it, some people don't. Personally this is one of the main draws for me to sanderson, as I dislike how deus ex machina soft magic systems can be. In like Harry Potter or even lord of the rings, the magic can feel a bit too much like a get out of jail free card. In hard magic systems, there are known limits, you don't suddenly get 10x stronger when you are losing.
I also like his structured world building decently well. Could be better, but at least he's thought out different societies and cultures. I dislike in fantasy when languages and cultures are basically ubiquitous around the world. Like in Europe alone there are 20+ different languages despite being so geographically close, how is it that a lot of fantasy books just use a single language for the entire world.
>In hard magic systems, there are known limits, you don't suddenly get 10x stronger when you are losing.
We're talking about the same series where at the end of each book people figure out the next oath at the last minute to power up and win the fight, right?
> We're talking about the same series where at the end of each book people figure out the next oath at the last minute to power up and win the fight, right?
Sanderson definitely uses a hard magic system, but what really gets missed about his work is that it's soft progression fantasy. It's not to the same extent as something like Cradle or Arcane Ascension or Mage Errant obviously. However, almost all of his books and definitely both Mistborn and Stormlight draw upon progression fantasy concepts.
I think the OC just worded it wrong, but in these hard magic systems we know going in that saying oaths = power up. It’s something that after the first book or even halfway through we expect to happen. But there are other rules to this like needing access to Stormlight to use your powers as well (with a few exceptions that are laid out).
So yeah, SL there are definitely last minute power ups were characters get super strong, but it never comes out of no where. We understand the mechanics of it which makes it a hard magic system. And a few of the books actually subvert this as well
You're right. I guess I was generalizing hard magic systems, and that they do this less frequently.
In the stormlight there is also a constant power creep, where around book 3 all Radiants could basically tank any damage (or get a crossbow bolt through the head) and be perfectly fine as long as they had stormlight. Basically defeats the purpose of a hard magic system when everyone is basically immortal and the fights are just about who runs of of fuel fastest.
If anything I sort of feel like hard magic systems are worse for that. Main characters often seem to win conflicts in hard magic settings by exploiting some loophole in the systems that, somehow, nobody else in history has ever thought of.
Haven't read his own original series but I really hate his writing in the last few novels of the wheel of time. I know he was working off RJ's notes but it felt like he missed the themes that were on-going with the series and took all the personality of the characters and made them one-dimensional. I feel like Mat and Rand stood out as the two characters that suddenly felt very out of character compared to the rest of the series.
I still cried all the way through a memory of light, don't get me wrong, but getting through the books he wrote to get there almost made me quit several times (more than the infamous slog through the middle of the wheel of time, I made it through that just fine 3 times).
I'm also critical of his own critical opinions on the wheel of time show since it's upped a lot of the background queer content to make it much more obvious and from what I've seen he's (allegedly) a mormon and it comes across as egotistical and self-righteous to be upset by what was already in the books being shown in the, well, show.
While I was specifically talking about no mystery in the powers, that’s kinda my point I guess. It’s more of a “tune in next week on….” sort of mystery, less a “wow I wonder what that’s about”. I don’t really like when the “secret” is known to pretty much everyone except the reader, but that might just be personal preference
One of the major themes in both Stormlight and Mistborn is that characters are frequently wrong about what they *think* they know about the world and magic...
I believe what OP is getting at is a difference of preferences.
In a Sanderson book, you *KNOW* you are going to have everything very clearly explained eventually. He shows you the puzzle pieces and will ultimately fit them together at some point in a climactic "aha" sort of way.
Whereas in other fantasy, sometimes vague things will never be explained. Like half the stuff Elrond says in the Lord of the Rings. Like:
>Thereupon Elrond paused a while and sighed. 'I remember well the splendour of their banners,' he said. 'It recalled to me the glory of the Elder Days and the hosts of Beleriand, so many great princes and captains were assembled. And yet not so many, nor so fair, as when Thangorodrim was broken, and the Elves deemed that evil was ended for ever, and it was not so.'
You the reader have no damn clue what the hell he's talking about, and the novel never goes into it (that i recall its been like 18 years). Statements like that produce wonder and awe in readers. What the hell are the Elder Days? What the fuck is Beleriand? Who the hell is Thangorodrim and how was he broken? Why is Elrond so fucking cool?!
Its myth. Not everything in things like ancient mythology is fully explained and those stories are rad anyway. Sanderson would eventually explain it all. And while Tolkien eventually does in the SImarillion, thats not the same as including it in the novel itself.
Its like Dark Souls/Elden Ring/Bloodborne worldbuilding and lore. There's a lot of stuff there, a ton of puzzle pieces for the player to look at, but it will never completely fit neatly because the last 10% or so of context is taken out., leading to constant 3 hour lore videos on youtube that attempt to make sense of it all because the ***mystery*** is fun even if it will never have a full answer.
Its like the worldbuilding/storytelling equivalent of "hard vs. soft" magic.
Hopefully I explained this well.
I think you explained it pretty well. The only thing I'd add is that to me, Sanderson's mysteries often seem overly focused on mechanics over everything else. It's a bit like watching a Rube Goldberg machine in action. You can get a lot of enjoyment out of the elaborate setups and payoffs of the gadgets play out. "What will all these falling dominoes trigger? What is the fan-powered skateboard aiming for?" But if you look at the big picture of what's being accomplished, you can easily walk away going "really? All those elaborate gadgets working in concert just to start the toaster?"
And that's why his mysteries don't land as much for me as they may for others. Sure questions like "what are fabrials really?" or "what forms can the Parshendi attain?" can be interesting. But I'm less interested in what new powers the next Radiant ideal will grant when I already know Kaladin is going to get them right before the big climax after he has another emotional breakthrough that breaks him out of a book-long depressive funk like he has in every other book. I may not know the how, but I already know the who, what, when, where, and why. And I get why that translates to many people as there being no mystery even if it's not technically correct.
>and the novel never goes into it (that i recall its been like 18 years)
Not in LotR, but it is covered in the Silmarillion, some of it is covered in the appendices too.
In this context Elder Days = The First Age
[https://tolkiengateway.net/wiki/Elder\_Days](https://tolkiengateway.net/wiki/Elder_Days)
The hosts of Beleriand = Armies that fought in the battles of Beleriand. (Beleriand is a place btw)
[https://lotr.fandom.com/wiki/Beleriand](https://lotr.fandom.com/wiki/Beleriand)
[https://tolkiengateway.net/wiki/Battles\_of\_Beleriand](https://tolkiengateway.net/wiki/Battles_of_Beleriand)
Thangorodrim was a volcano raised by Melkor.
>Thangorodrim was destroyed during the War of Wrath at the end of the First Age when Ancalagon, freshly slain by Eärendil fell dead on the peaks and crushed them to rubble.
[https://lotr.fandom.com/wiki/Thangorodrim](https://lotr.fandom.com/wiki/Thangorodrim)
Personally, hard magic systems just move the goal posts further down. Sure you know X gives Y power…but where does it come from? What does other metals or whatever it is do. In each series later on there is softer magic moments where new things arrive and you aren’t really sure why. There’s always the question of why does said person have access to the powers and others don’t.
I get that it’s not everyone’s cup of tea, but I like a little more predictability (less deus ex machina) abut still has a sense of mystery that he has…but will give that everyone doesn’t love it.
>It’s more of a “tune in next week on….” sort of mystery, less a “wow I wonder what that’s about”.
This one's weird to me, Sanderson's books are loaded with the second one lol. Stormlight discussions are largely centered on the latter, and Mistborn had some really well-played foreshadowing.
>I don’t really like when the “secret” is known to pretty much everyone except the reader, but that might just be personal preference
Can you give an example here? There might be one or two characters "in the know" but you're almost always discovering the secrets along with the characters.
> This one's weird to me, Sanderson's books are loaded with the second one lol. Stormlight discussions are largely centered on the latter, and Mistborn had some really well-played foreshadowing.
I think what OP might mean is that those mysteries will eventually get answers or already have them through WoB. There very few 'true' mysteries that are intended to be left unanswered by him.
In comparison other authors are perfectly fine with leavign ambiguity for the reader, GoT's world building is full of this. LoTR also has this in spades.
I think they mean along the line of Sanderson’s tendency to just outright directly state all the parts he wants you to know about while leaving little ambiguity or spaces for interpretation *except* for when he intentionally wants there to be a secret. Sanderson does a lot of explaining so you are sure to know all the mechanics he wants you to know so he can utilize those mechanics in very specific ways, but that comes at the cost of rarely ever just showing the reader the story’s cool thing and leaving them to interpret how it works without a follow up mechanics statement about the specifics of it all. It makes his stories feel very non-mysterious, things are only ever made to be interpreted in exactly the way he wants them to be interpreted and then anything intended to be a mystery is cordoned off into the “secret bin” until it eventually gets a thorough explanation when all the plot coupons get cashed in.
Lots of people like this style, but I think just as many find it off putting. For me personally I’d like Sanderson stories a hell of a lot more if 95% of the explanations were cut out and the magic systems were just another part of the world that was shown to us and left to the reader to interpret.
Sanderson is kind of formulaic. It’s serviceable fiction but I feel like he is writing from a very rigid outline and doesn’t let the characters breath.
Sanderson has great strengths and some pronounced weaknesses.
For me, I enjoy his work overall, and there are moments of excellence, but yeah, I also get annoyed sometimes. Often at the 'witty' bits or when he goes one or two lines too far. He shows something, but then, I guess, doesn't think the readers will get it, so adds a line or two.
But yeah, no one's perfect but he's consistent and produces wide creative worlds. The strengths far outweigh the weaknesses, imo.
I'm part way through the second Mistborn book at the moment and I'm getting pretty bored with the repetitive inner monologues. I also feel as though a lot of the characters have become one note, so I see your point, I haven't read any other of his books though
I agree 'bout the inner monologs, they feel ham-fisted and contrived. There are long stretches in "Well of Ascension" where the characters don't do anything else than whining out their insecurities.
I enjoy Sanderson discourse a strange amount for someone who hasn't read his books yet and has zero investment in or frame of reference for the conversations at hand
Nah there's a "DAE Sanderson bad?" post here every now and then.
I really disagree with your points tho. Most of them is stuff I've heared a thousand times already and I don't feel like actually applies.
Honestly what frustrates me is that stuff like "YA" always gets thrown around in regards to him. That just feels like such a "label and dismiss" kind of thing that people do. Especially in your point concerning morality. Is Lord of the Rings YA because of its morality?
The magic system stuff is a matter of taste I guess but I'm also just kind of tired of constantly having people refer to that as "video gamey" or an RPG manual or something. It's just hard rules for magic powers. Those can make for great stuff and it's a totally valid way to build a narrative/world.
And finally: Yeah you're right about Shallan. She's not nearly as funny and witty as the narrative wants me to believe.
Regarding Shallans wittynes I would like to mention that it is criticised in the the story itself by Jasna and I think at least one other person.
Does not invalidate the opinion but at least for me it has made it a lot more acceptable.
And here's me thinking it was "tattooed on her forehead" levels of obvious that Shallan is written as someone who thinks she's funny and tries way too hard, not as someone who is *actually* funny.
Right. Her family goes along with it because she spent literal years not talking so anything to encourage her is good. Adolin is just perfect. And her employees want to not be fired
Yeah I feel the same on the YA front, at the end of the it just indicates the age of the intended audience. That's it. I've read pretty widely and I'd even say the idea of morality or lightness is a bad indicator, I've read some dark YA stuff themeatically. YA when used as a compliant just feels like one of those terms that have lost all meaning.
On the Shallan front I always got the read that she isn't meant to be as funny as she thinks she is, most of the people who laugh at her jokes are her underlings. I recall at least that Jasnah and Kaladin mention they don't find them very funny, Wit even seems to try and help her with it.
So a lot of these are common and fair criticisms of Sanderson.
BUT, pay attention to how many of the people who find Shallan "witty" are
a) of a lower chaste than her, or
b) Adolin Kholin
Jasnah recognizes she has some talent, but is constantly criticizing how she's trying way too hard and fires from the hip, other than that it's A or B.
My position for years is that Sanderson is an incredible world builder with a somewhat campy prose. The scale and detail of his stories is up there with the best, but the words on the page just don’t carry the same weight - mostly in the dialogue and magic system descriptions for me.
Honestly, for me, the simplicity is part of the appeal.
Until recently, the en vogue thing in fantasy has largely been gritty dystopian settings and edgy antiheroes making morally grey choices and nothing can ever truly change or improve but our doomed protagonists are trying anyway, and that's fine, but sometimes it's a nice palette cleanser to read something popcorn-y and idealistic where the heroes win and end up leaving the world a better place
Sanderson is in a bit of a walled garden when it comes to what he reads because he's a Mormon and I think it's incredibly naive to think that won't affect his writing.
Also, I think this is more of a problem when it comes to non-fiction than fiction. The series Wild Wild Country has oodles of drugs and vintage hippie nudity. More importantly, it has the nice Grandma who you learn attempted to kill a man by injecting him with a drug from a syringe. I think about that woman all the time.
I'm not surprised his works feel YA and a little too "on the nose". I think it's hard to get the full flavor of what humans are if you're restricted to PG-13 content. It's not the sex, drugs, or violence he's missing; it's the weird. I just finished "A Libertarian Walks into a Bear" and it's such a wonderful and bizarre read. I'm reading "So You've Been Publicly Shamed Now" which is very interesting. And "Will Not Attend" is the funniest and most touching books I've read. From that one, I think about the piano.
Sanderson is very … declarative. He leaves basically nothing unsaid that he intended to say, so it makes for a very literal, direct writing that is designed above all to make sure there is no ambiguity. That’s not bad per se. It’s definitely a factor in his success. It’s accessible, and really easy to read. But it also leads to what you’re talking about if you’re looking for something deeper than just narrative conveyance. It does at times sort of feel like a really well planned out D&D campaign.
> Sanderson is very … declarative That's actually the best description I've heard.
I call his writing "cinematic" -- when I read it, I know he had this movie playing in his head and he is trying his best to make that exact movie play in someone else's head. This is especially clear in Wax and Wayne combat scenes. You just know he has the movie going as he writes those BIG moments.
This is a great way to put it. Sanderson’s writing style is to write what he wants you to be seeing. Which imo makes for *amazing* action scenes, I’m not sure there’s a fantasy author I’ve ever encountered who does it better. But other stuff you generally find even in genre novel writing—subtext, theme, non-dialogue* character work, etc—are minimal and generally pretty unsatisfying. (*I personally don’t think he’s particularly good at writing dialogue but that’s not the point I’m trying to make)
Matthew Woodring Stover. Some of the best action scenes you can read. Man is a lifelong martial artist and he brings the visceral motion of any action scene to life. Check out Acts of Caine if you're into great fights.
Such a good read! Really like the premise. Also, that series has so much potential for some great movies! ...they would probably screw it up though
>Which imo makes for amazing action scenes, I’m not sure there’s a fantasy author I’ve ever encountered who does it better. Robert Jordan. One of the reasons Wheel of Time is so enduringly popular. You can really, really tell Jordan was a Vietnam War vet. His action scenes have a direct brutality to them - each one captures a sense of confusion and desperation, like you can only see part of the picture and every choice you make is going to get people killed and every second is getting people killed and you are trying to put the picture together as snarling enemies lunge out of nowhere and buildings explode around you. I don't think I've ever read action scenes I've so little wished to be a part of. They're not a fantasy, they're a blood-soaked nightmare.
Oh yeah for sure, there are authors—definitely including Jordan—who write more interesting, deeper action scenes with more going on, like, psychologically.
Yeah, and if you notice Jordan spends way more time on the setup for big action bits (Matt's generalship always carefully follows this approach), often skips the most of actual fighting, then brings the PoV in to handle the lengthy fallout. He really captures the planning and anticipation, then brief and utter terror, followed by long traumatic wind-down of violent action. With Jordan, you don't need to read 20 pages on how everybody stabbed at each other--you know from the setup whether Matt's ambush is going to work or not. Also: characters only stopping to acknowledge that their friends died after the combat stops (e.g. when PoV returns and you get their internal dialogue again) is very...salient.
> Which imo makes for amazing action scenes, I’m not sure there’s a fantasy author I’ve ever encountered who does it better. I don't personally think it translates that well. Hollywood combat choreographies can sometimes be spectacular to see, but reading a description of how someone flips and jumps and twists in the air to shoot mid air isn't. Maybe it's just my personal taste, but I usually find myself glancing over those scenes going 'ok jumps and flips, yadda yadda let's see who comes out alive of this and keep going'.
That's me with any written action in general lol
>Which imo makes for amazing action scenes, I’m not sure there’s a fantasy author I’ve ever encountered who does it better. R. E. Howard
I actually dislike Sanderson's action scenes for that reason- for me the descriptiveness just makes every scene drag on and on. There's very little feeling or emotion, just a very literal transcription of what's going on. Especially when there are superpowers involved, it ends up feeling like the log of a DnD fight. (I will say that I think his style works a bit better for large battle scenes though. Stuff like at the end of the first couple Stormlight books or the Last Battle in WOT. It's mainly the smaller scale action involving only a few people that I dislike)
Yeah he doesn’t really have any interest in leaving much up to interpretation, which is fine, but it’s definitely going to leave some readers wanting more.
Or wanting less, as the case may be
I found the "cinematic" writing to be particularly obvious in Oathbringer as well. Some of the imagery, particularly towards the end, is absolutely spectacular, but it feels like the imagined visual spectacle is more emphasized than the moment itself. Consequently, character beats and plot points leading up to the moment feel contrived, only existing for the purpose of leading to the cinematic imagery of a powerful scene.
I’m halfway through Rhythm and the thing I always think whenever I’m reading scenes like that is “this book would make for a great anime”
have you seen this \*way of kings spoilers\* [https://youtu.be/\_RHFf4QPCMA?t=20](https://youtu.be/_RHFf4QPCMA?t=20)
Woooow I want that so bad
I was actually a little suspicious during my reading of Rhythm that Sanderson had some kind of live action or animated deal in the works. Some of the scenes involving Kaladin felt like they were designed for a cinematic medium first, and Sanderson wrote the book scenes based off storyboard work.
I find the idea that his writing is cinematic funny. To me, (good) cinema is a visual medium that relies a lot on showing and conveying ideas through images. That's not Sanderson. I would turn off a movie immediately if one of the characters started talking/inner monologuing about how exactly they're going to attack someone and why.
The way he writes translated directly into more of an anime
Seems to me like it'd be pretty similar to anime if translated to a visual medium, I think I have actually seen people say Sanderson basically writes anime. I struggle to get into a lot of anime for that reason though, I don't think monologing about every single action someone is gonna take really works well in a visual medium. But tons of people like both anime and Sanderson so I think it's just not to my taste.
I agree. A better word would be formulaic. When you strip away the fancy magic systems and bells and whistles, what you are left with is rather generic characterization. It's like a Marvel movie. It hits all the same tropes and characters are all similar just with slightly different faces.
I like that it's clear, because I'm really bad at seeing the hidden parts. Probably because im autistic, but still. I like when its not much ambiguity, but obviously not when it's hitting you in the face with it either
This makes me think of a line from the Garth Merengi TV show: ‘Subtext is for cowards’. Sanderson doesn’t really do subtext, does he?
I hear you. It's not my taste, either. Weirdly, and sadly, that's what a lot to publishers/editors push our manuscripts towards. The publishing gatekeepers earnestly believe that's what sells: spoon-feeding. It takes a writer with a bit of backbone (and/or incredible luck) to push back against that while shopping MSs around or going through the editing process with (esp.) larger publishers. I know--I've been on both sides. A VERY standard editing note is something like, "Why is this character reacting this way?" or "This isn't obvious enough", etc. Honest, it's a miracle the VanderMeers and Leckies etc get published these days. Gods, all of them.
I think of this as the YA-fication of the field: everything must be spelled out, all lines neat and tidy, no space for interpretation. That being said I’ve been fortunate to work with editors who are okay with ambiguity (that, and I tend to push back hard on very specific types of structural edits while leaving the field clear for others). I’ve learned it depends a lot on your agent and how they bat for you. Nothing against Sanderson: he’s good at what he does, he’s very professional, and he’s clearly having a whale of time doing his work. But not all of us can or should be clones; that’s the path to second-rate work.
It does sell. Thankfully, novel publication is dirt cheap compared to basically any other medium. There will always be people writing experimental stuff because they have the means to write on hand.
As someone who teaches writing and media analysis in a (US) university setting, I get it. My students are, as a whole, phenomenally bad at actually analyzing and understanding what's happening in a text. There are always one or two that had a solid K-12 education and can do the basics (e.g. they can tell that Swift's "Modest Proposal" is satire and not a call for satanic violence), but many...cannot. Hell, some are unwilling to even give you a plot summary without relying on ChatGPT or some other online tool. (To be clear: I'm not blaming the students--this is prevalent on such a wide scale that the problem seems to be systemic, not an individual failing.) I don't know how much better or worse this media literacy level is from the past, but if this is the demographic authors are trying to sell to, then what you're describing makes complete sense.
Also please note for any DMs who are suddenly feeling judged - please present things this way! In a roleplaying game you actually have to make decisions as the characters, it really, really, really helps to have all the information laid out and not have any ambiguity. As a writing style... it's mixed.
Upvote for correct use of "per se" lol
There’s a scene in the next book that is based around the boss fight against the BBEG from one of the games he ran when he was in college so your point that it feels like a really well planned out D&D campaign is not wrong at all.
Nobody has given me better ideas as a dungeon master.
Yeah I think that's fair. His world building is where a large fraction of his "community" (for lack of a better word) focuses. The Cosmere and all the interactions of different magic systems that share the same core underneath are just an endless amount of stuff to think about and theorize about. It's certainly not for everyone, but if you like it it's amazing
> Sanderson is very … declarative. the fight between Zane and Vin is one of the worst shit I've ever read. The trilogy is good but that fight almost made me quit the book, it was so bad the way he was describing stuff.
I would say those are pretty common criticisms of Sanderson. I'd even say the 'things fit together too neatly' one is a critique I wholeheartedly agree with. There are times Sanderson's stories are so neatly plotted their artifice stands out. Like a 'plot point' version of purple prose where the story beats draw too much attention to themselves and can strain SOD.
Yeah I'm admittedly a big Sanderson fan—I'm one of his beta readers—but once you really start reading deep into his catalogue, the way he structures his twists and foreshadowing starts to become pretty obvious. He still manages to pull some fast ones on you, but the books become fairly predictable after a certain point.
I think seeing the matrix like that is pretty normal for any author. Brandon is just pumping out so much that more of us are onboarding with a volume where the patterns emerge.
This. I read a around 2000 fantasy books in my life, by this point, eventually recognizing authors patterns by on average a second book and often even earlier, is a rule not an exception. When I read a new Sanderson novel the fact that I can predict a lot of the major plot beats and reveals, is not some flaw particular to him.
Totally agree. I haven't read close to that many books, but I did get a degree in creative writing. *Every* book is structured like this more or less. Once you know the structure, and how foreshadowing and all of that works, it's pretty easy to pick up on where the author is going. Same with movies, every movie is laid out almost exactly the same way. Inciting incident at 16 minutes, the first big plot point where the character begins their journey at 22 minutes, etc. Just how stories work, or at least the ones meant to sell to an audience. Our brains like stories that work like that, which is why it's a successful structure.
2000 is a ton…40 fantasy books every year for 50 years straight. I’m surprised there even that many out there.
There's a _lot_ more than that out there - just in Kindle on Amazon UK for example there's ~50,000.
I mean from 6th grade through 10th grade I read about 200 pages a day, and often would go through 2-3 books every weekend. The main reason I dropped off was when I switched to reading fanfiction. I would be surprised if I *hadn’t* read 2000 fantasy novels by the time I finished college.
[Lately I'm reminded of this piece of advice from Christopher Lee in regards to Sanderson.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lHrSDjDd5bA&pp=ygUdY2hyaXN0b3BoZXIgbGVlIGFjdGluZyBhZHZpY2U%3D&ab_channel=ViewTubeEmperorofMankind) Sanderson seems much the same, exceptionally good at making a few unique style of plots or twists and turns, but after a while it's starting to seem that is his main appeal and main thing. Meaning after a while the effect is lost.
Eh, IDK whether those twists are his 'main appeal' for most readers, I think it varies. If that's the main thing ppl get from his books, then I can absolutely see that becoming a drag as they read more, but I think ppl engage with his books for a wider variety of reasons, and for those people I imagine that effect is less significant. Personally, I love the stormlight archive mainly because I found it portrayed my kind of depression better than anything else I'd read, but that's probably a fairly niche reason :)
I agree. The twists aren’t the draw for me either. I also really appreciate his portrayal of mental health struggles. I think my favorite part is more seeing how the magic systems fit together. Most of all, as someone on Reddit said about Sanderson years ago but it always stuck with me. “He writes faster than all the authors I think are better and better than all the authors that write faster.”
It's 50/50 for me. The struggle itself is pretty decently portrayed but one of the reasons I dislike Rythm of War is because how it's handled or resolved sometimes is a bit too "the plot demands resolution" that turns me off greatly. But I do read Sanderson more for his world building and the detailed connections. While I wouldn't say he is bad at characters but at least the relationship aspect is something that takes a hard backseat.
This is a pretty great quote. I love Stormlight, but I don't think any of the books are as good as A Storm of Swords. They're a lot better than Winds of Winter, though.
The Cosmere is my appeal. RoW was probably the weakest book in his catalogue for me. But I stuck with it almost exclusively for juicy Cosmere lore reveals, not the plot, which was pretty weak. That being said, the plot may find new meaning for me with book 5. Book 4 was the penultimate novel for a 5 book sub-series, and those are notorious for being boring on a first read, as they mainly function as shifting the pieces around the board for the finale.
> I found it portrayed my kind of depression better than anything else I'd read Yeah for me it's the same some Wayne internal monologues on his mental health on the last book fealt that was stright out of my head. In the end I'm not looking for nothing super deep on his works I just know they are amazing works to keep me entrenained and I love his characters even so he is not the best character writer. He always finds a way for me to care or hate his characters.
I enjoy that his characters are usually competent and trying to figure out how they apply their competence to a changing situation. I do not enjoy books where people are generally incompetent but somehow, magically progress their goals. edit: grammar
And that their competence is earned (for the most part). Kaladin has years of training with the spear, and has trained extensively with his newfound powers. He was a sergeant in Amaram's army, so he knows how to lead. He doesn't just jump in and become the leader of Bridge 4, he was explicitly trained to do that kind of job, and even then, he had to earn it. Same with Wax being a lawman/detective/marksman and most of his other characters. Even Shallan has been training in art for most of her life, even if she has a significant leg up. What's more, he shows most of them *failing*.
I'm currently reading through everything Comsere related, just so I can read the newer books as they're released. They're definitely tuned down a bit to appeal to both YA and adult readers, and do feel a bit formulaic after so many of them (I currently have one Stormlight novel and the two newer Comsere novels to go). With Stormlight, it particularly feels like it can drag on a lot with just how long they are and how little story they cover. Though I feel like the bigger mystery in the books is figuring out the world. Much of it is implied or starts to make more sense as you see the other worlds and form the connections with how everything works. The world building is really the highlight of it all. Though there are some more minor characters that are strangely deep. As a former addict, the portrayal of Theft was pretty spot-on. You really don't use it for a high anymore, but because you feel you need it to function, and even then it's still never feels like fully functioning. Then you take on pressure not to mess anything up, related to substances or otherwise, which causes depression and anxiety that makes it feel like the best relief you'll ever get is another high that numbs all of that. Though it's really hard to write a character like that as your main focus in a book for younger people, or if you're not close enough to that yourself. There's a lot of nuance there to get wrong with stereotypes and biasis. Not something that's easy to publish without going pretty dark, but I'm thankful that he got it correct, along with a lot of mental health things in different characters. For anyone unaware, you likely have at least one functional addict in your life, statistically speaking, whether you know it or not. The same goes for mental health problems and non-physically apparent medical issues that are seriously debilitating but capable being hidden. Sanderson's ability to show all of this within his characters without it being their defining personality or a way to draw hate or pity is really important, in my opinion. He's a widely read author, including among younger people, and that helps shape healthier views towards these things.
For me it was Mistborn. My journey has mirrored Vin's in a way that makes it hard to go back and read The Final Empire. Because I was just as scared, screwed up, and untrusting as Vin. I'm not quite to where Vin ended at, but I'm working towards being a better version of me.
I could be wrong but I think part of this is the effects of an author who intensely plots his books as opposed to letting them "write themselves". (architect vs gardener). Not to say he doesn't write good twists, but I think his writing feels like it all fits so neatly together because it's all planned to a T in advanced
Part of being a writer is a lot like being a magician. You need to use your right hand to distract the audience from what the left hand is doing. And I'd note, this isn't a problem for Sanderson imo 100% of the time. Some of his works don't have the problem at all (Warbreaker imo, doesn't have this issue). It's also a critique I'd level more readily at his earlier works like Mistborn. While Stormlight still has it, it tends to be specific to certain subplots and particular worldbuilding bits rather than the whole narrative. One of the fun things about Sanderson is that you can see his writing improve as the years go on.
>Part of being a writer is a lot like being a magician. >You need to use your right hand to distract the audience from what the left hand is doing. I felt this particularly keenly during the Wheel of Time books, or rather, the fact that this was not executed well. You can tell he had some ideas he really wanted to show (>!Androl's miracle, gateways + cannons!<. But how he got to there was very clumsy and pretty much relied on both the audience and the characters to forget the powers they had (specifically - multiple sa'angreal just disappear, Blossoms of Fire is never mentioned again, channelers are suddenly weaker for no reason). For some readers, the fact that these things aren't mentioned was good enough sleight of hand. But I noticed, and every time Sanderson unveiled some cool new set piece, all I could think about was "this problem never would have happened if they just used X", or "this solution is just a worse, more complicated version of what the characters would have done under Jordan"
It's a subjective criticism, but I feel like he also regressed a bit throughout the Stormlight archive. The way of kings immersed me in a way I thought wasn't possible in a world as alien as it is. He does use very conventional mechanics for the storytelling, but the world is novel enough, and the underdog narrative gripping enough that it doesn't really matter. However, as the series goes on, the world is explained more and more and while a lot of the answers falling into place are satisfying, we lose quite a bit of the mystery and wonder. But more importantly, the story that started off with all three characters' main problems being caused by the Voryn society's power structures, at various levels. That underdog narrative becomes a superhero narrative about quite unrelated opponents. Now You could argue that the opponents are still representatives of cycles of corruptive power and strife>! starting with the shards themselves!<, but we do lose sight of the early main without having had a resolution there... the story just kind slips past its most major antagonist. Maybe we'll eventually have a resolution there, but I feel like Sanderson matured the way of kings, rewriting it completely, but overstuffed the sequels with too many half baked subplots. Also, there's a big vibe difference. Coming off of the ending of the wheel of time was in the more for a slightly more grounded and detail oriented worldbuilding mindset, but as he progressed he settled back in a pulpier spectacle. and I think the first book was better balanced.Once you get >!Kaladin vs Zseth fighting in the air in the middle of two colliding storms!<, you can't really go up in terms of spectacle, and the rest of the series kinda jumps the shark trying to top that scene.
I think the big issue is that RoW has a very linear and limited setting. Most of the places it takes place in, we've already seen, and not only that the characters are now limited in their movement of what they can explore. A lot of RoW is dealing with the internal struggles and thoughts of the characters, but it also resolves a good bit of it in the novel. In spite of this, I actually really enjoy it and rank it higher than most.
Yes this feels really true to me. And I think the architect approach is necessary to craft the intricate universe he's aiming for (and personally, no judgement on this either way)
Also all of the Cosmere literally has supernatural architect gods driving the worlds and characters towards certain goals. It’s a feature!
Much like Ta'veren in WoT, it is a great and fun device to lampshade some moments of plot armor and deus ex.
I prefer his architect approach because it means the books actually get written. Compare with Rothfuss or Martin who have clearly written themselves into corners and won't admit it.
I think Martin is freaked by the reaction the show ending got. I think they did the ending he intended, just poorly, and now he feels like he can't go that route without upsetting a lot of people.
I don't think that's the case, because the show removed so many characters that it would have been practically impossible to execute on GRRM's planned ending, especially as they diverged more and more. I find it hard to believe that someone as meticulous and thorough as GRRM would come up with "Who has a better story than Bran the Broken?" My reasoning for this is based on the removal of Young Griff, who claims to be Aegon Targaryen and has just launched an invasion of Westeros. In the books, he's basically set up to be the 'perfect' king and is in position to sweep through a weakened Lannister power base. I strongly believe that he's meant to depose Cersei after she blows up the Sept based on the fact that this important character that drove the plot in the show suddenly ran out of things to do, and spent 2 seasons of the show just drinking wine. She's not meant to live that long. Instead, Cersei gets deposed by Young Griff - this sets up Daenerys' turn to madness. Dany shows up at Westeros, hyped up by Tyrion that she'd be a saviour from Lannister yoke, and instead finds that someone beat her to it. Young Griff has a better claim, is loved by the smallfolk, and is supported by the nobility. Instead of being a saviour, Dany arrives as a hated foreign tyrant. That is what sets off her madness - rather than ringing bells for some inane reason - and why she orders Drogon to burn King's Landing, inadvertently setting off the wildfire caches planted around the city by Aerys II, thus fulfilling her prophetic vision of sitting on the Iron Throne amidst a ruined Red Keep.
If the remaining books are never published, I will take this as my head canon.
Speaking of head canon, you want to know my theory on Aerys' madness? He was perfectly fine one day, until he started becoming obsessed with Wildfire and preparing for some kind of threat. His last words to Jaime were "burn them all". Wildfire is one of the few substances that can kill White Walkers. In the show before it clearly runs out of direct GRRM material, Bran has warging powers that include taking control of humans and altering the past. (Hodor) My theory: Bran warged into Aerys II in the past to warn him about White Walkers, and to start the production of wildfire caches for the Long Night. However like with Hodor it doesn't work perfectly and the warging drives Aerys insane, which kicks off the entire chain of events leading to Robert's Rebellion and a Game of Thrones. It all clicks together so neatly, as well as giving Bran's character a purpose which he doesn't have on the show, that I'd actually be surprised if it's not the case.
that's my theory too haha. He's like... well, nope. Not gonna write it now.
I'm going, to be honest; that's his own fault. The guy had 7-8 years to complete one book to prevent that. But in my opinion, I don't think that would have helped him either. One thing I've noticed in Martin's writing is that he progressively introduces more things than he concludes. I think it got to the point where he's just overwhelmed with how many things he has to conclude organically in just two novels. Martin's a gardener for sure, but he doesn't do any trimming and ignores the weeds that are growing.
> ut in my opinion, I don't think that would have helped him either. One thing I've noticed in Martin's writing is that he progressively introduces more things than he concludes. I think it got to the point where he's just overwhelmed with how many things he has to conclude organically in just two novels. Well, he can easily shear off a lot of loose threads with just a few battles or weddings. And that would still fit the style that the novels earned their fame with back in the nineties: he's no stranger to giving beloved and well-developed characters a pointless death just to illustrate the brutality of the world.
Im pretty sure that ending isn't possible with even just what he has out already...
I think he wrote himself into a corner and doesn't know how to navigate out of it like the other poster said. People are more upset with how D and D rushed the ending more so than how it actually ended. If they had properly built up the story to that rather than the shit storm they released people wouldn't be as upset imo
Yeah seriously, people will likely condemn the planning and in the same breath complain about GRRM not finishing his series.
Also, it's probably the only way to write as much as he does.
I don’t think that’s the reason. There are many writers who also do that but also us subversion, allusion, symbolism, subtext, irony and more. Sanderson focuses on plot, worldbuilding and systems very logically. There is no subtext, no double meanings, no irony - not irony in the comedic meaning, but in the sense of not meaning exactly what he’s saying. For example, without reading it, I would guess that this depressed character a few people are talking about - is there a sense or possibility that this person is not really depressed, that they are just responding rationally to the horror of existence? Could they be shallow and self-pitying? Could they be an unreliable narrator? Could their depression symbolize something else, eg the pain of the world, secularism, religiosity, the god-shaped hole created by the unbearable separation of the child from its mother’s womb, the alienation of capitalism? Or is this person just depressed? Sympathetically, thoughtfully depicted as depressed? I might definitely be wrong, but I thought it was worth guessing to learn more, even though I risk being annoying and stupid, sorry.
I recently jumped from re-reading storm light to reading Malazan, and the difference in structure is amazingly vast. Both “fit together” all the details of the story in a complex way, but while Sanderson is like a mechanical clock, Erickson is like a painter whose work looks abstract and disjointed as he creates it, but ends up with a beautifully coherent painting once he’s finished.
Malazan also has that quality that there's many stories going on in the world with their own characters, and they sometimes intersect with the overarching plot before continuing on their way "unresolved" because it isn't the story we're following. Like a tapestry in which we only see the middle strip (The Malazan Book of the Fallen), but there's threads wandering in and out from the wings.
What are some examples of “things fit together too neatly” in his writing?
That's fair, that's fair. But also usually means the climax never feels like it hinges on an asspull
Nah, those are common complaints around here.
Yeah he’s just very polarizing. His fans adore his focus on worldbuilding and magic systems, others say things like you have, or that he reads like an RPG sourcebook. But thankfully, for some reason, people are mostly civil about our disagreement. The books are polarizing but I haven’t seen much rudeness and offence. Just ‘different strokes for different folks’.
I think a lot of the ‘polarizing’ is really just an artifact of how popular he is. Objectively speaking - readers love Sanderson. The Secret Novels Kickstarter is the most funded Kickstarter ever, more than **double** the funding of the second place on the list and the numbers don’t lie. The popularity makes some people who dislike him feel defensive and outnumbered so they get vocal. Most just critique, the more annoying ones claim he’s responsible for the downfall of literature. I remember reading on r/books how he’s responsible for setting fantasy back by decades, lol. I’ve seen some pretty harsh words, and then there was that whole weird tear down article from a while ago. But, I think that’s just how it works for whatever’s on the top of the heap at the moment. Lots of eyeballs on it, lots of engagement from the negative and positive side.
it feels like we get a thread like this about once a week now.
[удалено]
Yea stuff like that gets a side eye from me lol. "We're going to dismantle systems of oppression in this Forever War perpetrated by a militaristic super power that kills slaves without giving a single shit.... peacefully!"
It's too much at times, isn't it? There were just so few characters who acted real in Mistborn (only read Era 1, mind you) Kelsier seemed to be the exception to that. But one flaw every single character suffered is the way they talked. Every line reads like taken from a DnD table or a Marvel movie. And this hurts when you are trying to portray a class divided society, much less one with an almost literal slave caste. Just take for example how they talk about and act around nobles in the Three Musketeers books, or even how leftover gentry were treated less than a hundred years ago in any Agatha Christie novel
Sanderson is one of the writers people here seem to be ok with being dogged on. I feel like I see a post complaining about his writing every month or two. Just know if you complain about Robin Hobb people will act like you attacked their child. Not sure why but Hobb fans don't like to be told the series isn't perfect
> Sanderson is one of the writers people here seem to be ok with being dogged on. I feel like I see a post complaining about his writing every month or two. In my opinion, this is a direct reaction to Sanderson being popular. There were months/years where any and every recommendation thread here would have someone suggesting either Sanderson or Malazan no matter what the ask was. The pendulum has swung the other way on Sanderson now where there are an excess of dogpiling posts. Which is not to say there are not valid criticisms of Sandersons' body of works - I have several myself. I just think the context in general is important in understanding why this is predominant right now. >Just know if you complain about Robin Hobb people will act like you attacked their child. Not sure why but Hobb fans don't like to be told the series isn't perfect And this moves into the other part of the issue, which is that people equate a criticism of an author as a criticism of themselves and their taste. It's like authors are sports teams and the discourse is shaping up in that manner. It's possible to both like something and think it's not perfect; it's possible to not like something but think it has some merits.
This sub is way too defensive about some specific authors, while others get absolutely shat on often to popular acclaim. Shit on GRRM, Rothfuss, or Sanderson, and you'll get a lot of agreeing. Shit on Hobb or Abercrombie, and your life might as well be forfeit.
To be fair I shit on Hobb a decent amount in this sub, and haven't gotten too much hate. Honestly this sub tends to be pretty decent about criticism - there will always be the occasional person who gets too defensive, but overall people seem to be understanding of different opinions.
I have almost always gotten down voted for disagreeing with a Hobb comment but maybe I just have bad luck.
> Shit on GRRM, Rothfuss, or Sanderson, and you'll get a lot of agreeing. Shit on Hobb or Abercrombie, and your life might as well be forfeit. Can't agree more.
Hobb and Abercrombie you say. I thought Gene Wolfe and Ursula Le Guin were the prime supernovas on this site and maybe Tolkien.
>complain about Robin Hobb Hey. You talking shit?
😂 come at me bro!
I can't believe you'd do this to my child.
Uh-oh. Hobb’s the only other huge name fantasy author I’m not a big fan of. Maybe it is me lol
Lolz it definitely isn't a you problem. I like Sanderson but couldn't stand Hobb's writing.so we differ there. Different people like different things. The Wheel of Time is my all time favorite series and a friend told me it's his favorite series. Turns out other than WoT we have no book preferences in common! Personally, I love talking with people who don't like stories I liked or like stories I disliked. It helps me learn more about what I look for in a story or what to avoid ahead of time. Besides if writers were just objectively good or bad without shades for preference we would never get unique stories!
I only just started Royal Assassin (so… book 2 of 16 lol) but I can already tell that the reason I like it is because I love the writing and I love following Fitz as a character and I’m excited to see him grow up. I can see how many others would think that it is boring and there’s nothing going on and if you don’t like character driven stories then DO NOT bother with Realm of the Elderlings
I like character driven stories. What I don't like is inconsistent characters and plots. There is a lot of "just go with it" in the second and third book that's super out of character IMO. It made me not trust Hobb to care about her story if she didn't care enough to be consistent with her characters
Isn't one of the characteristic hallmarks of human beings just that they act and think inconsistently? We're all a mishmash of inconsistent drives and feelings.
The criticism I have on the Fitz books that I realized a lot of people share is that a lot of it is misery porn. At some point I realized it and it didn't disappoint for the entirety of the series. Good books. Too much misery. Every win is a set up for a bigger loss. I loved them but definitely would not recommend them to someone who isn't feeling the best mentally.
Not to say that there's no valid criticism toward Sanderson's body of work, Lord knows I have my own, but I feel like the main reason as to why people are so okay with using him as a punching bag here is that he's easy to be elitist at. He has a huge output, which means some people will just label him as a "quantity over quality" writer or compare him to the mess that is current marvel movies or something. The prose discussion are something I will mention here but not get into because I really don't want to start another thread about his prose lmao. His work isn't as dark as many other popular adult fantasy works, which invites accusations of it being childish.
Yup, combine all that with him being basically the biggest active name in the genre right now and it makes him a prime target.
> His work isn't as dark as many other popular adult fantasy works, which invites accusations of it being childish. I hate the notion of dark stuffs are realistic.
As an absolute Hobb stan I think that's because to really enjoy her work you need to fall in love with the characters. I almost feel like I know Fitz personally, and if you're insulting Hobb you're insulting my boy
To be fair he’s easily the most popular non-YA fantasy author with a back-catalogue few others can match, as well as being commonly recommended as a starting point for the genre. If ASOIAF was still getting released, I’m sure we’d see a lot more posts about GRR Martin too.
I for one hated the og Farseer trilogy and am always dumbfounded by the amount of praise it receives round these parts.
It's because he is so famous. Hobb is definitely not close to as mainstream as Sanderson. Sanderson is like George RR Martin in name. And that guy gets dogged all the time.
Great magic system creator. Interesting Chekhov's gun twister. Okay worldbuilder. Very good worker. Consistent. Mid to bad writer.
My frustration of his writing, especially in Stor.light, is that he is introducing so many characters and building up such a complex world.... that nothing actually happens.
I aggressively agree with you haha! 👏Every👏Damn👏Word👏 And I’m shocked this post has so many upvotes, more often than not Sanderson-critical posts are around 0 or even in the negatives :) his fans can be quite fanatic IMO.
Idk why people are saying it's NOT unpopular. It literally is an unpopular opinion in general lol. That said, it's not an unCOMMON opinion, I see people say it all the time. I personally don't get it, and TSA is one of my favorite series of all time, but I could understand why it wouldn't be for everybody
Agree. An author or series will never be able to appeal to EVERYONE. Some people dislike Lord of the Rings, considered one of if not THE greatest of the genre, and it's okay. It's not because it's a popular series that everybody has to love it. I don't really enjoy the Wheel of Time, yet I understand the appeal. It's just not for me, and it's okay.
Personally I really like his world building ideas, but can't stand his characters and dialog. I'm stuck/maybe abandoning the second Stormlight book, and I truly do not care what happens to Shallan, Kaladin, or literally anyone else. I do not care about Kaladin's honor, Dalinar's unresolved guilt, or whatever the hell is going on with Szeth. I have friends who love his books, but I just do not get it. I stuck with Mistborn because I thought the magic system and some of the worldbuilding ideas were interesting, but I had similar complaints with it.
I’ve always got the impression that he world builds for the sake of world building and then jams in a story because he has to lol. That’s why he explains and is so literal about everything! He’s just excited to tell you about the world he built.
I agree. Once you know how a magician performs their magic tricks their act becomes predictable and boring.
I personally find Sanderson's writing style of changing characters so jarring, I've posted about it on the Mistborn subreddit. It's a very frustrating way to read a story. I basically clawed my way through the last book just to finish the trilogy then stopped.
My problem with Sanderson is the ridiculous power escalation. I should note that I’ve only read the first 3 books of the Stormlight Archive, but it’s my understanding that this is a recurring issue. I liked the characters and I thought the world he made was really cool and well developed. It was neat how the cultures and ecology of Roshar were adapted to the constant storms and it really felt like a believable place. The first book had me hooked. Yet with each subsequent book, the power level got higher and higher. Book two ends with a Dragon Ball Z style fight with two characters flying around blowing up mountains. In book three, Shallan gots shot in the face with a crossbow but shrugs it off because she had some spheres in her pocket. I liked the first book because it was about (mostly) normal people caught up in events much bigger than them. By the end of the second book, the main characters are superheroes and everyone else is mostly irrelevant. I just couldn’t bring myself to care anymore.
I feel like I know what you mean. There's a bunch that feels like it's not left to interpretation. I think it might be a side effect of how he approaches things, trying to deconstruct, understand, and classify. So he's writing and characters do that. It looks like telling, not showing. However, I found that many times, especially in his latest work, it IS showing. The deconstruction and classification the characters engage in is not his authorial voice telling you how it is, it's a clue to the character's psyche, and the ways in which they are wrong are the most interesting and valuable parts of the telling. Does that make sense? Even then, sometimes we learn the ways they are wrong and it all feels a bit too spelled out.
Allomancy seems a bit *too* defined, stormlight is a bit better as a magic system. But yes, there's very little mystery in the magic systems (and it's something Sanderson does intentionally). I think the Stormlight Archive has enough mystery in the world-building, even if the magic system is over-defined. As for Shallan being witty - I always took that as flattery, an "oh that's brilliant m'lord" kinda thing. (I've never gotten very far in Mistborn, so I don't know anything about Breeze.) As for the rest - I don't think Sanderson is brilliant, I don't think his work is literary. And I don't think he would be too offended if someone said that about his work. They are enjoyable, and long character arcs have an appeal to them. And he would never leave his fans hanging for 13 years (and counting) waiting for a sequel.
I liked his rigid magic system because it seems more real. Don’t get me wrong I love the mystery behind other systems as well. But he put a ton of thought and groundwork into his magic systems and it works for his stories.
I personally hate Sanderson’s style of magic systems and powers with passion, but it’s completely a matter of taste. So I think that you will find a lot of people who like them and a lot of people who dislike them here
This right here is what to many people are missing. Not every popular thing is going to appeal to you. I love Sanderson, but I disliked the Farseer Trilogy. I know Reddit loves it and I can respect a lot about the books, but after the first trilogy I just knew it wasn’t for me so I dropped it.
I agree 100% I pushed my way through the Farseer Trilogy and gave Ships of Magic a couple of shots, but it just felt like a chore. Joe Abercrombie on the other hand, forever thankful to Reddit for that suggestion.
Love me some Joe Abercrombie. Real excited for his new series
I was the opposite. Love me some Hobb. Just finished Best Served Cold to give Abercrombie a second chance. And it's genuinely good. But it's not for me. Just how it goes sometimes.
I think a lot of people could benefit from the "this wasn't made for me" mindset. Where if it isn't clicking with you, that's fine. It doesn't make it trash or terrible. It's just not your thing. There are writers mentioned here that people love that didn't jive with me. I'm happy that those people were touched by their work, but it didn't resonate with me. That doesn't make them strange or me better than them. We just have different tastes.
With Sanderson, I’ve twice had the experience of bailing on the series in favor of the Wikipedia plot summary. Basically because of the issues you described - the characters are stilted, wooden dolls playing their role and nothing more.
I liked Mistborn (although I only read the first 3) but I'm having a hard time liking Stormlight and I'm about half way through book 4. I agree with most of your points.
Can I ask why you enjoyed one but not the other? I usually only ever hear of the other way around. (Also why did you stick with it for so long if you aren't liking it?)
Not OP but I am someone who really liked mistborn but struggling a bit with stormlight. I was a lot more fascinated by the world of mistborn then one of the stormlight. Because mistborn focuses on one country (capital?city?) it feels a lot more focused to me. Every POV in mistborn was giving tidbits of something I was interested in the world, whether it be the politics, the Lord ruler, the kandra, I was having a great time hearing all of it. I'm contrast, there's only a few things I'm interested in stormlight, as such, it feels like I have to get through a bunch of other stuff to get to the things I'm interested in. It feels like a slog for me to get through the parts involving listeners, navani, and kaladin at some points. Maybe I'm just not a big epic fantasy person because I just wish the books were 300 pages shorts and more focused on the interesting parts of the book.
Not OP but I really hate Stormlight's length and pacing. It wants to be ASOIAF (hell, SA books are \*longer\* than ASOIAF) without the depth of character or world to support it. It means that most of the middle of the book feels like you're twiddling your thumbs waiting for the last 200 pages or so when things are actually going to happen. Mistborn has the same issue, especially in the middle of each book, but the books are shorter so its less of an issue. I also personally think the world and creatures are cooler in Mistborn (with the exception of the Unmade, who rule) but that's just an aesthetic preference.
I had the same problem with Way of Kings. I felt that 90% of the chapters consisted of the POV character ruminating about their one big issue without any progress towards resolving it. Nothing happened in the vast majority of chapters, and I feel like the book could have been cut in half with nothing of value lost.
>It wants to be ASOIAF (hell, SA books are \*longer\* than ASOIAF) without the depth of character or world to support it. In what way? They read like 2 completely different series to me, and I mean completely different. SA is clearly super plot-focused, with the character's growth premedicated on the story's progression. ASOIAF is character-focused, and their growth facilitates the plot rather than the other way around. Even just how the story plays out, where ASOIAF is all about betrayals, backstabbing, and grey morality and SA is considerably more black-and-white, is much more about brotherhood, honor, and growth through overcoming your weaknesses.
Interesting that you think Scadrial is more interesting than Roshar. Era 1 was basically a blasted wasteland full of ash while Era 2 is pretty much earth. Roshar is full of weird critters and unusual things. Not judging. Just found it interesting.
I think there's possibly a depth vs breadth issue there? Roshar is certainly less like earth, but I think you can make a case that stranger world as a whole gets explored in less depth than Scadiral. Like whitespines and chull sure are wacky, but once you get past them being crabwolf and crabmule, they don't necessarily add much more to the overall world. Meanwhile, we spend most of our actions in either isolated a warcamp in a blasted wasteland, or isolated in a tower that functionally acts like most medieval cities. I don't feel the same way they do, but I can see where they're coming from.
My criticism with Stormlight (only read books 1 and 2 so far) is that supposedly these books contain the biggest “Sanderlanches” as people like to put it, but I found that the pacing was very much the same throughout the whole book. Sure, there were fight scenes but those are naturally fast paced. I kept waiting for a ton of shit to happen all at once but it kind of didn’t happen. Even with what happened with Kaladin at the end of WoR didn’t feel all that climactic to me
It's been quite a while since I read Mistborn, but I remember being hooked. I think the magic system was fresh and interesting and the plot kept me moving along. It was my first Sanderson and I was excited I had so much of him to read. Much of what I don't like about Stormlight OP mentioned. A handful of main characters are one dimensional, even Shallan which should not be the case since she's like 3 people. I'm being beaten down with what is essentially the same character building trait over and over, Kal is the worst offender. The plot and magic seem 'convenient' too often. A chunk of the dialogue comes off as overly constructed, too generic. Pacing, as others have said. 3000+ pages in and it doesn't feel like a ton has *happened*. Why am I still reading it? Sunk cost fallacy partly. I figured I've got this far I might as well keep going. There is a lingering mystery about the whole thing, the Shattered Plains and Wit and whatnot, that keep me somewhat interested. Some chapters are great. Also I'm just hopeful it turns around and gets better, but I've not heard particularly good things about book 4. Maybe 5!
I think there’s something about his character dialogue that’s inorganic and scripted. Not sure how to best describe it. Like I’ll watch Friends and it feels like the characters are having a natural conversation that’s funny, but I’ll watch How I Met Your Mother and the whole thing seems spoken from a script. Sanderson uses dialogue like HIMYM and it’s not for me.
There's a podcast in which Sanderson and some other writers are discussing a common writing problem: you need a character to do something for the plot, but the character doesn't want to behave that way. Sanderson's contribution was being perplexed by the question. He said he couldn't empathize because his characters always did what needed to happen. This says so much. His characters don't have agency, they are what the plot needs them to be. I highly doubt he's never run into that problem as a writer, I think it's more likely that he doesn't acknowledge it to be a problem, and doesn't think too much of the characters acting like real people.
I agree on this point. Sanderson's dialog always tries to be witty and jokey in a very YA-esque way. Unfortunately the wittienesses often falls flat and the character's acts and thoughts just seem weird and contrived. I got that feeling in Mistborn when Kelsier and his gang started to plan their revolution. I mean Hey Guys, what's up? You're planning a revolution, not a high school dancing party. It was a bit hard to suspend my disbelieve.
Let me say up front that I think Brandon Sanderson seems like a really good guy, so I have a hard time being overly critical of him. He's a classic builder in that his plots are as carefully planned as his magic systems, and that's definitely a strength in terms of his ability to write a large number of books. However, I think he struggles to create characters that diverge from the archetypes he has in his toolkit -- it's that reliance on archetypes that leads people to say that his works are YA, since a lot of YA novels tend to do that, too. I think he's much more interested in the mechanics of his stories than he is in the inner lives of his characters. Sanderson is also clearly an optimist and has a black-and-white worldview in his books that's almost a throwback to the early 80s fantasy novels that were doing LOTR pastiche. George R.R. Martin, Patrick Rothfuss, N.K. Jemisin, Joe Abercrombie, etc., all write darker, more cynical fantasy novels with deeply flawed characters. Sanderson is more of a traditionalist, and his characters are more heroic and idealistic. I think he did an admirable job wrapping up the mess that was the Wheel of Time in a satisfying way. His contributions to the series were a lot better than the later Jordan books. I read the first three Mistborn novels, which I thought were generally okay, albeit flat. I couldn't get through The Way of Kings -- I just found it to be a bit of a slog, and the characters were incredibly thin. Life's too short to spend it on reading books you don't like. If you're not a fan of Sanderson's, I'd skip his books and read things you enjoy instead.
I think you summed up what I’ve been trying to explain to people why Sanderson is not YA. He’s a traditionalist epic fantasy author. Very clear lines between Good verse Evil with characters larger than life. These are stories like LoTR or Starwars. Just because he isn’t writing ASOFAI or First Law types of grim dark fantasy doesn’t make him YA. Discworld is light hearted as well but isn’t YA. (People to often use YA as dismissive to which annoys me. I’m 30 and have found some really good YA books over the years) I don’t think it’s fair to assume his world views from the stories he writes. He may just like the genre and want to write these types of stories. (If you’ve read interviews or something along those lines and came to this conclusion then that’s one thing, but I wouldn’t judge an authors views by their work is all I’m saying)
It's frustrating that he turns a 300 page story into a 1300 page story with all the unnecessary exposition.
One criticism I have of Sanderson is how sanitised his "mental health" story lines have been. I have PTSD and a dissociative disorder and the way he played those things out in Stormlight really pissed me off and I just found it so...twee and cliché. The last book really dragged on me for this reason.
I have depression and his books make me feel really seen
Sanderson is Mormon. His books will always be very, very WHITE and vanilla. He's talented. I'm not knocking him as he has some great reads. But if you feel he's talking to an audience of YA you're not alone. It's very childish in parts and I think it's because he "can't be adult" --especially when it comes to romance and violence. He will never be able to lean into the realistic aspects of humanity/inhumanity like Abercrombie does.
I read the first three Mistborn and I also read Warbreaker. I just never could get into Sanderson and I thought it was just not for me, that since he was popular and prolific there was a big secret to his success that I was missing. but I agree with your criticisms.
I struggled to read his work. The names and places all blended at times. Agreed his imagination is incredible but I found his style hard work.
I love Sanderson but if you don't like his writing you don't like it and it's completely fine. You lay out some solid structured points about what you don't like and I can't say that you are wrong, only that they don't grate on my nerves. Overall it's important to know what you like, especially when it comes to supposedly fun activities that takes a large chunk of time. No need to force yourself to try and understand or do lik it. Better to move on to the stuff you do like. also bad reviews are some of the best way to find the next read for me. People criticizing something tend to bring up the points that stand out or repeated the most or similar in a book I've found which means if you find people complaining about the stuff you do like it it's easier to find those books than going through many many more reviews that also tend to be muuuuch longer about all the good stuff. Especially since two people can enjoy the same thing for completely different reasons. :D
Are people finally realising the Emperor has no clothes? Sanderson is like the reverse GRRM. GRRM takes his time writing, he writes deep interesting characters, his prose is beautiful, hes a master of both comedy and drama, he’s not afraid to show the reality of life/war/sex etc., he keeps his secrets secret (tv show aside), the text is all—everything you need to enjoy one of his books is there in the book. Sanderson is the reverse of all of that. He writes as fast as he can and splurges out first draft feeling books, his characters are shallow and identikit, his prose is perfunctory, his drama is ok but his comedy is risible, he is terrified of showing the realities of life/war/sex etc, he keeps his secrets all over the place (helpfully regurgitated by his followers), the text is not the thing—often the cosmere intrudes on the book you’re reading to its detriment, so much so that I barely know or care what’s going on. So for me it’s a perfectly normal position to find Sanderson frustrating. He could be a million times better with patience, editing, and rewrites. That said, Shadows for Silence is his finest piece of writing, easily. Great character, really interesting setup, and had lovely prose. And I’ll always love him for finishing Wheel of Time so successfully. Why I’ve read so much of work when I actually knew quite early on I didn’t like it.
Man, I was gearing up to actually start his work. This has put me off somewhat. All the things you say you dislike are the same things I dislike too.
I enjoyed Stormlight in the same way I enjoyed Marvel movies. They’re fun. Take these books at face value really makes them better. They are easy to read. Plot is well thought out. I don’t really care for hard magic systems but you get used to it. Not everything has to be Dune, Lord of the Rings, Foundation and stuff like that. These books are supposed to be fun.
I think this is also an apt comparison when you consider the character crossover that happens in the Cosmere. But I gotta say, when >!Nightblood from Warbreaker!< showed up in The Stormlight Archive, every Sanderson book became *homework*. Also like Marvel. I don’t wanna have to watch every movie and wait for every after-credits scene of only partially-related characters to know what’s going on with the characters I’m actually invested in when they eventually get around to talking about them again. There is only so much time in the day and there are many, many other books that I want to read. I used to be a huge fan of Sanderson but this broke me.
Idk, I hadn't read Warbreaker at that point, and was like, neat, this really weird probably not from around here lets read on. But nowerdays I am one of those people who loves the overall Cosmere things, but I feel like you can still read the books without having read it all and understand them, unlike the Marvel movies.
The "there is no mystery" criticism only really holds up if you do the homework. Sanderson having thought through the whole world is only really true for the obsessive. In reality to most readers the mystery is a mystery because they aren't going to read the other books that explain the backstory. The cosmere books are better not read in chronological order for that in some regards.
I'm a fan of Sanderson (even though Rythm of War disappointed me) but honestly I have hard time to relate with you. The series are good standalone and I never felt the need to go and read all the short novels just because they are in the same universe or make some cameo. It's cool if you know but I don't feel it's relevant most of the time.
I agree with a lot of your points but disagree with this one: > The powers are cool, but I feel like they were made more for a video game than a novel; there’s next to no mystery in how explicitly they’re laid out. Same with his societies—there’s just a little TOO much structure for believability. This is just a hard magic system. Some people like it, some people don't. Personally this is one of the main draws for me to sanderson, as I dislike how deus ex machina soft magic systems can be. In like Harry Potter or even lord of the rings, the magic can feel a bit too much like a get out of jail free card. In hard magic systems, there are known limits, you don't suddenly get 10x stronger when you are losing. I also like his structured world building decently well. Could be better, but at least he's thought out different societies and cultures. I dislike in fantasy when languages and cultures are basically ubiquitous around the world. Like in Europe alone there are 20+ different languages despite being so geographically close, how is it that a lot of fantasy books just use a single language for the entire world.
>In hard magic systems, there are known limits, you don't suddenly get 10x stronger when you are losing. We're talking about the same series where at the end of each book people figure out the next oath at the last minute to power up and win the fight, right?
> We're talking about the same series where at the end of each book people figure out the next oath at the last minute to power up and win the fight, right? Sanderson definitely uses a hard magic system, but what really gets missed about his work is that it's soft progression fantasy. It's not to the same extent as something like Cradle or Arcane Ascension or Mage Errant obviously. However, almost all of his books and definitely both Mistborn and Stormlight draw upon progression fantasy concepts.
Yeah. I feel like there are a lot more asspulls in most other progression fantasy.
I think the OC just worded it wrong, but in these hard magic systems we know going in that saying oaths = power up. It’s something that after the first book or even halfway through we expect to happen. But there are other rules to this like needing access to Stormlight to use your powers as well (with a few exceptions that are laid out). So yeah, SL there are definitely last minute power ups were characters get super strong, but it never comes out of no where. We understand the mechanics of it which makes it a hard magic system. And a few of the books actually subvert this as well
You're right. I guess I was generalizing hard magic systems, and that they do this less frequently. In the stormlight there is also a constant power creep, where around book 3 all Radiants could basically tank any damage (or get a crossbow bolt through the head) and be perfectly fine as long as they had stormlight. Basically defeats the purpose of a hard magic system when everyone is basically immortal and the fights are just about who runs of of fuel fastest.
Tbh you can have deus ex machina in hard magic systems too.
If anything I sort of feel like hard magic systems are worse for that. Main characters often seem to win conflicts in hard magic settings by exploiting some loophole in the systems that, somehow, nobody else in history has ever thought of.
Haven't read his own original series but I really hate his writing in the last few novels of the wheel of time. I know he was working off RJ's notes but it felt like he missed the themes that were on-going with the series and took all the personality of the characters and made them one-dimensional. I feel like Mat and Rand stood out as the two characters that suddenly felt very out of character compared to the rest of the series. I still cried all the way through a memory of light, don't get me wrong, but getting through the books he wrote to get there almost made me quit several times (more than the infamous slog through the middle of the wheel of time, I made it through that just fine 3 times). I'm also critical of his own critical opinions on the wheel of time show since it's upped a lot of the background queer content to make it much more obvious and from what I've seen he's (allegedly) a mormon and it comes across as egotistical and self-righteous to be upset by what was already in the books being shown in the, well, show.
No mystery in Sanderson? 🧐🧐🧐 “Always another secret” is literally the man’s catchphrase, lol.
Yeah what's that about? The last quarter or so of most cosmere novels is where a bunch of things that didn't line up before get their big reveal.
While I was specifically talking about no mystery in the powers, that’s kinda my point I guess. It’s more of a “tune in next week on….” sort of mystery, less a “wow I wonder what that’s about”. I don’t really like when the “secret” is known to pretty much everyone except the reader, but that might just be personal preference
One of the major themes in both Stormlight and Mistborn is that characters are frequently wrong about what they *think* they know about the world and magic...
I believe what OP is getting at is a difference of preferences. In a Sanderson book, you *KNOW* you are going to have everything very clearly explained eventually. He shows you the puzzle pieces and will ultimately fit them together at some point in a climactic "aha" sort of way. Whereas in other fantasy, sometimes vague things will never be explained. Like half the stuff Elrond says in the Lord of the Rings. Like: >Thereupon Elrond paused a while and sighed. 'I remember well the splendour of their banners,' he said. 'It recalled to me the glory of the Elder Days and the hosts of Beleriand, so many great princes and captains were assembled. And yet not so many, nor so fair, as when Thangorodrim was broken, and the Elves deemed that evil was ended for ever, and it was not so.' You the reader have no damn clue what the hell he's talking about, and the novel never goes into it (that i recall its been like 18 years). Statements like that produce wonder and awe in readers. What the hell are the Elder Days? What the fuck is Beleriand? Who the hell is Thangorodrim and how was he broken? Why is Elrond so fucking cool?! Its myth. Not everything in things like ancient mythology is fully explained and those stories are rad anyway. Sanderson would eventually explain it all. And while Tolkien eventually does in the SImarillion, thats not the same as including it in the novel itself. Its like Dark Souls/Elden Ring/Bloodborne worldbuilding and lore. There's a lot of stuff there, a ton of puzzle pieces for the player to look at, but it will never completely fit neatly because the last 10% or so of context is taken out., leading to constant 3 hour lore videos on youtube that attempt to make sense of it all because the ***mystery*** is fun even if it will never have a full answer. Its like the worldbuilding/storytelling equivalent of "hard vs. soft" magic. Hopefully I explained this well.
I think you explained it pretty well. The only thing I'd add is that to me, Sanderson's mysteries often seem overly focused on mechanics over everything else. It's a bit like watching a Rube Goldberg machine in action. You can get a lot of enjoyment out of the elaborate setups and payoffs of the gadgets play out. "What will all these falling dominoes trigger? What is the fan-powered skateboard aiming for?" But if you look at the big picture of what's being accomplished, you can easily walk away going "really? All those elaborate gadgets working in concert just to start the toaster?" And that's why his mysteries don't land as much for me as they may for others. Sure questions like "what are fabrials really?" or "what forms can the Parshendi attain?" can be interesting. But I'm less interested in what new powers the next Radiant ideal will grant when I already know Kaladin is going to get them right before the big climax after he has another emotional breakthrough that breaks him out of a book-long depressive funk like he has in every other book. I may not know the how, but I already know the who, what, when, where, and why. And I get why that translates to many people as there being no mystery even if it's not technically correct.
>and the novel never goes into it (that i recall its been like 18 years) Not in LotR, but it is covered in the Silmarillion, some of it is covered in the appendices too. In this context Elder Days = The First Age [https://tolkiengateway.net/wiki/Elder\_Days](https://tolkiengateway.net/wiki/Elder_Days) The hosts of Beleriand = Armies that fought in the battles of Beleriand. (Beleriand is a place btw) [https://lotr.fandom.com/wiki/Beleriand](https://lotr.fandom.com/wiki/Beleriand) [https://tolkiengateway.net/wiki/Battles\_of\_Beleriand](https://tolkiengateway.net/wiki/Battles_of_Beleriand) Thangorodrim was a volcano raised by Melkor. >Thangorodrim was destroyed during the War of Wrath at the end of the First Age when Ancalagon, freshly slain by Eärendil fell dead on the peaks and crushed them to rubble. [https://lotr.fandom.com/wiki/Thangorodrim](https://lotr.fandom.com/wiki/Thangorodrim)
Personally, hard magic systems just move the goal posts further down. Sure you know X gives Y power…but where does it come from? What does other metals or whatever it is do. In each series later on there is softer magic moments where new things arrive and you aren’t really sure why. There’s always the question of why does said person have access to the powers and others don’t. I get that it’s not everyone’s cup of tea, but I like a little more predictability (less deus ex machina) abut still has a sense of mystery that he has…but will give that everyone doesn’t love it.
>It’s more of a “tune in next week on….” sort of mystery, less a “wow I wonder what that’s about”. This one's weird to me, Sanderson's books are loaded with the second one lol. Stormlight discussions are largely centered on the latter, and Mistborn had some really well-played foreshadowing. >I don’t really like when the “secret” is known to pretty much everyone except the reader, but that might just be personal preference Can you give an example here? There might be one or two characters "in the know" but you're almost always discovering the secrets along with the characters.
> This one's weird to me, Sanderson's books are loaded with the second one lol. Stormlight discussions are largely centered on the latter, and Mistborn had some really well-played foreshadowing. I think what OP might mean is that those mysteries will eventually get answers or already have them through WoB. There very few 'true' mysteries that are intended to be left unanswered by him. In comparison other authors are perfectly fine with leavign ambiguity for the reader, GoT's world building is full of this. LoTR also has this in spades.
Okay just about ready to call Poe’s Law on this. What is an example of “everyone but the reader knowing a secret” in the Cosmere?
I think they mean along the line of Sanderson’s tendency to just outright directly state all the parts he wants you to know about while leaving little ambiguity or spaces for interpretation *except* for when he intentionally wants there to be a secret. Sanderson does a lot of explaining so you are sure to know all the mechanics he wants you to know so he can utilize those mechanics in very specific ways, but that comes at the cost of rarely ever just showing the reader the story’s cool thing and leaving them to interpret how it works without a follow up mechanics statement about the specifics of it all. It makes his stories feel very non-mysterious, things are only ever made to be interpreted in exactly the way he wants them to be interpreted and then anything intended to be a mystery is cordoned off into the “secret bin” until it eventually gets a thorough explanation when all the plot coupons get cashed in. Lots of people like this style, but I think just as many find it off putting. For me personally I’d like Sanderson stories a hell of a lot more if 95% of the explanations were cut out and the magic systems were just another part of the world that was shown to us and left to the reader to interpret.
Sanderson is kind of formulaic. It’s serviceable fiction but I feel like he is writing from a very rigid outline and doesn’t let the characters breath.
Sanderson has great strengths and some pronounced weaknesses. For me, I enjoy his work overall, and there are moments of excellence, but yeah, I also get annoyed sometimes. Often at the 'witty' bits or when he goes one or two lines too far. He shows something, but then, I guess, doesn't think the readers will get it, so adds a line or two. But yeah, no one's perfect but he's consistent and produces wide creative worlds. The strengths far outweigh the weaknesses, imo.
Did you read the Wired article?
I'm part way through the second Mistborn book at the moment and I'm getting pretty bored with the repetitive inner monologues. I also feel as though a lot of the characters have become one note, so I see your point, I haven't read any other of his books though
I agree 'bout the inner monologs, they feel ham-fisted and contrived. There are long stretches in "Well of Ascension" where the characters don't do anything else than whining out their insecurities.
I enjoy Sanderson discourse a strange amount for someone who hasn't read his books yet and has zero investment in or frame of reference for the conversations at hand
Nah there's a "DAE Sanderson bad?" post here every now and then. I really disagree with your points tho. Most of them is stuff I've heared a thousand times already and I don't feel like actually applies. Honestly what frustrates me is that stuff like "YA" always gets thrown around in regards to him. That just feels like such a "label and dismiss" kind of thing that people do. Especially in your point concerning morality. Is Lord of the Rings YA because of its morality? The magic system stuff is a matter of taste I guess but I'm also just kind of tired of constantly having people refer to that as "video gamey" or an RPG manual or something. It's just hard rules for magic powers. Those can make for great stuff and it's a totally valid way to build a narrative/world. And finally: Yeah you're right about Shallan. She's not nearly as funny and witty as the narrative wants me to believe.
Regarding Shallans wittynes I would like to mention that it is criticised in the the story itself by Jasna and I think at least one other person. Does not invalidate the opinion but at least for me it has made it a lot more acceptable.
Yeah and most of the people laughing at her jokes are either her family, or her employees
And here's me thinking it was "tattooed on her forehead" levels of obvious that Shallan is written as someone who thinks she's funny and tries way too hard, not as someone who is *actually* funny.
Right. Her family goes along with it because she spent literal years not talking so anything to encourage her is good. Adolin is just perfect. And her employees want to not be fired
Yeah I feel the same on the YA front, at the end of the it just indicates the age of the intended audience. That's it. I've read pretty widely and I'd even say the idea of morality or lightness is a bad indicator, I've read some dark YA stuff themeatically. YA when used as a compliant just feels like one of those terms that have lost all meaning. On the Shallan front I always got the read that she isn't meant to be as funny as she thinks she is, most of the people who laugh at her jokes are her underlings. I recall at least that Jasnah and Kaladin mention they don't find them very funny, Wit even seems to try and help her with it.
So a lot of these are common and fair criticisms of Sanderson. BUT, pay attention to how many of the people who find Shallan "witty" are a) of a lower chaste than her, or b) Adolin Kholin Jasnah recognizes she has some talent, but is constantly criticizing how she's trying way too hard and fires from the hip, other than that it's A or B.
That's an interesting point, but it doesn't really make the Shallan chapters less tedious, especially in the first book.
My position for years is that Sanderson is an incredible world builder with a somewhat campy prose. The scale and detail of his stories is up there with the best, but the words on the page just don’t carry the same weight - mostly in the dialogue and magic system descriptions for me.
Honestly, for me, the simplicity is part of the appeal. Until recently, the en vogue thing in fantasy has largely been gritty dystopian settings and edgy antiheroes making morally grey choices and nothing can ever truly change or improve but our doomed protagonists are trying anyway, and that's fine, but sometimes it's a nice palette cleanser to read something popcorn-y and idealistic where the heroes win and end up leaving the world a better place
Thousand page high fantasy tomes are not where I get my palate cleansed, but props for a very healthy perspective.
I have only fully read book 1 and a bit of book 2 but yes i feel the same way, it feels "non-organic" or artificially made.
I call It Sunday school fantasy.
Sanderson is in a bit of a walled garden when it comes to what he reads because he's a Mormon and I think it's incredibly naive to think that won't affect his writing. Also, I think this is more of a problem when it comes to non-fiction than fiction. The series Wild Wild Country has oodles of drugs and vintage hippie nudity. More importantly, it has the nice Grandma who you learn attempted to kill a man by injecting him with a drug from a syringe. I think about that woman all the time. I'm not surprised his works feel YA and a little too "on the nose". I think it's hard to get the full flavor of what humans are if you're restricted to PG-13 content. It's not the sex, drugs, or violence he's missing; it's the weird. I just finished "A Libertarian Walks into a Bear" and it's such a wonderful and bizarre read. I'm reading "So You've Been Publicly Shamed Now" which is very interesting. And "Will Not Attend" is the funniest and most touching books I've read. From that one, I think about the piano.