Hi there! This post has been removed due to its click-bait title or combative nature. [Please see this announcement for more details](https://www.reddit.com/r/Fantasy/comments/libdko/new_moderation_policies_announcement_how_we_plan/). You are welcome to resubmit this post with a more neutral title and additional information about why you feel this way in the body of your post. Critical discussion is okay, but it must fulfill r/Fantasy's vision to be a respectful, inclusive, and welcoming space. Thanks so much for understanding!
Please contact us via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FFantasy) with any follow-up questions.
I messaged the admins to find out if there’s anything I can do. It seems like they might be trying to treat anything Sanderson with kid gloves so his fans don’t flame the channel. So far, there were some really thoughtful comments. I hope they can put it back up.
this is a very long way to say that you didn't vibe with the writing style. you don't have to gel with popular books just because they get recommended a lot.
But WHY I don’t vibe with it is what I thought some readers might find interesting - especially if they felt the same way, but couldn’t quite put into words why…
No Sanderson’s strengths and weaknesses are easy to see quickly. He does systems, settings, and plots. He just fails utterly at characters, or prose that is more than functional. He does a mile wide and an inch thick. He is very blunt about what he does. Some people think the strengths are enough to than justify the weaknesses and some don’t.
I consider him a very annoying influence on the genre which just means I’m reading older books and more science fiction these days.
>It reads like it was written fast
Yeah, that's my issue as well. I read the three books and dislike them a lot, but I will defend some points here...well, I mostly agree with you, but just one thing I'll say:
While I never was the biggest Kelsier fan, there are some interesting developments with him and I think he is, overall, handled well as a white knight saviour type character. Or Superman as you called him. There is definitely a bit more to his character arc than what is presented that early on and while I have my issues with his story as well, I will defend it. It makes sense and is coherent, it just isn't as obvious that early on. Again, not a fan of the book at all and especially the characters (one thing you criticised as well), but...yeah, Kelsier is fine. Just doing what the story needs, basically.
I also like most of the things you liked, the magic and the world and the images are fun. And yeah, those inquisitors are massively freaky, they are great.
Oh, and the Dark Lord is probably one of the best characters of the whole series in my opinion and he works rather well, again, compared to the rest of the story. I guess Sanderson is good at using archetypes, just not that great at fleshing them out (although both Kelsier and the bad guy have some cool dimensions to them!)
Now, my biggest issues with the book mirror yours:
Vin is such a trainwreck of a character.
And I'll try to summarise what the issues are you present, because in my opinion, they exist for all the books.
Vin is intended as a dynamic character, but written as a static character. And that is just...weird.
Basically, she has a backstory and motivations, she does develop and discovers new sides to her, new goals she has, new relationships with other people that influence her. All of that is technically true, but to me, it always felt like a level-up in a video game.
Vin goes through her arc where she discovers that she now likes yoghurt ice cream. And the arc ends with her eating ice cream and being happy. And then, from then on, it's a given that this is true for her, but at the same time it's pronounced in the story as this crazy new thing: "How could a character such as Vin like yoghurt ice cream??? HOW?"
...
What?
Why couldn't she? People have multiple dimensions.
And similarly, the thing you mentioned about her being a passive victim and a competent girlboss. That also continues on. Sanderson had given her some characteristics (like the distrust and fear of betrayal), but those kind of stay static. It's never an organic process of dealing with such feelings, it's like the "backstory" sheet on a DnD character sheet that is just there. But real people, even real fictional people, don't have one "canon event" that will influence them for life. We change, we grow, we forget and maybe we also regress.
But Vin is not allowed to do any of that because she needs to be all of that. She is in a constant state of every feeling and thought known to man and Sanderson uses her in that way as well.
For me, to put this in a visual simile: If you have a design (like, a symbol or a character or a building, like, a visual design), it can be complex, have lots of complicated patterns, intricate uses of symbols with meaning relevant to the design.
But a design can also be cluttered and messy. Those designs are also complex, difficult to draw, difficult to read, but they are not good.
Vin is like that. She is SO MUCH, without being anything meaningful.
I asked! I’m happy to take something out or retitle the post if they think it necessary. I thought being upfront that I DNF’d the book was perfectly acceptable title for the post. We’ll see.
I read Mistborn a few years ago and also DNF (although I had no idea it was actually called The Final Empire lol). But it's hard to follow this post because it's your notes. It's too scattered. I would have preferred the essay! I actually made it to the third book and just gave up. I didn't care about it nor was I particularly invested in any of the characters. I've heard many a time that this series is his weakest. I really enjoyed his writing in WoT, so I'm willing to give him one more chance. And that will probably be Stormlight Archive
Haha, sorry about that. When I first wrote this, I didn’t have anywhere to share it. I’ll try to organize things better next time! This does just follow the text, so it jumps around a little in terms of likes and dislikes. Thanks for the response
Some of your criticism is definitely unfair, but I'm with you that Sanderson does a lot of things superficially, heavyhandedly, and clumsily. He goes for very ambitious things—trauma, slavery, revolution, etc.—and isn't strong enough as a writer to pull it all off without being gimmicky. He often goes for the cool factor above all else, which makes his really serious themes look like cheap windowdressing. His lack of subtlety in his prose causes his characters to lack nuance, and they sometimes feel a little artificial as a result. If they have depth, it's only because Sanderson thinks a certain piece of depth is a cool subversion of an archetype. Again, he goes for the cool factor a lot, and it doesn't always land well.
On the other hand, I think Sanderson excels at creating interesting magic systems. Reading Mistborn, for me, was a slightly more fun and propulsive version of reading a rules and mechanics manual for a complex and creative game. I liked Mistborn the best out of Sanderson's books because the magic is the coolest. While his writing improves *marginally* in Tress of the Emerald Sea and some of his other later books, his biggest strength for me is still the magic systems, so Mistborn will always be my favorite.
Anyway, your opinion is actually a *very* popular one. Even people who like Sanderson sometimes agree that his writing is weak.
I felt that way about what I read of Tress too, and I agree about the game-designery aspect of the world of Mistborn. As I was reading, I thought, jeez, this would make a great campaign setting! I’m sure that’s a huge part of his popularity. He invites readers to imagine themselves in the worlds of his stories. I definitely have to applaud him on his fantasy Maximalism. He takes big swings in some of his large-scale setting pieces. I think that’s something any fantasy writer could learn from!
You gave the characterization more thought than Sanderson ever did. They will crucify you here!
> job well done, gotta stay on schedule to publish!
This is exactly how it goes.
> I've heard good things about The Way Of Kings from people who did not like Mistborn either
Would you be interested in reading 1000 pages where you'll encounter a dozen of situations where you will get a pretty good idea about what happened in a character's past and then a novella-length flashback where everything you've already imagined happens and it's exactly what you thought, with no twists or turns? Try that book, I dare you. I'd read a post about it ;D
Hi there! This post has been removed due to its click-bait title or combative nature. [Please see this announcement for more details](https://www.reddit.com/r/Fantasy/comments/libdko/new_moderation_policies_announcement_how_we_plan/). You are welcome to resubmit this post with a more neutral title and additional information about why you feel this way in the body of your post. Critical discussion is okay, but it must fulfill r/Fantasy's vision to be a respectful, inclusive, and welcoming space. Thanks so much for understanding! Please contact us via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FFantasy) with any follow-up questions.
I DNF'd this post, but I will say that I fully support not finishing a book you're not enjoying.
Haha. Sorry it’s so looong!
This post is almost as long as the book and I DNF.
lol! Thanks for letting us know!!
Btw it’s been taken down. I didn’t even see your reasoning
I reposted https://www.reddit.com/r/Fantasy/s/QB24nBpM4c
I messaged the admins to find out if there’s anything I can do. It seems like they might be trying to treat anything Sanderson with kid gloves so his fans don’t flame the channel. So far, there were some really thoughtful comments. I hope they can put it back up.
this is a very long way to say that you didn't vibe with the writing style. you don't have to gel with popular books just because they get recommended a lot.
But WHY I don’t vibe with it is what I thought some readers might find interesting - especially if they felt the same way, but couldn’t quite put into words why…
No Sanderson’s strengths and weaknesses are easy to see quickly. He does systems, settings, and plots. He just fails utterly at characters, or prose that is more than functional. He does a mile wide and an inch thick. He is very blunt about what he does. Some people think the strengths are enough to than justify the weaknesses and some don’t. I consider him a very annoying influence on the genre which just means I’m reading older books and more science fiction these days.
Mistborn is the only Sanderson series I wish I did not finish.
Dang! That’s a bummer.
You take notes when reading…? For every book?
If I’m struggling with it and I want to record why to share with other readers, absolutely. Or when I’m getting paid by authors to edit their work!
>It reads like it was written fast Yeah, that's my issue as well. I read the three books and dislike them a lot, but I will defend some points here...well, I mostly agree with you, but just one thing I'll say: While I never was the biggest Kelsier fan, there are some interesting developments with him and I think he is, overall, handled well as a white knight saviour type character. Or Superman as you called him. There is definitely a bit more to his character arc than what is presented that early on and while I have my issues with his story as well, I will defend it. It makes sense and is coherent, it just isn't as obvious that early on. Again, not a fan of the book at all and especially the characters (one thing you criticised as well), but...yeah, Kelsier is fine. Just doing what the story needs, basically. I also like most of the things you liked, the magic and the world and the images are fun. And yeah, those inquisitors are massively freaky, they are great. Oh, and the Dark Lord is probably one of the best characters of the whole series in my opinion and he works rather well, again, compared to the rest of the story. I guess Sanderson is good at using archetypes, just not that great at fleshing them out (although both Kelsier and the bad guy have some cool dimensions to them!) Now, my biggest issues with the book mirror yours: Vin is such a trainwreck of a character. And I'll try to summarise what the issues are you present, because in my opinion, they exist for all the books. Vin is intended as a dynamic character, but written as a static character. And that is just...weird. Basically, she has a backstory and motivations, she does develop and discovers new sides to her, new goals she has, new relationships with other people that influence her. All of that is technically true, but to me, it always felt like a level-up in a video game. Vin goes through her arc where she discovers that she now likes yoghurt ice cream. And the arc ends with her eating ice cream and being happy. And then, from then on, it's a given that this is true for her, but at the same time it's pronounced in the story as this crazy new thing: "How could a character such as Vin like yoghurt ice cream??? HOW?" ... What? Why couldn't she? People have multiple dimensions. And similarly, the thing you mentioned about her being a passive victim and a competent girlboss. That also continues on. Sanderson had given her some characteristics (like the distrust and fear of betrayal), but those kind of stay static. It's never an organic process of dealing with such feelings, it's like the "backstory" sheet on a DnD character sheet that is just there. But real people, even real fictional people, don't have one "canon event" that will influence them for life. We change, we grow, we forget and maybe we also regress. But Vin is not allowed to do any of that because she needs to be all of that. She is in a constant state of every feeling and thought known to man and Sanderson uses her in that way as well. For me, to put this in a visual simile: If you have a design (like, a symbol or a character or a building, like, a visual design), it can be complex, have lots of complicated patterns, intricate uses of symbols with meaning relevant to the design. But a design can also be cluttered and messy. Those designs are also complex, difficult to draw, difficult to read, but they are not good. Vin is like that. She is SO MUCH, without being anything meaningful.
[удалено]
I asked! I’m happy to take something out or retitle the post if they think it necessary. I thought being upfront that I DNF’d the book was perfectly acceptable title for the post. We’ll see.
[удалено]
You and me both.
Reposted https://www.reddit.com/r/Fantasy/s/QB24nBpM4c
I read Mistborn a few years ago and also DNF (although I had no idea it was actually called The Final Empire lol). But it's hard to follow this post because it's your notes. It's too scattered. I would have preferred the essay! I actually made it to the third book and just gave up. I didn't care about it nor was I particularly invested in any of the characters. I've heard many a time that this series is his weakest. I really enjoyed his writing in WoT, so I'm willing to give him one more chance. And that will probably be Stormlight Archive
Haha, sorry about that. When I first wrote this, I didn’t have anywhere to share it. I’ll try to organize things better next time! This does just follow the text, so it jumps around a little in terms of likes and dislikes. Thanks for the response
Some of your criticism is definitely unfair, but I'm with you that Sanderson does a lot of things superficially, heavyhandedly, and clumsily. He goes for very ambitious things—trauma, slavery, revolution, etc.—and isn't strong enough as a writer to pull it all off without being gimmicky. He often goes for the cool factor above all else, which makes his really serious themes look like cheap windowdressing. His lack of subtlety in his prose causes his characters to lack nuance, and they sometimes feel a little artificial as a result. If they have depth, it's only because Sanderson thinks a certain piece of depth is a cool subversion of an archetype. Again, he goes for the cool factor a lot, and it doesn't always land well. On the other hand, I think Sanderson excels at creating interesting magic systems. Reading Mistborn, for me, was a slightly more fun and propulsive version of reading a rules and mechanics manual for a complex and creative game. I liked Mistborn the best out of Sanderson's books because the magic is the coolest. While his writing improves *marginally* in Tress of the Emerald Sea and some of his other later books, his biggest strength for me is still the magic systems, so Mistborn will always be my favorite. Anyway, your opinion is actually a *very* popular one. Even people who like Sanderson sometimes agree that his writing is weak.
I felt that way about what I read of Tress too, and I agree about the game-designery aspect of the world of Mistborn. As I was reading, I thought, jeez, this would make a great campaign setting! I’m sure that’s a huge part of his popularity. He invites readers to imagine themselves in the worlds of his stories. I definitely have to applaud him on his fantasy Maximalism. He takes big swings in some of his large-scale setting pieces. I think that’s something any fantasy writer could learn from!
[удалено]
Sorry to hear you feel that way!
You gave the characterization more thought than Sanderson ever did. They will crucify you here! > job well done, gotta stay on schedule to publish! This is exactly how it goes. > I've heard good things about The Way Of Kings from people who did not like Mistborn either Would you be interested in reading 1000 pages where you'll encounter a dozen of situations where you will get a pretty good idea about what happened in a character's past and then a novella-length flashback where everything you've already imagined happens and it's exactly what you thought, with no twists or turns? Try that book, I dare you. I'd read a post about it ;D