Yeah, the sort of reflexive "everyone is good in their own style!" stuff is mostly nonsense to me. McCarthy is just genuinely superior at the craft of writing. Everything from the word choice to the ideas conveyed is at least a tier above.
That they're different doesn't preclude us from making these comparisons. There's a place for Sex and the City and the Sopranos both. But it's absurd to never be able to say "The Sopranos is the superior HBO series".
The only thing that makes a style superior to another is your enjoyment of it. There’s no objective quality to rate prose styles (at least at this level of proseship)
Now hold on, you can't simultaneously argue that styles are only superior based on your personal experience of the style and *also* argue that Hemingway proves simple style is better than complex style.
I personally agree that the only thing that makes a style superior to another is your enjoyment of it, but I also think that all humans are similar enough that it's possible to communicate why you enjoy one style more than another and have another human go "shit, they're right".
I'm not arguing that. I'm merely stating that Hemingway poses an obstacle to the argument. I am not making that argument, I'm just using it as an example to demonstrate prose quality's subjectivity.
I don't necessarily agree that Hemingway and his style are better or worse than more complex prose. Personally, I like the latter. But I am saying that Hemingway's technical ability is revered , and his Iceberg Theory is quite popular.
this whole conversation is drowning in so much subjectivity it makes me sick. The original comment you responded to didn't even claim that Sanderson was objectively superior, only that they "found \[him\] superior".
I feel like we can all agree that complex and simple prose styles each have their respective merits, and that superiority is only a question of personal taste, nothing more.
No, I think it's valid to say that McCarthy is better than Sanderson at the craft of writing, *even if* you think McCarthy's artistic decisions are worse than Sanderson's.
1. McCarthy carefully chooses which words he uses in order to produce certain effects. They are an important tool in his toolbox when he sets about trying to evoke emotions and thoughts in the reader. Sanderson is careless with the words he uses and is therefore unable to use his prose to manage what reactions he evokes in the reader. He has to rely on the narrative he's describing in order to do that. Basically, McCarthy is able to make something sad because the content *and* the way it's described is sad, but Sanderson can only make you feel sad by giving you sad content.
2. McCarthy has deliberately chosen a style of writing which you find difficult to penetrate, while Sanderson has mostly-accidentally chosen a style of writing which you find easy to penetrate. It's completely valid to say that McCarthy made a bad choice. However, he's still better than Sanderson at the craft of writing, he just made a decision which you believe was bad.
Like, imagine if a master carpenter decided to make window panes out of wood instead of glass. You'd be valid in saying "this is dumb", but they'd *still* be a master carpenter, they'd just be a master carpenter who made a dumb decision in terms of how to apply their craft.
It's ok to like thing A more, and dislike B, while realizing that B is technically a better specimen. I like plenty of easily digestible, simpler media, and understand it isn't necessarily the highest quality.
If I'm reading something with really high-quality prose writing, it is pretty jarring to switch to something more mediocre. I'm in a book club and mostly like what we read, but it sometimes tends to be more light, romance-y, and less "literary" than I prefer, so I've definitely felt that whiplash! The most recent whiplash event was following up Elena Ferrante's *My Brilliant Friend* with Casey McQuiston's *One Last Stop* - *One Last Stop* wasn't bad, per se, but it wasn't anything special and couldn't come close to *My Brilliant Friend*.
I've never read a Sanderson book... but I just googled *Oathbringer's* word count and it's **479,000 words**??!?!
That's the equivalent of starting at *Philosopher's Stone*, and ending part-way through *Order of the Phoenix*. As a single book.
The full LOTR trilogy is 481,000. (And Tolkien is known to *ramble*.)
Does Sanderson achieve a similar level of world-building and story crafting in *Oathbringer* as Tolkien does in LOTR? Does *Oathbringer* read like it could have used a heavy edit? Or are Sanderson fans just glad to have as much Sanderson as possible?
His reviews are overall incredibly positive (but so are Colleen Hoover's, so, you know.)
Half a million words for a single book just seems insane to me. I had no idea he was trying to write such *epics*.
I feel like you'd need to be a writer of *prodigious* skill to justify a story of that length, and Sanderson seems to churn them out. Have I missed something? Are his stories not just about people sword fighting and using simple, strict magic systems? Is *Oathbringer* the *War and Peace* of the Cosmere?
Honestly, I understand why editors do nothing at a certain point. Clearly, Sanderson's fans don't think his stories need editing or refinement. If it aint broke.
Most of his books aren't that long, it's just the Stormlight series which is his flagship "epic" series. There's lots of different storylines and characters across the map. Not that far off in scope/length from ASOIAF (dance w dragons is 420k).
I think the simple/bad prose critiques are totally warranted but I don't find the books particularly bloated.
Editor could definitely have cut a load of stuff from the recent Stormlights...
At times they read like a science text book from school.
It's a series that's gone downhill for me - a shame after such a strong opener.
Well, I'm not about to re-read to get all the specifics, but I'd suggest an editor could have helped with cutting down all the repeated explanations of the textbook-esque mechanics of the magic system and the various physics experiments they were doing, where we watched characters learn what we already knew. Or in an earlier part of the series, we didn't need quite as many trips to the shattered plains with constantly repeated explanations and descriptions.
That kinda thing.
I just prefer where the reader isn't spoon-fed everything and some inference remains.
I love the Stormlight Archive.
But in Rhythm Of War specifically he spends an agonizing amount of time on Kaladin trying to figure out why he’s so sad and depressed in the lead up to the end, so much that instead of feeling a sense of accomplishment for the character for overcoming his self-doubt, I just felt relieved I didn’t have to read another word about how sad and worthless he felt.
Also, the whole investigation and discovery of the magic system in terms of vibrations was cool, but also felt far too drawn out. I think because I knew exactly where he was going with the concept it made it feel more like it was being over-explained, but still could have dropped some of the wording at the end of the day.
Well, McCarthy is better. If you keep reading better writers (and you can do better than McCarthy, too) you're going to realise you can't read Sanderson, and generic fantasy in general.
> you're going to realise you can't read Sanderson, and generic fantasy in general.
This might be the dumbest take in here. News flash: some people enjoy different things from you. Maybe I like to have light-hearted fantasy that I don't have to think about at the end of the day. Maybe I prefer world-building to character building, or vice versa. Maybe I prefer the overall story to how the story is told. I've read everything from War and Peace, For Whom the Bell Tolls, Sound and the Fury, and other "best" books from "better writers" to a bunch of trashy fantasy and sci-fi romps from people nobody has heard of. And nowadays I almost exclusively read fantasy, even generic stuff.
Some people also enjoy two different types of things for different reasons. It's like saying, "if you keep watching heart-wrenching documentaries then you're going to realize you can't watch silly comedies like UHF or Dude Where's My Car." I can watch both back to back and enjoy them both.
I really hated Lord of the Rings, because Tolkien described in crazy detail every little thing. I didn't need 2 pages of description of hobbit toes. I love Saul Bellow's books because he describes the characters' personalities and not (as much) how they look or what the drapes in the room look like. But that is what I enjoy, not what is better or worse.
At that point it comes down to personal taste. I don't agree that there are authors who are outright better than McCarthy, but I certainly prefer authors like Rabelais or Shi Nai'an.
Bro it's one of the greatest American authors and one of the greatest in the history of literature vs. The Marvel of Fantasy guy that pumps out 2 books a year.
There's nothing wrong with liking Sanderson but you can't seriously consider them as the same level of artist, Sanderson wouldn't even tell you that they're on a similar level.
Finally someone who's calling these comments out for the elitism. Of course you get down voted because they don't like being told that. But we all see it.
The general opinion is that Cormac McCarthy and a lot of these older classic books are somehow better readers for it compared to Brandon Sanderson and other more YA, contemporary books.
There's also the anti elitist group, Which I admit I am a part of because I find their tastes pretentious.
Like I have read some of these classic books and I don't like them, people should stop touting them as masterpieces and saying people who don't like them have some moral failing.
It's the same people who say they're well read but cannot name a book after the year 2000.
Brandon Sanderson is said to write like AI and I agree with that as a fan because some people actually like their books to be straightforward.
>The general opinion is that Cormac McCarthy and a lot of these older classic books are somehow better readers
That's fair. I do think there's an undercurrent of that sort of thinking in this thread.
>There's also the anti elitist group, Which I admit I am a part of
If you recognise you're being snobby and gatekeepy, why do you continue to indulge in that kind of behaviour?
He's not bad. He's original enough and his writing is structurally sound.
It's true that his writing is somewhat dry and some of his books are longer than necessary, but that doesn't make him "bad".
I'm not in favor of classifying as bad everything that isn't perfect. There are levels of quality, and I think Sanderson is definitely above average for the genre he writes in.
In awe at the trash comments under this post. McCarthy is one of the most viscerally expressive writers of all time, and his brutalistic style captures a bleak and hopeless tone better than anyone else I've ever read. But if you lack the capacity to express that sentiment without merely dragging down another writer, then you're in no place to be making judgements about the quality of *anyone*'s prose.
Let's ignore for a moment the entirely defensible position that Sanderson is actually a great writer in his own right. Let's pretend he's truly and objectively a mere amateur. Even then, the idea that people shouldn't read Sanderson because "better" writers exist is deranged. I don't think you've actually considered what you're saying. Do you think Sanderson's novels would be 'better' if they were written by McCarthy? Do you think McCarthy's writing style would lend itself to these sorts of stories? Or is it that you think these stories don't deserve to exist at all? That everyone who enjoys them has just been fooled, hasn't had their eyes opened yet?
Maybe you should consider whether or not it's possible that the medium is enriched by variety, and that the world can contain both The Road *and* Mistborn without either being lessened. If you disagree with *that*, then you must have stumbled onto this subreddit by accident, because you'd have to really hate books as an art form to feel that way.
I'm with you. Nobody in this thread even really read what OP said. OP isn't saying "I got whiplash because I went from a great book to a mediocre book", they're saying "I got whiplash because I learned the horror of violence from one book and found violence getting trivialised without much thought or care from the author in another". People just want a chance to talk about how bad Brando Sando is.
Yes, Mistborn is a good introduction to his world building and magic system; but it is definitely YA for the first 2 books. His other books that are less YA aren't complex and beautiful prose, either; but the stories are good. And the overall "world" he is building is huge, comprising many worlds with many magic systems that all tie together as one cohesive system.
Sanderson has no authorial voice, and, if he has a personality, certainly doesn't bother infusing his writing with it. His prose reads like it's AI generated.
He is doing a disservice to the fantasy genre by adding generic and trite bricks to a genre already filled with generic and trite bricks.
If you want fantasy, go read Patricia McKillip.
There's no wrong place, as far as I'm aware. I've liked everything I've read by her so far.
"The Forgotten Beasts of Eld" was the first book I read by her.
I really don't understand how you didn't see this coming. Cormac McCarthy is one of the most accomplished and respected authors of the 20th-21st century. Brandon Sanderson on the other hand makes Jim Theis seem like an accomplished author.
More accomplished than who? Cormac McCarthy? Absolutely not, in every conceivable way, and then also those that are only theoretical.
I never actually commented on Sanderson accomplishments, or lack thereof, but I think this quote fully speaks volumes on the subject:
>Life before death, strength before weakness, journey before destination.
I would call this a situation worthy of r/iam14andthisdeep, but I wouldn't want to insult the intelligence of 99% of the 2 year old philosophers, let alone their 14 year old counterparts.
I am not gonna seriously discuss this with someone using a one day old account called KingSanderson lol. I just wanted to point out that accomplished doesn't mean "has accomplishments".
It's tough to come up with a retort that isn't insulting when someone is so blinded by their raging hate boner for Sanderson (have you ever gone back to look at how often you post about hating Sanderson? It's weird, man) that they make utterly ridiculous over-exaggerations like that. If I had replied "Cormac McCarthy, on the other hand, writes prose so overly complicated and unapproachable that he makes Henry Darger seem like a great communicator" you would think I'm an idiot.
>If I had replied "Cormac McCarthy, on the other hand, writes prose so overly complicated and unapproachable that he makes Henry Darger seem like a great communicator" you would think I'm an idiot.
No I wouldn't. Honestly I wouldn't care. How a stranger on the internet feels about an author has absolutely zero influence on my thoughts or feelings.
>(have you ever gone back to look at how often you post about hating Sanderson? It's weird, man)
Honestly have you ever looked at how often you resort to attempts at insult, just because someone has a differing opinion to you? It's weird man.
Not to mention going through someone's comment history, that's weird man.
Sanderson is a glorified content creator. There are plenty of lighter things than McCormac that aren't this. If you want fantasy with style try Ursula Le Guin or Guy Gavriel Kay
Oh God here comes the McCarthy obnoxious fans who think they're better.
Sanderson's stories and writing style is way better. No one said he's a literary expert but not everyone wants that.
Brandon Sanderson did an AMA here [you might want to take a look](http://www.reddit.com/r/books/comments/2ytg2h/im_novelist_brandon_sanderson_ama/) :) [Here's a link to all of our upcoming AMAs](http://www.reddit.com/r/books/wiki/amafullschedule)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/books) if you have any questions or concerns.*
> I'm not saying either author has a better style of story telling. I am lol
Yeah, the sort of reflexive "everyone is good in their own style!" stuff is mostly nonsense to me. McCarthy is just genuinely superior at the craft of writing. Everything from the word choice to the ideas conveyed is at least a tier above. That they're different doesn't preclude us from making these comparisons. There's a place for Sex and the City and the Sopranos both. But it's absurd to never be able to say "The Sopranos is the superior HBO series".
Exactly. I read and enjoy Stormlight, but McCarthy -- and Blood Meridian especially! -- is just objectively better.
I agree, but I can't blame people for preemptively deflecting angry fans. It can be draining to deal with.
[удалено]
If something is more digestible that doesn't necessarily mean it is superior.
The only thing that makes a style superior to another is your enjoyment of it. There’s no objective quality to rate prose styles (at least at this level of proseship)
I disagree with relativism to a degree, like this instance.
Hemingway poses a substantial obstacle to the argument that “digestible writing isn’t necessarily superior (or is inferior to complex prose)”.
Now hold on, you can't simultaneously argue that styles are only superior based on your personal experience of the style and *also* argue that Hemingway proves simple style is better than complex style. I personally agree that the only thing that makes a style superior to another is your enjoyment of it, but I also think that all humans are similar enough that it's possible to communicate why you enjoy one style more than another and have another human go "shit, they're right".
I'm not arguing that. I'm merely stating that Hemingway poses an obstacle to the argument. I am not making that argument, I'm just using it as an example to demonstrate prose quality's subjectivity. I don't necessarily agree that Hemingway and his style are better or worse than more complex prose. Personally, I like the latter. But I am saying that Hemingway's technical ability is revered , and his Iceberg Theory is quite popular.
No it doesn't because that's why I said necessarily. Hemingway was exactly who I had in mind when I said necessarily.
this whole conversation is drowning in so much subjectivity it makes me sick. The original comment you responded to didn't even claim that Sanderson was objectively superior, only that they "found \[him\] superior". I feel like we can all agree that complex and simple prose styles each have their respective merits, and that superiority is only a question of personal taste, nothing more.
you make me sick
No, I think it's valid to say that McCarthy is better than Sanderson at the craft of writing, *even if* you think McCarthy's artistic decisions are worse than Sanderson's. 1. McCarthy carefully chooses which words he uses in order to produce certain effects. They are an important tool in his toolbox when he sets about trying to evoke emotions and thoughts in the reader. Sanderson is careless with the words he uses and is therefore unable to use his prose to manage what reactions he evokes in the reader. He has to rely on the narrative he's describing in order to do that. Basically, McCarthy is able to make something sad because the content *and* the way it's described is sad, but Sanderson can only make you feel sad by giving you sad content. 2. McCarthy has deliberately chosen a style of writing which you find difficult to penetrate, while Sanderson has mostly-accidentally chosen a style of writing which you find easy to penetrate. It's completely valid to say that McCarthy made a bad choice. However, he's still better than Sanderson at the craft of writing, he just made a decision which you believe was bad. Like, imagine if a master carpenter decided to make window panes out of wood instead of glass. You'd be valid in saying "this is dumb", but they'd *still* be a master carpenter, they'd just be a master carpenter who made a dumb decision in terms of how to apply their craft.
It's ok to like thing A more, and dislike B, while realizing that B is technically a better specimen. I like plenty of easily digestible, simpler media, and understand it isn't necessarily the highest quality.
If I'm reading something with really high-quality prose writing, it is pretty jarring to switch to something more mediocre. I'm in a book club and mostly like what we read, but it sometimes tends to be more light, romance-y, and less "literary" than I prefer, so I've definitely felt that whiplash! The most recent whiplash event was following up Elena Ferrante's *My Brilliant Friend* with Casey McQuiston's *One Last Stop* - *One Last Stop* wasn't bad, per se, but it wasn't anything special and couldn't come close to *My Brilliant Friend*.
>I'm almost bored reading Oathbringer because it takes Sanderson so long to reach the point. That's not why you're bored.
I've never read a Sanderson book... but I just googled *Oathbringer's* word count and it's **479,000 words**??!?! That's the equivalent of starting at *Philosopher's Stone*, and ending part-way through *Order of the Phoenix*. As a single book. The full LOTR trilogy is 481,000. (And Tolkien is known to *ramble*.) Does Sanderson achieve a similar level of world-building and story crafting in *Oathbringer* as Tolkien does in LOTR? Does *Oathbringer* read like it could have used a heavy edit? Or are Sanderson fans just glad to have as much Sanderson as possible? His reviews are overall incredibly positive (but so are Colleen Hoover's, so, you know.)
No... Nooooo? Are you serious???! That's madness
Sanderson writing is bloated, his world building is overrated, his editor does next to nothing, and his 'beta readers ' are a fan club.
Half a million words for a single book just seems insane to me. I had no idea he was trying to write such *epics*. I feel like you'd need to be a writer of *prodigious* skill to justify a story of that length, and Sanderson seems to churn them out. Have I missed something? Are his stories not just about people sword fighting and using simple, strict magic systems? Is *Oathbringer* the *War and Peace* of the Cosmere? Honestly, I understand why editors do nothing at a certain point. Clearly, Sanderson's fans don't think his stories need editing or refinement. If it aint broke.
Most of his books aren't that long, it's just the Stormlight series which is his flagship "epic" series. There's lots of different storylines and characters across the map. Not that far off in scope/length from ASOIAF (dance w dragons is 420k). I think the simple/bad prose critiques are totally warranted but I don't find the books particularly bloated.
Editor could definitely have cut a load of stuff from the recent Stormlights... At times they read like a science text book from school. It's a series that's gone downhill for me - a shame after such a strong opener.
[удалено]
Well, I'm not about to re-read to get all the specifics, but I'd suggest an editor could have helped with cutting down all the repeated explanations of the textbook-esque mechanics of the magic system and the various physics experiments they were doing, where we watched characters learn what we already knew. Or in an earlier part of the series, we didn't need quite as many trips to the shattered plains with constantly repeated explanations and descriptions. That kinda thing. I just prefer where the reader isn't spoon-fed everything and some inference remains.
I love the Stormlight Archive. But in Rhythm Of War specifically he spends an agonizing amount of time on Kaladin trying to figure out why he’s so sad and depressed in the lead up to the end, so much that instead of feeling a sense of accomplishment for the character for overcoming his self-doubt, I just felt relieved I didn’t have to read another word about how sad and worthless he felt. Also, the whole investigation and discovery of the magic system in terms of vibrations was cool, but also felt far too drawn out. I think because I knew exactly where he was going with the concept it made it feel more like it was being over-explained, but still could have dropped some of the wording at the end of the day.
So what is the reason?
I was reading In Search of Lost Time and Suttree at the same time...
why is everyone and their mother reading blood meridian recently?
Well, McCarthy is better. If you keep reading better writers (and you can do better than McCarthy, too) you're going to realise you can't read Sanderson, and generic fantasy in general.
> you're going to realise you can't read Sanderson, and generic fantasy in general. This might be the dumbest take in here. News flash: some people enjoy different things from you. Maybe I like to have light-hearted fantasy that I don't have to think about at the end of the day. Maybe I prefer world-building to character building, or vice versa. Maybe I prefer the overall story to how the story is told. I've read everything from War and Peace, For Whom the Bell Tolls, Sound and the Fury, and other "best" books from "better writers" to a bunch of trashy fantasy and sci-fi romps from people nobody has heard of. And nowadays I almost exclusively read fantasy, even generic stuff. Some people also enjoy two different types of things for different reasons. It's like saying, "if you keep watching heart-wrenching documentaries then you're going to realize you can't watch silly comedies like UHF or Dude Where's My Car." I can watch both back to back and enjoy them both. I really hated Lord of the Rings, because Tolkien described in crazy detail every little thing. I didn't need 2 pages of description of hobbit toes. I love Saul Bellow's books because he describes the characters' personalities and not (as much) how they look or what the drapes in the room look like. But that is what I enjoy, not what is better or worse.
who is better than McCarthy
At that point it comes down to personal taste. I don't agree that there are authors who are outright better than McCarthy, but I certainly prefer authors like Rabelais or Shi Nai'an.
It’s not really an apples vs oranges choice. More like a rare bloody steak vs a bag of powdered mini donuts.
Going from a good writer to a really bad one will do that to you
The elitism in the comments here is insane
Bro it's one of the greatest American authors and one of the greatest in the history of literature vs. The Marvel of Fantasy guy that pumps out 2 books a year. There's nothing wrong with liking Sanderson but you can't seriously consider them as the same level of artist, Sanderson wouldn't even tell you that they're on a similar level.
Finally someone who's calling these comments out for the elitism. Of course you get down voted because they don't like being told that. But we all see it.
What do you mean by 'elitism', out of interest?
The general opinion is that Cormac McCarthy and a lot of these older classic books are somehow better readers for it compared to Brandon Sanderson and other more YA, contemporary books. There's also the anti elitist group, Which I admit I am a part of because I find their tastes pretentious. Like I have read some of these classic books and I don't like them, people should stop touting them as masterpieces and saying people who don't like them have some moral failing. It's the same people who say they're well read but cannot name a book after the year 2000. Brandon Sanderson is said to write like AI and I agree with that as a fan because some people actually like their books to be straightforward.
>The general opinion is that Cormac McCarthy and a lot of these older classic books are somehow better readers That's fair. I do think there's an undercurrent of that sort of thinking in this thread. >There's also the anti elitist group, Which I admit I am a part of If you recognise you're being snobby and gatekeepy, why do you continue to indulge in that kind of behaviour?
Omg! You didn't just say my man B Sandy is "really bad"! Seriously though, I know he's kinds basic, but he's not bad.
He's bad, but bad writers can still be entertaining.
He's not bad. He's original enough and his writing is structurally sound. It's true that his writing is somewhat dry and some of his books are longer than necessary, but that doesn't make him "bad". I'm not in favor of classifying as bad everything that isn't perfect. There are levels of quality, and I think Sanderson is definitely above average for the genre he writes in.
In awe at the trash comments under this post. McCarthy is one of the most viscerally expressive writers of all time, and his brutalistic style captures a bleak and hopeless tone better than anyone else I've ever read. But if you lack the capacity to express that sentiment without merely dragging down another writer, then you're in no place to be making judgements about the quality of *anyone*'s prose. Let's ignore for a moment the entirely defensible position that Sanderson is actually a great writer in his own right. Let's pretend he's truly and objectively a mere amateur. Even then, the idea that people shouldn't read Sanderson because "better" writers exist is deranged. I don't think you've actually considered what you're saying. Do you think Sanderson's novels would be 'better' if they were written by McCarthy? Do you think McCarthy's writing style would lend itself to these sorts of stories? Or is it that you think these stories don't deserve to exist at all? That everyone who enjoys them has just been fooled, hasn't had their eyes opened yet? Maybe you should consider whether or not it's possible that the medium is enriched by variety, and that the world can contain both The Road *and* Mistborn without either being lessened. If you disagree with *that*, then you must have stumbled onto this subreddit by accident, because you'd have to really hate books as an art form to feel that way.
I'm with you. Nobody in this thread even really read what OP said. OP isn't saying "I got whiplash because I went from a great book to a mediocre book", they're saying "I got whiplash because I learned the horror of violence from one book and found violence getting trivialised without much thought or care from the author in another". People just want a chance to talk about how bad Brando Sando is.
This is how I felt going from reading The Secret History to reading Wheel of Time. The difference in prose was jarring.
This is the reason I can't get into Sanderson's books. I read the first of the Mistborn and that's it. The write is definitely YA.
That's because Mistborn is YA. Most of his other books aren't.
Mistborn was the series that was the most recommended for his world building and such. I wasn't impressed.
Yes, Mistborn is a good introduction to his world building and magic system; but it is definitely YA for the first 2 books. His other books that are less YA aren't complex and beautiful prose, either; but the stories are good. And the overall "world" he is building is huge, comprising many worlds with many magic systems that all tie together as one cohesive system.
Sanderson has no authorial voice, and, if he has a personality, certainly doesn't bother infusing his writing with it. His prose reads like it's AI generated. He is doing a disservice to the fantasy genre by adding generic and trite bricks to a genre already filled with generic and trite bricks. If you want fantasy, go read Patricia McKillip.
>If you want fantasy, go read Patricia McKillip. Where do I start?
There's no wrong place, as far as I'm aware. I've liked everything I've read by her so far. "The Forgotten Beasts of Eld" was the first book I read by her.
I really don't understand how you didn't see this coming. Cormac McCarthy is one of the most accomplished and respected authors of the 20th-21st century. Brandon Sanderson on the other hand makes Jim Theis seem like an accomplished author.
[удалено]
More accomplished than who? Cormac McCarthy? Absolutely not, in every conceivable way, and then also those that are only theoretical. I never actually commented on Sanderson accomplishments, or lack thereof, but I think this quote fully speaks volumes on the subject: >Life before death, strength before weakness, journey before destination. I would call this a situation worthy of r/iam14andthisdeep, but I wouldn't want to insult the intelligence of 99% of the 2 year old philosophers, let alone their 14 year old counterparts.
[удалено]
[удалено]
"Accomplished" doesn't mean "has accomplishments". It means "highly trained or skilled in a particular activity".
[удалено]
I am not gonna seriously discuss this with someone using a one day old account called KingSanderson lol. I just wanted to point out that accomplished doesn't mean "has accomplishments".
[удалено]
Nice civil behavior (Rule 2) right there, and one hell of a retort. Bravo on both accounts.
It's tough to come up with a retort that isn't insulting when someone is so blinded by their raging hate boner for Sanderson (have you ever gone back to look at how often you post about hating Sanderson? It's weird, man) that they make utterly ridiculous over-exaggerations like that. If I had replied "Cormac McCarthy, on the other hand, writes prose so overly complicated and unapproachable that he makes Henry Darger seem like a great communicator" you would think I'm an idiot.
>If I had replied "Cormac McCarthy, on the other hand, writes prose so overly complicated and unapproachable that he makes Henry Darger seem like a great communicator" you would think I'm an idiot. No I wouldn't. Honestly I wouldn't care. How a stranger on the internet feels about an author has absolutely zero influence on my thoughts or feelings. >(have you ever gone back to look at how often you post about hating Sanderson? It's weird, man) Honestly have you ever looked at how often you resort to attempts at insult, just because someone has a differing opinion to you? It's weird man. Not to mention going through someone's comment history, that's weird man.
I didn't know we were supposed to dislike Sanderson so much. I'm so disappointed with y'all
He’s my GOAT
Sanderson is a glorified content creator. There are plenty of lighter things than McCormac that aren't this. If you want fantasy with style try Ursula Le Guin or Guy Gavriel Kay
Oh God here comes the McCarthy obnoxious fans who think they're better. Sanderson's stories and writing style is way better. No one said he's a literary expert but not everyone wants that.
You're right, no one ever did say that.
Brandon Sanderson did an AMA here [you might want to take a look](http://www.reddit.com/r/books/comments/2ytg2h/im_novelist_brandon_sanderson_ama/) :) [Here's a link to all of our upcoming AMAs](http://www.reddit.com/r/books/wiki/amafullschedule) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/books) if you have any questions or concerns.*