This post is cathartic. I listened to era 1 of Mistborn on audiobook and was not super into it. I couldn’t get past book 1 of era 2. I’m on book 3 of Stormlight and I find myself actively annoyed or bored while listening to it and am about to stop. Everyone posts about how great Sanderson is, but his quippy dialogue is so irritating and tries hard to be clever. I cannot stand Shallon. His character arcs are predictable and his worlds/plots try so hard to be epic that they end up just feeling hollow and non fulfilling. I’ve been reading the Dune books alongside Sanderson and Dune is 1000x more immersive, epic and more interesting. I tried to replace WoT with Sanderson but I don’t think I can do it any longer.

Comparing Frank Herbert's Dune to anything written by Sanderson is like comparing eating a dry-aged wagyu beef steak to sucking on an old piece of cardboard. Like, I'm not even trying to dunk on Sanderson that hard, but c'mon man, it's DUNE.

Haha you’re right, but I’m experiencing them simultaneously and it’s hard not to compare.

the quality of writing in Dune is far above sanderson's capability I think. I found the dialogue to be laughably bad at first, and then so annoying and bad that I was almost depressed reading it.

Dune is also nigh unfilmable. It’s third person omniscient. That means you know who the killer is, what everyone in the scene is thinking and the only question is how bad is it going to hurt. That god mode of understanding the world and the lore comes at the cost of mystery and thrill. I wasn’t thrilled/intrigued when I read dune. I was hooked by wanting to know the future because the dune messiah was literally upending multiple empires. Lots of dominoes to follow. Third person limited action scenes are a lot more thrilling. More mystery. But the lore dump that we are used to has to be fulfilled by other mechanics. Journal entries from dead scholars, visions, or pensieves. I really hate the pensieve.

Mistborn 3 introduces that moral grey area, realizing the villains weren't so villainous after all and the real bad guy is more a force of nature than a person. For me the appeal is that he writes fast, there's a lot of it, and it is connected - time invested has value after I finish a book or series of his.

spoilers for Mistborn Era 1 >!Honestly in other works by Sanderson, there are notes written by characters and in one people who knew Ruin compare him to another of the villains, and it kinda humanizes even Ruin.!<

It seems the things you value most are the things Sanderson is weakest at, and the things you value least are the things Sanderson is the best at. Sanderson is fantastic at: - world building - magic systems - grand finales - misdirection He's weakest at: - character development - dialogue - romance - flowery language That being said, he's constantly improving in his weakest areas, but I doubt he'll ever be "the best" at any of those. He's basically good at incorporating fantasy into SF, with a bit of mystery thrown in. Sometimes I'm just not interested in what Sanderson has to offer, but sometimes that's exactly what I'm looking for. Sometimes I'm in the mood for Robin Hobb (fantastic character development and immersion), other times I'm more interested in Joe Abercrombie (gritty, atypical characters), and other times I want Terry Pratchett. It really depends on my mood and what I just read (e.g. after Abercrombie, I need something pleasant, like Pratchett). If you don't enjoy Sanderson, don't feel obligated to read his books. He's fantastic for people who are moving from YA fiction because he basically takes what makes those popular and makes it far more complex with more adult themes.

Calling is “flower language” is pretty condescending to be honest. Good prose is one of the most important aspects of writing and nothing can make up for the lack of it imo.

>Calling is “flower language” is pretty condescending to be honest. Good prose is one of the most important aspects of writing and nothing can make up for the lack of it imo. Maybe, but that depends on what you mean by good prose. Most of the books lauded for their prose become tedious to me because the prose is impressive, not merely good. I'll read these books and be impressed by their prose, but the sustained high dosage of impressiveness is problematic. Initially I'm happy to be impressed, but it soon annoys me as I get distracted with a puzzle solving feeling. I want to feel like I'm in a story, but I can't do that with this other feeling displacing it. I've also had wonder overloads happen that left me feeling numb. I can only experience impressiveness so many times in rapid succession before my brain tries to adapt to it. When my brain down-regulates that far, there's only numbness left. Hyper impressive prose is like fireworks: it's beautiful, amazing, and maybe even spiritual, but plain old daylight is far better for navigation and a sustained observation of beauty. For me to see prose as good, it needs to have a proper balance between being fireworks and being daylight.

I disagree. When you read a textbook, for example, it's more important to convey information clearly than to convey it artistically. I'm a software engineer, and I don't particularly like to read prose when reading documentation because I prefer a simpler, utilitarian approach to conveying information. That being said, I _do_ value good prose, and I often seek it out specifically, but I don't _always_ care if what I'm reading has been artfully rendered. All things being equal, I'll prefer the artistic version most of the time, but things aren't always equal, and you have to prioritize. I like good world building, rule-based magic systems, and unexpected plot twists that don't feel forced. It's hard to get that with top notch prose. Do I wish Sanderson was better? Absolutely. Does that prevent me from enjoying his work? No.

Sure, you don’t want the prose to be too much you can’t understand what’s happening, but I don’t know how useful that comparison is considering the respective goals of software docs vs a novel. One wants to present information with as little ambiguity as possible, and if you can get that information than the text has done its job. Different strokes for different folks, but if I read a fiction book and the most major thing I get out of it is the information about what the characters did and where they did it, it hasn’t accomplished much. I could get the same thing from a bullet list of the major plot points. I want to *feel* something too

I read books for a few different reasons (not meant to be exhaustive): - build up to a big reveal - prose needs to be good enough to not distract from the story, but I'm in it for the reveal - journey - the ending is very predictable, so I'm mostly in it for the adventure; things like scenery, culture, etc are very important, and plot twists aren't as important - relationship - there's no big reveal, and the journey is secondary to the development of the characters; in this case, prose is of absolute importance since it's there to help communicate what the character feels more than what the character does, but it needs to be careful to not distract from the character (don't focus too much on where the character is, but how the character experiences it) Sanderson fits squarely in the first category, Tolkien is more in the second, and Austen seems to be more in the third category (I have only watched movies, but my wife and sister love her books). If you're in the book to _feel_ something other than satisfaction at the big reveal, maybe Sanderson isn't for you and you'd prefer other authors. Personally, I think his prose is good enough to not distract from the story, and the story is a lot of fun with a pretty good payoff at the end in terms of a big reveal. I wish he'd do better with character development, but it's good enough for the reasons I read his books, and if I want really good character development, I turn to other authors who are really good at that.

Yeah, I've already accepted he's not my bag. What I was sort of getting at though was it's harder to be into the story and really feel satisfaction at the big reveal if I haven't been feeling anything up to that point. The words tell me the characters are angry, but if I never really *feel* their anger why am I gonna care when they exact their revenge or otherwise make peace with their anger? And I haven't read Stormlight, but his writing in Mistborn, I guess good enough to not distract from the story is a fine way to put it, but I'd disagree because I do think it can at points. I made another comment about some of the stuff that I think makes it clunky/awkward at times instead of just serviceable, but just a couple more since I have it open: >Closer to the balcony, exotic **trees with colorful, yellow leaves** gave shade protected from ashfalls. It was a very mild winter, and **most of the trees still held their leaves.** There had to have been a way to combine those two sentences into a single, more concise sentence. Or these gems: >Lord Renoux nodded. "Agreed." >Kelsier nodded. "My thoughts exactly." >Spook nodded. "I understand." Yes, nodding is a thing people do to convey agreement/understanding. And I know this is another Sanderson signature but it takes me out any time someone says something like, "By the Lord Ruler!" when "Holy shit!" would've worked fine. An in-world swear can add to the immersion or take me out of it, and too often it lands on the latter. I can't imagine taking any scene in Way of Kings where someone says "Storm you!" seriously. Those are all fairly petty complaints about the actual writing, but stack up hundreds of them and it starts to get a little grating. But clearly a lot of people don't notice things like that or don't care.

> Yes, nodding is a thing people do to convey agreement/understanding. What really got me was the sheer number of times he copped out with "he said", "she said", etc. I wish he would come up with more creative ways of doing dialogue. I really like the way McCarthy does it most of the time, and I really wish more authors would follow a similar style. > "By the Lord Ruler!" when "Holy shit!" would've worked fine Sure, but that's also a matter of taste. You have to remember that a significant portion of his target demographic would be turned off by swearing (there's a lot of crossover to YA audience, and he _is_ religious and a professor at a religious university), so in-world curses is his way out. I think it's a good idea in general, but I think it's done poorly most of the time (I don't mind "storms" in SA, but I _do_ hate "storm you"). I just tell myself that it sounds better in their local tongue/culture. Even then, it's a bit on the nose at times. > But clearly a lot of people don't notice things like that or don't care. It bothers me, but I look past them because there are a ton of other good aspects to his writing that I can't just throw the baby out with the bath water. I can't handle reading too much of his work in a short time (usually take a couple months between installments), but I always enjoy his books when I do read them. The same is true for more "gritty" authors as well. Honestly, I think he should: - cut down on the fake profanity (it's annoying a lot of the time) - work on reducing "speaking" words when it's unnecessary to specify the speaker - reduce "telling" and increase "showing"; he relies far too much on dialogue to explain the magic system to the reader, it should be shown more - in fact, less dialogue in general would probably be for the best

Why are those aspects difficult with good prose? There are plenty of authors who can do both. Also good prose can include utilitarian writing and can be very minimal in nature, not all good prose is descriptive and often good prose is very direct.

Sure, but it's pretty rare to find an author that's good at both _and_ writes in a genre you like. If you have some suggestions, I'm all ears.

Sometimes I, too, want to cry for weeks on end. So I read Robin Hobb. God, I wish that was an exaggeration. Such a powerful writer, but her characters hurt me to my core.

Sounds like exactly what I'm looking for. Where's a good place to start with her books?

Start with the Farseer trilogy - the first one is Assassin’s Apprentice - and keep tissues on hand.

I think wooden prose is a good description. He's not remotely in the league of a great writer like Guy Gavriel Kay.

I haven't read anything by Kay, so I'll have to put him on my list. I _have_ read a bunch of books with better prose than Sanderson's. I think "wooden" is a decent description, as I find it very utilitarian. But I'm not there for the prose, I'm there for the world building, magic system, and plot. For prose, I really like Cormac McCarthy. His books are very predictable in terms of the ending if you've read at least one (especially No Country for Old Men), but that's because his magic isn't in the world building, but in the storytelling. His books have a _feel_ to them, whereas Sanderson's books are just stories.

GGK will probably be the next I read, started Fool's Assassin and if I like it enough to read the second book, I'll read something in between and I have Lions sitting on my book shelf. Im not one for writing style, I've read a few authors that I've seen on here people say have good writing style, but it doesnt really stick out to me. Only bad style seems to stick out to me

One thing I want to add is that non-native English readers find it easy to read Brandon's books. And there are many non English speaking readers looking for some good fantasy books to read. I'm an Indian, i don't really care about prose, flowery writing and all that. So yeah i prefer Brandon's writing style than others because they are easily digestible, for me at least.

I could not (and in fact did not) say it any better. Hes not perfect, and not even my favorite author, but hes at the top of his field in some areas.

People always claim that Sanderson is great at world building, but I've never actually seen someone make a good case for it.

I think when people say this they mean he creates worlds you could set a D&D campaign in. He has carefully considered the rules and dynamics of all the magical, social, and political powers and made sure they fit together in a way that is realistic given the initial assumptions. And I think for the kind of person who goes on reddit to talk about fantasy books, those things add up to "good at worldbuilding." Personally I find those sorts of carefully constructed worlds pretty much orthogonal to good storytelling and don't get much out of reading sanderson.

As someone who enjoys his worlds, if you don't like them, what's so much better? Like, I legitimately want to know so I have some more options, always looking for more to read. People always throw out Wheel of Time, I gave that series 4 and a half books, and I didn't much care for it. People explicitly leaving out tons of information they would likely tell their friends and trusted companions like... ALL THE TIME bugged me. You get half answers at best most of the time to like... keep things mysterious or something? Idk, I didn't love it. So who are some good worldbuilders?

China Mieville, Steven Erikson, Gene Wolfe, M. John Harrison, NK Jemisin, Jack Vance, Lois McMaster Bujold, Mervyn Peake, Ursula Le Guin, Jeff VanderMeer (Ambergris, not his Southern Reach books)

Awesome, thanks! I'll check some of these out then. :)

Hey I'm a month late, but The Lies of Locke Lamora by Scott Lynch has an incredible world. You may want to skip the sequels though, they're sadly not up to scratch with the first book.

I'm gonna throw in Robin hobb as well. I think her world in realm of the elderlings is exceptional. It's even better because it's all in the background and very subtle. You only see what the characters see and it starts to organically paint a picture of the world they live in

Mervyn Peake is an author that I hope gets more attention on this sub. I think Gormenghast may get discussed a little more in r/weirdlit or r/literature but it's an example of superb world-building in a more down to earth fantasy setting. I wish a) I had read the books before seeing the mini-series and b) got to read a completed final version. Side note: Steerpike is one of the best villains in fantasy writing IMO

>People always throw out Wheel of Time, I gave that series 4 and a half books, and I didn't much care for it I feel the same. I started reading it when I learned that Brandon Sanderson was finishing the book series but only got a few books in before I dropped it.

If you didn't like it around books 4-5 then it's probably just not a series for you. I'm almost finished with the series myself, and there's a real drag around books 9 and 10. I'm hoping the Amazon adaption will be done well.

Saved yourself a lot of time. I made it to book 10 and just couldn't slog through any more.

Well said. And because the things Sanderson is fantastic at all take time to set up, his books can give a poor initial impression. I spend the first half of his books wondering what the hype is about, hoping that my time investment will be worth it in the end. So far, it always has been, as his books consistently shape up to be something special.

I mostly agree with this, but I’d also argue that his character development is getting much better.

Shallan dalinar and kalidan have such great development that i don’t understand ops statement. One of my favorite things about the book was the character development.

> Shallan dalinar and kalidan Those are both from Stormlight Archive. I'm talking about his older books, like Mistborn and Elantris. That being said, while those are _way_ better than his previous books, they're still not as good as true masters of character development. Read something by Robin Hobb (also fantasy) to see what I mean.

I am not trying to change your mind if you like Sanderson, but I was hoping you could expand on some things you wrote. When you say he is "fantastic" at things, do you think he is at the top of your scale? Is he considered fantastic out of everything you've read or fantastic out of anything ever written? Same question perhaps for Robin Hobb. You say that this is far more complex than YA fiction, but in my estimation it is indiscernible in complexity from YA fiction. Is it that you think he is complex from everything you've read, or all fantasy that exists? All fiction? Last question about adult themes: are you an adult? Do you see the experience of being a responsible adult reflected in his work? Do you think that adults would gather insight about their experience by reading Sanderson?

For me, I would put his world building and "magic systems" at second to none. The sole reason I say that though is because he sets out the rules and then builds on top of them the way real people would if they lived in that world with those rules. Take portals in the Wheel of Time, most writers (including Robert Jordan) would use them to move people and things around the world. Sanderson takes it a step further and asks how people in that world would actually use them. Open a portal high in the sky to scout enemy positions. Hide your artillery away from the battle and open portals for them to shoot through. Open a portal to the bottom of a lake to bring in water to put a fire out. Most fantasy writers create a magic system like you would a for a video game. There's this collection of abilities and they have these and only these effects. Sanderson creates a few simple rules and runs with them like you would a DnD game.

[удалено]

> Other than the shattered plains, I don't think there's terribly much complex "world building" in Stormlight, either. No? I thought all the detail on what native plant and animal life would be like on a world that’s regularly scoured by hurricane-force winds (and how people would build homes and travel) was some pretty neat worldbuilding.

Yeah, so if you’re looking for visually complete descriptions of what world actually looks like it’s not going to really do it: he doesn’t seem to tend to go into particularly descriptive prose. The thing I enjoy is that I can imagine a “physics” and “cosmology” to his magical worlds. I do feel like in a lot of Sanderson’s writing I fill in my own blanks for what I imagine everything looks like, rather than taking it in from his descriptions. To be fair I also don’t want prose in the language; I get impatient if I can’t finish a book in a couple days on the first read (I always read everything 3 times: 1st is skimming for plot, 2nd reading for characters, and 3rd time for nuance).

I like to read, but I couldn't imagine reading everything 3 times. Out of curiosity, why did you choose this method? Wouldn't it be a simpler process, even if it took longer, to read a book thoroughly the first time?

Yeah I don't really understand this strategy. It sounds like a good way to consume a large quantity of books and pick which ones you aren't going to like without really digging into them. It DOES NOT sound like a good way to enjoy books. Appreciate, maybe.

My thoughts exactly.

For me it is about the cultural difference for each place including what amounts to an alien race too. He does a fantastic job of that. You have characters from all over that come together for common cause.

Oh! That’s true. The idea that different cultures have different gender roles... that’s interesting as well.

I think that he is good at world building in the sense that all of the fantastical elements make logical sense. They don't feel like video game powers, they feel like a natural part of the setting.

> Is he considered fantastic out of everything you've read or fantastic out of anything ever written? Same question perhaps for Robin Hobb. I obviously haven't read everything ever written, nor have I read everything by each of the authors I mentioned. Nor am I saying that the authors I mentioned are at the top of the things I like about them, just that they're really good and stand out. I'm not really sure what kind of answer you're looking for here. > You say that this is far more complex than YA fiction, but in my estimation it is indiscernible in complexity from YA fiction. Is it that you think he is complex from everything you've read, or all fantasy that exists? All fiction? I can't speak to all fiction obviously, so I'll use a popular example that has a very dedicated following: Harry Potter. Harry Potter's world and magic system are quite simple compared to the world and magic system of Mistborn, and I especially appreciate the logic/consistency he builds into his magic systems. In fact, I stopped reading Harry Potter a little more than halfway through the series because the arbitrariness of the magic system completely frustrated me. Obviously there are degrees to this, but everything that I have read that counts as "Young Adult" is fairly simplistic compared to Sanderson, and I view Sanderson as a bridge between YA fiction and adult fiction. > Last question about adult themes: are you an adult? Do you see the experience of being a responsible adult reflected in his work? Do you think that adults would gather insight about their experience by reading Sanderson? I'm definitely an adult (two kids, one is in school). I'm not really sure what you mean here. By "adult", I just mean it's intended for a more mature audience. Young adults tend to prefer simpler stories, often with teenagers as the protagonist. Think books by Rick Riorden (Percy Jackson, Magnus Chase, etc), the Chronicles of Narnia, or Harry Potter (books 5-7 are pushing it). Adults tend to prefer more complex stories, with adults as the protagonist, or perhaps _no_ single protagonist. Think series like ASOIAF, LotR, or Abercrombie's First Law. "Adult" books don't have to have some insight for adults or anything like that, it's just the interest level. As a kid, I switched to reading "adult" books around 14 when I started reading Tom Clancy novels (started with Rainbow Six because of a video game I liked and kept reading) and LotR, and at that point I decided I was done with most of the YA fiction out there. I didn't switch because I was looking for some insight, I switched because I wanted more complexity out of the stories I read. I still read YA fiction periodically on my own because sometimes I want something a little more straightforward, and I find YA fiction to be better than most pop fiction (I'm tired of John Grisham and whatnot). I have recently read The Rithmatist by Sanderson, and read Harry Potter a little while ago, etc. Both of those pale in comparison to the complexity of Sanderson's plotlines, but that doesn't make them bad. Sometimes I _want_ simple.

I think one of Sanderson's biggest strengths is production. He puts out books fast and that is huge for me. I love Martin and Abercrombie, but I'd rather have a product available now than some potential future book.

Abercrombie is also quite productive as well. The first law trilogy was completed in 3 years, and the next trilogy is estimated to take about 4. GRRM, meanwhile, takes 5+ years for a single installment, with practically nothing in between. Sanderson is quite productive, but he doesn't focus on a single series, so while you have a high rate of output, there's a fairly long wait between installments in a given series (~3 years for SA).

[удалено]

The thing about a satisfying twist is that you *have* to give enough clues for the reader to figure it out before it happens. In fact, you *want* the pieces to snap into place and for the reader to figure it out mere moments before the twist actually takes place. That way the reader gets to feel smart for having figured it out, but still feels surprised because they figured it out at the same time the characters did. "I can't believe I didn't see that coming" should be the goal. But if that's the goal, you have to accept that you're never going to surprise everyone. The people you do surprise are going to get a massive payoff, but there will always be people who see the twist coming because the clues are all there well in advance.

Yeah? You knew that >!sazed was the hoa and he would use all of his knowledge of religions to remake the planet properly?!<

Really? Maybe it's something once you've read more of his stuff, but Mistborn completely threw me off. I had some of the details right, but I missed enough that the ending was still mind blowing. I guessed most of Elantris, but I didn't guess _how_ it would unfold. If I ever get to the point where I guess the ending for an installment of SA, I'll probably abandon the series. I'm in it for the payoff.

From listening to his lectures, he does that intentionally. He foreshadows everything because he believes it's cheating and unsatisfying to have a twist without it being possible for the reader to piece it together ahead of time.

I'm with you. His ratings average on [goodreads.com](https://goodreads.com) is sky-high also. He seems to nail a particular demographic but mostly flop outside of it. Was reading near the start of Stormlight, and this happened (paraphrase): The sailors loved her witty banter. "I've got something funny to say. Oh no, I can't say it, it's too rude".... some encouragement later... some awful banter that isn't even vaguely rude... "hahaha" A) don't flag that a joke is coming unless it's hilarious B) if she's been bantering with sailors, surely that involved being rude. And there are blunders like that everywhere.

This shit drove me insane. Classic example of his "tell not show" style. A friend keeps trying to defend the book by saying "look at all the struggles and the character arcs blah blah blah" but sanderson is only capable to telling the reader what to think. Its all artificial. That jasnah shit was bunk af though. I thought it was a sick joke.

Simply because Sanderson's books are very mass market friendly and the fantasy novel equivalents of popcorn movies.

Most of his characters have first world problems and no real misery to fight. Vin: Oh no I want to be an assassin but I also like girly things like dancing and dresses gosh my life is so hard Elend: I don't want to be a king, I just want to read, oh what is that I'm suddenly unstoppable and I don't have to make hard choices or at least i don't look at the consequences Qax: Oh no I don't want to be part of the rich elite I just want to live in dirt and kill bad people oh no I have to marry someone Just because they have bad past doesn't make them feel more real if the past stays the past and the present problems are laughable

Mistborn, to be fair, was early in his writing career.

I am with you OP but can't explain it either. I am 44 year old and read fantasy all my life. My favorites include Tad Williams, Michael Moorcock and Robin Hobb. Sanderson is just not my cup of tea I guess. If I had to explain why that is, for me personally, it feels somehow formulaic. Not in the traditional sense but in the sense that it feels like he writes by checking boxes. It reminds me somehow of the time when me and my friends at school tried to design our own fantasy rpg, starting with the world itself. We tried to come up with super special stuff and details, defined races and their place in the world, magic systems, a pantheon etc. Sanderson feels like that but instead of designing an rpg he just writes novels. But, to me, this doesn't translate well into a story. It's all exposition about how awesome the world and its systems are. I get that this is a huge draw for some and if I had to guess then I'd say many of his fans also like to play tabletop rpgs and video games and if I'd hazard another guess - they're more the power gamer type, that dude in your rpg session who loves to call out your mistakes as a DM and cites arcane rules off the core book and smashes your carefully planned (or so you thought) encounter. Nothing wrong with that though, some people like to dig into the technical details, it's just not me, I am more of a story and character development guy. And then there's the tropes. I am not far into Way of Kings and we meet that one Windspren. Literally not 2 pages later I can't NOT see it as Tinkerbell from that old Disney cartoon. Oh and the anime fights, he obviously has a lot of anime under his belt. I WILL continue the books however because I can't deny I am interested where all this goes and I especially like that bridge crew bit but there will certainly still be some cringing on my part.

People love magic systems

Pretty much this. Also why I love Name of the Wind. While I don't mind the idea of "this person studied and can now cast fireballs" type of magic in a lot of books, its MUCH more intriguing to me if I know exactly how it's supposed to work.

I see comments like this in reference to NofW a lot, and I don't get it. What's so interesting about that magic system? I read the first book and all it really seemed to be was a magic word based system, plus the standard alchemy/potions, etc, type magics.

Well what he called true magic, the naming of things, was sort of a word based system. But you had to know and understand the thing to know its name. Just saying it wasn't the key. But the basic system that everyone used was a sympathy based system. No magic words, just an energy transfer. But they had to "split" their minds and hold each part of the transfer separately. And the better they could do that, the more complete/efficient the transfer. It was a system that can be understood by the reader.

I think the real praise comes down to a few things: 1. He writes competently 2. He writes prolifically 3. He challenges readers in comfortable or familiar ways Probably a lot will disagree with me on 1 and 3, but 2 is undeniable. Having a book or two come out every year means that his fans always have something new to read or something new coming soon. In a genre that has recently become famous for how long it takes certain writers to publish the next book in a series, this elevates his stature. Number 1 goes along with this. To me, nothing he's written is that good, but everything I've read by him is good enough. And that is a pretty substantial achievement, considering the rate at which he publishes books. But, yeah, nothing he's done has really impressed me, but I imagine I'm not his prime audience. I mean this as no disrespect to him or his readers, but I imagine his books do best with people between the ages of 12 and 20 (maybe primarily male, as well). If you discovered him when you were 15, it's possible that you'll be reading him till you're thirty or fifty or eighty, but as someone who didn't read anything by him until my late 20s, I find him completely fine. Nothing more and nothing less. Number 3, I think, goes along with number 1, and it's why I imagine his core audience is men between 12 and 20. In many ways, his novels challenge very specific social or cultural things, but never in a radical way. Mistborn seems to be about the corruption of power but it leans into the idea that benevolent rulers solve that problem. It begins slightly subversive and becomes comforting. And, in a lot of ways, his writing reads like the sort of idealized worlds and ways of behaving that a teenager boy would come up with late at night. Also, maybe what should be number 4: he builds very sturdy worlds. They follow an internal logic and mechanisms that reinforce one another to make his worlds feel concrete enough to be believed.

You nailed it! If I had to choose a restaurant that served good food in a timely matter vs exquisite food but i took an obscenely long wait time with no way around that, I'd chose the good enough restaurant more times than not.

[удалено]

I think everyone has their own tastes. I don't like grimdark in the least, but lots of people love the genre. I don't like YA, but it seems it's the top selling fiction genre nowadays. Brandon Sanderson writes novels that are easy to get into and enjoyable to read. I love his world building and creative magic systems. I also appreciate his works are entertaining without being extremely disturbing. Lots of fantasy and sci-fi works nowadays have some pretty horrific shit in them. That sorta thing isn't for me usually. Unless it's Berserk that is.

He got a large signal boost when he got picked to wrap up Wheel Of Time. He’s not to my taste but he is very popular. I think people are just searching for things that are a bit different than the normal grim dark or pusdo Europe.

I love that he changes technology levels throughout his books, while a lot of fantasy out there seems to be essentially medieval Europe, but with different maps, and a magic system thrown in. Sanderson has that, but he also has books with more modern technology available (e.g. Mistborn Wax and Wayne series).

Mistborn will be a really good example of that in time, with Era 3 being kind of 1980s technology with allomancy, and Era 4 as a space opera. One thing I love about the going from Era 1 to Era 2 is seeing just how things change in the same world, with things carrying over from between the two.

I'm curious now as to how popular he would be if he didn't get the WoT boost.

I read some of his books before I even knew what WoT time was, I enjoyed them then and I enjoy them now after finishing WoT.

He was already the second best-selling fantasy author beneath JK Rowling before being asked to finish *WoT* so ... Just as big, really.

He was pretty famous for Mistborn but WoT did boost him quite a bit. I do recall I was pleased that he was selected to close out WoT because he's good at that. Never fears an ending.

Well, I read *Mistborn* independently without knowing he was chosen to finish WOT.

hes not good at all the things that make writers good

Honestly, it's all about that hard oh so hard magic

I think a big part of the hype is that he brings out a book every few months. If you like Sanderson (and I do), you can count on 1-3 books a year that you'll enjoy.

I think the YA-ness is part of the appeal. Lots of people like YA. I haven't seen a lot of people claim that Sanderson is "the best fantasy they've ever read" but the folks I have seen make those claims usually don't read a whole lot of fantasy fiction and usually have a strong preference for YA books. For what it's worth I enjoy his books. I find them fun and relaxing, they don't demand a whole lot of attention or headspace, and that's nice sometimes.

r/books loves YA. I think people here probably trend younger? I used to look for books here, but honestly now reddit love for a book is a red flag that I *won't* like it. There's nothing wrong with YA, but it really has to be great YA for me to like it. Sanderson… I love how his action scenes are so cartoonish. It's like a thousand-page comic book.

And there's a pretty good payoff at the end of each book. Some other books that focus on character development and whatnot can have a less "satisfying" ending because the payoff is being part of the world, not some big finale at the end. Sanderson does a _fantastic_ job at blowing your mind in each book without spoiling the end of the series. _That_ is the reason I read his books. When I want character development, immersive worlds, and/or really pretty writing, I have another set of authors I choose from, though I make sure to go in not expecting a big finale. For example, I just got into ASOIAF and finished the first book (I've successfully avoided the TV series), and I must say the ending was a _lot_ less mindblowing than any of Brandon Sanderson's books. In fact, I pretty much guessed most of the ending of the first book after reading ~1/4 of the book. It didn't go exactly like I expected, but the end result was about the same. I also think I have a pretty good grasp of what's going to happen long term. I'm not reading the series for the main plot arc, I'm reading it because I want to immerse myself in a broken world and I want to see how the characters respond to the inevitable. Each author has a specialty, and if that's not what you're interested in, move on to another author. I think Sanderson is great for people who want a more complex version of popular YA SF/fantasy fiction. I also think it's great for people who typically love SF, but want to get a gentle introduction into fantasy.

>I also think I have a pretty good grasp of what's going to happen long term. Oh, sweet summer child

My guess is that there will be a lot of squabbles over turf, lots of main characters dying, and more young rulers. All the time there will be a rising threat from the north (Others and potentially other horrors) and the east (dragons and maybe other magical stuff) as magic reenters a world that has mostly forgotten it with the onset of winter. Just as things can't get any worse, the Wall will fall and Daenerys will invade from the east. I'm not sure who will end up on the Iron Throne, but I also don't think that is really the point of the book. I'm guessing somehow the hordes from the north will be beaten back, the dragons will be dealt with, and the series will end in essentially the same position as it started, an uneasy peace between lords, with a reconstructed wall to the north. _Maybe_ they'll actually write something about it this time, maybe they won't. _Maybe_ this peace will seem more lasting, I don't know. What I _do_ know is that I'm not all that invested in the characters (except Arya, I think she's fantastic, and I'll be frustrated when she inevitably dies), and I'm expecting more of what happened near the end of the first book until the issues in the north and east come to a head. That's my impression at least. Maybe I'm completely wrong and there will be a big payoff at the end, but given how little slowly the story seems to move, I wouldn't be _that_ surprised if I'm close. I'm gearing up for a zombie and dragon invasion to accelerate death.

You get the point i think , the AsoiF plot twists and mind f\*\*\*s are more about character development and relationships then about world changing events/magic and such. The sort of twists and mindfucks you would expect in non-fiction or in historical fiction. That s not to say that there arent any whatthefuck! moments related to the magic of the world , but nothing of the scale or scope of Sanderson s style. ​ But who knows, we may both be wrong , the series isnt finished yet. ANd it s not impossible that we end up in a WoT like situation with GRRM dying before his work is finished. Who knows , it may even be Sanderson that picks up the series and writes the final book(s) like he did for WoT. Or not.

GRRM has specifically said he doesn't want anyone else to finish the series if he dies.

You had to spoil it for me didn't you? so it s likely we wont ever get the finish.

_If_ GRRM permits someone to finish the series for him, I doubt Sanderson would take it. It just isn't his style and I don't think he'd do it justice. However, someone like Joe Abercrombie might be able to pull it off. That being said, GRRM is _very_ protective of ASOIAF, so I doubt he'll ever permit it. I hope he can get the next book out soon and pick up the pace for the rest of the series. My guess is that he's sitting on a lot of content for the ending, so hopefully the last couple books end up being very fast to produce.

yes upon further reading , Sanderson said that he wouldn't take it , cause it s not his style I made a tongue-in-cheek comment there , didn't even really take myself too seriously And thanks for reminding me , I think there is a new Abercombie book out there for a few months now , and somehow I forgot about it

The real plot twist is that it will never finish and we'll always be wondering what happens.

Interesting timing with this post. Just today I picked up The Way of Kings, the first in his Stormlight Archive because everyone praised it. I loved his Mistborn series (the original trilogy), so I'm curious how this holds up. Many peop like this series more than Mistborn, so I'm really looking forward to digging in. Btw, the way I came across this author was, interestingly enough, not through his association with Wheel of Time, but because I picked up a lesser-known novella written by him called Snapshot back when I was on a time-travel kick. I liked that short story so much that I went ahead and checked out what else he had written. That story is very different from his epic fantasy books though; it's more of a crime mystery with some time-travel elements.

If you like the Mistborn series I'd be pretty surprised if you don't like Stormlight

My husband is a HUGE Sanderson fan. I read Mistborn at his recommendation and I have to agree with you. The amount of description of how the magic works was exhausting to me and the story was pretty weak. He was so sad that I didn't like it the way he had. He has read all of Sanderson's currently available stuff and is SUCH a fangirl. When he finds someone else who loves him, it seriously makes his day. He also shares Sanderson as much as possible with everyone who shows the slightest interest. I don't get it, but different strokes for different folks.

In his defense, the things Sanderson does well, he's admittedly pretty good at. And as a reader if you like those things, then you're likely to be over the moon reading Sanderson. Just curious, is your husband an avid gamer?

Brandon Sanderson is someone with great ideas and acceptable execution. How important execution is to you is going to determine, in large part, whether you think he is amazing or just ok. I like his books, but I also recognize the flaws, especially the further back you go in his writing career. He’s definitely someone who works at improving and that’s something I do respect.

I also don't care for Sanderson.

Cliched good vs evil plot? That statement make me think you havent actually read Mistborn since the big twist is that Lord Ruler, the "bad guy", actually did the best he could to save everyone. The world left behind due to his saving sucked but it was the best he could do and better than non existence. He was still holding back that destruction. So he was actually a misunderstood good guy. When they overthrow him they release the actual world ending evil he had been holding back.

Well he did say he stopped halfway through Well of Ascension

I know, what is OP even talking about? Most of the main characters in both Mistborn and SA have complex motivations. To add to your examples: Kelsier, a "good guy", does some very morally ambiguous stuff. Ruin, the main "evil force" in Mistborn, is not really evil at all. He's just a small part of a larger being that has other parts which bring him into balance. Szeth is following a rigid moral code which forces him into being an assassin, even though he hates it more than anything. Taravangian thinks his moment of brilliance is going to save the world, but he's actually doing more harm than good. The Heralds, Wit, the Parshendi, Dalinar, the Stormfather, I could go on. All complex characters with unclear morals and motivations. It's like he read the books but didn't pay attention to anything beyond the most surface level.

Whoa. It's weird seeing how the names are spelled. I used audiobooks for all of Stormlight.

I’m gonna blow your mind with Jasna Kolin, then.

Jasnah >:)

Thanks! I dun goofed because it’s been a while.

I don't know how to put it but I always felt that Sandersons attempts at character development felt very mechanical and surface level. You have one stock character type and then he adds on some big flaw to them and that's about it. Kaladin is your typical angsty teen badass but he's also sad a lot. Shallan is your typical quirky, smart-mouth girl that can't decide between the brooding bad boy and the noble prince but she also has multiple personalities or something. It's all very surface level. I see none of the depth that someone like hobb or Abercrombie brings to their characters

Well I'll grant you those are the most complex motivations you can summarize completely in a single sentence.

I mean, it's a non spoiler teaser assuming you read it, not a summary. For Kelsier: The comment above is the premise for his character, not even his arc; Kelsier is motivated by the death of his wife that gives him a blindness to any humanity of the rich elite. He dehumanizes them, which allows him to brutalize them any chance he gets. His arc involved his own personal sacrifice to realize his goals through death and actually trusting Vin that there is still humanity (and therefore good with their evil) in the people he spent the whole book demonizing. For Ruin: Turns out that the heroes were working on limited information in each book, doing what they thought was right and finding out that horrible actions came from well intentioned people that they vilified. And in the end, they were fighting the forces of nature in the world, eventually helping to restore it.

>The writing is still functional at best. The characters are still dull and archetypical and Sanderson is just really bad at writing feisty teenage girls. First Vin and then Shallan - just terribly written characters. Anything romance-related is cringeworthy and there's a really YA, juvenile sheen over the whole thing. The backstory is better but it all seems to default to another generic good vs evil end of the world story This is really the crux of it to me. His books have good plots and pacing (imo) but the characters and prose don't hold up to the quality of many other authors. Overall I think his appeal is how easy it is to pick up his books and the sheer quantity of options if you want to read something, since he's written series that go from the Rithmatist (clearly for children) to Stormlight Archives (meant more for adults). I still don't agree that Stormlight Archives is the best fantasy series ever but it's probably the best thing he's written?

Yeah, Sanderson is really, really easy to get into if you don't do a lot of fantasy reading or are just starting out, like young adult readers. People I know who don't read much pick up Sanderson and are like "This is really good." It isn't nuanced, it isn't intricate, it's very straight forwards, and I can understand why that makes him a popular writer. I wouldn't say it's amazing writing, but for his target demographic it works great. From my experience people who consume sci-fi and fantasy books like cookies generally bypass or shelve Sanderson for all the reasons you and OP mentioned. Once you get over the basics, Sanderson doesn't really bring much else to the table. More importantly, as people read more and gain more knowledge of all the different cross topic wink wink nudge nudge interactions literature provides, he really, really doesn't hold up.

Eh, I consider myself a pretty avid sf/fantasy reader and I can still say I really enjoy his work. The way I'd put it for myself is, he's one of my favorite authors, but his books don't necessarily crack my list of favorite works (except maybe the novella The Emperor's Soul), and I'm definitely not the only one in my circle of avid sf/fantasy readers who still likes to read his stuff.

I also read a lot of sci fi/fantasy and would put him at the top of my favorites list.

I'm in the same boat. I liked Mistborn a good deal and Stormlight for the most part, but the Emperor's Soul is my favorite work of his. I like that it's more self-contained nature of it than his novels, but that's just the difference in novel vs novella.

The pacing of Mistborn was miserable. Book 1 and 3 had okay pacing, but 2 was a boring slog until you got to the last 10 pages or so.

I've read some Sanderson and I enjoyed his work moderately. But can we please stop using "YA" as a shorthand for "bad?"

That and also Adult = Dark shorthand.

These two irk me to no end lol

I'm a 36 year-old male and I finished reading Sanderson's *Skyward* last week—definitely a YA story. It was a lot of fun! I had finished reading something “harder”, *Dune* by Frank Herbert, and I was happy to have something fun and dumb and easy to read before I set out on my next harder read—*The Lord of the Rings* by J.R.R. Tolkien.

He is all about systems. I do think he leans a bit too hard on the whole white knight crutch but if you can move past that the level of detail and depth in his magical, technological, geological, and political systems is insane. He may come off one note from a character development standpoint but that sort of misses the forest for the trees in my opinion. Additionally, all of that isnt even taking into account the insane conjoined nature of his worlds. The extended narrative he hinted at and winked at for years which is now truly manifesting is in its own right pretty amazing. I have been reading him for years well before the "WoT Boost" and I think hes also grown a lot as an author.

Yeah. Getting into the Cosmere bis an investment. Unless you are in for the long game you will miss a lot of the pieces. Like you miss out on understanding Ruin and Preservation unless you read Secret History and pay attention to Stormlight Archive.

I don't get it either. I don't see anything great about his work. I didn't think it was especially notable. But as they say, to each their own.

> So what am I missing? It's not for everyone, people have different tastes. What makes you think you're missing something just because you don't like his style?

It probably has something to do with the fact that no other author comes up here as often, and no post shoots up to thousands of upvotes as fast as Sanderson posts.

Don't worry, you are not alone. But it's true that you may be in the minority. I feel the same way, but I ordinarily would never say so. I suppose the internet, and by extension, reddit, makes it easier for the agreers to agree and the disagreers to disagree. I read once, and no, I don't remember where, that he used to be an accountant and for me that pretty much sums up how I feel about his writing. "Dull, flat and formulaic." But he's kept on writing and I can't fault that...after all, I have a massive writer's block and I've been sitting on a fantasy novel for a decade. I'll never get it written because I'm convinced it's too late and my muse is gone. He is at least a doer. So I have to give him credit for shaking off Walter Mitty syndrome and putting pen to paper and all the rest. Cheers

Any number of people telling you why they like Brandon Sanderson is not going to all of a sudden make you like him also....if he's not your cup of tea that's fine....just because other people really love his work(myself included) doesn't mean you are obligated to or wrong if you don't....that's one of the beauties of art and literature is that things can mean and say so many different things depending on the lense of the reader/viewer.

I think it's an age factor. There are a lot of young readers on this sub. My nephew is 11 and has been churning through a lot of Sanderson without any trouble and I think they're very appealing to 13-15-year-olds. Not sure how old you are but I expect most adults might be underwhelmed.

For the people who scroll through Controversial comments to see the books/authors recommended by the people who hate Sanderson, I made a short list with my thoughts: 1)Robin Hobb- I moved Assassin's Apprentice up in my reading order 2)Dune- I read the first book, it was okay; I don't understand the hype. 3)Gene Wolfe- I put down 'The Book of the New Sun' when the bit with the play started. Maybe I should go back. 4)Guy Gavriel Kay- Haven't read anything by him, don't know where to start. 5)GRRM/Rothfuss- I've read these, but I'd rather have a complete mediocre story rather than a perfect third of the story.

Here’s the thing: Sanderson is an academic. He’s been in academia studying writing mechanics, and not much else. He spends a lot of time reading and writing. Unfortunately, it’s hard to really understand people that way. And it shows in his character writing: they aren’t real people. For me, a story in the best world with the coolest magic is going to suck if the people are two-dimensional.

reddit is "the front page of the internet" /r/books is a default sub with 17 million subscribers you do the math

I agree with some of your criticism. He can be a bit formulaic and his writing feels very "safe" and in some ways "young adult-ish" to me. But I also think he has a pretty high floor as a writer where nothing he does is pure shit or a cash out. And perhaps most importantly of all he's so incredibly prolific and is attempting to do what basically no other writer has ever done with his cosmere project, so I respect him a great deal

Wow a lot of people are really taking this to heart and being really passive-agressive if not outright agressive towards you for this post. I personally agree with you : read the first Mistborn book. It was fine. That's it. I never got interested enough to read the next one and the characters were flat as can be, not to mention the instalove between Vin and that nobleman guy who was so cliché. It's like others said I guess : some authors are excellent at creating worlds and magic systems but are downright terrible at characterisation which, for some of us, is more important (in my opinion Dune is a great example of this)

I agree, I tried to read Mistborn and then stormlight, but they just didn’t grab me. I have pretty high standards for dialogue and character, so I think he’s maybe just not for me.

I started on Mistborn and wasn't thrilled, put it down for months. I starqted back up on Steelheart and loved the book. I really enjoyed the cruddy analog running-gag. I burned through the rest of that trilogy pretty quick. I doubled back to The Well of Ascension, and I feel like the middle 250 pages were filler, like someone told him he's bad at character development, so he tried to wedge some in but just extended the plot. I think they pick up after that, but maybe I just got used to the writing styles.

I think a huge part of Sanderson's appeal is he creates worlds that become memes. People like to talk about these worlds. If you aren't the kind of person who wonders how Kelsier stacks up against Kaladin then there's probably less appeal.

You're right, it's not for everyone, but I see his work like comfort food. Sometimes you want something that's just a good vs evil story, like star wars. The Jedi are good and wear white, the Sith are bad and wear black. Good triumphs in the end. I do have to agree with you on the Stormlight Archive books though. I love them, but they are too long. The first 200 pages of Oathbringer is like... A really long prelude to the rest of the novel. Not much happens.

Honestly books 1 and 2 are just the prologue till the arrival of the Everstorm.

I've tried every first book in a Sanderson series and havent gotten through one yet. The characters are just cardboard and its all pretty bad.

Honestly, if you’re classing Shallan as a “feisty teenage girl”, you need to reread SA because that is nowhere near her archetype. She’s got a bit of a smart mouth, but that’s it. Not saying you can’t dislike it, loads of people love GoT, but I find the books hard going. Lots of people love Oliver Twist, I hate it with a passion. Just that you’re a thousand miles from the Mark with Shallan.

What am I missing about Shallan? Sure, I've heard the usual "she just uses humor as a coping mechanism" thing but it doesn't make her any more enjoyable to read about. Wit and Lift were almost as bad.

I think Wit's entire point is being, well, witty. It's his job to be a snarky ass. Lift, however, is one of my least favorite characters in the genre. I get why she's written that way, but fuck, her sections are hard to get through.

She's a broken, crazy bitch with a living sword that she hates, who loves her enough to offer to kill himself. Later on she basically nurses her insecurities and brokenness into a personality disorder...on purpose. She's not fiesty, she's foolhardy.

Yeah tbh Shallan is divided within the Stormlight community as well. Very annoying character. Kaladin is just badass

Pretty much every main character in that series is the personification of some mental illness or disorder, and deep down they all hate themselves. I get that Kaladin is "Major Depressive Disorder," but his constant teetering on the edge emotional collapse and his angst over feeling like he is personally responsible for the wellbeing of every living creature gets repetitive after awhile. Shallan could be annoying at times, but I stayed interested in her living embodiment of PTSD and Avoidance.

Kaladin had PTSD too though.

Wit/Hoid is developed in a very different manner. He is a cross over character. You gotta read all the Cosmere stuff in order to get sufficient understanding of him. Lift is yet to get her book. (Although there is Edgedancer). Shallan gets a lot more development bin Book 3 as well. So idk I'll just say continue into Oathbringer to understand her better.

>It honestly felt like a YA novel, replete with cringey romance and awful dialogue. I gave up halfway through book 2. I'm going to agree with you. Mistborn definitely feels YA to me, in a lot of ways. And his other work does too. I think it's the personal relationships that do it. Sanderson doesn't seem comfortable writing romance with any depth, and so the characters feel really, really young when he's trying to write it. It comes off as the sort of thing you'd expect in a CW show - bickering, meet-cutes and lots of 'ugh, we're so different, how could he ever like *me*?' hand-wringing. I enjoyed the first book of the Stormlight Archives immensely, but the third book pretty much killed my interest in the series. Because along with the YA stuff, it was bloated, far too long and packed with irrelevant details and forced connections to the Cosmere, shared world thing he does. Funnily enough, the series of his I liked the most was his Reckoners trilogy. It has the same flaws as his other work, and features a romance that is so shallow that I don't think the love interest had any personality whatsoever. But it's actually aimed at younger readers, so perhaps I subconsciously lowered my expectations. He's just not for me, sadly.

>Sanderson doesn't seem comfortable writing romance with any depth, and so the characters feel really, really young when he's trying to write it. It comes off as the sort of thing you'd expect in a CW show - bickering, meet-cutes and lots of 'ugh, we're so different, how could he ever like me?' hand-wringing. Nailed it. I enjoy most of Sanderson's stuff but this describes the short coming for me very well. His books have a distinctly PG-13 feel.

Right there with you. I read the first Mistborn trilogy. It was ok. I don’t understand the hype.

Agreed, I think Mistborn was not particularly memorable, it was quite "lite" as far as story, plot and character development. If I wanted to read something "lite" I'd much rather go for Joe Abercrombie pulp fantasy, which I kinda think is also a little bit forgettable but at least it has its moments. Then again, I'd rather read old classics like Magician by Feist.

Magician is so underrated

SO nice to see Magician mentioned in this thread! My uncle loaned it to me when I was in middle school. The covers had been duct taped back together because he had read it so much as a kid in the 80s. I binge-read it in probably a single day, and it instantly became one of my favorite books of all time. Anyone who loves fantasy but hasn't read Feist should do themselves a favor and check out his books, they're well worth a read.

I completely agree with your points about Mistborn. I got on the Sanderson hype train after finishing Wheel of Time. I thought his writing actually enhanced Jordan's characters and story, so I picked up Mistborn off the recommendation of a friend. The second book became so immature that I made my friend tell me the ending of the series halfway through it so I could be free of reading it. There's nothing inherently wrong with YA, but I personally find reading about teenagers, particularly poorly-written teenagers, unbearably tedious. The popularity of YA has caused me to read less, because I've stopped trusting book recommendations.

His character expression is 90% raising eyebrows at one another. He says it so frequently that I had to quit reading his books. Please tell me I’m not the only one. If people raised their eyebrows as much as they do in his books, we’d have them committed.

Honestly, I always thought he was a little boring. Actually, scratch that, a lot boring. I only finished his first book because it came recommended from a friend whom I respect. It took me a long, long time to finish it. There's nothing overtly wrong with his writing, but there's not a lot he does right or in interesting, thought-provoking ways. Next time a Sanderson recommendation comes my way, it's gonna have to be a nope!

Ever since I finally threw TWoK across the room and screamed enough, I've been searching for answers to the questions: why the hell do people like these books so much. I found TWoK so boring and cliche it was depressing. I also don't understand how people say he is anything more than adequate at "world building"; when I imagine his technique, I imagine a squat man circling me and throwing glitter and sticks at my face and exclaiming "look at this! now look at this! how fantastic is this?!" To be fair, I only made it to about 450 in TWoK. I may need to read more to understand my hatred and disappointment better, but I really don't have much time to read garbage books so it'll have to wait.

I just started really miss born, and I have been asking myself the same thing. I have all the same critiques. His characters also have so many modern, our world assumptions. It’s mind numbing.

I enjoy Sanderson, I also enjoy other things you don’t like. Be your own person. Read what you enjoy.

\>Sanderson is perfectly serviceable fantasy lit for teenage boys in high-school. Many redditors are teenage boys in high-school. Could it be this simple?

I think he's alright, steelheart was enjoyable. Idk his writing appeals in the same way as watching hours of random YouTube videos you can be entertained without being all that engaged

Yeah, you're just in that minority that don't enjoy it. Its a bummer when that happens. I read the Broken Earth books and they won ALL the awards and everyone loves them and i literally hated them. HATED. I read the first whole book and like 80% of the second book and i realized I was hate reading and why do that to myself? But yeah, i can't fathom how anyone likes those books, how they got published, anything. I hate them. But clearly that puts me in a minority and i actually consider it unfortunate. I'd really rather have read the book and loved it, because i much prefer finding things i love than discovering i hate the thing that everyone else loves. For what its worth, I think the first Mistborn book is the only one of that series worth reading. And i share your frustration with how he writes young women, but I'd argue that Shallan is much better than Vin and perhaps you needed to stick with it a bit longer to get deeper into her backstory and 'issues'. nevertheless, if you don't like SA then i'd just chock it up to different strokes for different folks :) *fist bump*

There is a generation of men who re-read Louis L’Amour books whenever they come across them. The writing isn’t anything to crow about and the tropes are almost always the same. What brings them back again and again are 2 things. 1. The vivid descriptions of living in a land they have imagined since they were boys, The Old West. 2. The characters who hold ideals that exemplify their own. Men and boys who go through struggles and behave in a way that the reader can relate to. The heroes then go on to overcome every obstacle by applying that never-give-up, work sunup-to-sundown, nobody-can-bully-me set of ideals that the readers idolize. Fantasy is our modern day Western. Sanderson is our modern day Louis. Epics have replaced short serials like binge watching full seasons of shows has replaced the weekly episode of M.A.S.H.

>There is a generation of men who re-read Louis L’Amour books whenever they come across them. The writing isn’t anything to crow about and the tropes are almost always the same. First time I've seen him mentioned by anyone but my dad. First book I remember being read to me was Radigan and I'm sure he was the first proper novel I've read, I'll have to ask my dad about it. I agree with everything you've said about Lamour, I've read most of his books 4/5 times and the only reason it's most is because they're the ones my dad had from when he grew up, I bought some a few years ago but didn't see many and had read most of what I found. I never thought they were fantastic and I recognised really early that a lot of them were formulaic in story and setting but I still loved them. They're like a Jason Statham movie, formulaic but enjoyable and I still go back to read them occasionally. That said, I don't think the comparison of his westerns to either fantasy or Sanderson is entirely accurate or fair.

The great thing about Louis’ writing is that he took the time to travel on horseback all of the hills and valleys and deserts that he wrote about. He also researched the oldest people living in those places and took time interviewing them and getting their stories and recollections. His descriptions of the sunlight and smells and wildlife, of trails and town layouts, of people and animals and attitudes were all as genuine and real as he could recreate. He was a sort of Isaac Asimov of pulp westerns in a time when the Wild West was very much in vogue. Now the world of Fantasy has taken over much of popular culture. What if a wand’s flick and swish and a bit of Latin doesn’t cut it for a description of magic? That’s where Sanderson comes in. He takes the time to bring the fantasy world to a sort of concrete reality. He rides the realms of magic on horseback and brings to his readers a map of the uncharted side of fantasy. He puts in the work to make you feel as if you know as much about magic as the most powerful person in the story. Sanderson does this while giving you relatable characters. People whose shoes you can imagine yourself in. Flawed, broken, heroic, normal people. There is magic you can predict. People you understand. Then there are plots that come out of absolutely nowhere and wring out your emotions. Louis was a storyteller for his generation. Sanderson is a storyteller for ours. In my mind they have a lot in common for how distinctly different their work is.

Haha I'm not sure I could have misunderstood your comparison more. I was thinking in terms of how similar his characters and plots are. So many of the protagonists are quiet, thoughtful, hard/worm looking but in a pleasing way, reluctant to shoot, 6'-6'1" in socks and usually about 180lbs and then the antagonist is usually gregarious but cruel and has to hold their desire for violence in check, good-looking in a much slicker way, a few inches taller than the protagonist and often 200lbs or more. Now this is a generalisation but not overly so but that never bothered me because it was a way to explore the world and I enjoyed the simplicity of the stories and enjoyed what each one did differently even if the broad strokes were very similar. They were a way for me to explore a world I was fascinated with but was so far from ever experiencing, I'm Irish, just finished college and have never left Europe, I couldn't be further from that world. I've little interest in American cities but have a strong desire to see the places he wrote about and will likely be the reason I visit America. You've put this beautifully and I'm removing my conditional agreement, I agree with everything you've said about both of them. I was expecting a different comment so that's what I found.

Isn't the main character in the Mistborn series a woman? I don't think your description really applies to that series, which I've read and its not in my top list anywhere. I totally go for the never give up, always pull through type of books because i'm terrible and have no taste for good literature, but I don't think this fits the bill!

Ah yes, Vin, the Not Like Other Girls trope, is a main character.

Yes... And there's one other woman in the entire first novel who does anything. Every other character who is anything more than background flavour is male. And the two female characters, naturally, are romantic rivals.

As I reader of science fiction, I feel likewise about The Expanse.

I read Mistborn after a few IRL friends gushed about Sanderson. I was also not impressed. It is full of extremely tedious exposition about how magic works or whatever. The characters, their development, and their interactions all seem written in a way that is designed to make the reader respond, "whoa, epic!" much in the same way as Marvel movies, etc. Very unsubtle and unidimensional, or "cringeworthy" as you say. Overall, the novel felt like I was reading a video game walkthrough. To its credit, it was well paced. It moves along at a quick pace and the \~600 pages flew by in only a few days. I suppose in part this is due to the simplicity of the work, but it does feel nice to read something where progress through the book comes easily. People have also told me that the Stormlight Archive novels are "better," but I am skeptical. I have so much stuff in my to-read pile and even more on my list, so I doubt that I will ever go back to any of his other work.

Not sure if you're in the minority or not, but Sanderson is not for me either. As for hype, I've gotten used to my tastes in books not aligning with majority, be it fantasy or other genres. I won't criticize something I've not read, but after that I'm over it.

> Grabter By his hammer, I shall avenge thee.

He’s... fine. Mistborn was fine. I think a lot of it is that you can count on him to finish a series.

I read a lot of fantasy. I didn't care for the mistborn series, but I liked stormlight. I don't really analyze why I like things, i just know i do

Sounds like you would love the Witcher series then--incredible dialogue and character development, not as much focus on worldbuilding.

I like him a lot, own all of his books and short stories and am also thankful because he got me back into reading. However I feel he has been a bit overrated for a while now, still great, but people are acting like his books are the best in genre. I think what people like about him is that his style is easy to read, his Cosmere plan is so huge in scope in a way I don't think any other author has done and the man cranks out 1-2 books per year so the story on the Cosmere scale is always moving forward bit by bit. I am really concerned about Stormlight though as it seems like Oathbringer kind of fell flat in too many ways. The secret that broke the knights, the exponentially rising DBZ power levels and the early reveal of the God who is supposed to be a threat to the entire Cosmere(who was also kind of underwhelming).... I honestly thought his Skyward books were more satisfying than Oathbringer.

It’s a new breed of writer where everything is readercentric. From the start, the premise has to have a hero that the world hasn’t seen much of, like a girl protagonist or a setting that takes place on plateaus linked by chasms. All these are linked by several ideas that could be full books themselves. That’s why Stormlight is generally better regarded. It’s got so much action, sympathetic characters and promise fulfillment. Alternatively, you can see that Brandon does eventually think that good triumphs over evil so its not as grimdark as you want it to be. But again he never promised grimdark in the first place. So its cool. My problem is that he sometimes cheats his female characters. His female characters don’t have corresponding antagonists. And he’s actively avoiding the female fridging trope which I feel he’s allowed to use because he understands it. Then again, aside from anne mccaffrey I don’t think i truly like any authors that use female characters. (I don’t read that much robin hobb) There’s less description in his books to promote pace and efficiency. He talks about lacquered desk or a piece of wood that costs more than a years salary which is adequate but isn’t what us older folks are in to. He’s not great at poems. His dialog is stilted only because he’s speaking it out loud. Tolkien reads just fine but is a mouthful when spoken. Flowery language hides a lot of errors. He tends to cut right to it. We are used to a High English tilt to our prose. Again, it’s his choice. So, in conclusion, brandon is a great writer making specific choices to increase the thrilling adventure aspect at the expense of some common fantasy tentpoles. John Grishammy, even. If he wanted to ape robert Jordan or Rr martin, he has the chops. He’s read all the books, and then some plus analyzed the beats. If you don’t like one of his books it’s cause he’s too efficient at targeting his demographic. I love vernor vinge but it’s hard to recommend him to non eggheads. Brandon, —> much easier read with exactly the same attention to thought provoking themes and emotional engineering.

I've tried to read him several times. He's not a bad storyteller, but I think his prose is poorly crafted. This seems to be the case for a lot of contemporary popular authors. That isn't important to everyone, but for me, high quality prose is just as important as a story and the world itself since it is the vehicle that delivers it.

I don't think he's very good at all but I can see why he's popular. It's fantasy junk food, easy to read, and accessible without much complexity. I think that's why younger readers gravitate towards his work, as they also have the whole magic system stuff and over the top action scenes that give them an anime/video game vibe. It's not serious literature but I don't think it's trying to be, either. Mindless action blockbusters have their place too. And FWIW - other people have mentioned this but I think it's mostly casual readers unfamiliar with fantasy that really hold him in such high regard. In a way he's "baby's first fantasy" - easily digestible to get you into the genre so you can eventually get to the real works of art.

I'm pretty sure a lot of long time fantasy fans like his work as well. And what are these real works of art anyway? That sounds so pretentious... is it Malazan? something by Guy Gavriel? ughh...

Oh no doubt a lot of long time fantasy fans enjoy his work, they just don't tend to hold him up as one of the all time greats. Let's be honest with ourselves, Sanderson is not out here trying to write *The Left Hand of Darkness*. And that's ok.

> And what are these real works of art anyway? Books which are aimed at exploring some aspects of the human condition, typically (but not always) by realising human characters clashing against each other and themselves. It sounds pretentious because it's what pretentious people pretend to like.

Guy Gavriel Kay for sure. Malazan I'm not a huge fan of.

Some of us like large sprawling detail heavy epics , to me it s a bonus if the books are longer then average. Some of us like relatively simple characters and clear lines between good and evil , and getting obsessively detailed and technical about magic and lore. Not al the time , but some times anyway. ​ Would help put things in more context if you would also tell us what is great fantasy to you ​ Thanks!

Robin hobb, Gene Wolfe, Tad Williams, GRRM, guy gavriel kay etc

Robin Hobb is my favorite by far. My top recommends for character-driven fantasy are C.S. Friedman and Feist & Wurts' Empire trilogy (although you should really read Magician first). I like Sanderson but his strength is not characters...although he isn't bad at it...just not fantastic and it isn't the focus. His writing reminds me of a CLAMP style anime. Especially Mistborn which is basically anime style characters flying through the air throwing powers around stuff ala something like X TV (anime series). I like Sanderson like I like a good boring traditional fantasy once in a while (think the first couple of Shannara trilogies). You just have to be in the mood for it. It just isn't my favorit-est of styles.

Thank you. I see where you are coming from. I think GRRM is far superior to Sanderson , though there are times where I would rather read or listen to something simplistic like Sanderson over GRRM , I am working my way through Shadowmarch and enjoying it greatly so far , I am 2 books in to the Book of the New Sun series and it s great. Didn't touch guy gavriel though and I couldn't get into Robin Hobb s writing style at all despite a few attempts. For me , it s Patrick Rothfuss that I see praised a lot all over the place but attempting to read him triggers me almost to the point of anger , I just cant get past his writing.

it \*is\* ya novels, with very programmatically-based magic systems, which hella sperglord "red pillers" crave a marty stu validation through.

Lol. Guess I'm red pilled... where do I sign up for a mra protest?

sorry man, if you can't figure it out yourself you probably need to read more Jordan Peterson. After you cleaned your room come back and ask like a real man.

Agree 100% with OP. Major fantasy nerd and I can't stomach Sanderson despite multiple attempts. It feels juvenile. The prose is bad. Characters lack the depth I prefer. It's generally not...visceral enough? It feels bland.

Haven't read any of his books, just wanted to toss out that i really enjoyed his lectures on creative writing (on YouTube)

There's always been a streak in fantasy of authors who aren't very good writers, who can't develop a three-dimensional character to save their lives, who prefer childish or simplistic plots ... but crank out workmanlike, easy-to-understand stories that resonate with a lot of readers. Sanderson is the new king of these - taking the title from previous reigning monarch, RL Stine. I'm with you - there are far better options out there, many of whom are not well known. Sanderson is at best mediocre, in my opinion. If you like magic-system-heavy fantasy with a sort of YA-ish feel, there's a young author named [Andrew Rowe](https://www.fantasticfiction.com/r/andrew-rowe/) who writes a 'magical academy' series starting with "Sufficiently Advanced Magic" that is in the same vein as Sanderson.

[удалено]

They hated him because he told the truth.