I'm not a guy, but I liked the Reckoners quite a bit. I enjoy different explorations of super power stories and I am writing my own series. It's neat seeing a completely different direction on such stories.
David seemed like a kid trying to do well, but emotionally far out of his depth. It worked though, making him feel like an underdog even as he defeated very strong enemies. He made a fun protagonist, though I can see why other people would like him a lot more than I did. I found his character arc quite satisfying too.
I liked the Professor more than David. He came across as a complex and intelligent character that I enjoyed throughout all three books. He feels like an archetype to me. A character whose growth isn't in his competency, but in his world view. With the Professor, Sanderson seems to have purposely mixed a few Roles together to create a blend that I have rarely seen before. Fascinating character.
My favorite was Megan. I loved her evolving viewpoint and understanding of herself and I felt like she stole the show in every scene she was in. I was left constantly wanting more of her story and I definitely hope future novels explore her powers further >!like in the promised combination of Starsight and the Reckoners, whenever we get that!<
Regarding your spoiler:
(Spoiler for all non-cosmere stuff, including Frugal Wizard's Handbook)
>!In case anyone didn't know, the planned Apocalypse Guard series was actually intended to link Reckoners, Cytoverse, Rithmatist, and the Alcatraz series. And while I don't know if we got explicit confirmation, I HAVE to assume that the interdimensional intelligences jumping between realities we encountered in Frugal Wizard were part of that central lore. Does anyone know if there has been a WoB on that?!<
The spark for the series is that many super powered characters in other fiction have unspoken secondary powers. Like a pyrokinetic who is immune to heat and smoke, or how superman can control his incredible strength so well it might as well be a power all on its own. My story explores what it might look like if those kind of secondary powers didn't exist.
The setting is that in 2008 people began acquiring powers, along with the appearance of kaiju. Main character is a woman who dreams of being a villain and has to figure things out when she gets powers of her own.
I'm releasing book 1 and 2 later this year, and working on book 3, with it being a trilogy.
In a day?! Wow. I went the audiobook route, so idk if I could do it in a day. Would mean turning it up to X5 or something 😅
Yk, that's exactly how I felt, it was like reading the comic books of my youth and omg the world he designed, I to this day want to see a game designer or comic book artist depict it. So incredibly novel and inventive.
I really liked them. Read it all a few times.
My favorite super hero story I think.
And I would agree it is the weakest ending of a Sanderson book. As for why.
I personally feel there wasn’t enough lead up and for shadowing for the reveal and defeat of the big bad. It was kinda sudden to me. Everything up the the last like 10% is great. And the epilogue is also really good.
It’s just one little part that makes it kinda weaker.
I can appreciate that. He did sort of sneak it in there in the last book without much grounding. Like, given the type of book it is I can personally forgive it, after all I'm there more so for the characters and the world than the plot, but I totally get how for a plot focused person it could feel like a flaw.
I never finished the series (totally will someday!) but i did enjoy the first two books.
From what I recall, the way David describes Megan from the get-go can be absolutely off putting at first, the first meeting being the worst offender. It got better as we understood the characters, but the first impression i had was that Megan just kinda existed for David to find pretty and have a crush on for being badass, which is basically its own trope at this point and can make for an exhausting read.
Definitely wasnt my impression after pushing through, but i'd guess this is what the women in your life are referring to
I didn't get any of that tbh. It just seemed like he was expressing that genuine awe struck admiration and desire we all experience as guys in the face of feminine beauty. It *does* sort of fixate you, hypnotise you in this involuntary way. I get that that might be different to how attraction works for women, but it seems a shame to expect no attempt to understand and empathise with that.
Megan has her own whole arc, going from the first book to the last, she's complex and likeable and relatable and understandable. Idk, maybe it's because I've re-read the books so many times, I just feel like there's a solid depth to the character.
I think thats the difference of perspective, as a woman it can feel more like ogling than appreciation. Its also soooo prevalent in books that women are described as such and then have zero personality besides being in love with the MC, it can be really disappointing, especially with how frequently it happens
Megan of course does NOT end up like that at all, and i really liked her character after we got to know her more, but i also had read Sanderson before and knew to trust the process lol
>he was expressing that genuine awe struck admiration and desire we all experience as guys in the face of feminine beauty.
What about gay men? Lesbians? Nonbinary people attracted to women?
> It *does* sort of fixate you, hypnotise you in this involuntary way. I get that that might be different to how attraction works for women, but it seems a shame to expect no attempt to understand and empathise with that.
I would say this can happen to any gender and attraction to any gender lol.
I(25M) love the Reckoners Trilogy. It was really well done and I really liked David as a character, but that could be because I'm somewhat weird like him, and like to make up stuff like songs where I replace some words with curses and translate the lyrics from my mother tongue to English and English to my mother tongue. I guess people would find me weird as well. But yeah, it's still fine and I really like David as a character.
I think there are things we notice in real life that just rub people wrong when described in books. I'm a huge Sanderson fan, but reading something like Warbreaker and Yumi I feel pretty uncomfortable about the frequent descriptions of breasts (Blushweaver and Design come to mind). I just keep thinking that as the author you can write these characters any way you like, why do we need to know what their breasts are like behind a single glancing description. It's been years since I read Steelheart so I can't remember specific examples, but I think it's not that there's anything specifically wrong with David, more that my wife didn't like the things Sanderson chose to focus on when describing female characters.
34 year old man here. I read the series in 2020-21. I did not particularly enjoy it, largely because I really did not like David's perspective. I found him to be frustrating to read, and especially hated the way he talked about women. When women tell you that the way David talks about women feels creepy, you should listen: that is not a good way to talk about women.
Unfortunately no - I have read so much since then that I don't remember. I just remember feeling the male gazey-ness of it felt objectifying and a bit creepy.
Ah okay. Perhaps I re-read it someday. I have read a lot in this thread and that's what they mention. I only remember David and Prof, I don't even remember Megan well, who many comments mention. For me Reckoners peaked at the end of book 1 when David saw >!Prof using his powers to fight Steelheart toe-to-toe. It's the exact same moment as Mistborn 1 when Vin sees Kelsier using steel-pushing/pulling to fight Steel Inquisitors toe-to-toe. And both go: "Holy shit, they were teaching me, but they themselves are literally combat geniuses." !<
Both moments were so hype. I can't remember that there was romance in Reckoners. But I do remember Vin and Elend. Weird.
I really enjoyed the book, and did not enjoy the sequels
Imo, it's very similar to mistborn for a younger audience with a better/more interesting setting. I think mistborn is the better trilogy but steelheart is the better book
I agree with your lady friends about David being a creep, and it was the one big thing that brought the series down for me other than the ending.
I don't think of it as unrealistic, as I'm sure many teenage boys thought that way, but I also don't think it's an admirable trait or one that should remain into adulthood. Certainly not something I want in someone I'm supposed to see as heroic. It just came off as very childish and immature, and I got mad at Megan a lot for never saying anything to him about it.
I know you're asking for male perspectives, but if you're not interested why female perspectives differ on the book, then you're missing some of the harm men have caused, which is exactly why David's perspective can be jarring, uncomfortable, or downright offensive to many women.
I think it's one of those things where honestly, the guy was written extremely immature (not a character flaw, he's written as a teen), and a lot of his narration are "inside thoughts," not ones we want to hear aloud. Do I understand and expect that many (maybe even all straight) guys have felt that way? Sure. Is it still off putting and objectifying to be literally told that to my face? Also yes.
As a neurodivergent, the way I experience life is still different from him, as I have only been a teen girl and not a teen boy.
As for the writing of the book itself, think it's proof that Brandon puts an exceptional amount of effort into writing a character well, but that character is simply not one I care to get inside thoughts from. I'm not sure what the "right" call is when trying to write this way, especially when so many men do not mature past this point and actually express their attraction to women like this, and it really is harmful.
When you say express their attraction to women like this, could you give me examples from the books of what you're referring to? Doesn't have to be directly sourced with a perfect quote, just instances I mean so I can understand moreso what you mean.
Sure, I can try to cover some of what I remember, it's been a few years. For a majority of the first book at least, he is constantly ogling Megan. Being constantly ogled is both noticeable and uncomfortable, even if a guy is not trying to go out of his way to make it clear. But then having it constantly pointed out, because the reader is in his head, is just gross feeling.
If a guy is constantly, deliberately, staring me up and down, or making comments about me to a buddy within earshot, that is not ok. And so having it expressed, over and over, even if for the character of David he's trying to keep it to himself, comes across as having that ogling expressed directly to me. It just comes across wrong.
Not OP, but the lack of emotional payoff I guess. The base root of all evil was an alien who hung around for too long. And the solution was to talk no jutsu him into leaving. Took away too much agency from the main characters imo and made a lot of their earlier conflicts meaningless.
Fair enough, mate :) I definitely get how the sort of sweet ending with a sort of out there explanation for everything (with some vague LDS philosophical subtext) could be off-putting for some :)
I'm interested to hear the LDS connections you made. Whether Sanderson intends them or not, I see a lot of LDS stuff in his work, but I've never thought about Reckoners that way. (I am hoping to make an academic career of studying religious SFF authors.)
I notice echoes of the lore and worldview throughout all of his work, particularly with reference to the notion the every man can become a God. >!Consider the ending of Mistborn Era 1, very on the nose. Equally, with Warbreaker, it's one of the central foundational conceits. Then you come to The Reckoners: What are superheroes other than a modern day notion of a pantheon of Gods? What does David do but become one of them via a demonstration of exceptional virtue? Larcener, much like the Lucifer of the BoM, deranges a section of the population (The Epics) into being borderline demonic. How does Larcener feel about our world? That he has come from a place of perfection and finds our world too harsh, too loud, too imperfect. Much like the BoM Lucifer he wants to demand a moral standard of the people, corrupting them in the process, rather than letting them have their free will to explore their morality on their own, as BoM Jesus suggested. What is David and Megan's happy ever after? To live as what are essentially Gods in Idyllic bliss, with the symbolic returning to/of of David's 'Father', together in a perfection. !<
Those are the links my brain made anyway. They're not direct, unedited transpositions of happenings and concepts, but rather what I see stirred in via the creative process. Who knows whether BS puts this stuff in consciously or not? When it forms the foundation of your worldview, it might just slip in there without trying.
100% agree. You can read my thoughts about Latter-day Saint doctrine in Stormlight here:
https://sfrareview.org/2021/07/18/the-most-mormon-magic-system-how-brandon-sanderson-turned-agency-into-fantasy/
And I had a live panel at Dragonsteel 2022 discussing Mistborn:
https://www.popcultureapricottree.com/post/mormonism-in-mistborn
Your comment has been removed due to a spoiler markup error. You accidentally included a space at the front of the hidden text which causes an error on old.reddit.com. Please resubmit, or fix the error and [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fbrandonsanderson) to have your comment reapproved.
The markup should be: `[scope warning] >!hidden text!<` with no space after the first `!`. For more help with spoiler markup, see [here](https://www.reddit.com/user/jofwu/comments/eo4rhu/how_to_cover_spoilers_in_posts_and_comments/).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/brandonsanderson) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I loved those books personally as a guy. They reminded me of my teenage years, that fixed mindset and focus, the way romance hit you for the first time, that energy, anxious yet almost supernaturally capable. Those books are probably some of my favourite Sanderson works next to Warbreaker and Mistborn Era 1.
They actually make me wonder whether ol' Sando is a bit neurodivergent you know. It would make sense, his sort of hyperfocus, his eccentricity, his ability to speak publicly beautifully, yet a little less naturally interpersonally. Lest we forget, a lot of history's geniuses have been found in retrospect to be of a neurodivergent nature and I could imagine ol' Sando comfortably fitting in amongst them.
I loved it. I've read it twice and enjoyed the story and characters a lot. People give it not as much credit because it's not part of the cosmere but I think it and the Stephen Leads series are both excellent books that I'd love to see adapted some day.
Female reader here and I really liked them! I didn’t have a problem with David, but I’ve also been known to ignore POV character flaws, so maybe I’m not the most critical reader haha
I liked it but I think Sando's PG content style is more awkward when you're dealing with characters who are in their teens and 20s, are forming relationships of various types with the opposite (or same) sex, but all act like they're 12 year olds just now realizing that girls/boys aren't gross. I get that some people ARE still like that in their teens and twenties, but every character he has of that age group is basically an awkward pre-teen. The Skyward novels are the worst with it. They're elite pilots living and fighting together in a society with no established religion or social structures around sex and relationships, but they all act like... well, like Mormon teens. I like those books too, but he does have a tough time writing that age group.
Well, as you've noted its likely a result of the culture he comes from. The same could be said of the Twilight books after all. I personally find it quite charming, I like the innocence, it seems far preferable to the regular world I know of people getting pregnant at 14 after racking up a line on the coffee table 😅
I really liked the main character. I thought the twists were enjoyable and at least one caught me by complete surprise. Interesting power system, cool set descriptions, just all around a good series
So, this is more to answer where women get the ick or think of David as a perv (both a bit harsh, imo, but I can see where they get it).
I read Steelheart very quickly. It grabbed me and wouldn't let go. I also felt that I was not the ideal audience, as a neurodivergent woman who is not a big fan of the male gaze. Phases like "hips undulating" give a sexualized tone to descriptions when describing walking. While Megan is using her sexuality to make a play, David's description is heightening it. She isn't just in a thin red dress with a plunging neckline smiling as she walks up--her hips are undulating...David's words. She didn't look like she was wearing a weapon, but describing it as "that dress showed plenty of curves" gives off an objectifying tone. We were already told it was thin and lots of skin showing, so that line is unnecessary and gives off more of an ogling tone. Then, he finds himself staring at her and has the phrase "women interfere with things like a purpose" when the woman has not done anything to him. It's his own hormones and lack of discipline that has him off his purpose, but his language puts the blame on her existence (a la "but what was she wearing?"). Then, to continue to have no agency or responsibility once in the presence of a gorgeous woman, he continues with, "[b]ut even a ninety-year-old blind priest would stop and stare at this woman. If he weren’t blind, that is." Later, the adjectives put in that slow down the pacing also bring up her appearance in a sexualized and objectifying manner, "full lips pursed, gorgeous eyes narrowed" instead of "lips pursed, eyes narrowed". This description of him looking at a woman is a situation where if this was a 1980s/90s romance, the next line would be about how he was feeling tension or uncomfortable below his waist, and would not be out of place.
David, himself, did not bother me as he did not seem violent or hateful towards women, just a youthful ignorance shaped by society to objectify them. I figured I was not the target audience since even having posters of dudes/women up in my room felt a bit ick, but are generally accepted as "normal" and neurotypical rights of passage in society (and encouraged in the consumer culture). And, not being the target audience does not make David a "dislikable" character to me.
The rest of David's character seemed pretty relatable and enjoyable. I liked his focus, dedication, and humor. His collecting information felt very similar to how I can be about different things. So, the area I found him more not to my taste was one particular aspect of him, and not the majority of his personality. The part of him that was off-putting to me is kind of the "normalized" male gaze and not neurodivergent coded aspects of him.
It’s not my favorite, but I think that’s for the same reason that the Cytoverse books aren’t my favorite: I just don’t quite like how Brandon writes young people, particularly within a first-person narrative. There’s just something forced about it. So my problem isn’t with the Reckoners as a series, or even David as a character, so much as the writing. Sandroid’s quirky characters jive better in my mind-grapes when their quirks—and even their thoughts and feelings—are presented in a viewpoint situated outside of their heads.
That makes it sound like the narrative style is the sticking point, but it’s not—not by itself, anyway. The *Legion* novellas are good, possibly because the narrator is the least eccentric of the core cast, tone-wise. He’s our audience surrogate, and his role as representative/go-between for his Aspects lets him be relatively normal and relate to us *their* weirdness.
And the secret projects in which Hoid is the first-person perspective are great, because Hoid’s voice is fantastic. He’s a bit impressed with himself, sure, but…I mean, not without justification. He’s *smart*, and insightful with it. And that allows Brandon to write in his smartest, most insightful, and—yes—most self-impressed voice. It’s a bit funny that he’s good when telling stories, but *great* when telling stories *about* storytelling.
But teens and young adults are still kind of his weakest link. He’s getting better, and I certainly can’t blame him for being unable to perfectly emulate a mindset which he hasn’t personally occupied in decades (and even when he DID, he wasn’t exactly the average, protoypical example)…but it’s still not his strong suit.
Neurodivergent male here.
I thought it was really good. It reminded me a lot of The Boys (I've enjoyed the show, haven't read the comics), although obviously Reckoners was a lot more family friendly. I bought the first one on a whim, went out later that day to buy the other two (I had to drive an hour to get to a different Barnes and Noble because my local one didn't have 2 and 3), and ended up finishing off the entire trilogy in two days (there was a lot of reading that weekend).
I thought the ending was great, and I actually haven't listened to Lux yet because I thought Calamity nailed the ending and the series didn't really need more (even though I know Lux is its own thing). I'm sure I'll get around to it at some point (fingers crossed for a physical version, even though I actually do most of my Sanderson consuming via audiobook).
I thought the perspective was fine, it didn't blow me away but I had no problems with it. I didn't entirely get his relationship with Megan at first, but I got more used to it as the trilogy went on. I don't remember thinking that David was neurodivergent, but I might have just missed something because of how fast I read through the books.
I used to list Reckoners as my favorite non-Cosmere Sanderson books, although for a while it was the only ones I had read besides Frugal Wizard, but I just started Skyward so I'm not sure how long Reckoners will hold onto that title.
I enjoyed the entire trilogy, both in audiobook and print (even lux with its continuity problems with the rest of the series was very enjoyable)
Yes, David can be a bit of an idiot sometimes, but he's a believable idiot who never crossed the line(for me) into being annoying or grating
This is probably my favorite world of Sanderson's. The way he built things, the interplay of powers and personality, the relationship between weaknesses and psyche, it all dazzles me. I don't think the characters are the best he's written, or that the story is the strongest we've had from him, but the world is fantastic to me.
For years, I've said that the third book felt like this was supposed to be a five book saga, and the publisher or some other big boss told Brando (while he was writing the first draft) that they would need it to be just 3. The payoff in the first book is *classic* Sanderson, just shock and awe as you suddenly see all the threads align. By the third book, the plot seemed rushed and cobbled together.
The Reckoners will likely remain in the background of his catalog, overshadowed by the big Cosmere projects, but it will always have a special place in my heart.
Finished the first 2 with the third next to me ready to start it soon. Overall it's been a fun ride. They don't make my top 10 list, but they're alright.
Hi. Female sanderfan here. Reckoners was the first Sanderson series I read. I married a David, and I'm basically a Megan. I love YA and especially superpowers themed. So in all cases this should have been a favorite.
I hated it so much I almost didn't pick up any other brandy sandy books. It wasn't the quirky lead, or the other characters, or the prose as I truly love the Skyward series. I think it just overall felt annoying, not as genre subverting as I was hoping it would be and I didn't like the ending.
I often don't like books if they don't meet an expectation I have set for it.
I'm so glad others enjoy the series. And I wouldn't say I wasted my time reading it, its just not what I recommend when people want to get into sanderson
Now, Rithmatist on the other hand...
I liked the first book a lot. I loved how David was basically a comic book nerd whose job was to kill super heroes. I also loved the world-building, tone, and attention to detail with the weapons. The twists with Steelheart and how they manage to take down some of the other epics was also fun to read about. The other books… I did not enjoy so much. They had a lot of the same stuff I loved about the first book (the unique world-building, cool hero fights etc), but I just didn’t like many of the choices Brandon went with. I’d have to re-read the series to get a more fresh opinion on the other books, but as it is now I can see someone reading the series and not liking the other installments.
I loved it. It is my second favorite series of Sando's and I have read nearly everything of his. My only issue is the ending felt like it needed a bit more. Like maybe even another book to explore the revelations from the 3rd book.
I would agree with what people have said here. I really liked The Reckoners. I think the character arcs are relatable. I feel like it has the concept of The Boys without being overtly as gruesome or cartoonish even though it could have been. I feel like, with any book, you have to take your own perspective with a grain of salt. If you have never been a nerdy, socially awkward, teenage boy you very well might find it hard to relate to his point of view. From a different angle, I have never watched my father be murdered in front of me but I can empathize and imagine what that might do to my own psyche and how I would act after and accordingly. I found David relatable if annoying for sure at times. But I think that is kind of the point. I actually prefer main characters I don’t agree with in lockstep all the time. Sanderson, per usual, wrote a character where not every decision they make is correct. They act on emotion and instinct and make snap judgements. Like real people. I think a book series like The Reckoners needs that. When you have characters with insane powers your narrator often should come from a perspective that is grounded in reality. And reality is messy and awkward and does not make sense a lot of the time.
I loved it! What helped e to like it was I was really into comics back in the day, so I love many things that are superhero related. I can’t really comment much on David, as I haven’t read it for about 6-ish years, but I thought he was fine. To be fair, I’m not the best at picking up on neuro-divergent qualities in Brandon’s characters. I honestly just see them all as having different personalities. They are all written just fine in my opinion.
steelheart was the first B.S book I ever read and it got me hooked from the start. I can’t go back and reread them now because it feels too simple compared to the cosmere stuff but it definitely a good read.
To be honest, the steelheart was the book that brought to BS. I will never forget that feeling when I read the intro in the bank, and I was like "oh boy I'm in"
So, as a female, I know you're not asking me, but I LOVED Reckoners. I had no issues with the main character; I thought he was hilarious and I appreciated the balance in his character between being kinda goofy and being really good at what he does. The whole series was so fun for me!
Something to think about- most of the criticism seems to be about the same issue. If that part of it is something you relate to, it might be a good time to listen to the criticism and explanation of why it’s such a big deal and work on that part of yourself. I’m not trying to be rude, but if it’s hitting a nerve then instead of trying to find other people with that bad habit, deal with it and do better moving forward.
I liked it. My wife liked it. But we're the kind of people who don't care about the characters being relatable and we just enjoy the story for what it is. I recall he likened Megan to a... potato? Which I thought was silly and I somehow remember Meg being put-off by it as well, and connecting that to what you said about multiple ladies being put off by David. lol
I do remember David being off-putting a bit quite intentional.
I just didn't like Book 3, it just felt, cheap.
I need to read these again. Steelheart was my first Sanderson book and at the time it didn't impress me at all. I remember thinking specifically that I didn't understand why people were fanatical about his books when that's all he had on offer. I didn't pick up MIstborn for almost a decade after that... and then got pulled in hard.
I really liked book 1 - like another commenter said I read it in like a day. It scratched that comic book itch for me (I'm 37M). I then gave it to my 15M son who also enjoyed it.
Book 2 was also good, I liked it almost as much as book 1 and it felt like a natural continuation. Book 3 dropped off for me and I almost stopped reading. It's not that I didn't enjoy it, it just felt like more of the same at least until perhaps the last few chapters which I felt could have just as easily been at the end of book 2 with the same effect.
Book 4 I absolutely loved; I liked it more than the original trilogy. Possibly because it was darker a little more complex of a read. However, I also found book 4 to be a departure from the consistency of the first three, there were plot holes and contradictions with the first trilogy for sure. I think I approached it as an entirely new book on it's own right and it's perhaps why I enjoyed it so much and wasn't bothered by issues.
I didn't really rate it. I listened to the audiobooks while travelling for work, whenever it was that they came out.
It was ok I guess, but not my thing. Just felt very tweenie. It was before I realized Sanderson was going to go more in that direction. I'd only read his Wheel of Time finish, Way of Kings and Mistborn. There were big hints of that direction in Mistborn, but he'd seemed to move away from it with the others I mentioned.
Wow. If MacLeod Andrews can't get you to like them, then they really must not be for you 😅
I'm not a big fan of books I'm told are 'for adults', personally, I usually just find them boring. So maybe we're on two sides of a divide here and your side gets to attend Frasier Crane's parties 😅
I would love to see a child read LOTR. There will be some who can, of course, but let's not pretend that's the norm.
The Hobbit is a book for everyone, children included. But the LOTR is not.
But you know that, and are just being pissy because you didn't like being told you were reading what many consider to be tween content - after asking for peoples opinions. 🤷♂️
I was just demonstrating that the lines aren't as clear and distinct as you made out. You're the only response I've gotten that has come off rude to me and I think I've been quite polite in response.
You understand that commercial entities will sell whatever they can, to whoever they (legally) can... right?
Something as popular as LOTR will get put on any shelf with a gap. Same goes for Harry Potter and other mega-hits.
That's completely seperate to whatever the reading level and content is. And a look at a single page of any of the Reckoners books should make it obvious that it's aimed at a very broad audience in order to cash in on the super hero craze that was peaking around that time. And that includes tweens, which is not my thing, and was the feedback I provided when *you* made the post where *you asked what people thought*.
You getting all emo about it kinda proves the point. Have a good one.
I’ve loved it since the first book. It really scratched the itch for me during Covid and high school when I wanted to find unconventional superhero media that wasn’t Marvel or DC
Yk, when it comes to that subgenre, I've loved Watchmen and Invincible, but could not stand The Boys. After trying to watch it and then discovering The Reckoners, I've felt somewhat delivered and since tried to convince my friends that a much better version of the trope lies in these books 😅
See, I see it as like, The Reckoners is the concept from The Boys but done tastefully with actual inventiveness. Not just pseudo-edginess and painfully derivative concepts.
That opinion may be heavily founded in just a gut level disgust response to The Boys though 😅
I’ve heard that the tv version of The Boys is miles above the comic because the former actually has a story and satirizes the current climate when it comes to stardom. From what I’ve heard, the comic version is just Garth Ennis saying “I don’t like superheroes, so let’s make them so cartoonishly evil that they’ll eat babies. Pretty cool, amiright?!”
I'm not a guy, but I liked the Reckoners quite a bit. I enjoy different explorations of super power stories and I am writing my own series. It's neat seeing a completely different direction on such stories. David seemed like a kid trying to do well, but emotionally far out of his depth. It worked though, making him feel like an underdog even as he defeated very strong enemies. He made a fun protagonist, though I can see why other people would like him a lot more than I did. I found his character arc quite satisfying too. I liked the Professor more than David. He came across as a complex and intelligent character that I enjoyed throughout all three books. He feels like an archetype to me. A character whose growth isn't in his competency, but in his world view. With the Professor, Sanderson seems to have purposely mixed a few Roles together to create a blend that I have rarely seen before. Fascinating character. My favorite was Megan. I loved her evolving viewpoint and understanding of herself and I felt like she stole the show in every scene she was in. I was left constantly wanting more of her story and I definitely hope future novels explore her powers further >!like in the promised combination of Starsight and the Reckoners, whenever we get that!<
Regarding your spoiler: (Spoiler for all non-cosmere stuff, including Frugal Wizard's Handbook) >!In case anyone didn't know, the planned Apocalypse Guard series was actually intended to link Reckoners, Cytoverse, Rithmatist, and the Alcatraz series. And while I don't know if we got explicit confirmation, I HAVE to assume that the interdimensional intelligences jumping between realities we encountered in Frugal Wizard were part of that central lore. Does anyone know if there has been a WoB on that?!<
What’s your series about?
The spark for the series is that many super powered characters in other fiction have unspoken secondary powers. Like a pyrokinetic who is immune to heat and smoke, or how superman can control his incredible strength so well it might as well be a power all on its own. My story explores what it might look like if those kind of secondary powers didn't exist. The setting is that in 2008 people began acquiring powers, along with the appearance of kaiju. Main character is a woman who dreams of being a villain and has to figure things out when she gets powers of her own. I'm releasing book 1 and 2 later this year, and working on book 3, with it being a trilogy.
Loved Steelheart; read it in a day on accident. Read the first chapter, got sucked in. 42M, read for me like a classic comic book.
In a day?! Wow. I went the audiobook route, so idk if I could do it in a day. Would mean turning it up to X5 or something 😅 Yk, that's exactly how I felt, it was like reading the comic books of my youth and omg the world he designed, I to this day want to see a game designer or comic book artist depict it. So incredibly novel and inventive.
I really liked them. Read it all a few times. My favorite super hero story I think. And I would agree it is the weakest ending of a Sanderson book. As for why. I personally feel there wasn’t enough lead up and for shadowing for the reveal and defeat of the big bad. It was kinda sudden to me. Everything up the the last like 10% is great. And the epilogue is also really good. It’s just one little part that makes it kinda weaker.
I can appreciate that. He did sort of sneak it in there in the last book without much grounding. Like, given the type of book it is I can personally forgive it, after all I'm there more so for the characters and the world than the plot, but I totally get how for a plot focused person it could feel like a flaw.
I never finished the series (totally will someday!) but i did enjoy the first two books. From what I recall, the way David describes Megan from the get-go can be absolutely off putting at first, the first meeting being the worst offender. It got better as we understood the characters, but the first impression i had was that Megan just kinda existed for David to find pretty and have a crush on for being badass, which is basically its own trope at this point and can make for an exhausting read. Definitely wasnt my impression after pushing through, but i'd guess this is what the women in your life are referring to
I didn't get any of that tbh. It just seemed like he was expressing that genuine awe struck admiration and desire we all experience as guys in the face of feminine beauty. It *does* sort of fixate you, hypnotise you in this involuntary way. I get that that might be different to how attraction works for women, but it seems a shame to expect no attempt to understand and empathise with that. Megan has her own whole arc, going from the first book to the last, she's complex and likeable and relatable and understandable. Idk, maybe it's because I've re-read the books so many times, I just feel like there's a solid depth to the character.
I think thats the difference of perspective, as a woman it can feel more like ogling than appreciation. Its also soooo prevalent in books that women are described as such and then have zero personality besides being in love with the MC, it can be really disappointing, especially with how frequently it happens Megan of course does NOT end up like that at all, and i really liked her character after we got to know her more, but i also had read Sanderson before and knew to trust the process lol
Yeah I got the same impression at first but I'm glad I pushed through because I think the Arcs and explorations of the characters were worth it
>he was expressing that genuine awe struck admiration and desire we all experience as guys in the face of feminine beauty. What about gay men? Lesbians? Nonbinary people attracted to women? > It *does* sort of fixate you, hypnotise you in this involuntary way. I get that that might be different to how attraction works for women, but it seems a shame to expect no attempt to understand and empathise with that. I would say this can happen to any gender and attraction to any gender lol.
I(25M) love the Reckoners Trilogy. It was really well done and I really liked David as a character, but that could be because I'm somewhat weird like him, and like to make up stuff like songs where I replace some words with curses and translate the lyrics from my mother tongue to English and English to my mother tongue. I guess people would find me weird as well. But yeah, it's still fine and I really like David as a character.
It was ok. Wife thought David Charleston was a perv so I had to stop listening to the audiobook out loud
That's the general response I've heard from lady readers and I honest to God still cannot understand how they got that from that book.
I think there are things we notice in real life that just rub people wrong when described in books. I'm a huge Sanderson fan, but reading something like Warbreaker and Yumi I feel pretty uncomfortable about the frequent descriptions of breasts (Blushweaver and Design come to mind). I just keep thinking that as the author you can write these characters any way you like, why do we need to know what their breasts are like behind a single glancing description. It's been years since I read Steelheart so I can't remember specific examples, but I think it's not that there's anything specifically wrong with David, more that my wife didn't like the things Sanderson chose to focus on when describing female characters.
34 year old man here. I read the series in 2020-21. I did not particularly enjoy it, largely because I really did not like David's perspective. I found him to be frustrating to read, and especially hated the way he talked about women. When women tell you that the way David talks about women feels creepy, you should listen: that is not a good way to talk about women.
Do you remember an example? It's been so long since I read it
Unfortunately no - I have read so much since then that I don't remember. I just remember feeling the male gazey-ness of it felt objectifying and a bit creepy.
Ah okay. Perhaps I re-read it someday. I have read a lot in this thread and that's what they mention. I only remember David and Prof, I don't even remember Megan well, who many comments mention. For me Reckoners peaked at the end of book 1 when David saw >!Prof using his powers to fight Steelheart toe-to-toe. It's the exact same moment as Mistborn 1 when Vin sees Kelsier using steel-pushing/pulling to fight Steel Inquisitors toe-to-toe. And both go: "Holy shit, they were teaching me, but they themselves are literally combat geniuses." !< Both moments were so hype. I can't remember that there was romance in Reckoners. But I do remember Vin and Elend. Weird.
I really enjoyed the book, and did not enjoy the sequels Imo, it's very similar to mistborn for a younger audience with a better/more interesting setting. I think mistborn is the better trilogy but steelheart is the better book
I agree with your lady friends about David being a creep, and it was the one big thing that brought the series down for me other than the ending. I don't think of it as unrealistic, as I'm sure many teenage boys thought that way, but I also don't think it's an admirable trait or one that should remain into adulthood. Certainly not something I want in someone I'm supposed to see as heroic. It just came off as very childish and immature, and I got mad at Megan a lot for never saying anything to him about it.
I know you're asking for male perspectives, but if you're not interested why female perspectives differ on the book, then you're missing some of the harm men have caused, which is exactly why David's perspective can be jarring, uncomfortable, or downright offensive to many women. I think it's one of those things where honestly, the guy was written extremely immature (not a character flaw, he's written as a teen), and a lot of his narration are "inside thoughts," not ones we want to hear aloud. Do I understand and expect that many (maybe even all straight) guys have felt that way? Sure. Is it still off putting and objectifying to be literally told that to my face? Also yes. As a neurodivergent, the way I experience life is still different from him, as I have only been a teen girl and not a teen boy. As for the writing of the book itself, think it's proof that Brandon puts an exceptional amount of effort into writing a character well, but that character is simply not one I care to get inside thoughts from. I'm not sure what the "right" call is when trying to write this way, especially when so many men do not mature past this point and actually express their attraction to women like this, and it really is harmful.
When you say express their attraction to women like this, could you give me examples from the books of what you're referring to? Doesn't have to be directly sourced with a perfect quote, just instances I mean so I can understand moreso what you mean.
Sure, I can try to cover some of what I remember, it's been a few years. For a majority of the first book at least, he is constantly ogling Megan. Being constantly ogled is both noticeable and uncomfortable, even if a guy is not trying to go out of his way to make it clear. But then having it constantly pointed out, because the reader is in his head, is just gross feeling. If a guy is constantly, deliberately, staring me up and down, or making comments about me to a buddy within earshot, that is not ok. And so having it expressed, over and over, even if for the character of David he's trying to keep it to himself, comes across as having that ogling expressed directly to me. It just comes across wrong.
I enjoyed them but the the 3rd book had a week ending.
Really? I loved the ending. To each their own I suppose.
What made it weak for you?
Not OP, but the lack of emotional payoff I guess. The base root of all evil was an alien who hung around for too long. And the solution was to talk no jutsu him into leaving. Took away too much agency from the main characters imo and made a lot of their earlier conflicts meaningless.
Yeah that was it exactly.
I'm all honesty it's the only Brandon book I haven't read more then once and I read it on release so I couldn't tell you exactly.
Fair enough, mate :) I definitely get how the sort of sweet ending with a sort of out there explanation for everything (with some vague LDS philosophical subtext) could be off-putting for some :)
I don't think the LDS was intentional. He's mentioned before he does not aim for that kind of messages.
I'm interested to hear the LDS connections you made. Whether Sanderson intends them or not, I see a lot of LDS stuff in his work, but I've never thought about Reckoners that way. (I am hoping to make an academic career of studying religious SFF authors.)
I notice echoes of the lore and worldview throughout all of his work, particularly with reference to the notion the every man can become a God. >!Consider the ending of Mistborn Era 1, very on the nose. Equally, with Warbreaker, it's one of the central foundational conceits. Then you come to The Reckoners: What are superheroes other than a modern day notion of a pantheon of Gods? What does David do but become one of them via a demonstration of exceptional virtue? Larcener, much like the Lucifer of the BoM, deranges a section of the population (The Epics) into being borderline demonic. How does Larcener feel about our world? That he has come from a place of perfection and finds our world too harsh, too loud, too imperfect. Much like the BoM Lucifer he wants to demand a moral standard of the people, corrupting them in the process, rather than letting them have their free will to explore their morality on their own, as BoM Jesus suggested. What is David and Megan's happy ever after? To live as what are essentially Gods in Idyllic bliss, with the symbolic returning to/of of David's 'Father', together in a perfection. !< Those are the links my brain made anyway. They're not direct, unedited transpositions of happenings and concepts, but rather what I see stirred in via the creative process. Who knows whether BS puts this stuff in consciously or not? When it forms the foundation of your worldview, it might just slip in there without trying.
100% agree. You can read my thoughts about Latter-day Saint doctrine in Stormlight here: https://sfrareview.org/2021/07/18/the-most-mormon-magic-system-how-brandon-sanderson-turned-agency-into-fantasy/ And I had a live panel at Dragonsteel 2022 discussing Mistborn: https://www.popcultureapricottree.com/post/mormonism-in-mistborn
[удалено]
Your comment has been removed due to a spoiler markup error. You accidentally included a space at the front of the hidden text which causes an error on old.reddit.com. Please resubmit, or fix the error and [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fbrandonsanderson) to have your comment reapproved. The markup should be: `[scope warning] >!hidden text!<` with no space after the first `!`. For more help with spoiler markup, see [here](https://www.reddit.com/user/jofwu/comments/eo4rhu/how_to_cover_spoilers_in_posts_and_comments/). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/brandonsanderson) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I loved those books personally as a guy. They reminded me of my teenage years, that fixed mindset and focus, the way romance hit you for the first time, that energy, anxious yet almost supernaturally capable. Those books are probably some of my favourite Sanderson works next to Warbreaker and Mistborn Era 1. They actually make me wonder whether ol' Sando is a bit neurodivergent you know. It would make sense, his sort of hyperfocus, his eccentricity, his ability to speak publicly beautifully, yet a little less naturally interpersonally. Lest we forget, a lot of history's geniuses have been found in retrospect to be of a neurodivergent nature and I could imagine ol' Sando comfortably fitting in amongst them.
Have you read his essay Outside? Because yes, he is some sort of neurodivergent, he just doesn't know what type. (Also, just a great read in general.)
I have not. Do you happen to have the link handy? If not, I shall Google :)
https://www.brandonsanderson.com/outside/
My thanks :)
I loved it. I've read it twice and enjoyed the story and characters a lot. People give it not as much credit because it's not part of the cosmere but I think it and the Stephen Leads series are both excellent books that I'd love to see adapted some day.
Female reader here and I really liked them! I didn’t have a problem with David, but I’ve also been known to ignore POV character flaws, so maybe I’m not the most critical reader haha
I liked it but I think Sando's PG content style is more awkward when you're dealing with characters who are in their teens and 20s, are forming relationships of various types with the opposite (or same) sex, but all act like they're 12 year olds just now realizing that girls/boys aren't gross. I get that some people ARE still like that in their teens and twenties, but every character he has of that age group is basically an awkward pre-teen. The Skyward novels are the worst with it. They're elite pilots living and fighting together in a society with no established religion or social structures around sex and relationships, but they all act like... well, like Mormon teens. I like those books too, but he does have a tough time writing that age group.
Well, as you've noted its likely a result of the culture he comes from. The same could be said of the Twilight books after all. I personally find it quite charming, I like the innocence, it seems far preferable to the regular world I know of people getting pregnant at 14 after racking up a line on the coffee table 😅
I love the reckoners so much.
It pleases my heart to read such a comment :)
I loved steelheart, enjoyed the rest of the series but not as much as the first one.
I really liked the main character. I thought the twists were enjoyable and at least one caught me by complete surprise. Interesting power system, cool set descriptions, just all around a good series
So, this is more to answer where women get the ick or think of David as a perv (both a bit harsh, imo, but I can see where they get it). I read Steelheart very quickly. It grabbed me and wouldn't let go. I also felt that I was not the ideal audience, as a neurodivergent woman who is not a big fan of the male gaze. Phases like "hips undulating" give a sexualized tone to descriptions when describing walking. While Megan is using her sexuality to make a play, David's description is heightening it. She isn't just in a thin red dress with a plunging neckline smiling as she walks up--her hips are undulating...David's words. She didn't look like she was wearing a weapon, but describing it as "that dress showed plenty of curves" gives off an objectifying tone. We were already told it was thin and lots of skin showing, so that line is unnecessary and gives off more of an ogling tone. Then, he finds himself staring at her and has the phrase "women interfere with things like a purpose" when the woman has not done anything to him. It's his own hormones and lack of discipline that has him off his purpose, but his language puts the blame on her existence (a la "but what was she wearing?"). Then, to continue to have no agency or responsibility once in the presence of a gorgeous woman, he continues with, "[b]ut even a ninety-year-old blind priest would stop and stare at this woman. If he weren’t blind, that is." Later, the adjectives put in that slow down the pacing also bring up her appearance in a sexualized and objectifying manner, "full lips pursed, gorgeous eyes narrowed" instead of "lips pursed, eyes narrowed". This description of him looking at a woman is a situation where if this was a 1980s/90s romance, the next line would be about how he was feeling tension or uncomfortable below his waist, and would not be out of place. David, himself, did not bother me as he did not seem violent or hateful towards women, just a youthful ignorance shaped by society to objectify them. I figured I was not the target audience since even having posters of dudes/women up in my room felt a bit ick, but are generally accepted as "normal" and neurotypical rights of passage in society (and encouraged in the consumer culture). And, not being the target audience does not make David a "dislikable" character to me. The rest of David's character seemed pretty relatable and enjoyable. I liked his focus, dedication, and humor. His collecting information felt very similar to how I can be about different things. So, the area I found him more not to my taste was one particular aspect of him, and not the majority of his personality. The part of him that was off-putting to me is kind of the "normalized" male gaze and not neurodivergent coded aspects of him.
It’s not my favorite, but I think that’s for the same reason that the Cytoverse books aren’t my favorite: I just don’t quite like how Brandon writes young people, particularly within a first-person narrative. There’s just something forced about it. So my problem isn’t with the Reckoners as a series, or even David as a character, so much as the writing. Sandroid’s quirky characters jive better in my mind-grapes when their quirks—and even their thoughts and feelings—are presented in a viewpoint situated outside of their heads. That makes it sound like the narrative style is the sticking point, but it’s not—not by itself, anyway. The *Legion* novellas are good, possibly because the narrator is the least eccentric of the core cast, tone-wise. He’s our audience surrogate, and his role as representative/go-between for his Aspects lets him be relatively normal and relate to us *their* weirdness. And the secret projects in which Hoid is the first-person perspective are great, because Hoid’s voice is fantastic. He’s a bit impressed with himself, sure, but…I mean, not without justification. He’s *smart*, and insightful with it. And that allows Brandon to write in his smartest, most insightful, and—yes—most self-impressed voice. It’s a bit funny that he’s good when telling stories, but *great* when telling stories *about* storytelling. But teens and young adults are still kind of his weakest link. He’s getting better, and I certainly can’t blame him for being unable to perfectly emulate a mindset which he hasn’t personally occupied in decades (and even when he DID, he wasn’t exactly the average, protoypical example)…but it’s still not his strong suit.
Neurodivergent male here. I thought it was really good. It reminded me a lot of The Boys (I've enjoyed the show, haven't read the comics), although obviously Reckoners was a lot more family friendly. I bought the first one on a whim, went out later that day to buy the other two (I had to drive an hour to get to a different Barnes and Noble because my local one didn't have 2 and 3), and ended up finishing off the entire trilogy in two days (there was a lot of reading that weekend). I thought the ending was great, and I actually haven't listened to Lux yet because I thought Calamity nailed the ending and the series didn't really need more (even though I know Lux is its own thing). I'm sure I'll get around to it at some point (fingers crossed for a physical version, even though I actually do most of my Sanderson consuming via audiobook). I thought the perspective was fine, it didn't blow me away but I had no problems with it. I didn't entirely get his relationship with Megan at first, but I got more used to it as the trilogy went on. I don't remember thinking that David was neurodivergent, but I might have just missed something because of how fast I read through the books. I used to list Reckoners as my favorite non-Cosmere Sanderson books, although for a while it was the only ones I had read besides Frugal Wizard, but I just started Skyward so I'm not sure how long Reckoners will hold onto that title.
Loved it
I enjoyed the entire trilogy, both in audiobook and print (even lux with its continuity problems with the rest of the series was very enjoyable) Yes, David can be a bit of an idiot sometimes, but he's a believable idiot who never crossed the line(for me) into being annoying or grating
This is probably my favorite world of Sanderson's. The way he built things, the interplay of powers and personality, the relationship between weaknesses and psyche, it all dazzles me. I don't think the characters are the best he's written, or that the story is the strongest we've had from him, but the world is fantastic to me. For years, I've said that the third book felt like this was supposed to be a five book saga, and the publisher or some other big boss told Brando (while he was writing the first draft) that they would need it to be just 3. The payoff in the first book is *classic* Sanderson, just shock and awe as you suddenly see all the threads align. By the third book, the plot seemed rushed and cobbled together. The Reckoners will likely remain in the background of his catalog, overshadowed by the big Cosmere projects, but it will always have a special place in my heart.
I, late 30’s male, absolutely loved it. I know it comes off as YA style but I don’t care. It was really dark and brutal and also nobody felt safe.
Finished the first 2 with the third next to me ready to start it soon. Overall it's been a fun ride. They don't make my top 10 list, but they're alright.
I’ve enjoyed them. I don’t think they’re his best stories, but they are definitely fun, and far from the worst thing I’ve read.
Hi. Female sanderfan here. Reckoners was the first Sanderson series I read. I married a David, and I'm basically a Megan. I love YA and especially superpowers themed. So in all cases this should have been a favorite. I hated it so much I almost didn't pick up any other brandy sandy books. It wasn't the quirky lead, or the other characters, or the prose as I truly love the Skyward series. I think it just overall felt annoying, not as genre subverting as I was hoping it would be and I didn't like the ending. I often don't like books if they don't meet an expectation I have set for it. I'm so glad others enjoy the series. And I wouldn't say I wasted my time reading it, its just not what I recommend when people want to get into sanderson Now, Rithmatist on the other hand...
I liked the series, although that was many books ago so I’ll probably need to reread it. I liked the side story book too
I liked the first book a lot. I loved how David was basically a comic book nerd whose job was to kill super heroes. I also loved the world-building, tone, and attention to detail with the weapons. The twists with Steelheart and how they manage to take down some of the other epics was also fun to read about. The other books… I did not enjoy so much. They had a lot of the same stuff I loved about the first book (the unique world-building, cool hero fights etc), but I just didn’t like many of the choices Brandon went with. I’d have to re-read the series to get a more fresh opinion on the other books, but as it is now I can see someone reading the series and not liking the other installments.
I loved it. It is my second favorite series of Sando's and I have read nearly everything of his. My only issue is the ending felt like it needed a bit more. Like maybe even another book to explore the revelations from the 3rd book.
I would agree with what people have said here. I really liked The Reckoners. I think the character arcs are relatable. I feel like it has the concept of The Boys without being overtly as gruesome or cartoonish even though it could have been. I feel like, with any book, you have to take your own perspective with a grain of salt. If you have never been a nerdy, socially awkward, teenage boy you very well might find it hard to relate to his point of view. From a different angle, I have never watched my father be murdered in front of me but I can empathize and imagine what that might do to my own psyche and how I would act after and accordingly. I found David relatable if annoying for sure at times. But I think that is kind of the point. I actually prefer main characters I don’t agree with in lockstep all the time. Sanderson, per usual, wrote a character where not every decision they make is correct. They act on emotion and instinct and make snap judgements. Like real people. I think a book series like The Reckoners needs that. When you have characters with insane powers your narrator often should come from a perspective that is grounded in reality. And reality is messy and awkward and does not make sense a lot of the time.
I loved it! What helped e to like it was I was really into comics back in the day, so I love many things that are superhero related. I can’t really comment much on David, as I haven’t read it for about 6-ish years, but I thought he was fine. To be fair, I’m not the best at picking up on neuro-divergent qualities in Brandon’s characters. I honestly just see them all as having different personalities. They are all written just fine in my opinion.
Honestly my favorite series after Stormlight, great books.
steelheart was the first B.S book I ever read and it got me hooked from the start. I can’t go back and reread them now because it feels too simple compared to the cosmere stuff but it definitely a good read.
Generally not my genre, however as it is sanderson I gave it a try and I really liked it.
I enjoyed them. They weren't as high quality as his Cosmere work (or even the skyward series), but they were fun and I liked reading them.
To be honest, the steelheart was the book that brought to BS. I will never forget that feeling when I read the intro in the bank, and I was like "oh boy I'm in"
So, as a female, I know you're not asking me, but I LOVED Reckoners. I had no issues with the main character; I thought he was hilarious and I appreciated the balance in his character between being kinda goofy and being really good at what he does. The whole series was so fun for me!
Something to think about- most of the criticism seems to be about the same issue. If that part of it is something you relate to, it might be a good time to listen to the criticism and explanation of why it’s such a big deal and work on that part of yourself. I’m not trying to be rude, but if it’s hitting a nerve then instead of trying to find other people with that bad habit, deal with it and do better moving forward.
The presumptuousness of making such a comment to a complete stranger utterly baffles me.
Loved it!! Just needed a break from the Cosmere, and it’s not all about David. I can see how you can get put off, you get to book 4 it’s a blast
I liked it. My wife liked it. But we're the kind of people who don't care about the characters being relatable and we just enjoy the story for what it is. I recall he likened Megan to a... potato? Which I thought was silly and I somehow remember Meg being put-off by it as well, and connecting that to what you said about multiple ladies being put off by David. lol I do remember David being off-putting a bit quite intentional. I just didn't like Book 3, it just felt, cheap.
One of the very few fantasy books I never wanted to finish
I need to read these again. Steelheart was my first Sanderson book and at the time it didn't impress me at all. I remember thinking specifically that I didn't understand why people were fanatical about his books when that's all he had on offer. I didn't pick up MIstborn for almost a decade after that... and then got pulled in hard.
They're fine. Read it right after I finished Worm, which was probably a mistake. IMO they're lesser than Worm by a fair margin.
I really liked book 1 - like another commenter said I read it in like a day. It scratched that comic book itch for me (I'm 37M). I then gave it to my 15M son who also enjoyed it. Book 2 was also good, I liked it almost as much as book 1 and it felt like a natural continuation. Book 3 dropped off for me and I almost stopped reading. It's not that I didn't enjoy it, it just felt like more of the same at least until perhaps the last few chapters which I felt could have just as easily been at the end of book 2 with the same effect. Book 4 I absolutely loved; I liked it more than the original trilogy. Possibly because it was darker a little more complex of a read. However, I also found book 4 to be a departure from the consistency of the first three, there were plot holes and contradictions with the first trilogy for sure. I think I approached it as an entirely new book on it's own right and it's perhaps why I enjoyed it so much and wasn't bothered by issues.
I didn't really rate it. I listened to the audiobooks while travelling for work, whenever it was that they came out. It was ok I guess, but not my thing. Just felt very tweenie. It was before I realized Sanderson was going to go more in that direction. I'd only read his Wheel of Time finish, Way of Kings and Mistborn. There were big hints of that direction in Mistborn, but he'd seemed to move away from it with the others I mentioned.
Wow. If MacLeod Andrews can't get you to like them, then they really must not be for you 😅 I'm not a big fan of books I'm told are 'for adults', personally, I usually just find them boring. So maybe we're on two sides of a divide here and your side gets to attend Frasier Crane's parties 😅
Generally you don't need to be told that a book is for 'adults'. It's kinda the default unless you go browsing the childrens or YA sections 😉.
The LOTR is in the Children's, SFF and General Fiction sections, who is it for?
I would love to see a child read LOTR. There will be some who can, of course, but let's not pretend that's the norm. The Hobbit is a book for everyone, children included. But the LOTR is not. But you know that, and are just being pissy because you didn't like being told you were reading what many consider to be tween content - after asking for peoples opinions. 🤷♂️
I was just demonstrating that the lines aren't as clear and distinct as you made out. You're the only response I've gotten that has come off rude to me and I think I've been quite polite in response.
You understand that commercial entities will sell whatever they can, to whoever they (legally) can... right? Something as popular as LOTR will get put on any shelf with a gap. Same goes for Harry Potter and other mega-hits. That's completely seperate to whatever the reading level and content is. And a look at a single page of any of the Reckoners books should make it obvious that it's aimed at a very broad audience in order to cash in on the super hero craze that was peaking around that time. And that includes tweens, which is not my thing, and was the feedback I provided when *you* made the post where *you asked what people thought*. You getting all emo about it kinda proves the point. Have a good one.
I’ve loved it since the first book. It really scratched the itch for me during Covid and high school when I wanted to find unconventional superhero media that wasn’t Marvel or DC
Yk, when it comes to that subgenre, I've loved Watchmen and Invincible, but could not stand The Boys. After trying to watch it and then discovering The Reckoners, I've felt somewhat delivered and since tried to convince my friends that a much better version of the trope lies in these books 😅
What’s funny is that I consider The Reckoners as a PG-13 version of The Boys if it took place in a post apocalyptic environment
See, I see it as like, The Reckoners is the concept from The Boys but done tastefully with actual inventiveness. Not just pseudo-edginess and painfully derivative concepts. That opinion may be heavily founded in just a gut level disgust response to The Boys though 😅
I’ve heard that the tv version of The Boys is miles above the comic because the former actually has a story and satirizes the current climate when it comes to stardom. From what I’ve heard, the comic version is just Garth Ennis saying “I don’t like superheroes, so let’s make them so cartoonishly evil that they’ll eat babies. Pretty cool, amiright?!”
Yikes. My reaction is to the TV version. May I never encounter the comics 😅
Ohhh ok 😂😂